patrick.net

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.

Peter P says

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.

Or he can be seen as neither.
And I rather think you have a fundamental misconception of what the scientific method entails. It doesn't make any claims to the 'truth'.
And so what if something is demonstrated to be incorrect? That is one of the great strengths of the scientific method. It is the reason why we have progressed as a species.

Science is a process.

Religion is a faith based belief system.

Repeatedly holding small bits over a bunsen burner and noticing that the material made largely of the same stuff has one color flame and those made up of other material has a different color has another is a process to gain knowledge.

Accepting that ~2000 years ago a tax collector had a vision on a road is an article of faith. Or talking donkeys, men living in whales, wrestling otre beings from beyond known reality, or parting seas in half. Or believing that a late Iron Age Jewish Carpenter had to be nailed to a cross to suffer for all men's sins, even though his "Father" could apparently create the entire universe by Fiat.

Trust a bunch of atheists to hijack a thread in an effort to prosetylize.

Quigley says

Trust a bunch of atheists to hijack a thread in an effort to prosetylize.

You didn't read the thread, did you?

"Trust a bunch of atheists to hijack a thread in an effort to prosetylize."

If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10

But hey, according to Ryan last week, Obama is going to destroy the "Judeo-Christian" foundation of this country.

So when's Petraeus' execution?

Quigley says

Trust a bunch of atheists to hijack a thread in an effort to prosetylize.

I did prove that atheism is just as intolerant of other religions. ;-)

Peter P says

Atheism is about the non-existence of God.

I disagree, it's about the lack of a need for magic-based backing for the universe. There is no need for gods of any kind, nor animal spirits living in the trees, or reincarnation.

As to Patraeus, don't know, don't care terribly much. This guy was no Stormin' Norman or Colin Powell as far as penetrating the public consciousness.

First thing I think of is Chris Rock:

I'M NOT SAYING IT'S RIGHT, BUT I UNDERSTAND!

Vicente says

I disagree, it's about the lack of a need for magic-based backing for the universe. There is no need for gods of any kind, nor animal spirits living in the trees, or reincarnation.

Not sure why this is happening in this thread, but I disagree. It's not about need or lack of need in the way you say.

Yes needing to have answers to everything is behind the belief or I guess (indirectly) faith of many religious or spiritual people.

But ironically needing to have answers is behind the atheist point of view(not all, but many) as well. They are not comfortable with the answer "I don't know"
and I DON'T NEED TO KNOW.

They declare that they do know, that god does not exist. Why, because they need to know, one way or the other.

I'm not talking all atheists. Some are very close to agnostics. They just don't believe, and it's not relevant to them (beyond disdain for some of the harm that extremists do in the name of religion).

I'm talking about the religious atheists who NEED to proselytize. It's a religious fervor.

About Patreous, I wonder what the line would be on whether this is about Beghazi. That is if people were betting on it, and if they could know.

Obligatory:

Never trust a man who's last name rhymes with "Betray Us".
Because you know he the throws that line in, every time he sings Amadeus in Mirror when he gets out of the shower.

Was planning on stating how fucking absurd this scandal and likewise scandals are and how ridiculous that it is on the news. But been too busy to start a rant on this. Was going to do it this night after work.

What scandal? Can't be a scandal if just one person did something wrong.

It's the right wing conservatives who want to get into everyone's bedrooms and sexlives. See the actual impeachment of a recent sitting President for how they operate. P leaving government for failing their moral standards is simply the way they want things to be.

You really don't see a lot of commentary because the guy resigned and now nobody really cares. It's not like Clinton where he lied about it.

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

Me too.

He was impeached because of a severely dysfunctional right wing that went after Clinton for anything they could find. (see Ken Star). Originally they wanted him to look in to "Whitewater," then in to the death of Vince Foster. Finally it was cornering Clinton on his embarrassing encounter with Lewinski, and yes, blow jobs, that got Clinton to lie under oath rather than embarrass himself and his family. And there it was, ...finally,....gotcha.

Still, it's the republicans who still look like scumbags, for practicing that kind of politics. Wtf ? Was that payback for Watergate ? Or were they just that pissed off about CLinton's competence ?

This business of republicans doing anything to gain power, or take it away from a Democrat, is not new. Too bad they can't just use truth, and legitimate policies that the middle class could get behind, to gain power, as the system intended.

marcus says

that got Clinton to lie under oath rather than embarrass himself and his family.

Perjury was proven? As I recall it was acquittal.

Supreme Court has spent some effort in this area over the years. Example Reagan "I do not recall" and similar evasions and vagueness are not perjury.

Example you ask the average college-kid how many people they've "had sex" with and then try to pin down all the gyrations of what is and isn't, it's a nightmare. A Catholic girl I dated never "had sex" but boy howdy.....

Where was I?

Back to the subject, as xyzzy said, nobody really gives 2 farts about this since he resigned. It will fade into obscurity in a week or three. Remember Lisa Nowak? No, you probably don't remember it unless I say "crazy astronaut diaper lady". This story doesn't have that kind of weirdness to stick in popular culture memory.

But this 'shop is too awesome have to post it again:

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/why-petraeuss-affair-matters-but-bill-clintons-didnt/265100/#