Internet Atheism

[Robosapien]

Gotta be said, whilst I (and probably the rest of the world understand what you're trying to say) you saying you're holding a cup of tea and saying "a theist would believe it" kinda misrepresents what a theist is. I think if you said "I have a cup of tea", I would just choose on the spot whether to believe it or not... I wouldn't have to amass all of my critical thinking to really get to the bottom of 'if I believe you have a cup of tea or not'. This misrepresents the scenario a bit, and paints it as simple as black and white--and as we all know the debate about whether a god exists or not, and the general question of the originations of the universe, is anything but.

But like I say... I get what you're trying to convey, don't get me wrong I just think you chose poorly in your words to construct a viable criticism against theists.

It's so misleading and undermining that I think he probably just plagiarised Dawkins.

 

[D.P.]

Gotta be said, whilst I (and probably the rest of the world understand what you're trying to say) you saying you're holding a cup of tea and saying "a theist would believe it" kinda misrepresents what a theist is. I think if you said "I have a cup of tea", I would just choose on the spot whether to believe it or not... I wouldn't have to amass all of my critical thinking to really get to the bottom of 'if I believe you have a cup of tea or not'. This misrepresents the scenario a bit, and paints it as simple as black and white--and as we all know the debate about whether a god exists or not, and the general question of the originations of the universe, is anything but.

But like I say... I get what you're trying to convey, don't get me wrong I just think you chose poorly in your words to construct a viable criticism against theists.

It was a simplified analogy and has the shortcomings thereof. But I still see it as a valid description.

To simplify the problem without an analogy is simply to stay that given the question "how did the universe come to be the way it is including life as we know it and human existence" there are 2 popular hypotheses.
In one some mystical being created everything but there is absolutely no evidence that this being exists or had anything to do with the universe or its current state. This is an idea, not a theory since it does not posses the requisite constituent components and proofs. As of yet There is no irrefutable evidence that this being is necessary to explain the existence of universe and life as we know it.

The second is a scientific theory, where theory means much more than an idea and in Layman's terms closer to the word fact because it contains irrefutable and testifiable proofs. Although incomplete, the scientific understand has extremely broad coverage and depth from quantum level effects to galaxy formation and universe expansion post Big Bang. This theory doesn't require a mystical being with superpowers to explain a vast amount of how the universe works and came to be the way it is including humans. There are of course gaps in knowledge, but these gaps are simple just that, missing pieces of a puzzle, they don't predicate failure of the model. What is more, the model is dynamic. New understandings can readily be incorporated. In fact, it can basically never be wrong because whenever the truth of something is discovered it is incorporated. Even if that proof was somehow that there is some mystical super being at work then the scientific model will simply incorporate the effects of that being at what eve level.
This is an important point, science does not explicitly try to exclude the existence of God. It merely tries to find the best model of the universe that fits the evidence without contradiction. No scientist ever goes about their work to disprove God. They simply don't care.


I do see it as relatively black and white. You have an idea without evidence and a theory with strong evidence. I don't see the levels of grey here. Belief in a deity without evidence requires faith, by definition and that is the fundamentals of religion. If there was some level of evidence that a super being exists then there might be an interesting discussion and things wouldn't be black and white. But to date no such evidence exists. And here's the thing, the scientific model can accept incorporation of a being with superpowers if appropriate evidence is provided. Then things really will get exciting and fun to talk about. Until then it really is as abstract as I say, there is a pink rhino in space and you either believe blindly or you assume that it doesn't exist Until proven otherwise.


I am not strongly anti-Christian. Not all all, My parents are regular church goers. my dad sings in the choir, my mum is regularly active, reading texts etc. My mum used to lead the Sunday school and then a Christian youth club. They both lead the annual church fete and charity raising events. I don't strongly oppose some mild forms of religion when the focus is on community, wellbeing and kindness between humans. I strongly protest against religion aggravating different cultures, mind washing children, trying to overpower the state, and perverting the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

 

[D.P.]

It's so misleading and undermining that I think he probably just plagiarised Dawkins.

How is it misleading, prove to me where and how and I will then try to adjust the analogy to make it clearer.

It has oohing to do with Dawkins, I have never read any of his books (but a few of his peer reviewed scientific publications, and even then only things like hamilton's effect on DNA etc)

 

[D.P.]

We really don't have a clue what it all means anyway......the whole god v science thing is more than likely a ridiculous simplification of things. Nobody knows what happened before "the big bang" (assuming that is where our current universe started) and that's a fact. Maybe it was "God" snapping his fingers, maybe there was an infinite number of bangs and we just happen to be in the one where things worked out, maybe a giant pink elephant sneezed and here we are. More than likely, it's something completely beyond our level of comprehension. Same applies to the afterlife.

It's great (and essential) that we discus it, but neither "side" has any right to be more confident than the other. I know some of you are going to try and pursued me otherwise...

But science makes no claims about anything that there is not proof of. Neither does sciences explicitly exclude beings with super powers effecting the universe. Simply no evidence has been found to support Te existence or requirement of such a being.

Maybe some deity did start the Big Bang process and everything since then followed the processes explained by science. No scientist will strongly argue and purport evidence contrary to that idea. There is very little understanding pre-big bang. The only thing science will suggest is that a deity may not be required to initiate the Big Bang.

A big probers Is very few of us have the ability to understand the forefront of physics to make intelligent claims. It is cliched but quantum mechanics is incredibly tough, and some pop science book does not do things justice. The other issue is the human psyche, the need to have explanations and the inability to think outside certainty constraints. One example is think of a 5dimensional. Nit cube, I bet you can't. But that doesn't mean it is impossible for such a shape to exist, mathematically it is trivial.

 

[Robosapien]

How is it misleading, prove to me where and how and I will then try to adjust the analogy to make it clearer.

It has oohing to do with Dawkins, I have never read any of his books (but a few of his peer reviewed scientific publications, and even then only things like hamilton's effect on DNA etc)

It's misleading because you can't put all abstract ideas under the same umbrella. There are plenty of scientific theories that for all intent and purposes are virtually unprovable (even if theoretically falsifiable). There's plenty of mathematics which can be derived which bare no immediate relation to reality. You might even say that all of mathematics is an abstract idea, but it's just lucky that we can put some of it to good use.
Hell there's even a scientific paper on how we could all be living in a computer simulation. Patently absurd. There is also the limitation as to how science handles complexity, certain questions outside it's remit or as you've pointed out, uncertainty (Heisenberg principle, chaos theory, Godel theorem (not actually sure what the last one is other than mathematical limit on information (I'm not even being ironic).))

Hey, it's also misleading because a pink rhino floating in space is actually intuitively more absurd and at the same time intuitively more plausible than a superbeing because at least it's within the realms of an imaginable reality but I'm not going to admit to that. (The mechanics of how it would control existence by pooping, colours no less, for propulsion aside)

Anyway, my point was regarding the spectrum of belief and why it should stop dead at atheists and not continue to a polar opposite of non-belief. Personally I think that faith driven atheists who don't resort to the rigour of scientific method probably exist? I believe they exist anyway, even if you don't. I might even become one to prove you wrong.


Btw, I'm God.

Edit:- On a serious note I enjoyed reading your last big post, Cheers.

 

[D.P.]

It's misleading because you can't put all abstract ideas under the same umbrella. There are plenty of scientific theories that for all intent and purposes are virtually unprovable. There's plenty of mathematics which can be derived which bare no immediate relation to reality. You might even say that all of mathematics is an abstract idea, but it's just lucky that we can put some of it to good use.
Hell there's even a scientific paper on how we could all be living in a computer simulation. Patently absurd. There is also the limitation as to how science handles complexity, certain questions outside it's remit or as you've pointed out, uncertainty (Heisenberg principle, chaos theory, Godel theorem (not actually sure what the last one is other than mathematical limit on information (I'm not even being ironic).))

Hey, it's also misleading because a pink rhino floating in space is actually intuitively more absurd and at the same time intuitively more plausible than a superbeing because at least it's within the realms of an imaginable reality but I'm not going to admit to that. (The mechanics of how it would control existence by pooping, colours no less, for propulsion aside)

Anyway, my point was regarding the spectrum of belief and why it should stop dead at atheists and not continue to a polar opposite of non-belief. Personally I think that faith driven atheists who don't resort to the rigour of scientific method probably exist? I believe they exist anyway, even if you don't. I might even become one to prove you wrong.



Btw, I'm God.

It was a simplified analogy. There is an idea that has no evidence of its support and you have an idea with countless supporting evidence to generate a theory. The fact that the first an idea is about an explanation for the universe is beside the point , the fundamental fact is it is an idea without evidence that requires faith to believe in.

As to the rest of you argument I don't fully understand. E.g., you say there are scientific theories that are unprovable. That tells me you don't know what a scientific theory is. By the very definition a scientific is provable, and has been proved. It basically means the same as fact, like 1+1=2 is a fact (although the maths behind this is extremely complex). There may be idea hypothesized by scientists to explain an as yet unexplained process or event, but that is not a thorny, that is merely a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis as undeniable and exhaustive proof without contradicting evidence, then it is a theory.

You have then mentioned some scientific processes/ words that you don't understand the meaning of. Heisenberg uncertainty simply states you cannot know the exact state and velocity of an electron simultaneous to a certain level of precision, it has nothing to do with failing to understand the processes of the universe, quite th opposite as it shows a very profound understanding. Likese chaos theory is misunderstood in this context, chaos theory relatives only to complexity and non-linear processes. Knowledge of chaos theory helps explain how insects can fly due to wing tip Vorticity interactions. Godels incompleteness theory relates to computation, not understanding the universe. This is largely due to infinite natural numbers. E.g., since there are infinitely many natural numbers (1,2,3,4.......) it is possible to ask a question that a finite computer or system of axioms cannot answer. But that is irrelevant to the question of the exists of God, these questions don't need to be answered. It goes back to my analogy of whether I am holding a tea cup in my left hand, science can't answer that question but you don't need to invoke the concept of a deity to answer that question. it just so happens that question is stupid, but the same idea is equally relevant to the existence of God. Just because there are things that as of this point of time science has yet answered does not automatically mean everything in science is wrong and that there must be a god. No one can know if I am holding a tea cup in my hand, but that doesn't mean the theory of relativity is wrong.

 

[Shayper]

If I have a field of 3 cows and I take away 4 cows, do I have -1 cow? No, you have no cows. Is not maths as flawed as religion if this is the case. Your post is retarded at best and smacks of a massively poor understanding of, well, anything.

Maths is not flawed in this case at all. You just have no understanding of group theory. NEXT.

 

[Shayper]

Also, if we stop replying to Jason2, maybe he'll go away. Mods, can you really, really not see that he is trolling? A troll puts forward a different and unpopular view with the aim of getting peoples' backs up, without necessarily holding that view themselves. He knows the responses he gets, and seems to tailor his own replies rather finely to individual posters to rile them. He is making the community a worse place.

 

[Robosapien]

It was a simplified analogy. There is an idea that has no evidence of its support and you have an idea with countless supporting evidence to generate a theory. The fact that the first an idea is about an explanation for the universe is beside the point , the fundamental fact is it is an idea without evidence that requires faith to believe in.

As to the rest of you argument I don't fully understand. E.g., you say there are scientific theories that are unprovable. That tells me you don't know what a scientific theory is. By the very definition a scientific is provable, and has been proved. It basically means the same as fact, like 1+1=2 is a fact (although the maths behind this is extremely complex). There may be idea hypothesized by scientists to explain an as yet unexplained process or event, but that is not a thorny, that is merely a hypothesis. Once a hypothesis as undeniable and exhaustive proof without contradicting evidence, then it is a theory.

Ok fine, in all probability this is a terminology ****-up by myself. But take 'string theory' as an example. Why not call it 'string hypothesis' instead? This is because some hypothesis' will have more merit than others, and will be more readily accepted by the scientific community. The condition is that they can be falsifiable, not practically provable any time soon. Even so they still hold more weight than other 'ideas'. So my point is that not all abstract ideas are equally as abstract, some of them build on existing theory.

You have then mentioned some scientific processes/ words that you don't understand the meaning of. Heisenberg uncertainty simply states you cannot know the exact state and velocity of an electron simultaneous to a certain level of precision, it has nothing to do with failing to understand the processes of the universe, quite th opposite as it shows a very profound understanding. Likese chaos theory is misunderstood in this context, chaos theory relatives only to complexity and non-linear processes. Knowledge of chaos theory helps explain how insects can fly due to wing tip Vorticity interactions. Godels incompleteness theory relates to computation, not understanding the universe. This is largely due to infinite natural numbers. E.g., since there are infinitely many natural numbers (1,2,3,4.......) it is possible to ask a question that a finite computer or system of axioms cannot answer. But that is irrelevant to the question of the exists of God, these questions don't need to be answered. It goes back to my analogy of whether I am holding a tea cup in my left hand, science can't answer that question but you don't need to invoke the concept of a deity to answer that question. it just so happens that question is stupid, but the same idea is equally relevant to the existence of God. Just because there are things that as of this point of time science has yet answered does not automatically mean everything in science is wrong and that there must be a god. No one can know if I am holding a tea cup in my hand, but that doesn't mean the theory of relativity is wrong.

The point is merely that there are built in limitations as to what can be understood by scientific/mathematical models.

I am so bored and fed up of this discussion, as I never wanted to get into science vs religion. I think we're on the same page as far as science goes, we're just saying the same thing differently. Where we differ is on is the degree of value of different philosophies that ask unanswerable or unprovable questions. I would say that just because it's unprovable doesn't invalidate the question, especially if that question is rationally abstract or has a lesser degree of abstraction.

There may well be a pink rhino, just because we haven't found it yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. However, we can make educated guesses as to the probability of it existing. God is a little bit more abstract.

 

[Robosapien]

Also, if we stop replying to Jason2, maybe he'll go away. Mods, can you really, really not see that he is trolling? A troll puts forward a different and unpopular view with the aim of getting peoples' backs up, without necessarily holding that view themselves. He knows the responses he gets, and seems to tailor his own replies rather finely to individual posters to rile them. He is making the community a worse place.

That's kind of what I'm doing, I have no idea what my views are.. I commit to nothing.

 

[BusError]

Seriously, if a being greater than our imagination lives in a meta universe blah blah we're probably the result of his farts. Ie, us believing in him makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, apart from appearing stupid.

I sometime like to imagine that we could be just the product of some accidental/incidental process of someone/something else's doing. Kinda like if each explosion in our car engine produced a fully functioning universe with structures and living entities in an 'infinite' amount of time (for them), and that in there, somewhere, some idiot theist would pray to me to save their miserable existence.

So. is that being 'agnostic'? I don't think so. I'm not a Dawkins school of 'active' atheism, as I believe that religious people have too much practice at self-delusion to be worth the effort. Heck, for all I know, they might drop religion and pick up militant homeopathy or something.

My opinion is, ignore them, s****** at them now and then, and let them imagine an eternal life with each others.

That's also my generic reply to any militant theist trying his tricks on me. "Eternal life with the like of you? Really? So what's that 'paradise' you mentioned since you've just described hell"

fun thread tho, go Jason, gogogo

 

[Robosapien]

Seriously, if a being greater than our imagination lives in a meta universe blah blah we're probably the result of his farts. Ie, us believing in him makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, apart from appearing stupid.

I sometime like to imagine that we could be just the product of some accidental/incidental process of someone/something else's doing. Kinda like if each explosion in our car engine produced a fully functioning universe with structures and living entities in an 'infinite' amount of time (for them), and that in there, somewhere, some idiot theist would pray to me to save their miserable existence.

So. is that being 'agnostic'? I don't think so. I'm not a Dawkins school of 'active' atheism, as I believe that religious people have too much practice at self-delusion to be worth the effort. Heck, for all I know, they might drop religion and pick up militant homeopathy or something.

My opinion is, ignore them, s****** at them now and then, and let them imagine an eternal life with each others.

That's also my generic reply to any militant theist trying his tricks on me. "Eternal life with the like of you? Really? So what's that 'paradise' you mentioned since you've just described hell"

fun thread tho, go Jason, gogogo

Nihilism.

 

[momentimori]

If I have a field of 3 cows and I take away 4 cows, do I have -1 cow? No, you have no cows. Is not maths as flawed as religion if this is the case. Your post is retarded at best and smacks of a massively poor understanding of, well, anything.

Did you pay attention to maths in secondary school?

If negative numbers get you stumped you'll love the imaginary number, i, that is the square root of -1.

 

[Shayper]

Did you pay attention to maths in secondary school?

If negative numbers get you stumped you'll love the imaginary number, i, that is the square root of -1.

That's not what he meant

He's still wrong, as it's just using a particular set of numbers. In this case, positive integers.

 

[RDM]

It seems that the bar to be labelled a militant is considerably lower for atheists than for the religious. I.e. to be a militant atheist all you need to do is public ally announce it.

 

[blitzwing85]

Flame suit engage!

Anyone else noticed that if you're the slightest bit religious on the Internet you're branded as a backward yokel?

This isn't just about OcUK but here here's a good example: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18483435

Now I'm not religious and believe in evolution, but accept that some people don't and think that god may have created everything a few thousand years ago and did it so well as to fool science to this day. Why does the Internet have such a problem with people who have a non-standard opinion on religion?


Note: this isn't a debate about which viewpoint is right on the subject of evolution, but whether the Internet is unfairly rude to those who disagree.

I agree, but it's by no means limited to religion. People call each other some horrific things just because they own a different video games console. The internet is full of idiots - because the world is full of idiots.