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

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

Take God out of the equation.  At present, what is the best running theory on creation?  There was nothing and then it exploded?

Why is there something instead of nothing?  Because nothing is unstable.   Well I read that somewhere a good while back and it made sense to me. 

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

Take God out of the equation.  At present, what is the best running theory on creation?  There was nothing and then it exploded?

The big bang was an expansion not an explosion, and it wasn't nothing either. As far as we can tell it was everything condensed into an infinitesimal point.

But even if it was? Sure why not? It's no less believable than any deity.

[LongRider]

9 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

The big bang was an expansion not an explosion, and it wasn't nothing either. As far as we can tell it was everything condensed into an infinitesimal point.

But even if it was? Sure why not? It's no less believable than any deity.

If god is outside of time and not of this world and all of that other religo-babble, then god is incoherent.  The cause of the Big Bang may be unknowable at the moment but it doesn't seem to be incoherent.  An expansion, yes, I think that is more correct than nothing.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 hours ago, Rorshach said:

Tywin was rather disparaging in his comments. He has since disappeared, but I suspect he’ll return - but in the process he spoke rather definitive (like you do) about Christians - to Christians - saying how they were this and that. 

I didn’t disappear, I went on vacation, and that is a complete misrepresentation regarding my comments. After reading this thread, I think the clearest analysis is that you’re unwilling to accept that you might be wrong about your beliefs. People have repeatedly answered your questions and you dismiss them every time with very questionable reasoning while yelling, “But but but I have a Master’s degree.”

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

you’re unwilling to accept that you might be wrong about your beliefs.

Genuine question: is it possible for a committed Christian to accept this? Or does the notion of 'faith' run too deep? I'm not trying to attack Christians, it just seems like if you went to a priest and said 'I may be wrong about my beliefs', that would be seen as a problem, something to be dealt with, someone to be sheaperded back to the flock as such. I've heard "there is a god" plenty, never "there's probably a god".

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I didn’t disappear, I went on vacation, and that is a complete misrepresentation regarding my comments. After reading this thread, I think the clearest analysis is that you’re unwilling to accept that you might be wrong about your beliefs. People have repeatedly answered your questions and you dismiss them every time with very questionable reasoning while yelling, “But but but I have a Master’s degree.”

Well, saying I’ve yelled «I have a Master’s degree» is certainly wrong.  I have mentioned it to you - and only you - once. Perhaps it came across poorly, I don’t know, but that is the one time I’ve said it (and it was intended as a simple information as to background).

So quite how you end up with the assertion you finish with is beyond me. It is most certainly not based on my writing.

A genuine question then would be «why should I accept your analysis when you assert things about me that you cannot know (last thread) or completely misrepresent (this thread)». 

[Eggegg]

17 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Following on from before, where do people stand on this Tyson v Dawkins issue?

I broadly agree with Tyson. If you actually want to win people over, I think his methods are more effective.

Yeah I have to agree with Tyson as well. I used to be a big fan of Dawkins and the pointed way he would attack religious people would really make me feel superior and it felt great, I will admit it. It certainly strengthened my position on the matter. 

Now if I was religious would I respond in the same way? I doubt it. Often what I see in all discussions is that the more someone takes a hard line, offensive position in one direction, the more people tend to move in the opposite direction when pressed. I don't think Dawkins really gets to the heart of why people need religion and I'm not sure he cares. I mean he often talks about the beauty and the wonder of the universe and getting great comfort from that, but I don't know if that is the only reason people seem to need some sort of spiritual element in their lives. 
 

[TrueMetis]

11 minutes ago, Rorshach said:

Well, saying I’ve yelled «I have a Master’s degree» is certainly wrong.  I have mentioned it to you - and only you - once. Perhaps it came across poorly, I don’t know, but that is the one time I’ve said it (and it was intended as a simple information as to background).

So quite how you end up with the assertion you finish with is beyond me. It is most certainly not based on my writing.

A genuine question then would be «why should I accept your analysis when you assert things about me that you cannot know (last thread) or completely misrepresent (this thread)». 

No you didn't dude. You mentioned it to Dr. Pepper too, and in both cases you very clearly were attempting to use that to set yourself up as an authority not at all intending it as "simple background information as to background" cause none of us give a shit about your background. It's irrelevant.

I don't know what this is that you keep contradicting yourself, whether it's ignorance or something more sinister, but it's not working. This is a written forum, it has a history. We can check what you've said.

Anyway on the Tyson thing.

There are several points 1) is the fact that I don't feel many of these people deserve the consideration 2) is that I know it works anyway. I've heard stories, and indeed have people come to me personally, about how the barbed mockery was exactly what they needed to make the realization 3) is that quite frankly I'm not sure it's possible to be "sensitive" enough for a lot of the religious. Someone give me a way to explain to the religious how ridiculous their views are without offending them? And if you say "don't treat their views as ridiculous" well I'm not going to do that, cause I'm not going to lie. If you need to lie to make a point it's not a point worth making.

[Rorshach]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

No you didn't dude. You mentioned it to Dr. Pepper too, and in both cases you very clearly were attempting to use that to set yourself up as an authority not at all intending it as "simple background information as to background" cause none of us give a shit about your background. It's irrelevant.(1) and (2)

I don't know what this is that you keep contradicting yourself, whether it's ignorance or something more sinister, but it's not working. This is a written forum, it has a history. We can check what you've said.

(1)Sorry, I missed that when I went through it. I have, in fact, mentioned it twice.

(2) The training in historic methodology is irrelevant to a discussion about texts, history, the changing of text and such. Dude, that assertion is ridiculous. 

As for whether it is attempteed to «set myself up as an authority»... it isn’t. You read it that way, sure, but you read everything from Christians in the worst manner you can, it seems. I don’t really care about that. 

I mention it, as I say in (2) above, because it actually happens to be relevant, and just asserting things to me about history isn’t changing anything. 

As for what I said about @Tywin et al. going away - sorry, didn’t mean it like «chickened out». Which I thought should be read from the «he’ll be back» afterwards, but it seems like you are intent on reading everything I say combatatively, like TrueMetis. Too bad. Means the discussion will deteriorate, and I still want to hear your arguments.

[Seli]

3 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Genuine question: is it possible for a committed Christian to accept this? Or does the notion of 'faith' run too deep? I'm not trying to attack Christians, it just seems like if you went to a priest and said 'I may be wrong about my beliefs', that would be seen as a problem, something to be dealt with, someone to be sheaperded back to the flock as such. I've heard "there is a god" plenty, never "there's probably a god".

Apparently there are plenty of agnostic Anglican priests, I assume it is also common in Roman Catholicism and the other more hierarchical churches where priesthood becomes a job.

[mankytoes]

6 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Yeah I have to agree with Tyson as well. I used to be a big fan of Dawkins and the pointed way he would attack religious people would really make me feel superior and it felt great, I will admit it. It certainly strengthened my position on the matter. 

Now if I was religious would I respond in the same way? I doubt it. Often what I see in all discussions is that the more someone takes a hard line, offensive position in one direction, the more people tend to move in the opposite direction when pressed. I don't think Dawkins really gets to the heart of why people need religion and I'm not sure he cares. I mean he often talks about the beauty and the wonder of the universe and getting great comfort from that, but I don't know if that is the only reason people seem to need some sort of spiritual element in their lives. 
 

I think hearing Dawkins for the first time can feel somewhat liberating; as I was saying earlier, we're always told to apologise for our atheism, to minimise it. So hearing someone just brilliantly articulate all our frustrations and criticisms, it's great. But eventually, I think most people realise being really outspoken isn't actually always the best course of action. There's nothing dishonest about showing tact at times.

I totally agree. That's why when that person was defending Trump's alleged sexual assaults on that other thread, instead of just mocking them and calling them an idiot, I tried to stay cool and go through point by point. Tyson style, not Dawkins style.

I think Stephen Hawking put it best- "heaven is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark". I agree with him that there is great beauty and comfort in science and nature. To put another quote in, Douglas Adams- "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?".

[Iskaral Pust]

17 hours ago, King Ned Stark said:

Take God out of the equation.  At present, what is the best running theory on creation?  There was nothing and then it exploded?

Pre-Big Bang is unobservable to us at present.  And there may plausibly be a vast array of things that are unobservable to us, e.g. other "universes" (we should really drop the "uni") too distant in space-time to see, our own universe going through successive cycles of expansion and contraction with varying values for the cosmological constant until we reach the current instance where the cosmological constant is high enough for the universe to end in entropy (slowly enough for us to emerge to observe it) rather than contraction, other universes at different energy levels, etc.  There are lots of theories, but no data or testable hypotheses yet.

I don't understand why we have to call any unknown "god", especially when there is no evidence of agency involved.  We may even have to accept that within the limits of our lifespans and perception range, we will probably never be able to observe/measure phenomena beyond a certain scale.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Genuine question: is it possible for a committed Christian to accept this? Or does the notion of 'faith' run too deep? I'm not trying to attack Christians, it just seems like if you went to a priest and said 'I may be wrong about my beliefs', that would be seen as a problem, something to be dealt with, someone to be sheaperded back to the flock as such. I've heard "there is a god" plenty, never "there's probably a god".

For some it is and for others it isn't. And as far as going to your religious leader and professing your doubt, again, results will vary. For example, my step-brother told our rabbi when he was 10 that he didn't believe in god anymore and his response was to tell him that it's OK and for some Jews acquiring knowledge is the religion, not belief in god. I told the same rabbi at around the same age a few years later that I think it's silly for anyone to believe anything in the Torah because the opening chapters are laughably wrong and he said that was a fair opinion to have and that it's healthy to have some level of skepticism when studying religion. But our temple and our rabbi were reform and very laid back. If we had grown up in an orthodox setting I'm sure we would have hid these beliefs and been punished severely if we voiced them.

[Which Tyler]

7 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Genuine question: is it possible for a committed Christian to accept this? Or does the notion of 'faith' run too deep? I'm not trying to attack Christians, it just seems like if you went to a priest and said 'I may be wrong about my beliefs', that would be seen as a problem, something to be dealt with, someone to be sheaperded back to the flock as such. I've heard "there is a god" plenty, never "there's probably a god".

You've obviously never heard of the Church of England

[Martell Spy]

4 hours ago, Seli said:

Apparently there are plenty of agnostic Anglican priests, I assume it is also common in Roman Catholicism and the other more hierarchical churches where priesthood becomes a job.

There's a great character on the Young Pope like this. I think it was likely even more common back when priests had more political power.

[DMC]

@Martell Spy

On Friday you expressed surprise that there was bullying among atheist grad students towards those that hold beliefs.  Since then, there have been plenty of posts that demonstrate precisely the type of aggressive attitude directed towards believers that I was referring to.  This is, essentially, what I was referring to and meant by intellectual bullying.

[King Ned Stark]

3 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Pre-Big Bang is unobservable to us at present.  And there may plausibly be a vast array of things that are unobservable to us, e.g. other "universes" (we should really drop the "uni") too distant in space-time to see, our own universe going through successive cycles of expansion and contraction with varying values for the cosmological constant until we reach the current instance where the cosmological constant is high enough for the universe to end in entropy (slowly enough for us to emerge to observe it) rather than contraction, other universes at different energy levels, etc.  There are lots of theories, but no data or testable hypotheses yet.

I don't understand why we have to call any unknown "god", especially when there is no evidence of agency involved.  We may even have to accept that within the limits of our lifespans and perception range, we will probably never be able to observe/measure phenomena beyond a certain scale.

Perhaps (and this isn’t directed at you but the other posters who quoted me) I shouldn’t have used the word creation, maybe origin would have been better.   I’ll admit, creation is easier for me, or comes more naturally, but it was not meant as some kind of slight.

The overall point I was trying to get to is that life, existence, creation, our origin; is at this point, and perhaps always will be, beyond our comprehension.  I wasn’t raised in the church, quite the opposite.  My road to believing was long and troubled and filled with doubt.  Every believer has doubts, just as I assume every unbeliever does too.  It’s our nature.

@dmc515, cut to the core of what I was trying to say.

[King Ned Stark]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

@Martell Spy

On Friday you expressed surprise that there was bullying among atheist grad students towards those that hold beliefs.  Since then, there have been plenty of posts that demonstrate precisely the type of aggressive attitude directed towards believers that I was referring to.  This is, essentially, what I was referring to and meant by intellectual bullying.

I appreciate your point, but I don’t know that I’d call it intellectual bullying.  Perhaps in their eyes, but all their learning they learned from other biased people.  It is a weakness to think you are the smartest person in the room.  I’m not saying you think this way, just that the term intellectual bullying implies atheists have some kind of observable truth that they actually don’t have.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, King Ned Stark said:

I appreciate your point, but I don’t know that I’d call it intellectual bullying.  Perhaps in their eyes, but all their learning they learned from other biased people.  It is a weakness to think you are the smartest person in the room.  I’m not saying you think this way, just that the term intellectual bullying implies atheists have some kind of observable truth that they actually don’t have.

I really don't care to get into an existential argument, but I will explain.  What I was referring to, specifically, was fellow grad students - some of which are still friends of mine - making fun of Mormon doctrine.  Now, I am not going to pretend I do not entirely agree with them on the ridiculousness that they were referring to, but that's kind of the point.  There's a tendency among some to treat more esoteric or "fringe" religions differently than mainstream faiths.  For instance, if you say you're Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness, it's much more likely you'll be viewed as strange than if you say you're Catholic or Methodist.

I find that distinction fascinating from my perspective.  In fact, I almost find it backwards.  At least Mormons and JWs did not construct institutions that are responsible for countless deaths.  Anyway, point is, while the story of Joseph Smith and whatnot is achingly dumb, I really don't find it any more dumb than anyone else that professes religious beliefs.  Therefore, I don't know why this certain Mormon graduate cohort should be ridiculed anymore than, say, the bevy of Catholic students we have in the Latin American department.  Which of course means no religious cohorts should be ridiculed.  Which, consequently, means maybe shut the fuck up and respect others' beliefs and just have fun. 

Do I find organized religion dumb?  Yep, have so since before I can remember.  Have I learned others feel differently and that - belief or not - doesn't really mean anything about an individual's intelligence, let alone their content of character?  Yeah, that too.  So, that's where I'm coming from.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 The thing I find kind of interesting is somewhat specific to this board but also to fans of Fantasy as a whole. I know this is a generalization, but it seems to me that a somewhat overwhelming percentage of us are non-believers, which kind of flies in the face of what one might think.