Support NeoGAF

[F#A#Oo]

BTW, anyone claiming that the God of the Old Testament is an atrociously immoral figure, I'd strongly recommend listening to this British radio program wonderfully uploaded to Youtube which broadcasted a debate between Paul Copan (Christian philosopher) and Norman Bacrac (Secular Humanist). Just listen to the debate, and figure out who was logically responding to the ethical dilemmas, and who was merely attacking the position.


BTW, Amir0x, you might find this debate between Bart Ehrman and Darrell Bock interesting.

Nice...just got through the first program.

I listened to it over breakfast...so you just made my first half of my day quite enlightening...

EDIT: at the end of the first episode they had a caller who phoned in who wanted to debate and get a responce to his arguements against a god...

Did he manage to get a responce and where can I find it?

 

[The Technomancer]

The atheist symbol in the end of the video is pretty nifty, although it reminds me a bit too much of Star Trek. Is it a well established symbol?

I think atheists having a symbol would defeat the point. I know I would never use it. I find the idea....kind of repugnant.

 

[EliCash]

Ancient world had organized religion...

He was responding to the claim that without the bible and the ten commandments we wouldn't have the same order today.

Morality is exclusive to Christians you see, and we wouldn't have any order at all if it wasn't for the bible - haven't you heard the songs?

 

[Angry Fork]

If athiests had a religion it would be science. Having science as the only religion on earth would increase our productivity and technology output by like 5,000% (percentage pulled out of my ass but you get the point, science wins).

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I think atheists having a symbol would defeat the point. I know I would never use it. I find the idea....kind of repugnant.

The point of what, haha?

If athiests had a religion it would be science. Having science as the only religion on earth would increase our productivity and technology output by like 5,000% (percentage pulled out of my ass but you get the point, science wins).

Mind bottling. Id settle if most Atheists understood science and didn't make groan worthy claims about the scope of science and the inherent falseness of "everything" else. But I guess its not much different than religion. Abused by those who don't understand it or want to use it as a shield for their own beliefs and personal agenda's.

He was responding to the claim that without the bible and the ten commandments we wouldn't have the same order today.

Ahhh, yeah thats exceptionally silly.

 

[slidewinder]

boggling. you'd. groan-worthy. Fucking "agenda's"? What the hell?

Shut up. Stop posting about how awful everybody else is and post something of substance yourself. But you can't, because all you've got are crank-ass takes on the epistemological import of "dark energy" and nothing else. How useful.

 

[Amir0x]

Based on my history of posting on numerous forums, I do find Atheists to be, by in large, the most antagonistic, pretentious and condescending of groups. That's not to say these traits don't appear in other groups, fan bases and so on, or that there isn't much of the opposite, but imo they are most prominent with atheists. You simply need only look through any related thread to see examples of it.

I readily believe that no matter what, atheists would be described as "antagonistic" and "condescending" to anyone who is religious because they're going to handle religion with the respect due to it - which is to say, the same level of respect as any other creation hypothesis. This seems immediately wrong to indoctrinated individuals, but the reality is that calling out a belief as superstitious nonsense is no more "pretentious" then, for example, saying that a scientist has an improper method for solving X, Y or Z. These things must stand to the intense rigors of rational thought, and all that involves. As I've said earlier, you should read some scientific papers by scientists critiquing another's work - it's often extremely brutal, no holds barred. There are many scientists whose life work has been systematically deconstructed to the point where they literally become outcasts among the scientific community. There are documentaries that show just how real the phenomenon is!

I am still waiting for an answer as to why you think religion should be afforded special protection for this same type of harsh criticism. If you don't think that, then we can start working back from the assumption that more atheists are pretentious or condescending than other groups. I definitely think aggressive atheism is a good thing, but that's because it is a necessary tool for fighting back belief in things as absurd as talking snakes and miracle workers who can walk on water and turn water to wine. When someone sneezes and people are inclined to say "bless you", though no spirits I know of has ever entered into one's nose.

It's generally Atheists doing the attacking, mocking, defaming etc, and religious people doing the defending and justifying. I'm sure some will pounce on me for saying this, but just expressing my opinions. I doubt an Atheist could relate, since they're not often on the receiving end (at least on GAF), though ironically, many complain about having religion "shoved" down their throats earlier in life. Funny that later in life many of those same people would attempt to shove "atheist views" down the throats of religious people. Clear examples are littered throughout this very thread.

Nobody is shoving anything down anyone's throats. You chose of your own freewill to enter a topic which is, interestingly enough, about a horrible individual who uses his position of political power to try to pollute reality with his fucked up and factually incorrect beliefs. You'll never see an atheist knocking on your door and tryin' to tell you the good news, you'll never see an atheist endorsing the genocide of entire people's or an atheist systematically encouraging the hate of homosexuals like Eds Ainsworth on "The Sexual Education of Shelby Knox"

ED AINSWORTH: As we began this conversation, we were talking about tolerance v. intolerance. Christianity is the most intolerant religion in the world.

SHELBY KNOX: Yes. I would believe that.

ED AINSWORTH: And we take a lot of hits for that and sometimes I hear you speak and I look at you a little funny is because I hear you speak and I hear tolerance.

Here, he literally says the word "tolerance" with venom. When I saw this I almost spit out my water. But these are the type of leaders that are prevalent all throughout the religious world, leaders who endorse policy and influence politics and corrupt our children. Who endorse a horrible form of sexual repression and an unreasonable set of standards for living. Based an repulsive moral code from an grotesque holy book. HOW is it that merely using science to deconstruct how absurd these religions are is "arrogant" and "condescending", but using your religious-based power to systematically destroy aspects of the world is, eh, all in a day's work? Because whether you would outright say that or not, your ongoing defense of religion is implicit in your ignoring just how bad it is.

 

[CharminUltra]

I do not - EVER - want to see a religion built by atheists.

ROFL!

Oh man, thread just keeps delivering.

 

[Amir0x]

ROFL!

Oh man, thread just keeps delivering.

what? You know we're about to organize.

Now the question is, what traditions should we implement? What rituals do we need to have during our services?

I say if we're going to be atheists, our shit needs to be cool. So let's dig deep into the past and have orgies and shit as a way of getting in tune with our deeply atheistic principles. It, uh, really informs my disbelief in God to have wild sex.

 

[Narcosis]

 

[Amir0x]

in the name of the meatballs, sauce and noodles. Amen.

 

[Gorgon]

Ancient world had organized religion...

He was talking about the Bible, in case you missed it.

EDIT: beaten

 

[The Technomancer]

So yeah, if the Bible is a great book of moral guidelines even if you discount all of the mythic stuff I guess those ancient Greeks must have just lived in a murder-prone anarchy.

 

[freenudemacusers]

what? You know we're about to organize.

Now the question is, what traditions should we implement? What rituals do we need to have during our services?

We shouldn't allow marriage between religious people. The divorce rates are too high and damage families.

 

[Amir0x]

We shouldn't allow marriage between religious people. The divorce rates are too high and damage families.

approved.

but of course we can only implement such things among our own people and none of us are religious so!

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

So yeah, if the Bible is a great book of moral guidelines even if you discount all of the mythic stuff I guess those ancient Greeks must have just lived in a murder-prone anarchy.

uhhhh... the greeks had their own religion. And it was much more entertaining.

 

[Zaptruder]

It's a shame that the term atheist gets conflated with free thinking and secular humanism.

It's as bad as how faith is conflated with belief.

 

[SteveWinwood]

+1 for orgies.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

+1 for orgies.

You're gonna need a lot more than +1 for a decent orgy.

 

[Rocket Punch]

 

[SolidusDave]

Last week I found out that a PhD student in our lab doubts that evolution is true.

She simply does not want "to be a descendent from monkeys" (she doesn't seem to even really understand evolution anyway). Humans are not animals etc.

She studied biology, we work on molecular biology and genetics.
I mean how can she... if evolution were wrong, so would most of our knowledge&evidence of DNA (e.g. you can easily see how gene x is mutated in different species, calculate how far they are apart, follow lines during the course of millions of years and so on) ... her FUCKING PROJECT WOULDN'T EVEN WORK FFS.

For me it's worse than some normal creationist nut, because surely the country she's from thought her about evolution in her studies. She had access to all the necessary information and even needed to learn them for tests I assume.
The level of ignorance you need to have to ignore such facts in the very subject you like/study is incomprehensible to me.



Of course I said something when it came up, but for her it's like that "I attack her beliefs" and I was held back my another colleague. She does not understand that I don't care if she's believing in God, Santa or whatever (even though I personally think it's stupid, but whatever makes you feel better), but I can't tolerate someone in our field ignoring such basic facts.


She is nice girl otherwise, even though she always was a bit "stupid". So I won't be mean to her, but needless to say I will not give a fuck about any advice etc. she may give me at work. I do not listen to crazy people.



edit: oh and one of her arguments against evolution was "even Darwin was Cristian and thought monkeys come from god". Maybe she also confused evolution with the theory about the origin of life.

 

[Amir0x]

that emotional response is common in many people. But I mean, let's say Darwin WAS a deeply religious individual - he wasn't, and he himself said he was more likely to be labeled an agnostic than religious and that after deep analysis he could find no evidence of intelligent design in nature, let alone by that of an omniscient creator - what would that mean? Just because Darwin was the discoverer of evolution doesn't mean that all his other opinions are right or that he was able to merge this perspective with his new discovery.

It's just fluff speak. It doesn't mean anything at all to try to defend your belief by saying Darwin was Christian.

 

[elrechazado]

what? You know we're about to organize.

Now the question is, what traditions should we implement? What rituals do we need to have during our services?

Just read anathem by neal stephenson, it's already created. You could recreate the mathic world and live as avout.

 

[SteveWinwood]

You're gonna need a lot more than +1 for a decent orgy.

I take it that's your rsvp?

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I take it that's your rsvp?

Oh, it's one of THOSE kind of orgies? Do I need to bring a jello mold?
No thanks then.
I like spontaneity.

 

[Gorgon]

For me it's worse than some normal creationist nut, because surely the country she's from thought her about evolution in her studies. She had access to all the necessary information and even needed to learn them for tests I assume.
The level of ignorance you need to have to ignore such facts in the very subject you like/study is incomprehensible to me.

What country is she from? Just curious.

 

[Gr1mLock]

At some point these people mustn't be indulged. Maybe I'm just abrasive but half the time i just wanna say 'fuck your feelings'. People incapable of considering empirical evidence in lieu of their 'feelings' shouldn't even be humored.

 

[slidewinder]

Where are you from Gr1mLock? It is pretty common for people to believe in a 6-10,000 year-old earth and all that supposedly entails in some parts of the US, and pretty much unheard-of in others, just by way of justifying my question.

 

[Gr1mLock]

Where are you from Gr1mLock? It is pretty common for people to believe in a 6-10,000 year-old earth and all that supposedly entails in some parts of the US, and pretty much unheard-of in others, just by way of justifying my question.

Im from new york.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

boggling. you'd. groan-worthy. Fucking "agenda's"? What the hell?

Shut up. Stop posting about how awful everybody else is and post something of substance yourself. But you can't, because all you've got are crank-ass takes on the epistemological import of "dark energy" and nothing else. How useful.

Good sir what are you crying about now? I understand you can offer nothing of substance or apparently even of relevancy. Knowing this why do you keep posting?

At some point these people mustn't be indulged. Maybe I'm just abrasive but half the time i just wanna say 'fuck your feelings'. People incapable of considering empirical evidence in lieu of their 'feelings' shouldn't even be humored.

Speaking about something like evolution or a specific religious claim that can be refuted with empirical evidence certainly. This does not apply to the existence of God(s). Yet strangely I see people continually conflate empiricism not only superseded metaphysics but being mutually exclusive to it.

This clearly demonstrates that those speaking in such a way do not know what they are speaking about. Also, being abrasive and ignorant tends to not be a very good counter to ignorance and uhhh belief.

Im from new york.

New York City?! get the rope...

 

[Veezy]

Speaking about something like evolution or a specific religious claim that can be refuted with empirical evidence certainly. This does not apply to the existence of God(s). Yet strangely I see people continually conflate empiricism not only superseded metaphysics but being mutually exclusive to it.

This clearly demonstrates that those speaking in such a way do not know what they are speaking about. Also, being abrasive and ignorant tends to not be a very good counter to ignorance and uhhh belief.

So, there are thing we know, things we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know. So the absence of evidence is, basically, not the evidence of absence.

That thought process can apply to everything. You don’t have a problem with that type of logic?

 

[SolidusDave]

It's just fluff speak. It doesn't mean anything at all to try to defend your belief by saying Darwin was Christian.

I think they sometimes try to pull this card because they think this would somehow impress a non-religious person, tainting a scientific authority or whatever. I immediately responded that facts matter and that I don't give a shit about the person Darwin (plus that back then you pretty much had to be Christian/religious anyway, or at least say you are). Same with people giving the "but there are religious 'scientists'!!!111", I don't care, this doesn't mean you can argue against facts.

What country is she from? Just curious.

Georgia

Kinda makes it even more strange considering the anti-religious background that influenced this region. Though from her stories she also seems to be quite superstitious. e.g. she honestly believes that some fire magically sparks out of nothing every Eastern in her (big) city/church whatever...
Orthodox btw, but she doesn't like the rules of religions (well, of Catholics to be more specific)

 

[HeadlessRoland]

So, there are thing we know, things we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know. So the absence of evidence is, basically, not the evidence of absence.

That thought process can apply to everything. You don’t have a problem with that type of logic?

Im not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain it in another way?

It's just fluff speak. It doesn't mean anything at all to try to defend your belief by saying Darwin was Christian.

About as fluffy as saying, "RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!" Both are shortcuts to thought.

 

[krameriffic]

Speaking about something like evolution or a specific religious claim that can be refuted with empirical evidence certainly. This does not apply to the existence of God(s). Yet strangely I see people continually conflate empiricism not only superseded metaphysics but being mutually exclusive to it.

This clearly demonstrates that those speaking in such a way do not know what they are speaking about. Also, being abrasive and ignorant tends to not be a very good counter to ignorance and uhhh belief.

The notion that something supersedes physical reality is a scapegoat to try to put things outside the realm of our capacity to understand them, an invulnerability aura if you will. At the end of the day, it's just as ad hoc as any other non-empirical statement, but we defend this one by putting a shroud of mystique about it when there really is no magic. As conceited as it sounds, there is absolutely no reason to believe that there are things beyond our capacity to understand.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The notion that something supersedes physical reality is a scapegoat to try to put things outside the realm of our capacity to understand them, an invulnerability aura if you will.

Math is a scapegoat to try to put things outside the realm of our capacity to understand them?

 

[Gr1mLock]

Good sir what are you crying about now? I understand you can offer nothing of substance or apparently even of relevancy. Knowing this why do you keep posting?



Speaking about something like evolution or a specific religious claim that can be refuted with empirical evidence certainly. This does not apply to the existence of God(s). Yet strangely I see people continually conflate empiricism not only superseded metaphysics but being mutually exclusive to it.

This clearly demonstrates that those speaking in such a way do not know what they are speaking about. Also, being abrasive and ignorant tends to not be a very good counter to ignorance and uhhh belief.



New York City?! get the rope...

I don't recall stating being interested in 'countering' anything. I have literally zero interest of having any kind of a debate about God with you or anyone else. However do refrain from confusing being abrasive to being ignorant as the two are distinct and different. Also yes New York City.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I don't recall stating being interested in 'countering' anything. I have literally zero interest of having any kind of a debate about God with you or anyone else. However do refrain from confusing being abrasive to being ignorant as the two are distinct and different. Also yes New York City.

They are two different things, but they are very comfortable together. The new york city thing was from a salsa commercial, haha.

 

[Amir0x]

I think they sometimes try to pull this card because they think this would somehow impress a non-religious person, tainting a scientific authority or whatever. I immediately responded that facts matter and that I don't give a shit about the person Darwin (plus that back then you pretty much had to be Christian/religious anyway, or at least say you are). Same with people giving the "but there are religious 'scientists'!!!111", I don't care, this doesn't mean you can argue against facts.

Yeah I'd agree with that. They're trying to give unearned authority to their messed up beliefs. But it just always amuses me that people in that position so often turned to the very people they reject anyway in order to try to shore up their point of view. How convenient is it to try to toss away Darwin's seminal work because your belief in fairies prohibits rational, logical thought on the subject, but when you need to convince people that believing in God is OK at the intellectual level, you'll throw him out like some tainted trump card?

Georgia

Kinda makes it even more strange considering the anti-religious background that influenced this region. Though from her stories she also seems to be quite superstitious. e.g. she honestly believes that some fire magically sparks out of nothing every Eastern in her (big) city/church whatever...
Orthodox btw, but she doesn't like the rules of religions (well, of Catholics to be more specific)

she believes fire sparks out of nothing in her church?


Yeah maybe she just IS dumb.

 

[Gr1mLock]

They are two different things, but they are very comfortable together. The new york city thing was from a salsa commercial, haha.

Who's making conjectures now hmm?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Who's making conjectures now hmm?

Is this a riddle?

 

[Gr1mLock]

Is this a riddle?

Could be..

 

[Veezy]

Im not sure I understand what you mean. Can you explain it in another way?

Absolutely. Please, correct me if I'm understanding you wrong.

You stated that one can denounce things that we have certain evidence of. However, we cannot do the same about somebody's god or gods because there is no evidence they don't exist.

My issue with that, if I'm understanding you correctly, is there are plenty of various fantastical creatures, religious deities, and all sorts of other new age spiritual things that people truly believe in. However, there's no evidence these things exist. Isn't it more prudent to say "you really should have proof such and such exists before you base your entire life around it" rather than saying "it could be real, so go for it."

A silly example:
I've never seen a fairy. Would I be foolish to believe they exist or do I have to amuse the possibility they do exist because there's nothing out there that says they don't?

Hopefully, that makes sense.

 

[Aristion]

Nice...just got through the first program.

I listened to it over breakfast...so you just made my first half of my day quite enlightening...

EDIT: at the end of the first episode they had a caller who phoned in who wanted to debate and get a responce to his arguements against a god...

Did he manage to get a responce and where can I find it?

Usually the callers don't participate in future programs unfortunately.

But here's also a debate between a Christian and an atheist on the problem of evil.

 

[soul creator]

I'm not sure why people bring up vague, open-ended, non-interventionist deistic type gods as some type of defense against atheists. "Aha, but you can't refute this god! You atheists are so close-minded!".

Is there some mass collection of deists out there I'm not aware of? And if so, how exactly is their "god" not just A) a word used to fill in a gap in our knowledge or B) a redefinition of an already existing concept?

 

[Vaporak]

Math is a scapegoat to try to put things outside the realm of our capacity to understand them?

You are right that Math is not empirically verifiable or falsifiable, but this continental philosophy bullshit you've been peddling has to stop. Your position is an opinion, not a settled fact that your posts have suggested. Mathematics is not like God. Math+other assumptions leads to empirically verifiable and falsifiable predictions; God+other assumptions has not and seemingly never will do the same. That is a very important difference and why many empiricists are okay with the math assumption but not the god assumption.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Usually the callers don't participate in future programs unfortunately.

But here's also a debate between a Christian and an atheist on the problem of evil.

lol he forgot they had a debate? Really?

 

[Pixel Pete]

these threads always move too quickly for me to participate while I'm at work. And they are always so fun =[

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Absolutely. Please, correct me if I'm understanding you wrong.

You stated that one can denounce things that we have certain evidence of. However, we cannot do the same about somebody's god or gods because there is no evidence they don't exist.

Oh no you can denounce those things as well. And it doesn't have anything to do with evidence for something "mythical" its about the nature of what a God is. The defining characteristics of God(s) (omnipotence/omniscience) are not qualities that science can evaluate.

So its not the lack of evidence (I now understand what you meant) its that empirical substantiation for those "things" is not possible. If it exists or not its not possible to empirically verify it. So when people assert a lack of empirical substantiation it really makes no sense, being as how its not possible.

A Dragon for example if it existed would be something that could be (at least in theory) empirically verified. Same with vampires,werewolves or any other silly thing.

Your position is an opinion, not a settled fact that your posts have suggested.

Hahaha thanks for clearing that up for me.

Mathematics is not like God

An astounding gift for stating the obvious. I was not attempting to create parity between the concepts of Math and God. I was refuting the assertion that I quoted. You are arguing with your own imagination.

That is a very important difference and why many empiricists are okay with the math assumption but not the god assumption.

There is no assumption in math... Its a tool, you do not need to assume Math is "real" for it to function as a tool. You really think scientists assume math is anything but an abstract tool? Well, they don't (mostly). I was just giving a no-brainer response to the assertion everything that does not exist physically is inherently false. Math is hardly the only example I could have provided.

I'm not sure why people bring up vague, open-ended, non-interventionist deistic type gods as some type of defense against atheists.

You don't understand why people bring up metaphysical concepts as an example for things that science by their nature cannot examine? Its not a defense, its an attempt to convey some understanding about the nature of different forms of knowledge.

 

[Veezy]

Oh no you can denounce those things as well. And it doesn't have anything to do with evidence for something "mythical" its about the nature of what a God is. The defining characteristics of God(s) (omnipotence/omniscience) are not qualities that science can evaluate.

So its not the lack of evidence (I now understand what you meant) its that empirical substantiation for those "things" is not possible. If it exists or not its not possible to empirically verify it. So when people assert a lack of empirical substantiation it really makes no sense, being as how its not possible.

A Dragon for example if it existed would be something that could be (at least in theory) empirically verified. Same with vampires,werewolves or any other silly thing.

Just some background, the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a quote from Carl Sagan saying that the absence of evidence that UFOs are NOT visiting the Earth is a completely insufficient reason to conclude that UFOs ARE visiting the Earth.

It was also used, in a much more questionable stand point, by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saying that the absence of evidence that WMDs ARE in Iraq is a completely insufficient reason to conclude that WMDs AREN'T in Iraq. I loved that press conference.

On topic, I just don't understand how we can just throw some sort of god out there and say "it could exist because we don't have a way to determine it doesn't." That just seems entirely like faulty logic. It’s almost like saying that the absence of evidence that a god DOES exist is a completely insufficient reason to conclude that a god DOESN’T exist.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Just some background, the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a quote from Carl Sagan saying that the absence of evidence that UFOs are NOT visiting the Earth is a completely insufficient reason to conclude that UFOs ARE visiting the Earth.

For what it's worth, 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a Martin Rees quote. Carl Sagan used the quote quite effective in Demon Haunted World as you say, but he was referencing it himself.