heevensteven

When Men Become Primates
Bon Appetit kitty kitty. posted 01/19/2008 at 17:20:20
Rabbi Boteach,I understand and share you concerns about the decline of our popular culture and consumerism of our nation; but to blame this on Darwin and Hitchens is nothing but ridiculous.What the religious completely fail to grasp is that non believers can and do reject the false choice that reductionist = purposeless.The truth is that we don't need to be told what our purpose is; we make it for ourselves; and we embrace our humanity dearly, because we know it's all that we have. We don't believe we're going to be saved by the rapture or the messiah. Until you get past that mental block, you'll never discover what really plagues us.In addition to the false choices you offer, you add straw-men. Our overweight celebrity obsessed shopaholic culture are caused by Darwin and Hitchens and their ilk? Have you visited any shopping malls in the bible belt recently?? Have you browsed the book section in your local Walmart?This the most religious of the industrialized nations is also the most hypocritical, militaristic, and hegemonic. Communism and terrorism are NOT, I repeat NOT the existential threats of our time. Our wasteful use of our natural resource ARE. Our own hubris, hegemony, militarism, and consumerism are threatening the entire planet. This has little to do with Hitchens, Darwin or any other natural world view and everything to do with Hubris and our population that has continually being told that we owe our good fortune to being blessed by god. posted 01/19/2008 at 14:23:44
Shooting polar bears
Don't forget tax cuts; we need more tax cuts. posted 01/16/2008 at 20:21:35
Sean Penn: San Francisco Chronicle An "Increasingly Lamebrain Paper"
Find me a paper that is NOT increasingly lame-brained posted 01/16/2008 at 16:21:52
Why Candidates Really Get Ahead
Advertising you PAY for. Publicity you PRAY for! Nothing like buzz; eh? posted 01/14/2008 at 13:13:32
Atheism as a Stealth Religion III: Four Questions and Six Possible Answers
Yeah, good stuff Dap and Wondering! Wouldn't it help our self-respect to realize we've done all this all by ourselves, instead of preaching we're nothing without god, or we're born sinners, got cast out of eden, and all that gobbledygook. posted 01/16/2008 at 11:27:09
If he means there is no morality without god. I think all the non-believers here would disagree. posted 01/16/2008 at 11:17:04
Isn't it ironic that Strauss would say that when his progeny (neconservatives) seem to believe only might endows one with right. posted 01/15/2008 at 21:06:18
"we cannot demonstrate that God exists"Well then if that's the case, scientists have no choice but to leave God out of their theories; right? So we have to proceed as if Q1=No. And if we agree that Q1=yes, then there is no reason for Dr Sloan to keep working on this theory, because the answer is "because God wants it to be so". But science left this explanation behind long ago, so... posted 01/15/2008 at 18:05:17
As to the "stealth religion" of environmentalists, when it comes to climate science maybe they haven't been religious enough. See Joseph Romm's latest. "Antarctic Ice Loss Jumps 75% in One Year!"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-rommposted 01/14/2008 at 20:24:27
His first post in this series has a link to his critique on Dawkins' book. It's worth reading. Interesting stuff. posted 01/14/2008 at 19:33:00
I guess I should add, from what I know so far (little) Dr Wilson makes more sense on this than Dawkins or Dennett. posted 01/14/2008 at 16:17:44
Yo Wonderman, Apparently Dr Sloan is in a scientific pissing contest with Dawkins and Dennet about their evolutionary theories on why we have religion. That's what this whole thing is about. They also differ on whether religion and science are compatible. Note that he's being funded by the Templeton Foundation who's raison d'etre is to show that they are. I guess any two things are compatible if you define them propitiously. (How's that for a big word?) As I understand "Stealth Religion", it's simply accepting dogmatic narrative as reality; which means plenty of things qualify, like supply-side economics, WMD in Iraq, freedom is on the march, etc. posted 01/14/2008 at 15:14:02
That's a good point. Could religion be manifested from other unrelated abilities like ability to form abstractions and create fictional stories?Hunter gatherers apparently use songs to store directions to navigate great distances, find water holes, hunting grounds etc. How far from a song is a myth to serve analogous purposes. posted 01/14/2008 at 14:44:19
Good questions! Not long ago there was a large study published on the effect of prayer on people who were ill. Foregoing the details here, the results showed no effect. The official comment from the Vatican was something like: "God will not be constrained such that his actions can be predicted". (I predicted that comment by the way)So I'll make a wild prediction that a falsification of any "god hypothesis" is likely to be rejected by the people who have the most invested in a positive outcome.Another possibility for the red sea thing is that it's all just a myth. posted 01/14/2008 at 13:59:51
"I Know I'm Right, So Why Be Fair?"
;-) posted 01/13/2008 at 20:57:04
I don't have to ask the cat, i read his mind. posted 01/13/2008 at 11:30:44
Excellent observations. I found a piece online about Sheldrake's psychic parrot study. This critique pointed out that the study was seriously flawed with errors like not counting the time there was zero response from the parrot etc. I didn't read it in detail, but I did see Sheldrake's response to it which was loaded with ad hominem attacks, arguments to authority and other stuff that he should know better about. Looks like some fun stuff read up on, if I can find time.posted 01/11/2008 at 18:01:28
Muse, Zanti, Dap, anyone here? What's your position on Psychic dogs and parrots? Put me down as an extremely skeptical. If I can find some time, I'm going to read up on it before I comment. posted 01/11/2008 at 17:06:09
There Are No Atheists in the White House
How 'bout it we agree you can post 6,8 and 9. in the court house since those are laws already. The rest either specifically apply to particular religious points of view, really aren't practiced by most Americans, and have little to do with current law. Geez, if we stop coveting capitalism is done for. 1. You shall have no other gods before Me.2. You shall not make unto thee any graven image.3. You shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain.4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.5. Honour your father and your mother.6. You shall not murder.7. You shall not commit adultery.8. You shall not steal.9. You shall not bear false witness.10. You shall not covet. posted 01/08/2008 at 18:03:55
Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real
Re: "� I"m interested that placebo are others are able to see the distinction between practical and factual realism clearly and still feel comfortable practicing a religion (in his case Mormonism) for its practical benefits. This awareness is quite common among religious believers, in my experience, although they are not always so forthright in admitting it."----Dr Wilson, thanks for the follow up. I find the subject of your statement above very interesting as well. I think we could fill a few pages of comments (productive and unproductive as well) on that subject alone. (in fact I guess we already got into that a bit)I finally got around to reading your critiques of Dawkin's and Dennett's books. I should have done that a week ago. I will endeavor to understand your next post more thoroughly (as much as I am capable) before I put fingers to keypad.Oh, and thanks for setting Muse straight. lol. posted 01/14/2008 at 10:10:51
"especially when reading the material interpretively rather than "historically." "Understood. I've read several of Bart Ehrman's books and he discusses this. In his Book "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium" he searches for what we can know about the historical Jesus from the gospels using textual criticism. It's a really interesting book. It was my favorite of the three I read. But having all the info from the first two in my head probably helped me with it. posted 01/11/2008 at 18:59:27
lol posted 01/11/2008 at 18:04:55
Re: Deepak's latest post. Muse, Zanti, Dap, anyone here? What's your position on Psychic dogs and parrots? Put me down as an extremely skeptical. If I can find some time, I'm going to read up on it before I comment.posted 01/11/2008 at 17:07:51
Z-man, (nickname = term of endearment) **See end-noteNoted and filed. (but I should warn you there's a black hole in my filing system, lol)I appreciate that there are plenty of modern liberal thinkers in church. I have a very dear and close relative who is a minister of of a unitarian congregation. I have another who is a Catholic nun. I respect your activism, but I wonder if you argue with the fundies on their blogs.The current neo-atheist authors are not just flailing at a straw-man. There are also a HUGE number of evangelical types who are far more literal in their beliefs. It's their attacks on the science of evolution etc, and their influence in politics that have spawned the likes of Dawkins et al. I know the guy's a cranky-pants; but he's not attacking the likes of you. Harris has a different case on moderates, and it's not like he hasn't thought very deeply about it; but before you condemn him totally, read the chapter on consciousness and spirituality in "The End of Faith". It might lighten your opinion of him a bit (I don't know that you have an opinion on him). **There was an engineering prof in my college we called Z-man (his last name began with Z). He was a notoriously harsh grader and rumor was he could throw lightning bolts. The name is a compliment to your tenacity. posted 01/11/2008 at 16:16:50
Seems I need to put 2 spaces between paragraphs. and after Agape I put (Trademark credit to Dap) but it got cut off. posted 01/11/2008 at 13:00:42
Thanks for your clarification Muse. I'll put you down as curious, humble, and in awe of the numinous. (I got that term from Armstrong as you may know by now)I have the paperback; I wasn't aware that it was such a thick book; but at 400 pages, i guess it's not a quick read. She's covers a lot of dense stuff; I'll have to re-read much of it. I don't often re-read books, because it's such a chore when there are so many other things I want to read; but once through is usually only enough for me to remember a general framework of the ideas and some of the context they're expressed in. I dog-eared a bunch of pages where I find particular interest and I'll go back and redo those sections. She discussed Milton's Paradise Lost somewhere not too far back from where I am (I don't think she likes it). I just finished "The Enlightenment" chapter. Oh, I made a mental note that you'd find page 338 interesting, as you've made remarks in the past about that subject exactly. You don't lose much reading it out of context. So I forget exactly what we're all debating here(still brain dead today). Seems we all agree on more than we disagree. Isn't dialog a great thing? Agape. posted 01/11/2008 at 12:57:12
Zanti, re: your uncalled for remarks to me below --you know which ones I'm referring to. They were unnecessary and they don't add anything to the discussion here. As HuffPo's self appointed topic cop, you should understand that. Accusing me of a smarter-than-thou attitude is quite ironic coming from the cop for all things logical and on topic. Really now, how did you get so pure. There must be a god, and he endowed you with his purity. Get real! I'm here for fun and education. I enjoy the discussions no matter where they go disagreements and all. Muse is just the most delightful person to disagree with. You seem to be here just to WIN. I'm no shrink or scientist, I'm pretty dumb actually, and I admit it, but I can recognize that you're in serious need of a sense of humor. Walking contradiction: don't like labels, but apply them freely; are an atheist but feel superior to them. Maybe you're trying to exorcise your own demons or something --Quite an interesting case. In fact I think Dap was studying you and dropped in here just to poke you with a stick in an effort gather more data.I humbly admit you've made excellent points here, and we're all the better for them; and I think you're extremely bright, you don't need to attack me like that to prove it. My life's been far to difficult and painful to get upset at trivial crap like this.You call yourself a "Thinking Christian". I asked what you label someone who's not a "thinking" Christian, because you left that door wide open and the devil made me do it. C'mon, laugh a little with me. I thought that and "Stealth Atheist" were funny. Nicknames are terms of endearment ya know. I'll take a look at "Christian Century"; and Kudos to Dr. Wilson for such a provocative topic. posted 01/11/2008 at 11:28:43
I was just goofing, you see, because There was so much there, and I'd have to go back to school to begin understanding it.. (I only had 2 semesters of physics; dumb mech. E. here.) lol. posted 01/11/2008 at 10:39:00
I finally got the end of the book --Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Though Jokes--, and the punchline. Spoiler alert!!Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar. The bartender looks at the Platypus and then gives Plato a quizzical look. Plato looks at the bartender, shrugs and says, "What can I say; she looked better in the cave". posted 01/11/2008 at 10:16:10
We'll this was easy to read in the preview, but all the spacing is gone. Start a new thread if you respond. posted 01/10/2008 at 13:27:42
"Those of us on the other side of the issue"Other side of which issue?---IS THERE A GOD ENTITIY:NO: Wondering, Dr. Wilson, HeevenSteven, Dap, Lmeritus, and, and,.... oh, yeah, Zanti.YES: Muse----HUMAN MYTHS IMPORTANT TO HUMAN CONCEPT OF WORLD: All agree.----BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF UNSCIENTIFIC: All Agree.----INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC THEORY:NO: Dr W, HS, W, Dap, ZantiYES: Muse ?? ----THINKING CHRISTIANS EXIST:All agree. ----I'm brain dead today(more so than usual), but what haven't we sorted out here yet? posted 01/10/2008 at 13:05:24
Luke 6:27-36"But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other......posted 01/10/2008 at 12:37:36
I'll take that as a compliment;-) (very clever of you, cuz it could work either way) posted 01/10/2008 at 11:18:49
Muse, Zanti doesn't like me anymore; and i've tried to play nice too. What did I do?Hey what's happening here to all the paragraph spacing? They're all getting smashed together. posted 01/10/2008 at 11:18:12
I guess my babbling about the success of a particular species in a particular time isn't strictly evolution. Is that what you mean? I'm feeling really brain dead today; please forgive my density. Evolution does explain species change as I understand it. Doubters will never accept the evidence until the see a duck turn into a hippopotamus before their eyes; because they doubt it for reasons that have nothing to do with the science.As to music, we're not the only ones who make it. You've heard birds sing? Whales? They don't understand the harmonics; it's innate. I don't know that they find it beautiful in the way we do, but harmonics are part of nature, our scales are based on the math of harmonics. More truisms of nature; eh? I guess beauty is over in the philosophy of mind department. I'm too ignorant to converse intelligently about it. You seem to be using a gap in knowledge to insert god. Whadoo I know, I'm just a dumb engineer. I live in and work in a four dimensional Newtonian frame.posted 01/10/2008 at 11:16:41
I got myself dragged into philosophy a couple of years ago in a project to become educated about political philosophy. As you no doubt have discovered, it's easy to get sidetracked here. I still haven't read any John Stewart Mill, and only a smattering of Hobbes and Locke. Instead I'm debating how many angels can stand on a pin head. Someday when I grow up, I'll be over in Politics with you. posted 01/10/2008 at 09:54:58
My journey is still incomplete. I haven't yet reached the punchline for Plato and a Platypus walk into a bar. I'm on the final chapter or two I hope it's not just the book title. posted 01/10/2008 at 09:48:06
Can you direct me to the Cliff Notes? posted 01/09/2008 at 16:35:38
I think I've finally worked out the taxonomy. Beware the lurking "Atheisticus Stealthus"; he bites, and he's no dummy. lol. posted 01/09/2008 at 16:10:13
;-) posted 01/09/2008 at 15:41:57
Muse, I know I'm running a backlog here. I'm not ignoring your other stuff, I'm just swamped and not a master multi-tasker. Venetians are apparently more capable than Martians there. posted 01/09/2008 at 15:40:49
Elegant? Way too kind. Martian? Yeah, well that's where guys come from; right? posted 01/09/2008 at 14:18:08
Should have read "Thinking" Christian.Somewhere Wittgenstein is chuckling. posted 01/09/2008 at 12:09:49
Hey brother Dapper; Happy new year! Boy are you late to the party. You missed a lot of fun here. Agape and all that stuff. posted 01/09/2008 at 11:49:35
I love cracking myself up! Stealth Atheist!Kudos to you for seeing it coming. I'm startin' to like you. Tell me you at least chuckled!Let's open another can of worms for a future discussion. What do you call someone who's not a "thinking Christian"? posted 01/09/2008 at 11:34:10
I wrote that blurb too quickly on a half-cup of coffee. I woke up thinking I understood "Stealth religion" and was writing it down, and babbling half to myself. I didn't think I was arguing against religion there. I just went back and read it and I guess the 2nd to last paragraph looks that way; Sorry, but anyway it was about a particular religious view that in my opinion is not a good in the long run. As far as testing religion, I was referring to the fact that you can't test history; you can't go back and change something to see how things turn out. We can only compare different events in different places and times, which makes comparisons difficult. (Mental note for Steve--> find a short intro to philosophy of history as I just realized I'm completely ignorant here.) We don't know how we would be more or less successful as a species without religion. Obviously there's a reason for it, and Dr Wilson and others are working on an evolutionary explanation for why we have it...I think... I think I may now be in Wittgenstein's camp: Linguistic frames are wholly inadequate to discuss philosophy. But hey, that shouldn't stop us; it's too much fun. I've never claimed god has been or can be disproved. My position is the positive proof is sorely lacking; especially for a personal god who intervenes in our world and affairs. In my opinion, today, which may change tomorrow, or next week, some have tried to intellectualize god to make him/her/it so abstract, and the concept so fluid and indefinable that you can't possibly disagree with the possibility. :-)posted 01/09/2008 at 11:19:49
Eureka! Stealth Atheist! posted 01/08/2008 at 18:43:20
Oh, very cute book!Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes posted 01/08/2008 at 13:26:30
WOW! Your new Delta Tau Ki name is: ZEN-ti, you heathen you.Here's the last paragraph of Armstrong's "History of God""Human beings cannot endure emptiness and desolation; they fill the vacuum by creating a new focus of meaning. The idols of fundamentalism are not good substitutes for God; if we are to create a vibrant new faith for the twenty-first century, we should, perhaps, ponder the history of God for some lessons and warnings."posted 01/08/2008 at 13:24:55
"my best advice is to start by admitting that you consider "thinking Christian" an impossibility. "----You're giving me advice about how I should journey? Now who is posing as superior here? See now you're the one who has done all the generalizing about what I think, and how you define different atheists etc, and how you think I define all Christians, and some of your accusations are unsupportable. Yes master, grasshopper wants to begin his journey. All anyone has to go on is their experience. My blurb above yours here was an effort to get you to define more clearly exactly what YOU think. Instead of accusing me of ignorance, why don't you tell me? My personal experience with this sort of thing is that getting people to define is like nailing jelly to a wall. You're a minority in that you've actually thought deeply about it and i can't tell you how much I respect that. (can't because I don't want you feeling too superior, lol)Do you allow for afterlife, eternal consciousness, whatever? Are are you agnostic about it and will simply wait and see? Do you allow for some ineffable super intelligence? I dunno, but I'd really like to. I'm not being a smart ass here; I'm sincere. We've all wasted a lot of bandwidth here due to misunderstandings; let's try to clear 'em up. Are you a lawyer per chance? posted 01/08/2008 at 09:49:29
NO, there is no place in the scientific method to put things that cannot be seen, cannot be measured, cannot be predicted, quantified observed, or tested in any way. Why is that so hard to understand??Where in E=MC^2 do you insert GOD? posted 01/07/2008 at 16:06:44
I don't think Zanti is swayed by the myths; if the religious got REALLY nutty, he'd be on our side. (Zanti often uses the terms "your side" and "my side". )Armstrong describes deities as something like the focus for our thoughts about the unknowable or the ineffable or something like that. I'm going to have to read her twice to get it. Apparently taking scripture literally is a more modern invention...I think... I'll get back to you some day on that. Apparently the masses didn't have access to scripture long ago, teaching came from more learned types. Gutenberg may have caused this whole mess.I started Hoffer's book. He's gonna wind up in my Pantheon, with my other Heeven idols. posted 01/07/2008 at 15:59:24
I never claimed immortality, or superioriority; and if I believe that I'm making an observation, please accept my myth and don't rock the boat. lol. If you're going to leak info about yourself, observations happen.So maybe Atheists(If it's a religion it should be capitalized)and Christian beliefs can intersect in the non-believer zone? I grew up in a family, neighborhood, school, of thinking Christians --at least they believed they were thinking. Most of them don't buy the fantastic stories, and don't allow the church to dictate what they do in private etc, but the majority literally believe in some sort of afterlife, heaven, some sort of continuing journey, some sort of superior mind; they're not Pantheists, or Buddhists, they're Monotheists, and they think Jesus had some special abilities. That's what Christianity is in my lexicon. More definition problems here. All three monotheistic faiths have always has a mystical wing. Armstrong has a chapter or two about that in "History of God". Maybe that's you, but from what you've given us to go on, you sound like a "spiritual atheist"; how's that for a new definition. How 'bout new-age Pantheist Christian Buddhist? I dunno, you tell me. You have definitions and beliefs about us Atheists, I'm trying to define my belief about you. posted 01/07/2008 at 15:45:34
That's even funnier that you didn't get it, because the scientific consensus thing was really funny! posted 01/07/2008 at 09:00:19
We're still having definition problems here. Zanti , you're an atheist as I define them. You've decided to just clam up and go along with the collective. Don't rock the boat. I'm not criticizing that, just observing. posted 01/07/2008 at 08:58:28
I'm often denser than a brick, but sometimes I understand complicated stuff...simple stuff too. I now get the "stealth religion" thing. It's simply any constitution that causes or enables an individual or society to function as it does. It "stealth" when it's not codified or characterized as a belief system as we think of religion, it just operates like one in that it produces or maybe PRECLUDES certain behaviors. You're concerned that our success as a species is due to certain adaptations that include religious type beliefs. If we think we'd be better off without them, we should be careful what we wish for, because it might not be so. History is difficult to test, so an evolutionary theory can maybe correlate with some historical ones?I guess that begs philosophical questions of what defines success. From an evolutionary view, lots of members of a species can be successful, or maybe just being around for millions of years (crocodiles, roaches etc). If our religions causes us to believe we have dominion over the earth and animals, and our divine duty is to be fruitful and multiply, progress is conquering nature, many of us can see that this may not ultimately be good for our future success. Population crashes are likely eventually, and we'll need to switch to the longevity model of success; so we'll have to adapt our religious beliefs. Religions evolve too, eh?I just wish you hadn't used "stealth religion" as a definition. I can just imagine bible thumping politicians and preachers now condemning the heathen "religion of atheism" and pointing to scientific evidence for it's existence. posted 01/07/2008 at 07:52:32
"How do you know that" was intended to be funny, you see because it's a sort of paradox...If we can't know, how can we know we can't know? I'll go with Rumsfeld: there are known knowns, and know unknowns..... I assumed you got it. Because your answer was equally funny;-) posted 01/07/2008 at 06:56:48
Hey I put one last comment in "Plan B for Pakistan", you'll have to got there to read it. posted 01/06/2008 at 15:37:16
You're dodging the question. They're not right for you isn't going to cut in in many practical instances. What if you were on a jury for a Muslim kid who killed his sister for getting raped. What justification do you have for giving him the chair, or life. He believed it was his sacred duty. You have to decide. Why aren't his beliefs as legitimate as any one else's.Now what of an atheist doctor who gives a morning after pill to an atheist couple. They think embryo ensoulment is absurd superstition. Do they have a right to be free of your beliefs? Should YOUR beliefs be law? (I don't know if you support anti-abortion legislation; I'm just assuming for the sake of this exercise)If lack of belief is belief, and both beliefs are equally valid, why should yours be law? posted 01/06/2008 at 15:27:08
I said WE'RE playing semantic games here not YOU'RE playing them. I meant we haven't agreed on the exact meaning of the words we're using, and that's causing difficulties. I apologize for not being more clear.In my third paragraph. I was trying to diagram a simple example to work with; and nowhere did I assert that a "that a religious worldview dictates a person's entire worldview". The entire world view if a religious person and the entire world view of an atheist intersect in my example. You're also making other unsupportable accusations. Well here is the crux of this whole argument: There are two kinds of beliefs. One testable based on experience and one contained only in one's mind. You claim they are equivalent. I claim they are not identical and they are not equivalent. The only way they can be is inside the head of someone who cannot tell them apart.posted 01/06/2008 at 14:15:09
anyone else getting a headache? posted 01/06/2008 at 11:32:32
"the more like a religion it is. ??"I take back my last phrase here; I think you've cleared that up in a comment that appeared after I put this one up. posted 01/06/2008 at 11:32:09
Zanti:posted 02:59 am on 01/06/2008 posted 03:35 am on 01/06/2008"Believe" it or not, those two comments were not here when I posted my comment here I'm attached to. That's the clearest you've been here so far and it's clearer than Wilson's piece to me if that's indeed what he's saying.However those claims (i.e. Relgion is a dangerous virus) are indeed arguable as I said here, so believing that you have evidence to support it is not dogma or religion IMO. posted 01/06/2008 at 11:26:10
For a very interesting treatment of Augustine's doctrine of original sin, see Armstrong's "History of God", pg 122-125. Don't know what any of it had to do with Christianity, but the same goes for much of Christianity; eh? I'm still having trouble "believing" I'm getting the punctuation right here. How do I make a statement, then finish with a rhetorical eh? posted 01/06/2008 at 11:13:20
"our ability to process that reality is so far from perfect as to be laughable. "How do you know that? "The alternative is to accept, on blind faith, that a given atheistic argument is sound and factual because the claimant SAYS so."Isn't that EXACTLY what the religious do with argument FOR god??? Atheists are the ones who say test, test, test. Where are the tests? Untestable is unbelievable! posted 01/06/2008 at 10:50:18
Ok, specifics: Whadaya think of the whole rapture thing? Armageddon in the middle east, the righteous being sucked out of airplanes and cars into heaven while all of us heathens (you're a heathen too by according to them) suffer miserably here. Do you think this is going to happen? Don't tell me this is metaphorical; many ADULTS in this country believe it literally. Tim Lahaye's a wealthy man because of it.I don't think you don't buy it, but why not? Tell me exactly why? Is it because you close your eyes and feel the ineffable truth that it won't happen? Do you use some kind of reason to gage it? An angel told you not to worry about it? Why? What makes your belief more legit than theirs?How 'bout throwing virgins into a volcano? What's your position on that? Oh, it's old-school; Ok, how bout stoning rape victims; or women who take the bags off their heads; some Muslims still do it. posted 01/06/2008 at 10:40:20
The claim that religion is bad or good for a society or individuals is not "Belief" like in god, or trinity; we're still playing semantic games. That claim is testable. It's a difficult thing to do, but it's done with systems of government, the effect of certain laws etc. In fact I think that's exactly the kind of work Dr Wilson is doing, no? Does he have faith that he may succeed in proving it? If so, is that religion? What if he proves it? What are the implications for your faith. It will be support for a hypothesis that we have religion because it helps our genes propagate. What are the believers here going to do with that? They'll keep believing and call everyone who accepts it a "Sloan Wilsonist"; we'll have the "religion of "Sloan Wilsonism".An atheist has a subset of beliefs compared to a believer. He accepts fewer propositions. (visualize a ven diagram). The atheist has a smaller circle inside a bigger one. You're claiming the atheist circle is the same size as the believers (assuming he's aware of what believers believe) and overlaps in the "real world" area. So the non-intersecting part of the atheist circle is filled with disbeliefs...like an empty cup full of nothing. Say a man is an atheist. As soon as he learned that others have these odd beliefs that he can't comprehend; he has a whole new belief system that has no effect on him, and he could care less about; but you would call that a belief system and say the more he doesn't believe it, the more like a religion it is. ?? posted 01/06/2008 at 09:43:32
Maybe we can make some progress here if you'd describe the "atheist belief system" and specifically what claims need testing. posted 01/05/2008 at 12:35:16
I followed you --and didn't really find much to disagree with-- until the last paragraph. Not that I disagree, i just don't get it.. yet. If I'm convinced beyond doubt of my own existence (cogito, ergo..), That's a religion by your definition. If that's the whole point, then this whole page is a waste of bits and bytes. I guess we'll never all come to an agreement of exactly what religion means. We've hit a semantic speed bump here maybe. posted 01/05/2008 at 11:21:51
"I think that the religious impulse is an attempt to explore some of the deepest recesses of subjective experience. "---Bingo! posted 01/05/2008 at 11:06:40
Very good; I'm glad you found this as confusing as I did. posted 01/05/2008 at 11:04:00
I'm trying very hard to follow you but I don't get it yet. You keeping using the phrase "atheistic belief system". I think it wouldn't sound so oxymoronic to me if instead you used "naturalistic world view" or something like that; because there is no belief system involved as in a religion. There are no claims about anything positive, i.e. soul, deity, astral plane, etc. An "argument cloaked in the authority of science and reason" can be a fallacious "argument from authority" or a genuine scientific argument; and Isn't it the job of science to be suspicious of all arguments? Is our disbelief in any single diety, i.e. Zeus, Posiden, Thor, etc a stealth religion, or only dismissing all deities. Are you saying atheists who claim we're better off without religion don't have proof of that proposition; therefore that "belief" is the problem? posted 01/04/2008 at 16:55:37
"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All!
lol! posted 01/04/2008 at 14:55:20
The "Soul Hypothesis"
We do not have material bodies, we ARE material bodies. posted 01/04/2008 at 14:43:03
To borrow from a recent title by Ariana: -An Unstoppable Zombie Wreaks Havoc on Logic.-The notion that atheism is a hypothesis that requires proof is a logical fallacy that just won't die. The burden of proof always lays with the positive claim, since, as you said, negatives are nearly impossible to prove. the "weak position in terms of science" is held by the claimant who cannot provide proof of a positive claim, not the reverse. I know that you know this; but the rhetorical force of your arguments requires you to ignore it.A negative hypothesis is an oxymoron in this case. posted 01/04/2008 at 14:40:58
When Religion Becomes Superstition
Right back atchya brother dapper! Agape as well. posted 01/04/2008 at 18:09:23
The trinity was dreamed up long after the gospels and Paul's letters in an effort to explain the divinity of Jesus which itself was an ad hoc addition to Christianity. It's Greek metaphysics mish-mashed into Christian theology to make make it more palatable to locals in classical culture.Jesus, if he actually existed, was a prophet for a cult of Jewish apocalypticists. His death was a political hit job. Christianity today is a tortured rendition of a big misunderstanding. What have humans been saved from anyway? And what's with that whole original sin thing? What a bunch of gobbledygook. posted 01/03/2008 at 12:36:23
Why do we need religion to refine our Characters? If we drop all the metaphysical gobbledygook, stop focusing on what some non-existent god wants, and focus on the fact that we are probably alone and the golden rule is the only way we're going to get along with each other, our characters would be just fine.Psychics, priests, ministers, etc are all cut from the same cloth; they're all looking out for their own prosperity and egos, by convincing their sheep that they have some special knowledge or abilities that we need them for. Osteen is the latest in a long line of Elmer Gantry schlocks enriching himself on the despair of others.posted 01/02/2008 at 18:23:12
Whitewashing and Cherry Picking Religion
You put an awful lot of stuff up there. I'm not ignoring it, I just don't have time it would require to address it all now. I'm swamped and I'm trying to finish something in the other thread that isn't as demanding. I started "The True Believer" Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. by Eric Hoffer (wondering recommendation). Only 20 or so pages in I already see correlations to what is happening with Obama. (too soon to judge, but the some of the necessary conditions are there) posted 01/08/2008 at 10:23:22
"Non-scientists trust of vacines is certainly not unlike a villager's trust of the shaman's incantations (something we now refer to as the "placebo effect")."---I have no time to go on, but that is wrong. Even if they don't understand the science, they know the know the vaccine isn't invoking spirits. They know it's a "mechanistic" (not the perfect word, but ya know what I mean) approach. posted 01/07/2008 at 08:53:10
argumentum ad hominem = no-no posted 01/06/2008 at 17:39:05
You're giving me a headache; you need an editor; and you're really dancing.posted 01/06/2008 at 16:27:57
If anything may be true (see your comment below) then unicorns, fairies, gnomes, Zeus, are all perfectly legitimate, and there's no way of separating fact from fantasy. It means you've just given up thinking(it's paradoxical, because you obviously haven't). I can respect that; but you really shouldn't be arguing with people who still haven't yet reached your Nirvana. posted 01/06/2008 at 08:43:00
Happy trails! posted 01/06/2008 at 08:31:06
Muse, I had to start a new thread here. My blurb wasn not intended to sway you from your faith; it was directed at your "evolution is dogma for anyone who has no direct knowledge of it". People who have never experienced biologist's views and theories of viruses and bacteria trust vaccines and antibiotics too. Is that dogma? Is the sun really a big mass of fusing hydrogen? Dogma! Did we really send people to the moon? How do you know? Dogma! Seems this is the crux of the whole argument: How much collective knowledge is necessary before something is considered "fact"? That seems to depend on how bad the philosophical ramifications are for your own "belief system". There's no shortage of "young earth" types in this country, eh? Accepting a 150 year old theory with such massive evidence that is the cornerstone of all biological science is NOT faith, it's REASON.Oh, and Parsimony isn't just dogma from Ockham; (i'm not accusing you of saying that; I have faith that you know this --induction, eh?) it's a well founded principle. physical systems don't expend energy unnecessarily; the most efficient path is always chosen. (Oh, exactly how should I have punctuated and hyphened that stuff in parentheses...I have faith that you know better than I) posted 01/06/2008 at 08:05:05
Muse, I started a new thread at the top for this one. This is getting difficult here with the indentation. posted 01/06/2008 at 08:02:13
The people who "believe" evolution do so because they trust science. They trust it because they use inductive reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that science is very good at producing theories that have tremendous explanatory power. We're playing a semantic game here with "Belief", and "Faith"."Faith" in conclusions reached with the method of science is NOT the same thing as religious faith.Humans are innately capable of inductive reasoning. "Faith" due to experience is inductive reason.Most people even casually acquainted with science know that all theories are tentative and probabilistic.I often deal with failure analysis. Machine component reliability is probabilistic. Don't think I don't look out the window at the engines every time I fly. It's not the science I worry about it's human error. The only knowledge we have about god or any other supernatural phenomena is the claims of those who have certain "experience". I don't have good reason to believe that they are correct about the source of their experience, because there are simpler explanations --old William of Ockham's razor.Francis Bacon forever separated Science and Religion; induction stands in direct opposition to revelation. posted 01/05/2008 at 15:42:09
You changed the subject you see. You do that a lot. We can go around about Christian missionaries some other time. Christian Hubris! posted 01/05/2008 at 15:33:11
Dennet, Dawkins and many others have written extensively about this. Look it up. posted 01/05/2008 at 14:54:32
It would prove that they exist and there would be no argument! Frankly, I'd be thrilled. So would any scientist. It would mean another species would be about to go extinct though due to the stampede to study the things. lol.When I was a young-un I read all kinds of books about Yetis, UFOs, ESP, Ghosts, anything paranormal; I was convinced all these things were real. The more I learned, the older I got, the more I saw certain patterns in the claims, the more agnostic I became. I eventually realized religion was much the same --all imagination and wishful thinking cloaked in pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook. (I was Catholic and if you know anything about their intellectual crap, you know what I mean), eventually I became agnostic about it all; now atheist but still in a probabilistic sense of course. I prefer "Freethinker", "non-believer". That "ism" thing tricks people into thinking it's a creed. lol. posted 01/05/2008 at 14:47:50
"if God is true, then that will become a "scientific" idea (someday, by and by, whenever it is positively learned to be true)."---Don't hold your breath. posted 01/05/2008 at 12:24:44
Your point is? You said science has nothing to say about it. You're wrong. posted 01/05/2008 at 12:18:33
Actually Hoffer's book is on the way; I ordered it last week. I couldn't remember who recommended it, now I remember it was you; thanks. Seems it's a timeless classic, eh?You don't believe in Nessie and Yeti? You religions fanatic you! Show me the proof they don't exist! posted 01/05/2008 at 12:02:22
"I said atheism is a belief, not a proven fact."---We must be in different space-time continuums. I addressed your point exactly. Atheism is lack of belief, not a belief, not a fact, so no proof necessary. You're putting the cart before the horse (or is it Descartes before the source?). I don't think I'm capable of putting it more clearly than I did above; but try atheism is a belief like not stamp collecting is a hobby. Just think of all the hobbies you have. You'd say you don't have those hobbies? I'd say you do. Absurd eh? There are various excellent texts on the philosophy of science. If you can find your assertion in one, let me know.posted 01/05/2008 at 11:57:18
You're not winning anything, your just showing naivety. The fact that diseases decimated the aboriginals has nothing to do with Conquistadors bashing baby's heads. And what life saving medical technology did they bring? I'm sure the tens of millions of dead western hemisphere aboriginals would have been happy to learn before death that the discovery of their obscure languages would give delight to so many. posted 01/05/2008 at 11:37:30
Isn't Austen's book "Sense and Sensibilia"? posted 01/04/2008 at 17:49:50
You did it again. I just put this on Deepak Chopra's latest post. To borrow from a recent title by Ariana:-An Unstoppable Zombie Wreaks Havoc on Logic.-The notion that atheism is a hypothesis that requires proof is a logical fallacy that just won't die. The burden of proof always lays with the positive claim, since, as you said, negatives are nearly impossible to prove.the "weak position in terms of science" is held by the claimant who cannot provide proof of a positive claim, not the reverse. I know that you know this; but the rhetorical force of your arguments requires you to ignore it.A negative hypothesis is an oxymoron in this case. posted 01/04/2008 at 17:23:20
"I've thoroughly trounced you on a post above."Did not! posted 01/04/2008 at 12:49:55
People will attempt to use any tool available (even science) to confirm their own dogmatic bias(religion). And they'll torture the science to fit if need be (Eugenics, intelligent design etc).The problem is dogma, dogma, dogma..or maybe just human nature; eh? posted 01/04/2008 at 12:44:13