Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

Some interesting stuff in there that surprised me myself, re how 
well-tested Darwin's theory of evolution actually is - and also why it's 
so poorly accepted in the US.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/01/2014 03:15 AM, clipka wrote:
> Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:

Although "we requested comment, but they stipulated conditions 
incompatible with normal journalistic practise"... yeah, that sounds 
nicely vague, doesn't it?

I mean, I'm sure what they *actually* said is "we will only talk to you 
if we get to edit out the questions we don't want to answer". But this 
authoritative "incompatible with normal journalistic practise" still 
sounds slightly creepy.

> Some interesting stuff in there that surprised me myself, re how
> well-tested Darwin's theory of evolution actually is

Looking at the crumbling remains of some barely recognisable bones is 
one thing. But when you look at DNA sequences and see how utterly 
identical some of them are, and watch how they gradually change as you 
move from species to species, and from continent... it's really quite 
hard to deny that there's something going on here. It's roughly the 
equivalent of *insisting* that the Earth is flat, and that there's no 
evidence to the contrary.

> and also why it's so poorly accepted in the US.

This is the thing that gets me. I'm less interested in watching a 2-hour 
documentary about "he said, she said, they said", and more interested in 
"why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which 
is obviously ridiculous?"

That, to me, is the issue here. As long as there are unbelievers, there 
will be legal battles, there will be death threats, there will be 
conspiracies and underhanded tactics to force evolution out. This is not 
surprising. The question is, WHY ARE THERE UNBELIEVERS?? Why do people 
have these weird beliefs in the first place?

Quantum mechanics makes utterly bizarre claims that defy belief... and 
nobody is receiving death threats over teaching quantum mechanics. 
Evolution states the obvious, and the entire country is in uproar... WTF?

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.01.2014 15:57, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 18/01/2014 03:15 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:
>
> Although "we requested comment, but they stipulated conditions
> incompatible with normal journalistic practise"... yeah, that sounds
> nicely vague, doesn't it?
>
> I mean, I'm sure what they *actually* said is "we will only talk to you
> if we get to edit out the questions we don't want to answer". But this
> authoritative "incompatible with normal journalistic practise" still
> sounds slightly creepy.

I interpret it as a means to concentrate on the ID vs evolution thing 
and the trial, rather than getting sidetracked on the ID proponents' 
behaviour (except where subject of the trial).


>> Some interesting stuff in there that surprised me myself, re how
>> well-tested Darwin's theory of evolution actually is
>
> Looking at the crumbling remains of some barely recognisable bones is
> one thing. But when you look at DNA sequences and see how utterly
> identical some of them are, and watch how they gradually change as you
> move from species to species, and from continent... it's really quite
> hard to deny that there's something going on here. It's roughly the
> equivalent of *insisting* that the Earth is flat, and that there's no
> evidence to the contrary.

I particularly like the 24 vs 23 chromosome thing in apes vs humans. 
Perfect case for a testable prediction made by evolution.


>> and also why it's so poorly accepted in the US.
>
> This is the thing that gets me. I'm less interested in watching a 2-hour
> documentary about "he said, she said, they said", and more interested in
> "why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which
> is obviously ridiculous?"

In case you haven't noticed, the documentary does mention that hadn't 
been taught at US schools until a few decades ago. Which explains a lot.

(According to Wikipedia, in the early 20th century, multiple US states 
passed legislation making it outright /illegal/ to teach evolution at 
publich schools, and in a provoked test case the legislation was ruled 
constitutional; according to the Nova documentary, this caused biology 
textbook publishers to remove evolution from the books entirely. Again 
according to Wikipedia, it was only until the late 1960's that said 
legislation was challegned again, this time with success.)

With that in mind, the utter misunderstanding of the mechanisms of 
evolution among older generations of US residents isn't really that 
surprising at all.


What makes me optimistic about the issue is that in various recent cases 
where US school boards or boards of education had made decisions in 
favor of creationism (aka ID, aka Critical Analysis of Evolution, aka 
whatever label they'll come up with after that), the next elections of 
those bodies have seen proponents of ID lose their seats to outspoken 
opponents of ID.


> Quantum mechanics makes utterly bizarre claims that defy belief... and
> nobody is receiving death threats over teaching quantum mechanics.
> Evolution states the obvious, and the entire country is in uproar... WTF?

QM has the advantage of not being inconsistent with the Bible in any 
ways (to the contrary, it does open up the door again for the 
metaphysical, which had been closed by Newton), so no need to fight a 
holy war over it.

And as for Evolution stating the obvious, that's only true in Europe, 
because we have been exposed to the idea to such an extent that we're 
intimately familiar with the concept.

Post a reply to this message

>> This is the thing that gets me. I'm less interested in watching a 2-hour
>> documentary about "he said, she said, they said", and more interested in
>> "why the hell do 50% of the population ACTUALLY BELIEVE something which
>> is obviously ridiculous?"
>
> In case you haven't noticed, the documentary does mention that hadn't
> been taught at US schools until a few decades ago. Which explains a lot.
>
> (According to Wikipedia, in the early 20th century, multiple US states
> passed legislation making it outright /illegal/ to teach evolution at
> publich schools, and in a provoked test case the legislation was ruled
> constitutional; according to the Nova documentary, this caused biology
> textbook publishers to remove evolution from the books entirely. Again
> according to Wikipedia, it was only until the late 1960's that said
> legislation was challegned again, this time with success.)
>
> With that in mind, the utter misunderstanding of the mechanisms of
> evolution among older generations of US residents isn't really that
> surprising at all.

Seriously? They made it illegal to teach people evolution? For 40 years??

Huh. Well, I suppose that explains it all then... o_O

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:57:39 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>  The question is, WHY ARE THERE UNBELIEVERS?? Why do people
> have these weird beliefs in the first place?

See "The Believing Brain" by Michael Schermer.  Or, as I recall, he wrote 
a book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things" (or something close to 
that.)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Just came across this refreshingly unbiased documentary:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2xyrel-2vI

I like this part of the wikipedia article on the Dover trial:

  After the trial, there were calls for the defendants accused of not
  presenting their case honestly to be put on trial for committing
  perjury. "Witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied
  outright under oath on several occasions," Jones wrote. "The
  inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William]
  Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell
  repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants
  have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their
  own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious,
  untruthful testimony."

"Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron. I have had discussions with
creationists, and it's incredible how much they are ready to lie, distort
and fabricate, even though honesty ought to be one of the core principles
of Christianity.

I think creationism (especially young-earth creationism), when instilled
enough into a brain, causes a cognitive dissonance where the person just
cannot comprehend that they are willfully lying and distorting, and have
this notion that they are still being honest even though they obviously
are not.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:11:49 -0500, Warp wrote:

> "Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron.

Something we agree on.

My younger brother, who has a degree in philosophy and religion, has a 
good friend who's a young earth creationist, but who has enough of a 
science background that he has built some of the most dishonest circular 
arguments I've ever seen.  If you don't know science, you'll get sucked 
into his explanations and citations from "Answers in Genesis" (the people 
who brought you - and I'm not making this up - the "Creation Mueseum", 
which more or less depicts the time of the dinosaurs as if The 
Flintstones were a documentary).

Debating with him is one of the most pointless exercises I've ever 
engaged in.  It got so bad, that for my own health, I blocked him on 
Facebook so I wouldn't have to read his drivel, because it drove my blood 
pressure up trying to reason with him.

My premise being this:  I disagree with him, he believes his god is 
infallible.  So, I'm arguing against his god, whom he absolutely believes 
in.

Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in 
debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the 
situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible 
is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with 
him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.

A perfect demonstration of how not to debate a topic.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in 
> debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the 
> situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible 
> is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with 
> him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.

This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their
world view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.

However, the problem is that many of them are trying to *force* their
belief system onto others, especially children, by lobbying the
government and other means. This is not something that we can just
ignore, like we can eg. with the Moon landing conspiracy theorists
(who are obnoxious but at least aren't trying to pass laws to enforce
their beliefs on others.)

I once had a long email conversation with a young-earth creationist
about the subject of honesty, and why most creationist arguments and
tactics are not. For example, I tried to explain to him why quote-mining
is a really dishonest tactic.

(The intellectually honest thing to do when you see an isolated quote
from eg. an evolutionary biologist that seems to go completely against
the theory of evolution is to ask yourself questions like: "Why is this
known biologist seemingly saying something against evolution? Is this
quote possibly taken out of context? What did this person mean by this?
Has he explained what he meant in the rest of the text, or in other texts?
Has he been asked about this and responded, and if so, what did he say
about it?" Then the honest person would try to find out and draw
conclusions only *after* he has all the facts. But no, this is not what
a creationist does. Instead, a creationist is extremely opportunistic:
The isolated quote seems to say something against evolution, and it's made
by a known scientist. To hell what he really meant by it and what else he
has said on the subject, just take the quote and use it as a weapon.
Intended meaning is not important, only the impression that the isolated
quote gives.)

However, no matter how I tried to explain this, it didn't seem to register.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/18/2014 11:08 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:57:39 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>>   The question is, WHY ARE THERE UNBELIEVERS?? Why do people
>> have these weird beliefs in the first place?
>
> See "The Believing Brain" by Michael Schermer.  Or, as I recall, he wrote
> a book titled "Why People Believe Weird Things" (or something close to
> that.)
>
> Jim
>
>
>
Hmm. Thought I had that one. But, the one I have is "Paranormality: Why 
we see what isn't there.", by Richard Wiseman, but yeah, you're only 
missing the extended part of the title.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/18/2014 12:44 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:11:49 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> "Honest creationist" really is an oxymoron.
>
> Something we agree on.
>
> My younger brother, who has a degree in philosophy and religion, has a
> good friend who's a young earth creationist, but who has enough of a
> science background that he has built some of the most dishonest circular
> arguments I've ever seen.  If you don't know science, you'll get sucked
> into his explanations and citations from "Answers in Genesis" (the people
> who brought you - and I'm not making this up - the "Creation Mueseum",
> which more or less depicts the time of the dinosaurs as if The
> Flintstones were a documentary).
>
> Debating with him is one of the most pointless exercises I've ever
> engaged in.  It got so bad, that for my own health, I blocked him on
> Facebook so I wouldn't have to read his drivel, because it drove my blood
> pressure up trying to reason with him.
>
> My premise being this:  I disagree with him, he believes his god is
> infallible.  So, I'm arguing against his god, whom he absolutely believes
> in.
>
Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that 
they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc., 
while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support 
his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over 
here:

http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong

What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out" 
atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit.. 
odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between 
a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I 
decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to 
getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the 
discussion, and let the rest just go at him.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/18/2014 4:09 PM, Warp wrote:
> (The intellectually honest thing to do when you see an isolated quote
> from eg. an evolutionary biologist that seems to go completely against
> the theory of evolution is to ask yourself questions like: "Why is this
> known biologist seemingly saying something against evolution? Is this
> quote possibly taken out of context? What did this person mean by this?
> Has he explained what he meant in the rest of the text, or in other texts?
> Has he been asked about this and responded, and if so, what did he say
> about it?" Then the honest person would try to find out and draw
> conclusions only *after* he has all the facts. But no, this is not what
> a creationist does. Instead, a creationist is extremely opportunistic:
> The isolated quote seems to say something against evolution, and it's made
> by a known scientist. To hell what he really meant by it and what else he
> has said on the subject, just take the quote and use it as a weapon.
> Intended meaning is not important, only the impression that the isolated
> quote gives.)
>
Actually, its worse than that. One of the posts linked to, in comments, 
form the blog post I mention in the other post I made is a short bit 
showing some original footage taken by Ray "The Banana Man" Comfort, in 
which he asks two people a fairly nuanced question (to which, I 
personally, would have said no way to, regardless of circumstances), 
about whether or not they might kill someone for a lot of money, if they 
*knew* that the person paying them was the wife of the man she wanted 
killed, and he beat her near to death. He then went and found believers, 
asked them if they would do it for free, then "edited" the result, so 
that it looked like he also asked the non-believers the same, "Would you 
kill someone for free." Noting - no mention of the wife having been 
beaten up by the guy doing it.

Its not just a case that they cherry pick what they need out of 
something something someone has said, but they, sometimes, completely 
substitute questions that where never asked, at all, so that the cherry 
picked bit sounds even worse than that it did, when taken out of context.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong

It seems to be a lost battle to try to explain to people that "atheism"
is not a movement, a world view, a set of dogmas, or anything, really.

The words theism and atheism deal with one question, and one question
only: Do you believe in the existence of a god? If you do have such a
belief, then you are a theist, else you are an atheist. What other views
you have is completely inconsequential.

If you want to "try atheism", you could just as well become a Raelian
or a Buddhist. They don't believe in a god, so they are, by definition,
atheists. You can, in fact, believe in all kinds of supernatural hocus
pocus, spirits, the afterlife, psychic powers of the brain, the unicorns
of Atlantis... and still be an atheist, if you don't believe in a god.
The term does not imply anything beyond that one single question.

I'd even go so far as to say that theism isn't a world view either,
and for the exact same reason: It deals with the same question and does
not imply anything else beyond that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> Seriously? They made it illegal to teach people evolution? For 40 years??
>
> Huh. Well, I suppose that explains it all then... o_O

Suddenly, the sceptical reporter's astonished mutterings of "why have we 
never heard about any of this before?" take on a whole different tone...

I guess if you haven't *seen* the vast swathes of evidence, it's easy to 
believe the (commonly repeated) claims that none exists.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/01/2014 11:09 PM, Warp wrote:

> This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their
> world view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.
>
> However, the problem is that many of them are trying to *force* their
> belief system onto others, especially children, by lobbying the
> government and other means. This is not something that we can just
> ignore, like we can eg. with the Moon landing conspiracy theorists
> (who are obnoxious but at least aren't trying to pass laws to enforce
> their beliefs on others.)

This is the thing.

If you want to believe that God exists, sure, you can do that. But if 
you want to claim that this is a scientifically verified fact... erm, 
no. No it is not. Get lost!

Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of 
what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true. God may 
actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this, 
the question is outside the remit of science.

And another thing. Every time somebody stands up and defends evolution, 
they start receiving death threats. When was the last time a good honest 
Christian received death threats from the scientists for daring to teach 
Genesis?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you want to believe that God exists, sure, you can do that. But if 
> you want to claim that this is a scientifically verified fact... erm, 
> no. No it is not. Get lost!

Almost every single "proof" of a god's existence amounts to a very
straightforward argument from ignorance. Almost all of them take,
basically, the form of:

"You have no explanation for this, therefore God."

All of the classical "proofs" are like that. For instance:

"The universe's existence must have had a cause (because my personal
common sense says so, and I'll ignore any possibility of the contrary.)
You can't explain what that cause was, therefore it was God."

"The universe is clearly designed for us in mind. You can't explain how
else it's like that, therefore it was made by God."

"The reader's digest version of the popular science version of scientific
law X (most often "thermodynamics") says this. Therefore God."

"Abstract concepts exist. They come from God. (Proof skipped as
unnecessary.)"

"Evolution cannot explain X. Therefore God."

And naturally "God" is never something like Brahma or Allah, or an entity
completely unknown to us. Of course it's always the God of the Bible.
What else?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 19/01/2014 11:33 AM, Warp wrote:
> And naturally "God" is never something like Brahma or Allah, or an entity
> completely unknown to us. Of course it's always the God of the Bible.
> What else?

Interesting fact: I don't know if God exists, but the Christian Holy 
Bible definitely *does* exist. It's a real thing. It's reportedly the 
most printed book in history.

If you ignore all the superstitious nonsense and focus on how this piece 
of literature came into being... actually kinda interesting. I wander if 
all those self-righteous "the Bible is inerrant" white folks out there 
actually know they're reading an Iraqi tribal myth that's been edited 
and redacted for other a thousand years?

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 11:07, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> Seriously? They made it illegal to teach people evolution? For 40 years??
>>
>> Huh. Well, I suppose that explains it all then... o_O
>
> Suddenly, the sceptical reporter's astonished mutterings of "why have we
> never heard about any of this before?" take on a whole different tone...
>
> I guess if you haven't *seen* the vast swathes of evidence, it's easy to
> believe the (commonly repeated) claims that none exists.

Exactly my thought.

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 11:10, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

> If you want to believe that God exists, sure, you can do that. But if
> you want to claim that this is a scientifically verified fact... erm,
> no. No it is not. Get lost!
>
> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.

Erm... no, not really.

I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a 
manner that allows for reliable predictions.

There is only one branch of science that deals with stuff that can be 
proven, and that's mathematics. Even that one relies on axioms that may, 
or may not, be actually true.

In all other branches, proof can never be achieved. Disproof may, however.

> God may
> actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this,
> the question is outside the remit of science.

Fully agree on that one.

In my above definition of science however, it's not because we can't 
prove or disprove his/her/their existence, but because that matter 
doesn't get us anywhere in our predictions. (There's even a lot of 
scripture on this matter.)

> And another thing. Every time somebody stands up and defends evolution,
> they start receiving death threats. When was the last time a good honest
> Christian received death threats from the scientists for daring to teach
> Genesis?

:-P

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a 
> manner that allows for reliable predictions.

Perhaps the ultimate goal if science, besides allowing us to understand
how the universe works, is practical applications. As the adage goes,
"science works, b****". That's not just a joke.

On the other hand, it's hard to find any practical applications of
creationism.

A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind, one of the most famous
creationists, and he listed lots of *practical* applications of
understanding evolution (including things like understanding how
evolution works has allowed us to develop the techniques that can be
used for eg. tracing where certain pathogens originate, how closely
linked they are, and so on.) He asked Hoving what would be the practical
applications of creationism.

Hoving responded that it allows us to teach children how living beings
are divided into kinds and so on and so for. Yes, he literallly, although
mostly inadvertently, argued that the advantage of creationism is that we
can teach children about creationism.

The circularity of this argument was just baffling.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>
> Erm... no, not really.
>
> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
> manner that allows for reliable predictions.

Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)

> There is only one branch of science that deals with stuff that can be
> proven, and that's mathematics. Even that one relies on axioms that may,
> or may not, be actually true.
>
> In all other branches, proof can never be achieved. Disproof may, however.

It is the study of things which can be objectively determined to be true 
or false (as opposed to whoever shouts the loudest in an argument).

I would say "things which can be experimentally verified or refuted", 
except... how the **** do you do an experiment to verify the negative 
curvature of intergalactic space?

Your definition makes it sound like knowledge is only science if it has 
immediate real-world applications. Which isn't the case.

A useful example is String Theory. It's very sciency, it has lots of 
impressive-looking equations, it's a highly active area of research... 
but it's not science. It hasn't made a single *testable* prediction yet. 
Until that happens, it is no more scientific than Creationism.

The difference, of course, is that String Theory has the potential that 
some day it *may* make such a prediction. And if that day comes, it will 
be science. Creationism is unlikely to ever make such a prediction.

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 09:29, schrieb Warp:

> It seems to be a lost battle to try to explain to people that "atheism"
> is not a movement, a world view, a set of dogmas, or anything, really.
...
> I'd even go so far as to say that theism isn't a world view either,
> and for the exact same reason: It deals with the same question and does
> not imply anything else beyond that.

While you have a point there, you're wrong in your conclusion.

Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a 
multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.

Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/ 
supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.


If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being 
is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the 
existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we 
simply can't know for sure.

Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.


It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic 
views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 14:33, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>
>> Erm... no, not really.
>>
>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>
> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)

Cross-examination, your honor.

Mr. Quantum dynamics, did you, or did you not, as early as 1924-25, lead 
Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein to the prediction of a 
previously unknown state of matter, now known as Bose-Einstein-concensate?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been proposed by Fritz London in 1938 as an explanation for both 
superfluidity in Helium as well as superconductivity?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been confirmed experimentally, no sooner than 1995, 70 years after it 
was first predicted?

No further questions, your honor.


> Your definition makes it sound like knowledge is only science if it has
> immediate real-world applications. Which isn't the case.

No, that's what Warp's definition invokes. Prediction is a 
/prerequisite/ for real-world application, but it can well come without.


> A useful example is String Theory. It's very sciency, it has lots of
> impressive-looking equations, it's a highly active area of research...
> but it's not science. It hasn't made a single *testable* prediction yet.

See? You're invoking the "prediction" thing yourself here. And as for 
the "reliable", I think that's pretty much congruent to "testable".

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a 
> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/ 
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.

> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being 
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the 
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we 
> simply can't know for sure.

You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Many people think that we have a wide spectrum of belief, with theism
and atheism being on the extremes and agnosticism being right in the
middle. However, that's not what the concepts mean at all.

Theism/atheism is a true dichotomy that deals with one question: Do you
believe in the existence of a god?

Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
agnostic view is that it is not.

These two things are independent and not mutually exclusive. All four
combinations are possible and sensible:

A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
(or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)

An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.

A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
more or less what "strong atheism" means.

An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
assert it with certainty.

People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

The term "atheism" in common parlance carries with itself a ton of baggage
that it shouldn't really have. People immediately think of *strong* atheism
(even though the word doesn't carry that implication), in addition to all
kinds of other views, such as naturalism, skepticism, anti-religious
sentiments and so on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 6:10 AM, clipka wrote:
>> God may
>> actually exist - but since it is impossible to prove or disprove this,
>> the question is outside the remit of science.
>
> Fully agree on that one.
>
> In my above definition of science however, it's not because we can't
> prove or disprove his/her/their existence, but because that matter
> doesn't get us anywhere in our predictions. (There's even a lot of
> scripture on this matter.)
>
I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable 
something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is 
invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always, 
later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the 
time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 
The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming, 
when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is 
that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious 
believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god" 
involved spectacularly fails them.

So, no. The one people actually follow, actual practice their religion 
at, and actually believe in, when not trying to wiggle out of it, "is" 
testable using the scientific method. Its just the ones that don't, 
don't appear to, or don't currently, do anything, at all, that are 
"untestable". And, no one actually follows those.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>
>> Erm... no, not really.
>>
>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>
> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>
I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about. 
Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you 
know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty, 
even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't 
suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there 
being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B). 
Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all, 
god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 10:13 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/19/2014 6:33 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the
>>>> study of
>>>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>>>
>>> Erm... no, not really.
>>>
>>> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
>>> manner that allows for reliable predictions.
>>
>> Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)
>>
> I suppose, it depends on how many decimal places you are talking about.
> Even stuff in quantum mechanics is still "predictable", as long as you
> know the initiating state well enough, with some level of certainty,
> even if.. the only certainty you have is that your test apparatus won't
> suddenly turn into a lemon custard (and, usually, its more like there
> being a x% chance that you will get A result, instead of B).
> Creationism, and other "Biblical" claims... all bets are off. After all,
> god might decide you "need" a lemon custard.
>
>
Uh, misread that slightly, and yeah, finding the 
Bose-Einstein-concensate kind of clinches things.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 16:57, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Theism /is/ a world view: The view that there is a supreme being (or a
>> multitude thereof); and this assumption /is/ typically held as a dogma.
>
>> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
>> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as well.
>
>> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
>> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
>> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
>> simply can't know for sure.
>
> You are making the typical category error that so many people make.

Am I?

You failed to quote the following paragraph:

"Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in 
the existence or absence of a supreme being based on 'gut feeling' - but 
either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma."


> Gnosticism/agnosticism is a philosophical view on knowledge. The gnostic
> view is that absolute knowledge is possible and obtainable, while the
> agnostic view is that it is not.

Be aware that the term gnosticism does /not/ denote the opposite view of 
agnosticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism


> A gnostic theist is one who is certain of the knowledge that a god exists
> (or, at the very least, thinks it's possible to know it for certain.)
>
> An agnostic theist is one who believes in the existence of a god, but
> doesn't believe complete certainty is possible.
>
> A gnostic atheist is one who does not believe in a god and is certain of
> it (or believes it's possible to acquire the knowledge of this.) This is
> more or less what "strong atheism" means.
>
> An agnostic atheist is one who does not have a belief in gods but doesn't
> assert it with certainty.
>
> People who classify themselves as "agnostics" are atheists by definition.
> That's because they would not say "I believe a god exists."

Are they?

I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

Though, to be more precise, I should indeed not call myself an agnostic, 
but rather a "meta-agnostic": Not only do I lean towards the agnostic 
stance that the existence or non-existence cannot be known for sure - I 
also lean towards the belief that we cannot even known for sure whether 
the agnostic stance in its strict sense is true. In other words, I 
suspect (but yet don't know for sure) that we cannot know whether we can 
know whether there is a supreme entity.

Or, to use the words of that famous Reborn Christian mantra: "I don't 
know whether we can know whether we can know..."


Also note that non-agnosticism only comes in the flavors of theism and 
atheism, while agnosticism does come in all shades of grey - theists, 
atheists, people who aren't sure but tend towards one or the other, 
people who have no idea and are still trying to figure out - and people 
who don't bother because they believe that it has no practical 
implication anyway.


> The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
are atheists.

The claim is usually made in the sense, "I'm not an atheist, I'm 
[merely] an agnostic [theist or somewhere in between theist and atheist]"

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:

> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.

No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability, 
saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's 
plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)

> The problem for the people believing in that version, while claiming,
> when cornered, that its the other vague one they really believe in, is
> that people *do* test those claims, including even some religious
> believers (like the whole prayers in hospitals fiasco), and the "god"
> involved spectacularly fails them.

... in which case they invoke - guess what - that we cannot put God to 
the test, and they may even reinterpret the "data" to confirm this 
aspect of God, rather than the one they intended to test for in the 
first place.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Nothing I can say will *ever* change his mind.  Hence, no point in
>> debating with him about it.  He's never going to see the reality of the
>> situation, because it contradicts his deeply held belief that the bible
>> is never wrong.  In his mind, the only way he agrees is if I agree with
>> him that everything I know to be factual is wrong.
> 
> This wouldn't be so bad if they just kept to themselves with their world
> view. After all, everybody's free to believe whatever they want.

Yep.  I'm find with people believing things I consider to be crazy, so 
long as they don't use that belief to influence the world around them in 
a negative way.

So I'm find with young earth creationists believing the earth is 6000 
years old and that humans and dinosaurs coexisted - until they get 
elected to positions in the Texas Board of Education and use that belief 
to push this nonsense into public schools around the country and have it 
taught as a "fact."

> I once had a long email conversation with a young-earth creationist
> about the subject of honesty, and why most creationist arguments and
> tactics are not. For example, I tried to explain to him why quote-mining
> is a really dishonest tactic.

That's actually a very interesting point.  Context matters, and usually 
people like my brother's friend "F" does just that to try to make his 
point.  He also tries to use latin phrases he's heard (he goes on and on 
about how "ex nihilo" is impossible and only explainable by the 
introduction of *his* God - not even "just any deity," but explicitly the 
one he believes in) to convince people who are less educated that he 
knows what he's talking about.  Quite a dishonest tactic.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:

> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind

"BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting 
Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal 
based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you 
guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
> here:
> 
> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
> 
> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.

I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since 
about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later 
posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the 
possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been 
weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and 
stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's 
consistent with what he's thinking.

In one of his more recent posts, he talks about his methodology and the 
ties between belief and action.  I found it to be a very enlightening 
post, and I'm looking forward to seeing how he progresses through the 
year.

But my initial reaction was "this is a guy who actually probably /is/ an 
atheist, and is just coming to realize that himself.  He's at the point 
of consciously changing his behavior to match his current state of belief 
- or disbelief."

He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process 
and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who 
decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with 
teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those 
organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them 
ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience 
has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that 
"out" atheists experience.

But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as 
well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:40:39 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Similarly, atheism /is/ a world view: The view that there is /no/
> supreme being; and this assumption /is/ frequently held as a dogma as
> well.

Not quite.

Atheisim is about probability to many (or even most) atheists.  The 
evidence doesn't support there being a deity (or anything "supernatural") 
in the universe.  So while the word derives from the Greek for "denying 
god," practically, it's a bit more nuanced for most.

Most atheists are probably more accurately self-labeled "rationalists," 
because they take the stand that if testable evidence arose for the 
supernatural or deities, they would change their position.  But 
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, too - so it's not 
just "well, look at the Universe, it's just obvious that God created it."

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>
> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)

Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 19-1-2014 14:40, clipka wrote:
> If you ask me, the only entirely rational stance towards a supreme being
> is that of an /agnostic/ - a person that neither asserts nor denies the
> existence of a supreme being, and rather comes to the conclusion that we
> simply can't know for sure.
>
> Such a person may still lean towards theism or atheism - believing in
> the existence or absence of a supreme being based on "gut feeling" - but
> either way they won't carry this belief as a dogma.

I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After 
long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism 
can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you 
are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and 
disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can 
check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear 
that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the 
same god meant.

Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god 
does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a 
part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will 
be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)

I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I 
stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.


> It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

*) I do not mean they are incompatible. I do know many theists that live 
a very ethical life and don't bother that the prophet was possibly 
making things up. It does not stop them from being good.



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 

The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
the form:

1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
3) Therefore God exists.

This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
further evidence it's not possible to say.

The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.

Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I personally do believe in the existence of a supreme something - and at 
> the same time I do believe that "the only entirely rational stance 
> towards a supreme being is that of an /agnostic/", so it may come to you 
> as no big surprise that I would classify myself as an agnostic.

The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:

Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> > The common claim "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" is an oxymoron.
> > It's like saying "I'm not European, I'm Finnish."

> That's nonsense, because all Finnish are European, but not all agnostics 
> are atheists.

I was talking about the *colloquial* usage of the term "agnostic", which
invariably means "I don't have a stance in one way or another on the
subject of whether a god exists."

(In philosophy "agnosticism" means something different, as I described
in my previous post.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > It should be noted that in common parlance the atheist and agnostic
> > views are often poorly distinguished, with both being labeled as "atheist".

> It is part of the concept of everything being black or white. And btw it 
> is mainly theists that lump atheists and agnostics. It is also very 
> common to label people who don't know as agnostics, which is just as wrong.

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact,
they are rather independent concepts that deal with different questions.
A person *can* be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time.

Atheism deals with belief in a god.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

They don't even discuss the same subject matter.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 22:03, schrieb clipka:
> Am 19.01.2014 20:39, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:21:12 -0500, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> A biologist once had a debate with Kent Hovind
>>
>> "BECAUSE THERE'S NO FUCKING CARBON IN IT!!!" (From a video rebutting
>> Hovind's dismissal of radiocarbon dating as unreliable - a dismissal
>> based on an inability to use radiocarbon dating on objects that - you
>> guessed it - have no carbon in them.)
>
> Yeah, I absolutely positively /loved/ that one :-)

Had to find this again on Youtube, just for the fun of watching it again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>
> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

Would you say...

( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:

> > The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
> >
> > Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?

> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:

> Would you say...

> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
you are.

Take for example, the definition in the The Oxford Dictionary of
Philosophy: "Either the lack of belief that there exists a god, or the
belief that there exists none."

I know that many people for some reason want theism and atheism to be
the extreme ends of the spectrum and agnosticism to be right in the
middle, and all three to deal with the exact same subject, but that's
just not what the terms mean.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:

> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.

I actually find it pretty easy:


* I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or 
what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for 
sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may 
be, it may be wrong.

=> §1.1: Don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme 
something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor 
to anyone else.

=> §1.2: Don't judge yourself nor anyone else based on whether they 
believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature 
to be.

=> §1.3: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or 
fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme 
something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by 
§1.1 and §1.2.

=> §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or 
fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief 
re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits 
imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).


I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the 
agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.


Invoking §1.4, I also add some more rules of what I personaly and 
currently think the supreme something's nature is:

* I believe (even though I can't prove it) that there is a supreme 
something; I believe (even though I can't prove it) that hints about its 
nature can be found scattered among all world views and all throughout 
the universe, including science; I believe (even though I can't prove 
it) that its nature is very witty and humorous, very forgiving (to such 
an extent that the word is actually meaningless, because there is 
nothing to forgive in the first place), and very benevolent.

=> §2.1: Embrace all world views; examine them; take what appears witty, 
humorous, forgiving and benevolent, and leave the rest.

=> §2.2: Strive to be witty, humorous, forgiving and benevolent yourself.


Pretty much everything else in terms of moral springs from the 
"commandment" to be forgiving and benevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Am 20.01.2014 00:19, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>>
>>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
>> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
>> Would you say...
>
>> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
>> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
>> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
> Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It doesn't matter how convinced
> you are.

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[27] 
contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an 
assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it 
requires a conscious, explicit rejection. Atheism has been regarded as 
compatible with agnosticism,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34] and has also 
been contrasted with it.[35][36][37] A variety of categories have been 
used to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I interpret the term to require "a conscious, explicit rejection", 
because to me that appears to be closer to the typical use of the term 
in common English, i.e. when used neither colloquially, nor as a 
technical term of philosophy, nor as a technical term of conservative 
Christianism.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:08:19 +0100, andrel wrote:

> I think I said it before here, I am a true and religious atheist. After
> long and hard thinking about ethics I came to the conclusion that theism
> can not form a foundation for an ethics*. Basically because, unless you
> are the prophet, you have to rely on other people (i.e. prophets and
> disciples) to tell you what is right and wrong. There is no way you can
> check whether the prophet gives the right interpretation and it is clear
> that different prophets have taken opposite positions as to what the
> same god meant.

That's a very interesting argument.  I like it.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 4:14 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:22, schrieb Warp:
>
>> The test whether you are an atheist or a theist is rather simple:
>>
>> Would you say "I believe that a (theistic) god exists"?
>
> No, that's not the test. The test actually is:
>
> Would you say...
>
> ( ) "I believe that a god exists" (=> You're a theist)
> ( ) "I believe that no god exists" (=> You're an atheist)
> ( ) "I have no strong conviction on that matter" (=> You're neither)
>
Umm. No, because it is "still" possible to conclude that all "extant" 
definitions of such a god are absurd (i.e., existing religions), while 
**provisionally** discounting one that is not yet defined, *but* still 
allowing that one's own knowledge may be insufficient to draw a 
conclusion. This is pretty much the stance of even the supposed "strict 
atheists", I have ever had describe their position. Even the ones that 
don't hold it do so on the sole basis that its an unnecessary addition 
to existing theory, which has consistently shown no evidence, or reason 
to suppose one might find such evidence, of supernatural entities, 
including gods.

Its still a "provisional" stance, but, in the same sense that one would 
not reject, say, the law of gravity, without a significantly radical 
replacement, and the necessary evidence to show that it possessed 
attributes which explain things the current concept does not. I.e, as 
close as possible to impossible, as possible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:08 PM, andrel wrote:
> Then I found a way to found an ethics based on the assumption that god
> does not exist. And I have lived by that ever since and it has become a
> part of who I really am. If a god turns up my entire belief system will
> be in disarray. (luckily that won't happen)
>
Actually, my take would be much the same, I think, as that of PZ Myers. 
If a god did show up, and did things that seemed to defy natural laws, 
there would be a few moments of disconcert, then I would start thinking, 
"How exactly did they do that?" The default position would not be to 
presume that there was no explanation, or that the best explanation was 
that it was really god, but, rather, that they are doing something that 
is *possible* to achieve, and I just don't know exactly how yet.

This is, of course, the dead opposite of religious belief, where one 
"expects" to have some things only be possible if the god is the one 
doing it, and how they did it to be unexplainable, and unreproducible.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 5:20 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 23:08, schrieb andrel:
>
>> I don't think I could base a morality on an agnostic point of view, so I
>> stick to being an atheist if you don't mind.
>
> I actually find it pretty easy:
>
>
> * I can't tell for sure whether there is a supreme something or not, or
> what its nature is, and I suspect that it is impossible to known for
> sure. Therefore, whatever my personal current belief on this matter may
> be, it may be wrong.
>
> => §1.1: Don't try to prove or disprove the existence of a supreme
> something, nor try to prove what its nature is, neither to yourself nor
> to anyone else.
>
> => §1.2: Don't judge yourself nor anyone else based on whether they
> believe in a supreme something or not, or what they believe its nature
> to be.
>
> => §1.3: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear ponder alone or discuss in groups whether there is a supreme
> something or not, or what its nature is, within the limits imposed by
> §1.1 and §1.2.
>
> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current belief
> re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the limits
> imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>
>
> I think these few rules, derived from what I consider the essence of the
> agnostic point of view, make for a formidable set of fundamental ethics.
>

The problem, of course, is that the ones believing in supreme beings 
then tend to use that as justification for believing other vastly 
stupider things, and then imposing those things on other people. It this 
was avoidable, that would be one thing, but.. try being a woman, in a 
**huge**, and growing number, of US hospitals, who is in need to 
emergency services, to save her life, which the Catholic church doesn't 
like (i.e., anything that might threaten the life of an unborn child, 
even, stupidly, a non-viable one). If she is lucky, they ship her off to 
some place that will help, presuming there still is one, which the 
church hasn't bought out, and assuming she doesn't bleed to death, die 
of sepsis, or otherwise fail to make it to the other hospital in time.

There are consequences to other people's ideas, and, more to the point, 
if they are wrong about them. Sometimes, those consequences are not just 
that you have to listen to some fools talk about whether or not heaven 
has good Mexican food, from a nearby table. My "ethics", at least, imply 
that other people matter, and that magical thinking both a) doesn't tend 
to help people, b) often causes direct or indirect harm, c) its victim 
may be someone I know, and d), the inability to come to rational 
conclusions is rarely, if ever, exclusive to one single category of 
absurdities. Hence, the fact that a discussion about the 
existence/non-existence of a god **will not stop** before it gets into 
whether or not said god thinks its better to, say, infect millions of 
people with AIDS, rather than prevent a few pregnancies.

That it could be something as mild as whether or not, in complete 
contradiction to history, and reality, god "wants" baby boys to wear 
blue, and girls to wear pink. But.. if believing gets you to jump to a 
nonsense conclusion about the "truth" of that idea, what much worse 
things can they talk themselves into thinking are true, based on a game 
of, "What if this real god wants...."?

This is also why atheism devoid of critical thinking is, a bit of a 
problem itself. If you don't reach a logical conclusion via logic, there 
isn't going to be much to stop you from changing your mind, and reaching 
the dead opposite conclusion for just as illogical, poorly thought out, 
and invalid, reasons.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 12:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:09:14 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Yeah, got one of those calling everyone else fools and claiming that
>> they just don't "see the truth", and quoting Ray Comfort, and AIG, etc.,
>> while never coming up with anything other than Bible quotes to support
>> his claims of the infallibility of the Bible, and the truth of god, over
>> here:
>>
>> http://yearwithoutgod.com/2014/01/02/am-i-doing-it-wrong
>>
>> What started out as a fairly sane discussion about someone "trying out"
>> atheism, and his comment on people telling him that doing so was a bit..
>> odd, if nor absurd, has turned into nothing but a back and forth between
>> a few ex-believers, and a full blown creationist. Unfortunately, I
>> decided to get involved as well, and.. haven't quite gotten around to
>> getting so completely fed up as to nuke the email updates for the
>> discussion, and let the rest just go at him.
>
> I think this guy is very misunderstood - I've been following him since
> about day 2 of his experiment, but my initial read (born out by his later
> posts) is that he didn't decide on January 1 to flip a switch - that the
> possibility of the universe not having a "god" is something that has been
> weighing on him for years, and he's decided to take the next step and
> stop acting like a Christian, but to start acting in a way that's
> consistent with what he's thinking.
>
Yes, the article writer certainly seems to be in that particular 
category. The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the 
comment thread. But, there has definitely been a few people coming 
along, and, in connection with the original article, trying to tell some 
of the rest of us off for recommending books, as though, in fact, he 
really is someone who is just doing it as a lark, and we are trying to 
"convert him", or something.

My own recommendation was one a read recently about an ex-evangelicals 
similar journey from desperately trying to find sense, and some sort of 
real morality and purpose, in the whole "Bible Thumper" circuit, to 
finally concluding that it was all hollow, pointless, and a waste of time.

> He's been very generous, both in terms of his openness about his process
> and thinking, and also with the organizations he contracted to who
> decided that his "experiment," while interesting, was incompatible with
> teaching the courses he was teaching.  He's been generous because those
> organizations and employers are "faith-based," so he doesn't bear them
> ill will for discriminating against him - but I'm sure that experience
> has registered as perhaps a sample of the sort of discrimination that
> "out" atheists experience.
>
Yes, the author of the book I mention was fairly generous with most of 
the people he fell out with, over time, as well. They are stuck in a way 
of thinking that just can't allow for someone who doesn't fit, but for 
the most part don't intend any sort of malice.

I am not sure I could be quite so generous, but then, I am coming at it 
from the other direction, and whether or not you cause harm has very 
little to do, quite often, with whether or not it was "intended", and.. 
there is so much damage done, in the name of religion being "right", and 
other ideas being "wrong", that it really does, sometimes, matter far 
more that they *are* wrong, than whether or not they are nice about 
being so, nor is it so easy to forgive (since the later, to some extent, 
implies also leaving them to their folly, along with the consequence to 
bystanders).

> But kudos to the family and friends he has who are supporting him as
> well.  In that respect, he's had it easier than many.
>
Definitely.

> Jim
>


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 11:12 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 19.01.2014 18:09, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
>
>> I don't. See, the problem is, if you define god as some "ineffable
>> something, we can't describe.", then you are correct, and that is
>> invariably the "fallback" position of believers (since they can always,
>> later, bait and switch back to the one they really do talk about all the
>> time). However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>
> No, it doesn't - because the Bible /explicitly/ denies this testability,
> saying we can't / shall not put God to the test. (And then there's
> plenty of scripture that can be interpreted to implicitly affirm this.)
>
Well, no, in point of fact, only when it was "convenient" for.. 
presumably the latest bunch of priests, dealing with some uppity 
parishioners, who wanted evidence, did it say that. There was some bit, 
I don't remember which part, where the guy did everything short of 
asking god to personal come down and buff his shoes, and god, quite 
happily, did them all, as "proof" that he really was god. Typically, 
believers pick the silly bit later, which says you shouldn't go around 
testing him, and gloss over the other earlier bit, where he was 
perfectly fine with it.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2014 3:16 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of
>> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc.,
>> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes.
>
> The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
> two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
> the form:
>
> 1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
> 2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
> 3) Therefore God exists.
>
> This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
> objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
> have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
> and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
> further evidence it's not possible to say.
>
> The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
> is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
> answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.
>
> Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
> conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.
>
And not just because, when they conduct them the answer seems to be, "We 
got his answering machine, or something, so he didn't answer them."

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:11:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The guy I am talking about above is one of the clowns in the comment
> thread.

Oh, yeah, there's a lot of asshattery in the comments - which is why I've 
not read them.  The discussions are generally going to be pretty 
predictable, anyways.  There will be those who support him, those who 
have ideas and suggestions for changes to his approach, and those who are 
going to tell him he's going to hell for even considering the idea that 
there is no God.

I've got enough going on in my life without reading over those same 
arguments again. :)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message