Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 10:33 am (This post was last modified: December 5, 2012 at 10:46 am by The Grand Nudger.)
-Or- you could explain how it is.......you know, engage in that discussion you desire.
(you seem to be missing a key variable in your question btw)
Pro-tip
Along one interpretation, in the hypothetical granting the universe, and given god or no god, the probability for both is exactly 1 for 1.....because here we are. That's the trouble of assigning probability to an event that already happened.
Along another interpratation, granting the universe but not taking god or no god as a given, we weigh the evidence and reflect upon how that might compell us to modify our beliefs, insomuch as we have them - whatever they may be.
In one scenario, it's useless unless we take the very idea we wish to explore as a given (which is how we end up with parity between them-it was smuggled in before any computation was done-), but we can't really do anything else, as assigning a probability to a concept like god is absurd - give it a try. In the other, we have overwhelming evidence for one side of the coin - and yet people have failed to modify their beliefs. Not all of them, mind you, the RCC famously decided that "evolution was a-ok", recently as one example.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 10:44 am
(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.
This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.
If if's and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party.
If science lead to the discovery of unicorns, DUH, I would be forced to accept it.
But we are not playing "lets pretend" and I do dispise mental masterbation after the scientific jury on facts is already in.
There is no need for a cognition for any part of evolution to have started, nor is there a need for an invisiable cognition to have started the universe. I hate this "lets be open minded" that allows the door of credulity and superstition to pervaid mass society.
Once you know the earth is a globe and not flat there is not reason to suggest that it "might be" a square".
This is mere speculation based on some childish emotinal sense of "fairness". All claims are not equal when it comes to science, and it is perfectly ok to discard bullshit claims.
"The sun is a god", that was once claimed and believe, and utterly false.
"The sun is a burning ball of gas". FACT of science.
It is not closed minded to give up on bad claims and bad data. It is closed minded to cling to the idea that just because someone can physically make sound waves come out of their mouth means others have an obligation to entertain a naked assertion.
If our species never questioned social norms our species never would have left the caves. So when you say we as atheists should be opened minded, that is bullshit. Openmindedness is what flies humans to the moon. Closed mindedness is what flies planes into buildings.
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 10:50 am
'Who would read a 2000 year old medical journal?
Techniques for bloodletting, advice on Trichinosis?
Would you navigate the globe with a map of a flat earth?
Without DNA testing, would you believe virgin birth?'
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
(December 5, 2012 at 10:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: [inability to take joke]
No citations and making an extraordinary claim.
Yeah, thank you. You make me wanna speak in my gabagool Italian accent again.
[/inability to take joke]
Quote:Fuck probability?
Your credibility just shot down faster than that thing that shoots down real fast.
How about let's not fuck probability because we live in the real world where certainty ain't easy to come by eh?
Way to miss the point. OK, I'll spell it out for you; probability calculations are irrelevant when talking about things that have demonstrably happened. The probability for something which has happened is 1. Because it's already happened. Probability can be ignored in favour of factual occurences.
By the way, if you find me less credible, I must be doing something right.
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 1:05 pm
(December 5, 2012 at 10:09 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: But I've been hearing a lot of equivocation on what atheism means, from other atheists.
"It's a lack of belief in God" "It's the claim that God does not exist"
All this means you get 30 minutes into an argument to find out the two of you agree with each other, but the definitions are different!
That gets my goat. That really gets my goat. Really really, and I don't mind admitting this to you.
Ugh. People using words with crazy definitions.
That's not crazy. Those two statements are saying fundamentally different things. A lack of belief in something is exactly that. It does NOT necessarily mean that you are certain that something does not exist but you currently do not believe in it for whatever reason. Nor is it an active process, like believing in God is - it's an absence. Stating that something categorically does not exist is an active belief and creates a burden of proof upon you to back up your claim.
Mixing up those two things is very often used by religious people to accuse atheism of being a religion itself so it is an important distinction to make.
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Quote:In fact, this has become something of a mainstay in Cosmology (study of the universe), being called "the anthropic principle". Anthro = human.
The Anthropic principle is flawed because it assumes that iwas necessary for intelligent life to emerge. This isn't true. Life emerged and adapted to the universe, not vice-versa.
The universe isn't fine-tuned to life, life has been fine-tuned to the universe through a long process of emergence of structures and survival of the strctures who managed to replicate themselves. The Anthropic principle is the equivalent of sentient puddle who imagines that the form hole in which it lies is "fine-tuned" to her form, when it's the form of the puddle who is a consequence of the form of the hole.
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm (This post was last modified: December 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm by Violet.)
(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.
This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.
Put it this way: in The Elder Scrolls video games, there are Aedra and Daedra... distant gods and oft-present demons.
Quote:The designations of Gods, Demons, Aedra, and Daedra, are universally confusing to the layman. They are often used interchangeably due to the arrogance and ignorance of the said user.
"Aedra" and "Daedra" are not relative terms. They are Elvish and exact. Azura is a Daedra both in Skyrim and Morrowind. "Aedra" is usually translated as "ancestor," which is as close as Cyrodilic can come to this Elven concept. "Daedra" means, roughly, "not our ancestors." This distinction was crucial to the Dunmer, whose fundamental split in ideology is represented in their mythical genealogy.
Aedra are associated with stasis. Daedra represent change.
Aedra created the mortal world and are bound to the Earth Bones. Daedra, who cannot create, have the power to change.
As part of the divine contract of creation, the Aedra can be killed. Witness Lorkan and the moons.
The protean Daedra, for whom the rules do not apply, can only be banished.
And in these games, I fully believe in all of these beings. Why? Because there is an observable effect as to them.
Now, there doesn't always have to be something observable for me to believe something... but it certainly cannot hurt my confidence in it. Hence science
RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 1:59 pm
(December 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:
(December 5, 2012 at 1:17 am)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Simple question.
This will weed out the realists and the rationalists from the rest.
Put it this way: in The Elder Scrolls video games, there are Aedra and Daedra... distant gods and oft-present demons.
Quote:The designations of Gods, Demons, Aedra, and Daedra, are universally confusing to the layman. They are often used interchangeably due to the arrogance and ignorance of the said user.
"Aedra" and "Daedra" are not relative terms. They are Elvish and exact. Azura is a Daedra both in Skyrim and Morrowind. "Aedra" is usually translated as "ancestor," which is as close as Cyrodilic can come to this Elven concept. "Daedra" means, roughly, "not our ancestors." This distinction was crucial to the Dunmer, whose fundamental split in ideology is represented in their mythical genealogy.
Aedra are associated with stasis. Daedra represent change.
Aedra created the mortal world and are bound to the Earth Bones. Daedra, who cannot create, have the power to change.
As part of the divine contract of creation, the Aedra can be killed. Witness Lorkan and the moons.
The protean Daedra, for whom the rules do not apply, can only be banished.
And in these games, I fully believe in all of these beings. Why? Because there is an observable effect as to them.
Now, there doesn't always have to be something observable for me to believe something... but it certainly cannot hurt my confidence in it. Hence science
Dammit Vae quit being awesome. Using Elder Scrolls mythology to prove a point? VAE. VAE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING. STAHP! AWESOME OVERLOAD!!
![[Image: SigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i169.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu224%2FUchiha_Kina%2FTags%2FSigBarSping_zpscd7e35e1.png)
