On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 11:56:29 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Not saying I agree with that idea, but that's the counter argument that
>> I've run into in the past myself.
> 
> Sure, except that's factually incorrect. It's easy to do experiments to
> show it's pretty trivial to evolve something that does a rather
> sophisticated function without actually designing how it does it, and
> indeed with the result being difficult or impossible to analyze for how
> it works. In other words, no, the watch doesn't imply the watchmaker.

That presupposes enough understanding of evolution (or for that matter, 
believing the facts put in front of one that support its existence) to 
accept that as an alternate explanation.

I think we could probably agree that a watch is unlikely to happen as the 
evolution of something geologic, and certainly not to the extent that 
there are billions of them in existence.

> This is the same "I can't imagine how it could be anything else, so I
> must be right."  The old "since my imagination is inadequate, I must be
> right" argument. They said the same thing about thunder too.

True enough.  Personally, I've always taken the approach that if my 
imagination isn't adequate to the task of understanding, I don't know 
(rather than "anything I make up must be right").

It seems to me that a lot of the religious people I know believe we've 
advanced science to the point that there is no more to discover or 
understand - and if we don't know "it" now, we will never know it.

That certainly could explain the decline in math/science in the US...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe
> in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because*
> religion is illogical that this is possible.
It is? I can only talk about Christianism, but how silly of me to think that
about 1500 years of Europe's greatest minds would have ironed out the kinks so
much so that atheists can't think of anything really persuasive to make their
case. Christianism is based on a dogma: God exists. All the rest is logically
gleaned from the Bible. Mathematicians use axioms and then derive conclusions
logically from there. According to you, then, maths is illogical and irrational
because it is necessarily based on (unproven) axioms.
>
> > 3) Any logical-sounding statement defending religion made by a religious
> >    person must be flawed. It's not possible to approach religion in any
> >    logical and rational way. Religion always equals irrationality and
> >    illogical thinking.
>
> I don't think that's the case, no. Religion usually is illogical and
> unscientific, but to the extent that there's evidence, I think it's no
> longer faith. I.e., if you could logically convince someone of religion,
> I'm not sure it would be religion any more. When people got convinced
> that Thor wasn't real, it wasn't replaced with a different religion.
It wasn't? They went straight from Norse to atheist? Wow.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T
> >> WORK.
> >
> >   So that means that even if someone wants to explain in a completely
> > rational fashion some detail of the Bible, it's a perfectly valid form
> > of counter-argumentation to throw back irrational straw men?
>
> Nope. Nor did I do so. I merely pointed out what the Bible said. Josh
> was the one that came up with the unsupported rationalization.
>
> What's a straw-man about pointing out that eating the Tree of Knowledge
> gave us the same knowledge as God has?
>
> >   "Science", in a broad term, is not always about hard science, about the
> > mechanics of the universe. Science can also refer to the study of sociology,
> > culture, psychology, philosophy and logic. Something can be argumented
> > logically even if it doesn't necessarily refer to an actual physical
> > phenomenon.
>
> Yes, but to be science, it needs to be based on some sort of
> observation. What observation is "God's smarter than you are" based on?
Lessee. Have you ever observed a point, a line or a segment? As I'm sure you
know, the correct answer is: no, because they aren't defined. They're
oh-so-conveniently axiomatised (is that a word?). If you have never seen them,
and nobody has and never will, how do you know they exist? Geometry is based on
them, and space vectors too. Since there is no evidence of points' and lines'
existence, I can claim with atheistic certainty, that geometry doesn't exist,
and consequently neither ray-tracing.

> Have you read Job?
Yes. For those who don't know, it's about a very wise, very knowledgeable guy,
who thinks he is wronged by God, and demands justice. It's supposed to teach
humility. Funny that you should mention it.
> He's a sadistic SOB in that book. It sure doesn't
> sound like a good and loving God to me. And here I am, with the
> knowledge of good and evil. Yet I'm being told to shut up,
Who told you to shut up?!
> ignore what I
> read in the Bible, don't think about it, because God is so much smarter
> that what he does can't make sense, including not making sense to the
> person telling me this.
Don't you think you'd need all the relevant information to pass judgement? Do
judges just flip a coin or go by gut feeling in your country? AFAIK the Bible
only holds enough information to believe in God, not to pass judgment on Him
(apart from the sheer hubris of wanting to judge him in the first place).

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Not so much that they're too unlikely, but that they are vague enough as 
> to take anything that fits the criteria and say "well, it happened, so 
> therefore it wasn't improbable enough".  See the difference?

That's what science is for. And statistics. Generally speaking, it's 
*possible* quantum particles could randomly come into existence in the 
shape of a living, breathing Jesus. Unlikely enough I'd attribute it to 
something else, tho.

It's *possible* that all cancer world-wide spontaneously disappears a 
week after Pat Robertson gets on TV and tells people to pray for that. 
Again, statistically unlikely.

Yes, I could play the games that religious people play defending their 
faith, but I wouldn't.

> Sure, but none of that particularly implies rapture.

I wasn't trying to be 100% precise, because I have no expectation on any 
reward for my efforts. I don't expect my proof to materialize, and I 
don't expect religious people to respect or understand my atheism any 
more regardless of how precise I am.

> it could well be said that the rest of 
> us are in hell and those few were saved.

Then this turns into a pretty silly argument, doesn't it? :-)

>> I'll personally disagree on this one. Sometimes, you're just f'ed, and
>> that's necessary for a free society.
> 
> Perhaps, but you'll note that I didn't say it was government's role, but 
> society's role.  I think an important part of a decent society is to 
> recognize bad things happening and to say "hey, that's bad" and to do 
> something about it.

Do something about it with force? You're describing government.

> That is why, as a society, we have laws.

I understand. I think it would be a bad law to let the government decide 
what's best for your own children.

> second, that God missed.

<punchline> God damn it, I missed. </punchline>

Heh.

Plus, of course, an event of size one is really not something easy to 
analyze statistically.


> Statistically speaking, all of those events are quite improbable, yet it 
> happened.

Statistics doesn't apply to one event, generally speaking. Everything 
that actually happens is 100% probably. :-)

Is it miraculous that I roll 10 6's in a row? No. Is it miraculous that 
I can do it on demand without cheating? Sure.

You can't look at an event that already happened, and say "gee, that was 
really unlikely, so something must be up." Basic rule of statistics.

> Agreed, because belief isn't logical.  Otherwise, it wouldn't be belief, 
> it'd be fact-based.

Well, it isn't (in my experience) logical, but it's also not scientific. 
The two are somewhat different.

>> There's also the other fun kinds of conversations: "Do you believe in
>> Life After Death?"
>>     "Sure."
>> "Then you *are* religious."
>>     "No, why would you say that? Can't there be LaD without God?"
> 
> Heh, yes, that's true enough.  (The "fun conversation" aspect, not the 
> content).

If you like that sort of stuff, read some Greg Egan works. I'd recommend 
Permutation City for a start, or his Axiomatic short-story collection.

>> And it constantly amazes me the number of people who try to support
>> religion by pretending organization of structure is unimportant. That
>> there must be some physical "thing" that represents the difference
>> between a live person and a dead person, beyond how the parts are
>> positioned.
> 
> Well, some people do seem to have the need to think "there's got to be 
> more to it than what I see", and I don't have a problem with that up to 
> the point that they try to convince me that if I just studied harder/
> prayed harder/did whatever they do, it'd be revealed to me as well.  I've 
> got my own understanding of the universe based - I think like yours - 
> around what I can observe or logically infer from what I observe.

Well, yes. But what I was trying to say is, I see many arguments along 
the lines that the soul must exist because there's no physical 
difference between the chemicals in a live body and in a dead body. Yet 
these same people will cheerfully ask you to install the operating 
system on their new blank hard drive. :)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And no, I don't think so. I mean, after all, what did it take to
> convince the Romans? Jesus returning to life, performing all sorts of
> miracles. Why is it egotistical for me, and not for Apostle Thomas?
There's these guys stating they saw something. Apparently you don't believe
them. Fine. Do you then disbelieve Chinese recording the 1054 supernova? Do you
disbelieve historians of centuries past? If not, why not?
>
> Of course, when you start from the axiom that God is real, present, and
> obvious, then anyone who doubts is insulting said God. When you start
> from the premise that God isn't real, the obvious question that springs
> to mind is "what, outside the Bible, should I look at to be convinced?"
If there was an answer to that, the question would be meaningless, no?
>
> Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that
> ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an
> actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's
> writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the
> 1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what
> card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is
> real? If not, why not?
Depends if it was his deck or not, I guess. ;-)
<snip>
> Do you see how you're starting from the presumption that you know you're
> right? Do you see how each response you make implies that the God I
> would wind up believing in is the same one you believe in?
As opposed to atheists, who just know there is no God?
> That while I
> should believe in your God without miracles, believing in someone else's
> God even with miracles is wrong?
You lost me there.
> >> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
> >> touch.
>
> Funny how nobody seems to argue with this one, isn't it?
>
If you insist. Does limb regeneration without a healer count? Have you ever
heard of Bunuel, the spanish movie director? He was an atheist of the
Christian-bashing variety. He was born in a small village, I believe, that had
had the only limb regeneration miracle I ever heard of. Even though atheist,
Bunuel would eat alive anybody who raised even the slightest doubt on the limb
regrowing.
> The Vatican has a lightning rod on the top. Clearly, someone believes
> prayer by the Pope is insufficient to prevent burning down St Paul's.
Would that be St Peter?
>
> > Churches are human institutions and are just
> > as fallible and bound to the original sin.
>
> Even the Mayan temples? The Pele shrines? See how you assume you're right?
Looks to me he assumes he's right about as much as you do.
> In any case, I thought baptism got rid of original sin or something? Is
> the Pope really still being punished in this world for Original Sin? I
> thought believing in Jesus and/or doing the right rituals got rid of
> that original sin? That whole "Jesus died for our sins" isn't right? Is
> there anything one can do to stop being punished for Adam's "sin"?
>
That is correct. For Christians baptism gets rid of original sin.
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think we could probably agree that a watch is unlikely to happen as the 
> evolution of something geologic,

Any particular item is unlikely to happen at all. I don't think it's 
that far-fetched to believe in something that keeps time based on 
sunrise, sunset, or tides.

If you ran across a tidepool of water that was just at the right height 
to empty out just as the tide came back in, would it be miraculous?

> True enough.  Personally, I've always taken the approach that if my 
> imagination isn't adequate to the task of understanding, I don't know 
> (rather than "anything I make up must be right").

Heh. Yeah, exactly.

> It seems to me that a lot of the religious people I know believe we've 
> advanced science to the point that there is no more to discover or 
> understand - and if we don't know "it" now, we will never know it.

I don't think it's that exactly. But of course people have been 
predicting the end of science since the greeks.

> That certainly could explain the decline in math/science in the US...

But has it really? I read all kinds of conflicting reports. It's not 
like the US doesn't still invent buttloads of cool technology.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
> Ah, the magic of statistics. :-D If it's statistically proven, then you can be
> confident it isn't proven.

Define "proven" then.

I'm pretty sure we've proven the sun comes up reliably every day, and 
that the phases of the moon repeat about once every 4 weeks. If God gave 
proof at that level, I don't think I'd question his existence.

> You seem to be a knowledgeable fellow, surely you know that in logic the
> conclusion is already present in the premises.

In some sense, yes. That's the logical sense of "proven".

> You can't compare that to
> empirical validation, which typically resorts to statistics and therefore makes
> for a qualitatively different statement. 

Exactly. I'm not sure why you're explaining this to me. That's why I 
make the distinction between rational, logical, and scientific.

> In statistics you give up certainty to
> get (possibly) greater insight through inference. It makes no sense to claim
> that you can prove a negative with statistics.

Sure it does. If you can "prove" a positive statement with statistics, 
you can prove a negative statement in the same way.

"This drug cures cancer."
"This drug does *not* fail to cure cancer."

These aren't quite the same statement statistically speaking, I know, 
but it makes the point.

>>> and it's that faith in the impossible not happening
>>> that provides them with the comfort of their beliefs.

>> I have a great deal of faith that the impossible won't happen.

> I guess that begs the question: define "impossible".

Define "proof" first. Or God. Or Faith. Why am I the first person who 
has to nail down exactly what I mean by everyday words?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> In article <47584b83$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> It was both enlightening, and at the time, funny as hell to read. Now, I
> just find the fact that this is *always* the result of such purely
> philosophical arguments with such people a bit depressing.
>
> Don't believe me, then try it yourself. I absolutely guarantee that, no
> matter how smart or literate the believer, and how careful you are to
> "only" deal with the arguments they bring up, and be completely fair to
> them, it will *inevitably* sink to the point where their only defense is
> that they believe, you don't, and until you do, you won't understand the
> sublime genius of their position.
Obviously. It's like a rational discussion between a left wing and right wing
junkies. Nobody will ever convince the guys on the other side. So what?
Different axioms at the base of the logical construct make inevitably for
different conclusions. That is why atheists attack single-mindedly the Genesis
and Jesus: because they are the roots of Christianism.
What I find funny, is that the lalala Christians, as you yourself mentioned in
another post, use long rants, with lots of asterisks, I've seen it too. Well,
some of it rubbed off on you. LOL.

>
> --
> void main () {

>     if version = "Vista" {
>       call slow_by_half();
>       call DRM_everything();
>     }
>     call functional_code();
>   }
>   else
>     call crash_windows();
> }
>
> <A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
>
> 3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > It was both enlightening,
>
> My epiphany happened in university, with that roommate I spoke of,
> realizing thru careful questioning that in matters of faith, modus
> ponens just doesn't hold.  It took me about 45 minutes of questioning.
>
> "So you believe A?"
>    "Yes"
> "And you believe that A always leads to B?"
>    "Yes"
> "And that when A always leads to B, and A happens, then B
>        inevitably happens?"
>    "Sure."
> "And you said you believe A?"
>     "Yep."
> "Then you believe B?"
>     "Uh, no, why would you say that?"
>
>
>
> --
>    Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>      It's not feature creep if you put it
>      at the end and adjust the release date.

Now I'm curious. What ineluctable logic did you think up?

Post a reply to this message

Grassblade wrote:
> There's these guys stating they saw something. Apparently you don't believe
> them. Fine.

Oh, even if I did believe they saw it, that doesn't mean I believe their 
interpretation of what they saw. I saw David Copperfield make the statue 
of liberty disappear too.

 > Do you then disbelieve Chinese recording the 1054 supernova?

No, because we have modern-day scientific evidence of it. You can point 
a telescope and see the remains of the supernova where they said it 
happened, and calculate how long ago it happend, which turns out to be 
just about 1000 years.

 > Do you disbelieve historians of centuries past?

Of course I do. They may or may not be accurate, depending on their 
point of view. Do you think there are no histories with conflicting 
information in them?

What historians, *other* than biblical, do you base your entire life and 
view of the universe around?

Do you believe in Islam? How about Mormonism? If not, why not? Aren't 
those historical figures just as valid as the folks in the Bible?

How about Jason and the Argonauts? Do you believe in that? Why not?

>> to mind is "what, outside the Bible, should I look at to be convinced?"

> If there was an answer to that, the question would be meaningless, no?

I wouldn't think so.

>> Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that
>> ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an
>> actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's
>> writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the
>> 1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what
>> card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is
>> real? If not, why not?
> Depends if it was his deck or not, I guess. ;-)

I'll take that as meaning there's nothing that would convince you. 
Again, why not? Why do you believe biblical historians, and not someone 
from just a few hundred years ago?

>> Do you see how you're starting from the presumption that you know you're
>> right? Do you see how each response you make implies that the God I
>> would wind up believing in is the same one you believe in?

> As opposed to atheists, who just know there is no God?

Except I only "know" it in the scientific sense. I am confident, not 
faithful. I not only am confident your god doesn't exist, I'm confident 
that Shiva doesn't exist, that Zeus doesn't exist, etc.

>> That while I
>> should believe in your God without miracles, believing in someone else's
>> God even with miracles is wrong?

> You lost me there.

I've lost too much context to explain what I was getting at. Except that 
I'm pretty sure that you'd expect me to believe in your God even if some 
other God was offering actual physical evidence.

If not, then why kill witches?

>>>> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
>>>> touch.
>> Funny how nobody seems to argue with this one, isn't it?
>>
> If you insist. Does limb regeneration without a healer count? 

No. The point is that if God does it, I'll believe in that God. Which 
God should I believe in if it happens to an atheist? Indeed, that's even 
more evidence that those who believe in God are incorrect - why would he 
do a miracle for an unrepentant atheist?

>> The Vatican has a lightning rod on the top. Clearly, someone believes
>> prayer by the Pope is insufficient to prevent burning down St Paul's.
> Would that be St Peter?

Yep. My mistake.

>>> Churches are human institutions and are just
>>> as fallible and bound to the original sin.
>> Even the Mayan temples? The Pele shrines? See how you assume you're right?
> Looks to me he assumes he's right about as much as you do.

Right. I'm just pointing it out.

>> In any case, I thought baptism got rid of original sin or something? Is
>> the Pope really still being punished in this world for Original Sin? I
>> thought believing in Jesus and/or doing the right rituals got rid of
>> that original sin? That whole "Jesus died for our sins" isn't right? Is
>> there anything one can do to stop being punished for Adam's "sin"?
>>
> That is correct. For Christians baptism gets rid of original sin.

Then saying there's evil in the world that happens to Christians because 
of original sin doesn't make much sense.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message