patrick.net

Peter P says

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

And what is that supposed to mean? Saying you believe in all Gods is just a nonsense you are peddling to try and cover your arse over your Pascal's Wager comment. How exactly can you believe in all Gods?

Peter P says

Besides, what does believing in a God cost you? Some coolness in front of your friends? :-)

That's not what is being argued. You directly questioned the rationality of atheists by peddling Pascal's Wager.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

And what is that supposed to mean? Saying you believe in all Gods is just a nonsense you are peddling to try and cover your arse over your Pascal's Wager argument. How exactly can you believe in all Gods?

It depends on how you define God.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

Peter P says

What if you believe in the Universe? It is strictly Pantheism and it covers all. Like an umbrella policy.

And what is that supposed to mean? Saying you believe in all Gods is just a nonsense you are peddling to try and cover your arse over your Pascal's Wager argument. How exactly can you believe in all Gods?

It depends on how you define God.

You are just playing games now.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

Besides, what does believing in a God cost you? Some coolness in front of your friends? :-)

That's not what is being argued. You directly questioned the rationality of atheists by peddling Pascal's Wager.

Because if the cost is infinitesimal then the wager is always rational. How much AAPL $100 Puts will you buy if it is free? I would "buy" up to the position limit. (NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.)

Athiest: "I believe all religions are bullshit"
Devout Christian: "I believe those other religions are bullshit"

Now, that's somewhat unfair, since Christians have also ginned up a Loki character for their narrative, an entity able to deceive any number of people into believing in false things (eg, conveniently, all other competing religions), but that makes their entire philosophical superstructure unfalsifiable and not worth my time unless I start seeing empirical evidence supporting all the stuff they attest.

The hubris of humans even imagining they could find divinity here on a nondescript planet circling a nondescript star cycling in a nondescript galaxy in a mind-killingly immense and aged universe is somewhat humorous to me.

Understandable though when the world was apparently a much smaller place, and was man's known universe.

The very existence of Mormons (and Scientologists for that matter) is proof enough that millions of people will believe any bullshit you feed them.

As an "athiest", I see still great mystery in the universe. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt sometimes when my train of thought starts getting into the manifest complexities of the implications of our existential reality that our daily-use brains routinely ignore -- for our own sanity I suspect.

Atheism is about the non-existence of God. It has nothing to do with religions.

Believing that there is no God *is* the same as making an ontological statement about God. As with all things metaphysical, that statement is unknowable and such belief forms the basis of a religion.

Money is a religion too. It is useful if and only if people believe in it.

Bellingham Bill says

As an "athiest", I see still great mystery in the universe. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt sometimes when my train of thought starts getting into the manifest complexities of the implications of our existential reality that our daily-use brains routinely ignore -- for our own sanity I suspect.

This is why I subscribe to metaphysical and epistemological subjectivism.

Peter P says

Because if the cost is infinitesimal then the wager is always rational. How much AAPL $100 Puts will you buy if it is free? I would "buy" up to the position limit. (NOT INVESTMENT ADVICE.)

What? That has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager nor with saying that atheism is irrational. And since when has a belief in a specific religion been 'free'?

Bigsby says

What? That has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager nor with saying that atheism is irrational.

It has everything to do with it.

If betting on X is cheap (or free) and it has a better outcome than the alternative, then it is always rational to bet on it irregardless on the uncertainty, unknowability, and chances.

Peter P says

Atheism is about the non-existence of God. It has nothing to do with religions.

Believing that there is no God *is* the same as making an ontological statement about God. As with all things metaphysical, that statement is unknowable and such belief forms the basis of a religion.

Money is a religion too. It is useful if and only if people believe in it.

Are you really trying to claim that atheism and money are religions? Seriously?

The wager in Pascal's Wager is not "infinitesimal" in cost, quite the opposite.

Believing in bullshit cripples the mind. Just look at how Romney's campaign blew up due to their collective intellectual corruption.

Nazis believing they could take on the world because they were Aryan Supermen, Japanese believing their own similar dogmatic bullshit, same thing.

It's no accident that the most "atheistic" nations are also the most successful.

(Well, outside Vietnam, but their problem stems from falling into actual marxist bullshit dogma instead, plus massive overpopulation.)

Everybody believes in some bullshit.

I still believe in Santa Claus. I just need to be extra-nice to my wife right before Christmas.

The ills of religions are caused by weak minds. Religions themselves do not create weak minds. They are at worst power transfers. Then it is about control, just like everything else.

Peter P says

It has everything to do with it.

If betting on X is cheap (or free) and it has a better outcome than the alternative, then it is always rational to bet on it irregardless on the uncertainty, unknowability, and chances.

A true belief in any particular religion (rather than just paying lip service) is far from free. It requires major sacrifices for something for which the possibility of being correct is infinitesimally small. And that still doesn't make atheism irrational.

Bigsby says

A true belief in any particular religion (rather than just paying lip service) is far from free. It requires major sacrifices for something for which the possibility of being correct is infinitesimally small. And that still doesn't make atheism irrational.

It depends. Cut out the middlemen and the belief will be affordable.

But I do not mind sacrificing a roasted suckling pig if I get to eat it too.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

A true belief in any particular religion (rather than just paying lip service) is far from free. It requires major sacrifices for something for which the possibility of being correct is infinitesimally small. And that still doesn't make atheism irrational.

It depends. Cut out the middlemen and the belief will be affordable.

But I do not mind sacrificing a roasted suckling pig if I get to eat it too.

The cost can be rather higher than that.

Bigsby says

The cost can be rather higher than that.

But if needs not be. The problem lies not in God (the metaphysical being) but in people's tendency to believe what they want to believe.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

The cost can be rather higher than that.

But if needs not be. The problem lies not in God (the metaphysical being) but in people's tendency to believe what they want to believe.

And the reason why people believe in God...

Bigsby says

And the reason why people believe in God...

Because they should... :-)

Some atheist choose not to believe in God because they are not comfortable in having a higher being. Many of my friends are atheists.

Afterlife has a time value too. Young people are less likely than old people to believe in an afterlife because the present value of it is perceived to be much smaller.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

And the reason why people believe in God...

Because they should... :-)

No, because specific religions have taught them to, and those religions can have very clear and very high costs despite what you appear to have been claiming.

The best Pascal's Wager is just being the best person you can be here on Earth and let the eternal work itself out on its own.

If that's not good enough for the dieties waiting for us on the other side, fuck 'em.

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

Bellingham Bill says

The best Pascal's Wager is just being the best person you can be here on Earth and let the eternal work itself out on its own.

If that's not good enough for the dieties, fuck 'em.

http://www.galactanet.com/oneoff/theegg_mod.html

What is good though?

I now believe that God is morally neutral.

Peter P says

What is good though?

I now believe that God is morally neutral.

So presumably there is no additional cost involved in being an atheist but all the additional benefits. Wouldn't that make atheism the most rational choice?

Bigsby says

So presumably there is no additional cost involved in being an atheist but all the additional benefits. Wouldn't that make atheism the most rational choice?

What are the benefits of being an atheist?

Peter P says

Bigsby says

So presumably there is no additional cost involved in being an atheist but all the additional benefits. Wouldn't that make atheism the most rational choice?

What are the benefits of being an atheist?

In no particular order:
Not having to waste my time doing all the ridiculous things that many religions seem to think are central to their traditions. Not deferring to people who lived 2000 years ago. An appreciation of science. Not believing that dinosaurs were vegetarians and ran around with humans. Not having to listen to people demanding that I lay down my life for their religion. Not having to live my life hating people that my religion/religious leaders tell me to hate etc. etc. etc.

Science is a religion.

There is a huge disconnect between mathematical certainty and reality. Then it is all down to what you choose to accept as moral certainty.

I am wary of any claim to objective knowledge, scientific or not, since it is the first step in monopolizing the process of truth discovery. Like many religions, Science is not very tolerant of other belief systems.

Bigsby says

Not having to waste my time doing all the ridiculous things that many religions seem to think are central to their traditions. Not deferring to people who lived 2000 years ago. An appreciation of science. Not believing that dinosaurs were vegetarians and ran around with humans. Not having to listen to people demanding that I lay down my life for their religion. Not having to live my life hating people that my religion/religious leaders tell me to hate etc. etc. etc.

I am not an atheist and I enjoy all of the above. Yes, I even appreciate science as a practical tool. Just not big-S Science. I call it Scientism.

Peter P says

I am not an atheist and I enjoy all of the above. Yes, I even appreciate science as a practical tool. Just not big-S Science. I call it Scientism.

From your own admission, you are a believer in a very personal, not to say, wishy-washy conception of God(s), certainly compared to the beliefs of the vast majority of religious believers, so what you believe is hardly representative.
And what on earth is big-S Science?

Peter P says

Science is a religion.

No, it isn't.

Bigsby says

And what on earth is big-S Science?

Big-S Science to science is like Libertarians to libertarians.

It is when people become dogmatic about science and reject any other school of thought.

Bigsby says

No, it isn't.

Why not? It requires faith in the scientific methods as the means of knowledge discovery. It rejects other religions. It has false prophets.

Peter P says

It is when people become dogmatic about science and reject any school of thought other than science.

Scientists may make arguments about non-scientific matters (such as Dawkins on religion), but that is a separate issue to science and the scientific method. Are you claiming that scientists who believe in evolution are being dogmatic, for example?

Bigsby says

Are you claiming that scientists who believe in evolution are being dogmatic, for example?

I am saying that scientists who reject creationism are being dogmatic.

Evolution and creationism can co-exist.

I reject neither.

Peter P says

Bigsby says

No, it isn't.

Why not? It requires faith in the scientific methods as the means of knowledge discovery. It rejects other religions. It has idols.

You are just being ridiculous. The scientific method isn't based on faith. It doesn't make claims about other religions. And what do you mean it has idols? There have been great scientists that people admire and respect. That hardly makes them idols, does it?

Peter P says

I am saying that scientists who reject creationism are being dogmatic.

No, they aren't.

Peter P says

Evolution and creationism can co-exist.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Scientific methods require assumptions and everything statistical require a notion of moral certainty.

Scientists (not the methods) certainly make claims about other competing world views. (Scientific or not)

For example, Newton can be seen as an idol or a false prophet. Newtonian physics was accepted as the truth before quantum mechanics.

Now, what if there is a "higher" science waiting to be discovered?

Bad knowledge can be worse than no knowledge.

Bigsby says

Peter P says

I am saying that scientists who reject creationism are being dogmatic.

No, they aren't.

Peter P says

Evolution and creationism can co-exist.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Evolution could have been the process chose by the intelligent designer. It is down to teleology. We will never know.

Creationism does not require a magic wand.

No system of knowledge discovery can reject creationism.

Occam's Razor has no metaphysical basis. It can at best convince people to choose one theory over another. This smells like a religion again.

Sometimes, we have to be honest to ourselves and accept that we simply do not know. Then, we are free to believe. Be happy. :-)

Peter P says

I am saying that scientists who reject creationism are being dogmatic.
Evolution and creationism can co-exist.
I reject neither.

No they can't in a scientific construct. Nice touch, trying to paint someone interested in facts as dogmatic. This seems to be the prevailing attitude of the right wingers -try and paint the opposition with your behaviour.

I never understand the fundamental folks trying to make faith equal to science-they are two different things. Newer religions like Christianity , Islam , Scientology etc require unquestioned faith. For example the whole thing about the Virgin Mary. If it were science , someone would ask the question-was she impregnated by the holy spirit or did she just have a wild night of partying?? The latter would be the most logical conclusion. But faith will preculde you from that thought process. It narrows down your thought process and only lets you think in "acceptable" set in stone outcomes.

Faith is faith and science is science-I never understand the obsession of the fundamentalists to try and replace science by faith.

Peter P says

Creationism does not require a magic wand.

No system of knowledge discovery can reject creationism.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain those to me. And I really hope you aren't going to start quoting Deepak Chopra to us.

Peter P says

Sometimes, we have to be honest to ourselves and accept that we simply do not know. Then, we are free to believe. Be happy. :-)

I see. So we do not know that the world is older than 6000 years. Is that what you are saying? I think your amateur philosophizing is befuddling your brain.