patrick.net

Atheists. "We're smarter than you."

wthrfrk80 says

Atheists. "We're smarter than you."

http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html?viewFirst=y&

It never occurs to anyone because it is not taught that there are at least 9 different semetic peoples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

That article isn't 100 percent correct. Some are added in that aren't. Some don't make it into the wikipedia article. Everyone assumes its only Hebrews.

I wrote in the CNN comments all Sunday.

So look at these words "Anti Semetism" See it never occurs to you that it dosen't say anti hebrew or even anti jew. In essence its like saying anti-black when of course there are many different black peoples. Someone from the Congo dosen't look all that much like someone from Nigera. In fact they don't get along all that well.

Or anti jav. Which a Korean is different that someone from Japan.

My point. Its tricky. No one ever figures some of these 9 different semetic peoples as being in Israel. Remember how I told you they like to play the "Gods Chosen" game for fun and prizes. Skirting the edges is something that is done in the game of course. Semetic people are a fact. So are black people thats a given. Now onto the raw meat. The Bible. No one figures that these semetic peoples all have differing folklore on things like Jesus. Hebrews I told you ignore this stuff. For the most part. Semetic people many of them have there own take on this stuff. Herod wasn't a Jew he built a temple in Jerusalem go look it up. However he was a semite. Not a Hebrew. Jesus was crucified on paper anyway. Ask yourself that temple rebuild just where in the Semite world is that coming from and who's temple?

All these damn atheists knocking at my door trying to give me a copy of "Dawkin's Fortress" magazine.

thunderlips11 says

All these damn atheists knocking at my door trying to give me a copy of "Dawkin's Fortress" magazine.

Are they former Mormons? ;-)

Here's John Safran doing door-to-door atheism:

http://youtu.be/U58wgn-9Y3c

Vicente says

Here's John Safran doing door-to-door atheism:

Ha, ha, that was a really funny bit.

marcus says

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35l4a5/

So it's arrogant in your limited view for a person to stand out on a limb against false beliefs that have cause countless deaths and endless suffering over the past 10 millenni. I guess Susan B. Anthony, Harriet Tubman, and Rosa Parks were all arrogant asses as well.

Christopher Hitchens did not hold a hard line against religion out of personal pride. It was a very difficult, tiresome, and quite frankly dangerous position to take. His risked his life, his safety, and being ostracized in order to defend rational thought and liberty from the tyranny of religion and superstition. That is a most selfless act.

The fact is, we live in an age where we could easily destroy ourselves through nuclear annihilation or ecological collapse. Even barring that, we could kill billions or cause suffering on a massive scale. Under such conditions, all religions and all superstitions are materially dangerous -- far more dangerous than terrorism, which ironically is motivated largely by religion and the belief in fictitious gods.

Furthermore, as Thomas Jefferson so succinctly put it, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty." This is true even today. The greatest threats to human and civil rights come from those who are most religious and so-called "pious".

There is nothing smug about upholding an unpopular truth. Unfortunately, some people like Marcus consider any manner of stating that there is no god or that religions are based on falsehoods to be by definition smug. This is, of course, ridiculous for the exact same reason that it would be ludicrous to consider any statement about the sky being blue to be smug.

I challenge Marcus to provide an example of a "non-smug" argument that states no god exists without caving in to the religious. In other words, show us "smug" atheists how to hold the line without being smug.

I, for one, will not accept a lie no matter how popular, especially a lie that causes so much death, destruction, and violations of human and civil rights as the god lie has.

hey Dan, not that it matters, but everyone dies.

Bap33 says

hey Dan, not that it matters, but everyone dies.

Yes, but not everyone is killed before they had a chance to live.

Really, you want to do this again ?

First off, please know that there's no love lost between me and organized religion. I especially have problems with fundamentalists, and if you wanted to assert that the world would be better off without extremist religious wackos, then fine.

But yes, the condescending assertions that I read on reddit all the time, and the ones coming from you when you get your panties in a self righteous bunch about how there absolutely is no god, still sound to me like you got stuck at the 15 year old stage of development.

But I have no interest in revisiting this. You will not understand my point of view, and yes it is your ego that prevents you from doing so.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/JK2hKzZss5Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities

Dan, maybe you could write one of your 2000 word comments where you feel that you accurately compare all the positives of religious belief with the negatives.

Oh, wait, you can't do that because on a deep level you need to convince yourself that there are NO positives.

This desire for a lack of conflict is enough of a common sense reason for being agnostic rather than an atheist, because then you can avoid the kind of inner conflict that drives your imbalanced view.

I believe we have a deep need for spirituality (for a lack of a better word) that is in our hard wiring. In your case I believe this tendency finds its expression in your antireligion religion.

Please now project some bs sky daddy childs view of god on to me, and maybe grab some humorous images off of r/athiest about what idiots believers are.

It will make you feel better.

Dan8267 says

I challenge Marcus to provide an example of a "non-smug" argument that states no god exists without caving in to the religious. In other words, show us "smug" atheists how to hold the line without being smug.

There are atheists who simply don't believe. They keep it to themselves. They don't preach. Their views are not so extreme as to condemn those who do believe in god as being responsible for all human shortcomings.

But then there are those who spend a lot of time doing what IS SO EASY, pointing out contradictions in religion, especially literal biblical religious faith. I get it, they are in a process of freeing themselves from their previous beliefs. But man, it isn't pretty.

This type of atheist isn't satisfied with just not believing. They believe all human evil is directly tied to belief in god. They feel superior in intelligence to the 80% of the world that are believers. The whole topic is blown way out of proportion and imbalanced for them.

If you don't want to seem smug, then don't preach. Practice live and let live, or the golden rule, or whatever you want to call it.

That's why Dan is on ignore. I think he's just as extreme as any religious fanatic.

marcus says

Really, you want to do this again ?

You started a thread proposing that all atheists are smug. In the adult world, we debate the merits of positions. Nothing wrong with that. I can defend my ground.

Dan8267 says

I challenge Marcus to provide an example of a "non-smug" argument that states no god exists without caving in to the religious. In other words, show us "smug" atheists how to hold the line without being smug.

marcus says

There are atheists who simply don't believe. They keep it to themselves. They don't preach. Their views are not so extreme as to condemn those who do believe in god as being responsible for all human shortcomings.

Translation: For an atheist to not be an arrogant ass, he must remain silent about all the injustices he sees being committed in the name of false gods. He must stay in the closet.

Well, we tried that for ten thousand years and look where it got us: the Inquisition, the Holocaust, 9/11, etc. I could, and have, named atrocities committed in every century from 1 to 21 in the name of Christianity alone.

As Martin Luther King said, "There comes a time where silence is betrayal". That was true for race issues in the 1960s, and it is true for atheists and gays today. This world needs to let go off Bronzed Age baggage. Until that happens, there can be no substantial progress in the understanding of morality and it's practical application in complex real-world situations.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KlM87dwYPjg

wthrfrk80 says

That's why Dan is on ignore. I think he's just as extreme as any religious fanatic.

In the same way as those who claim the Earth is round are extremists. In the same way that those who use the Theory of Evolution to explain life on Earth are fanatics.

But hey, keep fucking that chicken, wthrfrk80. Like Fox News proves, the more times you say something, the truer it becomes.

Oh, by the way, this is what a self-proclaimed "militant atheist" looks like.

“I’m not religious, I’m an atheist, and a militant atheist when religion starts impacting on legislation,” Contactmusic quoted him as telling Attitude magazine.

That's right, Harry Potter is an atheist! And evidently for the same reason that I am. Religion impacts legislation in a very negative way. So, no, I'm not going to go back into the closet until all religious people "pray in the closet", don't preach, and don't impact legislation directly or indirectly including by voting for idiots like Bush. Till then, I'm going to oppose this idiocracy before it destroys us. Every day the superstitions and irrationality of the religious negatively impacts all of society from unjust laws to environmental destruction. It's not an academic issue.

billy graham and bill maher both pander to their followers and make money off their need to belong to a tribe. they could care less about principles and integrity.

marcus says

Dan, maybe you could write one of your 2000 word comments where you feel that you accurately compare all the positives of religious belief with the negatives.

Oh, wait, you can't do that because on a deep level you need to convince yourself that there are NO positives.

Dan is actually one of the few posters that I will actually read a long post from. It would be interesting to see his interpretations of this, but it would also be a bit of a pointless exercise.

It is not that there are no positives, there of course are, but the positives often are out weighed by the negatives and there are no positives within any religion that could not also exist in the vacuum of that religion.

Do you think that the positives of the mormon church, and they are not insignificant, have been worth the high suicide rate in Utah and the deaths in the meadow mountain massacre?

marcus says

I believe we have a deep need for spirituality (for a lack of a better word) that is in our hard wiring. In your case I believe this tendency finds its expression in your antireligion religion.

I also believe in an innate deep need for spirituality (the word I think suites the purpose of this conversation) in humans. However, all humans don't feel this need, and those that do feel it to varying degrees. Religious people find it hard to understand the absence of this need in some, just as the non-religious often find it hard to understand this need in the religious.

Dan I don't think is expressing a need. I think that he is a good example of someone whos brain chemistry is such that he in unable to feel spiritual "truth".

His objections to religion are valid and genuine.
Dan8267 says

Religion impacts legislation in a very negative way. So, no, I'm not going to go back into the closet until all religious people "pray in the closet", don't preach, and don't impact legislation directly or indirectly including by voting for idiots like Bush. Till then, I'm going to oppose this idiocracy before it destroys us.

*ahem* well... maybe Dan uses some vinegar in his fly traps, but all the same anyone religious or not should be concerned with the way religion affects public policy. It might be your religion today (marcus if I am remembering correctly you are a non-denominational non-organized, perhaps deist believer) that is effecting public policy, but tomorrow it could be scientology or islam or depending on the next election mormons.

There is a time when people need to standup and say no. Dan is doing everyone a favor by taking the stand that religion needs to have no influence over politics or science.

Dan will someday need to come to peace with the fact that religion will never totally go away, and everyone who has a spiritual side is not mentally ill (some not everyone).

Religious militants don't go away until they have converted everyone. Atheist militants go away when they don't have to worry about religion effecting their lives.

marcus says

This type of atheist isn't satisfied with just not believing. They believe all human evil is directly tied to belief in god.

No, but religion often gives people an excuse for evil and a way to convince otherwise good people to commit evil acts.

Religious or Atheist someone with a broken moral compass is prone to evil.

marcus says

They feel superior in intelligence to the 80% of the world that are believers.

While there are many very intelligent religious people studies often show that the religious are on average less intelligent.

marcus says

Please now project some bs sky daddy childs view of god on to me, and maybe grab some humorous images off of r/athiest about what idiots believers are.

It will make you feel better.

Common... you have to admit some of those images were pretty humorous.

Dan8267 says

You started a thread proposing that all atheists are smug

No, when I posted this in December it had the same title it does now. I was only talking about atheists that for whatever reason feel the need to proselytize. I think the meme was pretty obvious.

leoj707 says

there are no positives within any religion that could not also exist in the vacuum of that religion.

You have no evidence of that, since there always has been and always will be religion.

Besides what I mostly take issue with is the generalization that ALL religion is bad or the even stronger absurd claim that you (correction Dan) can prove there is no god. You (Dan) want to argue that there is no god.

As weird as that is, I kind of get it. You are a black and white guy. There is no in between for you. You won't get accused of relativism, although you claim to be a liberal. No shades of grey for you. Either Obama is great or he's satan. Either you are going to have a personal relationship with a sky daddy or you are going to argue to the bloody end that there is no god by any definition and you know this with certainty and want to improve the world by convincing others of this.

Hey people are different. That's what makes the world go round. I can not even begin to fathom where you're coming from.

leoj707 says

Common... you have to admit some of those images were pretty humorous.

Meh.

Militant agnostic is sort of like talking about extreme moderation. Doesn't compute for me.

Yes, I'm careful about what I believe and the ways in which I judge what others believe. That's just my nature.

(it doesn't mean that I don't see the negatives with religion in history, or the negatives now - which are mostly confined to fundamentalists)

On the positive side, nobody has any clue where we would be if there had never been religion, and anyone who ponders it, knows that along with the crusades and other atrocities, the church had an incredibly positive impact on European civilization (the precursor to our own)

leoj707 says

There is a time when people need to standup and say no. Dan is doing everyone a favor by taking the stand that religion needs to have no influence over politics

All ideologies have influence over politics, whether "religious" or "secular." It's naive to think otherwise.

leoj707 says

marcus says

Dan, maybe you could write one of your 2000 word comments where you feel that you accurately compare all the positives of religious belief with the negatives.

Oh, wait, you can't do that because on a deep level you need to convince yourself that there are NO positives.

Dan is actually one of the few posters that I will actually read a long post from. It would be interesting to see his interpretations of this, but it would also be a bit of a pointless exercise.

Pointless yes, but it would take less than 2000 words. Here it goes…

The positives of religion are the exact same positives of smoking pot and snorting coke. You get a false high, experience delusions, and feel really good about life and that the whole universe makes sense if you just imagine we're flees living on a dog and whoa look at all the pretty colors when I move my hand. The negatives of religion are also exactly the same.

leoj707 says

I also believe in an innate deep need for spirituality (the word I think suites the purpose of this conversation) in humans.

Two words: God Helmet.

And unlike religion, this doesn't require faith because the experiment is repeatable and has been conducted many times.

As the human brain got bigger and our ancestors got smarter, they started to realize that they were mortal and worst still, they started to think about their mortality and how short life was. This, of course, led to depression, which in turn compromised their ability to service their genes because the host humans would commit suicide or in the very least not try hard to gather resources necessary for survival and reproduction.

To keep the hosts productive and to prevent them from self-terminating, our ancestors' genes came up with a trick. It fooled the hosts into thinking that they were immortal, that their consciousness continued after death. A little mutation here and there in the genome resulting in a bit of structural changes in the brain, and ta-da, humans that think they have some kind of "soul" that continues living after death.

Once this mental virus has been planted in the hosts, the individual cultures can customize the idea any way they like: reincarnation, return to the Earth life force, an afterlife, etc. But all religions have to present the idea of some kind of immortality. That's the whole reason nature tricked you into believing in the supernatural/spiritual. It keeps you in line and making babies.

Of course there are many problems with being content to accept this delusion. Our genes tell us to do a lot of bad things such as immoral, unethical, and illegal things. Even more surprising, our genes tell us to do things that are not in our, or even their, best interests. Our genes tell us to eat lots of sugary things because evolution noticed a correlation between ripe (nutritious and vitamin packed) fruit and sweetness. So now we eat junk food that makes us obese and prevent us from acquiring mates. That's bad for us, and for our genes.

You see, genes aren't very smart, and they act on obsolete information. Success lies in reproducing so many copies in so many variations that you are bound to get lucky in some combinations.

As such, we should use our minds instead of our instincts when it comes to shaping our world and our view of that world. Thinking trumps instinct, and some ancient "needs" are better left unanswered even if it means going through withdraw.

leoj707 says

maybe Dan uses some vinegar in his fly traps

I'm all for some people talking nicely to the religious. But that's been tried for hundreds of years to no avail. Just ask Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Hypatia, and thousands of other less well-known people.

Sometimes, people have to take a harder stand against something that is wrong and ludicrous. It wasn't polite begging that got the Civil Rights Act passed or, more recently, the Consumer Protection Agency Bill. Sometimes you have to take a strong stance demanding reasonable action and opposing the status quo. Those profiting from the status quo or brainwashed by it will always fight you.

But to put things in perspective, my vinegar is a lot less bitter than the Inquisition or even the more modern examples of terrorizing and falsely imprisoning atheists, who by definition, must also be communists.

leoj707 says

marcus says

They feel superior in intelligence to the 80% of the world that are believers.

While there are many very intelligent religious people studies often show that the religious are on average less intelligent.

Marcus, it ain't a feeling. It's a fact. A feeling is an emotional response. I'm not gloating over the fact that atheists are statistically far more intelligent than the religious, but I do acknowledge that fact just like I acknowledge all other facts. Countless scientific studies have confirmed this fact. It is indisputable by any rational person at this point.

Supermodels are statistically far more beautiful than non-supermodels. If beauty is an advantage, which I think we're all adult enough to admit it is, then supermodels are superior to us in this regard. I have no problem admitting that Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom are superior looking to me.

Strength, by definition, is a strength. I also have no problem admitting that during most of their lives, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura were superior to me in strength. Actually, they probably still are.

And Plácido Domingo, José Carreras, and Luciano Pavarotti are all superior to me at singing.

Since I have no problem acknowledging the superiority of others in particular qualities, there is no reason why I should have any problem acknowledging my superiority in intelligence to someone who can't figure out that a book is bullshit if it contains allegedly true stories that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, a man lived after being eaten by a whale, and all the animals on the planet fit on a wooden boat.

I am intelligent, and intelligence is a good thing. If that hurts your ego Marcus, than like the Fonze said, sit on it. I'm not going to apologize for having a strength that makes you feel insecure, nor am I going to pretend that it's not a great quality to have. That's false modesty like if Scarlett Johansson said she thought she was plain looking.

That said, my vocal opposition to religion and superstition has nothing to do with my self-image and everything to do with a deep and strong belief that the world would be far better off if we stopped infecting each other and the children with this sick virus that has caused so much destruction and suffering throughout history. Furthermore, the level of technological advancement and man's recent destructive capacity has made it more important than ever that we stop basing our policies on fairytales and start basing them on rational thought.

And even ignoring all of that and all the rational, objective evidence that shows religion and superstition to be dangerous, there's still the overwhelming drive I have to fight against forces that infringe upon human and civil rights. And religion is most certainly one of these forces. And if you read my other threads, you'd know how much I hate tyranny and the abuse of power. Religion is a prime example -- not the only example as my numerous other threads have pointed out in detail -- of a force that is used to violate human and civil rights.

And none of those reasons have anything to do with my intelligence or self-perception. You, Marcus, have simply invented in your head fictional motivations that you have imposed upon me. They do not reflect reality.

And ultimately, as I have said many times before, the messenger is irrelevant. It's the message, the argument, that matters. Making a personal attack on an individual does absolutely nothing to suggest that individual's argument is flawed in any way.

marcus says

Besides what I mostly take issue with is the generalization that ALL religion is bad or the even stronger absurd claim that you (correction Dan) can prove there is no god. You (Dan) want to argue that there is no god.

You can take issue with the statement "there is no god", but do so by offering a counter-argument or at least addressing the arguments presented. Instead, the only thing you do is make personal attacks, which is a sign of weakness in debate. It's like Rush Limbaugh saying "we need to lower taxes or the economy will fail and unemployment will skyrocket", and they you reply, "well, your fat Rush!". In such a situation, you just look the fool. Attack the arguments, not the arguers.

As for the statement "there is no god", I have already proven that for various definitions of god -- all the accepted ones -- so just see any of the prior threads. I don't see a point in repeating them, so I'll just summarize.

I've disproved all possible instances of the Standard Monotheist God or SMG using a dozen independent proofs, not evidence, proofs. No one has even attempted to challenge a single one of my proofs. We can be sure that SMG is as possible as the square root of two being the ratio of two integers. This, of course, completely discredits the three major western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three require SMG to exist.

I've demonstrated that the Clockwork God or CWG isn't a god at all, but at best, Sheldon Cooper working in a lab with a particle accelerator. Similarly, I've shown that Undefinable God or UG by definition can't be a god and is just a cop-out.

I've ignored the Standard Polytheist God or SPG since no one advocates that or even considers the polytheistic gods to meet the criteria of god. Even if they existed, the would be at best powerful alien lifeforms.

There really is no definition of god left for me to disprove, but if anyone comes up with one either I'll disprove it or show that it ain't what people call god. You could, of course, be absurd and define god as a teacup pig and then, by that definition, I would not be an atheist. But the politicians aren't passing legislation based on what they think a teacup pig wants us to do.

marcus says

As weird as that is, I kind of get it. You are a black and white guy. There is no in between for you.

Once again, Marcus, you make assumptions about what's going on in the inner minds of others without any basis. I most certainly believe in fuzzy logic, continuous spectrums of behavior, and both the in-between and the orthogonal. I'm pretty much the exact opposite of what you just claimed I am.

For example, in the double slit experiment, you can adjust the size of the slits to produce full particle behavior, full wave behavior, or a continuous spectrum of behavior from particle to wave. If the slits are small relative to the electron's wavelength, then the behavior becomes particle-like. If the slits are large relative to the electron's wavelength then the behavior becomes wave-like. Particles and wave are just two endpoints in a spectrum of behavior. That's why physicists treat low-frequency, low-energy photons as fields or waves and high-frequency, high-energy photons as particles.

Second example, I'm neither left nor right, but orthogonal to this absurd one-dimensional view of politics. I have a view of politics that involves over a dozen dimensions. So the terms left and right are meaningless in this view. In my paradigm, there are many more degrees of freedom than in yours.

marcus says

You won't get accused of relativism

I firmly believe in the Theory of Relativity, and I understand it. I remember when I was 7-years-old and on a boat for the first time. I stood on the boat by an obstruction to wind, and I took out a ball and dropped it straight down to see if it would move with the ship and land between my feet or just fall "straight down" and thus land to the right of my feet towards the ship's rear end. You see because the ship was moving fast. Little did I know at the time, I was testing the Theory of Relativity.

However, what I don't believe in is the nonsense that the existence of god is subjective. God is not Tinkerbell. He doesn't exist just because you believe he does, any more than unicorns would exist if you believed in them.

Furthermore, acting on a false believe is at best foolish and at worst deadly.

marcus says

although you claim to be a liberal.

I don't label myself with terms that are frequently changed and misused. It's not useful. I believe in liberty, rationalism, and personal responsibility. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" claim to believe in these things. Neither side demonstrates it.

I believe in the scientific method and good engineering practices. And I'd like to see both applied to government in replacement of politics. The merit of ideas should be based on empirical evidence, verifiable experiments, and sound mathematical analysis rather than the talking points politicians and the media use. I'm willing to accept any idea, no matter how ridiculous it seems, if it can be proven to be correct. I'm actually a text-book example of an INTJ. Google it.

marcus says

No shades of grey for you. Either Obama is great or he's satan.

Hardly. Have you read my ratings of the U.S. presidents from Ike to Obama? You commented on it.

Did you notice that I've ranked them across a wide spectrum, and that I gave both high and low marks to both Democrats and Republicans, and that I went into great detail on how I graded each president back up with objective, historical facts?

Just because you choose to ignore the crimes against humanity committed by Obama during his admistration simply because he's a Democrat, doesn't mean I have to follow your hypocritical example.

Whereas you ignore Obama's crimes, Bap ignores G.W. Bush's crimes. The fucked up thing is, there both the exact same crimes! Any rational, objective person would have to rate Obama and Bush the same regardless of whether that's a high rating or a low one. And I'm the one who can't see beyond party lines?

Just a little recoup on that list… The scale was parabolic from 0 to 10, with 0 being Hitler and 10 being Superman. Parabolic in the sense that the distance from 3 to 4 or from 6 to 7 is more significant than the difference from 4 to 5 or from 5 to 6. But not hyperbolic because the extremes don't go to infinity, but rather cut off at a threshold. Since you're a math teacher, you should understand what I'm talking about.

And on that list, I rated the presidents:
6 Ike
7 JFK
3 Johnson
3 Nixon
4 Ford
4 Carter
3 Reagan
5 Bush Sr.
6 Clinton
1 Bush Jr.
1 Obama

That's a pretty wide range. If it wasn't for the pro-torture, pro-murder without trial presidencies of the past twelve years, the range would have been 3-7 with complete coverage of all integer values. And I don't see shades of grey?

Also, I've notice that you didn't object to Bush Jr. getting a 1 and Bap didn't object to Obama getting a 1. But you both objected when I held the other accountable to the exact same standard. Yeah, I'm the biased one.

marcus says

Either you are going to have a personal relationship with a sky daddy or you are going to argue to the bloody end that there is no god by any definition and you know this with certainty and want to improve the world by convincing others of this.

I've never argued that. Quite the contrary. See the teacup pig example above.

And yes, I can be absolutely certain of some things. Not everything, but certainly some things. I'm not going to get all Immanuel Kant on your ass. Feel free to read his books if you want to understand the detail. I'll give you the executive summary and I'll use modern, colloquial terms instead of the standard philosophical ones since I know you hate that intellectualism.

There are three kinds of knowledge. Two of which can be proven beyond doubt. [Damn, I can't use the term a-prior, ok…]

1. Mathematical/Logical

A statement that can be mathematically or logically proven is unquestionable. For example, the square root of two is an irrational number. As a math teacher, you should know that we can prove that beyond any doubt whatsoever. We can be completely certain of this kind of knowledge.

What you probably don't know is that mathematics isn't the only subject where this is possible. Technically, it can be done with any subject that uses a precise modeling language. For example, code written in languages with certain rules -- and I'm not going into details because then I do have to get technical -- such as no undeclared exceptions can be formally verified. This is an expensive and time consuming process, but if done, you can be 100% certain the code works.

2. Empirical

We can be 100% of empirical facts. For example, I can prove beyond any doubt that a given desk is 4 feet tall by carefully measuring it.

Naturally, any statement derived solely from other statements of type 1 and 2 can have 100% certainty, and so on.

3. Correlations

This is the part where some people get tripped up and end up thinking we can't be certain of anything.

The Scientific Method uses correlations to establish an imperfect, but highly confident, likelihood of a statement being true. For example, a theory predicts that the gravitational attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distances between their centers. We then observe this prediction to hundreds of decimal places, the best we can, and conclude that the theory is almost certainly correct, as the chances of it being wrong are astronomical due to repeated, precise observation and confirmation.

Yes, that's less than 100% certainty. But none of my proofs against the existence of gods or the supernatural require this type of knowledge. I used type 1 exclusively in those arguments.

By the way, Marcus, that will be $10,000 for my efforts in squeezing over 200 years of Western Philosophy into five minutes. It would cost you much more to learn this shit in college at today's rates.

marcus says

Hey people are different. That's what makes the world go round. I can not even begin to fathom where you're coming from.

I suppose I could dumb it down a bit more for you. But there are limits to how simple I can make a subject matter, so try to pay attention this time. In simplest terms…

1. God does not exist.
2. Yes, we can be certain of point 1 because of rational, logical reasoning.
3. No, it does not matter if you believe in god. Believing in a fictional character doesn't make that character pop into existence.
4. No, it doesn't matter how emotionally attached you are to this delusion, it's still a delusion.
5. No, it's not a harmless delusion. See all of history.
6. No, it's not a delusion that was just harmful in more primitive times and is ok now. Look at the Middle East. Listen to G.W. Bush saying "God told me to invade Iraq.". Look at all the really bad and rights-violating legislation passed by the U.S. Congress for religious reasons. Look at how religion interferes with the education of our children in areas like evolution and consequentially medical research and practice. These are really important issues, and I've only scratched the surface.
7. Yes, the world would be better if we all started thinking a bit more rationally instead of using superstitions and religious dogma as a crutch. We could build better systems of government and economics if we stopped using mythology and started using good science and engineering practices. Such system would be much more socially just than systems based on any Bronzed Age or Iron Age desert religion.
8. Finally, people should promote rational thought and argue against irrationality, especially religion and superstition, in order to further point 7. For in a democracy, and to a lesser extent, in a republic like the United States, an intelligent, educated, rational, and thinking population results in better government, better economics, more social justice, and fewer and less severe human and civil rights violations.

Please Marcus, show me that you have enough intelligence to at least understand these eight points. They aren't rocket science.

marcus says

Yes, I'm careful about what I believe and the ways in which I judge what others believe. That's just my nature.

That sounds like bullshit. First, there's a huge difference between judging a person and judging an idea that person believes. Second, all beliefs should be critically evaluated.

Third, it sounds like your just pussying out of having an uncomfortable conversation because it might be controversial. Well that sucks. The Civil Rights movement would have never gotten anywhere if controversial race issues could not be discussed. Controversial issues are exactly the issues that need to be discussed precisely because they are controversial. You don't need to talk about shit that everybody agrees with.

Finally, I don't buy your statement. You don't judge the beliefs of other people in a negative way because you're so humble and all ideas have merit. Right? That's total bullshit. Counter-example: Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped.

Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs? I don't think that you are that fucked up. And the only alternative is that you are engaging in politically correct bullshitting.

And that's just one counter-example. I could provide an infinite number of others, but only one is necessary, and this is a very real world, non-academic example that greatly impacts peoples lives right now. It is cowardly and wrong to ignore such atrocities simply to make yourself more acceptable to other people. Grow a backbone and stand up for human rights even if it means pissing off some assholes with shitty beliefs that happen to be religious beliefs. You can't make any positive impact on the world without pissing somebody off.

marcus says

I was only talking about atheists that for whatever reason feel the need to proselytize.

Translation: Marcus wants to implement the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on atheists. You know, because it worked so well with gays.

It's hard for me to get through all of that. I'll try to finish it later.

But here are a couple of questions.

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

More importantly

2) Are there atheists who are significantly more intelligent than you, who chose to be the kind who just don't believe but don't really have much to say about what others believe, and who would even totally neutral as to whether non-fundamentalist religious people are a good or bad thing for humanity ?

Dan8267 says

You can take issue with the statement "there is no god", but do so by offering a counter-argument or at least addressing the arguments presented. Instead, the only thing you do is make personal attacks

Yes I have no interest in trying to prove that god exists, or even proving that god's existence is unknowable.

And yes I said you sound arrogant when you make these arguments. This is obviously my opinion, but that one statement got you very upset and led to escalated name calling on both sides. Maybe we can avoid that this time.

I don't have much else to say on this, but I would love to hear your answers to my questions above.

Maybe you could just make it a simple yes or no, and then devote another comment to the thousands of words on why if the answer is yes, it doesn't bother you and also why if the answer is yes, these people aren't by your definition superior to you.

My next comment on this will be me exploring the answers to this question.

Why do I respect atheists who are neutral to whether non fundamentalist religions are a good or bad thing for mankind.

and why is it that I can not begin to comprehend or respect the views of an atheist who is certain that there is no god by any definition and feels that arguing this is a courageous and noble thing, and most importantly he or she knows the world would be a better place without even the non-fundamentalist religions and wishes to convert others to his mindset on this.

I'm going to work on answering this, because the nitty gritty arguments about god just aren't interesting to me. I guess I'm stuck in my relatively agnostic position.

I think the human behavior part of it is actually more interesting to me. On both sides. Is it me ? Or am I right in what I think (insert what you call name calling here).

Marcus,

What exactly is a "fundamentalist" relgion? Can you give an example of one? Or is the term "fundamentalist" just a slur against people you disagree with?

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false.

marcus says

You have no evidence of that, since there always has been and always will be religion.

Sure there is. Yes, there always has been religion, and likely always will be, but there always has been and always will be secular organizations and people. I doubt you can name a religious positive that is not also found in secular individuals and people.

marcus says

On the positive side, nobody has any clue where we would be if there had never been religion, and anyone who ponders it, knows that along with the crusades and other atrocities, the church had an incredibly positive impact on European civilization (the precursor to our own)

Right no clue, and yes one of the positive aspects of religions -- the christian "church" and others -- has been that they acted as a knowledge store and common ground for people in the past. This was a very important step in our advancement as a society, but... religion has some fundamental flaws -- ever been to the creation museum? -- that we are running up against now and we no longer need it to preform many of the functions that it did in the past. It is currently holding us back in many areas.

wthrfrk80 says

What exactly is a "fundamentalist" relgion? Can you give an example of one? Or is the term "fundamentalist" just a slur against people you disagree with?

No, fundamentism is a real thing defined by our common language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist
fun·da·men·tal·ism
noun
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

World English Dictionary
fundamentalism
— n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs

So, wthrfrk80 is this something that you agree with?

wthrfrk80 says

All ideologies have influence over politics, whether "religious" or "secular." It's naive to think otherwise.

RRrrriiight... yes.

I think that all ideologies religious or secular that are based on an extremely subjective experiences and a totally unprovable basis should have very little influence over science and politics, and should in no way be used to legislate how others who don't believe this extremely subjective evidence live their lives.

Do you want the way you can live your life dictated by the feelings and intuitions of people that have a different faith than you just because they are in the majority and can vote that morality onto you?

All morality is based on subjective feelings and intuitions of people. There's no way to prove mathematically that murder is "wrong."

You vote your morality onto other people, just like I vote my morality onto other people. That's democracy.

leoj707 says

holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Isn't that what Christians have believed (rightly or wrongly) for 2000 years? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"? Why not just call it "Christianity"? Now, maybe Christianity is bad/incorrect, but there's no reason to rename it.

leoj707 says

Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

Again, isn't "strict observance to the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law" the most basic definition of Islam? Haven't Muslims always observed the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law...by definition? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"?

marcus says

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

Yes, when the conversation starts to get polarized it is harder to make the more "grey" points of our opinions clear.

marcus says

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could except that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion...

I think that we can agree that the world would be better off without fundamentalists/extremists. The problem is that the extremists are hard to separate from the rest of the "flock". While not extremists themselves a large part of any religion become apologists for their extremists. As long as people allow religious organizations to dominate their lives and society we will always have extremists.

marcus says

without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true

A spiritual life is possible without the pope or even a belief in god. God(s) is just the convenient explanation that have been passed down over the millenia, and people tend to ascribe spiritual "truth" to whatever explanation is given to them as children.

leoj707 says

I think that we can agree that the world would be better off without fundamentalists/extremists.

So you're labeling "extremist" those Christains and Muslims who believe the basic doctrines of their respective religions? I'd say that's pretty unfair.

I'd say that Libertarians tend to believe the basic themes of libertarianism. And Marxists probably believe the baisc themes of Marxism. That doesn't mean all libertarians and marxists are extremists.

wthrfrk80 says

All morality is based on subjective feelings and intuitions of people. There's no way to prove mathematically that murder is "wrong."

Yes, and no. For one don't confuse religious doctrine with morality; they are two different things. People have an inherent basic moral code built in by evolution. Without it we never would be able to organize and work together. All pack animals, human or not, have "morals".

Human morality evolves over time as our situation/society evolves. Morally repugnant things today were morally OK 2000 years ago and vise versa.

The general moral prohibition to murder is probably never going to go away -- regardless of what religious beliefs are common -- because we need it to have a functioning society. However, it is interesting to note that religious beliefs do raise the murder prohibition in circumstances where non-believers of that religion find morally repugnant.

BTW, here is an article about science and morality that you may find interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

And an interesting book that explores how religion effects someones idea of who it is OK to murder (and religious violence in general):
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/0385509510

wthrfrk80 says

You vote your morality onto other people, just like I vote my morality onto other people. That's democracy.

So... in the bible slavery is morally acceptable. If the majority voted to make slavery legal do you think that would be OK?

wthrfrk80 says

So you're labeling "extremist" those Christains and Muslims who believe the basic doctrines of their respective religions? I'd say that's pretty unfair.

For one it is not what I said. It is what we as English speakers have agreed upon is the definition of the word fundamentalist. And, no that is not entirely what the dictionary said all. Please take the definition as a whole, not just the part you want to argue with.

wthrfrk80 says

That doesn't mean all libertarians and marxists are extremists.

No, however there are some extremists in any organization.

You might have noticed, but I am somewhat of a dictionary fundamentalist.

wthrfrk80 says

Isn't that what Christians have believed (rightly or wrongly) for 2000 years? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"? Why not just call it "Christianity"? Now, maybe Christianity is bad/incorrect, but there's no reason to rename it.

If you take a closer look at the definition you will see that a fundamentalist is "strict" and "literal" in their interpretations of religious text. Most christians cherry pick around the parts they want to take as literal and what they believe is metaphor.

A unitarian universalist Christian is most certainly not a fundamentalist.

wthrfrk80 says

Again, isn't "strict observance to the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law" the most basic definition of Islam? Haven't Muslims always observed the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law...by definition? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"?

Same as for christians, but some religions currently tend towards fundamentalism more than others. Mormonism and islam for example seem to be more fundamentalist than the church of england.

Dan8267 says

Two words: God Helmet.

One word: awesome.

Dan8267 says

And unlike religion, this doesn't require faith because the experiment is repeatable and has been conducted many times.

This type of experience can be done without the use of a god helmet. A very close ex-mormon friend of mine had very intense spiritual experiences during temple rituals, and he attributed them to the power and truth of his mormon faith. He began to have doubts for other reasons, but to make a long story short the convincing evidence for him was when he was able to duplicate the spiritual experiences sans mormon ceremony.

BTW, did you see how you can now buy a god helmet of you own? From a quick look at the "testimonials" people use them to enhance their psychic abilities, etc...

I don't think that god helmet studies are going to convince anyone that their spiritual experience is not "real".

These threads are great. Good enough for Jehovah, for sure.

Bap33 says

hey Dan, not that it matters, but everyone dies.

Yep, nobody gets out of here alive. We go back to star dust from whence we came. Thank goodness the universe did not expand perfectly evenly when it blew out in the big bang. Imperfection is the handmaiden of life.