Atheist zealots a heavy cross to bear

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I agree that atheists are sometimes overbearing, but as the videos of the referenced debate ardegee posted shows, the author of the article in The Daily Telegraph fails to make his case against Dawkins. There was no bullying in evidence by Dawkins, just soft-spoken and well reasoned argument.

Overall I also did not see any bullying displayed by Dawkins.

However, I did count no less than a dozen times in which he either rolled his eyes or threw his head back in a dismissive manner. I heard him give many a sarcastic comment at the start of his replies. I also agree with a couple of the panellists that he quite clearly did comment in an entirely disrespectful manner in answer to one question and when called out about his lack of respect he quite clearly changed his words and claimed to have responded in a completely different manner to that which he actually did respond. Anyone who wont man up to his own words looses some respect in my eyes regardless of their views.(and mind you I am not debating his views at all. he may or may not be entirely correct, I don't know)

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

As for those who imply that all believers somehow lack intelligence or discernment, I have to disagree. No one knows how the universe came to be, but to assume it had a cause, and to suppose that intelligence was involved in the causation, poses no contradiction with known facts.

Well said and entirely correct in my opinion.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

It's when the traditional attributes of God are ascribed to the proposed Creator that contradictions arise. Attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence have long posed a problem for believers. In a quote ascribed to Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.), the problem of evil is summed up thus:

Totally agree again.

Personally I don't think we humans, whether through faith or science, can, at this time, know much if anything at all about the specific attributes of "god".(assuming there is one)

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Personally, I think that if this Universe has or had a creator, the creator was more of an experimental scientist than an all-knowing and all-powerful deity, for the Universe seems to be more in the nature of an ongoing experiment rather than a finished and perfected work.

An interesting way of looking at it.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Those who are curious to see how rational their views of God are may like to check out The Philosophers' Magazine's "Battleground God" at http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php. Sure, it isn't the final word on one's rationality, but is is a fun quiz. I took it years ago and if I remember correctly I answered all but one of the questions "correctly."

Unfortunately at work now and can't access the quiz but I look forward to doing it when I get home.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Schrodinger's Cake may or may not in concept be a reasonable analogy for the philosophical idea that there is some sort of nebulous, undefined creator, but then again, there are tests for specific claims of the cake hypothesis.

A dialog:

Cakeist: There's a Cake in that tin.

Acakeist: What, really? (Picks up tin, gives it a shake) Nothing moving in there.

Cakeist: The Cake is wrapped in tissue paper.

Acakeist: It feels pretty light.

Cakeist: It's an angel food Cake.

Acakeist: But the label says "fruit cake!"

Cakeist: Translation error. If you read the original label, it would say "angel food Cake."

Acakeist: Hey, look, there's a scale! (Weighs tin.) Hm. 200 grams. That's no more than an empty tin would weigh. There can't be a cake in there!

Cakeist: The scale is wrong.

Acakeist: Nope, the tag show's that it has just been calibrated.

Cakeist: The men who built the scale just hate The Cake. If they were true Cakeists, they would know that their "scale theory" is flawed.

Acakeist: Okay, let's change the subject-- how old a cake is this?

Cakeist: It was made fresh yesterday.

Acakeist: But the tin is covered in dust! And the table around it! There's this ring of clean where I picked up the tin!

Cakeist: The dust was created at the same time as the cake to give the appearance of age.

Acakeist: Why?

Cakeist: It is not my place to question The Will of The Cake, but it must play some part in The Cake's plan.

Acakeist: Oh, look, a surveillance camera. Let's look at the tapes! (Goes through a month's worth of archives.) Heck, that tin has been here all month!

Cakeist: The men who built the video camera just hate The Cake. If they were true Cakeists, they would know that their "video camera theory" is flawed. Any true history can not be in contradiction with a Young Cake.

Acakeist: Oh, wait-- I found this under a tape-- it is a receipt-- one tin of fruit cake-- bought 6 weeks ago!

Cakeist: That receipt is a lie engineered by The Custard.

As an example dialogue this clearly shows where blind faith and scientific reality can come into conflict. Clearly there are many specific claims made by different religious people about the origins of the universe and life, that science has proven to be false. I would argue that holding onto such beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is pretty ridiculous.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

As an interesting side note, I once read an article by a scientist specialising in artificial intelligence. He hypothesized that we were all no more than simulations in a super computer.

Basically his theory went like this....

We already have computer games like the sims that simulate life. Our computing power is getting better and better as well. Extrapolating that out into the future he saw a day when every child would have a computer of such power that they could simulate the creation of whole universes in which the life-forms would, at least within the simulation, be self aware and sentient beings.

This left him with two possibilities. 1: We live in the "real universe" or 2: We are a computer simulation.

Now, with the possibility of an infinite number of simulations but only one true physical universe, the law of probabilities would logically make it far more probable we are living in one of the simulations rather than the real physical world.

The benefit of this theory is that it would conceivably eventually be possible to prove it.

I just thought it was interesting.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Joebill]

I read a sf story around 15 years ago, no memory of the title, that had a group of characters suspect they were simulations.

They are able to figure out there are, they go 'up' a level to talk the the ones who simulated them to find out why.

They realize... that is a simulation.


The hero figures out there are several levels of simulation. There never find the topmost level.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Unfortunately at work now and can't access the quiz but I look forward to doing it when I get home.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Do check it out, it's quite fascinating. Harry and ShortNCuddlyAm seemed to find it so. Any kind of quiz like that has to be taken with a grain or two of salt, but it is better than most.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As an interesting side note, I once read an article by a scientist specialising in artificial intelligence. He hypothesized that we were all no more than simulations in a super computer.

Basically his theory went like this....

We already have computer games like the sims that simulate life. Our computing power is getting better and better as well. Extrapolating that out into the future he saw a day when every child would have a computer of such power that they could simulate the creation of whole universes in which the life-forms would, at least within the simulation, be self aware and sentient beings.

This left him with two possibilities. 1: We live in the "real universe" or 2: We are a computer simulation.

Now, with the possibility of an infinite number of simulations but only one true physical universe, the law of probabilities would logically make it far more probable we are living in one of the simulations rather than the real physical world.

The benefit of this theory is that it would conceivably eventually be possible to prove it.

I just thought it was interesting.

Cheers,
PKFFW

You're probably referring to the work of Nick Bostrom. I quoted an excerpt from his paper and supplied a link to the entire paper in the Notable quotes, excerpts, and profound lines thread back in July.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...89&#post998789

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

You're probably referring to the work of Nick Bostrom. I quoted an excerpt from his paper and supplied a link to the entire paper in the Notable quotes, excerpts, and profound lines thread back in July.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...89&#post998789

Yes that sounds like him. I thought it was someone who worked in the AI field but I guess that is just my poor memory playing tricks on me.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Just did the quiz. Very interesting.

I bit the same bullet ShortNCuddlyAm did.

I also took the Loch Ness monster direct hit. I must say I was considering nessie to be a physical creature living in a finite physical space. This line of logic and rationale is dealt with in the Q&A section and they do make a good point about it that got me thinking.

Thanks for link WT Sharpe.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Just did the quiz. Very interesting.

I bit the same bullet ShortNCuddlyAm did.

I also took the Loch Ness monster direct hit. I must say I was considering nessie to be a physical creature living in a finite physical space. This line of logic and rationale is dealt with in the Q&A section and they do make a good point about it that got me thinking.

Thanks for link WT Sharpe.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I took hits on saying that evolution was essentially true, but then saying that one could not rationally believe in God without proof, and also for saying that one should base one's world-view on external data, not personal convictions, but then saying that Peter Sutcliffe was justified in committing his crimes if he genuinely believed that God had told him to do so.

[TGS]

I tool no hits and bit no bullets. I may talk crap but at least it's logically consistent crap.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by recluse

I had a feeling faith was the wrong word to use.

Try this:
There is a cake tin. Some believe there is a cake in the tin. Others believe the tin is empty. Until the tin is opened and the contents, or lack thereof are revealed, all either side has is their belief.
I don't think anyone can open that tin yet.
And I believe there are people on both sides who don't want it opened.

I'm not sure this analogy works. I don't have a firm belief in no cake, I just have not been provided with enough evidence to suggest there is one.

This is how I see my atheism, I only see the need to define myself as an atheist because of the prevalence of religious belief within society. I've never seen it as a belief position, it's the default before evidence is provided much like anything else I have no belief in.

Quiz was fun...You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Just did the quiz. Very interesting.

I bit the same bullet ShortNCuddlyAm did.

I also took the Loch Ness monster direct hit. I must say I was considering nessie to be a physical creature living in a finite physical space. This line of logic and rationale is dealt with in the Q&A section and they do make a good point about it that got me thinking.

Yes, that was a very interesting counter-argument to the stance that atheism is a matter of faith, given the lack of ability to prove that God does not exist.

[neilmarr]

There is no need to prove a negative, Harry. As is often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof falls to the claimant -- as it does in a court of law. Neil

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

I'm not sure this analogy works. I don't have a firm belief in no cake, I just have not been provided with enough evidence to suggest there is one.

This is how I see my atheism, I only see the need to define myself as an atheist because of the prevalence of religious belief within society. I've never seen it as a belief position, it's the default before evidence is provided much like anything else I have no belief in.

Quiz was fun...You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets.

I agree. All atheism in itself implies in a lack of theistic belief. The prefix "a" simply implies "not", so an a-theist is one who lacks a belief in a god or gods. That is all the term in itself implies.

In Atheism: The Case Against God (1974), George H. Smith wrote, "Atheism in its basic form is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god." That's as good a definition of an atheist as I've ever read. An individual atheist may deny that there is a god, but the term in itself does not imply that he or she denies anything. It simply states that this person lacks a theistic belief.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

There is no need to prove a negative, Harry. As is often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof falls to the claimant -- as it does in a court of law. Neil

Yes, that's precisely the point. It is sometimes claimed that atheism is as much a matter of faith as religious belief, but it isn't. As you say, it's not a matter of faith that something does NOT exist if there is no evidence to the contrary. Have you looked at the quiz referenced? It's really quite fascinating!