Just an opinion on the more proper object of criticism
Offline When I was an atheist, rather militant actually, what I hated was religious dogmatism, and I just happened to not think a God exists. I don't think I would've been disappointed had God made an appearance. When I began to study philosophy I heard substantial formulations of the arguments that folks like Dawkins set up only to be easily defeated, and found that they had some force, even if they were not solid proofs. I read Mackie, for example, fervently. I hoped to find complete refutation for all arguments for God, because at that time my hero was Chris Hitchens. I loved Hitchens long before he became associated with the New Atheism. I thought the religious were all fools. My conclusion, after a fierce struggle to believe otherwise (because I thought it would make me no different from the idiots I'd been calling delusional for so long), was that there are reasons, or rather, I want to say, I came to the conclusion that it is not utterly unreasonable to suspect that there is an intelligence of some sort at work in creation.
So I admitted that belief in a Creator God is reasonable given the experience of life. I did not admit that religious belief was reasonable nor did I begin to believe in God. I merely admitted it's not so ridiculous as the popular authors would have it.
What's surprised me, and I mean really surprised me, shocked me, stupefied me, is that in the last few weeks on this forum I went from being completely agnostic to leaning toward the theistic side. I just can't believe it, but I have to admit it.
Why? For example, the insane evasion people have tried to make from arguments like the fine-tuning argument. From denying what physics and leading scientists tell us, to coming up with the most absurd analogies, to invoking the anthropic principle and clinging to it for dear life when it answers nothing, to saying that they will believe any theory (from an infinity of universe to the all possible worlds interpretations of quantum) before admitting the possibility of an intelligent mind. I've encountered such shocking closed-mindedness before, and it was something I condemned then, and still do.
I've mentioned in a few posts that I studied sociology in school, and my interest in the new atheism is partly from a view on it as a social phenomena. So many people who haven't read, say Kuhn, or Popper, or Lakotos, or Thaggard, or Smart, or Hartshorne, or Swinburne, or Mackie, or any positivist even, are convinced so strongly that they are vastly more intelligent than your average believer (not even saying lunatic fundamentalist). It's bewildering. William James would've called it a religion like any other, and it's a fundamentalist one, at that.
I'd like to know, whose reasoning do they rely on? For example, a certain poster in this forum who knows who he is. He's read one book at most, I swear, on any topic. But he has such conviction and arrogance. I have to wonder if he thinks he would be able to stand his ground against a proper philosopher of religion. I'd bet he'd have his butt handed to him, and I'd bet he knows that's true. I wonder if he would have the arrogance to tell, for example, Shrodinger or Einstein that they're silly idiots for believing. The dynamic of belief for people like that is precisely faith: they don't know the serious arguments from one side, nor do they know the responses to them from the other. They choose based on insufficient knowledge and no investigation, and just have faith that their side ultimately has the better argument. Currently, it so seems that the atheist side is the side of the smart folks and religion is the side of the midwestern dimwits. I do understand why people want to be on the winning side. There are social motives and ego motives. I wanted to be on Hitchens side, for example. I did NOT want to be on the side of the Westboro Baptists who would have me burn in hell.
What I want to suggest is that belief in God is not what so many of the new atheists need to be worried about. It is not going away. It is not even so irrational as they think. What atheists, and believers in God as well, should be against is dogma, religions which claim to know what God wants because it says so in a book, religions which claim to know who's burning in hell, and who should live and who should die. As Hitchens always pointed out, religion can make an otherwise sane man fly a plane into a building. I strongly feel that should be the focus of critique if the goal is a more enlightened free and equal society. Belief in God is not going anywhere, and I don't think we should want it to. Humans will always, and should always, wonder and think about God. It'll be a sad day when we all decide it's settled. What we need is to stop letting men tell us that they and they alone know the truth.
Sorry for the total lack of eloquence. Anyway, just an opinion.
- Login to post comments
eloquence shmeloquence
I agree with your substance but strongly disagree on the conclusion. You think the majority of us here haven't battled our own irrationality? Do you think we were all firmly convinced by one book, or one person? And you speak of arrogance? The only arrogance I see is coming from you. You insist that there is some intelligence out there sending balloons and messing up eBay book deliveries in order to send personalized messages to some person or other? Really? that's your evidence for a personal god? Feed one starving child in Africa and save the fucking balloon magic.
As for fine tuning, it is a good mathematical exercise, but what does it prove to you? What does the "fine tuning argument" attempt to prove? You are showing the unlikely hood of the current arrangement of particles in the universe. So from that argument, that it is a very unlikely arrangement there are a few conclusions one can arrive at:
1) shit happens, all the particles in the universe have to be arranged somehow, so why not the way they are now?
2) we don't know that the forces of can possibly have different values, we simply don't have enough examples of universes or have ever observed different values.
3) infinite universes, there are an infinite number of universes out there. This is one of those universes.
4) other off the wall ideas that could potentially explain this.
5) god...
WTF kind of answer is god? I mean seriously? you accuse us of being dogmatic and closed minded? When presented with an overwhelming puzzle like this, with something as beautiful and full of wonder as the intangible pre-BigBang universe, you choose to say god?
What is god? how do you define god? you speak of rationality and all you offer is nonsense. I'm sorry I'm not convinced.
I don't much care about the "new atheist" or "old atheist" movements, I do care about rationality, and what you're selling is not it.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I was an atheist for quite some time before I had even heard of Stenger, Hithcens, and the other accomplished atheist authors. I've enjoyed reading them and they just backed up what I already held to be true and made me a little more aware of just how deeply religion has damaged mankind, but I would still be an atheist without ever hearing of them.
"I'd like to know, whose reasoning do they rely on?" -you ask? I've always relied on my own. I don't need to hear anyone's philosophy from either side to know where I stand. I follow no one, and would think myself to be weak minded if I did.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with reading any of the authors you listed above or agreeing with their views if you see fit, but only evidence presented that I was previously unaware of could make me question my lack of belief in a god, lest someone convinces me that I have not accepted substantial physical evidence to be fact and my ability to reason has been compromised.
You remind me of an old friend of mine who thought that anything professed in a college or any book that was required or even recommended reading had to be worth hanging your hat on.
When it really comes down to it, philosophy is just words. I think you've crammed so much of it down you don't know where to go. I've had a few friends do the same thing in college.
You said -
What's surprised me, and I mean really surprised me, shocked me, stupefied me, is that in the last few weeks on this forum I went from being completely agnostic to leaning toward the theistic side. I just can't believe it, but I have to admit it.
Why? For example, the insane evasion people have tried to make from arguments like the fine-tuning argument."
Now we all know the mindset of " I don't know, must be god", but this sounds like "THEY don't know, must be god". You may want to collect yourself before you go questioning the rationality of atheism again soon.
And don't be mistaken by thinking that if someone doesn't find your philosophies worthy of extensive sound argument that they are lacking in knowledge. If Mouse calls "bullshit" then you just have to accept it as a pitfall of throwing something out there that you can't back up with hard evidence.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
I'm not insisting on anything. Holy moly. I'm taking a side for the sake of argument.
The point of the example was only to ask if you would call the guy a moron for thinking that maybe that kind of totally insane coincidence was not just coincidence.
As an example, if you asked the "universe" Is there a God? and then took a random book from your shelf, opened to a random page, and pointed, and found, beneath your finger, the words "Yes, there is a God", what would you say? If you tell me you'd have no problem just dismissing that I don't think that makes you a hero of Reason.
I don't think you're all anything. I'm just observing a trend. I ran into an atheist friend in the park the other day who was quick to start insulting and mocking anyone who believed in God. Three minutes of discussion revealed he new nothing about anything. He couldn't even phrase the cosmological argument for God, though it was the only one he knew, and he had no problem calling it by name when he called it stupidity. So where the hell did he get the sense that he knows the truth about reality? No better than a fundamentalist nutjob. Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a serious trend. I see it all the time.
And that's what I mean. "Shit happens" isn't a response to the fine-tuning argument. In no other circumstance, such as your drawing the exact same coin out of a million ten thousand times straight, would odds like that be brushed off with a "shit happens". Nony's response talking about sperm and the chances of me being here is obvious nonsense. Zaq posted something about misunderstanding microstates or macrostates. I went and got physics textooks and read. I googled. I hit up JSTOR and my school's other research databases. I emailed physicists. I even posted a scholarly article and one of the responses I got. I would bet my life not one other person, certainly not Nony, lifted a finger to do some research.
Physicists tell us that it appears the constants absolutely could have different values. This is another example. People will invoke most holy science when it suits their argument and throw it away with "We don't know..." or "Maybe...". Infinite universes? That is an infinitely more complex explanation than God, and one which there is no reason to believe. It only reveals that that persons mind is completely made up, because suddenly here we can imagine anything we want without evidence. They will admit no evidence or reason for God, they will take the most absurd odds and call themselves reasonable for accepting those odds, and they will imagine any possible scenario to just avoid admitting that maybe just maybe a creator makes sense. And somehow they become convinced that they're the epitome of reason, of enlightened thought, and that the suggestion that there is a divine mind is not only false but completely idiotic. And in this atheist world they feel a MORAL duty to fight religion everywhere and at any opportunity.
My point is that all of you here are neither scientists nor history's greatest thinkers. Similarly, most average believers in God are not Einstein or Kant.
You call them morons and delusional for what? Because when you tell them that they should believe that a perfectly ordered universe appeared from nothing or for no reason or just happens to exist, with it's constants balanced on a knife's edge, and in that universe matter no different from a rock suddenly started having thoughts and feelings, it started being able to reproduce itself based on code, actual information, written into matter, that molecules wake up and can understand the most abstract mathematical truths that govern the cosmos, they think that maybe you're the one who's off?
No, you can tell them that right? Because you've done a little thinking.
Lmfao.
" Infinite universes? That is an infinitely more complex explanation than God,"
Comedic diamonds, found in a pile of comedic gold.
Many of us don't have to look these things up. We already did. Years ago. Decades ago, in some cases.
Some idiot in a park who had no rational basis for his lack of belief is no different from all the idiots around the world who have no rational basis for belief.
But we aren't idiots in a park, and your failure to understand the flaws in your arguments, or the rationale in ours, is suggestive that you need to do more research.
The best place to start:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Further recommended reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Thank you. Why didn't you tell me before? The problem all along was that I didn't see your superior reasoning skills? Silly me.
Obviously you're not an idiot in the park. You've spent years sitting at a computer telling everyone who already agrees with you as well as those who don't just how smart you are. Of course, you're no idiot in a park. You'd have to go to the park for that.
There are lots of things you said in the OP that really annoy me about human evolution and our species in general. And all of it stems from your misplaced sympathy which is wrong headed.
Your perception that a person or a group of people are "militant"( a stupid word in my estimation to call Hitchens or Stinger), are NOT good reasons to accept or reject ANY CLAIM on any subject. Having an emotional reaction to the behavior or words of other humans has nothing to do with the demonstration of the credibility of ANY CLAIM, on any subject.
Neither Hitchens or Stinger cuss in their books, nor did Hitchens cuss on TV or in his debates. Hitchens was ALWAYS civil. Not liking his metaphors describing religious characters does not make him militant. The word "militant" is a slur used by people who are not used to having their claims challenged.
"Militant" was what the 9/11 hijackers were. "Militant" is what abortion clinic bombers and abortion doctor killers are. Rightfully equating the god character, as Hitchens did, to being the leader of "a celestial North Korea" is hardly "Militant". Being blunt and blasphemous is not being "Militant".
When Hitchens titled his book "God Is Not Great, How religion poisons everything". He was NOT saying "go arrest all believers". He was not saying "kill all believers". He was rightfully throwing cold water on humanity's face by pointing out that their social clubs DO have a downside they refuse to look at. Religion is nothing but a form of politics, it's problem is that it sets up division between the "in group" and "out group", by infecting politics, locally and on a global scale. And religion infects education by presuming it can replace science, and or is hostile to science. He had no illusions that there would be a pragmatic way to use force to end religion, and no sane person I know here advocates that.
And Stinger's "New Atheism" gives us a SCIENTIFIC explanation as to why we are all the same species in that our labels don't matter and our behaviors as a species, both good and bad, are a product of our existence, not an invention of a label. Hardly "Militant".
You have unfortunately fallen for what the politically correct types have sold you. These same people who think only saying nice things about others, and claim to value free speech, WOULD NOT elect Thomas Jefferson who said "Question with boldness even the existence of a god" and also equated the virgin birth of Jesus to being "Minerva being born out of the brain of Jupiter".
If I could make my own definition of "militant" it would be ANYONE, right or left, believer or atheist, who insists on "never" as a solution in the context of every situation. And since you will never find any demand on those you wrongfully slandered above implying force via government to end religion, you owe them an apology.
"Militant" is what happened to that Indonesian man being arrested for Blasphemy of Islam. The Dark Ages was "Militant". Merely offending others or being blunt about their claims and human behavior is NOT militant.
"Militant" is throwing a pro choice, pro women's health lawmaker of the Michigan state senate floor for merely using the word "Vagina".
So as long as stupid people exist and can harm others like these examples, we not only have a right to question their claims, we would be fools not to.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
ALL of us here ? Don't you think that is a bit of blanket statement ? All of us here are neither scientists or history's greatest thinkers ? Are you ? So your making the rules now on what people can say and can not say since they are not histories greatest thinkers ? Exactly what constitutes histories greatest thinkers ? Greatest in whose judgement ?
As for your Atheist in the park analogy, I would say that would be a bit bigoted. A few arguments on here and one Atheist in the park and now YOUR an expert on the "growing trend" of Atheism ? As far as someone having their ass handed to them, that too proves nothing. I have watched debates on tv where I was screaming in my head for the person representing my side of the fence ( not just Atheism either) to make this point or that point.
Technically, someone could "hand someone their ass" by just baffling them with a bunch of bullshit.
I have not used the word delusional or moron one time, when debating a theist. I was a theist for a number of years. Yet, based on a few responses that did not suit your needs, all of sudden, all of us on here are the closed minded bad guys that are equal to the fanatic fundamentalists.
I guess the concept of thousands of atheists = thousands of world views, thousands of theists = thousands of different perspectives have not occurred to you.
You seem to he holding this board to some sort of standard that is not clearly defined and are constantly saying that you lean towards theism " because of all the irrationality here".
To me, this type of reasoning is no different than someone going to a civil rights message board and saying : Gee, I used to be a civil rights activist and hard core. But now, because of all the irrational responses, I am thinking about becoming a white supremacist.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
jeffreyalex reminds me of a friend of mine from back in the 80's. He was a physics major and when he got enough beer in him he always started telling how "brilliant" he was.
Clearly you have a problem with the word "militant". By militant I meant aggressive, combative, and confrontational. Clearly I did not mean any of those in the physical sense—we are all living in the same world, we all know there haven't been atheists flying planes into things. So just replace "militant" with "unduly aggressive and confrontational".
I have great respect for Chris Hitchens. I read him long before he wrote God Is Not Great. I agree with virtually all of his points about religions.
I'm not making my mind up based on any groups behavior, so you can relax on that count.
I agree with your last statement completely and with no reservation. But belief in God, a creator god, is not religion. I think it would be wiser if the anti-theist movement focused on the idiocy of believing what's written in an ancient book (in other words, the religion part).
I would bet my kidney that the mere thought "I think there may be an intelligence at work in the universe" has never motivated anyone to blow anyone up and never will.
Belief in God is a subject on which thoroughly reasonable people can disagree.
To the contrary, "I have a book that tells me who God is, what he does, how he wants me to act, and who I should kill" is not something reasonable people can just agree to disagree on. I agree with you on that.
That distinction noted, people can have civil discussions about arguments and reasons to believe or disbelieve in God. I am fully aware that the theist side is often very bad at that. But when atheists go on about the utter stupidity not of religion or of arbitrary religious dogma but of belief in God as such they have a tendency to show huge arrogance they haven't earned (for example, if a person is ready to call the cosmological argument complete trash that only a fool would believe, he should at least be able to state the argument).
I'm not talking about all of you. I'm talking about the people to whom this applies, and there are a lot of them.
I'm not the judge of who a great thinker is. What I can say is that the person who dismisses an argument he doesn't understand, hasn't researched or read about carefully, and can't even phrase, is not a very good thinker. Nonetheless, that person is the one with the loudest mouth almost without fail.
Actually some of us here are scientists, as if that had any relevance what so ever. Is a cancer researcher more qualified then a mechanical engineer to make a philosophical argument? If an honest to god scientist, wearing an honest to god white coat and geeky glasses walked up to you and told you that this whole god thing is bogus would you believe them? What if the reverse was true? would you believe in god? Same with history's "greatest thinkers", I'm sure you can easily find "greatest thinkers" on either side of the debate. That comment shows your insecurity more then anything else. Is there one particular degree or field of research that would automatically make me correct in one issue or other?
I've never claimed to be smarter then anyone, in fact I consider everyone to be quite the same. At times some of us excel at some traits more then others, sometimes intellectually, other times physically, but overall we're all more or less equal.
How do you know how much thinking I have gone through to arrive at my current conclusions? I have thought about these things my whole life, and have been on either side of the issue at one point or other. I have gathered every shred of evidence and after a certain point, it all started to point to the conclusions I now hold.
You are very presumptuous and frankly, quite a bit naive. As well as very insecure. You have yet to make any one concrete point other then to hang onto find tuning. You still haven't DEFINED god, and yet you still insist that we must consider an UNDEFINED quantity as a RATIONAL explanation for anything. I say it's not god it's #@$&j2@.
"shit happens" is an infinitely better explanation because you can point to shit and say... well, there is shit, and shit does happen, so.... shit happens.
Now why don't you go and email a few more "real scientists" and "history greatest thinkers". Compile a nice list of research, come back with a fucking definition of what you are trying to consider as an alternative. Oh make sure you include some agricultural researchers, I hear the cow shit is excellent this time of the year.
Oh, and thank you for showering us with your superior intellect, and we do so value your opinion on our far inferior intellect.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Exactly, there are great thinkers on either side of the debate. People can reasonably disagree on this. I don't know how much you've thought about anything, and if you've done a huge amount of research then this isn't about you. It's about the person who goes on about how believers are all delusional and how the cosmological argument is rubbish but, meanwhile, can't phrase the argument and doesn't know two things about it. Those people are ubiquitous these days.
I don't feel insecure. I feel frustrated.
And I'm not claiming a superior intellect. I'm saying "chill the fuck out" to those people who meet the following two criteria: 1) mock and belittle people's belief in God and 2) haven't even bothered to read anything substantial about what they talk about. That's who this is directed at.
*Yawn*
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
As you have argued for theism from the beginning it appears you do not understand what agnostic means.
That is in addition to the fact that you do not understand science at any level. That in itself is surprising.
Taking the two together the only reasonable conclusion is your strategy was to pretend to agnosticism as a means of preaching the word with misrepresentations of science that you know to be bogus in the first place.
Now that you have encountered people who do understand science and statistics and have legitimate reasons for rejecting your misrepresentations you resort to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority in the form of an appeal to select set of misrepresentations of from a select set of authorities.
Does this mean you are on the verge of threatening to take your ball and go home because we won't play nice?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Perish the thought.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hi Jeff,
I understand you completely, though I'm not so into philosophy as you or many of the others here are. Although at some point, I will probably have to take a course or two in the future as its a prereq if and when I feel the need to go back to school and get my masters in cinematography. Right now, after 35 years behind a camera it hasn't been an issue, but as I'm moving more into teaching, it may be another one of those things I never knew I needed. My industry has moved so fast anyway, that I've gotten accustomed to trashing what I learned through 35 years of experience to move on and progress. Its something all of us have had to get used to, theist and non theist alike.
What I've grown to despise is the hostility and the drama that I don't feel is necessary just because of differing opinions and beliefs. As the old adage goes, "Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one". I've often said that as a Libertarian, I'm the closest thing to a friend the theist has in an atheist, for it matters not to me what a person believes, just what they do with those beliefs that form my opinion of the individual. I have no beef per se with even fundamentalists as that would describe about 95% of my family and the majority of them are happy to live and let live.
All of this said, I agree with you that its not the deity or belief in said deity that is the issue, but dogmatic, closed minded thinking and the mad desire to crush out all opposition, which I feel is the crux of what atheist critics complain about as "irrational",though,as you say, many seem to suffer the same affliction. What is "rational" anyway? I used to jump out of planes for fun as a young man, something many folks told me was "irrational". Perhaps it was, but I sure had fun with it and someday plan to take it up again, finances permitting.
You're right in that its not belief in God folks need to worry about and you're also right in that it ain't going away anytime soon.
The reason why so many atheists are arrogant, or come across that way is the same reason why political correctness rubs so many the wrong way on secular issues. A white male, who, say has been working at a job for a number of years in line for a promotion, may feel justified in his anger when a minority of less seniority gets a break and steps into the job he had his eye on and had been working hard for in the name of "fairness" and Affirmative Action. Should he feel resentment toward the person who got his job? No, but that fact isn't going to stop his emotional reaction, for from his perspective, he's being punished for nothing that he's done. Atheists and theists alike both feel this kind of anger and resentment. They see each other as a threat.
Religion has had a stronghold on the minds of folks for thousands of years. It was the law of the land, the only way to think for a long time and freethinking and secularism has been the subject of suppression by the religious for a long time. Its no wonder it has birthed a backlash.
I get a little nervous when I hear atheists call for an abolishment of religion, for that, too is a form of intolerance and a hindrance to free thought and any attempts at legislative suppression is a slippery slope that I'm not willing to ride. I would probably not shed a tear if religion died of natural causes, but I'm not about to advocate abolishing a parent's right to home or private school no matter how odious I find such beliefs as Young Earth Creationism and how much I might disagree that God is necessary for morality. To each his own.
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
I agree with you, Marty.
We should acknowledge a threat where there is a threat. Believing that all who don't have your faith should be slain, for example, is a threatening belief. On the other hand, "I think there is some sort of Creator" is not a threat.
I'd take my ball and go home cause you give me a headache.
That's exactly the point though. You won't play nice. In a game there are rules, just as there are in conversation and argumentation. I quote scientists (I even gave you references which I'm sure you didn't bother checking) who tell us, for example, based on their expertise, that the constants of the universe appear finely tuned in a way that makes life possible. Zaq responded with an interesting comment. I researched it to understand what he was saying. I emailed a professional physicist. I posted the response to that email AND I posted a 50-page peer-reviewed paper. Zaq's response proved to be no defeater at all.
Then you just repeat that I don't know science. Nony, just get over yourself. You never know what you're talking about because you never bother to find out. Just like the theists you can't stand, you take science when it suits you (like when Zaq used it to make a point against fine-tuning) and you throw science away when it doesn't (like when you ignored it completely when Zaq's point was shown to be misguided).
For science the only thing that matters is physical evidence. Opinions are nothing but opinions. If you were not being selective in your misrepresentation you would find you would note this does not constitute evidence of your preconceived conclusion. It is merely something which has yet to be explained which is what scientists will say.
The rules of the game in public discussion are rather simple. When you want to talk about something you have to know what you are talking about. You have tried to talk statistics and science and you understand neither. You are violating a very obvious rule. Further when something is explained to you, you continue to insist you are correct even though still as ignorant of the subject as when you started.
In addition you toss around the word logic in ways which show you do not understand what logic is.
It is also a rule of public debate to be honest. You have not been honest. You did not start posting as an agnostic but rather you posted as a theist from the beginning.
Additionally you attempt to shove your preconception of a single god into it. Even if you were to make some point which leads to something external to reality you have merely opened an entirely different can of worms. Nor have you exhausted other possibilities such as this is all a dream in the mind of Vishnu.
Which is the point not only of your theism but rather that you have a christian god of sorts as the preconceived answer for everything you have raised. So you also have a very specific form of theism you are pushing which compounds the fake agnosticism.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Except you've explained nothing. You confused yourself with the most basic probability. And you dismiss science as easily as you invoke it. Science observes constants in the physical laws, that is a fact. If those constants held different values life would not be possible (for example, if heavy elements were not able to form), that is a fact.
Regarding my being honest, I have never said I believe something to be true which I do not believe to be true.
Regarding "shoving God into it", that is, as you said, a different can of worms.
Whatever in your opinion I have failed to do does not change what you have done.
That said, what did I claim to be explaining?
Please explain how you think you can make that statement when you know you do not understand statistics.
Again you do not understand science yet you glibly post nonsense, clear falsehoods about science.
As to honesty I noted you have always posted as a theist and yet lie about having been agnostic. I did give you one "out" by suggesting you did not understand the meaning of agnostic. You did not take it.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Again, you've talked a lot and said nothing.
Let's do this step by step.
First, you think that if you don't know something you should say nothing, yet you started a thread trying to apply probability to one situation in order to draw an analogy to another.
You failed because the example is obviously not analogous and because you made the most basic mistake possible. This demonstrates that you don't understand what you're talking about. Yet you talk about it.
Second, I don't have to be a mathematician to knowledgeably assert that 2 + 2 = 4. Similarly, I don't have to be a professional statistician to observe a mistake (your mistake) that any high schooler who's had a week of probability would notice.
Third, you saying "you don't understand science haha" is no response to anything. If you want to deny that the laws of physics exist or that constants exist, then deny it. If you want to deny that a stronger nuclear force would result in hydrogen fusing into diprotons, then do it. Until then, the premise that 'the universe is finely tuned for intelligent life' remains perfectly sound and reasonable.
And fourth, I am now and have been an agnostic. I do not know whether God exists and at this time I do not think that knowledge is possible.
You are ignoring a significant distinction. There are agnostic atheists ( of which the majority of this forum consists of ) as well as agnostic theists ( that's you )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
If you ask a theist if he believes in God he will answer: Yes. If you ask him if he a) believes in God and b) can he KNOW for sure he will answer: Yes, and No.
If you ask me if I believe in God the best I could tell you is: If I had to bet I'd bet Yes.
Is that genuine belief? I don't know. It's definitely not strong belief.
And of course, if you asked me Can you know? I would say No.
So I hope that's clear enough. Label it what you want.
The label isn't the issue, the definition is. Your reply added nothing.
Stop being disagreeable. If you have a question to ask, ask it. If you have an accusation to make, make it. At any rate, what I believe or what I call what I believe makes no difference to any position I choose to defend.
Based upon you having no knowledge of statistics whatsoever why do you think you are correct? That a mathematical result is counter-intuitive is a fact not evidence of being wrong. On top of this you are incapable of understanding you do not understand.
The depth of your ignorance and your ignorance of the depth of your ignorance makes it impossible to discuss the subject with you.
Or you are not ignorant and are lying for the lord.
Myself I have had a college level course in statistics separate from statisical quantum mechanics as part of a degree in physics. I have also worked in applied statistics in test design and reliability and logistics. Pardon if success in these endevours gives me a modest opinion that I know orders of magnitude more about the subject than you do.It also gives me the opinion I know what the term orders of magnitude means.
Considering you think you can understand the subject without ever studying it is more of an insight into your rather unusual disorder although I do not have a name for it. Perhaps it is related to your desire to post like a fool in public so you can suffer for scorn for your faith. That is a line the con artists tell the shills to keep them contributing cash.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
No, dummy. I was demonstrating the fallacy of large numbers. In statistics, no matter how great the odds against, if it happens it happens. A thing is not impossible because of the odds against.
But then you know nothing about statistics and you refuse to learn anything on the subject. Studied ignorance is not a virtue.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You mean like ( to quote jeffreyalex ) " Uh, SMD ? "
It was neither a "question" nor an "accusation". It was a description.
Since when is it credible to cite anonymous sources targeting high school students?
The best the link shows is that there are degrees of idiots.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You refuse to acknowledge the fact that is it your invented "laws of physics" which demonstrate you do not understand science. There is no law of physics regarding fine tuning. There is ZERO evidence they can be other than they are.
You continue to ignore that only in a universe where there is life could the constants be observed and thus the so-called "tuning" is meaningless.
You do not want to recognize that tuning is anthropomorphic, it implies a tuner. The use of the term tune implies a conclusion. It means you are not different from the silly savages on the 18th century and prior who saw lightning as evidence of god. You insist upon seeing things as having a sentient cause just as did our ancestors a couple centuries ago.
Join the 21 century.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
"Smith, George H ( 1979 ) Atheism: The Case Against God. " ....The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."
I'm not sure how you ascertained that author George H. Smith was a dithering dilettante when he wrote the above statement. If someone quoted you in a wikipedia article regarding your chosen field of interest would you consider yourself discredited ?
The word agnostic was invented by Huxley, aka Darwin's bulldog. What it means is what he said it means. Why not look it up instead of inventing your own definition? It is too hard to look it up? Or is it your desire to invent your own definition?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
All terms are invented by someone at some point in time are they not ? Citing who created the term doesn't speak to the validity of the concept. Does the truth behind the theory of evolution hinge upon the person who actually coined the term or does it rest upon the argument itself ? I don't give a shit who created these terms only whether they are valid.
I did look up the term "agnostic atheist" and it is found in more sources than wikipedia. I didn't invent the term. If you had looked it up you would have realized that the concept, and consequently the multiple internet citations, predates this discussion.
Pardon but wikipedia is anonymous. I have no idea who Smith, George H is nor what he said nor do you unless you have read the cited material. And neither of us has any idea who he is without actually finding his credentials and reading his material. And if you think anonymous people are honest you have a lot to learn about wikipedia.
Pardon but my modest foray into the a field I know lead to learning a lot of the high school nature of the material. Would you believe correcting the credentials of an anthropologist missed cited as an archaeologist was erased because it discredited an archaeological claim about bibleland? I found entire fields of subjects on religion where opinion desperately searches for citations in support of the opinion.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I have the book in question, as do many atheists ( agnostic or otherwise ) with many passages highlighted. His ( Smith's ) work stands or falls on its own merits. I'm sure wikipedia entries can be found on Albert Einstein but I'm sure you would agree that has absolutely no bearing upon his scientific acumen.
Consider me old fashioned but it is my opinion that if people wish to use words to communicate then they should agree on the meaning of the words used. If there is no agreement on the meaning of the words then there is no way to hold a discussion.
There are three general conditions, theist, agnostic and atheist. Theist is agreement with the the social assumption of gods. Atheist is no gods. Agnostic is not taking a position. Only theist implies belief. Atheism is absence of evidence. Theism may be other than agreement with social convention if there is personal experience but that is not conveyable as evidence.
No place in those non-rigorous definitions is there monotheism. Any insertion of monotheism into a discussion is theism. Any insertion of the acts of a particular god is theism. In this case the constant assertion of a single god of Genesis as a creator as a possibility cannot possibly be agnostic as the position is Christian not agnostic.
Now I can see a newbie to agnosticism not understanding this so from the beginning I have pointed out the false assumption of monotheism and the christiian single god to this person and I have received no response. Therefore you can see his insistence upon pushing Christianity as the only alternative to atheism and as such he cannot be an agnostic.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
One thing I will assure you about scientists is that they are generally hesitant in their own fields because knowledge is so specialized. What really pisses me off is what scientists say outside of their specialty being given the stature of their specialization.
Given the common Einstein gambit, he would have been loath to offer an opinion on thermodynamics and would certainly have recommended those he knew specialized in the field. Who but an idiot would cite his opinion on the existence of gods?
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Concepts and the language which expresses them must be updated. That's why dictionaries are under constant revision.
There is disagreement even among atheists as to whether these three positions are all encompassing. Hence the contrasting positions of Strong / Positive Atheism vs Weak / Negative Atheism. Agnostic atheism is analogous to weak atheism. The debate has moved beyond your explanation and hence new terms have been created to represent the updated positions. The same applies to the theistic position.
I can't speak to jeffreyalex's particular God / god concepts because he never stays with a single concept long enough to make me believe he supports a specific one. Metaphorically he seems to just be tossing darts at a dartboard and hoping he gets a bull's eye.
Not me. I cited Einstein strictly based upon his scientific credibility as it relates to being allegedly downgraded by showing up in a wikipedia article. I could have chosen any recognized expert relating to any discipline, the point was related to your objection to wikipedia, not a specific topic, theistic or otherwise.
Maybe you do not read much of what he posts. He is currently onto the nonsense of the cause of the big bang and citing Genesis as "god singular did it" and some single tuner is fine tuning the universe.
Read his posts. There are no free passes while pushing monotheism of the Genesis variety.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I've read your suggestion ( something to the effect ) that even if it could be verified that a sentient, self aware force is behind the BB how could a person possibly deduce whether this force is singular and not instead something similar to a collective force comprised of many entities. And how one can then jump to an interventionist force that arranges rose petals or creates an Objective Moral Paradigm™ from such a tentative position seems like nothing more than wishful thinking.
I know lots of big words and heady concepts but I have yet to come across any necessity for sentient or self aware in any theist concept of origins. All I have found is an anthropomorphic assumption of same. Nor have I found anything worthy of big words or heady concepts in any historic development of concepts of gods.
Nor have I ever found any big words or concepts leading religious thought. Rather they have been tacked on to things to keep questioners confused.
Real simple. Polytheism is the rule. In the west which includes the mideast over to Iran trended towards the unknowable primary god with knowable gods invented by the Greeks. Finally Islam was the first to declare to the masses that there was only one god. Look at the history books. I am correct in my facts. The statement, 'I believe in one god' is not the same as 'I believe there is only one god.' The latter statement first appears in Islam.
Screw the big words and concepts. The religion of the people is not the religion of the priests. The priests have the leisure to play word games to keep up with the people. It makes no sense at all to play word games to make a simple, almost primitive concept appear impressive for those who like big words and concepts.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
You better inform the pantheists to drop the theist from their name as their "god" is in no way sentient or self aware, your assumptions not withstanding. "Sentient" is a big word ?
( Also, do words like "omniscient", "omnipotent", "omnipresent" also inspire such disdain from you? What exactly constitutes a "big word" in your view ? )
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Yes, but what "heady concept" does that word express ?
Unsurprisingly There is going to be a re-action to what you've begun to suggested. Did the general experience turn out in any way like you imagined?. Look at it another way. There is a danger everyone runs when basis's are too much or often times is "to my own mind". The Ancients feared the chaos of nature. I have found people fear the chaos when every man views things according to his own formulation. Remember we are watching.
hehe, the theory that a proper British accent can cause your umbrella to become an anti gravitational device?
hehe, or the theory that big words represent heady concepts? I'm not sure, I'm not big on heady things and English is my second language, eloquence often eludes me
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Human diamagnetism gravity antenna levitation .. I saw that.
That will bring us back to D'oh ..
Mary Poppins played more famously by Julie Andrews .
: