Essay talk:Abnormality of the atheist religion - a response

Paragraphs are under-rated. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As I'm orientating myself on quotes that didn't make much sense... --ǓḤṂ^³ 11:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not change this to one of the point-by-point refutations, such as the ones I cant be bothered to link to? 81.153.193.136 (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) UHM, how about some indentation? Put the quote at level 0, and your response at level 1, i.e. start the line with : ? Also, to further distinguish, you could put the quote in a different font, e.g. italic, or a different colour... (dare I say tq!) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Quotes or not, you need to break up the wall of text or few will read it. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll make it better after "dinner". Now hungry, work later. --ǓḤṂ^³ 12:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I could have saved you some time: "Dear Jpratt. Atheism isn't a religion. You fail. Forever. Yours sincerely..." --OompaLoompa (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"There was nothing and than there was something." / "They believe nothing created everything. There was a big bang and the wheels have been in motion ever since."

Your alternative is that you believe in Endless Big Bangs and Big Crunches but admit you have no evidence for that belief. Why, then, do you believe in these things? Isn't that similar to believing in a supernatural deity? Ajkgordon (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Because while there is evidence for a 'Big Bang' there is no evidence for a supernatural deity. Like evolution, the 'Big Bang' falls in line with an entire system of known, and proven, observations and research. There is no evidence that a deity was ever at work beyond the wonder of the universe. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the Big Bang. I'm challenging UHM's "belief in" a never-ending cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches for which there is no evidence, only scientific ideas. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that, and I was articulating the difference as I see it. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and the kind of believe is similiar but fundamentally different. There are physicists who say the same thing but they call it a hypothesis, so there isn't any proof yet, and I consider it nearly impossible get proof for something like that (because we can only see back to the last big bang). As a non-physicist, I don't posses the tools to try to prove it. So I'm hanging in thin air a bit, and that's why I call it a believe (hypothesis+faith=believe). It would explain why the movement of all things exist in first place, as it was always moving, there was no beginning. I am also not saying that some (I see it as highly possible that there are multiple universes if not an endless amount) universes might not have been forever, univeserses might have split and during a bang-crunch or there are laws in the multiverse that form big bangs (wee! we might be fart!). It's hard to justify a believe, given the explanations this looked like the best one. But my believe does not disturb anything, I won't participate in any scienitfic advancements in this area of study and there are no moral implications from it. It's like Russell's Teapot without implications.

I think there is a difference between something like a believe in something that could have occured (or in this case always has) according to the laws of physics (at least those I know of). But the believe in supernatural deity is different because the believer believes that the laws which he has seen in effect are violatable. Also if there was evidence against that particular believe I would drop it immediately, as it was proven not to be true. I guess on a nutty-scale from 0 to 10 I'm a 3? --ǓḤṂ^³ 14:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

But the Big Bang theory is supported by a lot, and I mean A LOT, of observational evidence. While a scientist would be unlikely to say he believes in the Big Bang, he might say he accepts it as being the most likely scientific theory that explains our observations about the universe.

But you believe in something far beyond that. Instead of saying, "I know nothing about what happened before the Big Bang", you state that you believe in something much more complex than the scientific theory with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Surely that is similar to belief in the complexity of a supernatural deity? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you believe in something without supporting evidence until there is evidence that it isn't true? Isn't that a bit arse about face? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, AJK, but humanity may never know what "came before that which came before" because we have difficulty fathoming how something could come from nothing, or a beginning point in time. It ultimately does come down to belief. But I could say a pink unicorn rode through the nothingness and made it all happen by sprinkling magic across the cosmos with its magical rainbow horn; or I can believe that a series of natural processes occurred that, in most places, created desolation and natural lifeless formations, but that on Earth they created something spectacular that might have been repeated elsewhere. All beliefs are not equal. Humanity is still shaking off the muck of our centuries of not being able to explain anything about how the world worked, so we used our imaginations and came up with Magic Sky Man. I'm answering you in your role as a devil's advocate. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

rubs temples

Right. But you're missing the point. UHM is criticizing the beliefs of some idiot at CP (I forget which one), yet then declares that he believes in something just as fantastical and with no supporting evidence. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone criticizing Pink Unicorn beliefs while saying that his belief, for which there is some evidence, is superior. rubs temples And I have trouble understanding why you have trouble with that. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the evidence for an eternal cycle of endless Big Bangs and Big Crunches? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Finally a name for it! So I'm a Big Bouncer - uh, there's a pick-up line. --ǓḤṂ^³ 16:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

AJK, do you believe in a Big Bang at all? --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. See below. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

He said the is evidence for it. --ǓḤṂ^³ 16:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so then why is a series of Big Bangs "just as fantastical" as a magic deity making it all happen, since if one accepts that a Big Bang (or Bounce, if you will) happened once, that is surely better evidence that it could have happened a series of times than God Did It. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why it's called a believe not a fact known to be true. When I say believe I say "I went with my gut feeling". I'm also not a scientist. I know nothing about what happend before the Big Bang, but I believe that it was like I believe - that means I can't present evidence, but I think it is like that. The leap of faith is similiar but an abrahamic theist goes that step further of questioning everything they know for that belief. I believe in things my gut tells me are true, that has nothing to do with reason. What I don't do - and I hope you got that - was believe in anything until it is proven not to be true. Faiths and believes so fundamental go without reason. If I follow sole reason there would be no reason why I should care at all, there wouldn't be any reason why I should have this discussion with you and there would be no reason why I should have an account here too. Let me paint a metaphor: You have a girlfriend. There are two possibilities, she loves (1) you or she doesn't (0). Depending on her behaviour you can make a guess if she does or if she does not (observation). My guess based on this behaviour (the world) and on what I personnally wish for is that she does (gut feeling) (believe without evidence). Only when she tells you - and you trust her with that - you think that she loves you (believe with evidence). What the theist and in so many cases denialists of CP do is different, their girlfriend told them to that she doesn't love them or she broke up with them, but they still believe that she does love them (believe despite evidence). On the other hand, if my metaphorical girlfriend would tell me that she doesn't love me, I'd trust her and think that she doesn't - that means I don't have crazy bias attached (rationality).

I know that the evidence is demanded by the believer, but I said before I have no evidence for it - you on the other hand can't disprove me either. The thing that now happens is the question of probabilty, but we have absolutely no data for such things. So we stand an can't make any rational arguments for or against it → faith on my side, no faith on your side. The question that arises now is if such a believe is harmfull in any way, I don't see were my belief should be harmfull, nor can I see were such a belief would be influencing anything badly, which is also because it does not go against anything we know. And you should know after 4 years in this madhouse that with "Are 'ya sure? Without evidence?" isn't going to make a believer stop to believe but only evidence (and in some cases not even that) can make a believer stop believing. If you want to challenge somebodies belief in or about anything bring evidence, not a null question. --ǓḤṂ^³ 16:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, this is probably simply a language issue. I don't think the phrase "believe in" means what I think you think it means. It doesn't mean a vague "I'd like that to be true". It typically means something much much stronger. "I believe in God" or "I believe in love" would be examples of this.

So a scientist would almost definitely NOT say "I believe in the Big Bang". As per above he would be more likely to say "I believe that the theory of the Big Bang is the most likely explanation for the formation of the universe since its beginning" or something similar. He might even say "I believe that the Big Bang theory is true."

So, can you now see the difficulty that evidence-based rationalists might have with you implicitly criticising someone for his belief in a supernatural deity while stating your belief in something for which you have no evidence?

The Big Bounce model is certainly interesting. But it is, while incredibly brilliant, little more than a speculative mathematical model. Not even its primary advocate would state he believes in it. At least I doubt he would. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, that's not a stance that will allow you to reject theism. What they're doing isn't always belief despite evidence - say, in the great flood or creation week -, but often the exact same thing you're advocating here: simple belief without evidence, as in mainstream god of the gaps apologetics. According to your definition of rationality, it would be entirely rational to believe in Russell's teapot or Sagan's dragon, because evidence against the proposition can never be obtained. That is obviously at odds with an evidence-based worldview, and it fails a simple falsifiability test. Whether or not it's harmful to believe unfounded nonsense is irrelevant, because rationalism is focused on truth, not on consequences. And I wouldn't be so sure about the harmlessness of such muddled thinking either - people who are used to accepting assertions on faith, even if their foundational beliefs are in themselves harmless, are that much easier to brainwash with harmful nonsense. If you're prepared to disregard central tenets of the scientific method just so you can maintain an inconsequential belief in a certain model of the universe, you've already taken one huge step in the false direction. Röstigraben (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

^ What he said. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

@Ajkgordon: If my defintion is wrong in your mind, provide one of your own and I will consider rephrasing for you if I see your defintion to fit better. If you find logical errors between how I define it and how I use the term - or even internal logical errors -, come back again and I'll consider your input. That's how it works. I never said that the man who came up with the theory also believed in it, I said I did.

It's not my definition. That's just what the phrase "believe in" means. And it now seems apparent that you know this.

But you still haven't explained why you believe in this stuff. You have no evidence for it (bar some interesting scientific ideas) and by your own admission you wouldn't have the tools at your disposal to make a judgement as to whether any such evidence was persuasive or not.

Frankly your "belief in" this eternal Big Bang Big Crunch cycle has little or no more validity than a belief in the Christian God that you mock in this essay.

And I find that quite surprising from a philosophy student. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because I had a feeling! Why without evidence? If it was with evidence it wouldn't be belief for fucks sake (isn't that common too?) Definition? The definitions we use in daily language are highly flawed, in normal work one defines that word better so it's actually workable. Why not the Christian god? Because it's supernatural, supernatural is unlikely. If you didn't get that from explanations above you're a hopeless cause. "And I find that quite surprising from a philosophy student." - Have you ever seen philsophers discussing something? We couldn't agree on how to make cool aid! --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, take a deep breath. I gather English isn't your first language, right? Get a dictionary and look up the meanings of "belief", "belief in", the nuanced differences between the two, and in what contexts they can be used. Sorry to patronise but you might then understand the problems you are having in getting your point across. If not, then read again what Röstigraben has posted above and below. Then read it again. Because he's right. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

@Röstigraben: Mh, ok then, once again: FAITH IS NOT RATIONAL and neither IS FAITH SCIENTIFIC. That is why it is called "faith" and not "knownledge". If believers have to stand to such absoltutistic lab-coat humdrum bullshit every day that equalizes correct thought with the scientific method I very much understand why they see us atheists as described by Jpratt. The scientific method is valid in science, rational thought everywere. And some things that can be thought of, can not be evidenced. I have never said that my believe was rational - that is because belief is never rational. To put forward a notion that only scientific thought can be correct thought is completely and utterly idiotic. Not only because it assumes that science is able to understand and analyze everything - which it cannot (as we can see with the very question where our universe comes from), but also as it ignores the basic evolutionary fact that men is driven by instinct and intellect. To say that every faith is dangerous is bullshit. As I understand the basic question you say that every faith in anything is dangerous because it makes brainwashing and so on easier - but didn't you also say that the consequences of something are irrelevant for it's value of truth? What now? Are consequences important or not? Or would even a faith that is correct be dangerous? Is the faith of somebody that believes that the earth is shaped as it is even he was never in space dangerous or not? Or are you just taking the shit out on everything that isn't within the realm of your dogma? I assume that you base your persuasion on the topic of the scientific method from "we've seen that it is empiricly correct". What does correct mean? Tell me how can you be sure that what you senses grasp is correct? Thing is: You can't. But why do we all still believe that they are? Because we need to. So nothing about the scientific method is actually science, on the basis of it all it's faith based on the completely fucked-up fear of the loss of control. Rationality is fragile thing, if you ask far enough you will always come to blind faith. And who now can say that that belief isn't equally dangerous?

Were did you get the notion that I reject theism on the basis of my definition of belief? It has to do with rationality: Belief in the supernatural goes against the evidence of a lifetime, because the fact that natural laws cannot be broken is experienced all the time, with every word I'm typing on this very keyboard and as those words pop up on your screen it is another piece of evidence against it. The denial of this impossibility is the ignorance that I meant with "believe against evidence". This, of course, is not hard evidence but it's enough. As soon as scientists would put forward evidence that my believe in a Big Bounce scenario are incorrect I would be on the same page of "believe against evidence" if I still believed in it, but I won't be if I let go of that believe. The same thing goes for provided evidence for my believe, then I would be on the side of "believe with evidence" the very same page we are probably all on on different topics. At the moment everything we say about it is "believe without evidence". There are several other instances were the notion of an abrahamic god can be refuted because it would violate logic.

If you don't respect what I believe, at least respect me enough not to accuse me of endagering your dogma, because I never did that. I never stated that that tinking was at all in line with the scientific method, or pushed basic tenets of that method away and said "it's rational" - that bullshit is your's. A belief is always irrational, you might actually think that's why I used "believe" and not "this is how it is"… --ǓḤṂ^³ 18:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ǓḤṂ, your comments trying to distinguish rational from scientific thought is interesting. I think one of the problems here, is we do not have a sufficiently clear idea of what rationality actually is. How does one define it? What kind of entity is it? How does one know what it is?

You say religious believers are irrational for believing the laws of nature can be violated (supernaturalism). But you can be a theist without being a supernaturalist. I believe that the laws of nature are of such a nature that they cannot be violated, they cannot be broken. If God/dess intervenes in the world, then that intervention does not violate the laws of nature, but is actually required. As I've argued elsewhere, I think the ultimate laws of nature are basically the perfect (i.e. Kolmogorov) compression of the universe, i.e. the shortest possible program that generates a perfectly accurate and precise description of the universe as output. If the universe was different, that would not mean any laws were violated, but simply the laws would be different so as to produce those things instead. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that this isn't FaithWiki, right? You explicitly reject rationalism and the applicability of the scientific method - on a scientific question, no less - and insist on your right to hold beliefs until you are proven wrong. Congratulations, you've just entered Ken's "where's the proof and evidence that atheism is correct?" territory. While professing to be an atheist, no less, which is kinda baffling. Your own justification for your lack of belief in god simply doesn't follow from any of this. You can't reject supernatural events or beings because they're incompatible with observable laws of nature. The supernatural, by its very definition, is not bound by these laws. The only logically consistent stance that will let you reject a deity is one that simply denies the existence of the supernatural altogether - on the basis of lack of evidence for it. All that follows from your argument would be a kind of weak-kneed agnosticism that simply withholds judgement on all matters where evidence is missing. In other words, belief in fairies at the bottom of my garden and invisible dragons in my garage is completely fine. So it may not be rational, but hey, who cares about that - beliefs are much more fun, after all.

There's one line in your post that sums your problem up in a rather concise manner: "Nothing about the scientific method is actually science, it's all faith." In other words, you think that the axiomatic foundations of an incredibly successful method are on the same level as fairytales and theology. One works, the other does not, simple as that. Finally, "are consequences important or not?" - read what I posted above, the distinction is really quite obvious. The consequences of adhering to a given proposition have zero bearing on its truth. But unwarranted belief in something can only have adverse consequences, at least from a rationalist POV. It fosters an "anything goes" mentality that will make you unwilling to challenge assertions on the basis of their compatibility with reality. Doing the latter is not a dogma, it's the exact opposite - it's called critical thinking. Röstigraben (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It has to be nice in your black and white world. When I say I believe something, I say that I think it is true - that does not mean that it can't be wrong, neither does it mean that I have to enforce it on somebody. It also doesn't mean that you are stupid for not believing it too. The difference between me an Ken is that he wants his believes to be enforced. In science the Big Bounce is a hypothesis, unproven, very much the same way as god - but as long as there is no evidence against something, attacking the believer in such a vile manner (basically you're saying that the believe I hold is as dangerous as Christian or Islamic fundamentalism - because I have an assertion about what was before out universe). The difference you don't see is between a private believe and a believe that is publicly enforced. I believe that privately a person can hold whatever believe he or she wants to hold - and we have the right to say that that believe is wrong, but it is that persons believe. That missionary thing you got going there does not go along with any consideration of personal rights. Yes a person has the right to belief anything he wants, and everybody else has a right to criticize that and to proof him wrong. For example I very much have a right to publish a list of reasons why not to believe in god as much as you have a right to disprove the hypothesis of a Big Bounce. A rational person will then stop believing because he has been proven wrong, I consider myself to be such. There are differences between a scienitfic hypothesis and a held believe, and while the a believe and hypothesis are generally interchangable, the difference is lies in practice. You can say that anybody who believes anything that is not proven by science is a dumb fuck, but consider how much you believe without proving it - for example that your girlfriend loves you, if I follow your - whatever this is - you have to put her on lie detector for every spoken word, so that you consider it a fact. That is absurd. Instead we believe many things, that our girlfriends love us, that RW isn't run by a bunch of fucktards, that CP does not fall under Poe's Law or how the universe is constructed in all of our weird little ways - or that there is a god. And until we're proven wrong there is nothing morally wrong with those believes. But as soon we step into the area of science all those little empirically beneficial methods kick in, that is were the scientific methods works. In determining what we should believe general rationality - that means a not so tight scientific method - kicks in. And there is a difference if I something is definitly true, something hypothetically possible or if I believe that something is true. That believe helds inherently the absence of evidence. That's what makes it a believe. To repeat this as you seem to have problems with the concept (pure observation): (1) I make difference between science and personally held belief. A scientific hypothesis needs evidence, a believe needs counter-evidence. Simple. (2) Out of believe you shall not make public law. Public law or action is only ok though science.

"The consequences of adhering to a given proposition have zero bearing on its truth." You are right, they don't in science. In other schools of thought they do.

"It fosters an "anything goes" mentality that will make you unwilling to challenge assertions on the basis of their compatibility with reality. Doing the latter is not a dogma, it's the exact opposite - it's called critical thinking." - No, for me the exact opposite is true. I am not only willing to question a specific theory, I am also willing to question the theory on which that questioning is based. If you think that leads to intellectual laziness, you shouldn't assert a mindset known to you, but also encompass differnt ones. --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Note how I didn't infringe upon any of you rights, I merely pointed out that your beliefs are at odds with rationalism. If that counts as a "vile attack" in your book, you're one of the most thin-skinned persons I've ever met. The difference between a hypothesis and a belief is rather simple. A hypothesis is an assumption that's about to be tested. If there's not even a theoretically possible test for it, it's not falsifiable, case closed. And in the absence of evidence, it's the null hypothesis that's considered true by default. Another problem is that you seem to confuse "evidence" with "absolute and irrefutable proof" - that's nonsense, evidence is any tiny piece of information that will allow you to draw the most tentative conclusions about the correctness of a hypothesis. With all of the examples you gave, it's very easy to come by evidence in some form, so we can make an informed judgement and don't need to hold beliefs.

Then you posit that there's a difference between "scientific" and "general" rationalism, without offering much of a definition except that the latter is supposed to accommodate your beliefs without evidence. You can come up with as many new definitions of the word "rational" as you like, it's the stance that is still incompatible with the general tenets of this philosophy. And what you're proposing will also not allow you to justify your own atheism, simple as that. Maybe you can reject the Christian deity because of counter-evidence (although believers have come up with some loopholes against this as well), but you can impossibly reject deistic notions or Maratrean's goddess, for example. Your thought is compatible with agnosticism or NOMA, but not atheism.

Lastly, "Public law or action is only OK through science", seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? Many of our laws are supposed to enforce a moral code and notions of justice. There's nothing in science that would allow you to determine, for example, an objectively correct level of income redistribution. And for all your talk about questioning theories and metatheories, you seem to know very little about the philosophy of science. Röstigraben (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"We are taught that as humans, we are incapable of knowing all. This is not a truth they could accept."

"If science knew everything, it would stop." -Dara O'Briain Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a neither something they could accept, or they wouldn't care so much about god. --ǓḤṂ^³ 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Baby Jebus cries because this isn't a side-by-side.

You'll need this ahere thing. Once up you can see what steaming pile you wanna refudiate right away! 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I don't want to do a side-by-side refutation as I can hardly refute his saint stuff - and honestly that essay isn't worth it anyway. Completely beside the point that it was written as a response. --ǓḤṂ^³ 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Where?

Above it has been said, that I mock God in this responsive essay. I didn't intend to and I wouldn't know where. So can somebody tell me what may be meant? --ǓḤṂ^³ 21:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I said "Frankly your "belief in" this eternal Big Bang Big Crunch cycle has little or no more validity than a belief in the Christian God that you mock in this essay." My apologies - I can see how that could be read as mocking God rather than mocking a belief in God. My intended meaning was the latter. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)