Non Believers: I'm What's Called a Pessimist

[TrueMetis]

45 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Somebody being called an idiot is a fairly robust indicator of bullying taking place. It's not always the case because this word can be used playfully between close friends or relatives, but in the context you are describing, your approach almost certainly amounts to bullying. It is possible to point out that homeopathy makes no sense without the ad hominem attack. It's even worse to apply this methodology to religion because, unlike with homeopathy, almost any non-trivial claim regarding religion is completely unverifiable.

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. "You believe x you're an idiot" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "you're an idiot therefore your argument is wrong."

ETA:

Quote

almost any non-trivial claim regarding religion is completely unverifiable.

This highlights a difference in thinking. IMO accepting something that's completely unverifiable and accepting something that has been proven wrong is functionally the same.

Though I would disagree and argue that plenty of non-trivial claims about religion are verifiable and have been shown false. It's just that when that happens religion sidesteps the issue or ignore the facts and keep pretending it happened anyway. See Jews in Egypt, everything being specially created, Noah's flood, etc.

ETA2: Since y'all are so concerned about bullying suddenly I have to wonder where that concern was in the US politics thread when someone linked to the PoTUS using an event honouring Native American vets to call a political opponent "Pocahontas." If me calling someone an idiot is bullying than what the fuck is that?

[Stubby]

4 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. "You believe x you're an idiot" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "you're an idiot therefore your argument is wrong."

Correct.

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

As an aside, it's rather sad that the debates regarding religion are overwhelmingly focused on the ancient stuff and not on ideas from people who have access to modern science and philosophy.

You mean like Krauss, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Schafersman, Barker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pinker, Shermer, Grayling etc etc?

[Altherion]

37 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is. "You believe x you're an idiot" is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is "you're an idiot therefore your argument is wrong."

Not seeing much of a difference given that in your original post, the idiocy of belief and believer are intertwined.

38 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

This highlights a difference in thinking. IMO accepting something that's completely unverifiable and accepting something that has been proven wrong is functionally the same.

Not really. For example, the statement "No NP-complete problem can be solved in polynomial time" is, to the best of our current knowledge, unverifiable... but if we knew that it was proven wrong, I assure you that we would not be using NP-complete problems for cryptography.

45 minutes ago, Stubby said:

You mean like Krauss, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Schafersman, Barker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pinker, Shermer, Grayling etc etc?

I am not familiar with all of those, but the ones that I've read are among those who are focused on the old religions.

[Stubby]

33 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I am not familiar with all of those, but the ones that I've read are among those who are focused on the old religions.

Oh.  Thought you were talking about people who approached religion with the benefit of expertise in science and philosophy, not approaching any new religious belief.

What new religions are you referring to and how they are different to old religions?

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Not seeing much of a difference given that in your original post, the idiocy of belief and believer are intertwined.

Yes, which means I'm not using the believers idiocy to discredit the belief.

Quote

Not really. For example, the statement "No NP-complete problem can be solved in polynomial time" is, to the best of our current knowledge, unverifiable... but if we knew that it was proven wrong, I assure you that we would not be using NP-complete problems for cryptography.

I'm not sure how this addresses my point. So I'm going to go to bed and look at it again tomorrow.

[Altherion]

24 minutes ago, Stubby said:

Oh.  Thought you were talking about people who approached religion with the benefit of expertise in science and philosophy, not approaching any new religious belief.

What new religions are you referring to and how they are different to old religions?

They're not actually religions in the traditional sense, but they try to answer the same questions as religions typically do. The most prominent example is probably the simulation argument (here's the original paper, there's a bunch of variations on the same theme). There are also weird interpretations of quantum mechanics which make quasi-religious statements. A lot of these are by people who have no idea what they're talking about, but some (like the one I linked) are by people who know quantum mechanics about as well as anyone and are quite difficult to disprove.

[Stubby]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

They're not actually religions in the traditional sense, but they try to answer the same questions as religions typically do. The most prominent example is probably the simulation argument (here's the original paper, there's a bunch of variations on the same theme). There are also weird interpretations of quantum mechanics which make quasi-religious statements. A lot of these are by people who have no idea what they're talking about, but some (like the one I linked) are by people who know quantum mechanics about as well as anyone and are quite difficult to disprove.

The simulation argument has a lot of problems.  Like religious belief, it is unfalsifiable.  It is unfalsifiable because an simulation would look exactly like the universe we can observe. As with all beliefs, the probability of it being true depends on the assumptions one makes.  This goes back to what i said earlier about needing to know why there is a need for creation.  If you assume a creator (or a computer simulation) you will be able to reach a conclusion based on thinking alone that will end with at least the possibility of a creator or a computer simulation.  But a possibility is not a probability or indeed a factual likelihood.  It doesn't even get you over the (civil) standard of proof that I require (a legal concept simply meaning more likely than not).

As to your first idea based on this sort of thing, viz "

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

As an aside, it's rather sad that the debates regarding religion are overwhelmingly focused on the ancient stuff and not on ideas from people who have access to modern science and philosophy.

I guess it's because the simulation theory just isn't that interesting.  As the RationalWiki authors put it:

Quote

"It's just a philosophical thought experiment that gets taken seriously by some people."

 

[DaveSumm]

21 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It can certainly be bullying in a sense, but is it not also necessary? For example, last night I was chatting with an ex on Facebook about politics and her religious beliefs came out. I encouraged her to think outside the box and her world view because she could be wrong, and her response was to say that I had committed a mortal sin by encouraging to question her god and that meant I would burn in hell. What do you do with that other than bully the hell out of the person for their moronic world view?

This very post makes its own point weirdly, in that we're all discussing whether it's bullying to point out to this person that they're probably wrong .... when they explicitly said that you would burn in hell. This is the exact double standard we've been talking about, if we (atheists) say you're probably wrong, it's bullying. Meanwhile we weather threats of eternal damnation, and that's OK.

As to the Dawkins / Tyson debate from a few pages back, I followed the same path most seemed to, in that when I first started really discovering my atheism (as in, going from indifference to realising how daft the whole thing is), Dawkins was exactly what I needed to read. I was learning about all the classic refutations of religious thinking for the first time. The only reason I drifted away from it is simply that it never changed. The arguments don't work against fervently religious people, and so the debate doesn't actually move on. It's as if this thread was started in 2007, and then you came back 10 years later to find that the exact same posters were having the exact same argument; it's not that I'd disagree, it would just seem sad. That's the inevitable trajectory with atheism I guess, ultimately it has no substance as it's a refutation and not an affirmation. So I just can't remain 'passionate' about it.

[Eggegg]

What I find quite interesting is really how the US can still be such a largely religious country, when I look at many countries in Europe and they are slowly becoming more and more Atheist. Maybe someone from the US can explain that? 

From my perspective it does seem like religion is a completely outdated concept and has little place in a modern society, and yet here we are in the 21st century and the world superpower is still largely guided by a superstition. I get the sense that many people in power or high up are not religious at all, and may well be atheist, but that the social penalty for saying you are not religious is too great. Unlike in the UK where politicians are distrusted for being religious, Tim Farron for instance. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Eggegg said:

What I find quite interesting is really how the US can still be such a largely religious country, when I look at many countries in Europe and they are slowly becoming more and more Atheist. Maybe someone from the US can explain that? 

The US is slowly becoming less religious too. It’s just that the deeply devout crowd is still the loudest voice, and you still have to be religious to run for office.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The US is slowly becoming less religious too. It’s just that the deeply devout crowd is still the loudest voice, and you still have to be religious to run for office.

Would you say there was a red state / blue state divide?

[IheartIheartTesla]

Not particularly, African Americans and Hispanics for instance tend to be more religious which makes the data a little less clean-cut (I think, havent actually seen demographic data).

[MercenaryChef]

23 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

I actually think atheists are in aggregate far more polite and respectful than theists.  There is less proselytizing or even inquiry about belief by atheists, and certainly no forcible conversion or overt persecution.  Atheists generally demur out of good manners to avoid shock and awe.  I wouldn't be surprised if intellectual bullying occurs sometimes by a small minority of jerks seeking social dominance, but that is nothing compared to evangelism, religious law, etc.  And that's the nature of bullying rather than the nature of atheism.

If anyone felt intellectually bullied in this thread, for example by my description of theism as an intellectual and/or emotional immaturity, then I'm afraid you cannot claim bullying when you knowingly enter a discussion about unbelief which will contain impersonal contrasts between belief and unbelief.  If you have become over dependent on the cultural lip service toward your faith, then I suggest you start acquiring some resistance through exposure.  You don't have to undertake your own rationalism journey but the demographic trend certainly suggests that you prepare yourself for more dissenting views. 

a brilliant and well put post. 

thank you. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

By the way, just to get away from bullying and whatnot, I'm glad multiverses and string theory were brought up. Many people probably know I am a great fan of either approach.

To me, it is the closest that scientists and scientifically minded people can get to religion, particularly using these 'frameworks' as articles of faith as a way to understand the universe (still wont say multiple universes). Strings are literally impossible to observe, and there is also no way for these other universes to interact with ours. It does make for a fascinating metaphysical discussion (at least IMHO).

[mankytoes]

4 hours ago, Eggegg said:

What I find quite interesting is really how the US can still be such a largely religious country, when I look at many countries in Europe and they are slowly becoming more and more Atheist. Maybe someone from the US can explain that? 

From my perspective it does seem like religion is a completely outdated concept and has little place in a modern society, and yet here we are in the 21st century and the world superpower is still largely guided by a superstition. I get the sense that many people in power or high up are not religious at all, and may well be atheist, but that the social penalty for saying you are not religious is too great. Unlike in the UK where politicians are distrusted for being religious, Tim Farron for instance. 

I think the most popular view is that it's primarily a result of Cold War propaganda. After the Second World War, I don't think there was a big gap in religious observance between Europe and the USA. The Americans added "In God We Trust" to their currency in '57, and being a Christian was very much promoted as the alternative to being a Godless commie atheist.

[Eggegg]

5 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I think the most popular view is that it's primarily a result of Cold War propaganda. After the Second World War, I don't think there was a big gap in religious observance between Europe and the USA. The Americans added "In God We Trust" to their currency in '57, and being a Christian was very much promoted as the alternative to being a Godless commie atheist.

Hmm, hadn't considered that! Interesting. I remember on the Joe Rogan podcast someone came up with the idea that its due to the overly religious nature of many of the early settlers, and that has filtered down, whereas in Europe we just offloaded all the religious nuts to the colonies. I don't think I buy that idea.

[mankytoes]

36 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Hmm, hadn't considered that! Interesting. I remember on the Joe Rogan podcast someone came up with the idea that its due to the overly religious nature of many of the early settlers, and that has filtered down, whereas in Europe we just offloaded all the religious nuts to the colonies. I don't think I buy that idea.

Yeah, I've heard that and I thought it might make sense, but as I say, from what I've read the gap is a recent thing. To be clear, Americans haven't gotten more religious since then, it's just that Europeans have got way less religious. Which is the trend for developed countries- America is very unusual in that it's both rich and religious.

https://www.skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/files/2015/03/GDP-vs-religion.jpg

[HexMachina]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

The US is slowly becoming less religious too. It’s just that the deeply devout crowd is still the loudest voice, and you still have to be religious to run for office.

You mean legally or logistically? (I.e. a non-religious person and/or atheist would never be elected) genuine question. Either way, I still have to wonder why this is the case. I personally would place more trust in someone not guid8ng their lives by what I find to be superstitious nonesense  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

You mean legally or logistically? (I.e. a non-religious person and/or atheist would never be elected) genuine question. Either way, I still have to wonder why this is the case. I personally would place more trust in someone not guid8ng their lives by what I find to be superstitious nonesense  

Logistically. It's illegal to bar someone from running for office, but polling data indicates that a lot of people won't vote for a non-believer. Thankfully it's a lot better than it was 20 years ago, but still, 40% of Americans would not:

Quote

Among religious identities, while the large majority of Americans would vote for a Catholic or Jewish presidential candidate, smaller majorities say they would vote for a candidate who is Mormon (81%), an evangelical Christian (73%), Muslim (60%) or an atheist (58%).

http://news.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

I'm actually really surprised that more people would support a Mormon than an Evangelical. That's rather shocking. The same poll also found that only 47% of those polled would vote for a socialist. I know this isn't the U.S. politics thread, but that's specifically why Sanders would have had a hard time winning the General election. A socialist non-practicing Jew would lose a lot of votes right from the get go. 

And yeah, I agree. If you're a Republican in a red district (i.e. always votes for Republicans) literally all you have to do is say how much you love god and Jesus and you're in like sin. 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

You mean legally or logistically? (I.e. a non-religious person and/or atheist would never be elected) genuine question. Either way, I still have to wonder why this is the case. I personally would place more trust in someone not guid8ng their lives by what I find to be superstitious nonesense  

There are a handful of states that have laws on the books that prevent atheists from running for office, probably many more municipalities and counties.  I'm sure they are unenforceable, but they still exist.  It's mostly logistics.  There are probably plenty of atheists in office, but in congress there are none who are open about it.  Even Bernie Sanders danced around the atheism issue during the campaign, which some Democratic staffers even discussing using it against it (thankfully it never came to that).  Peddling words about god is often a plus and even necessary for politicians here.