Antitheists and hypocrisy (SORRY FOR MAKING A RELIGION THREAD)

[Captain Blackout]

Have you ever read Frank Herbert's "Dune" series? All six books? He talks extensively about the impossibility of separating Church and State, shows how religion and science can be powerful tools to be used (and thoroughly abused) in politics, and puts forth a spirituality of compassion in the art of politics.

I shouldn't say too much here given I'm a total dick at times on the forums but: The true art of compassion is truly lost in this age as an art, and the art of politics has suffered greatly.

I'm currently reading it, I'm in the third book at the moment.
Yes, especially the part about abuse was of big importance in the second book. Notice how Muad'Dib never wanted the Jihad to envelop the whole galaxy? It just sort of developed a life of its own.

Anyway, I don't agree that it's impossible to separate state and church. In the book, the problem was that Muad'Dib got to worldly power through religious fervor in the first place. He became emperor through blackmail and he became ruler of the galaxy through a religiously motivated war.
Obviously, there was no vote or something like that to put him in power. You can't compare this feudalistic (and later theocratic) despotism with democracies.

Look at Europe or (specifically) at France, where there'd been an almost fanaticism-like struggle to get rid of the Church in politics. Germany, where I am from, has almost the same level of separation (with the notable exception of church tax).
Of course, religious convictions will always somehow influence politics if, for example, a politician is very convinced (and maybe that's what you're getting at) but overall, the separation is almost complete.
For example, one could never be put on trial for breaking religious laws nowadays. On the contrary, secular law supersedes religious law, which is why honour murders are judged just as harshly as "normal" ones.

Keep reading. He continues to develop the thread regarding religion and politics.

His work has influenced my beliefs as much as the Bible. Not as much as the Tao, though.

 

[Phyroxis]

Do not be sorry for making a religion thread. Just do not do it in the first place. Especially as the hypocrisy of atheists has been brought up a few times in the last couple weeks alone. Not to mention this has practically zero discussion value.

It's this kind of small-mindedness that will keep humanity from reaching it's true potential. The OP has a valid point, and if we ever open our minds we will see that the atheist/theist divide is illusory.

It really isn't. Atheism is simply far more plausible.

To you. What every atheist fails to realize is that Occam's razor cuts both ways. The assumption is that a strictly natural universe is the simplest explanation. I find that myopic at best and utterly self-deluding at worst. What is the underpinning of a strictly natural universe? Why not conserve complexity and simply have nothing, a void of even dimension? I find both spiritual and non-spiritual answers equally plausible when I leave all of my own biases behind.

Furthermore, if the universe is strictly natural, then everything has it's foundation in physicality and the physicalists are right. If that's so, then physics and science is path to understanding. The language of physics is mathematics. If physicalism is correct, than everything should ultimately be describable mathematically. Qualia is provably NOT expressible mathematically. That puts a real damper in the physicalists theories. Either one must claim qualia don't exist (good luck, we ALL experience them) or abandon physicalism. If you abandon physicalism then atheism loses a major support as a default belief.

Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale you wish.

And what all of you fail to get is that Occam's Razor has been perverted by society to fit both your arguments.

Occam's Razor is in fact: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" better phrased by Isaac Newton as ""We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."

Which, of course, was boiled down to today's wonderful version: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."


Now for the fun part.

Your two theories.

1: God did create the universe.

2: God didn't create the universe.


Both of which are equally simple.

Therefore, I propose a new theory.

3: You're both wrong.

Now, if we do the math.. My theory has fewer words and therefore is more simple.

If the social perversion of Occam's Razor stands true; I win. (Until someone proves me wrong.)


----

Now that I'm through with my shenanigans.. On to the point. I think its ultimately up to how you interpret this blade. You can say that since science has yet to show us a god, that therefore he does exist.. You can also say that since religion has yet to show us a god, that therefore he does not exist.

You're all yelling the same argument back at each other, just changing a few words. Ultimately its useless, as it gets no one anywhere. That and you all feel like you're beating your heads against the wall..

Now, thats good and amusing for the rest of us who throw up our hands and say "you do what you want." I can certainly enjoy a good Sockem Boppers match.. but really? Is this going to be answered in our lifetimes? Unless the big G-O-D comes down from his cloud (if there is a thing) then I dont think we'll have a definitive answer.

Hell and even then there'll be some people who don't believe it. So why don't we all stop trying to convert everyone else to what we believe to be true? No one has definitive proof of their theory, nor definitive disproof of their "opponent's" theory.



Either that or solve the whole thing with a thumb war between The Pope and Stephen Hawking. I figure they're both frail and decrepit enough to make it a hilarious fight.

 

[Skeleon]

Keep reading. He continues to develop the thread regarding religion and politics.

Oh, I will.
Though I don't agree with some of his positions, I find it very fascinating.
And it's simply a good read as well.

 

[Captain Blackout]

*snip*

I misquoted Occam. Thanks for the original.
You misquoted me, BTW. I'm not arguing that God created the universe here. I'm arguing that spiritual and non-spiritual answers are roughly equally plausible to me. While Newton's rephrasing doesn't help that position, the original statement does, roughly as much as it helps the atheist.

 

[Antlers]

We are on a forum, so we can only discuss what they say can't we. These threads are discussing forum based behaviour.

What? That isn't true at all. And if it is, it's completely pointless. Why have 100 religion threads discussing people TALKING about religion?

The point several people seem to be driving home is that anti-theists (or whatever) are actually causing harm. And I completely do not see it.

 

[cobra_ky]

I was hoping to completely derail the thread. I probably should've been nicer to cobra ky for that though.

well, i'm not one to let our personal differences get in the way of such a lofty goal. now that i'm better-rested, and the discussion has turned more towards computer science, i hope my contributions will be more worthwhile.

What computers today lack, is the ability to change and adapt themselves over time. If we get past that, the rest'll fall into place automatically.

we have today a number of <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm>evolutionary and <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning>machine learning algorithms. in what ways do you feel they are deficient?

I just looked up Setun. Crap. I'm not certain it's true ternary logic (i'd need to look at the logic gates) but I'll capitulate for now. I don't think this affects my statement that computer don't apprehend qualia but if I'm wrong then I'm glad they stop using Setun computers. We don't need Skynet up and running any sooner.

it should comfort you to know that, while some operations are faster and easier to perform in a ternary computer, they have no additional computational capabilities beyond that of a binary computer.

Neuronal architecture and motherboard/memory chip/processor architecture are radically different. The process of accessing memory locations would also be different, so I'm feel rather safe in saying neurons and my pc's memory allocation are different. Having said that I realized I may have been too ambiguous: Neuronal architecture means we have options modern computers don't in processing data and those options may give rise to a non-binary system even if the input is strictly binary. Still, I think I'll let this point go since I just went way beyond my understanding of neuroscience.

you may want to research artificial neural networks, and attempt to discover exactly what capabilities biological neurons possess that artificial neurons lack.

 

[eels05]

As someone has probably already pointed out:
Most thiests know exactly where athiests are coming from when presented with another religious view that to them just cant possibly measure up to the 'reality' of their beliefs.

 

[Skeleon]

we have today a number of <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm>evolutionary and <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning>machine learning algorithms. in what ways do you feel they are deficient?

While I consider myself learnt in biology, I'm not that well versed in computer science.
I knew that people tried to create those things but didn't realize the extent of those attempts.

Did those disciplines already reach to the point where we can throw together a program, let it interact with people for a few years and generate something resembling a personality without inputting specific parameters?

 

[bluepilot]

A true atheist would never deny the existance of God because why deny what doesn`t exist (Terry Prachett).

I will not go to say that atheism is a religion, but some atheists do deliver their own opinions with the same fire and bile as some Christians.

I say live and let live. Atheists and Christians should be able to co-exist without, yet, another, evolution verses creationism argumeny.

 

[Antlers]

"To say 'atheism is a kind of religion' is as ridiculous as saying 'christianity is a kind of atheism.'" - Derren Brown.

 

[imburke]

it doesn't matter either way, neither side will convince the other, so why bother. both sides have hypocrosy, i believe the religious side more than the other, but thats because its had longer to make mistakes. both sides also have fanatics and extremists. converting anyone to what they don't want to belive is bad, so don't do it, also, dont bomb abortion clinics, don't picket abortion clinics either, like i said more brainwashing and extremists are on the religious side. extremem religious fanatic = the type of person who would bomb an abortion clinic or kill someone in the name of god:::extreme atheist fanantic = the kind of guy who is an asshole to invite to parties cause he holds his nose up to everyone because he thinks he better than everyone else

 

[LewsTherin]

Logically, you can't make a decision either way. We don't have a total, complete, undeniably perfect view of the universe and everything, so, logically, using our logic is illogical.

QED.

So, it's whatever you want to believe, just keep in mind you will not (for an indeterminate albeit assumably long period of time) be able to logically be able to back up your position.

 

[Alex_P]

Logically, you can't make a decision either way. We don't have a total, complete, undeniably perfect view of the universe and everything, so, logically, using our logic is illogical.

QED.

One of the reasons these threads go around in circles so much is that y'all keep using the wrong tools for the job, talking about an uncertain world in stark binary Aristotelean terms and then giving up as soon as any uncertainty or error is introduced.

There's no certainty that even things you perceive directly really exist. You're taking a small leap of faith in believing that they do (just like you take a small leap of faith when you decide that whatever you see when you dream isn't real).

So, forget about using that flavor of "logic" to really figure out anything about the world. Go pick up a better tool.

-- Alex

 

[LewsTherin]

Logically, you can't make a decision either way. We don't have a total, complete, undeniably perfect view of the universe and everything, so, logically, using our logic is illogical.

QED.

One of the reasons these threads go around in circles so much is that y'all keep using the wrong tools for the job, talking about an uncertain world in stark binary Aristotelean terms and then giving up as soon as any uncertainty or error is introduced.

There's no certainty that even things you perceive directly really exist. You're taking a small leap of faith in believing that they do (just like you take a small leap of faith when you decide that whatever you see when you dream isn't real).

So, forget about using that flavor of "logic" to really figure out anything about the world. Go pick up a better tool.

-- Alex

Exactly my point. It all comes back to what you believe.

 

[cobra_ky]

we have today a number of <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm>evolutionary and <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning>machine learning algorithms. in what ways do you feel they are deficient?

While I consider myself learnt in biology, I'm not that well versed in computer science.
I knew that people tried to create those things but didn't realize the extent of those attempts.

Did those disciplines already reach to the point where we can throw together a program, let it interact with people for a few years and generate something resembling a personality without inputting specific parameters?

no, because there's more to a personality than simple self-modifying programming. the fact is, even thought computer scientists today have written programs which change and adapt themselves over time, the rest of A.I. has yet to "fall into place automatically." this would seem to suggest that we should look at other aspects of our A.I. model. in particular, i believe A.I. systems today lag far behind in the ability to interpret sensory data and arrange it into a coherent worldview. even relatively simple tasks, like text recognition, still fall far short of human abilities.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Logically, you can't make a decision either way. We don't have a total, complete, undeniably perfect view of the universe and everything, so, logically, using our logic is illogical.

QED.

One of the reasons these threads go around in circles so much is that y'all keep using the wrong tools for the job, talking about an uncertain world in stark binary Aristotelean terms and then giving up as soon as any uncertainty or error is introduced.

There's no certainty that even things you perceive directly really exist. You're taking a small leap of faith in believing that they do (just like you take a small leap of faith when you decide that whatever you see when you dream isn't real).

So, forget about using that flavor of "logic" to really figure out anything about the world. Go pick up a better tool.

Such as the scientific method. Choosing anything else is foolish.

 

[Alex_P]

Exactly my point. It all comes back to what you believe.

Exactly the opposite of your point.

"We can't know anything so let's just call it all blind faith" is a crappy way to live your life. If that's what you get when you put any kind of uncertainty into the framework of as-dated-as-Aristotle Aristotelean logic, then it's time to step away from Aristotelean logic, not wallow in its weaknesses and shout "We don't know!"

Check out Bayesian inference, for example.

Such as the scientific method. Choosing anything else is foolish.

The true scientific method is kind of a narrow thing, since it's about controlled and repeated testing. There's a required baseline of rigor before you can really say you're being "scientific". But you can apply similar reasoning based on models and evidence outside that domain, too. That's basically Bayesian inference.

-- Alex

 

[eels05]

Is it possible to just pin one athiest bashing thread for the polite but fed-up thiests to confound athiests with their special brand of logic?

Theres at least 3 threads on the last 2 pages.

 

[HapiN]

I'm afraid the only explanation isn't really revolving around the kind of religion or atheists beliefs specifically but all groups of people have areas like that I'm sure you could find groups of people with those attitudes in every walk of life. I've met Christians who've tried to convert me but i don't assume all christians will in the same way that you feel some groups of atheists say that all christians cram religion down their throat. It just seems to be human nature so i wouldn't take it personally in the same way that most of society doesn't when a group of people are whining like children. I personally don't even understand the whole Atheism vs Christian debate anyway, surely it's the same principle as two religions going at it but then i haven't really been privy to much of that either, I find that religion is less of a controlling factor down the south of england in such a way i can go weeks without hearing even a hint of religious debates

 

[LewsTherin]

Exactly my point. It all comes back to what you believe.

Exactly the opposite of your point.

"We can't know anything so let's just call it all blind faith" is a crappy way to live your life. If that's what you get when you put any kind of uncertainty into the framework of as-dated-as-Aristotle Aristotelean logic, then it's time to step away from Aristotelean logic, not wallow in its weaknesses and shout "We don't know!"

Check out Bayesian inference, for example.

Such as the scientific method. Choosing anything else is foolish.

The true scientific method is kind of a narrow thing, since it's about controlled and repeated testing. There's a required baseline of rigor before you can really say you're being "scientific". But you can apply similar reasoning based on models and evidence outside that domain, too. That's basically Bayesian inference.

-- Alex

Perhaps you are not arguing what I thought you were arguing, I apologise.

My original point was implying that the earlier responses that so lauded the use of empirical reasoning and logic as the only way of looking at creation were erroneous by their own constraints. I assumed you were saying something similar.

What I meant by "It's all what you believe" is that you believe that the universe was created by some higher power, or exploded into being, or what have you. I may believe what you believe, or I may not. The "why" and "how", while interesting, don't change the immediacy of the "what". Everything is as it is, however you choose to colour it, be that correct or not, is up to you and that is your own opinion. Simply wallowing in unknowning won't get anyone anywhere, you must make some assumptions as you feel out your surroundings. But, you have to keep in mind most of what you know is based on assumptions.