Athiests - Who cares

El_Duderino 09 · 19-01-2015 03:33PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

On this topic I stand by my comment.

Sad sad sad.

As a matter of interest how do you ever learn new things. If you arrive at a conclusion, which turns out to be wrong, do you have to endure great personal injury to change your mind?

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 03:39PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I found logical fallacies and misinterpretations of my position and insinuations of personal attacks where there were none.

Then by all means point either of these things out. You certainly have not done so thus far. Likely because they do not exist there in reality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

most of it is just condescending waffle

Nope. That is just what you are declaring it to be to avoid answering any of it. And it would appear that no one here is buying it, except yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It can be very frustrating when you get the feeling that someone is basically fcuking with you for the lulz.

Then simply stop imagining this occurring where it has not and hence frustrating yourself.

For example you expressed an interest in the neurological underpinnings of faith. I offered you some, you simply dodged and ignored it.

Eutow · 19-01-2015 03:39PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sad sad sad.

As a matter of interest how do you ever learn new things. If you arrive at a conclusion, which turns out to be wrong, do you have to endure great personal injury to change your mind?

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

El_Duderino 09 · 19-01-2015 03:47PM

Eutow wrote: »

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

It's disappointing to hear Nox is involved in science. That's why there's the old saying 'science progresses one funeral at a time'. Some people are just more interested in their own ideas rather than finding the truth. It happens in reality.

Also Nox if you stand by your statement, do you see it as a failing or a character weakness? Or even something you would like to work on to rectify?

kylith · 19-01-2015 03:50PM

It'd be great if everyone who claimed to be a scientist had to provide their credentials as I simply don't believe that some of them are scientists. After all, it's the internet, someone can claim to be anything.

Hello, I'm the personification of the Goddess Bast and I can tell you for definite that Yaweh does not exist.

I'm a budgie who has learned to type.

I'm a sentient curling iron, and my opinion is therefore more valid because I'm a utensil.

I'm a scientist who has been sciencing since 1907 and you have to take my opinion seriously because of it.

Akrasia · 19-01-2015 03:50PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sad sad sad.

As a matter of interest how do you ever learn new things. If you arrive at a conclusion, which turns out to be wrong, do you have to endure great personal injury to change your mind?

I think we all suffer a little bit of bruised pride when we discover that we were wrong about something. There's as much pleasure in thinking you're right about something, as there is from actually being right about something.

it's actually a pretty powerful cognitive bias, the more locked in we are to one idea, the more it hurts if that idea is dismantled.

It's why we have 'fanboys' for everything from games consoles, to mobile phone platforms, to car manufacturers, to programming languages...

If the only programming language you know is 'Fortran' and you refuse to explore other alternatives, then you might think fortran is the answer to every programming problem.

Being a 'fanboy' for anything is an indication of immaturity. As painful as it is to be proven wrong, a mature adult will be able to see both sides of the argument and admit his errors and be open to new experiences.

strangel00p · 19-01-2015 03:53PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's disappointing to hear Nox is involved in science. That's why there's the old saying 'science progresses one funeral at a time'. Some people are just more interested in their own ideas rather than finding the truth. It happens in reality.

Also Nox if you stand by your statement, do you see it as a failing or a character weakness? Or even something you would like to work on to rectify?

Why would it be a character weakness or something to work on? A lack of faith could be interpreted in the same way.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-01-2015 03:57PM

kylith wrote: »

It'd be great if everyone who claimed to be a scientist had to provide their credentials as I simply don't believe that some of them are scientists. After all, it's the internet, someone can claim to be anything.

Hello, I'm the personification of the Goddess Bast and I can tell you for definite that Yaweh does not exist.

I'm a budgie who has learned to type.

I'm a sentient curling iron, and my opinion is therefore more valid because I'm a utensil.

I'm a scientist who has been sciencing since 1907 and you have to take my opinion seriously because of it.

Your CV must be an incredible read! I take your point but I'm still fascinated to understand how someone would live if they took personal offence to every piece of new information which contradicts their belief

Maximus Alexander · 19-01-2015 03:58PM

I'm a scientician too.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 04:03PM

kylith wrote: »

It'd be great if everyone who claimed to be a scientist had to provide their credentials

It would and it wouldn't I guess. For example I never give my credentials on this forum at all. No one knows what my training or education actually has been.

The reason for this is I think a persons actual claims should stand for themselves. Their claim is either correct, or it is not. It is either supported by evidence or it is not. This is true regardless of how many letters, if any, a user has after or before they name. So when someone like nox claims to be a scientist, even when much of the reality would appear to suggest otherwise, I simply do not care. I think we need to evaluate what people say, not who they are when saying it.

That said, I do remember in my time here on boards.ie I had a run in with a guy determined to keep claiming he was an astro physicist. Over and over he kept telling people this was his background and we should listen to what he has to say.

Until the day he told us that the reason earth has gravity is because the earth spins. A mistake so fundamental there are 12 year olds doing the 101s of Science who could correct it. Very quickly making it clear that his claims to background were likely entirely fabricated.

But yes as you say, anyone can be claim to be anything on the internet. So my approach to this is never claim to be anything, and just let my arguments stand alone.

El_Duderino 09 · 19-01-2015 04:04PM

strangel00p wrote: »

Why would it be a character weakness or something to work on? A lack of faith could be interpreted in the same way.

Taking offence to evidence which contradicts your belief would pose resistance to considering new information. If constitutes discriminating for or against evidence based on whether Nox happens to believe it already.

Hardly the best way to find the truth, and as a scientist, that should be kinda important and so maybe worth working on

Akrasia · 19-01-2015 04:06PM

strangel00p wrote: »

Why would it be a character weakness or something to work on? A lack of faith could be interpreted in the same way.

Whats so good about faith?

Sorry, Grayson, this is the kind of thing that causes long posts

Faith has more than one definition. Religious faith is belief in the absence of proof (or even evidence)

Most other uses of faith are (almost) synonyms for trust.

For example, faith in marriage. I have faith in my wife that she will stand by me through sickness and health etc. This faith is another word for trust and it is not 'without evidence'. I am only justified in having faith in my wife if we have a healthy trusting relationship.

Another type of faith, is good faith in business dealings. I trust that others will act in a trustworthy manner. It's is not absolute, and it requires that there is a reason to think that the parties are trustworthy. only an idiot would give a million euros to a guy on the street to buy a bridge he says he owns 'in good faith'.

kylith · 19-01-2015 04:13PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Your CV must be an incredible read! I take your point but I'm still fascinated to understand how someone would live if they took personal offence to every piece of new information which contradicts their belief

I'd show you my CV but it's written in scorch marks in the Budgeese language on papyrus, so it's a bit delicate.

I agree with your point, how anyone could claim to be a scientist and then take any bit of data that challenges what they must accept to be baseless beliefs as a personal affront is mind boggling.

seamus · 19-01-2015 04:27PM

catallus wrote: »

Well, i hope all of those soulless pagans know that there is still room in the infinite love and wisdom of GOD for them.

Can't tell if this post is an incredibly brilliant troll or hopelessly misguided.

Contrary to the narrow and bigoted Irish education curriculum that most of us had to suffer through, Paganism is a set of beliefs that involves far more ritualism and spiritualism than the current popular monotheistic religions.

The concept of a soul - or the very least of a life-force that exists outside of the flesh - is central to practically all flavours of paganism.

But Catholic Ireland would have us believe that pagans are godless devil worshippers (which is of course a contradiction in itself).

19-01-2015 04:43PM

Eutow wrote: »

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

No I don't, I do however treat my work separate to my beliefs.

Zubeneschamali · 19-01-2015 05:02PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I do however treat my work separate to my beliefs.

This is how scientists can be religious: compartmentalization.

This is why taking offence is useful, too, it stops the trained, critical part of the mind from saying "Hey, they have a point!"

Grayson · 19-01-2015 05:13PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Whats so good about faith?

Sorry, Grayson, this is the kind of thing that causes long posts

Faith has more than one definition. Religious faith is belief in the absence of proof (or even evidence)

Most other uses of faith are (almost) synonyms for trust.

For example, faith in marriage. I have faith in my wife that she will stand by me through sickness and health etc. This faith is another word for trust and it is not 'without evidence'. I am only justified in having faith in my wife if we have a healthy trusting relationship.

Another type of faith, is good faith in business dealings. I trust that others will act in a trustworthy manner. It's is not absolute, and it requires that there is a reason to think that the parties are trustworthy. only an idiot would give a million euros to a guy on the street to buy a bridge he says he owns 'in good faith'.

It's ok

There's loads of work in epistemology looking at the definitions of knowledge. It's very hard to pin down what it means to know.
In the examples you give I'd substitute belief for faith but even then there's confusion.

I could say that "I believe in God". That would imply that despite evidence I believe in God.
I could say "I believe in climate change". In that case my belief would be based on the preponderance of evidence.

The problem is that words like belief and faith reflect our attitudes towards something, not necessarily why or how we ended up feeling that way.

Since there's no words we can substitute for the different meanings it means the dictionary has loads of different definitions. It means that you can have two people saying the same words but are actually speaking different languages.

the_syco · 19-01-2015 05:32PM

harrymagina wrote: »

Had a friend going around telling the whole local pub he is an athiest after a few jars.

How many paedophile christian brothers were atheist?

Peist2007 · 19-01-2015 05:50PM

Eutow wrote: »

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

He takes it as an insult to himself of course, he has said it explicitly a few pages back. On another note, his "astronaut-dog" idea seems to have really gained legs.

Peist2007 · 19-01-2015 05:58PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

No I don't, I do however treat my work separate to my beliefs.

What is your PHD in?

19-01-2015 06:00PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

What is your PHD in?

Physics.

Baggy Trousers · 19-01-2015 06:04PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Physics.

Sheldon?

Peist2007 · 19-01-2015 06:07PM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Physics.

The mind boggles!

PopePalpatine · 19-01-2015 07:08PM

seamus wrote: »

Can't tell if this post is an incredibly brilliant troll or hopelessly misguided.

Contrary to the narrow and bigoted Irish education curriculum that most of us had to suffer through, Paganism is a set of beliefs that involves far more ritualism and spiritualism than the current popular monotheistic religions.

The concept of a soul - or the very least of a life-force that exists outside of the flesh - is central to practically all flavours of paganism.

But Catholic Ireland would have us believe that pagans are godless devil worshippers (which is of course a contradiction in itself).

Watch as he ignores your post and then pops up in a few weeks regurgitating the same old bollocks.

Akrasia · 20-01-2015 09:38AM

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Physics.

Just out of curiosity, in a physics framework, which parts of the equations describe god?

You have the 4 known forces,
gravity,
weak nuclear force,
strong nuclear force (strong interaction),
Electromagnetism

Do you think that god is just the unification of these 4 forces?

If in a decade or two, we can formalise a testable and verifiable unification theory, where then will god be?

The only rationally defensible arguments for the existence of god (as opposed to arguments from 'because the book says so' or 'emotion' or 'personal revelation') are
1. The teleological argument (argument from design)
2. Cosmological argument (boils down to the first cause argument)

The teleological argument is a god of the gaps rabbit hole, where god has been retreating from personally designing every individual, to somehow deciding on the cosmological constant (and assorted fundamental values for physical forces) 14 billion years ago and then leaving the universe alone

It fails because it doesn't explain anything other than 'god did it' and because we have multiple plausible cosmological theories for how these constants could have either evolved, or been generated at random without the need for any sentient actor (god)

The cosmological argument also fails for the most basic and fundamental flaw. Proponents of this argument say the universe can not have caused itself, therefore god must exist. But they then engage in special pleading that god itself doesn't need a cause because he is 'A-temporal' or 'outside of time'. It's ridiculous that people can't see the gaping flaw in their logic. If it is possible that anything can exist without having a cause, why bother invoking god, why not just say that the universe itself has 'always' existed as an entity 'outside of time'?

Proponents of the cosmological arguments, appear to me, to be deliberately mis-using the big bang as evidence for god. The 'big bang' only describes the singularity that began our part of the universe. It says absolutely nothing about what caused the big bang. There are multiple theories that suggest that big bangs are not once off events, but are happening all the 'time'. But we simply do not know what caused the big bang, it is much more likely to be a natural event, than a supernatural one. It is much more likely to be an event triggered by physical laws of nature, than a choice by some supernatural, conscious being (for the simple reason that we know that physical laws exist so it's more parsimonious to postulate something we have evidence exists, than to invent out of thin air something for which we have absolutely zero information on)

spix · 20-01-2015 09:45AM

I think it goes something like this.

When you're in what you assume is a minority, you assume that other people assume that you're not, therefore you feel the need to tell them otherwise so you know they're not going to make this assumption.

That's what I assume anyway.

ps. Don't assume I said assume alot on purpose, cause I didn't.

Zubeneschamali · 20-01-2015 10:09AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, in a physics framework, which parts of the equations describe god?

I think it's clear that nox is one of those "two non-overlapping magisteria" types.

TwoShedsJackson · 20-01-2015 11:30AM

Is this the longest thread ever where the OP just drops his oh-so-controversial bomb in the first post then never appears again? As long as you don't count a failed attempt to post a YouTube video at post 9 of course.

K4t · 20-01-2015 11:38AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is how scientists can be religious: compartmentalization.

This is why taking offence is useful, too, it stops the trained, critical part of the mind from saying "Hey, they have a point!"

Exactly. It is the educated people of faith who have been socially conditioned who are the major problem. If they could only overcome their fear and allow their rational minds to prevail, it would create an almost trickle down effect if you will which would slowly change the general population's mindset and inspire them to question more and more. But they are too willing to follow what is culturally pervasive and not risk attracting attention or criticism, politicians being the biggest culprits as well as liberal apologists who attempt to not only protect religion but to even promote its place in society.

Curly Judge · 20-01-2015 05:46PM

K4t wrote: »

Exactly. It is the educated people of faith who have been socially conditioned who are the major problem. If they could only overcome their fear and allow their rational minds to prevail, it would create an almost trickle down effect if you will which would slowly change the general population's mindset and inspire them to question more and more. But they are too willing to follow what is culturally pervasive and not risk attracting attention or criticism, politicians being the biggest culprits as well as liberal apologists who attempt to not only protect religion but to even promote its place in society.

I don't know if you realise it but you come across as a contemptuous, know it all, atheistic fascist.
And I say that as an atheist myself.

Athiests - Who cares

Comments