(http://i.imgur.com/YTOav.jpg)
:horrormirth:
:facepalm:
Good god. Why is he breathing my air?
"I hate religion, because it is stupid and causes harm to humanity, but you know, those crusades were pretty awesome.... let's just do that again!"
:roll:
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
Okay, just had to confirm he said that.
http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but
Now having done that, I have lost all small respect for him I had left.
Does he even KNOW about Sudan, and the back and forth genocidal massacres that have occurred there over the past 20 years? Is he that fucking ignorant?
Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.
WHAT THE FUCK.
BRB trolling every atheist forum in existence with this.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 01:26:29 AM
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 04:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 01:26:29 AM
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E
^This sums up my opinion on Dawkins pretty nicely.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 04:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 01:26:29 AM
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.
Yeah I mainly dislike him because he makes me look like a dickhead whenever I mention in public that I don't believe in supernatural things. People think "oh, you're one of the Hitchens and Dawkins crowd, whatever, moving on."
Vicious application of laundry folding machines is the only solution. I bet he'd make at least a hundred fine quality dog collars and wallets, with a bit of processing.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 05:21:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 04:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 01:26:29 AM
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.
Yeah I mainly dislike him because he makes me look like a dickhead whenever I mention in public that I don't believe in supernatural things. People think "oh, you're one of the Hitchens and Dawkins crowd, whatever, moving on."
Vicious application of laundry folding machines is the only solution. I bet he'd make at least a hundred fine quality dog collars and wallets, with a bit of processing.
Honestly, what you just said is grotesque. The hideous countered with the grotesque. No wonder religious wars go on for centuries.
Religious wars used to go on for centuries because Europe's population was caught up in the power games of popes who wanted Jerusalem and kings who wanted a divine blank check.
I am just now at the end of a European history course. I know about wars of religion.
I'm just in a grotesque mood, and hyperbole statement is hyperbole.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on May 27, 2011, 05:18:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 04:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 01:26:29 AM
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E
^This sums up my opinion on Dawkins pretty nicely.
:lulz:
I like this one myself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 01:52:38 AM
Okay, just had to confirm he said that.
Thanks for that quote (couldnt display the image). I knew Dawkins was a douche but i didnt think he was stupid.
Quote from: DICK DawkinsGiven that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?
I think he's trying to reach a point somewhere in here, but even with the benefit of the doubt he needs to qualify a lot of these terms. For example, unmitigated evil? Give me a fucking break. If Christian's want to give aid directly to suffering people and tell them fairy tales as well, that's fine with me. No one is required to convert to receive aid as far as i know. I suppose they should be grateful of the enlightenment he's offering from his high-horse... you know, instead of worrying about getting hacked apart by machetes, being forced to set their own children on fire, killed in other gruesome ways, or just plain ol' surviving after avoiding all of that. :roll:
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 01:52:38 AM
Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.
For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS. I'd say really real scientists don't
know anything until it has been proven (or disproven). Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an
Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not
evidence for OR against.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:10:54 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on May 27, 2011, 05:18:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 04:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 27, 2011, 01:26:29 AM
It's one thing to hate an idea, but it is simply inhuman to talk about people's lives like this.
The atheist movement's biggest fault is failing to recognize the difference between right and correct.
I've always considered Dawkins a hindrance to the atheist movement. He just comes across as a pompous English douchebag.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQl5aYhkF3E
^This sums up my opinion on Dawkins pretty nicely.
:lulz:
I like this one myself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ghIU_tlX0k
Granted, Dawkins is at least knowledgeable about it, but I think that the link sums up some.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:11:24 AM
For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS. I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven). Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.
Atheism is a belief. Or a lack of belief, rather. You can't put gods into test tubes. You can't have un-gods as controls. There is nothing scientific about religion or irreligion.
Atheists may be right, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Burden of proof lies on no one. Both positions are unprovable.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:18:09 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:11:24 AM
For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS. I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven). Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.
Atheism is a belief. Or a lack of belief, rather. You can't put gods into test tubes. You can't have un-gods as controls. There is nothing scientific about religion or irreligion.
Atheists may be right, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Burden of proof lies on no one. Both positions are unprovable.
Thus, "atheists" who consider themselves scientists would rather be agnostic. It's the difference between "Does God exist? No" and "Does God exist? I dont know (and if so inclined) I don't think so. Maybe it's pedantic, but i consider it a crucial distinction when having a discussion about this subject.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:33:39 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:18:09 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:11:24 AM
For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS. I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven). Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.
Atheism is a belief. Or a lack of belief, rather. You can't put gods into test tubes. You can't have un-gods as controls. There is nothing scientific about religion or irreligion.
Atheists may be right, but there is no way to prove it one way or the other. Burden of proof lies on no one. Both positions are unprovable.
Thus, "atheists" who consider themselves scientists would rather be agnostic. It's the difference between "Does God exist? No" and "Does God exist? I dont know (and if so inclined) I don't think so. Maybe it's pedantic, but i consider it a crucial distinction when having a discussion about this subject.
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:43:47 AM
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
meh.
Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both? An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work. Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally. But that divergence is there.
Dawkinsy Hitchensy shit is part of the reason Discordia attracted me in place of Atheism.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:43:47 AM
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
meh.
Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both? An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work. Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally. But that divergence is there.
Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.
And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"
But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).
Quote from: Placid Dingo on May 27, 2011, 07:18:10 AM
Dawkinsy Hitchensy shit is part of the reason Discordia attracted me in place of Atheism.
Discordia attracts all types for different reasons. I came at it as a philosophical adjunct to Paganism (just as a Shintoist is also a Zen Buddhist). It's a good thing. Discordia has tempered my Pagan ways, though if you were to ask me my religion, I would still say Pagan, or at least Former Catholic. Deist if I don't feel like going through an unnecessarily long explanation.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:11:24 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 01:52:38 AM
Okay, just had to confirm he said that.
Thanks for that quote (couldnt display the image). I knew Dawkins was a douche but i didnt think he was stupid.
Quote from: DICK DawkinsGiven that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?
I think he's trying to reach a point somewhere in here, but even with the benefit of the doubt he needs to qualify a lot of these terms. For example, unmitigated evil? Give me a fucking break. If Christian's want to give aid directly to suffering people and tell them fairy tales as well, that's fine with me. No one is required to convert to receive aid as far as i know. I suppose they should be grateful of the enlightenment he's offering from his high-horse... you know, instead of worrying about getting hacked apart by machetes, being forced to set their own children on fire, killed in other gruesome ways, or just plain ol' surviving after avoiding all of that. :roll:
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 01:52:38 AM
Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.
For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS. I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven). Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.
Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."
On the other hand, Atheism (with a capital A) is the above position wrapped in various worldviews, including that of Dawkins. In that sense it's no different than religion, given that Unitarian Universalism can be considered a religion, and it's basically a community with a worldview. And like all religions there will be douchebags who enjoy a little game called "ends justify the means".
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 07:19:43 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:43:47 AM
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
meh.
Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both? An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work. Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally. But that divergence is there.
Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.
And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"
But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).
No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 08:09:47 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 07:19:43 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:43:47 AM
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
meh.
Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both? An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work. Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally. But that divergence is there.
Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.
And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"
But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).
No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.
Anything an existent deity could do would be natural rather than supernatural. If a being exists that can violate or manipulate the laws of nature as we know them are still working with the laws of nature. Not only can the supernatural not exist, but if gods are making the rules, then any rules they make are natural law. Any rules they suspend, also then become natural law. Booze is constitutional, even though for a brief period it was unconstitutional.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 08:17:54 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 08:09:47 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 07:19:43 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:43:47 AM
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
meh.
Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both? An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work. Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally. But that divergence is there.
Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.
And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"
But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).
No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.
Anything an existent deity could do would be natural rather than supernatural. If a being exists that can violate or manipulate the laws of nature as we know them are still working with the laws of nature. Not only can the supernatural not exist, but if gods are making the rules, then any rules they make are natural law. Any rules they suspend, also then become natural law. Booze is constitutional, even though for a brief period it was unconstitutional.
No, that's false, and that's completely missing the point. Moving faster than the speed of life, for example, is physically impossible for any object. If a being could do so, and any other being could not just by merit of having sufficient technology and the knowledge, it would be supernatural, as it violates physical laws which are by definition unbreakable. You're bending definitions to fit your argument. Quit it. Especially equating the definition of natural/physical Law with human laws. They are not the same thing, you know it, so stop acting like you don't.
The whole point of deities is they are of a class of being outside of physical reality, ie the rules don't apply because they are above and outside the rules.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 08:25:41 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 08:17:54 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 08:09:47 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 07:19:43 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:52:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:43:47 AM
Most of the scientists I've met are religious. Granted they were medical scientists and not physicists or whatever, but just saying. I was a secretary for two of them and one was very definitely observant Jewish and one was most likely semi-observant Catholic. Odd, too, considering all of the scientists I know on a personal level are Harvard scientists. Just goes to further illustrate that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.
meh.
Is the world (universe) governed by Magic or Science or Both? An answer to this question would be majorly important in understanding how things work. Like you said religion or irreligion as it is defined is unprovable. However, for someone in pursuit of knowledge of the workings or our reality, I suppose this cognitive dissonance between knowing and believing allows them (consciously or subconsciously) to draw maximum benefit of the belief system while going about their roles socially or professionally. But that divergence is there.
Oh, the universe is governed by science. Any god that exists is a scientist. Or at least a high schooler from a phenomenally advanced civilization and he just got a B- on his/her/its/weird-genders-beyond-our-kens science project. Gods don't have to be magical.
And here we get back to the problem of "I want to know what god iiiiiiiiiiiiiis :keyboard: I want you to show meeeeeeeeeeee"
But seriously, the word god is essentially meaningless. No one agrees on the definition other than "higher power." If you consider god to be a set of governing equations for this universe, then atheists cease being atheists and become staunch gnostic theists (because at that point you CAN put god into a test tube).
No see, the whole concept of deities is trash without the supernatural element, ie something that can violate and manipulate the laws of nature (and don't try to misunderstand what I mean there; I mean exactly what it says, violation the laws of nature is by definition impossible). If so called gods are actually just extraterrestrial beings of higher intelligence and ability, then they aren't really gods, they're just aliens. That's a fundamental distinction that needs to be made. Not that there's any evidence of either.
Anything an existent deity could do would be natural rather than supernatural. If a being exists that can violate or manipulate the laws of nature as we know them are still working with the laws of nature. Not only can the supernatural not exist, but if gods are making the rules, then any rules they make are natural law. Any rules they suspend, also then become natural law. Booze is constitutional, even though for a brief period it was unconstitutional.
No, that's false, and that's completely missing the point. Moving faster than the speed of life, for example, is physically impossible for any object. If a being could do so, and any other being could not just by merit of having sufficient technology and the knowledge, it would be supernatural, as it violates physical laws which are by definition unbreakable. You're bending definitions to fit your argument. Quit it. Especially equating the definition of natural/physical Law with human laws. They are not the same thing, you know it, so stop acting like you don't.
The whole point of deities is they are of a class of being outside of physical reality, ie the rules don't apply because they are above and outside the rules.
You're making assumptions to my thought processes. I'm not bending definitions. And I'm not making any arguments here and I didn't mention anything about human laws. So what ever I know stop acting like it's obvious to me.
The only thing I'm saying is that the word god is meaningless.
Also, since it was brought up, the word supernatural is meaningless, because anything that is possible is natural, otherwise it couldn't happen.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 07:54:35 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 06:11:24 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 01:52:38 AM
Okay, just had to confirm he said that.
Thanks for that quote (couldnt display the image). I knew Dawkins was a douche but i didnt think he was stupid.
Quote from: DICK DawkinsGiven that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn't any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy's enemy be our friend?
I think he's trying to reach a point somewhere in here, but even with the benefit of the doubt he needs to qualify a lot of these terms. For example, unmitigated evil? Give me a fucking break. If Christian's want to give aid directly to suffering people and tell them fairy tales as well, that's fine with me. No one is required to convert to receive aid as far as i know. I suppose they should be grateful of the enlightenment he's offering from his high-horse... you know, instead of worrying about getting hacked apart by machetes, being forced to set their own children on fire, killed in other gruesome ways, or just plain ol' surviving after avoiding all of that. :roll:
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 01:52:38 AM
Goddamn Atheists are just another religion.
For the people who's beliefs he represents certainly they realize they are taking some of the worst traits of religion FFS. I'd say really real scientists don't know anything until it has been proven (or disproven). Certainly everyone can have ideas about what is true and untrue, but an Atheist's disbelief is based on faith that their grid is correct... not evidence for OR against.
Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."
Of course the word god is meaningless in a scientific context due to it having no clear definition. One can easily say all religious beliefs are false using the above reasoning, but the statement "I don't anticipate any deities or gods." Is absolutely meaningless and doesn't pertain to anything. Ask any two people to define god and you get different answers. The issues is scientifically moot.
The symbol/concept 'Deity' has gone through a whole lot of transitions, and probably goes past meaningless to become Useless. It's currently accepted as the "beyond the natural laws" definition Kai presented, but this is mostly due to the "watchmaker God" theory that paralleled the lead up to the industrial revolution, pushing "God into the Gaps" as more science was nailed down into symbols.
Previous to that, Gods were very often wholly bound to the "laws of reality" as one of their rules.... but at the time these would have been better called the "Laws of our current mythologized Narrative of Reality". But technology, knowledge, etc, etc, were all bound up in the same Narrative tradition. Anyone who had seen the Atikythera Machine in action would have known of Hephaestus the Crippled.
Cuchulain could not escape the 'laws of his Reality'. Odin, as another example, is bound to his fate of witnessing Ragnarok and the destruction of all in the Final Battle. That's why He's tending bar for Eris in Her Limbo pad, nothing better to do that serve drinks, play pinball with Cthulhu, and fuck with hallucinating mortals.
To clarify my point-
God: Is it something that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is some old man with a long beard? Is it something that is blind in one eye and had to sacrifice itself to itself in order to see the future and will one day be killed by a frost giant? Is it some sort of weird race of people that can be killed in combat with a human being capable and wily enough? Is it something that can be swallowed by another of its kind and not die? These all fit some definition of a god.
Universe: Everything that exists and nothing that doesn't. Nothing can exist outside of the Universe. Not even a god. It can occupy a part of the Universe that we can't observe, sure, but everything that that god does and is capable of, by definition is natural since it is possible. But a different level of reality is still part of the Universe and still subject to natural law, whatever that may be and regardless of who or no one is calling the shots.
Is this an argument for theism of any sort? No. It's merely a statement. I don't know if gods exist. They are unprovable by our current methods and probably any future methods. Is it safe to assume that they don't exist. Yes, definitely. Does it matter one way or the other? No, not at all.
Actually, Mithra's* whole schtick was that He was born of the Egg that exists outside of Universe (http://www.well.com/~davidu/mithras.html). This 'ubergod' aspect was essential in mithraized paulite christianity, and used to convert many far after the origional Mithraic practices were driven (deeper) underground. People today have combined this with red-shift data and teh quantumz, and have babbled that it points to a real singularity 'outside' of ours, but smaller.
Dr. Who's episode written by Neil Gaiman actually played on this myth. The whole 'planet-universe' that was out there was eating TARDISes, and was an interesting inversion of the Yadaboath(sinister creator) of Gnostic Mithraicism.
* (lol, I typed 'Mothra' at first)
Compare that to say, the Monkey stories out of the Chan/Buddhist traditions. Monkey is a wild force of nature, and gets dragons to bow to him and trick them into forging him fallen meteors for his Staff, etc, etc, but is still bound to the Tao (as represented by the Celestial Bureaucracy once the stories were translated for a Confucian audience) in that he must be the Emperor/Empress' errand boy when truly called upon. Of course, his willingness to 'bend' the rules is pretty much the only thing that saves the Ten Thousand Things when the Demon Horde attacked. But throughout the tale, there is a constant subtext of being grounded, beholden to the world of Samsara as it is in the moment, but not to it's Karma (the ideas/emotions about the recent past).
As such, I think the concept of 'Deity' probably has more to do with measurement of Culture and Narrative than anything else. It's the only thing in 'reality' that the individual instances of the concept line up with in any meaningful way.
*I still leave open the probability that Eris will physically manifest when I'm not looking to slap me on the back of the head & prove me wrong, but that's a game I play.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 08:52:54 AM
To clarify my point-
God: Is it something that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and is some old man with a long beard? Is it something that is blind in one eye and had to sacrifice itself to itself in order to see the future and will one day be killed by a frost giant? Is it some sort of weird race of people that can be killed in combat with a human being capable and wily enough? Is it something that can be swallowed by another of its kind and not die? These all fit some definition of a god.
But these in no way encompass even a small amount of the various characteristics used to define the term god. In fact the ones you listed area all from a very similar set of characteristics.
It gets complicated when god means 'the sum of the natural universe' or 'the unknown' to others. The word god is useless and should not be used in any debate of existence. If "God" the word has no anchoring then the question "Does God exist" is absurdest no matter what stance you take "No god does not exist" "Yes god exists" "maybe god exists" are all completely meaningless exercises in navel gazing.
I don't even get his point. What is he actually trying to say? My best guess is "We should (maybe) support Christianity against Islam in Africa because it's more tolerant, and because Atheism doesn't sell there."
I want to weigh in on "Atheism is a religion / True Scientists are Agnostics" but a) I'm tired of banging that fucking drum and frankly I'm disenfranchised with my Dawkins-baby past and genuinely want to make intellectual progress, even though my precis are sound. and b) You've heard it all before.
edit:
I think I get it now, "There is an argument that We as Atheists have a duty to support the White Man's efforts to Christianize the backwards Africans, even though Christianity is patently false."
Yes, I still owe Dawkins a lot, Yes, I still "like" him, Yes, I will keep buying his books, Yes, I really, really hope he shuts the fuck up about some things because he's made it very hard to defend him.
There are four words vital to a skeptics' arsenal. They are; "I Do Not Know". When it comes to politics, Dawkins should employ them a hell of a lot more.
Quote from: Faust
But these in no way encompass even a small amount of the various characteristics used to define the term god. In fact the ones you listed area all from a very similar set of characteristics.
One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.
As for Agnosticism, I would say a lot of Atheists are Agnostics. I call myself an Atheist, but we all know the chart actually looks like this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v297/Slyph/asdf.jpg)
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.
I disagree with the olded parts for incorrect or generalizations
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human. There is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.
All god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god". Atheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 01:42:51 PM
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human.
They had supernatural powers, and were contrasted with atomism.
QuoteThere is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.
Fluffies and unquantifiable blah-blahs respectively.
QuoteAll god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god".
I know what you're saying, but I don't know why you're saying it.
QuoteAtheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.
I don't know what you mean when you say "Atheism as belief", Do you mean the Atheism implied by the statement; "I do not believe in God"? I don't see the irrationality in the statement; "When people say 'There is a God', I believe them to be mistaken."
A person can hold true beliefs. I have beliefs about water that are factually true. In fact, were I to say, "There isn't a God", or "I believe there is no God", I would actually be saying the same damn thing, because of the circumstances in which I said the former (Non-omnipotence) make the latter plain.
I'm having a bad brain day, hell, I'm having a bad brain year, but uh, in a weird way it seems like part of your argument might be:
"God" is sketchily defined and has shifting, culturally specific and complicated meanings
Therefore, it is irrational to "Disbelieve in God"
edit: Wait, do you mean "irrational" or "non-scientific, belonging to some other sphere"?
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:09:58 PM
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 01:42:51 PM
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human.
They had supernatural powers, and were contrasted with atomism.
QuoteThere is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.
Fluffies and unquantifiable blah-blahs respectively.
QuoteAll god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god".
I know what you're saying, but I don't know why you're saying it.
QuoteAtheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.
I don't know what you mean when you say "Atheism as belief", Do you mean the Atheism implied by the statement; "I do not believe in God"? I don't see the irrationality in the statement; "When people say 'There is a God', I believe them to be mistaken."
A person can hold true beliefs. I have beliefs about water that are factually true. In fact, were I to say, "There isn't a God", or "I believe there is no God", I would actually be saying the same damn thing, because of the circumstances in which I said the former (Non-omnipotence) make the latter plain.
I'm having a bad brain day, hell, I'm having a bad brain year, but uh, in a weird way it seems like part of your argument might be:
"God" is sketchily defined and has shifting, culturally specific and complicated meanings
Therefore, it is irrational to "Disbelieve in God"
edit: Wait, do you mean "irrational" or "non-scientific, belonging to some other sphere"?
Since the Greek gods were essentially personified forces of nature, they didn't have supernatural powers. They were the natural powers themselves. There's nothing supernatural about lightning or the shifting of seasons.
As for the bolded part, I can't speak for Faust, but discussions about God are essentially meaningless and pointless* because everyone thinks something different when the word is mentioned. Hell, depending on context, I don't even think the same thing as I did the last time I got into a conversation about it. Nobody can agree on what a god is in the first place. And I would say that atheism is non-scientific.
*especially pointless since people have already made up their minds about it and that doesn't usually change. You can't convince a Christian into being an atheist and you can't convince an atheist that Muhammad was actually a prophet.
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 01:42:51 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 11:20:02 AM
One unifying characteristic: All supernatural claims are arbitrary. All "Gods" are allegedly supernatural. All Arbitrary claims are irrational, all God-belief is irrational.
I disagree with the olded parts for incorrect or generalizations
All gods supernatural: The Greeks had several mortal, horribly fallible and apart from being fictional were otherwise human. There is also the gaia as god (obviously not the hippy personification or consciousness idea, but the idea of god as the natural process of nature. There are also those that use the term to apply to themselves but imply no supernatural aspect, the "I am god" crowd.
All god belief is irrational, but so is the statement "There is no god". Atheism as belief is just another unfounded belief. All religious discussion is speculation on absurdity and lacks scientific value.
I agree completely. Also, the Atheist argument fails before it starts because it demands that everyone share their definition of "god".
QuoteSince the Greek gods were essentially personified forces of nature, they didn't have supernatural powers. They were the natural powers themselves. There's nothing supernatural about lightning or the shifting of seasons.
A natural explanation of rainfall; Water cycle. A supernatural explanation; God's tears. You can't really say a supernatural explanation like "Ares is making it rain because we sacrificed a horse for a good harvest" is a natural explanation, since it involves something allegedly transcending material interactions. To say "Their natural explanations were not good enough to account for rainfall without Gods"'s got a borrowed concept in it.
I think, I guess, what you're trying to say is the Greeks might have believed "There's a material bloke called Ares pouring water out onto the land", no numinity, no transcendence, non-supernatural. This is not generally true. There was a word for Atheism, and Epicurus was considered pretty weird for suggesting the Gods were Mortal and Material. The Greek Gods were definitely generally held to be made of woo-stuff.
QuoteAs for the bolded part, I can't speak for Faust, but discussions about God are essentially meaningless and pointless* because everyone thinks something different when the word is mentioned. Hell, depending on context, I don't even think the same thing as I did the last time I got into a conversation about it. Nobody can agree on what a god is in the first place. And I would say that atheism is non-scientific.
1) I can personally attest to discussions on religion changing
some minds, since I'm a former Christian.
2) Debating other people, even when you change no minds, at least helps you get things straight in your own head.
Quote from: NigelI agree completely. Also, the Atheist argument fails before it starts because it demands that everyone share their definition of "god".
Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:53:54 PM
made of woo-stuff.
That just became my new favorite phrase.
Quote
Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.
Asphaultia, goddess of convenient parking spaces.
I don't think you understand, Sylph. You insist on pitbulling the Atheist model of personifying the concept of "a god", and because that's your model, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with you about it. Atheists are just as circular in their reasoning as Fundamentalist Christians... in fact, it's unsurprising that most hardcore Atheists are former Christians. Same business model, really.
Quote from: Nigel on May 27, 2011, 02:58:19 PM
I don't think you understand, Sylph. You insist on pitbulling the Atheist model of personifying the concept of "a god", and because that's your model, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with you about it. Atheists are just as circular in their reasoning as Fundamentalist Christians... in fact, it's unsurprising that most hardcore Atheists are former Christians. Same business model, really.
I get what you mean, but I guess, hell, I do think "non-personal god" is a contradiction in terms. I just don't really understand what is meant by it. I mean, take "Justice", there is a personification of Justice we commonly use, but we do not believe in her literal existence.
Bleh... I think I actually am having a stroke, or at least reaching for words I don't possess...
Okay, I'll try and put it this way... "I do not distinguish between "a God without a person" and "a metaphor"
Gaia theory: "We can think of the whole world as one living entity called "Gaia".
A metaphor: "My watch is a jailer."
Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers. But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).
The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 03:15:56 PM
Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers. But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).
The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.
If there's no God, how did I get my tongue jammed in an Epson tractor-feed printer in 1996?
That sort of shit just doesn't happen in a random universe.
The difference is that thinking of the Earth as a single organism allows for interacting with her in certain ways that would not make sense otherwise and may be effective (not along the lines of sacrificing goats mind you, but treating the whole system as a unified being)
meanwhile treating your watch the way you would a prison guard would not make sense or be effective.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 03:15:56 PM
Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers. But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).
The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.
If there's no God, how did I get my tongue jammed in an Epson tractor-feed printer in 1996?
That sort of shit just doesn't happen in a random universe.
As a Beysean, I have to take into account the Malevolent God Theory, due to the staggering number of priors evidenced.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 27, 2011, 03:18:54 PM
The difference is that thinking of the Earth as a single organism allows for interacting with her in certain ways that would not make sense otherwise and may be effective (not along the lines of sacrificing goats mind you, but treating the whole system as a unified being)
meanwhile treating your watch the way you would a prison guard would not make sense or be effective.
I am NOT worshiping a big rock covered in biological contamination. EOS.
That's just fucking silly.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 27, 2011, 03:18:54 PM
meanwhile treating your watch the way you would a prison guard would not make sense or be effective.
"Time to get out of bed, you say? FUCK YOU SCREW!"
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:53:54 PM
Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.
I am a god.
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:53:54 PM
Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.
I am a god.
Undistributed middle. Mu.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 03:15:56 PM
Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers. But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).
The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.
What I was saying before but I'm not sure slyph got was that the Beysean logic works on on reasonable issues. I was saying the term god is unreasonable because it has no definition or meaning, just a bunch of not necessarily inclusive characteristics based on hearsay. Applying most logical systems to "is there a god" wont give you any kind of proper result.
Humans need to figure out what they are looking and make sure they are all talking about the same thing before they start discussing the question of its existence.
True, Faust, but I'm usually the one running for the refuge of semantic right off the bat, and I felt like a change of pace.
But yeah, if you can't define it, you can't offer evidence for it.
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 03:25:43 PM
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 03:24:12 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 02:53:54 PM
Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.
I am a god.
Undistributed middle. Mu.
On the contrary, I am giving you a single data point. I am god. One variable. No distribution. Fact. Do you believe it?
Okay, here's a concept for you to chew over...
For the sake of discussion, accept, for the moment, that there is a Supreme Being. Accept (again, for the sake of argument) that the nature of said Being is such that we poor humans can't really get a grip on the whole concept.
What's going to happen?
The piece that YOU get ahold of and grasp may be massively different than the piece that I grasp. Your mom and dad hand you the pieces THEY get... which you may very well accept, or you may decide to flip it around and grab ahold of the other side.
Picture a faceted gem... You see one face. The guy sitting next to you may see a slightly different facet, while the woman across the way from you sees something completely different. Hell, maybe she sees a dozen different facets, and tacks a different name on to each one of 'em.
Atheists? Either can't be bothered to get hold of something that big, can't see any of it at all, or possibly has the right idea and the whole concept was yanked out of the asses of the shamen who made it all up so they could spend all day in the cave with the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 03:36:11 PM
Okay, here's a concept for you to chew over...
For the sake of discussion, accept, for the moment, that there is a Supreme Being. Accept (again, for the sake of argument) that the nature of said Being is such that we poor humans can't really get a grip on the whole concept.
What's going to happen?
The piece that YOU get ahold of and grasp may be massively different than the piece that I grasp. Your mom and dad hand you the pieces THEY get... which you may very well accept, or you may decide to flip it around and grab ahold of the other side.
Picture a faceted gem... You see one face. The guy sitting next to you may see a slightly different facet, while the woman across the way from you sees something completely different. Hell, maybe she sees a dozen different facets, and tacks a different name on to each one of 'em.
Atheists? Either can't be bothered to get hold of something that big, can't see any of it at all, or possibly has the right idea and the whole concept was yanked out of the asses of the shamen who made it all up so they could spend all day in the cave with the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.
I counter with this: Functionally, this (accepted) Supreme Being isn't interfering in the operations of the Universe, and can therefore be considered meaningless. If f=ma is observed both with and without a SB, then we can ignore the SB as meaningless. Therefore, behaving as if there is no SB is still the more rational choice.
[edit: I tend to use "f=ma" as shorthand for the entire body of physics.]
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 03:36:11 PM
Okay, here's a concept for you to chew over...
For the sake of discussion, accept, for the moment, that there is a Supreme Being. Accept (again, for the sake of argument) that the nature of said Being is such that we poor humans can't really get a grip on the whole concept.
What's going to happen?
The piece that YOU get ahold of and grasp may be massively different than the piece that I grasp. Your mom and dad hand you the pieces THEY get... which you may very well accept, or you may decide to flip it around and grab ahold of the other side.
Picture a faceted gem... You see one face. The guy sitting next to you may see a slightly different facet, while the woman across the way from you sees something completely different. Hell, maybe she sees a dozen different facets, and tacks a different name on to each one of 'em.
Atheists? Either can't be bothered to get hold of something that big, can't see any of it at all, or possibly has the right idea and the whole concept was yanked out of the asses of the shamen who made it all up so they could spend all day in the cave with the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.
I counter with this: Functionally, this (accepted) Supreme Being isn't interfering in the operations of the Universe, and can therefore be considered meaningless. If f=ma is observed both with and without a SB, then we can ignore the SB as meaningless. Therefore, behaving as if there is no SB is still the more rational choice.
[edit: I tend to use "f=ma" as shorthand for the entire body of physics.]
Certainly works. However, let's face it, we spend a lot of time fucking around with meaningless shit. Some people actually WATCHED American Idol...
Careful, your terms are slipping. When I use the word "meaningless" in the above, it has a specific usage. Your use of it in implying that American Idol is meaningless has a different usage.
Quick notes:
1. Dawkins loses any shadow of a moral high ground by saying that he's compelled to participate in the same barbaric religious wars he CONSTANTLY speaks against.
2. A few thoughts on the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and my refutation to the idea that there are basically "atheist agnostics" and "theistic agnostics": http://23ae.com/2011/05/spagnosticism/
3.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 03:17:37 PM
If there's no God, how did I get my tongue jammed in an Epson tractor-feed printer in 1996?
That sort of shit just doesn't happen in a random universe.
:potd:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 03:57:47 PM
Careful, your terms are slipping. When I use the word "meaningless" in the above, it has a specific usage. Your use of it in implying that American Idol is meaningless has a different usage.
Does it? Whether or not something exists (my own opinion on whether or not there is a supreme being aside for the course of the discussion), if it doesn't cause any effects, then it's meaningless. I don't have TV (I own one, but all it is here is someplace to play my DVDs), so whether or not there is an American Idol, it has no effect on my life, and I can cheerfully ignore that it exists. Except, of course, for the fact that every other idiot walking around has an opinion about it... pretty much the same as a divine being. Regardless of whether or not there IS one, there are a lot of people who believe there is, and will act as if there is... and getting a grasp on how they're going to react based on that belief is, IMHO, not a waste of time (particularly if it looks like they're gonna be bringing out the torches and pitchforks). Act as if there isn't one, by all means... but remember that some people are gonna be pretty darned offended by your refusal to accept that (a) there is a divine being, or (b) that whatever nitwit is winning on American Idol isn't the greatest thing since Ella Fitzgerald.
I understand what you're saying, but it's different from what I'm saying.
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
Television, reality show singing contests, and human brains are all tangible, observed phenomenon. The fact that you have opinions on the aesthetic or inherent value of the phenomenon should not matter. Additionally, the behavior of God believers would also not change whether or not God exists. So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.
Surely another sign of a malevolent god, for I have never been to that state. Who other than a Mad Bastard of a god would smite a state that has nothing to do with me?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:25:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.
Surely another sign of a malevolent god, for I have never been to that state. Who other than a Mad Bastard of a god would smite a state that has nothing to do with me?
Well, it wasn't me. Tornados aren't my responsibility.
Ah. Jerry Lewis, then.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
I understand what you're saying, but it's different from what I'm saying.
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
Television, reality show singing contests, and human brains are all tangible, observed phenomenon. The fact that you have opinions on the aesthetic or inherent value of the phenomenon should not matter. Additionally, the behavior of God believers would also not change whether or not God exists.
That's why i like you LMNO. To sum up what i was getting at. Belief or disbelief doesnt change whether God exists or not, because belief is a fantasy or a guess (no matter how educated) and His existence is or is not, a reality.
So Kai, you can have the most accurate Bayesian probability model ever conceived but all it does is crank out a
probability... a
possibility and those are not reality. Those are odds to indicate what could be, what might be, but not what is. You dont know if the cat is alive until you open the box. The chances dont mean shit to reality unless they are 0% or 100%
So a Man of Science can have opinions on what is probable but he only
knows what is known.
Atheism is to make a "fact" of God's non-existence. (Which is currently unknowable)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.
As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position. God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.
I see PL is back to tell Kai how science is done. :lulz:
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 04:44:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.
As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position. God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.
Considering that other thread that shows that adherence to a computer's OS lights up the same part of the brain as religion, I wouldn't say it's "God" so much as "Monkeys Being Monkeys".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:48:24 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 04:44:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.
As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position. God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.
Considering that other thread that shows that adherence to a computer's OS lights up the same part of the brain as religion, I wouldn't say it's "God" so much as "Monkeys Being Monkeys".
Truth, there...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 04:46:24 PM
I see PL is back to tell Kai how science is done. :lulz:
Naa, not really. Just to let PD know what my problem with "Atheist Scientists" is.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:48:24 PM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 27, 2011, 04:44:41 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.
As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position. God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.
Considering that other thread that shows that adherence to a computer's OS lights up the same part of the brain as religion, I wouldn't say it's "God" so much as "Monkeys Being Monkeys".
Sad but true, unfortunately. I'd like to see Man rise above that, but i'd have to lean more tgrr's position on this one. It's never gonna happen and it's so damn entertaining it shouldnt stop :D
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:25:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.
Surely another sign of a malevolent god, for I have never been to that state. Who other than a Mad Bastard of a god would smite a state that has nothing to do with me?
This is the same Mad Bastard that saw to it that a universe that started expanding 13.7 billion years ago is more than 28 billion light years across. He seems to have some problems with distance calculation.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 27, 2011, 04:21:32 PM
I understand what you're saying, but it's different from what I'm saying.
If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.
There are a lot of positions one could take on the idea of an imminent God that are completely fucked if physical laws hold absent God. It kills
some Gods dead.
QuoteThat's why i like you LMNO. To sum up what i was getting at. Belief or disbelief doesnt change whether God exists or not, because belief is a fantasy or a guess (no matter how educated) and His existence is or is not, a reality.
Still, "If the box contains a diamond, I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond." Yes, things exist or do not exist, or are true or not-true irrespective of our believing otherwise, but I still desire to have mental states resembling the reality.
QuoteSo Kai, you can have the most accurate Bayesian probability model ever conceived but all it does is crank out a probability... a possibility and those are not reality. Those are odds to indicate what could be, what might be, but not what is. You dont know if the cat is alive until you open the box. The chances dont mean shit to reality unless they are 0% or 100%
Yes but, the more likely result is the more likely, and therefore the most rational position. If you've got a roulette wheel in front of you, and the house is paying 1:3 on Red, and 1:3 on 00, you bet on Red.
QuoteSo a Man of Science can have opinions on what is probable but he only knows what is known.
Sure, but when yous tate your beliefs, it is situationally obvious that that is what "you believe" and "you think to be true" by virtue of being said by you. It's redundant saying it
all the time, it makes sense to just call yourself an "Atheist".
QuoteAtheism is to make a "fact" of God's non-existence. (Which is currently unknowable)
To have a Theory of Mind is to make a "fact" of the existence of other human beings, (Which is technically unknowable)
When I'm stood before the Throne of Judgement, I'll be sure to ask "How can I be sure I'm actually here at all, and not just hooked up to the Matrix, Lord?"
When I'm stood before the Throne of Judgement, I'll be sure to ask, "What the fuck?"
Both doing it wrong. You ask where the beer is.
Me, I figure any scientist who stands up and states, with certainty, EITHER position on the existance or nonexistance of a deity needs to have his head lodged physically where he has it shoved figuratively, preferably until he can lick his own tonsils.
I've yet to see one of 'em come up with a reliable test to prove, either way, said existance, and taking a stand on "I believe" is bullshit.
And, when I'm stood before the Throne of Judgement, I'll be sure to start with, "Wait, I can explain..."
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 06:13:53 PM
Me, I figure any scientist who stands up and states, with certainty,
I've yet to see one of 'em come up with a reliable test to prove, either way, said existance, and taking a stand on "I believe" is bullshit.
Ultimately I say I am an Atheist with quote Conviction unquote, not with Capital Certainty.
THIS IS THE POSITION RICHARD DAWKINS ACTUALLY ADVOCATES
HE IS STILL SHIT AT PORRITICS
Quote from: LunaI've yet to see one of 'em come up with a reliable test to prove, either way, said existance,
Prove I don't have a dragon up me shoot. [/Arthur Miller]
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: LunaI've yet to see one of 'em come up with a reliable test to prove, either way, said existance,
Prove I don't have a dragon up me shoot. [/Arthur Miller]
:Gets ready for colonoscopy:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:22:04 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: LunaI've yet to see one of 'em come up with a reliable test to prove, either way, said existance,
Prove I don't have a dragon up me shoot. [/Arthur Miller]
:Gets ready for colonoscopy:
Or vivisection...
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
Think of my arse as possessing a magic dragon. You can interact with it in new ways like that.
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.
Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.
Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!
Your breath-weapon holds no terror for me. I've been in the same room with victims of Richter's vindaloo.
When you see the instruments I have for detecting magic, you'd wish you'd gone for the colonoscopy. Somebody pass the speculum.
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
Think of my arse as possessing a magic dragon. You can interact with it in new ways like that.
Har, Har.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/
QuoteIt is not psychologically realistic to say "The dragon-claimant does not believe there is a dragon in his garage; he believes it is beneficial to believe there is a dragon in his garage." But it is realistic to say the dragon-claimant anticipates as if there is no dragon in his garage, and makes excuses as if he believed in the belief.
You can possess an ordinary mental picture of your garage, with no dragons in it, which correctly predicts your experiences on opening the door, and never once think the verbal phrase There is no dragon in my garage. I even bet it's happened to you - that when you open your garage door or bedroom door or whatever, and expect to see no dragons, no such verbal phrase runs through your mind.
And to flinch away from giving up your belief in the dragon - or flinch away from giving up your self-image as a person who believes in the dragon - it is not necessary to explicitly think I want to believe there's a dragon in my garage. It is only necessary to flinch away from the prospect of admitting you don't believe.
To correctly anticipate, in advance, which experimental results shall need to be excused, the dragon-claimant must (a) possess an accurate anticipation-controlling model somewhere in his mind, and (b) act cognitively to protect either (b1) his free-floating propositional belief in the dragon or (b2) his self-image of believing in the dragon.
If someone believes in their belief in the dragon, and also believes in the dragon, the problem is much less severe. They will be willing to stick their neck out on experimental predictions, and perhaps even agree to give up the belief if the experimental prediction is wrong - although belief in belief can still interfere with this, if the belief itself is not absolutely confident. When someone makes up excuses in advance, it would seem to require that belief, and belief in belief, have become unsynchronized.
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.
Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!
Your breath-weapon holds no terror for me. I've been in the same room with victims of Richter's vindaloo.
When you see the instruments I have for detecting magic, you'd wish you'd gone for the colonoscopy. Somebody pass the speculum.
Man, my digestive tract is really going to be in for it this weekend, huh?
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:06:09 PM
Still, "If the box contains a diamond, I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond." Yes, things exist or do not exist, or are true or not-true irrespective of our believing otherwise, but I still desire to have mental states resembling the reality.
Is "I don't know" unacceptable to you? I will say "I don't know" until i find the desire or need to know. Then i will try to discover the truth if i am able. If it aint possible to know then, "I don't know, maybe this, maybe that, I don't know."
QuoteYes but, the more likely result is the more likely, and therefore the most rational position. If you've got a roulette wheel in front of you, and the house is paying 1:3 on Red, and 1:3 on 00, you bet on Red.
Rationality can be a means to maximizing your utility. Achieving ones ends is not really what we're talking about. You're absolutely right... about what you are talking about.
QuoteSure, but when yous tate your beliefs, it is situationally obvious that that is what "you believe" and "you think to be true" by virtue of being said by you. It's redundant saying it all the time, it makes sense to just call yourself an "Atheist".
It may sound ridiculous to you but i preface my beliefs with a disclaimer. Otherwise i just speak.
QuoteTo have a Theory of Mind is to make a "fact" of the existence of other human beings, (Which is technically unknowable)
Solipsism? Really? In the case of solipsism i think my viewpoint of it can "hold true" or be useful to everyone. Whether nothing really exists or not is not important to me. It is not relevant to my life, nor my day to day business, nor how i conduct myself. If the prospect that nothing is real bothers
you or creates for you some kind of existential crisis... good luck with that. That's really all i have on that note.
Sorry, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of solipsism, I was comparing solipsism and neutral agnosticism, "This is unknowable."
It's like, sure, maybe, but try
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.
Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!
Your breath-weapon holds no terror for me. I've been in the same room with victims of Richter's vindaloo.
When you see the instruments I have for detecting magic, you'd wish you'd gone for the colonoscopy. Somebody pass the speculum.
Man, my digestive tract is really going to be in for it this weekend, huh?
It's gonna be a good time. :lulz:
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 07:20:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: Luna on May 27, 2011, 06:31:13 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on May 27, 2011, 06:26:05 PM
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 06:23:49 PM
You can't detect it with your instruments, it's magic.
What, we can't still have fun cutting you up and taking a look? Alright Luna, help me strap him to the table, looks like he's going to put up a fight over this.
Save me, Smouleng! Use your breath-weapon!
Your breath-weapon holds no terror for me. I've been in the same room with victims of Richter's vindaloo.
When you see the instruments I have for detecting magic, you'd wish you'd gone for the colonoscopy. Somebody pass the speculum.
Man, my digestive tract is really going to be in for it this weekend, huh?
It's gonna be a good time. :lulz:
I'll see if I can find some matches...
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 07:16:30 PM
Sorry, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of solipsism, I was comparing solipsism and neutral agnosticism, "This is unknowable."
It's like, sure, maybe, but try
I'm of the opinion that we will be able to try but not until long after my lifespan. Any presumption before that is basically just masturbation or worse, violating ones intellectual integrity.
Quote from: Slyph on May 27, 2011, 07:16:30 PM
Sorry, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of solipsism, I was comparing solipsism and neutral agnosticism, "This is unknowable."
It's like, sure, maybe, but try
Oh it's cool. I'm just enjoying this discussion. It's going a hell of a lot better than my android thread :lulz:
Quote from: Faust on May 27, 2011, 07:24:50 PM
I'm of the opinion that we will be able to try but not until long after my lifespan. Any presumption before that is basically just masturbation or worse, violating ones intellectual integrity.
Also, this.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 27, 2011, 04:46:24 PM
I see PL is back to tell Kai how science is done. :lulz:
After talking with Phox, I've decided it's not worth my time. Discussions can only happen when all members can contemplate evidence that would change their position. Blackfoot cannot, so there's no reason to continue except for the lulz, and I'm not having any fun with it.
Besides, LMNO is already using arguments which I would have presented. And doing an admirable job, despite Blackfoot's unwillingness to actually have a discussion.
ETA: and no, Blackfoot, it's not a discussion. See here: http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
After talking with Phox, I've decided it's not worth my time. Discussions can only happen when all members can contemplate evidence that would change their position. Blackfoot cannot, so there's no reason to continue except for the lulz, and I'm not having any fun with it.
Wow. Has someone made a point that i've "refused" to consider? The only "positions" i've taken thus far are on the meanings of the terms i'm using.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
Besides, LMNO is already using arguments which I would have presented. And doing an admirable job, despite Blackfoot's unwillingness to actually have a discussion.
Um... When i said i like LMNO it was because he succinctly summarized a lot of what i was trying to say. It wasnt sarcasm and it wasnt an attack. I agree with him. And if he's using arguments you would have used it seems like you are arguing with me not against me. If you missed something or some context that would have allowed you to recognize where i stand compared to your position, that's an honest mistake. This thread has come together pretty fast. Otherwise, i find youre being pretty sensitive about a non-issue.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
ETA: and no, Blackfoot, it's not a discussion. See here: http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg
I suppose you are right. No one is actually having a discussion at all, because all we have really done up to this point is try to clairfy terms.
Nice flowchart. Again, the only thing i've argued is that; there is a difference between knowing and believing, beliefs do not influence reality, and atheists can't claim to "know" anything more than their counterparts at the opposite end of the spectrum. Argue with that if you like or dont. Just know that anyone who agrees with that, agrees with me on at least those things. If you or anyone else refuse to get past these statements I CANT have a discussion with.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 01:15:59 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
After talking with Phox, I've decided it's not worth my time. Discussions can only happen when all members can contemplate evidence that would change their position. Blackfoot cannot, so there's no reason to continue except for the lulz, and I'm not having any fun with it.
Wow. Has someone made a point that i've "refused" to consider? The only "positions" i've taken thus far are on the meanings of the terms i'm using.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
Besides, LMNO is already using arguments which I would have presented. And doing an admirable job, despite Blackfoot's unwillingness to actually have a discussion.
Um... When i said i like LMNO it was because he succinctly summarized a lot of what i was trying to say. It wasnt sarcasm and it wasnt an attack. I agree with him. And if he's using arguments you would have used it seems like you are arguing with me not against me. If you missed something or some context that would have allowed you to recognize where i stand compared to your position, that's an honest mistake. This thread has come together pretty fast. Otherwise, i find youre being pretty sensitive about a non-issue.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 11:46:10 PM
ETA: and no, Blackfoot, it's not a discussion. See here: http://dumpdc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/discussionflowchart.jpg
I suppose you are right. No one is actually having a discussion at all, because all we have really done up to this point is try to clairfy terms.
Nice flowchart. Again, the only thing i've argued is that; there is a difference between knowing and believing, beliefs do not influence reality, and atheists can't claim to "know" anything more than their counterparts at the opposite end of the spectrum. Argue with that if you like or dont. Just know that anyone who agrees with that, agrees with me on at least those things. If you or anyone else refuse to get past these statements I CANT have a discussion with.
You're right, there's a problem with terms.
Let me define mine:
Belief: an anticipation about reality
Belief in belief: an anticipation it is good, beneficial and/or righteous to anticipate a certain thing about reality. Does not require the actual anticipation of reality. See "there's an invisible dragon in my garage".
Truth: an anticipation about reality (belief) that actually corresponds to reality (map corresponding to territory).
To know: to have particular anticipations about reality that strongly correspond to reality (i.e. when an individual map strongly corresponds to the territory).
To believe: to have particular anticipations about reality.
Within my definitions, "to know" is only a strong version of "to believe". Knowing is only a stronger version of believing, and subjective.
To address your points:
1. Knowledge is a particular kind of belief. It is otherwise a belief.
2. Anticipations of reality can and do influence reality, but not to that which is anticipated. (i.e. an anticipation of god does not determine the actual existence of god, but it may influence reality in other ways). See: belief in belief.
3. An atheist knowing there is no god is possible, as the lack of evidence for a god in reality strongly corresponds to this anticipation.
If the word "truth" is tripping you up, please read: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth
To go further, there is absolutely no reason for me to have to preface my statements such as "There is no god", with "I believe" or "I anticipate", because by the very nature of me making the statement it is implicit that I anticipate such. E-prime is completely unnecessary.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 02:01:42 AM
To go further, there is absolutely no reason for me to have to preface my statements such as "There is no god", with "I believe" or "I anticipate", because by the very nature of me making the statement it is implicit that I anticipate such. E-prime is completely unnecessary.
The terms as you define them seem to elevate an individual's grid above all else. What then becomes the point of pursuing the truth. Making your BIP more comfortable for you? Making it so communicating ideas becomes safer to the person espousing them?
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 02:58:29 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 02:01:42 AM
To go further, there is absolutely no reason for me to have to preface my statements such as "There is no god", with "I believe" or "I anticipate", because by the very nature of me making the statement it is implicit that I anticipate such. E-prime is completely unnecessary.
The terms as you define them seem to elevate an individual's grid above all else. What then becomes the point of pursuing the truth. Making your BIP more comfortable for you? Making it so communicating ideas becomes safer to the person espousing them?
Making your map as close to reality as possible. This has nothing to do with prisons of the mind, or elevating the status of "grids". It most certainly doesn't have anything to do with anyone else's self-deception. If you're not honest with yourself about evidence or lack thereof then thats your own problem.
And as for "the point of pursuing the truth", countless other's have said their piece about this in the past, but some of my favorite statements are by Darwin,
Quote"When I vew all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal dscendants of some few beings which lived long before the first bed of the Silurian system was Deposited, they seem to me to become enobled."
And Feynman,
QuoteI have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
Or Yudowsky, more succinct,
Quote"If we cannot learn to take joy in the merely real, our lives will be empty indeed.
Take any of those. They all talk about the same thing, the pleasure and joy of having a map that actually matches the territory. When you anticipate reality as it is then you can plan and make choices based on it. When you anticipate an absence of deities it frees you from that supernatural trap of control by anyone but yourself and reality, and devotion to no one else but other people and those various parts of reality that you choose to give devotion. There's no requirement. It's a sandbox rather than an organized game, but, I guess some people still pretend games when the universe is really just a sandbox. The only problem comes in when I have to play your game.
And like I said, anyone else's self deception isn't my problem.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 03:51:28 AM
Take any of those. They all talk about the same thing, the pleasure and joy of having a map that actually matches the territory. When you anticipate reality as it is then you can plan and make choices based on it. When you anticipate an absence of deities it frees you from that supernatural trap of control by anyone but yourself and reality, and devotion to no one else but other people and those various parts of reality that you choose to give devotion. There's no requirement. It's a sandbox rather than an organized game, but, I guess some people still pretend games when the universe is really just a sandbox. The only problem comes in when I have to play your game.
And like I said, anyone else's self deception isn't my problem.
What you say here is really great and true. The only comment i have is that you can do all this and live like this without claiming to Know Truth.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 03:59:35 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 03:51:28 AM
Take any of those. They all talk about the same thing, the pleasure and joy of having a map that actually matches the territory. When you anticipate reality as it is then you can plan and make choices based on it. When you anticipate an absence of deities it frees you from that supernatural trap of control by anyone but yourself and reality, and devotion to no one else but other people and those various parts of reality that you choose to give devotion. There's no requirement. It's a sandbox rather than an organized game, but, I guess some people still pretend games when the universe is really just a sandbox. The only problem comes in when I have to play your game.
And like I said, anyone else's self deception isn't my problem.
What you say here is really great and true. The only comment i have is that you can do all this and live like this without claiming to Know Truth.
Are you using my definitions of those terms or are you using your undefined ones?
You know what? fuck it. Taboo "know" and "truth", and tell me what you mean again.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 04:42:11 AM
Are you using my definitions of those terms or are you using your undefined ones?
You know what? fuck it. Taboo "know" and "truth", and tell me what you mean again.
Truth = Reality.
Opinions are beliefs and ideas about reality. Facts are the truth about reality.
Less wrong, as great as it is has a specialized language for ideas about ideas about what people think are true and false ad nauseum... all of that is unnecessary.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 05:15:43 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 04:42:11 AM
Are you using my definitions of those terms or are you using your undefined ones?
You know what? fuck it. Taboo "know" and "truth", and tell me what you mean again.
Truth = Reality.
Opinions are beliefs and ideas about reality. Facts are the truth about reality.
Less wrong, as great as it is has a specialized language for ideas about ideas about what people think are true and false ad nauseum... all of that is unnecessary.
No, it's really necessary, if you're interested in self honesty. Which I am.
Now, taboo "reality", "beliefs" "ideas" and "truth" and do it again. Because I still don't understand what the hell you are getting at.
Edit: because if you can't do it, I'll assume you can't communicate what you are really talking about.
Also, why the hell shouldn't I claim to know reality? I see my shoe is untied, therefore my shoe is untied. I don't fucking need to say "well, it could be untied or it could not be untied or this could all be brains in a jar". That's a load of useless muddle headed bullshit.
I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.
Now, having visited this mentally for a while, I think I know what you're really saying. You're upset with people you deem to be acting as authority figures. That's all it is really. Because when it comes down to it, you do seem to recognize that A) there's no evidence for god(s) (though you don't take it through Bayesian reasoning to a conclusion), B) Maps are not equal to territory, and C) maps can correlate with territory. So what it really comes down to is you don't like it when people don't privilege hypotheses that have no evidence to support, and especially when they speak out against hypotheses that are often privileged and have no supporting evidence. You don't like what you anticipate to be unrighteous behavior of publicly decrying hypotheses that are overwhelmingly favored despite having no supporting evidence. And your reasoning is, either it's not nice, or it's authoritarian of them to do so, or, possibly, you're deceiving yourself by privileging your own personal hypotheses that have no supporting evidence.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 05:45:19 AM
I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.
That's a meaningless tautology. And no, what you're saying is incredibly stupid. I can think of a thousand different things that would raise my probability of deities. Obviously, none of those are occurring. There's no evidence. You're just privileging hypotheses. You might as well say "there could be a giant invisible sentient teapot", but why? Why do you postulate things for which there are no evidence? And why, if you do, do you allow them to be privileged as okay? Because they fucking aren't. It's so fucking close to Solipsism I can smell it. And you know what has been said of those types:
Quote from: Schuh and Brower - Phylogenetic SystematicsThe solipsist sits unassailable in his impenetrable fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we shall pass him by.
I.e. I'm wasting my fucking time talking with you.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 05:45:19 AM
I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.
I dont
know that there is no God. But Im perfectly happy to go through my life under the assumption that there is none. The reason for this is there is there simply is no good goddamn reason to believe in one. The only evidence is:
A) I know this guy who knew this guy who saw a miracle happen
B) I myself have talked to God(9.999999/10 times either a con-man or batshit insane)
C) I once read a book(pick one) that said God exists.
Let us, for purely sceintific reasons, compare this to the evidence for Bigfoot.
A) I know this guy who knew this guy who saw
a miracle happenBigfootB) I myself have
talkedseen to
GodBigfoot(9.999999/10 times either a con-man or batshit insane)
C) I once read a book(at the grocery store checkout) that said
GodBigfoot exists.
You notice how there are no Bigfoot agnostics going around saying how we shouldnt "claim to know the unknowable"? Thats because Bigfoot is stupid.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 05:46:13 AM
Now, having visited this mentally for a while, I think I know what you're really saying. You're upset with people you deem to be acting as authority figures. That's all it is really. Because when it comes down to it, you do seem to recognize that A) there's no evidence for god(s) (though you don't take it through Bayesian reasoning to a conclusion), B) Maps are not equal to territory, and C) maps can correlate with territory. So what it really comes down to is you don't like it when people don't privilege hypotheses that have no evidence to support, and especially when they speak out against hypotheses that are often privileged and have no supporting evidence. You don't like what you anticipate to be unrighteous behavior of publicly decrying hypotheses that are overwhelmingly favored despite having no supporting evidence. And your reasoning is, either it's not nice, or it's authoritarian of them to do so, or, possibly, you're deceiving yourself by privileging your own personal hypotheses that have no supporting evidence.
This is pretty accurate. Thanks for taking the time to understand.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 05:52:56 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 05:45:19 AM
I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.
That's a meaningless tautology. And no, what you're saying is incredibly stupid. I can think of a thousand different things that would raise my probability of deities. Obviously, none of those are occurring. There's no evidence. You're just privileging hypotheses. You might as well say "there could be a giant invisible sentient teapot", but why? Why do you postulate things for which there are no evidence? And why, if you do, do you allow them to be privileged as okay? Because they fucking aren't. It's so fucking close to Solipsism I can smell it. And you know what has been said of those types:
Quote from: Schuh and Brower - Phylogenetic SystematicsThe solipsist sits unassailable in his impenetrable fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we shall pass him by.
I.e. I'm wasting my fucking time talking with you.
Get over yourself. I criticized solipsism earlier in this thread. At best the entire concept is irrelevant.
Furthermore, you cant get it through your head the difference between a fact and opinion. Never did i say "don't weigh and consider evidence to make decisions"
If you dont know whether something is true,m you dont fucking know. PERIOD. How you live life and make decisions is a separate matter. Claiming you have knowledge of some unknowable Truth is ridiculous
by definitionQuit being so fucking dramatic. Quit try to make logical leaps from a simple statement.
I have to agree with Kai. You're conception of "Truth" seems to have a load of Aristotelian baggage along for the ride. Are you familiar with the quote from PD about little-t-truth and Capitol-T-Truth?
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 27, 2011, 07:54:35 AM
Actually, atheism (with a lowercase a) is a clear Bayesian reasoning chain in action. If you have so little evidence for something (essentially zero in this case), and your probability drops so close to zero, you take that position as false. Unless, of course, someone were to provide evidence, which would raise the probability, but no one has provided that evidence in the thousands of years people have been trying to. It's all either been antedoctal (like every holy book in existence) or filling in mysteries (which have been subsequently solved with science). It's simply a position, and there's no more to say about it than "I don't anticipate any deities or gods."
Agree, though would like to add that unless there is a specific claim being made the God question is essentially meaningless. Like if you claim a deity flooded the earth that could be examined by looking for flood deposits world wide. If you claim a deity carries the sun on his penis then you could examine the sun looking for a penis. It forces the deity into a position of being a "personal god", which losses much of it's sexiness. Also "personal gods" are so vague that I couldn't even begin to imagine what I could examine in that situation.
Also before i read the rest of the threat. Go to his website and try to get yourself banned. Take it from me it's actually quite easy.
Goes to show that just like a preacher who goes on about the gays ruining america and then is caught with gay prostitutes, people who go on and on about "free speech" and "free thinking" believe in no such thing.
Kai nailed it.
Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").
I hold that we currently do not NEED an undiscovered Truth in order to correctly model an accurate anticipation of reality. Therefore, we do not currently need to keep that spot open in our reasoning with a big question mark.
For example, I anticipate f=ma. I do not need to say "f=ma(+mysterious action)". When I anticipate f=ma, it turns out that f=ma. I can eliminate "mysterious actions" from my equation.
If ever there comes a time that I anticipate f=ma, and it turns out that f=\=ma, I MUST add "(+mysterious action)". The fact that my anticipation of reality is wrong forces me to add a question mark.
So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.
Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.
The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 28, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
Kai nailed it.
Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").
I hold that we currently do not NEED an undiscovered Truth in order to correctly model an accurate anticipation of reality. Therefore, we do not currently need to keep that spot open in our reasoning with a big question mark.
For example, I anticipate f=ma. I do not need to say "f=ma(+mysterious action)". When I anticipate f=ma, it turns out that f=ma. I can eliminate "mysterious actions" from my equation.
If ever there comes a time that I anticipate f=ma, and it turns out that f=\=ma, I MUST add "(+mysterious action)". The fact that my anticipation of reality is wrong forces me to add a question mark.
So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.
Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.
The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.
Exactly. Anything else is just privileging hypotheses.
But I'll add to that, I don't anticipate any such evidence appearing.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 06:45:53 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 05:52:56 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 28, 2011, 05:45:19 AM
I mean what I said in my first post. No one knows the unknowable. To claim to know the unknowable is stupid. People of science shouldn't engage in that type of stupidity.
That's a meaningless tautology. And no, what you're saying is incredibly stupid. I can think of a thousand different things that would raise my probability of deities. Obviously, none of those are occurring. There's no evidence. You're just privileging hypotheses. You might as well say "there could be a giant invisible sentient teapot", but why? Why do you postulate things for which there are no evidence? And why, if you do, do you allow them to be privileged as okay? Because they fucking aren't. It's so fucking close to Solipsism I can smell it. And you know what has been said of those types:
Quote from: Schuh and Brower - Phylogenetic SystematicsThe solipsist sits unassailable in his impenetrable fortress, but neither can he sally forth, so we shall pass him by.
I.e. I'm wasting my fucking time talking with you.
Get over yourself. I criticized solipsism earlier in this thread. At best the entire concept is irrelevant.
Furthermore, you cant get it through your head the difference between a fact and opinion. Never did i say "don't weigh and consider evidence to make decisions"
If you dont know whether something is true,m you dont fucking know. PERIOD. How you live life and make decisions is a separate matter. Claiming you have knowledge of some unknowable Truth is ridiculous by definition
Quit being so fucking dramatic. Quit try to make logical leaps from a simple statement.
I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.
Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.
Solipsism enjoys quite a convincing argument, and as one myself, i'm surprised there aren't more of us!
:wink:
Quote from: Iptuous on May 28, 2011, 07:39:32 PM
Solipsism enjoys quite a convincing argument, and as one myself, i'm surprised there aren't more of us!
:wink:
So, given the possibility that you might bounce upon impact, why don't you go jump off a cliff? :wink: :|
QUESTION EVERYTHING (but wear your seatbelt anyway).
the wink was supposed to indicate silly banter....
was joke. get it? :D
What I like about Solipsists is that they are easy to fuck with. It so easy to get them to believe complete and utter gibberish.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 28, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
Kai nailed it.
Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").
I hold that we currently do not NEED an undiscovered Truth in order to correctly model an accurate anticipation of reality. Therefore, we do not currently need to keep that spot open in our reasoning with a big question mark.
For example, I anticipate f=ma. I do not need to say "f=ma(+mysterious action)". When I anticipate f=ma, it turns out that f=ma. I can eliminate "mysterious actions" from my equation.
If ever there comes a time that I anticipate f=ma, and it turns out that f=\=ma, I MUST add "(+mysterious action)". The fact that my anticipation of reality is wrong forces me to add a question mark.
So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.
Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.
The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.
The only change I would make to this description, based on my personal zeteticism, would be to say that: Yes, we do not need an "extra variable", in your terms. But that is because we understand that the current state of knowledge (which I define as a collection of models, each having various probabilities of correlating anticipations to reality) is not static, but transitory.
Much like the Incompleteness Theorem of Mathematics, given our current models, there will always be new things to model. This is where I consider the "Tao", or "Eris" to dwell. Not as another Named Thing, but as the (nameless) ground-of-being.
As for the "Big-T Truth", lets look at that quote again, just so we're all on the same page here, because I was using the wrong terms. The accurate quote is:
"There are trivial truths and there are great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." -Neils Bohr
Most 'truth' expressed in every day language falls under trivial truth category. Simple ideas that are still whole thoughts are examples of greater truths. You can Love or Hate with your whole mind/being, in the same way that Motion implies Stillness.
I'll be honest, Tel, I didn't understand a word of that last paragraph.
Lol, fair enough.
"Water boils @ 100 degrees at sea level on planet Earth" is a trivial truth in Bohr's model, because the opposite ("Water does NOT boil...") is plainly and demonstrability false.
"Love" falls under 'greater truth', because it's opposite is also 'true'.
Or, how about, "What is the opposite of Gravity?"
It's a function of how we are using language to craft our "thought", which we then test for truth value.
Quote from: Telarus on May 29, 2011, 02:35:06 AM
Lol, fair enough.
"Water boils @ 100 degrees at sea level on planet Earth" is a trivial truth in Bohr's model, because the opposite ("Water does NOT boil...") is plainly and demonstrability false.
"Love" falls under 'greater truth', because it's opposite is also 'true'.
Or, how about, "What is the opposite of Gravity?"
It's a function of how we are using language to craft our "thought", which we then test for truth value.
"Love" isn't a truth, it's a term. It's a word. It's not a statement about an anticipation of reality.
Edit: Don't get me wrong, Bohr's statement sounds really profound, but it's actually very confused and muddled. There's a whole bunch of mixed term usage, which happen to be in using "truth" and "greater" and "lesser" and so people over the last 50 years have just bobbed their heads in reverence at it. But it's really not any more significant than "everything is connected" or "everything is part of everything else". /What/ "greater truths"? What is his definition of truth, and is he consistent in his usage? Etcetera.
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/
I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.
All of our terms anticipate _something_ about reality. That we can order them into meaningless arraignment does have to be recognized.
See, I knew it was a bad example when I typed it, but when I use the term I don't mean the symbol Love being = True in the "how closely does this model align with reality" sense.
I see it (and Bohr's statement) as a comment on Truth in the "musical(exactly-in-tune)", or "genuine(rightly or strictly called so)" sense. Maybe even in the verb sense ("brought into the exact shape, position or alignment required for...").
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 29, 2011, 03:28:02 AM
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/
I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.
I'm on the other end of a >10 year philosophy kick, and it's a pretty dead subject to me by and large, except where it has meaningful applications. I've lost almost all interest in ethics (not morals, there is a difference), and I've lost all interest in metaphysics, again, except where they lead to meaningful observational results.
I guess what I'm saying is that having grown up loving philosophy and taking tons of philosophy courses, I've had everything but rational empiricism beaten out of me.
Quote from: Telarus on May 29, 2011, 04:00:20 AM
All of our terms anticipate _something_ about reality. That we can order them into meaningless arraignment does have to be recognized.
See, I knew it was a bad example when I typed it, but when I use the term I don't mean the symbol Love being = True in the "how closely does this model align with reality" sense.
I see it (and Bohr's statement) as a comment on Truth in the "musical(exactly-in-tune)", or "genuine(rightly or strictly called so)" sense. Maybe even in the verb sense ("brought into the exact shape, position or alignment required for...").
Tel, I'm trying, but I still don't understand what you're getting at. Maybe you could dumb it down for me.
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
Godel Escher Bach actually explores this idea of truths of which the contradiction is also true. In a rational way.
It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember it being a lot more than just fluffy stuff.
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 04:07:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 29, 2011, 03:28:02 AM
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/
I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.
I'm on the other end of a >10 year philosophy kick, and it's a pretty dead subject to me by and large, except where it has meaningful applications. I've lost almost all interest in ethics (not morals, there is a difference), and I've lost all interest in metaphysics, again, except where they lead to meaningful observational results.
I guess what I'm saying is that having grown up loving philosophy and taking tons of philosophy courses, I've had everything but rational empiricism beaten out of me.
Aren't ethics more concerned with actual behavior?
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 04:39:32 PM
I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.
Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 29, 2011, 05:42:56 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 04:39:32 PM
I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.
Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?
And right there, you just begged the question.
But I already said I was done talking with you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 28, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
Let me try once more. Blackfoot seems to be saying that there could be some as-yet undiscovered aspect of the Universe that, if accepted and understood, could fundamentally change our entire understanding of the Universe ("an unknown big-t Truth").
There very well could be. As our understanding of the world around us increases it leads to more interesting questions which may be explored.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 28, 2011, 02:55:42 PM
So: if our anticipation of reality is accurate without a God factor, then we do not need to keep him in our model, or even the POSSIBILITY of a God in our model, just as we do not keep the possibility of invisible space weasels infesting Saturn.
Which allows us to say that God does not exist, in the same way we are allowed to say invisible space weasels from Saturn do not exist.
The moment our anticipation of reality proves inaccurate without the inclusion of an invisible space weasel, we will have to add that question mark, but never a moment sooner.
Your model is works brilliantly. The only limitation of these models is that you apply them to a scenario. A singular model does not encompass life and everything. So your model works when you say f=ma and that equation has nothing to do with God. That is knowledge gained about the scenario, a fact. A truth about reality. The possibility of God has nothing to do with scenario x.
Thus, you can claim space weasels are the cause of x phenomenon. I say I highly doubt that. But no hypothesis need be privileged when said phenomenon is investigated. Weasels needn't be included in the investigation whatsoever, nor does any dubious theory. Essentially, by saying i do not know, the question is ignored until it introduces itself as a factor. Until it makes itself a hypothesis that needs to be examined by virtue of evidence. Real evidence. Do you see what i'm driving at?
A mysterious force called Gravity and the idea of an earth that was round was once as ridiculous to the common man Space weasels. Yet science has shown that it is the case. Should we investigate space weasels? Existing evidence says no.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 29, 2011, 05:53:51 AM
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 29, 2011, 05:42:56 AM
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?
And right there, you just begged the question.
But I already said I was done talking with you.
That's fine. You are not obligated to reply to anything you dont want to. If you want to make claims and i challenge your claim you don't have to do or say anything to back it up. You arent obligated to do anything at all.
I havent privileged any hypothesis. When i examine a question, a hypothesis will compete with others to determine it's precedence in consideration
based on existing knowledge a.k.a. facts a.k.a. truth. So be it god or space weasels, they don't enter the equation until evidence raises them to the level of serious consideration.
ETA: Nor do i privilege any hypothesis when i say i do not know if god exists or not.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 29, 2011, 05:34:01 AM
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 04:07:01 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 29, 2011, 03:28:02 AM
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
I know, I was too. I nodded my head sagely like everyone else. But after further consideration I realized it's another one of those statements that just stir aquiecense in the listeners. Sorta like "everything is connected to everything else". Sorta a deep wisdom fallacy or something. http://lesswrong.com/lw/k8/how_to_seem_and_be_deep/
I know I reference Yudowsky a whole bunch, but why not? He's the only philosopher today that has their thoughts in line.
I'm on the other end of a >10 year philosophy kick, and it's a pretty dead subject to me by and large, except where it has meaningful applications. I've lost almost all interest in ethics (not morals, there is a difference), and I've lost all interest in metaphysics, again, except where they lead to meaningful observational results.
I guess what I'm saying is that having grown up loving philosophy and taking tons of philosophy courses, I've had everything but rational empiricism beaten out of me.
Aren't ethics more concerned with actual behavior?
That's morality. Ethics is moral philosophy.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on May 29, 2011, 05:32:02 AM
Quote from: Jasper on May 29, 2011, 03:19:37 AM
When I first heart that Bohr quote, I was mindblown. It has the virtue of expanding your thoughts, at least it did for me, but it doesn't really have a rational/definite meaning.
Godel Escher Bach actually explores this idea of truths of which the contradiction is also true. In a rational way.
It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember it being a lot more than just fluffy stuff.
I own that, and some MIT lectures on it, and I have tried time and again to read that book, but I just can't seem to crack it.
Gah, I'm buried in this lighting project at the moment (UDK). I'm going to have to bow out until I can reorganize and get other sources for what I have to say. Apologies Kai.
Quote from: Blackfoot on May 29, 2011, 05:42:56 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 04:39:32 PM
I already figured out your problem, there's nothing more to say. You're an apologist. You think it's perfectly find to privileged a hypothesis without any evidence. And you're upset with people you deem to be authority figures saying just the opposite.
Your psychological anguish and self-deception aren't my problem. This conversation is over. Good day.
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said I do not know whether God exists or not?
Which hypothesis did i privilege when i said it is unprovable either way so you shouldnt claim to know?
You're holding the idea of God as innately more worthy of reserved judgement compared to say, Russel's Teapot.
What Sylph said. The reason we're making stupid shit up like dragons, sentient teapots, and invisible space weasels is because they have the EXACT same probability of existing as God. The hypothesis you're privileging is the God concept over the Space Weasel concept. You have no evidence elevating God over Space Weasels, so they should have the same potential truth value, i.e. negligible.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on May 29, 2011, 02:26:24 PM
What Sylph said. The reason we're making stupid shit up like dragons, sentient teapots, and invisible space weasels is because they have the EXACT same probability of existing as God. The hypothesis you're privileging is the God concept over the Space Weasel concept. You have no evidence elevating God over Space Weasels, so they should have the same potential truth value, i.e. negligible.
So i guess you want me to say that these creatures do not exist. It is ridiculous to believe these things exist and far more appropriate to believe that they don't. I ask this; Is it better to operate under the assumption that these things do not exist or not consider their existence one way or the other?
How did this thread go from Dawkin's nearsighted bigoted poor world view to making me sorry for the shit that he has to go through?
I can honestly say I have absolutely no idea whether space weasels exist or not. But I do have a few questions about how we're defining "space weasels".
Space Weasels are closely related to the rarely seen, but vicious Ice Weasel:
QuoteLove is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come
Quote from: Cain on May 29, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Space Weasels are closely related to the rarely seen, but vicious Ice Weasel:
QuoteLove is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come
:lulz:
Quote from: Cain on May 29, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
Space Weasels are closely related to the rarely seen, but vicious Ice Weasel:
QuoteLove is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come
:mittens:
Quote from: Cain on May 29, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
QuoteLove is a snowmobile
racing across the tundra
and then
suddenly it flips over
pinning you underneath.
At night
the ice weasels come
Brilliant.
Thead over. Cain wins.
Thread reborn.
Apparently Dawkins believes that because of the horrors Muslim women are put through, it's apparently alright to be a general douchebag because it's nowhere near as bad as genital mutilation.
http://www.blaghag.com/2011/07/richard-dawkins-your-privilege-is.html
That would actually explain a lot about Dawkins and his general behaviour.
"Yeah? You think this is bad? Well POL POT KILLED 1/3 OF CAMBODIA! IN YOUR FACE!"
I am going to try this line of reasoning at work this week.
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2011, 02:37:32 AM
That would actually explain a lot about Dawkins and his general behaviour.
"Yeah? You think this is bad? Well POL POT KILLED 1/3 OF CAMBODIA! IN YOUR FACE!"
I am going to try this line of reasoning at work this week.
:lulz:
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
Wow. Seriously. WHAT THE FUCK.
Seems to be a variation on Red Herring, Appeal to Emotion/Pity/Ridicule and a bastardised version of the False Dilemma.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 02:39:41 AM
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.
It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.
Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.
I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".
The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 03:00:53 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 02:39:41 AM
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.
It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.
Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.
I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".
The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.
And it's still douchebaggery regardless.
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2011, 02:46:48 AM
Seems to be a variation on Red Herring, Appeal to Emotion/Pity/Ridicule and a bastardised version of the False Dilemma.
The closest thing I can think of would be apologetics (excusing a greater evil via lesser goods), except it's more like reverse apologetics, then.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 03:08:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2011, 02:46:48 AM
Seems to be a variation on Red Herring, Appeal to Emotion/Pity/Ridicule and a bastardised version of the False Dilemma.
The closest thing I can think of would be apologetics (excusing a greater evil via lesser goods), except it's more like reverse apologetics, then.
A Scitegolopa argument.
Quote from: BadBeast on July 05, 2011, 03:14:46 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 03:08:05 AM
Quote from: Cain on July 05, 2011, 02:46:48 AM
Seems to be a variation on Red Herring, Appeal to Emotion/Pity/Ridicule and a bastardised version of the False Dilemma.
The closest thing I can think of would be apologetics (excusing a greater evil via lesser goods), except it's more like reverse apologetics, then.
A Scitegolopa argument.
I think "reverse apologetic" or "minificatious" argument has a better ring.
I don't know who I wanna punch more... Dawkins or some of the people in the comment section
:x
help me choose
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 05, 2011, 03:21:49 AM
I don't know who I wanna punch more... Dawkins or some of the people in the comment section
:x
help me choose
I saw that too. Bleh.
What a douche. Glad to see the king of Pop atheism is still doing his best strip off any shred of credibility he once had.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 03:04:15 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 03:00:53 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 02:39:41 AM
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.
It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.
Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.
I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".
The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.
And it's still douchebaggery regardless.
Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 03:04:15 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 03:00:53 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 02:39:41 AM
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.
It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.
Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.
I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".
The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.
And it's still douchebaggery regardless.
Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.
So, after thinking about this some, it seems like Dawkins is primarily concerned with making religion look bad rather than promoting humanism.
He basically calls a fellow atheist for being a crybaby for getting wigged out by some creepy dude and uses it as an opportunity to slam Islam, which seems to be his main point in his post.
Maybe he was hitting the Scotch too?
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 05, 2011, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 03:04:15 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 03:00:53 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 02:39:41 AM
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.
It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.
Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.
I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".
The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.
And it's still douchebaggery regardless.
Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.
So, after thinking about this some, it seems like Dawkins is primarily concerned with making religion look bad rather than promoting humanism.
He basically calls a fellow atheist for being a crybaby for getting wigged out by some creepy dude and uses it as an opportunity to slam Islam, which seems to be his main point in his post.
Maybe he was hitting the Scotch too?
That right there has always been my impression of Dawkins. He's an anti-theist, not an atheist. I occasionally have this argument with a professed atheist friend of mine who, once he begins to talk about the subject, sounds much more anti religion than atheist.
He hates the label, but that shit still sticks.
Quote from: Disco Pickle on July 05, 2011, 04:14:38 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 05, 2011, 04:06:49 PM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 04:02:45 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 03:04:15 AM
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on July 05, 2011, 03:00:53 AM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 05, 2011, 02:39:41 AM
Is there a particular name for this sort of argument where a lesser evil is devalued to nothing through exposition of a greater evil?
If there is, I would like to know it, because that particular argument always pisses me off no end.
It's the "You shouldn't complain because other people have it worse" argument. Sometimes liked to the "there are children starving in India" argument, but that one actually has some validity (ie. appreciate what you have) whereas telling people they shouldn't complain because others have it worse is basically the same as calling them whiners.
Now, sometimes people really ARE whiners. But pointing out that it is frightening as well as rude to proposition a strange woman in a small enclosed space alone at 4am is not whining, just because nothing bad came of it.
I was really disturbed that at least one person kept using the phrase "a few words taken the wrong way" as if simply saying the wrong thing and being misunderstood could lead to rape. Rape is not the result of misunderstanding. It may be the result of opportunism, but never misunderstanding. The rapist mindset is about whether he thinks he can GET AWAY with it; the non-rapist is not going to rape someone because they "misunderstand a few words".
The problem is, alone in an elevator at 4 am with a strange man, you don't have any way of knowing whether he's a rapist or not, and whether or not women are being oppressed and mutilated elsewhere has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying that he was inherently wrong to proposition her. Just that the situation in which he propositioned her was threatening and he should have used better judgement. To me, the fact that a man propositioned me in the elevator alone at 4 am would tip my assessment of him into the "potential rapist" territory.
And it's still douchebaggery regardless.
Yes. Even if the intention behind it was not predatory, the complete lack of awareness or concern of how threatening it would seem is self-absorbed, ignorant, and douchey.
So, after thinking about this some, it seems like Dawkins is primarily concerned with making religion look bad rather than promoting humanism.
He basically calls a fellow atheist for being a crybaby for getting wigged out by some creepy dude and uses it as an opportunity to slam Islam, which seems to be his main point in his post.
Maybe he was hitting the Scotch too?
That right there has always been my impression of Dawkins. He's an anti-theist, not an atheist. I occasionally have this argument with a professed atheist friend of mine who, once he begins to talk about the subject, sounds much more anti religion than atheist.
He hates the label, but that shit still sticks.
Yeah, there's a difference between not having any gods and religious intolerance. Seems like people miss the distinction sometimes.
Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.
BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?
Well if the atheist in question is offended by theists it goes to follow that they would be just as offended by agnostics since they say they dont know. The atheist is a believer of sorts even though i know atheists hate hearing that. At least dawkins type of atheist. Since you know as said previously atheist just means some one who doesnt have any gods.
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 06, 2011, 01:51:10 AM
Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.
BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?
IMO, it's not horrible, there's just no reason for it (from a Bayesian perspective).
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on May 28, 2011, 03:51:28 AM
And Feynman,
QuoteI have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.
Not true for a magic eightball.
There are definitely things for which taking them apart or figuring out how they work
does subtract from their awesomeness, mysteriousness or excitingness.
Doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, BTW. It's just that, it doesn't always "only adds". There's a deeper and more important reason why you take things apart to see how they work, not because it always only adds to the beauty of the thing.
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 06, 2011, 03:44:52 AM
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 06, 2011, 01:51:10 AM
Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.
BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?
IMO, it's not horrible, there's just no reason for it (from a Bayesian perspective).
Yeah, although I prefer identifying as agnostic in some ways, not least because it doesn't associate me with the assholery of Dawkins, Sam Harris etc (whose atheism seems curiously
Islamic orientated, as shown ITT, and thus a political project, with political implications), it's philosophical hair-splitting and privileging the hypothesis, in the worst cases.
As for why some atheists find it horrible, it's for the same reasons Stalinists find Social Democrats so horrible. They're very close to their viewpoint, but different enough that they are competing for the same larger pool of recruits. What strengthens agnostic atheists weakens Atheist atheists and vice-versa.
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2011, 05:11:48 PM
Quote from: ϗ, M.S. on July 06, 2011, 03:44:52 AM
Quote from: nurbldoff on July 06, 2011, 01:51:10 AM
Dawkins appears to be personally offended by people who believe in things he doesn't. I know some people with similar behaviour, they just can't stand the idea that some just don't behave as rationally as them. So they are very emotional from the start, which usually isn't very good for the quality of the debate. I tend to see it mostly as a matter of taste; everybody has tastes that they can't reason rationally about. Some people are just more "taste driven" than others.
BTW, I wonder why agnosticism in particular seems so horrible to (some) atheists?
IMO, it's not horrible, there's just no reason for it (from a Bayesian perspective).
Yeah, although I prefer identifying as agnostic in some ways, not least because it doesn't associate me with the assholery of Dawkins, Sam Harris etc (whose atheism seems curiously Islamic orientated, as shown ITT, and thus a political project, with political implications), it's philosophical hair-splitting and privileging the hypothesis, in the worst cases.
As for why some atheists find it horrible, it's for the same reasons Stalinists find Social Democrats so horrible. They're very close to their viewpoint, but different enough that they are competing for the same larger pool of recruits. What strengthens agnostic atheists weakens Atheist atheists and vice-versa.
Well, what's the goal here? To convert people or to take a stand against religious fundamentalism? If it's to convert people, that makes sense to a degree, but if it's to take on religious fundamentalism, sticking together, along with mainstream religious organizations, seems kinda key to me.
Otherwise it seems to me like atheists and agnostics really don't have much reason to give a crap what other people believe in.
And yeah, it does seem to be taking on a particularly anti-Muslim tone lately.
The goal is to convert people.
Also atheists (of the Harris/Dawkins school) seem to think, by and large, the existence of large numbers of religious people on their own constitutes a threat, while secular atheists and agnostics are more interested in seperating the role of Church and State etc...therefore there is a strategic disconnect, with the more hardline of the former unwilling to work with even secular theists because they percieve the situation in different terms.
Quote from: DANGEROUS DOPE FIEND on May 29, 2011, 04:08:16 PM
I can honestly say I have absolutely no idea whether space weasels exist or not. But I do have a few questions about how we're defining "space weasels".
(http://i.imgur.com/wWJtO.gif)
Quote from: Cain on July 06, 2011, 05:21:03 PM
The goal is to convert people.
Also atheists (of the Harris/Dawkins school) seem to think, by and large, the existence of large numbers of religious people on their own constitutes a threat, while secular atheists and agnostics are more interested in seperating the role of Church and State etc...therefore there is a strategic disconnect, with the more hardline of the former unwilling to work with even secular theists because they percieve the situation in different terms.
And they don't realize that not only do they have no chance of making the world atheist anytime soon, but that they are actually hindering their own efforts by looking like the intolerant douchebag club? So much for rationality I guess....
They can recruit other douchebags. There is a lot of them out there I tell you.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on July 06, 2011, 05:46:36 PM
They can recruit other douchebags. There is a lot of them out there I tell you.
Yeah, but most of them are trolling for Team Jesus.
Bump. At long last, it makes sense (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html)...
QuoteRichard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and scientist, has admitted that he is a "secular Christian" because he hankers after the nostalgia and traditions of the church.
Quote from: Cain on May 25, 2014, 12:59:12 PM
Bump. At long last, it makes sense (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html)...
QuoteRichard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and scientist, has admitted that he is a "secular Christian" because he hankers after the nostalgia and traditions of the church.
:lulz:
Dawkins, 73, reveals himself to be batshit crazy.
DEAR ATHEISTS:
JUST KIDDING, ENJOY YOUR STAY IN HELL.
LOVE & KISSES,
RICHARD DAWKINS
:horror:
Moar light I bring to the blacks. Yay!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 26, 2014, 05:39:34 AM
DEAR ATHEISTS:
JUST KIDDING, ENJOY YOUR STAY IN HELL.
LOVE & KISSES,
RICHARD DAWKINS
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: