Aethiest sister vs intellectually lazy relgious sister

[El Chico]

[quote name='snake' post='1648156' date='Jan 13 2009, 22.55']Well, from the original post by the OP it just seems like a lot of whining. Honestly, as an atheist myself I've never heard so may people moan and complain about their sorry lot in life as the atheists on this board. I'm surrounded by theists. My family and all my friends are and yet it doesn't really bother me if they think I'm on the wrong path or doomed to hell or whatever. I just deal with people and in a backwoods, fairly illiterate, uneducated part of the world where God holds sway on a good many folk I get along just fine. But I never really cared what people thought of me and did my best to treat people good even if they initially didn't do the same for me. Surprisingly this has led more people to accept me for what I am rather than being confrontational and belligerent.

But I never was a hateful kind of guy. :)[/quote]


I'm in the same situation, dude, and I've never had reason complain about personal mistreatment; it does bother me, however, to see governing institutions being eroded by religious thought, which is in many cases irrational and even harmful towards society as a whole; and I believe if I don't stand against this erosion, I will eventually have a reason to complain.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SCO,

[quote name='Serious Callers Only' post='1647915' date='Jan 13 2009, 21.00']Just to be a devil advocate, Newton was also nuts.[/quote]

In my experience genius and insanity are, not infrequently, kissing cousins at least.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SWK,

[quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1648070' date='Jan 13 2009, 23.01']Science is a procedure based on a set of givens. And it will not allow anything into it’s domain that doesn’t agree with the givens. The givens being that there is a “causative conclusion” that can be derived by repeatable demonstrations. If there is any failure of science (rather I should say shortcoming) it is that causative IS NOT the same as repeatability. Here’s an example, (pretend its Independence day).

I unstring a bunch of firecrackers and put them in a box.
I light a match and throw it in the box.
The match simply burns out.

I light another match and throw it in.
A huge bunch of explosions occur!

Now, there is no doubt the match was causative. There is also no doubt that it DID NOT repeat. I know some of the scientific oriented will give me a thousand reasons why this is not really “science” or whatever, but I maintain my position.

Another example:

A person prays for a relative, and the relative gets well.

Another person prays for their relative, and the relative passes.

Now, JUST BECAUSE this does not seem to be repeatable, that DOES NOT imply that the first persons prayer was not “causative”.

Now, even if everything that is “Knowable” was somehow recorded, we are told that there are things we can never know. Godel said that. Heisenberg said that.

A. S. Eddington addressed the issues in a brilliant essay called “The Domain of Physical Science”. He admits the limitations of science, and explains that it is not sciences fault. Science MUST because of it’s boundaries and methodologies, EXCLUDE AND NOT ACKNOWLEDGE things that cannot be tested or modeled with its methods. Eddington calls it the difference between the emperical and the mystical.

There is no question that the set of (knowable&unknowable) things is larger than the set of (knowable) things. In my opinion, spectacularly larger. For instance, a little math will tell you that the number of states (velocity, momentum, position, angular momentum) in 18 grams of water is a fantastically huge number, 10^^200 or so. And 18 grams of water is a mole, you could hold it in your mouth!

It’s almost as if science needs to be triadic, instead of binary. Maybe (True False) needs to be replaced with (True False Maybe).

But then it would not be science. It would be something else.

Which, by itself, DOES NOT mean that it would be wrong, or would not work.[/quote]

Your posts are fascinating, that combined with Mackxx's combativiness (and interesting posts) should be interesting. Keep it up.

[snake]

[quote name='El Chico' post='1648227' date='Jan 14 2009, 02.04']I'm in the same situation, dude, and I've never had reason complain about personal mistreatment; it does bother me, however, to see governing institutions being eroded by religious thought, which is in many cases irrational and even harmful towards society as a whole; and I believe if I don't stand against this erosion, I will eventually have a reason to complain.[/quote]

That's a different kettle of fish and I do not disagree.

[sio]

[quote name='thebadlady' post='1647444' date='Jan 14 2009, 07.06']Based on the abortion of stupid [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=33565"]here[/url] and Cyr's excellent sig line (There probably is no god. Now go enjoy your life!) I thought I'd share moar stupid.

There was a bad snowstorm a coupla weeks ago and my sister told her son that it was snowing because god wanted it to snow. She knows that sort of shit really pisses me off. I mean, doesn't she read about how america is dumber than turkey or someplace like that in science. Not surprising if kids are brought up to think the big man in the sky just does random stuff. She shouldn't dumb down her kid to get a rise out of me. Bitch.

Btw, if you don't know about it, this is [url="http://www.boingboing.net/2009/01/06/atheist-bus-ads-roll.html"]awesome[/url]. (The law there says you can't state with complete certainty so they had to put in the probably.) I love that its generating conversation rather than bombs. Go rationality![/quote]

:lol: I remember when I read about those bus ads on rms' website.

Now. I'm all for religious diversity, and I will happily give any religious bigot a verbal ass-kicking. But the same goes for fundie atheists as well. I am irritated by those atheists who authoritatively state that there is, and can be, no god. If you don't believe in God, what do you believe in, science? Is not one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method that before stating something as a fact, proof is required? I strongly believe, for example, that P != NP. However, I don't go around stating that P != NP and implying that everyone who tells someone otherwise is an idiot.

So you don't like what someone is saying to their child? Don't come onto the 'net and complain, take the child aside and explain that there are other points of view as well.

[MinDonner]

[quote name='sio' post='1648461' date='Jan 14 2009, 14.14']Now. I'm all for religious diversity, and I will happily give any religious bigot a verbal ass-kicking. But the same goes for fundie atheists as well. I am irritated by those atheists who authoritatively state that there is, and can be, no god. If you don't believe in God, what do you believe in, science? Is not one of the fundamental principles of the scientific method that before stating something as a fact, proof is required? I strongly believe, for example, that P != NP. However, I don't go around stating that P != NP and implying that everyone who tells someone otherwise is an idiot.[/quote]

:bang:

The term "fundamentalist atheist" is an utterly meaningless one that ignores the actual definitions of both atheism and fundamentalism. I don't think there's a single atheist in the world who, if provided with definitive proof of God's existence, would continue being an atheist, whereas "fundamentalism" implies an adherence to doctrine in the face of any and all evidence. Plus (and I'm annoyed that we have to go over this AGAIN) just because there are two sides to an argument, doesn't mean that they both have equal probability. Let's replace P != NP with a rather more concrete example, say, "fairies don't exist". In normal circumstances, no-one would need to go round saying "fairies don't exist", UNLESS you were living in a society where major decisions were made based on what these fairies had supposedly said, and great social prominence was given to people who'd studied fairyology, etc etc.

ETA: As an addendum, I think the Atheist Bus Campaign is awesome, and I even gave them some money. Somewhere out there, there is a tiny bit of a bus advert paid for by me. :D

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I don't know that faries don't exist. I think the world would certianly be more interesting with faries than it is without them.

[JGP]

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1648195' date='Jan 13 2009, 22.20']I previously worked on prions, infectious proteins whose propagation goes against the central dogma of molecular biology.[/quote]

[brow quirks]

Oh really? Careful, mack.

[sio]

[quote name='BruceDonner' post='1648474' date='Jan 15 2009, 01.02']:bang:

The term "fundamentalist atheist" is an utterly meaningless one that ignores the actual definitions of both atheism and fundamentalism. I don't think there's a single atheist in the world who, if provided with definitive proof of God's existence, would continue being an atheist, whereas "fundamentalism" implies an adherence to doctrine in the face of any and all evidence. Plus (and I'm annoyed that we have to go over this AGAIN) just because there are two sides to an argument, doesn't mean that they both have equal probability. Let's replace P != NP with a rather more concrete example, say, "fairies don't exist". In normal circumstances, no-one would need to go round saying "fairies don't exist", UNLESS you were living in a society where major decisions were made based on what these fairies had supposedly said, and great social prominence was given to people who'd studied fairyology, etc etc.

ETA: As an addendum, I think the Atheist Bus Campaign is awesome, and I even gave them some money. Somewhere out there, there is a tiny bit of a bus advert paid for by me. :D[/quote]

Ah, and now I see where we disagree.

You seem to see atheism as being fundamentally different from religion; it's not. While I have no doubt that many (current) atheists would become theists if given proof of the existence of a god, there are many, many atheists whose belief is so entrenched in their very beings that even when provided with incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a god or gods, they would still hang on to their faith in the lack of existence of a supreme being.

So, you're implying that there is a greater probability that there is no god than that there is one? Exactly how do you determine this? I would like to see evidence and sources. Unless you can provide them, it seems clear to me that your claim of favoring the scientific method over unadorned belief is a lie.

[MinDonner]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1648478' date='Jan 14 2009, 14.38']I don't know that faries don't exist. I think the world would certianly be more interesting with faries than it is without them.[/quote]

A lot of things would be more interesting if they were true. However, that's not the same as them actually BEING true. If fairies are still within the bounds of plausibility, then what's your opinion on Tethys, the Goddess of the Sea?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

[quote name='BruceDonner' post='1648489' date='Jan 14 2009, 09.45']A lot of things would be more interesting if they were true. However, that's not the same as them actually BEING true. If fairies are still within the bounds of plausibility, then what's your opinion on Tethys, the Goddess of the Sea?[/quote]

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we [i]can[/i] imagine." In other words, I don't think so, but I don't know with certianty.

[sio]

[quote name='BruceDonner' post='1648489' date='Jan 15 2009, 01.15']A lot of things would be more interesting if they were true. However, that's not the same as them actually BEING true. If fairies are still within the bounds of plausibility, then what's your opinion on Tethys, the Goddess of the Sea?[/quote]

Look, Min, you're not getting what I'm saying here.

There is exactly zero evidence for the existence of God.
There is exactly zero evidence against the existence of God.

Thus, there is no possible way to determine the probability of one over the other. It's simply a matter of belief. If one is an atheist, one chooses to believe that God does not exist. If one is a theist, one chooses to believe that God does exist. There's no mathematics either way.

[MinDonner]

[quote name='sio' post='1648486' date='Jan 14 2009, 14.43']Ah, and now I see where we disagree.

You seem to see atheism as being fundamentally different from religion; it's not. While I have no doubt that many (current) atheists would become theists if given proof of the existence of a god, [b]there are many, many atheists whose belief is so entrenched in their very beings [/b]that even when provided with incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a god or gods, they would still hang on to their faith in the lack of existence of a supreme being.

So, you're implying that there is a greater probability that there is no god than that there is one? Exactly how do you determine this? I would like to see evidence and sources. Unless you can provide them, it seems clear to me that your claim of favoring the scientific method over unadorned belief is a lie.[/quote]


No. There. Aren't.


Seriously.


As for the probability issue, lacking the time to write you an entire book detailing the arguments, I will have to use the shorthand of Occam's Razor - the most plausible argument is the one that answers the most questions and raises the fewest complications. God's existence, given that it would effectively invalidate every law of science we've so far discovered, and throw our entire understanding of the universe into disarray, would seem to be the obvious casualty here. Can I also point out that your argument of "find me loads of links or YOU LOSE!" is rather tacky, given your own wealth of unsupported assertions.

[sio]

[quote name='BruceDonner' post='1648500' date='Jan 15 2009, 01.28']No. There. Aren't.


Seriously.


As for the probability issue, lacking the time to write you an entire book detailing the arguments, I will have to use the shorthand of Occam's Razor - the most plausible argument is the one that answers the most questions and raises the fewest complications. God's existence, given that it would effectively invalidate every law of science we've so far discovered, and throw our entire understanding of the universe into disarray, would seem to be the obvious casualty here. Can I also point out that your argument of "find me loads of links or YOU LOSE!" is rather tacky, given your own wealth of unsupported assertions.[/quote]

"find me loads of links or YOU LOSE!" was never my argument. I was merely inviting you to think about the mathematics. Of course there is no evidence against the existence of God - how could there be? It was a rhetorical question.

I question the validity of Occam's Razor. I have always questioned it. A lot of people use it to come to their conclusions, without evidence, in essence taking the lazy way out.

Also, Yes. There. Are. I've had a hell of a lot of experience with those who call themselves atheists, and a lot of them follow faith just as blindly as their religious peers - sometimes more so. However, this thread of discussion is irrelevant - since I doubt either of us have mind-reading abilities, this is yet another issue where you must retain your belief and I must retain mine.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

[quote]the most plausible argument is the one that answers the most questions and raises the fewest complications.[/quote]

You are forgetting the opening of Occam's razor. "All things being equal." All things are rarely equal.

[JGP]

[quote name='BruceDonner' post='1648500' date='Jan 14 2009, 07.58']God's existence, given that it [i]would effectively invalidate every law of science we've so far discovered, and throw our entire understanding of the universe into disarray[/i], would seem to be the obvious casualty here.[/quote] ~[i]emphasis mine[/i]

How's that, precisely, or are you merely countering the claims of various Geneses?

[IheartTesla]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1648495' date='Jan 14 2009, 09.50']"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we [i]can[/i] imagine."[/quote]

Wow, is it? How do you know?

[quote]There is exactly zero evidence for the existence of God.
There is exactly zero evidence against the existence of God.[/quote]

There is also zero evidence for and against the Flying Spaghetti Monster. By your logic we should give believers and non-believers in the FSP equal credence.

Or any number of infinite things we have no way of knowing either way. By this token god is nothing special. Get over it religionistas.

[sio]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1648517' date='Jan 15 2009, 01.40']There is also zero evidence for and against the Flying Spaghetti Monster. By your logic we should give believers and non-believers in the FSP equal credence.[/quote]

Thank you! :grouphug:

Finally, someone understands! IMO there should be no special treatment given to religious people - religion should be a personally held belief system, simply consisting of what the person itself believes and does not believe

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Cyrano,

[quote]Wow, is it? How do you know?[/quote]

Because it's difficult to imagine things we haven't seen or perceived yet. We've been around for an infintesimal blink of the Universe's existence. We've percived an infintesimal slice of the actual Universe. Therefore, there are going to be things out there that we have not perceived and would never have imagined would be there.

[mormont]

[quote name='sio' post='1648497' date='Jan 14 2009, 14.53']Look, Min, you're not getting what I'm saying here.

There is exactly zero evidence for the existence of God.
There is exactly zero evidence against the existence of God.[/quote]

Well, actually, there is evidence against the existence of God - at least, God as usually characterised by Christians (as both benign and omnipotent). Such a concept is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil, an argument that has been around for centuries.

But that's by-the-by, and not - so far as I can see - the type of 'proof' you're asking for. Which is the problem. You're committing a logical fallacy here in asking for evidentiary proof of non-existence, and equating a proposition saying that 'X exists' with one that says 'X does not exist'. These two types of proposition are completely different, regardless of the nature of X, and do not share the same conditions of proof.