Atheism

[AngryAnt]

Where is the harm? These types of orgies would sometimes be mixed with a fair amount of alcohol and drugs and, almost always, a fair level of carelessness I would imagine. So where is the harm? What about the far greater potential for unwanted pregnancies, transmission of STD's, relationship breakup's due to jealousy of a partner enjoying sex with another (and potential violence that may go with it), psychological damage etc.?

I reckon that there are plenty of good reasons not to lower ourselves to these levels. Common human decency is just one. There is a reason that we are more intelligent creatures than the other animals and we should act that way.

Good point jayfox. Every day I see animals (in particular penguins - not sure why) having drunken, drugged out orgies that are very careless causing harm to penguin relationships and chicks.

Clearly we should be above such animalistic behaviour.

I'm being flippant of course but it's a feature of Christian theology that bad things are "animalistic" and that God gave us souls and free-will and this places us above animals. In fact animals are never cruel - they act out of necessity to survive. We also don't often see animals taking drugs, having illicit sex etc etc.

It does demonstrate how out of date Christian theology is relative to actual scientific knowledge about animal behaviour.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Actually Jay, I think what Evo said is right. The definition of rational is:

adjective
1 rational

having its source in or being guided by the intellect (distinguished from experience or emotion); "a rational analysis"

2 intellectual, rational, noetic

of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"

3 rational

consistent with or based on or using reason; "rational behavior"; "a process of rational inference"; "rational thought"

Given the whole point of religion is having faith in something without evidence or proof. If we were to be completely intellectual about faith full stop, there is not enough evidence for any one to be proven absolutely right at this stage, with a lot of conflicting claims and insufficient evidence. Even for the "Big Bang" theory, there is still a lack of evidence to be able to say, hand on heart, that we have proven this to be 100% right.

As such, if you are being strictly rational about the whole issue, I think the answer is to shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know because I have insufficient data to make a proper informed decision". The fact however the majority of the world has made this decision however based upon a faith or theory does not make their decision irrational, it just means that they have made it on faith and not for intellectual reasons.

For the record, I think everyone here falls in this basket, including the athiests, as we all have made decisions on what we think is right based upon faith, gut feel, or our own assessment based upon the limited data. We all have made calls which require a leap of faith, and this is not rational.

I know what you are saying with the post T74 but I think you limit your analysis by making it a 'black or white' issue. Of course we will never know 100% that certain scientific findings are true (by definition, hence the term 'theory' in science), but we can certainly shade the possibilities and draw our conclusions from the likelihood of these being correct. I believe that the most rational approach to understanding the world around us, is by exactly this approach: to gauge the available evidence and come to most likely conclusion based upon that. Inherent in this approach is the concerted avoidance of dogma and biased analysis (both easy traps to fall into) and the ability to change one's conclusions as new data is obtained.

I guess what I am trying to say is that although no-one can ever be 100% on certain issues, however, the way someone approaches the problem will make their conclusions more likely to be closer to the truth than other approaches. Thus, I wouldn't consider both conclusions equally valid, or equally likely to be correct.

 

[Tiger74]

I know what you are saying with the post T74 but I think you limit your analysis by making it a 'black or white' issue. Of course we will never know 100% that certain scientific findings are true (by definition, hence the term 'theory' in science), but we can certainly shade the possibilities and draw our conclusions from the likelihood of these being correct. I believe that the most rational approach to understanding the world around us, is by exactly this approach: to gauge the available evidence and come to most likely conclusion based upon that. Inherent in this approach is the concerted avoidance of dogma and biased analysis (both easy traps to fall into) and the ability to change one's conclusions as new data is obtained.

I guess what I am trying to say is that although no-one can ever be 100% on certain issues, however, the way someone approaches the problem will make their conclusions more likely to be closer to the truth than other approaches. Thus, I wouldn't consider both conclusions equally valid, or equally likely to be correct.

This is what I was trying to avoid.

Being rational is not saying "I looked at it, my way is the best way, and my answer - which is the right answer - is this. As for anyone outside this scope, you are irrational".

You can disagree with Jay and co. You can argue with how they make their decisions. Your processes involve as much faith and hope however as theirs do. The difference is the path you take to get there.

Athiests criticise Christians for being high and mighty about how we are all going to Hell and how they are being saved, well I think Christians have a fair call in defending themselves as being set up as ignorant fairly tale believers (my words - not yours) when the Athiests of the world have a similar level of facts at their disposal.

A lack of proof is not confirmation that nothing exists.

I cannot see inside my house. Does that mean because I cannot see my wife in there she is not in there? I have listened for noise, and heard none. I have yelled out, and no-one has responded. Is this proof though? Just because she doesn't show herself does not mean she is not there, she may be choosing to ignore me, happy watching some chick flick on Foxtel. One day I might find a door or a window, and be able to check this out. Until then though, it is very arrogant to say just because I cannot see my wife in the house that is she is not there, as I have insufficient proof to back this up, just theories.

 

[AngryAnt]

You can disagree with Jay and co. You can argue with how they make their decisions. Your processes involve as much faith and hope however as theirs do. The difference is the path you take to get there.

Disagree profoundly with that line T74. An rational atheist says "I don't believe in God because no-one has shown me scientific proof that one exists". But if someone was to provide definitive and absolute proof, an rational atheist would say - "It has been proved that God exists - therefore I believe in God". No faith involved.

Now you might respond that they have "faith" in the scientific method - but in fact following the scientific method requires no faith at all, as empirical evidence suggests it works. The very definition of "faith" is the willingness to believe something in the absence of all concrete evidence.

A lack of proof is not confirmation that nothing exists.

This is true but in the absence of evidence to the contrary it is a completely rational view to take. Occam's razor and all that.

I cannot see inside my house. Does that mean because I cannot see my wife in there she is not in there? I have listened for noise, and heard none. I have yelled out, and no-one has responded. Is this proof though? Just because she doesn't show herself does not mean she is not there, she may be choosing to ignore me, happy watching some chick flick on Foxtel. One day I might find a door or a window, and be able to check this out. Until then though, it is very arrogant to say just because I cannot see my wife in the house that is she is not there, as I have insufficient proof to back this up, just theories.

Holding to a theory is very different to having faith. I may see a theory as the best current explanation of something, but because I know it's a theory that implies the theory is open to change or replacement depending upon the provision of subsequent evidence.

 

[feisty tige]

Interesting reading even just a few posts.

I mainly have trouble with Christians that are anything but Christian in their beliefs and try to push those beliefs onto others (I suppose any religion that does this is not on in my book).

Many Christians (religions) in my view are hypocritical.

I don't believe the hype. (Oops this is the Atheism thread....)

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This is what I was trying to avoid.

Being rational is not saying "I looked at it, my way is the best way, and my answer - which is the right answer - is this. As for anyone outside this scope, you are irrational".

You can disagree with Jay and co. You can argue with how they make their decisions. Your processes involve as much faith and hope however as theirs do. The difference is the path you take to get there.

I think you are disregarding the methods that are utilised to draw conclusions in your assessment of both 'ways of knowing'. Could you point out the 'faith' and 'hope' that are utilised by the scientific process? One of the best ways of gauging the accuracy of one's theory is in assessing its power of prediction. Scientific theories make predictions and are maintained, modified or discarded based on these. Can you point out a faith-based prediction that has come to pass?

You seem to be trying to walk the thin line where you are giving equal validity to the claims to each conclusion, without assessing the method itself. As I have said repeatedly on this thread, this is not about dictating what people believe, it is the point of this thread to discuss Atheism, why people subscribe to this and to point out the flaws one perceives in faith-based belief systems. You can't just fall back on 'everyone's position is based on the same amount of faith and hope', because they are clearly not.

As for rational thought.....would you agree that maintaining a belief, that is not based on anything outside one's subjective experience despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is irrational?

Athiests criticise Christians for being high and mighty about how we are all going to Hell and how they are being saved, well I think Christians have a fair call in defending themselves as being set up as ignorant fairly tale believers (my words - not yours) when the Athiests of the world have a similar level of facts at their disposal.

I don't blindly call them anything, but justify any criticism I have of the methods they used to draw their conclusions. They are more than welcome to defend their positions and respond to my criticism.

Yes, we do all have the same level of facts out our disposal, but the way we interpret them (or even access them) means that the conclusions we come to can be starkly different. Again, we come to looking at the method used to interpret that information and assessing which is most likely to lead to a more accurate picture of reality. This is at the heart of the scientific process.....a concerted effort to interpret data in an objective as possible manner. Faith-based methods utilise centuries (or millennia) old dogma despite any advances that we may make in our understanding of the world around us.

A lack of proof is not confirmation that nothing exists.

I cannot see inside my house. Does that mean because I cannot see my wife in there she is not in there? I have listened for noise, and heard none. I have yelled out, and no-one has responded. Is this proof though? Just because she doesn't show herself does not mean she is not there, she may be choosing to ignore me, happy watching some chick flick on Foxtel. One day I might find a door or a window, and be able to check this out. Until then though, it is very arrogant to say just because I cannot see my wife in the house that is she is not there, as I have insufficient proof to back this up, just theories.

If you or no one else had ever physically seen or heard your wife and you claimed that she was in the house, then I might be right to be sceptical as to whether your wife even existed. Of course this doesn't rule out the fact that your wife exists, but if you claimed the only way to confirm her presence was through a subjective 'feeling' of certainty, then I would have a right be sceptical....wouldn't you agree?

I have never claimed 100% certainty on this issue, for you are right to point out that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, I can temper my level of belief based on the level of available evidence to that of all other 'gods' that have been worshipped throughout the history of human civilizations. Thus, I have very little belief that these Gods actually exist, although I would be more than happy to change my opinion if verifiable evidence was brought to light.

 

[dukeos]

Atheists believe in nothing. Bloody boring group to be in. The sooner my taxes stop paying for philosophy places at uni the better.

Now all you atheists enjoy your science blogs and iced tea over you end of year break or whatever you call it.

I'm no off to enjoy Christmas.

By the way, I have met very very few atheists in my life, I think that the world atheist population is somewhere around 17%. How can so many people be so wrong. I guess evo and his mates in the top 1-2% can point us in the right direction.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Atheists believe in nothing. Bloody boring group to be in. The sooner my taxes stop paying for philosophy places at uni the better.

Now all you atheists enjoy your science blogs and iced tea over you end of year break or whatever you call it.

I'm no off to enjoy Christmas.

By the way, I have met very very few atheists in my life, I think that the world atheist population is somewhere around 17%. How can so many people be so wrong. I guess evo and his mates in the top 1-2% can point us in the right direction.

Atheists don't believe in Gods due to inadequate evidence to justify such a belief. Big difference.

I, too, am off to enjoy Christmas now. Enjoy :cheesysanta

How can so many people be so wrong? People have believed all sorts of 'wrong' things throughout the history of human civilisation.....truth is not determined by democracy

 

[Tiger74]

Ant and PTFC replied on similar lines, so I will respond in kind.

You say your decisions are based on facts, and the other views are not. This is clearly wrong. Those who hold a faith have made their decision based upon facts they have at their disposal. As Jay has listed previously, the Bible is just one example. You can disagree with the facts he uses, but they are valid points that at least warrant attention.

On the Bible, can you prove it is not the word of God? Do you have evidence showing no divine influence on how the book has been contructed or translated? I personally view the Bible as a nice story book, but I at least admit I cannot prove its not divine. I can show why I believe its not, but its impossible to prove its not.

You disregard any faith because you have deemed it as an inappropriate way to make a decision, but why? Just because you have not "seen the light" does not mean its impossible for it not to happen to other people.

As more me trying to have it both ways, not quite. I have my own views, and I'm trying to keep them out of this. On the issue of right and wrong though, NO ONE here has proof, and without proof we have varying levels of faith and theory. And yes I do consider a theory similar to faith, because its the assumption of an event or outcome occuring based upon evidence that cannot give conclusive proof.

If we are honest about exploring the true nature of our existance, we must treat all options fairly and open to similar critisism and review. This especially includes the views we hold ourselves, as its to these which we tend to have the greatest blindness when it comes to their faults.

 

[evo]

You can disagree with Jay and co. You can argue with how they make their decisions. Your processes involve as much faith and hope however as theirs do. The difference is the path you take to get there.

Well,I don't agree with you there T74.How, say Pantera, reaches his conclusions and how a theist would are different.A theists conclusion is a particular book contains the literal truth and further he 'knows' this because it says so in the book.It's not reasoning,other than circular reasoning.

As far as I can tell,the only 'faith' Pantera would employ is faith in the scientific method.What 'faith' in the scientific method amounts to is faith that human reason can come to the right conclusion given enough time and data.

It seems to me a reasonable 'faith' to have;because short of an alien visiting earth and explaining the real truth to us humans,it's all we have.

Pantera,like any descent scientist is always willing to be proven wrong.In fact he (and science) invite it.The same can't be said of the theist.

Athiests criticise Christians for being high and mighty about how we are all going to Hell and how they are being saved, well I think Christians have a fair call in defending themselves as being set up as ignorant fairly tale believers (my words - not yours) when the Athiests of the world have a similar level of facts at their disposal.

It's not a similar level of facts at their disposal though.The theist has one book(or a group of books contained within one if you like).The scientist has all of them(including that book) and 3000+ years of empirical investigation at his disposal.

A lack of proof is not confirmation that nothing exists.

Yes but the problem is with this line of thought though is that one can posit anything and say it's true until proven otherwise.Best elaborated by 'Russel's teapot'

Prove to me Father Christmas doesn't exist.The default position should be he doesn't.

Scientists hypothesis the try and prove the hypothesis-theists claim.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You say your decisions are based on facts, and the other views are not. This is clearly wrong. Those who hold a faith have made their decision based upon facts they have at their disposal. As Jay has listed previously, the Bible is just one example. You can disagree with the facts he uses, but they are valid points that at least warrant attention.

You claimed in your previous post that we all have the same facts at our disposal, so it must come down to whether we access those facts and how we interpret them. So it is important to look at the methods people use to assess those facts and fit them into a working model or theory.

I would argue that theists of all flavours have a preconceived idea that they attempt to mould the evidence to, an approach that will lead to the wrong (preconceived) conclusions more often than not. Science changes with the evidence....scientific theories change if evidence contradicts them--> the evidence is tailored for them.

This is an important point when we look at the likelihood that the validity drawn by these conclusions.

On the Bible, can you prove it is not the word of God? Do you have evidence showing no divine influence on how the book has been contructed or translated? I personally view the Bible as a nice story book, but I at least admit I cannot prove its not divine. I can show why I believe its not, but its impossible to prove its not.

Just because I can't prove that it is not divine, does not provide any evidence that is is. Those making the claims carry the burden to support those claims. Both the Bible and the Koran cannot both be literally true, yet fundamentalist Christians and Muslims both claim that they are. How do we judge who is more likely to be correct? We look at the evidence supporting those claims, which in this case, seems to be lacking on both sides and thus I dismiss this as highly unlikely to be true.

Russell's teapot applies in this area.

You disregard any faith because you have deemed it as an inappropriate way to make a decision, but why? Just because you have not "seen the light" does not mean its impossible for it not to happen to other people.

I have stated many times that I have no doubt that Jay (and other theists) have 'seen the light'....I don't doubt this. My doubt rests on whether that has any bearing on the actual existence of a God. No doubt it does for Jay, but the human mind is good at such irrational leaps and hence I don't rely on it as the sole arbiter of truth and thus, I look for external, controlled, verifiable evidence before I draw my conclusions. People have believed some pretty irrational, unverified things (alien abductions, sightings of Elvis etc etc) and yet we don't seem to place as much weight on their claims. Using your logic, why not?

As more me trying to have it both ways, not quite. I have my own views, and I'm trying to keep them out of this. On the issue of right and wrong though, NO ONE here has proof, and without proof we have varying levels of faith and theory. And yes I do consider a theory similar to faith, because its the assumption of an event or outcome occuring based upon evidence that cannot give conclusive proof.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, hence the proverbial 'leap'.
In science, a theory is a model that is supported by an overwhelming body of evidence, such that it is accepted as accurate (of course it is subject to amendment or can be discarded in light of contradictory evidence). Theories cannot ever be proven 100%, yet their adherence to the available evidence and their power of prediction provides a good gauge as to their accuracy.

Thus, I do not see these two as similar in their description of the world around us. In fact I would say that they are diametrically opposed.

If we are honest about exploring the true nature of our existance, we must treat all options fairly and open to similar critisism and review. This especially includes the views we hold ourselves, as its to these which we tend to have the greatest blindness when it comes to their faults.

Agreed, on all counts. It is something I strive for and one of the reasons I enjoy these discussions. It provides counterpoints and perspectives to test my own opinions and conclusions.

If you think that one side is being subjected to more critical analysis than another, please point it out.

 

[Tiger74]

Agreed, on all counts. It is something I strive for and one of the reasons I enjoy these discussions. It provides counterpoints and perspectives to test my own opinions and conclusions.

If you think that one side is being subjected to more critical analysis than another, please point it out.

This is what I think it all comes down to. We have two different methods to investigating a question. One is science based alone, while the other is mystical and scientific (you have to give D&J credit on that, esp on evolution that have tried to respond to the science questions with science as the basis of their responses).

The concern I have is current scientific method is being treated as an infallible method of research, when time is yet to prove this. It is a relatively young method, and historically we humans have gotten it wrong time and time again when it comes to research and understanding the universe. Who is to say that we have it right now?

Medicine is one example. Western medicine has taken one approach to managing healing, with Eastern another. Despite western medicine often claiming eastern medicine is hogwash, acupuncture does work for many ailments (this is now acknowledged, although there is still confusion as to why), and more and more merit is being paid to herbal remedies.

Prophecy and mystic answers to the universe may be of no merit, but if we are of a divine creation, a scientific explanation may not be possible.

Personally I am still waiting for someone to prove Douglas Adams wrong, and that we are not part of a giant cosmic experiment being run by mice to determine the ultimate question to the ultimate answer (which we all know is 42).

 

[AngryAnt]

Yes... I still disagree that we are making our decisions based on facts - the fact of the Bible and the things it claims and other scientifically verified facts are clearly very different orders of things. To believe the first is to require faith. To believe in the second category requires no faith at all. In fact, "belief" is not even really applicable. I don't have to "believe" that water will boil at 100 degrees centigrade at at one atmospheric pressure - this is a fact and I can verify this at any time, myself. Faith and belief don't enter the equation.

Remember - faith is considered a virtue in Christian theology. It basically says "well we can't prove any of this so it's really really important that you have Faith (which is a virtue of course) and believe everything we tell you". "If you don't have Faith and therefore don't believe you cannot be Saved".

I do agree indeed that we need to be critical and self-aware about our own modes and practices of thinking. Science is a socially constructed process, just like religion is - however it actually explains why things are as they are and does not require faith.

 

[evo]

This is what I think it all comes down to. We have two different methods to investigating a question. One is science based alone, while the other is mystical and scientific (you have to give D&J credit on that, esp on evolution that have tried to respond to the science questions with science as the basis of their responses).

Thats were philospophy comes into it's own in my view.It investigates the validity between the mystical and empirical claims.

Personally I have no over all objection to the 'mystical' in fact i think it may well have some important things to say in regards to truth.But it has to be logically testable,like anything else.

 

[Tiger74]

Personally I have no over all objection to the 'mystical' in fact i think it may well have some important things to say in regards to truth.But it has to be logically testable,like anything else.

Nothing against testing faith based theory against logic. After all, we have the Scientologists and the DC-9 like space ships to consider. What I am against is ridicule of faith because we do not have that faith. If we don't believe in the Bible being God's word, thats cool, but is it necessary to point and laugh and say "you believe in fairy stories!!!" (all of this my words, not saying anyone has done this)?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

This is what I think it all comes down to. We have two different methods to investigating a question. One is science based alone, while the other is mystical and scientific (you have to give D&J credit on that, esp on evolution that have tried to respond to the science questions with science as the basis of their responses).

I would dispute your claim that D&J approach the question of evolution in a scientific way. They make the right 'sounds', but at the core they have a preconceived conclusion that they are moulding the evidence to.....completely anti-scientific.

What we have is science vs faith....nothing more, nothing less. Science is evoked as a mechanism of legitimising their claims, a testament to the perception of science as a powerful tool in elucidating the true nature of the universe. However, those claims must be open to reasonable criticism.

The concern I have is current scientific method is being treated as an infallible method of research, when time is yet to prove this. It is a relatively young method, and historically we humans have gotten it wrong time and time again when it comes to research and understanding the universe. Who is to say that we have it right now?

This is a common misconception about science.....its image as 'infallible'....the method accepts the fallibility of human reason and challenges us to prove other's ideas wrong. This is one of the powerful aspects of this method....all ideas, hypotheses and theories are subjected to intense criticism in an attempt to elucidate the truth.

The method may be relatively young but you cannot dispute the power of it as assessed through the changes that it has led to in our society. I believe that this represents a pretty strong argument in favour of its ability to work out the true nature of the workings of the universe.

If something strikes you as wrong, or even subtly not quite right, the beauty of science is that you are free to publish those concerns and open your own interpretation to scientific scrutiny and criticism.

Medicine is one example. Western medicine has taken one approach to managing healing, with Eastern another. Despite western medicine often claiming eastern medicine is hogwash, acupuncture does work for many ailments (this is now acknowledged, although there is still confusion as to why), and more and more merit is being paid to herbal remedies.

Medicine is a good example....look at the impact that Western (I prefer evidence-based) medicine has had on life expectancy. It isn't an us versus them proposition....evidence-based practice will assimilate any method that can be shown to be effective. Why is this a problem....if your 'cure' can't be shown to be more effective than a placebo, should it be called a 'cure'?

I find it puzzling that the same people who argue against the greedy pharmaceutical giants (I am not claiming you have) are the same people who claim that Western medicine excludes 'traditional' therapies. In the capitalist world these 'greedy' pharmaceutical giants would jump on anything that could be proven effective, wouldn't they?

Prophecy and mystic answers to the universe may be of no merit, but if we are of a divine creation, a scientific explanation may not be possible.

Personally I am still waiting for someone to prove Douglas Adams wrong, and that we are not part of a giant cosmic experiment being run by mice to determine the ultimate question to the ultimate answer (which we all know is 42).

I guess we have to rely on the track record of the various methods of interpretation. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

P.S. Douglas Adams was seldom wrong .

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Personally I have no over all objection to the 'mystical' in fact i think it may well have some important things to say in regards to truth.But it has to be logically testable,like anything else.

Agreed.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Nothing against testing faith based theory against logic. After all, we have the Scientologists and the DC-9 like space ships to consider. What I am against is ridicule of faith because we do not have that faith. If we don't believe in the Bible being God's word, thats cool, but is it necessary to point and laugh and say "you believe in fairy stories!!!" (all of this my words, not saying anyone has done this)?

But that is an important distinction...we aren't ridiculing. We are engaging in a discussion with individuals who share a different perspective on a forum thread dedicated to such a discussion.

People who point and laugh and/or ridicule are offering nothing to the discussion and provide no insight into their point of view and why they hold it.

 

[Tiger74]

But that is an important distinction...we aren't ridiculing. We are engaging in a discussion with individuals who share a different perspective on a forum thread dedicated to such a discussion.

People who point and laugh and/or ridicule are offering nothing to the discussion and provide no insight into their point of view and why they hold it.

It has come close a couple of times by some, which is why I threw my 5c in.

 

[evo]

Nothing against testing faith based theory against logic. After all, we have the Scientologists and the DC-9 like space ships to consider. What I am against is ridicule of faith because we do not have that faith. If we don't believe in the Bible being God's word, thats cool, but is it necessary to point and laugh and say "you believe in fairy stories!!!" (all of this my words, not saying anyone has done this)?

Truth is where it's at as far as I'm concerned.Note, I'm not claiming to be possessor of such.But if people are talking *smile* and claiming absolutes they should reasonably expect to be called on it.If i claim an absolute ,and it's crap ,people can refute it as much as they want.I see it as healthy.

What doesn't interest me though is people claiming some sort of 'quarantining' of particular claims.If you're sure it's true,lets take a look at the claim.Otherwise best not voice it,in my opinion.

If it's instead opinion,then make it clear it's merely that.