Bwa hahahahha

[Thesunmaid]

My step son is 7...his mother supposedly is a "good christian." Which I find hilarious since she is out every weekend getting drunk and picking up guys whenever she can despite having a"boyfriend she loves more than anything." But she says she is going to raise her children with a good christian upbringing.

I went to a wedding today and we got to the church and the brick work had crosses that actually is in the brick pattern.There was probably 3 crosses on the front of this catholic church and I burst out laughing today when my stepson...who remember is being raised to be a good christian....asked in a very calm voice but curious"why are there all those T's on the building?"

Oh god I laughed so hard I almost pissed. So much for a good christian upbringing when he does not recognize a cross at 7. My husband and myself who have him on weekends by the way are both atheists. I was raised catholic and he was as well but when we got old enough we decided to stop.

Sorry but this just made me happy today. Me and my husband will not if we get full custody make him go to church and if he does decide someday to find religion we are OK with it. But this was just too funny.

[Vekseid]

I just hope you did answer the question and make sure he's still willing to ask questions. Asking questions is after all a very important part of a good Christian upbringing, and you need to do your best to help with that. *nods*

[Thesunmaid]

Oh I answered him and explained all the things in the church..no sarcasm or incredulity...I am not going to push my atheism on him anymore than I want any other religion pushed on him. But he was confused how a lady had a baby if he didn't have a dad. He was like"So...Mary loved god and they had a baby?" We told him about where babies came from last year because he asked. So...he was not exactly buying it. I explained holy water and baptism when he saw the sink at the front and who Jesus on the cross was.As well as confession. He had alot of questions and he sort of looked at me with a "are you kidding me?" look once I explained it. Then the wedding was over and he wanted to go ride his bike. But I am now waiting to hear from his mother since she grills him on what we did over the weekend.

Side note...shes not a christian...shes barely a mother which is why my husband and I are hoping to go for full custody with in the next year. Hes a great kid and I am glad hes so curious about things around him...But since he can barely sit still for a movie he loves I doubt he will be asking to go to mass any time soon.

[Oniya]

I still have vivid memories of walking into a Catholic church for the first time, looking around at the Stations of the Cross (which were all marked with the Greek cross in that church).  My first words to my parents were 'Look at all the plus signs!'

Yeah, they probably had a clue as early as then how I was going to turn out.  >_>

We won't get into the time I questioned transubstantiation.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Mostly what I remember from Mass, the few times I attended as a kid, was being super-jealous when everybody got to go up front for juice and crackers.

[Thesunmaid]

I made a very bad catholic...at 10 i asked about how Adam and Eve could have actually populated the earth since there the only women was eve and it would be incest...and of course when i was little dinosaurs were fucking awesome. So the questions of "did the dinosaurs die because they did not get to go on the arc?" Yeah i apparently questioned things too much to be a good little catholic...by the time i was 13 I realized the whole thing was pretty silly.

But like I said I came to the realization on my own..and so will he..hes a smart kid and we will be there if he wants to ask things but I am not going to push anything on him until he wants to know things. Luckily he is always asking questions and we have Google if we don't know lol.

and yeah the blood and flesh of Christ thing always sort of freaked me out.I mean what am I supposed to say "yum yum that's some good savior?"

[Cyrano Johnson]

I guess it's stuff like transubstantiation that was the biggest obstacle to actually becoming Catholic for me. There was a lot of the mythology, really, whose poetic inspiration and theological importance to people I can and do respect tremendously, but that I just could never bring myself to profess as literal truth or an Article of Faith.

[Callie Del Noire]

what did it in for me around 12 or 13 was living in Ireland. You had Catholics and Anglicans (so damn close together) hating each other for so few differences. I just.. lost faith in organized religion after seeing a few bombings of mix religion couples my first few months there.

[Shjade]

We won't get into the time I questioned transubstantiation.

Mr. Finch: There's something that sounds like "Kill me sentiment"... just gibberish... and then they talk about Communion and the Communion Wafer...There's the word "Transubstantiation": That's the miracle of Transubstantiation when the wafer transforms into the Body of Christ. Catholic concept originally. There, now listen to this...
V (on tape): And at the moment this enters your mouth it becomes the flesh of the Saviour?
Archbishop Lilliman (on tape): Yes. Yes. Look, please...
V (on tape): And whatever it is made of now, it will become the Body of Christ?
Archbishop Lilliman (on tape): Yes. Whatever it is now. Whatever.
V (on tape): I want you to swallow it.
Mr. Finch: And then there's a funny little human noise. And then there's just Beethoven's Fifth. End of tape. We've just had the Path reports through. The Bishop was poisoned. The Host was full of cyanide. And do you know what? When it reached his abdomen it was still cyanide.

I have to admit I've always rather liked that jab.

[Oniya]

Okay, fine.  I have to admit mine wasn't quite that twisted.  But look at this through the eyes of a somewhat precocious 7-year-old.

The priest blesses the wafers, and they become the Body and Blood of Christ.  Not 'symbols of' the Body and Blood, but the actual Body and Blood.  (Mom and Dad were RC.)  The congregation then consumes the Body and Blood of Christ.  'This is My flesh, take this and eat' and all that.

Completely ingenuous question:  'Doesn't that make us cannibals?'  (Seven.  I was seven.  We were taking classes in preparation for First Communion.)

[gaggedLouise]

Back in school days, my elder brother and several others got the task, in drawing class, to come up with illustrations of "Fear". He drew a medical injection needle, and another student asked him, watching the image from the wrong side, "Are you afraid of bar stools?"  :D

[Oniya]

Those bar stools will leap out and bite you.  They lie in wait for anyone attempting to use them as a convenient seat, means of support, or step-stool.  *nods* >_>

[gaggedLouise]

Is that what they call a whammy bar?

[Thesunmaid]

well i suppose if you had a relative die in a terrible bar stool accident they could be scary lol

[Blythe]

I vaguely recall what made it apparent when I was a child that I wouldn't be Christian. My mother had asked me how Sunday school was at the local Baptist church, and I got annoyed at age 8 (the age I was obsessed with and adored going to school every day--I was a nerd, okay?) and announced:

"It is not a school if they only let you read one book. Schools want you to learn more than one thing."

Insert a debate about what school is between my grown mother and her eight year old kid that lasted two hours and ended with my father pulling me out of Sunday school.  :P

[TaintedAndDelish]

I suppose I'm the slow wheel in the crowd - I took all this religion crap on faith well into my mid to late 20's. I was dead serious about it and ended up having a mental breakdown from it. For this reason, and the fact that I missed out on a lot of opportunities as a result, I'm rather bitter towards religious organizations in general for deceiving people and feeding them this bullshit.

Those T's are protective, magical symbols used to ward off the horrible soul-leaching demons that the catholic church has meticulously fabricated with the intention of making x-tains fearfully cling to their inner thighs like a bad case of crabs. Its worth noting that ( ineffective ) x-tain magic is ok, but any other kind of magic comes from the devil and is very very bad.

As for transubstantiation, the best explanation that I got went something like this:

At the climax of the mass - which can only be performed by an ordained catholic priest ( barrier to entry xD ) , the bread (cracker) and watered down wine is transformed in into the literal body and blood of Jesus.  Now, although it physically becomes his flesh and blood, it retains the appearance and physical properties of bead and wine. If you put it under a microscope, then you'll see bread and wine but its really Jesus's flesh and blood - physically, literally - not just symbolically.

Now the good x-tain is supposed to say, "Ok, this makes no fucking sense at all, but god is smarter than me... and god is magical and thus for him, anything is possible... so I'll just shut the hell up and accept it at face value. If I do this, then I have faith - which can move mountains.(more fabulous x-tain magic)"

I'm in a somewhat similar situation, TSM. My wife is still catholic, but I've turned atheist. She wants to raise the kids as Catholic for now and then let them decide for themselves later.  I'm left biting my tongue out of courtesy. Its a kind of delicate situation and not worth arguing over. For now, I don't blatantly point out the glaring flaws in Catholicism, but rather give them truthful information when asked and show them the logic that supports it. Hopefully, they will learn to question the answers and seek proof and rational explanations in everything they do.

[RubySlippers]

Evolution literally hard wires children ,of most species that have a period of learning, to obey their parents and they in turn teach children to trust authority figures for a good reason necessary. Religionists abuse this to brainwash children to believe their fairy stories and mythology and try to keep it sticking through adulthood. And if they do the adults teach the same garbage to their children.

I'm not opposed to religion if its a free adult choice to follow one at eighteen or over until then especially if your talking small children its to me child abuse.

In this case its amusing to me the child is more likely to break the cycle I noted above.

[Oniya]

I will say that I've attended Christian services (usually on the 'serious holy-days' - absolutely nothing like a Greek Orthodox Easter sunrise mass) where quite a bit of energy was raised.  The first obstacle to raised energy being effective is putting a direction to it, like the difference between a 100w incandescent bulb and a laser.

[Sabby]

Evolution literally hard wires children ,of most species that have a period of learning, to obey their parents and they in turn teach children to trust authority figures for a good reason necessary. Religionists abuse this to brainwash children to believe their fairy stories and mythology and try to keep it sticking through adulthood. And if they do the adults teach the same garbage to their children.

Apparently, it's even worse then that. If you convince a young developing brain that 'X is correct, no matter what', and their brain says 'X is false', guess what happens? That brain either rejects X as false, or grows to beat it's own thinking processes into recession, so it can continue to believe X is true.

Though that's only if the studies into Religion induced brain damage are to be believed, and even I'm on the fence with that.

In this case its amusing to me the child is more likely to break the cycle I noted above

I had such a happy laugh on Youtube when I heard of a father explaining Noah's Ark to their very young son and their response was "I don't buy it" xD Faith in Humanity +1

[SakamotoHD]

*He had a bit of a sigh*

I guess I'm playing counter-point to this. But I've always really struggled with whatever I'm supposed to believe. I was raised in a catholic elementary school for most of my childhood.. I hated going to church. It was boring, everyone sounded like they were half-asleep, and as a result, I became half-asleep. The only good times were after sundays during the receptions. There was this delicious orange drink I'd dump sugar into, and eat chocolate donuts. I read passages out for priests, and I was amply rewarded when I could memorize and explain the meaning of the parables.

(Parables, for any who don't know, are essentially life lessons, given in forms of stories and examples. Much like old children stories. For an example. just google "parable of the coins")

I get that alot of the stories people read, they find laughable for the same reasons. Water to Wine? 5 loaves of bred and 2 fish feeding 5000? Lazurus who gets brought back from the dead cause a guy touched him in a special way?  Yea it seems pretty ridiculous, that some human sent by a divine being had that level of power.

Even if you look at all the catholic rituals, they are pretty silly. Kneeling get tiresome after 20 mintues of doing it. And why are we constantly standing up and kneeling down. Can we not just sit? Everyone's getting in line for some bread and a little red wine. Takes about an hour to get to that part too..

I still go to church on occasion. But not for the same reasons that my religiously devout father does. I go as a form of self-reflection. To hear some of those life lessons from a guy who claims to know what a good life is. Some of them I don't understand. Some of them I do. I've read a fair bit of the bible, old and new. It's been about 6 years since I last confessed whatever "sins" I committed. Now I guess.. *Feels like he diverted from his original point* is that I don't care about what your faith is. I've never cared about what other people believe in. But faith is such a powerful concept. It's a powerful tool. It's literally finding something you cannot do. And with a strong enough faith, you can do it. Senior year of highschool, I didn't think I was going to amount to much. But I had faith in that I would do what needed to be done to better my life.

Now I'm close to an electrical engineering degree. I'm practically on clean-up duty with these last classes, then I have a degree and I'll be joining the military. If I had listened to my current state of affairs back when I was a junior in highschool, I'd never gotten to where I am if I didn't have faith. That is one thing that I am glad of from my years of going to church. Regardless of any legends or whatever you want to say about it, the thing I pulled from Catholicism is the tenets of faith.

So don't knock on Christianity too much. It's got some pretty legit values to being a kind compassionate person. Remember there's alot of parents out there that  teach their kids to think. While also teaching them faith as well. Not every catholic you see is going to be some crazed nut-job that's praising the word of jesus christ, from a woman who got knocked up by god.  Or a roman soldier. Some debate on that too.

[Oniya]

There are good things to be found in a lot of mythology.  And in a lot of history.  And in a lot of plain old facts.  Conflating them - especially from a child's-eye perspective - is where it can be jarring.  (And of course, the time that the priest mispronounced 'brazier' - but that has nothing to do with church teachings.)

I much prefer the interpretation that a lot of these things are symbolic - wine and bread as symbols of 'the stuff that gives life'.  I think if more people listened to the actual message that Douglas Adams summed up as 'be nice to people for a change', then more people would be in a place to realize the parts that build everyone up, rather than the parts that only shoot others down.

[Sabby]

So don't knock on Christianity too much. It's got some pretty legit values to being a kind compassionate person.

No Religion has a monopoly on morality. There isn't a single lesson of right and wrong that can only be achieved through Faith. Better it be honestly taught without baggage. Be good for the betterment of yourself and those around you, not because of a fairy tale or a promised afterlife.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I don't think he's saying that Christianity (or any religion) has a monopoly on morality but that being respectful of religion and the wisdom contained therein is a worthwhile course of action.

[Retribution]

SakamotoHD -> Summed up my views neatly. I am a semi practicing Catholic my kids actually take it more serious than I do even if I graduated from Catholic high school. *shrugs* reasonable framework for life as one can find in many religions. But like me and the little woman tell our kids "god gave you a brain use it do not just blindly follow."

[Sabby]

I don't think he's saying that Christianity (or any religion) has a monopoly on morality but that being respectful of religion and the wisdom contained therein is a worthwhile course of action.

If I saw any wisdom at all in diluting and muddling moral lessons, then I'd respect it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The parochial school system for my state is quite advanced and is probably one of the strongest in the United States.  So I have seen the curriculum for a great many religious schools from the Catholic tradition and I would say the vast majority of them do advocate questioning and learning.  At my school one of the nuns was fond of saying that a true believer is one that questions and then believes, rather than believes without question.  I do think the unfortunate public face of religion has always been the “die hards” and the “screaming radicals.” 

[Oniya]

The use of story-telling to convey moral lessons isn't restricted to religion.  Crack open a copy of Grimm's (original and unsanitized if possible) if you doubt that.  The fact is that people are more apt to sit and listen to (or read) a work of fiction than a list of rules for proper behavior - as a result, stories showing bad consequences for bad decisions work better than simply telling them that those decisions are bad.

'Show, don't tell' is one of the first tips you hear for effective writing.  More people are likely to remember the story of the Good Samaritan (even if they have no clue what the significance of a 'Samaritan' is) than they are to remember which animals are permitted for consumption (Lev. 11)

[SakamotoHD]

No Religion has a monopoly on morality. There isn't a single lesson of right and wrong that can only be achieved through Faith. Better it be honestly taught without baggage. Be good for the betterment of yourself and those around you, not because of a fairy tale or a promised afterlife.

To quote another spirtualist.

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." Confucius

By imitating what the bible claims is to be good, or by imitating the ten commandments (Which are, in essence, ten life lessons on how to not be a huge asshole), You may become a good person. That is, by defintion, a lesson of right and wrong that can be be achieved, using only faith.

But as with the other two methods, it certainly is not the only method by which we might learn what is moral. No religion, no group of people, and most definitely, no man may lay claim to what is moral and right in this world. Man by our inherent nature is flawed. That is what makes us so awesome, because we are open to interpretation. Thus, we are free to make our own choices.

If I saw any wisdom at all in diluting and muddling moral lessons, then I'd respect it.

Then you are not actually looking at religion, just the extremists  . Christianity, is not muddling moral lessons. Teaching someone how to be a kind and compassionate person, by my own faith, cannot be wrong. Ignore Leviticus, ignore whatever "stoning" or "anti-gay" sentiments that you believe the religion is teaching. It's not what being a decent human being is. Tolerance, is one of the primary beliefs in faith. Just faith. Christianty, as with any religion, is the examination of oneself and the betterment of human society.

However, like I said before.. Humanity is, by nature, flawed. We are not perfect. We fall, and we stumble. We will always fall down. We will always get back up too. So there's nothing wrong in following the teaches.

SakamotoHD -> Summed up my views neatly. I am a semi practicing Catholic my kids actually take it more serious than I do even if I graduated from Catholic high school. *shrugs* reasonable framework for life as one can find in many religions. But like me and the little woman tell our kids "god gave you a brain use it do not just blindly follow."

Yea see.. I went from 5th grade, catholic elementary school, to this "advanced academic school" that took place RIGHT in the most ghetto place in the city. Had a ton of kids slugging me in the face for "looking nerdy" cause I dressed preppy. It was just.. what I wore. I didn't know any better. It wasn't until 7th grade that I actually started becoming my own person. I wore more casual clothing.. But understand I was made to dress in a uniform since I was 3 years old. S'not really my fault. But yea I went from a private catholic school, to the ghettos. The scenario was incredibly jarring. I'd like to think it softened the edges I had about the world, and frankly, I was scared of what I might have turned into if I stayed all the way through to catholic highschool (which was where I was going to go if I hadn't been considered 'smart' by some piece of paper). I see what alot of my old friends that went through catholic highschool became. Their introduction to the "real harsh world" has really taken it's toll on them. I'm lucky that the shock settled in far earlier.

So yea, as a result, I use both my logic, and my faith to figure things out.

[Retribution]

SakamotoHD -> I had actually the opposite path. Public schools till high school and I was from a rural area sent into urban schools. Then toss in a side of there were issues with the schools at the time due to implementation of busing. It was a bad scene I talk with a funny accent by urban standards and I until age 11 I was an only child. I think get tough or die is how they describe such things lol. It all came to a head 33 years ago when I took a razor blade down the leg while sitting on the bus. The fellow who did it should have cut my throat because he was not feeling too well when I got done with him. Long story short my parents said -enough- and sent me to Catholic school and I had more culture shock!

Long story short I ended up a lot like you. I like to refer to myself as a social chameleon.

[SakamotoHD]

Long story short I ended up a lot like you. I like to refer to myself as a social chameleon.

Ha! that's awesome. I'd imagine myself similar had I gone from one spectrum to the other. Funny how we met in the middle. Yea I tend to do what the other people like. Cause I'm open to trying new things. I've never been to a music festival, or a concert, cause the crowds I ran with didn't do that.

But if I met people that said "Hey let's go to one" I'd sign up. It's all about what they are into. Cause I can just as easily get into anything if I find the appeal in it.

[Sabby]

So yea, as a result, I use both my logic, and my faith to figure things out.

I don't believe you do at all. You use your logic to figure the world out. You just like your faith. It can't serve you in the way you claim it does. To reason out a conclusion and to have faith in a conclusion are night and day, so you can't lump them together in that way, as good as doing so makes you feel.

Then you are not actually looking at religion, just the extremists  . Christianity, is not muddling moral lessons. Teaching someone how to be a kind and compassionate person, by my own faith, cannot be wrong.

This is the part people keep forgetting to answer. What does faith have to do with being a good person? You clearly value your faith, and that's fine, but this is the second time I'm going ask for the relationship between morality and faith to be demonstrated. You can attribute one to the other all you like, but that doesn't show to my satisfaction you actually derived one from the other.

As for the 'that's just the extremists' stance, I'll never understand it. They seem to be the more religious, where as good, thinking Christians tend to rid themselves of so much of their Religion it ceases being a factor. They just do as good people do but pay lip service here and there so they can continue to feel like a Christian, as they we're brought up to.

The parochial school system for my state is quite advanced and is probably one of the strongest in the United States.  So I have seen the curriculum for a great many religious schools from the Catholic tradition and I would say the vast majority of them do advocate questioning and learning.  At my school one of the nuns was fond of saying that a true believer is one that questions and then believes, rather than believes without question.  I do think the unfortunate public face of religion has always been the “die hards” and the “screaming radicals.” 

So, private schools provide better teaching then public schools? Already knew what. Seems the only response I ever get to 'what is the value of religious lessons' is 'Look! This is a good school, and they believe'. You've only demonstrated that solid education and religious upbringing can exist side by side, not that one is derived from the other.

[SakamotoHD]

Then we are at an impasse sabby, and nothing I can say, or do, will change your opinion, because, as you say, it's grounded in logic. I'm fine with that.

Though if you want an answer, I'll say this.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics

Given this defintion, which is also an act of belief. I can easily tell you that Morality is the belief that an action we perform, is right or wrong. Morality is Belief. And Belief is Faith.

If anything I've convinced myself of this. I'm glad I got the chance to speak with you and argue my point. I will say no more on this subject though.

[Sabby]

If we're really going to go down the whole 'faith and belief are the same thing' route, then I'm done here. I'd really rather not entertain Apologetics.

I'll just say to the opening poster, you did get a chuckle out of me xD thanks.

[Cyrano Johnson]

To reason out a conclusion and to have faith in a conclusion are night and day

I wish would-be freethinkers would stop saying this, as it is factually just utterly wrong. Reason and faith are not opposites; the latter can and historically has been a handmaiden of the former, that's how science emerged from religious philosophy in the first place. (Some of us have had this discussion before on the Elliquian Atheists thread, I believe.)

[Sabby]

Reason and faith are not opposites;

the latter can and historically has been a handmaiden of the former

And why does the second quote nullify the first? I don't see your reasoning.

[Cyrano Johnson]

I don't see your reasoning.

Faith can motivate someone to reason out a conclusion; having reasoned out a conclusion can increase faith in that conclusion. Stating that faith and reasoning are mutually exclusive is nonsensical. (What you may be getting at is that blind faith is inimical to reasoning, which if so would be correct... if one accepts that all faith is necessarily blind and unreasoning. But one does not need to accept it, and it is not true of all religious faith.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sabby, your use of the phrase Apologetics is paramount to belittling and name calling.  A seriously immature and pathetic way to finish or have an adult conversation.

[Sabby]

Faith can motivate someone to reason out a conclusion; having reasoned out a conclusion can increase faith in that conclusion. Stating that faith and reasoning are mutually exclusive is nonsensical. (What you may be getting at is that blind faith is inimical to reasoning, which if so would be correct... if one accepts that all faith is necessarily blind and unreasoning. But one does not need to accept it, and it is not true of all religious faith.)

Ah, there's the confusion then >.< Faith and belief are different things to me. Belief is justifiable, where as faith is blind. That's how I differentiate the two. Probably should have been clearer on that :/ apologies.

Sabby, your use of the phrase Apologetics is paramount to belittling and name calling.  A seriously immature and pathetic way to finish or have an adult conversation.

You value Apologetics. I don't. Our stances have been made clear on that multiple times. But I hardly think disliking Apologetics is bullying :/ That's a tad dramatic.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Your use of the phrase is in a manner consistent with bullying.  You use the word apologetic to dismiss the arguments of another and make generalizations about a group of arguments that you disagree about.  Then you attach the word with negative connotations to other people with whom you disagree such as saying I value apologetics.  By definition Christian apologetic is the presentation of rational arguments for the Christian faith which is something you consistently state you want to hear and argue.  By definition the word apologetic simply means “reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.”  Yet you then refuse to have a discussion with apologetic which means that you either don’t know what the word actually means or are not interested in having a rational conversation with someone religious. 

[Sabby]

Your use of the phrase is in a manner consistent with bullying.  You use the word apologetic to dismiss the arguments of another and make generalizations about a group of arguments that you disagree about.  Then you attach the word with negative connotations to other people with whom you disagree such as saying I value apologetics.  By definition Christian apologetic is the presentation of rational arguments for the Christian faith which is something you consistently state you want to hear and argue.  By definition the word apologetic simply means “reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.”  Yet you then refuse to have a discussion with apologetic which means that you either don’t know what the word actually means or are not interested in having a rational conversation with someone religious.

I know what it is, and I find the very concept ridiculous. Its the rationalization of the irrational. Apologetics is the PR department of Religion, the scientific process in reverse, justifying conclusions instead of finding the real answers.

You want me to respect such a process? No, rejecting Apologetics doesn't hinder a rational conversation.

[Oniya]

Sabby -

You view all religion as irrational.
Hence, anyone (Christian or not) who wants to present rational arguments on the topic is arguing something you feel is 'irrational'.
By your own definition, this makes them 'Apologetics' - rationalizing the irrational.
You do not wish to converse with Apologetics.
Therefore, you do not wish to engage in a rational conversation with someone religious on the topic of religion. QED.

If there is a flaw in my logic, please point it out to me.

[Sabby]

No, your pretty much correct, and I'll explain why. It's not that I don't wish to have the discussion, it's that I don't believe the discussion can be had at all. Religion is a sociological topic for me, and I don't see any value in discussing it as anything other then sociological. I'm more then capable of discussing religion as a phenomena, whether social, cultural, or psychological.

But Apologetics is not about Religion as a phenomena, it's, as I've already put it, the scientific process working in reverse. It's justification for belief, forming arguments to support a position that has already been adopted. This is the exact opposite of science, which is following the evidence to the answer.

Does that make sense?

[Sabby]

If anything I've convinced myself of this. I'm glad I got the chance to speak with you and argue my point. I will say no more on this subject though.

Missed the edit D= I enjoy these kinds of discussions as well. Religion as a mental process does fascinate me ^^

[Oniya]

No, your pretty much correct, and I'll explain why. It's not that I don't wish to have the discussion, it's that I don't believe the discussion can be had at all. Religion is a sociological topic for me, and I don't see any value in discussing it as anything other then sociological. I'm more then capable of discussing religion as a phenomena, whether social, cultural, or psychological.

But Apologetics is not about Religion as a phenomena, it's, as I've already put it, the scientific process working in reverse. It's justification for belief, forming arguments to support a position that has already been adopted. This is the exact opposite of science, which is following the evidence to the answer.

Does that make sense?

Missed the edit D= I enjoy these kinds of discussions as well. Religion as a mental process does fascinate me ^^

You would probably find more people willing to have these discussions if you weren't constantly calling them 'irrational'.  Tends to put people off, y'know?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So essentially you do not seek any rational conversation regarding religion because you do not believe a rational conversation of religion can be had.  Therefore any engagement you have on the topic of religion is irrational and typically antagonistic whereby your goal and aim is to antagonize someone who is religious.  By extension you are ridiculing someone because of their faith, personal beliefs and opinions for your own amusement.  That would make you a bully in the eyes of most.

[Vanity Evolved]

So essentially you do not seek any rational conversation regarding religion because you do not believe a rational conversation of religion can be had.  Therefore any engagement you have on the topic of religion is irrational and typically antagonistic whereby your goal and aim is to antagonize someone who is religious.  By extension you are ridiculing someone because of their faith, personal beliefs and opinions for your own amusement.  That would make you a bully in the eyes of most.

I think the point being made is that it's rather hard to have a rational discussion about a guy cutting a dragon's head off as an explaination for the Earth being created as being an equal 'belief' to other explainations of the Earth being created. It's not something exclusive to religion; you'd be equally hardpressed to rationally discuss how magic works 'logically' in Harry Potter, or how Green Lantern's ring works in Marvel. It is generally rather impossible to take someone seriously when they try to 'rationally explain' their belief in a book which is moral also includes massive advocations of rape and immense sexist segregation, for example.

[Sabby]

So essentially you do not seek any rational conversation regarding religion because you do not believe a rational conversation of religion can be had.

If you're just going to disregard my responses and restate your assertions, I'm not sure what exactly I can do :/ I've answered you already on what kinds of discussions I value and which I don't, so repeating that I value none is just false.

You would probably find more people willing to have these discussions if you weren't constantly calling them 'irrational'.  Tends to put people off, y'know?

If that's how I come across, then there is a major communication issue on my end, and I need to opt out of this board for a while. I have no desire to personally insult anyone, and I apologize for the drama I've caused. I've only ever tried to address the arguments put forward, and I feel it's better to be blunt in my responses. Perhaps I need to revaluate that policy for a while :/

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Sabby, I am only stating the assertion that you are making.  No part of that statement is contradicting what you have already said in regard to your beliefs about discussing religion.

Also I find it hard to believe you do not intend to insult people when you continue to do so..even after being told you are being insulting.  Blunt, for you, is just a polite way of saying crass and rude.

Yes Vanity and if I go into a gaming store and start making fun of people having a discussion of how magic in Harry Potter works on the ring of the Green Lantern then I am being a bully.  If I do not believe there is any merit to the conversation and there is no rational discourse to be had and I claim to be looking for rational discourse, then my participation is only to disrupt.

[Vanity Evolved]

Sabby, I am only stating the assertion that you are making.  No part of that statement is contradicting what you have already said in regard to your beliefs about discussing religion.

Also I find it hard to believe you do not intend to insult people when you continue to do so..even after being told you are being insulting.  Blunt, for you, is just a polite way of saying crass and rude.

Yes Vanity and if I go into a gaming store and start making fun of people having a discussion of how magic in Harry Potter works on the ring of the Green Lantern then I am being a bully.  If I do not believe there is any merit to the conversation and there is no rational discourse to be had and I claim to be looking for rational discourse, then my participation is only to disrupt.

The differences here is that when peopleare discussing the Bible? They expect you to take it seriously. If someone wants to 'rationally' explain how The Flash used the Speed Force to come back to life after three issues of DC or whatever, no-one would take them seriously. However, when they say the exact same thing about a book which says 'Rape is great! And this dude died and came back to life using the magic power of the ghost in the sky after the snake told a naked dude and woman not to eat an apple which damned the Earth', it's suddenly supposed to be accepted as rational because 'this is religion'. You ever seen a flat Earth Creationist trying to 'rationally' explain how evolution, the shape of the Earth and history 'totally works in line with the Bible'?

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Then why participate in their conversation if you believe there is no rational discourse to be had?  If you believe that their discussion has no merit, does not involve your own beliefs and has nothing pertaining to you or affecting you then participation on your part is meant to cause drama and be disruptive.  People discuss comic book heroes with scientific context, research and are fully engrossed in their discussions with the same fervor as one would debate religion.  If I do not believe there is rational conversation to be had then I simply do not participate. 

Does it matter if the people having the conversation about the Flash or about Jesus care if their concepts or ideas are real?

[Vanity Evolved]

Then why participate in their conversation if you believe there is no rational discourse to be had?  If you believe that their discussion has no merit, does not involve your own beliefs and has nothing pertaining to you or affecting you then participation on your part is meant to cause drama and be disruptive.  People discuss comic book heroes with scientific context, research and are fully engrossed in their discussions with the same fervor as one would debate religion.  If I do not believe there is rational conversation to be had then I simply do not participate. 

Does it matter if the people having the conversation about the Flash or about Jesus care if their concepts or ideas are real?

I can only speak for myself, but I care if what I believe is real; at least, I hope my concept that rape is a horrid thing is wrong is real. Once again, the difference here is that one is accepted as being fiction, while one isn't; if someone taught their kid that The Flash made a woman get raped was a good thing, as the Bible teaches, I'd be just as offended. People are free to believe what they want, but when people begin teaching their children or try to force laws based on their beliefs which 'I don't care if it's not real, I believe it' which other people have to abide by, I get largely offended. I'm sure a good majority of the GLBT know exactly how it feels to have your rights stamped on because of something a two thousand fairy tale says.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

 Vanity, I am not even sure where you are going with this discussion now.  If you aren’t going to remain on topic or even read what you are supposedly responding to and addressing then I see no further point in speaking with you.  To be honest now that Sabby has withdrawn from the conversation your role is pretty much done anyway.

[Vanity Evolved]

Vanity, I am not even sure where you are going with this discussion now.  If you aren’t going to remain on topic or even read what you are supposedly responding to and addressing then I see no further point in speaking with you.  To be honest now that Sabby has withdrawn from the conversation your role is pretty much done anyway.

You asked why it matters if a concept is real or not. I answered. Please don't ask a question if you don't want me to answer it, and then act as if I'm going off-topic. I'd also ask that you don't act as I can be just 'brushed off' as if my opinions are somehow inferior to yours, thank you. But do feel free to stop speaking to me. You've already tried to make out Sabs to be someone he isn't in some attempt to personally attack him. Regardless, I only popped by to add my two cents, so I'll be bowing out of this discussion, also.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

But I did not ask why it would matter if a concept was real or not, I asked why participate in a discussion you feel has no merit.  Other than being disruptive there is nothing you can add to the conversation or take away.  So you did not answer the question, merely changed the question for an answer you felt more comfortable in giving and then manipulated into a stance for gay rights.

As for Sabby, I was merely pointing out to him as I am to you.  If you do not feel that rational discussion is possible then your participation is only about drama and ridicule. 

[Blythe]

I can only speak for myself, but I care if what I believe is real; at least, I hope my concept that rape is a horrid thing is wrong is real. Once again, the difference here is that one is accepted as being fiction, while one isn't; if someone taught their kid that The Flash made a woman get raped was a good thing, as the Bible teaches, I'd be just as offended. People are free to believe what they want, but when people begin teaching their children or try to force laws based on their beliefs which 'I don't care if it's not real, I believe it' which other people have to abide by, I get largely offended. I'm sure a good majority of the GLBT know exactly how it feels to have your rights stamped on because of something a two thousand fairy tale says.

There is a line of civility that I think gets crossed in discussions about religion. I'm an atheist, and there is a difference between saying "You cannot rationally prove religious beliefs" and saying religion is a "two thousand year old fairy tale." One of those phrases is appropriate. One of those phrases isn't and is insulting.

Also, you're guilty of a logical fallacy here, Vanity Evolved.

Look at this: Definition of belief

A "belief" is not necessarily just a religious conviction. It can also be a conviction grounded in secular views (like your belief that rape is wrong), by the dictionary definition of the term. So you cannot state that you want others to acknowledge what you believe is real while simultaneously disparaging someone else's belief in something they believe is real  (that you don't believe in) without treading the waters of hypocrisy.

[Cyrano Johnson]

It's not that I don't wish to have the discussion, it's that I don't believe the discussion can be had at all. . . Apologetics is not about Religion as a phenomena, it's, as I've already put it, the scientific process working in reverse. It's justification for belief, forming arguments to support a position that has already been adopted. This is the exact opposite of science, which is following the evidence to the answer.

Does that make sense?

It's hugely oversimplistic and appallingly arrogant, actually. If Apologetics was merely the process of science in reverse, science could never have emerged from the Christian theological tradition. Yet it did, and it emerged precisely as apologetics. A very large part of the history of logic is the history of theology. A very large part of the history of modern Western science emerged from the attempts of Christian, Jewish and Islamic theologians and philosophers to prove that God's creation was worthy of systematic and scientific study.

This process was not without conflict. The dynamics of that conflict are worthy of discussion. What is not worthy is false portrayals of history that allege that that process never happened. What is not worthy is eccentric definitions of "faith" that have relatively little to do with how many actual persons of faith use the term. If that's what you're doing, you're not declining to participate in a futile sector of the debate: you're declining to participate, at least in any honest way, in any part of the debate.

[Vanity Evolved]

There is a line of civility that I think gets crossed in discussions about religion. I'm an atheist, and there is a difference between saying "You cannot rationally prove religious beliefs" and saying religion is a "two thousand year old fairy tale." One of those phrases is appropriate. One of those phrases isn't and is insulting.

Also, you're guilty of a logical fallacy here, Vanity Evolved.

Look at this: Definition of belief

A "belief" is not necessarily just a religious conviction. It can also be a conviction grounded in secular views (like your belief that rape is wrong), by the dictionary definition of the term. So you cannot state that you want others to acknowledge what you believe is real while simultaneously disparaging someone else's belief in something they believe is real  (that you don't believe in) without treading the waters of hypocrisy.

I am aware of what belief means; like Sabs, I'm rather inclinded to the definition that belief and faith are two seperate things. You believe something based on evidence, and have faith in something which you do not have evidence for.

I was referring to Christianity as a two-thousand year old fairy tale, because that is quite literally what it is. Why is the Brother's Grimm different from the Bible? They're both about completely fantastic things which have no proof, and I believe in a world wide flood, a zombie messiah and a big man in the sky being angry because people made a giant tower to go see him in the exact same way I treat someone growing a magical beanstalk to go steal a goose from a giant. The fact I'm somewhat rude about it doesn't change that.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Its very hard to be polite when having an intelligent conversation with someone who fails to separate fiction from reality. Yes, its rude to call them idiots or to very bluntly strip them of their delusions.

I think what is hard about being polite here is that when you have a firm grasp on reality and someone comes along asserting a clearly erroneous or unfounded belief as if its absolute truth, its very distressing. Its kind of like being gaslighted by someone, if that makes sense. For me at least, I feel a deep need to stand up and correct what has been said. In all fairness, I can understand how a mislead religious person might feel the same exact way.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

This seems to be a running theme that “religious cannot be rational” but then people feel compelled to be irrational toward them.  So once more the question is simply why participate in the discussion?  If you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation with someone religious or engage in a conversation with someone about their beliefs without being rude and disrespectful, then perhaps religious debate and philosophical discussion is not a forte you should pursue.

[meikle]

You would think that forsaking religion would lead people to be less self-righteous.  Yet...

[TaintedAndDelish]

This seems to be a running theme that “religious cannot be rational” but then people feel compelled to be irrational toward them.

If a religion needs to portray fiction (which is not true) as truth in order to be considered a religion, then I'm afraid that I don't see how that religion can be rational. That's their fault, not mine. How is pointing out their untruth being irrational?  ( Unless you mean all the emotional bitching and hand wringing/flapping that we sometimes do xD )

So once more the question is simply why participate in the discussion? 

Because it pains me to see people so terribly mislead. This is probably more my own personal issue, but that's why. For reasons that I'm not sure I fully understand, I care.

If you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation with someone religious or engage in a conversation with someone about their beliefs without being rude and disrespectful, then perhaps religious debate and philosophical discussion is not a forte you should pursue.

We should not avoid truth just because it does not feel good when we hear it. Sometimes it really sucks to learn that what you believe is false or unsupported, but in the long run, its better to have the truth as the bad taste that it may leave is just temporary.

[meikle]

We should not avoid truth just because it does not feel good when we hear it. Sometimes it really sucks to learn that what you believe is false or unsupported, but in the long run, its better to have the truth as the bad taste that it may leave is just temporary.

Can you prove this, or is it just your belief?  Sounds like faith to me.

Do you think you should force your beliefs on others?

[TaintedAndDelish]

I'm not forcing my beliefs any more than pumpkin seeds is forcing her's. You don't need to believe me or agree with me. We are adults and are capable of evaluating one another's beliefs, truths, ideologies and coming to our own conclusions. I am fallible and could be quite wrong - in which case, I hope that such discussions will lead me to the truth - even if I don't like how it feels or tastes.

As for my belief that its better to have truth than to have falsehoods? I supposed it depends on how you define "better".  If you believe that living as a semi-nude hunter/gatherer in a non-developed country while the rest of the world is thousands of years ahead of you is *better*, then yes, I suppose its better to avoid truth at all costs. That is not my definition of better, therefore, yes, its better to have truth.

In all fairness, Meikle, you made a good point.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So essentially you are bringing the truth to the mislead.  You have taken it upon yourself to inform this misbegotten rabble and remove the veil from their eyes.  They are being misled by their friends and the world and you will go, tell them their falsehood and make them see the Truth.  Noble of you, Preacher.  The presumption of owning the Truth is a great arrogance, one that many atheists find fault amongst the various religious for claiming.  The thought that you can change someone’s mind by disrespecting their beliefs and their upbringing is a false one as well, another that many atheists complain the various religious groups hold. 

If you seek to change the mind of someone, then best consider first their reason for holding their beliefs and then respecting them as human beings that hold rational opinions and are able to formulate reason thoughts.  From there present your own rational reasons and discuss.  Simply stating that someone cannot be rational because of their culture, belief system or upbringing starts the discussion on a bad note that will likely not improve.

[Vanity Evolved]

So essentially you are bringing the truth to the mislead.  You have taken it upon yourself to inform this misbegotten rabble and remove the veil from their eyes.  They are being misled by their friends and the world and you will go, tell them their falsehood and make them see the Truth.  Noble of you, Preacher.  The presumption of owning the Truth is a great arrogance, one that many atheists find fault amongst the various religious for claiming.  The thought that you can change someone’s mind by disrespecting their beliefs and their upbringing is a false one as well, another that many atheists complain the various religious groups hold. 

If you seek to change the mind of someone, then best consider first their reason for holding their beliefs and then respecting them as human beings that hold rational opinions and are able to formulate reason thoughts.  From there present your own rational reasons and discuss.  Simply stating that someone cannot be rational because of their culture, belief system or upbringing starts the discussion on a bad note that will likely not improve.

Except this isn't true. I don't preach anything; I will point out if people are saying something which is patently false (or does pointing out to a Flat Earth Creationist that the world is not flat count as 'preaching'?) and speak out about the things I find wrong about holding to beliefs which harm people (teaching children religion, I feel, is child abuse; just as much as teaching them that Jack and the Beanstalk is real), or when it impacts other people (See: Anti-gay marriage activists, the majority being Christian and/or religious)

You like to change the goalposts a lot. Arguing 'slippery slopes' doesn't work either. I never claimed people can't be rational, 'because of their culture, belief or upbringing'. Those are your words. Feel free to quote where I said that. However, it is possible for rational people to hold irrational beliefs. Everyday, people believe they have lucky underpants. Does this affect anyone? No. It's harmless belief. This is, however, completely different from teaching your children that a man in the sky will torture them for eternity if they don't clean their room, will hate them forever if they're gay or allow homosexuals to be open about their sexuality. If you subscribe to irrational beliefs, then yes, it is shown that it's possible to then start holding more irrational beliefs, but this is not a fact, as far as I know.

As I say, it is impossible to rationally defend the Bible. It has as much evidence as being real as Harry Potter or Spiderman. If it's rational to believe the Bible, then by extention, isn't it irrational to not believe in wizards and Hogwarts, or radioactive spider powers and Hobgoblin?

[Oniya]

Vanity, as I pointed out to Sabby - it's not the fact of your belief system.  It is your method of presenting it.  I swear, if someone on these boards so much as whispers that there might be a few good things somewhere in a religion, you're on it like a shark after chum.  It reminds me a lot of the 'angry young Pagans' who decide that everything monotheistic is 'bad', 'horrible', 'evil', 'repressive', 'come and see the violence inherent in the system',  *cough*.

If you think that you are going to convince anyone that they should become an atheist using the techniques that you have been demonstrating, you have a lot to learn about people.  It is perfectly possible to present facts without blowing the 'YOU'RE ALL IRRATIONAL' horn.  It is that tendency that I have seen time and again that puts everyone on the defensive and virtually ensures that they will dismiss what you have to say.

[Vanity Evolved]

Vanity, as I pointed out to Sabby - it's not the fact of your belief system.  It is your method of presenting it.  I swear, if someone on these boards so much as whispers that there might be a few good things somewhere in a religion, you're on it like a shark after chum.  It reminds me a lot of the 'angry young Pagans' who decide that everything monotheistic is 'bad', 'horrible', 'evil', 'repressive', 'come and see the violence inherent in the system',  *cough*.

If you think that you are going to convince anyone that they should become an atheist using the techniques that you have been demonstrating, you have a lot to learn about people.  It is perfectly possible to present facts without blowing the 'YOU'RE ALL IRRATIONAL' horn.  It is that tendency that I have seen time and again that puts everyone on the defensive and virtually ensures that they will dismiss what you have to say.

I admit, I have gotten a little heated in some of the way I present things. Still, I've yet to see someone present something -good- which religion does, which can't be done in a secular fashion, without the baggage. Why teach children 'good morals' through Christianity, and then have to explain away the parts like rape and child murder and then making excuses for how Hell 'actually works'? If someone could show me something which religion alone can solely do for the good of people, which can't be achieved by secular means, I'd totally accept that.

Edit: I can't speak for Sabs, but admittedly, I am rather an antitheist atheist. For what it's worth.

[Oniya]

Three men want to travel from Georgia to Maine.  One takes the Appalachian Trail.  It takes him six months, during which he gets poison ivy twice, has to sleep in a tent and carry a heavy load, walking over 2,100 miles.  However, at the end of it, he has made many friends with other hikers, seen a lot of beautiful scenery, and learned a lot about his own ability to deal with tough situations. 

The second man drives.  It takes him about 4 days (figuring stops for meals, bathroom breaks, and sleeping), during which he has to deal with traffic jams, toll booths, and that one cook in New Jersey who got his order wrong five different ways.  At the end of it, he's also seen some quaint small towns, took in a few historic sites, and listened to a ton of good music on the radio and CDs (always have to figure in that one stretch where the radio 'scan' button does a full circuit without finding anything.)

The third man takes a plane from Atlanta to Presque Isle.  It takes him a few hours, during which he has to deal with a grope-down from TSA, a delay on his transfer at Dulles Airport, a guy next to him who won't stop talking about the decline in tuba sales, and a mixup where his luggage gets sent to Bangor.  However, he arrives at his destination quickly enough that he is able to catch the annual Potato Blossom parade in the afternoon.

All three men started from the same place.  All three men got to the same place.  All three men had good experiences and bad experiences, and probably think that the others were mistaken in their choices.  However, it was their choice to make, and no one else could choose their path for them.

[Ephiral]

The thing is, though, that guy #3 was way more successful than guy #1 - he now has six months he can devote to, y'know, pursuing other goals. Further, you assume that guy #1 followed his trail perfectly - there are relatively few ways to go wrong at the airport as compared to hiking on foot. From any perspective that is concerned with actually getting to the right destination and accomplishing your goals (note that all the lovely experiences guy #1 had were, while nice, not actually part of his intent or desire), the first guy is sloppy at best.

[SakamotoHD]

You... know nothing about the men's goals. How can you already judge a person when you don't even know why they might choose a trail. You know nothing about them.

The phrase "the journey is more important then the destination" is utterly lost on you. You didn't even take the time to consider it. It doesn't matter how they reached their goals.

[Thesunmaid]

All I know is I want to be a good person because its the right thing to do...not because there's some giant cosmic voyeur who is going to send me to hell because I was not good because he told me to.

[Rogue]

The thing is, though, that guy #3 was way more successful than guy #1 - he now has six months he can devote to, y'know, pursuing other goals. Further, you assume that guy #1 followed his trail perfectly - there are relatively few ways to go wrong at the airport as compared to hiking on foot. From any perspective that is concerned with actually getting to the right destination and accomplishing your goals (note that all the lovely experiences guy #1 had were, while nice, not actually part of his intent or desire), the first guy is sloppy at best.

I believe that that was the point she was trying to make. Maybe guy 1 doesn't have a car or the extra money for a bus ride down. He already owns a tent (due to being an avid camper or something similar) and enjoys the outdoors greatly. Maybe guy 1 wanted to try it, for the experience he knew it would give because he was bored of taking planes everywhere.

Motivations for each one weren't given besides the want to get there. This doesn't mean that they didn't have other reasons beyond the first to go. Maybe guy 1 lost someone and needed a trip to cleanse himself or feel close to the one he lost. Maybe guy 3 just wants to get there and go home because he has a job to get back to. Maybe guy 2 is moving and needs to drive to keep with all of his things. I think she was trying to say, don't assume one is better than the other because we all get to the same place at the end. (ie: Dead)

All I know is I want to be a good person because its the right thing to do...not because there's some giant cosmic voyeur who is going to send me to hell because I was not good because he told me to.

I wish to give you a hug because that's how I feel too. *nods*

[Thesunmaid]

Offers Miss Rogue a hug and smiles"I will take hugs from anyone..hugs are awsome."

[meikle]

(ie: Dead)

And that's kind of important too, isn't it?  It doesn't matter how right you are right now.  It doesn't matter how truthful your insight into reality is.

When it's all said and done, you don't get points at the end for being the most right.  You don't lose points for being ~wrong~.  So maybe people should dedicate more effort to not being assholes in general; if someone is so devout in their atheism that they turn out to be a raging dick, they're really not any better than the religious dicks that they get so worked up over.

[Retribution]

When it's all said and done, you don't get points at the end for being the most right.  You don't lose points for being ~wrong~.  So maybe people should dedicate more effort to not being assholes in general; if someone is so devout in their atheism that they turn out to be a raging dick, they're really not any better than the religious dicks that they get so worked up over.

Another nice summary of my POV *shrugs* when I was younger I was a dick. I am still a dick just I like to think not as big of one I guess you get shrinkage with age. I lean right in my politics and have a religious bent to me. But I have decided extra belligerence does not make one extra right. So I try to be Zen about things because I know I sure to hell wasted a lot of energy being really mad over things in the past that in the end did not matter.

[Rogue]

Offers Miss Rogue a hug and smiles"I will take hugs from anyone..hugs are awsome."

*chuckles and gives hug*

And that's kind of important too, isn't it?  It doesn't matter how right you are right now.  It doesn't matter how truthful your insight into reality is.

When it's all said and done, you don't get points at the end for being the most right.  You don't lose points for being ~wrong~.  So maybe people should dedicate more effort to not being assholes in general; if someone is so devout in their atheism that they turn out to be a raging dick, they're really not any better than the religious dicks that they get so worked up over.

I think the issue is when people think that they do lose "points" for being wrong that they get so caught up in that they must be "right" else they're the ones losing the points, not the other way around. So people get up in arms about it, which is why I think most western religions are so upsetting. You don't see quite as much fighting or arguing (from what I know of the religions so please correct me if I'm wrong) amongst the eastern religions that I've studied until Western religions started to force their way in.

[Vanity Evolved]

And that's kind of important too, isn't it?  It doesn't matter how right you are right now.  It doesn't matter how truthful your insight into reality is.

When it's all said and done, you don't get points at the end for being the most right.  You don't lose points for being ~wrong~.  So maybe people should dedicate more effort to not being assholes in general; if someone is so devout in their atheism that they turn out to be a raging dick, they're really not any better than the religious dicks that they get so worked up over.

Nothing about being an atheist means you're right; there's plenty of atheists who believe the exact same stuff as Christians (See: The Reptilians. Except replace 'magic man in the sky' with 'a bunch of lizard aliens from another planet who live among us'). You also can, infact, lose points for being wrong. I'd rather someone, from the get go, understands that discrimination against say, homosexuals is wrong, than go through several years of attacking homosexuals because of what a fairytale told them, and -then- coming to the conclusion it was wrong after causing so many people misery.

It's also a bit of a weird way to put it. Atheism doesn't have a measure of 'devoutedness'. Either you believe there's a god, or you don't.

*chuckles and gives hug*

I think the issue is when people think that they do lose "points" for being wrong that they get so caught up in that they must be "right" else they're the ones losing the points, not the other way around. So people get up in arms about it, which is why I think most western religions are so upsetting. You don't see quite as much fighting or arguing (from what I know of the religions so please correct me if I'm wrong) amongst the eastern religions that I've studied until Western religions started to force their way in.

I'd tell that to the victims of the Dalli Llama's rather brutal theocratic caste system, Thuggie cultists, Islamic attitudes towards women, homosexuals and heretics and the Buddhist slaughter of Christians during the Meiji eras of Japan. :3 Every religion, like everyone else, has had their fair share of disagreements and fighting. If they didn't, you wouldn't have so many huge variations of minor splinter groups and cults.

[meikle]

I think the issue is when people think that they do lose "points" for being wrong that they get so caught up in that they must be "right" else they're the ones losing the points, not the other way around. So people get up in arms about it, which is why I think most western religions are so upsetting. You don't see quite as much fighting or arguing (from what I know of the religions so please correct me if I'm wrong) amongst the eastern religions that I've studied until Western religions started to force their way in.

But it doesn't really make sense for someone whose belief by nature is that there is no scorekeeper, right?  Militant atheists are a joke; they are counterproductive (people who are put on the defensive dig their heels in, they don't come to see reason; atheists should know this because it's science, it's a proven reality of human psychology), and they are hypocritical in most cases, since mostly they get angry about how religion oppresses people and then they do their best to oppress people (in their case, people who don't Believe In Science.)

I think atheists who start to have faith in their own creed go beyond the pale; they buy into their own ethos so hard that it becomes its own religion, its own cult.

You also can, infact, lose points for being wrong.

There are no points.  When you die, you're dead, game over, no score keeper to tell you Did It Right.

[Vanity Evolved]

But it doesn't really make sense for someone whose belief by nature is that there is no scorekeeper, right?  Militant atheists are a joke; they are counterproductive (people who are put on the defensive dig their heels in, they don't come to see reason; atheists should know this because it's science, it's a proven reality of human psychology), and they are hypocritical in most cases, since mostly they get angry about how religion oppresses people and then they do their best to oppress people (in their case, people who don't Believe In Science.)

I think atheists who start to have faith in their own creed go beyond the pale; they buy into their own ethos so hard that it becomes its own religion, its own cult.
There are no points.  When you die, you're dead, game over, no score keeper to tell you Did It Right.

It doesn't take faith to not believe in a god; atheism is the baseline, not a form of religion. I've yet to see atheists who 'oppress' others. I've seen them point out that no, it's complete bullshit for Christian politicians to deny homosexuals marriage based on 'what our book tells us'. There's a difference between oppression, and telling people that they can't force their beliefs onto others. You're free to believe whatever you want, but just because -you- believe in a magic fairytale which hates men for having buttsex with each other, doesn't mean you get to stop the rest of the world from their right to marry someone they love. I also don't feel you have the right to torture your child with the idea that they're going to be punished for all eternity for doing things common to teenagers, such as sex out of wedlock or being homosexual. I don't care what people believe, until their beliefs begin to impact other people, which is when I start to take offense.

[meikle]

Do you have any points beyond "Some Christians hate gay people!"?  Because it's getting to be a really tired point.

Also, I'm curious why it's okay for atheists to be so virulent and rude and hateful in the discussion boards.  I thought these forums were supposed to be ... welcoming?  It's kind of ridiculous.

I'm an atheist, too, you know, just not the terrible sort.

I don't care what people believe, until their beliefs begin to impact other people, which is when I start to take offense.

You are kind of a monumental hypocrite, tl;dr.

[Rogue]

Nothing about being an atheist means you're right; there's plenty of atheists who believe the exact same stuff as Christians (See: The Reptilians. Except replace 'magic man in the sky' with 'a bunch of lizard aliens from another planet who live among us'). You also can, infact, lose points for being wrong. I'd rather someone, from the get go, understands that discrimination against say, homosexuals is wrong, than go through several years of attacking homosexuals because of what a fairytale told them, and -then- coming to the conclusion it was wrong after causing so many people misery.

It's also a bit of a weird way to put it. Atheism doesn't have a measure of 'devoutedness'. Either you believe there's a god, or you don't.

That is called being a dick. I suppose we could say that they lead a less satisfying life because of it and miss out on meeting and knowing a lot of cool people. I suppose you can call that losing points. But last I checked, there was no tally.

... I also kind of believe that the Reptilians may have something to do with Dr Who based on these guys. While they're not technically aliens, they still have super advanced technology that could be considered alien... most likely a farce, much like pastafarians...

It doesn't take faith to not believe in a god; atheism is the baseline, not a form of religion. I've yet to see atheists who 'oppress' others. I've seen them point out that no, it's complete bullshit for Christian politicians to deny homosexuals marriage based on 'what our book tells us'. There's a difference between oppression, and telling people that they can't force their beliefs onto others. You're free to believe whatever you want, but just because -you- believe in a magic fairytale which hates men for having buttsex with each other, doesn't mean you get to stop the rest of the world from their right to marry someone they love. I also don't feel you have the right to torture your child with the idea that they're going to be punished for all eternity for doing things common to teenagers, such as sex out of wedlock or being homosexual. I don't care what people believe, until their beliefs begin to impact other people, which is when I start to take offense.

There are atheists who deny people the right to have a religious view and look down upon religious people a second class citizens. This I believe is what he was referring to.

But it doesn't really make sense for someone whose belief by nature is that there is no scorekeeper, right?  Militant atheists are a joke; they are counterproductive (people who are put on the defensive dig their heels in, they don't come to see reason; atheists should know this because it's science, it's a proven reality of human psychology), and they are hypocritical in most cases, since mostly they get angry about how religion oppresses people and then they do their best to oppress people (in their case, people who don't Believe In Science.)

I think atheists who start to have faith in their own creed go beyond the pale; they buy into their own ethos so hard that it becomes its own religion, its own cult.
There are no points.  When you die, you're dead, game over, no score keeper to tell you Did It Right.

I can't say more than I agree.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Takes faith to believe in nothing strongly enough to tell everyone else they are wrong with the sort of presumption that you utilize Vanity.  Takes faith to believe somehow that you know a Truth that you believe everyone else should accept because what you know to be true is rational and right, while their truth is irrational and made up.  Your zealotry on these forums is certainly a match for the most obnoxious Christian I’ve ever meet.

[Ephiral]

You... know nothing about the men's goals. How can you already judge a person when you don't even know why they might choose a trail. You know nothing about them.

The phrase "the journey is more important then the destination" is utterly lost on you. You didn't even take the time to consider it. It doesn't matter how they reached their goals.

The goal was explicitly stated in the first sentence of the post I was responding to:

Three men want to travel from Georgia to Maine.

Now, if the goal was to meet interesting people, see some new territory, and discover something about yourself? That's perfectly fine. Done it myself. The difference is that that was my goal. If your goal is to get from A to B, get from A to B as quickly and efficiently as possible and then spend the time and effort you've saved doing other things you care about. If your goal is to discover yourself, then spend your time and effort there. Conflating the two only leads you to waste both time and energy.

But hey, thanks for making a snap decision about my entire personality and worldview because I dared to say that the privileged perspective is privileged. Obviously I've got no idea how anything could have secondary or unexpected benefits, or learned a life lesson in an unlikely place, and I'm absolutely closed to new experiences. You can clearly tell because I presented a different view in a short forum post.

[Avis habilis]

This entire thread is turning into one big ourobouros of self-congratulatory awfulness. Stop insulting one another, start discussing ideas, or leave the thread. All of you.

[Vanity Evolved]

Takes faith to believe in nothing strongly enough to tell everyone else they are wrong with the sort of presumption that you utilize Vanity.  Takes faith to believe somehow that you know a Truth that you believe everyone else should accept because what you know to be true is rational and right, while their truth is irrational and made up.  Your zealotry on these forums is certainly a match for the most obnoxious Christian I’ve ever meet.

You're saying it takes more 'faith' to believe that sunflowers are yellow, than it does to believe in Hogwarts? Do you believe in Hogwarts? If so, why not?

Do you have any points beyond "Some Christians hate gay people!"?  Because it's getting to be a really tired point.

Also, I'm curious why it's okay for atheists to be so virulent and rude and hateful in the discussion boards.  I thought these forums were supposed to be ... welcoming?  It's kind of ridiculous.

I'm an atheist, too, you know, just not the terrible sort.

You are kind of a monumental hypocrite, tl;dr.

Well, admittedly, this is the Politics and Religious discussion boards - topics which tend to bring out the fire in people. It's not specifically about gay rights, but it's one of the relevant and easy to point to examples at the moment, especially with England discussing the potential right for homosexuals to marry. It's a prime example of religious belief inhibiting the rights of others. I'm not sure how I'm being a hypocrite, but. Feel free to say. It's not so much that the atheism on boards such as this is 'rude and hateful', it's more the fact religion is put on a pedestal where it's beyond reproach. If you say you believe in Spiderman, people think you're mad. If you say you believe in a magic man in the sky who can send you to a Helldungeon after you die, that's perfectly valid. And to question this or the morality of teaching your children that they're constantly being judged and possibly sent to Hell if they're not subserviant to your imaginary friend is apparently 'rude' or 'hateful'.

That is called being a dick. I suppose we could say that they lead a less satisfying life because of it and miss out on meeting and knowing a lot of cool people. I suppose you can call that losing points. But last I checked, there was no tally.

... I also kind of believe that the Reptilians may have something to do with Dr Who based on these guys. While they're not technically aliens, they still have super advanced technology that could be considered alien... most likely a farce, much like pastafarians...

There are atheists who deny people the right to have a religious view and look down upon religious people a second class citizens. This I believe is what he was referring to.

I can't say more than I agree.

No, there are people who legitimately believe in reptile aliens from another galaxy who created the human race. And yes, there are atheists who want to deny people a religious view. It's funny how a group of people who only share one trait, a lack of a belief in a divine being, arn't exact copies of each other in their beliefs and ideas on morality, eh?

This entire thread is turning into one big ourobouros of self-congratulatory awfulness. Stop insulting one another, start discussing ideas, or leave the thread. All of you.

Yeah, it is starting to become a perpetual hackle raising machine by this point.

[Rogue]

No, there are people who legitimately believe in reptile aliens from another galaxy who created the human race. And yes, there are atheists who want to deny people a religious view. It's funny how a group of people who only share one trait, a lack of a belief in a divine being, arn't exact copies of each other in their beliefs and ideas on morality, eh?

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of the idea, just curious if that had been a possibility. Many atheist churches created post internet creation seems to be created with the original intent to be a farce. I know there's an atheistic religion that came from I believe India, holding no belief in a deity whats so ever. However, I'd have to see if I still have notes from that class to figure out which religion it was.

Also, I know many different kinds of atheists, and I would not presume to know which kind you are. I don't know you personally. I've met atheists who have a higher moral caliber then many people and would not think to force it on anyone. I know atheists who can calmly debate religion and seek to understand it. I know an atheist who really does look down on anyone who is religious or goes to church. All of these are from real life experiences, not from E and I meant to portray my view from that stand point.

I wasn't trying to attack you or your beliefs and I apologize if I came off in such a manner.

[Ephiral]

There are atheists who deny people the right to have a religious view and look down upon religious people a second class citizens. This I believe is what he was referring to.

Nonetheless, this is wrong. The religious, as a class, are not second-class citizens and are not oppressed in... well, any nation I can think of. Can you name a single law which was ever passed (or even proposed) anywhere explicitly because "this is an atheist nation!" to the detriment of believers? Anybody who lost a shot at political office because their faith was too strong? (There are those who lost because they were of the wrong faith, but that is a separate issue.) Anywhere it's considered acceptable to casually destroy the property and signage of religion, and the police will refuse to do anything about it? Anywhere the religious are explicitly denied equal public voice with the faithless? Any inverse equivalent to the fiasco that gave us Rock Beyond Belief? Anywhere the religious, as a category, are automatically and intrinsically deemed untrustworthy by a majority of the populace?

Yes, some atheists look down their noses at religious people. Yes, some atheists are total assholes. This is not the same as oppression or second-class citizenship, and it is frankly insulting to say it is.

[TaintedAndDelish]

I think she was trying to say, don't assume one is better than the other because we all get to the same place at the end. (ie: Dead)

If you are suggesting ( and perhaps you were not ) that we ( individuals, the earth, and perhaps even our universe ) will eventually die and therefore nothing we do really matters in the end, then I have to disagree. Yes, its reasonable to believe that in the end we will be recycled into the earth and cosmos, that our lights will go out and nothing will matter to the individual, but this logic negates everything we could possibly do. This argument could be used to justify anything.

[Oniya]

The destination is moot.  The means of getting there may be longer for some, and may have more tribulations or more rewards, but in the end, no one travels any road but their own. 

[Rogue]

Nonetheless, this is wrong. The religious, as a class, are not second-class citizens and are not oppressed in... well, any nation I can think of. Can you name a single law which was ever passed (or even proposed) anywhere explicitly because "this is an atheist nation!" to the detriment of believers? Anybody who lost a shot at political office because their faith was too strong? (There are those who lost because they were of the wrong faith, but that is a separate issue.) Anywhere it's considered acceptable to casually destroy the property and signage of religion, and the police will refuse to do anything about it? Anywhere the religious are explicitly denied equal public voice with the faithless? Any inverse equivalent to the fiasco that gave us Rock Beyond Belief? Anywhere the religious, as a category, are automatically and intrinsically deemed untrustworthy by a majority of the populace?

Yes, some atheists look down their noses at religious people. Yes, some atheists are total assholes. This is not the same as oppression or second-class citizenship, and it is frankly insulting to say it is.

I, once again apologize as I wasn't meaning to insult anyone. And I know, very much so, how religion has been an oppressing force. However, to say that no country has gone Atheist and been oppressed is to miss one of the dictators who killed almost if not more than the holocaust. Communism states banned religion and murdered because of it. Joseph Stalin was a dictator and ruled over this. People caught being religious in their homes were killed or sent to Siberia. I will source myself if necessary, but there has been a precedent where if anyone believes they are right strongly enough then they hold the capacity to oppress those who don't believe the same way.

If you are suggesting ( and perhaps you were not ) that we ( individuals, the earth, and perhaps even our universe ) will eventually die and therefore nothing we do really matters in the end, then I have to disagree. Yes, its reasonable to believe that in the end we will be recycled into the earth and cosmos, that our lights will go out and nothing will matter to the individual, but this logic negates everything we could possibly do. This argument could be used to justify anything.

I wasn't suggesting that and was merely being simplistic in my statement. Yes, in the short term of things what we say and do with our lives matters. Meeting someone or smiling at someone can save another life. One person could inspire an entire generation of people to do great things.

On the converse side of that, in the grand scheme of things, assuming the calculations on the age of the earth is correct, we are but a blip, even less than that as individuals. We could destroy this Earth, but should we (meaning all humans) leave it now, everything would revert back to how it was. The history channel did quite a piece on this way of thinking. Life after People. It's all about how big you want to think. I prefer the first in my day to day simply because this one, thinking in the long scheme of things, is frankly way too depressing for me to deal with.

[Cyrano Johnson]

Can you name a single law which was ever passed (or even proposed) anywhere explicitly because "this is an atheist nation!" to the detriment of believers?

I wish people wouldn't do this, because yes, there have been examples of such nations and they're not really the kind of thing you want to bring up. The communist bloc during much of the 20c did in fact suppress religion as a matter of doctrinaire atheism -- no I am not equating atheism with communism but yes, they were real examples of repression of religion using atheism as a justification -- and China's suppression of the Falun Gong and its occupation of Tibet have been justified along similar lines as campaigns against religious "feudalism." People should really not ask "has there ever been an example of atheist repression" as if it's a purely rhetorical question. We as atheists should just not ever do that.

[TaintedAndDelish]

On the converse side of that, in the grand scheme of things, assuming the calculations on the age of the earth is correct, we are but a blip, even less than that as individuals. We could destroy this Earth, but should we (meaning all humans) leave it now, everything would revert back to how it was. The history channel did quite a piece on this way of thinking. Life after People. It's all about how big you want to think. I prefer the first in my day to day simply because this one, thinking in the long scheme of things, is frankly way too depressing for me to deal with.

Reminds me or Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot". I think this is the clip itself. He gives some nice insight and perspective on this. ( theme is sort of about not being a dick and about how little we really matter in comparison to the universe )
Pale Blue Dot - Carl Sagan [Original]

[Beguile's Mistress]

It has been requested on more than one occasion that your remarks be objective and not personal. 

Should you not be able to discuss things in that manner, stating you own opinion and NOT calling out others because they have a different one, this thread will be locked and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Religion and politics are hot button issues but intelligence outweights impulse in most cases.  We're looking for some of that here.

[Ephiral]

I, once again apologize as I wasn't meaning to insult anyone. And I know, very much so, how religion has been an oppressing force. However, to say that no country has gone Atheist and been oppressed is to miss one of the dictators who killed almost if not more than the holocaust. Communism states banned religion and murdered because of it. Joseph Stalin was a dictator and ruled over this. People caught being religious in their homes were killed or sent to Siberia. I will source myself if necessary, but there has been a precedent where if anyone believes they are right strongly enough then they hold the capacity to oppress those who don't believe the same way.

First: I was speaking of Meikle's statement, not yours. You've been nothing but gracious.

Second: I can't believe the Stalin counterpoint slipped my mind. Point to you, though I'll note that that's absolutely the exception, not the rule.

Third: Your premise is good; the conclusion is faulty. The underclass cannot oppress the dominant class, no matter how vehement their belief. As it stands in, say, the modern USA, it is not possible for atheists to oppress believers, because atheists do not have the power at their disposal to do so. Perfect belief is misguided, but it does not make institutional power materialize out of thin air.

I wish people wouldn't do this, because yes, there have been examples of such nations and they're not really the kind of thing you want to bring up. The communist bloc during much of the 20c did in fact suppress religion as a matter of doctrinaire atheism -- no I am not equating atheism with communism but yes, they were real examples of repression of religion using atheism as a justification -- and China's suppression of the Falun Gong and its occupation of Tibet have been justified along similar lines as campaigns against religious "feudalism." People should really not ask "has there ever been an example of atheist repression" as if it's a purely rhetorical question. We as atheists should just not ever do that.

Yes, you're absolutely right. I was completely wrong in doing so - though it's important to note that, in the case of China, they seem to be picking and choosing which ones they're targeting, indicating that it's not about atheism per se, but about justifying the party's actions and directing loyalties to them. (This was the actual goal in Russia as well, but I'll take heavyhanded repression of religion as a whole, ostensibly because "religion is bad", as fitting the question I asked.)

[Cyrano Johnson]

it's important to note that, in the case of China, they seem to be picking and choosing which ones they're targeting, indicating that it's not about atheism per se, but about justifying the party's actions and directing loyalties to them.

I completely agree. By the same token I think it's important to keep this same kind of factor in mind with "religious" oppression and repression, too; oftentimes religion is simply the instrument of an unrelated goal.

[Ephiral]

I completely agree. By the same token I think it's important to keep this same kind of factor in mind with "religious" oppression and repression, too; oftentimes religion is simply the instrument of an unrelated goal.

The difference is that not all of the religious are an underclass in China - just the specific subsets that tend to dissent on political matters. That's what separates it from Russia, or from the Religious Right in America. It doesn't matter where the believers in Russia or the nonbelievers in the US stand - they could toe the party line, but their faith or lack thereof damns them.

[Rogue]

First: I was speaking of Meikle's statement, not yours. You've been nothing but gracious.

Second: I can't believe the Stalin counterpoint slipped my mind. Point to you, though I'll note that that's absolutely the exception, not the rule.

Third: Your premise is good; the conclusion is faulty. The underclass cannot oppress the dominant class, no matter how vehement their belief. As it stands in, say, the modern USA, it is not possible for atheists to oppress believers, because atheists do not have the power at their disposal to do so. Perfect belief is misguided, but it does not make institutional power materialize out of thin air.

You are correct. The underclass cannot oppress the dominant class. And as it stand in the US currently it would not be possible for Atheists to oppress believers, simply because they do have control of the government and too many people are religious.

I was merely trying, and failing, to state that strong enough belief can attempt to force change. According to what I found, unfortunately due to a Wiki article, 1.4 million people fully claim to be Atheist. Now 1.4 million is a lot of people. That's as large as the US military's active service. We're not even including those who are Agnostic and would prefer Atheist rule to Christian. Now, if every single of those Atheists believed strongly that they were being oppressed and had the will and desire to oppress those who've oppressed them? It would technically be possible via a military coup if they were able to illegally receive supplies (say from one of the many countries that would enjoy seeing the US in even greater turmoil) to match those of the Military's ground forces. The AirForce and Navy would be the next to be taken and well... It could happen.

Now, is this going to happen to a government where many believe so strongly that we can change things peacefully? Probably not. Is it technically possible, I think so.

Institutional power never appears out of thin air, and I'd never think to put that as a thought process, but there is the potential for it to grow into one.

[Vanity Evolved]

I wasn't trying to be dismissive of the idea, just curious if that had been a possibility. Many atheist churches created post internet creation seems to be created with the original intent to be a farce. I know there's an atheistic religion that came from I believe India, holding no belief in a deity whats so ever. However, I'd have to see if I still have notes from that class to figure out which religion it was.

Also, I know many different kinds of atheists, and I would not presume to know which kind you are. I don't know you personally. I've met atheists who have a higher moral caliber then many people and would not think to force it on anyone. I know atheists who can calmly debate religion and seek to understand it. I know an atheist who really does look down on anyone who is religious or goes to church. All of these are from real life experiences, not from E and I meant to portray my view from that stand point.

I wasn't trying to attack you or your beliefs and I apologize if I came off in such a manner.

Don't worry, didn't mean to sound snappy :3 Just this chat has got a bit heated, so the way I've been typing may have come across as being a bit harsh myself. Sorry. But yeah, it is possible to have a religion which is itself atheist (Reptilians, Realians, whatever they're called. Quite a few sects of Buddhism qualify as atheist, etc.). But yeah, you do get people who're largely quite harsh on the religious. But even then, that isn't the same as 'oppression'. Remember, the religious are the majority in most countries, which quite ironically makes the atheist community the oppressed (as Ephrial pointed out, how many times have you seen religious people denied marriage because they're Christian? How many people do you see denied being into office for being too Christian?). But by this point, I'm not sure what the discussion in this thread has gone to...

[Ephiral]

I was merely trying, and failing, to state that strong enough belief can attempt to force change. According to what I found, unfortunately due to a Wiki article, 1.4 million people fully claim to be Atheist. Now 1.4 million is a lot of people. That's as large as the US military's active service. We're not even including those who are Agnostic and would prefer Atheist rule to Christian. Now, if every single of those Atheists believed strongly that they were being oppressed and had the will and desire to oppress those who've oppressed them? It would technically be possible via a military coup if they were able to illegally receive supplies (say from one of the many countries that would enjoy seeing the US in even greater turmoil) to match those of the Military's ground forces. The AirForce and Navy would be the next to be taken and well... It could happen.

I think you'd have an extremely hard time finding another nation, or coalition of nations, willing to throw even a fraction of the US's military budget at training and arming a force of foreign insurgents. Even if you could, they wouldn't have the infrastructure and strategic capabilities of the US military - which is strongly institituionally Christian. On top of this, 1.4 million seems like a lot of people - hell, let's crank it higher and count the full hundred million who do not actively profess a belief in any god. That still leaves them outarmed and outnumbered 2:1 by the other side, and this is assuming every single nonbeliever is the sort of militant who thinks that force of arms is an acceptable way to gain power that will in no way destabilize the nation for generations.

No, it's not really possible. Far more likely would be a reversal of the current political situation, through peaceful political process - but even then you'll find a number of atheists who would stand firm against it. (I'd like to think that this is the majority, but I have zero hard data to corroborate, and I know for a fact my sample is heavily biased - I tend not to associate with bigots of any stripe if I can help it.) There are entire organizations of them, even now. That sort of thing is what A+ is all about.

[Rogue]

I think you'd have an extremely hard time finding another nation, or coalition of nations, willing to throw even a fraction of the US's military budget at training and arming a force of foreign insurgents. Even if you could, they wouldn't have the infrastructure and strategic capabilities of the US military - which is strongly institituionally Christian. On top of this, 1.4 million seems like a lot of people - hell, let's crank it higher and count the full hundred million who do not actively profess a belief in any god. That still leaves them outarmed and outnumbered 2:1 by the other side, and this is assuming every single nonbeliever is the sort of militant who thinks that force of arms is an acceptable way to gain power that will in no way destabilize the nation for generations.

No, it's not really possible. Far more likely would be a reversal of the current political situation, through peaceful political process - but even then you'll find a number of atheists who would stand firm against it. (I'd like to think that this is the majority, but I have zero hard data to corroborate, and I know for a fact my sample is heavily biased - I tend not to associate with bigots of any stripe if I can help it.) There are entire organizations of them, even now. That sort of thing is what A+ is all about.

I honestly didn't think about the money they'd have to spare for such an undertaking in comparison... And even though I know that the 1.4 mil isn't a lot of people, I merely was comparing it to our current standing military. This isn't even considering those in the military who consider themselves Atheist. I also was considering extreme circumstances, which are not occurring and will likely never occur, merely entertaining the possibility and potential based purely on the numbers I found.

I would like to agree with you on the hope that such a thing would never occur though. Quite honestly, oppression, be it in your favor or against it, is never a good thing and always affects everyone.

[Ephiral]

I would like to agree with you on the hope that such a thing would never occur though. Quite honestly, oppression, be it in your favor or against it, is never a good thing and always affects everyone.

Absolutely. That's why I'm A+ myself.

[Shjade]

You're saying it takes more 'faith' to believe that sunflowers are yellow, than it does to believe in Hogwarts? Do you believe in Hogwarts? If so, why not?

No, they're saying it takes as much faith to believe that sunflowers that you cannot see or in any way prove exist or do not exist are yellow as it does to believe in Hogwarts.

In other words, you have as much faith in the non-existence of a force you cannot prove does not exist as others have faith in the existence of a force they cannot prove does exist.

You're not "right." They're not "wrong." You believe different things for your own reasons, and that's okay.

[Ephiral]

I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit false equivalence. Most atheists I know would be happy to believe in God the moment the evidence for outweighs the evidence against. It's just that the evidence for... well, doesn't exist, and the evidence that God is unnecessary and non-explanatory does, so why add this extra entity to the equation? This is, of course, not true of all atheists, because there are people who reason poorly in all groups.

(I'd go a bit further and say evidence against does exist, but that's because I'm a Bayesian. Failing minimum message length - Occam's, in layman's terms - is evidence against a hypothesis.)

[Shjade]

Thinking that something is unnecessary or illogical isn't "evidence." If it were, scientists wouldn't need to test things; they could just assume whatever makes sense or seems necessary is true, since those assumptions are, themselves, evidence of those things being true.

Evidence does not work that way.

[Ephiral]

Thinking that something is unnecessary or illogical isn't "evidence." If it were, scientists wouldn't need to test things; they could just assume whatever makes sense or seems necessary is true, since those assumptions are, themselves, evidence of those things being true.

Evidence does not work that way.

Thinking that something is unnecessary is not evidence. Having a theory which fits the facts at least as well, has at least as much explanatory and predictive power, and does not require that extra element? Absolutely does constitute Bayesian evidence against the extra element. Evidence does, in fact, work that way, which is where we get concepts like Solomonoff induction and minimum message length.

[Shjade]

You'll have to educate me on this "Bayesian evidence." All I can find are Bayes' rule, which relates to odds and probability (read as: not evidence) and Bayesian inference, which are inferences made via the aforementioned rule.

[Ephiral]

You'll have to educate me on this "Bayesian evidence." All I can find are Bayes' rule, which relates to odds and probability (read as: not evidence) and Bayesian inference, which are inferences made via the aforementioned rule.

It's a reference to the rule itself. "Bayesian evidence" would be observed facts about the conditions around us which make one hypothesis more likely than another to be correct. Minimum message length, a Bayesian principle, is a direct consequence of a statistical law: The probability of A+B is equal to the probability of A given B, multiplied by the probability of B on its own. The conjunction of two events or entities is therefore always less probable than the more-probable of the two on its own. Result: The hypothesis with the least elements is the most probable one, given equal fit to facts and equal explanatory power. We have a hypothesis which does not require God to explain the Universe working as we see it, and it fits all observed facts. It is therefore more likely than one that does, unless this new one has additional explanatory power.

[meikle]

"You can't even be sure that sunflowers really exist" sounds like an epistemological argument, and I'm not sure that an argument about probability really addresses it.

Does this MML thing suggest that it is more likely that there is just me and no sunflowers than that there are both me and a sunflower working in collusion to experience the color yellow?

[Ephiral]

"You can't even be sure that sunflowers really exist" sounds like an epistemological argument, and I'm not sure that an argument about probability really addresses it.

Good thing I wasn't trying to; I was trying to address the assertion that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God.

My rebuttal to that line of reasoning is a simple "So what?" Either the universe exists, or we are unable to do anything. The rest is just verification.

[Shjade]

Good thing I wasn't trying to; I was trying to address the assertion that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God.

Which you have addressed by confirming that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God, just that it's a more statistically probable faith than the opposite.

[Ephiral]

Which you have addressed by confirming that all atheists have faith in the non-existence of God, just that it's a more statistically probable faith than the opposite.

...then I am confused. Perhaps you could define "faith"? In my mind, assertion that X is more probable than Y, and adjusting based on presented evidence, does not fit the bill. Is it faith if I say it's not likely that the sun exploded in the last eight minutes?

[Kythia]

I'm sorry, but that's a bullshit false equivalence. Most atheists I know would be happy to believe in God the moment the evidence for outweighs the evidence against. It's just that the evidence for... well, doesn't exist, and the evidence that God is unnecessary and non-explanatory does, so why add this extra entity to the equation? This is, of course, not true of all atheists, because there are people who reason poorly in all groups.

(I'd go a bit further and say evidence against does exist, but that's because I'm a Bayesian. Failing minimum message length - Occam's, in layman's terms - is evidence against a hypothesis.)

That way solipsism lies, surely.  The chances of me alone, making all the rest of you up, is higher than the chances of me AND all you guys existing.  You add no extra explanatory power (because I could just as easily be making you up) and you're unnecessary.

[Ephiral]

That way solipsism lies, surely.  The chances of me alone, making all the rest of you up, is higher than the chances of me AND all you guys existing.  You add no extra explanatory power (because I could just as easily be making you up) and you're unnecessary.

This is true given no other evidence. There is, however, other evidence.

(you're reading some)

[Shjade]

If you have no way of knowing whether the sun has exploded in the last eight minutes, yes. If you have some conclusive reason to believe that, then it's not faith, it's an educated guess.

Given just about any observation could be used to either support the existence or non-existence of God, there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject, which means any belief you have on the subject is based on faith, whether it's faith in X religious principle or faith in X scientific/mathematic principle.

As far as I can tell, Bayesian inference doesn't help one way or the other on this subject. It may, however, provide more credence to the theory that, if he exists, God is a dick given the prevalence of shitty things he permits to take place in his name, but that wouldn't do anything toward proving or disproving his existence in the first place so it doesn't really help. (Alternatively: that he doesn't have power to affect human actions, but that would probably conflict with most religions' interpretations of deities.)

[Kythia]

This is true given no other evidence. There is, however, other evidence.

(you're reading some)

As someone who regularly finds notes to myself I have no memory of writing and, often, no idea why I wrote them (I found a bus ticket with "TTIWWSDT" scrawled on it, in my handwriting, in my pocket the other day.  What the hell did I mean by that?)  I remain unconvinced.

[Ephiral]

If you have no way of knowing whether the sun has exploded in the last eight minutes, yes. If you have some conclusive reason to believe that, then it's not faith, it's an educated guess.

Its prior history, comparison with other main-stage yellow stars, and lack of observed instabilities that would cause a supernova are all evidence, yes.

Given just about any observation could be used to either support the existence or non-existence of God, there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject, which means any belief you have on the subject is based on faith, whether it's faith in X religious principle or faith in X scientific/mathematic principle.

Um. That doesn't even begin to hold. Once again, P(A+B) = P(A|B)*P(B). Given only observations that are equally likely with or without God, the not-God theory is more likely than the God theory.

As far as I can tell, Bayesian inference doesn't help one way or the other on this subject. It may, however, provide more credence to the theory that, if he exists, God is a dick given the prevalence of shitty things he permits to take place in his name, but that wouldn't do anything toward proving or disproving his existence in the first place so it doesn't really help.

It doesn't prove anything at all, no, because when people say "prove" they generally mean P=1, and 0 and 1 are infinities that make probability go screwy. It does, however, tell us which propositions are more likely, and therefore more worth treating as true.

As someone who regularly finds notes to myself I have no memory of writing and, often, no idea why I wrote them (I found a bus ticket with "TTIWWSDT" scrawled on it, in my handwriting, in my pocket the other day.  What the hell did I mean by that?)  I remain unconvinced.

Do you own a server capable of hosting E? Are you capable of implementing E?

[meikle]

Do you own a server capable of hosting E? Are you capable of implementing E?

All it takes is a mind capable of imagining E!

[Ephiral]

All it takes is a mind capable of imagining E!

...and delusional enough to confuse that imagining with reality, yes, but we could look for evidence of that sort of delusional state, too.

[Oniya]

Now, now, let's not put Descartes before the horse.

[Shjade]

I'm aware of the evidence re: sun exploding, Ephiral. I was just answering your question.

Um. That doesn't even begin to hold. Once again, P(A+B) = P(A|B)*P(B). Given only observations that are equally likely with or without God, the not-God theory is more likely than the God theory.

Which holds with my statement perfectly: "there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject"

"more likely" != true (at least not when the subject can't be in any way measured, tested, etc.)

[Ephiral]

I'm aware of the evidence re: sun exploding, Ephiral. I was just answering your question.

Which holds with my statement perfectly: "there's no way to achieve conclusive reasoning on the subject"

"more likely" != true

Then "X is faith" becomes a meaningless statement, because literally any possible statement is faith, because probabilities of 0 and 1 basically don't happen.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Now, now, let's not put Descartes before the horse.

He doesn't like it behind the horse either.  It's stinky and messy back there. ;D

[Kythia]

Do you own a server capable of hosting E? Are you capable of implementing E?

1) SOMEONE has and does, though.  And I suspect the chances of that someone being me  and having forgotten are higher than the chances of other people existing.  I rarely pay attention to what I say and do, it seems pretty feasible.  I was probably drunk.

or if you prefer

2) Given that I've made you all up, why can I not also have made E up? 

Either works.

The main point is that in a system devoted to multiplying probabilities, your counter examples are just, errrr, speculation unless you provide the probabilities of those counter examples.  Honestly, being as I do stuff all the time and then forget having done it, it seems way more likely to me that E is an example of that.  Why can't I still?  Implement E and host it?  I dunno, maybe I can.  I have a laptop, maybe that can host it.  never actually tried implementing E, maybe it'll all come flooding back to me if I do.  Is either of those less likely than the existence of other people, in objective terms? 

Meh.  I don't really care, tbh.  Just realised.

[Shjade]

Then "X is faith" becomes a meaningless statement, because literally any possible statement is faith, because probabilities of 0 and 1 basically don't happen.

Something doesn't need to be binary to be true or false. Gravity is a theory, but you can test it. It's conclusive, if only likely.

"X doesn't exist because the world is simpler if it doesn't exist" isn't conclusive. It's common sense, maybe, but since when is that a scientific/mathematical proof?

[Ephiral]

1) SOMEONE has and does, though.  And I suspect the chances of that someone being me  and having forgotten are higher than the chances of other people existing.  I rarely pay attention to what I say and do, it seems pretty feasible.  I was probably drunk.

or if you prefer

2) Given that I've made you all up, why can I not also have made E up? 

Either works.

The main point is that in a system devoted to multiplying probabilities, your counter examples are just, errrr, speculation unless you provide the probabilities of those counter examples.  Honestly, being as I do stuff all the time and then forget having done it, it seems way more likely to me that E is an example of that.  Why can't I still?  Implement E and host it?  I dunno, maybe I can.  I have a laptop, maybe that can host it.  never actually tried implementing E, maybe it'll all come flooding back to me if I do.  Is either of those less likely than the existence of other people, in objective terms? 

Meh.  I don't really care, tbh.  Just realised.

Honestly? Yes, yes they are. We know E's requirements, and it is exceedingly unlikely that your laptop fills even the ones it's physically possible for it to. Also, the probability that other people exist has to be measured against the probability that you popped into existence without other people, which is exceedingly low.

Honestly, though, I think I'm just going to say that Bayes has shown to be reliable and at an excellent balance point between speed, evidence required, and accuracy as compared to alternative methods of evaluating our observations.

[Oniya]

Actually, it looked more like she was angling for the 'I could be completely imagining this conversation/interaction' approach.  No computer required.

[Ephiral]

Something doesn't need to be binary to be true or false. Gravity is a theory, but you can test it. It's conclusive, if only likely.

It's hardly conclusive - that test might be in error, or there could be another as-yet undiscovered theory which better fits the evidence, or there could be evidence we don't have yet, or the entire universe could be a highly-detailed simulation. If you are not willing to accept "more likely" as "true" at all, then p=0.999... is not sufficient to declare truth, and p=1 doesn't happen.

"X doesn't exist because the world is simpler if it doesn't exist" isn't conclusive. It's common sense, maybe, but since when is that a scientific/mathematical proof?

"Proof" as you seem to be defining it does not exist.

Regardless, when faced with two mutually contradictory hypotheses about reality, it makes sense to treat the one with greater probability as true and the other as false pending new evidence - which will force an update and shift the balance of probability.

[Kythia]

Bayes has shown to be reliable and at an excellent balance point between speed, evidence required, and accuracy as compared

Bayes Exists AND at an excellent balance point between etc etc etc.  Less likely than simply "Bayes Exists".  In fact, more things don't fulfil those criteria than do, so it's more likely that "Bayes exists AND isn't at an excellent balance point between etc etc etc" than the converse.  Bayesian evidence would seem to suggest Bayes doesn't work.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Taking the one with the highest probability is a flawed methodology for determining the truth though.  For one there is the question of how the probability was drawn up, tested and constructed.  Second there is also the fact that even if one answer has the higher probably that answer can still be wrong and therefore not the truth.

[Ephiral]

Taking the one with the highest probability is a flawed methodology for determining the truth though.  For one there is the question of how the probability was drawn up, tested and constructed.  Second there is also the fact that even if one answer has the higher probably that answer can still be wrong and therefore not the truth.

It's a theorem. It was constructed out of mathematical proofs. It is one of the most certain things in the entire universe.

Can one still go wrong in the application? Yes. But you'll be more correct more often this way - that much is proven inasmuch as anything can be.
Truth is simple: "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white. Determining actual truth is hard - we cannot trust our obervations perfectly. Ergo, we must use a weighted probability distribution; doing so via Bayes simply makes us consciously aware of the rules any such distribution must obey, and tells us how we should weight them to come as close as we can to the world outside our brains.

Bayes Exists AND at an excellent balance point between etc etc etc.  Less likely than simply "Bayes Exists".  In fact, more things don't fulfil those criteria than do, so it's more likely that "Bayes exists AND isn't at an excellent balance point between etc etc etc" than the converse.  Bayesian evidence would seem to suggest Bayes doesn't work.

...sigh. I do not have the energy or patience required to prove a theorem from first principles to people arguing in bad faith tonight. Sorry, Kythia, I know you mean this in fun, but I'm not going to continue this line of discussion.

[Kythia]

Fair enough, and you're quite right I was just picking on you.  What's more I should go for a run. 

One last one

Of course, it's far more doors DON'T lead to the outside of my house than do, so who knows where I'll end up when I leave  :P

[Kythia]

Oh, while Im thinking though, and in all seriousness now, if you know of a decent link to a proof then please do throw it up.  If not, I shall a google but I figure there's a good chance that you might know of one AND I can tap into your quality control.

Hmmm, don't seem to be able to stop.  I better go.

[Shjade]

It's hardly conclusive - that test might be in error, or there could be another as-yet undiscovered theory which better fits the evidence, or there could be evidence we don't have yet, or the entire universe could be a highly-detailed simulation

"Proof" as you seem to be defining it does not exist.

Well heck, if you're going to argue against yourself I guess I don't need to play devil's advocate anymore.

Also, I said "a scientific/mathematical proof" there, not "proof" as a concept. They're different things, as I'm reasonably sure you're aware. Assuming you exist.

[Ephiral]

Oh, while Im thinking though, and in all seriousness now, if you know of a decent link to a proof then please do throw it up.  If not, I shall a google but I figure there's a good chance that you might know of one AND I can tap into your quality control.

Hmmm, don't seem to be able to stop.  I better go.

Here's the formal proof.

Well heck, if you're going to argue against yourself I guess I don't need to play devil's advocate anymore.

Also, I said "a scientific/mathematical proof" there, not "proof" as a concept. They're different things, as I'm reasonably sure you're aware. Assuming you exist.

Yes, but if you're looking for a mathematical proof (science doesn't have proofs, only lack of disproofs) of a non-mathematical proposition, you're going to be disappointed, because there is no realistic value you can enter into any mathematical equation anywhere to make p=1. Which brings us, then, to "If you require p=1, all is faith up to and including "I exist" (Descartes, eat your heart out), and thus saying "X is faith" is a zero-information statement, devoid of meaning or content".

[gaggedLouise]

All it takes is a mind capable of imagining E!

"There are but two people on this forum, you...and me socking behind all the other accounts and writing their posts."

(read that one at a much smaller forum than E)

[TaintedAndDelish]

All it takes is a mind capable of imagining E!

Heh heh .. out of the 6 billion or so people skittering around in this world, only one has imagined and implemented E thus far.
( Bold added to quote for emphasis )

[Rogue]

Heh heh .. out of the 6 billion or so people skittering around in this world, only one has imagined and implemented E thus far.
( Bold added to quote for emphasis )

Not likely, since we all found it. Say we didn't find what we were looking for when we found E? Some of us would have been like, damn I'll just write my stories alone. Some others would probably go NO! I will bring all the awesome writers to this one place and we shall have fun writing together!

And thus E, or a variant there of, is born.

However, we have E and Veks already has it set up and awesome so why do we need to go creating something that already exists.

It's like recreating a sandwich of which we are the meat and toppings and condiments. We have a perfectly good sandwich here, why would we go try to make a new one if this one is still filling us up? (Literally the only analogy I could think of and I just woke up... *hides*)

[Kythia]

Not likely, since we all found it. Say we didn't find what we were looking for when we found E? Some of us would have been like, damn I'll just write my stories alone. Some others would probably go NO! I will bring all the awesome writers to this one place and we shall have fun writing together!

And thus E, or a variant there of, is born.

She's right.  Further, this is actually evidence for meikle's point.

Take the death star.  Which is more likely - that the money, time, effort, motivation, knowledge, etc required to create it were actually invested or that it was simply made up?  The harder something is to implement the more likely it is that it doesn't exist.  Sure, we have more evidence for E than the Death Star but it remains to be seen if that is sufficient to prove it exists and isn't simply a figment of my imagination, I'll return to that in a moment.

In general, rational (non-religious) arguments fail against "this leads to solipsism".  So my charges were unfair.  Note that I'm not laying this as a criticism of rational arguments I'm actually, now I'm no longer just trying to wind Ephiral up, laying it as a criticism of solipsism.  It's a piece of rhetorical trickery that adds nothing to an argument.  Criticising Bayesian induction for not addressing it is almost as valid as criticising it for not making the sky green.

Why Religious Arguments Don't Fail

"I believe the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth"
"How do you know the world isn't just a figment of your imagination"
"Bible says so"
"How do you know other people exist"
"Bible says so"
"How do you know the Bible is the ultimate source of truth"
"Bible says so"

In general, the further you get from accepting reason and the evidence of your senses as a basis for truth, the more immune you are to charges your argument leads to solipsism.  That's not me claiming superiority of biblical literalism, I've already said that being immune to leading to solipsism isn't a benefit.

Of course, the religious aren't immune to actually being solipsists - having made up the bible and everything in it in the first place - I'm simply saying that that position doesn't lead to solipsism

Almost.  Because while the charge is mostly unfair, its not totally.  It does seem to me that Bayes fails particularly hard against solipsism, hard enough to open itself to some non-solipsist arguments.  Look at the housing market bubble.  A group of people convinced themselves that their method worked and ignored evidence to the contrary.  Sure, Ephiral has been kind enough to link a proof - which I haven't got round to reading it - but CDOs had a triple A credit rating: there was a great deal of psychological pressure to accept the "proof" of their opinion.

Which brings me neatly to the main objection I have with using Bayes as a baseline for epistemology.  It's inherently mathematical.  You know what?  Maybe it IS more likely than not that other people exist.  But humans are notoriously bad at an innate grip of probabilities.  So without a rigorous demonstration of the possibilities, its simply an assertion unsupported by evidence.  Maybe it is more likely than not that Bayes' method isn't simply groupthink and confirmation bias.  But lacking the proof, it comes down to a matter of opinion.  Any claim made through Bayes that isn't accompanied by a proof I can dismiss with an airy wave of my hand and a reminder that Hitchens' razor cuts both ways.  Despite a recent loss in a broadly similar contest, I'm pretty certain that Ephiral will get fed up of providing rigorous analyses of every ridiculous notion I propose to him quicker than I get fed up of proposing ridiculous notions.



Not to say that all of my teasing had merit.  The other thing I did - the point at which Ephiral quite rightly threw up her arms and said "I'm not even going to talk to you if you're being like this" - was define my terms dishonestly:

It's clearly more likely that "Kythia exists" than that "Kythia exists AND is sometimes wrong".  There we go, Bayesian induction proves I'm always right.  QED motherfuckers.

[Ephiral]

Almost.  Because while the charge is mostly unfair, its not totally.  It does seem to me that Bayes fails particularly hard against solipsism, hard enough to open itself to some non-solipsist arguments.  Look at the housing market bubble.  A group of people convinced themselves that their method worked and ignored evidence to the contrary.  Sure, Ephiral has been kind enough to link a proof - which I haven't got round to reading it - but CDOs had a triple A credit rating: there was a great deal of psychological pressure to accept the "proof" of their opinion.

And they were ignoring the considerable evidence that that rating was in no way justified. They failed to update on the evidence. Of course Bayes fails when you fail to update; do you criticize your computer for not working when it is turned off?

Which brings me neatly to the main objection I have with using Bayes as a baseline for epistemology.  It's inherently mathematical.  You know what?  Maybe it IS more likely than not that other people exist.  But humans are notoriously bad at an innate grip of probabilities.  So without a rigorous demonstration of the possibilities, its simply an assertion unsupported by evidence.  Maybe it is more likely than not that Bayes' method isn't simply groupthink and confirmation bias.  But lacking the proof, it comes down to a matter of opinion.  Any claim made through Bayes that isn't accompanied by a proof I can dismiss with an airy wave of my hand and a reminder that Hitchens' razor cuts both ways.  Despite a recent loss in a broadly similar contest, I'm pretty certain that Ephiral will get fed up of providing rigorous analyses of every ridiculous notion I propose to him quicker than I get fed up of proposing ridiculous notions.

"This is mathematical" is not a damning indictment; it is possible to reduce every model we have of reality to math. Do you have similar objections to Maxwell's equations? "This is a difficult tool to use well" is not exactly a damning argument when getting to a correct answer with every other tool is more difficult. Choosing good priors is the hardest part of using Bayes, yes. Fortunately, Bayes is inherently iterative. You input your priors and some evidence, and get a posterior. Then you get some new evidence. You feed that evidence and your former posterior in (as the new prior), and get an adjusted posterior. Even the worst possible priors are going to get there eventually; all bad ones do is increase the time taken and evidence required, to a level which hard-caps below the glacial slowness and evidence required when using purely frequentist methods. Finally, sure, people are bad at an intuitive understanding of probabilities. Know what subset of people is markedly better at it (and therefore tends to choose better priors and get to the right answer quicker)? People who actually use the tools on a regular basis.

I might get tired of providing a rigorous analysis of every single ridiculous notion you can name - but I needn't bother, as a lot of them will fail much more basic checks. Which brings us to solipsism. The fact that I didn't think of this last night is a pretty good indication of how out of it I was: Anything capable of emulating the universe is, by definition, more complex than the universe. As such, solipsism fails MML and, by extension, Bayes. You've found a corner case where Occam's and more formal statements of complexity disagree, and are using Occam's to the detriment of your reasoning - this is one of those odd cases where adding an entity reduces complexity.

Not to say that all of my teasing had merit.  The other thing I did - the point at which Ephiral quite rightly threw up her arms and said "I'm not even going to talk to you if you're being like this" - was define my terms dishonestly:

It's clearly more likely that "Kythia exists" than that "Kythia exists AND is sometimes wrong".  There we go, Bayesian induction proves I'm always right.  QED motherfuckers.

P(Kythia is always right|Kythia has made statements which are provably incorrect) is vanishingly small, I'm afraid.  ;)

[Kythia]

And they were ignoring the considerable evidence that that rating was in no way justified. They failed to update on the evidence. Of course Bayes fails when you fail to update; do you criticize your computer for not working when it is turned off?

Sorry, my analogy was obviously unclear. There were flaws in the system but they failed to recognise them because they had so much invested in the system being unflawed.  The triple A credit rating is Bayes.

Not that that's why I asked for the proof, by the way.  I lack the skills to find any holes there may be in it.  I was just curious as its something you kinda mention a lot.

"] Finally, sure, people are bad at an intuitive understanding of probabilities. Know what subset of people is markedly better at it (and therefore tends to choose better priors and get to the right answer quicker)? People who actually use the tools on a regular basis.

Know what subset of people are better drivers than average?  80% of drivers.  And if they came up with a test for how good a driver is, I imagine they'd ace it.

Its not that Im saying you're wrong, simply that there are multiple points that need addressing.

I might get tired of providing a rigorous analysis of every single ridiculous notion you can name - but I needn't bother, as a lot of them will fail much more basic checks.

See, we actually agree here.  I suspect my usage of "baseline" was confusing.  "First port of call" might have been a better wording. 

Which brings us to solipsism. The fact that I didn't think of this last night is a pretty good indication of how out of it I was: Anything capable of emulating the universe is, by definition, more complex than the universe. As such, solipsism fails MML and, by extension, Bayes. You've found a corner case where Occam's and more formal statements of complexity disagree, and are using Occam's to the detriment of your reasoning - this is one of those odd cases where adding an entity reduces complexity.

Nah, this doesn't work.  Issue is, I don't need to emulate the universe.  It matters not whether some planet observing some star in some galaxy outside the range of our current telescopes has life on it.  I'll decide that when it matters.  I don't even need to have thought up the shape of the galaxy yet (though, obviously, I am leaning towards a light years across bust of me).  I don't need to emulate the universe, just those bits of it we can observe.  And, until science is finished, that will always be, by definition, less complex than the universe.  MML satisfied, solipsism wins the day, everyone has cream buns for tea.

It's fine not being able to refute it.  It's not a real thing, just a collection of words strung together in a way that sound like they make sense.



:P

[Ephiral]

Sorry, my analogy was obviously unclear. There were flaws in the system but they failed to recognise them because they had so much invested in the system being unflawed.  The triple A credit rating is Bayes.

The triple-A credit rating is not a theorem. Your analogy only holds if you are asserting that math is wrong.

Know what subset of people are better drivers than average?  80% of drivers.  And if they came up with a test for how good a driver is, I imagine they'd ace it.

No, that's the subset of drivers who think themselves better than average. Does it hold up when you compare their driving to others' across a sufficiently wide sample?

Nah, this doesn't work.  Issue is, I don't need to emulate the universe.  It matters not whether some planet observing some star in some galaxy outside the range of our current telescopes has life on it.  I'll decide that when it matters.  I don't even need to have thought up the shape of the galaxy yet (though, obviously, I am leaning towards a light years across bust of me).  I don't need to emulate the universe, just those bits of it we can observe.  And, until science is finished, that will always be, by definition, less complex than the universe.  MML satisfied, solipsism wins the day, everyone has cream buns for tea.

Except "we" under solipsism is actually "me". Given that the parts of the universe you are not observing right now still behave consistently including the apparent passage of time, you must be capable of emulating everything that it is possible to observe more than once on an ongoing basis, and of making anything that is only observable once perfectly fit into this simulation. A perfectly specified Kythia capable of doing so is absolutely more complex than the minimum-length statement of the laws of physics needed to get us to this point - a statement which doesn't even require describing Kythia at all (which is good, because even baseline-human Kythia is pretty damn complex). So no, still fails MML.

I was trying to keep to layman's terms before, and may have aimed a bit too high-level. The breaking point here is basically that physical laws are only a handful of bytes each, and you only need a fairly small handful of them in order to derive literally everything else. This is a high bar for nalternative explanations to beat. "Thor" might seem like a simple explanation of lightning - until you try to define "god", where they come from, his exact powerset, his psychology, etc, all of which are inherent parts of the definition of Thor. While you're specifying all of those, I'll jot down Maxwell's equations and go do something more entertaining.

(As an aside, this is a significant part of the reason I place such emphasis on playing taboo and asking "What do you actually mean when you say X?")



Shjade, I've been thinking on our discussion for a bit now, because the conclusion still bugged me. And here's the thing: If all is faith (the position you assert), then, as I stated, "X is faith" is literally a null message. So we're left to determine what is worthy of stronger belief... which  leaves us with the sort of analysis I'm talking about here. And under such analysis, we're still left with a false equivalence: p(God,!God) is not a universal distribution. So your inital assertion still rings false: The "faith" put forth by an atheist and a believer are not equivalent, and it is disingenuous and insulting to say so.

[Kythia]

The triple-A credit rating is not a theorem. Your analogy only holds if you are asserting that math is wrong.

People have done sums wrong before, others have failed to notice the error before.  Maths doesn't have to be wonrg, just Bayes.

No, that's the subset of drivers who think themselves better than average. Does it hold up when you compare their driving to others' across a sufficiently wide sample?

Hence my mention of them designing the test. 

I was trying to keep to layman's terms before, and may have aimed a bit too high-level. The breaking point here is basically that physical laws are only a handful of bytes each, and you only need a fairly small handful of them in order to derive literally everything else. This is a high bar for nalternative explanations to beat. "Thor" might seem like a simple explanation of lightning - until you try to define "god", where they come from, his exact powerset, his psychology, etc, all of which are inherent parts of the definition of Thor. While you're specifying all of those, I'll jot down Maxwell's equations and go do something more entertaining.

But Thor's exact power set, psychology, etc is the same as the inhabitants of an unseen planet.  I'll make that up when we need it. "Thor can shoot lightning" is less bytes than Maxwell's equations.

But I have a train to catch.  Have a good weekend.  Though I doubt you will.  The chances of "Not talking to Kythia" AND "Having a good weekend" are pretty damn tiny.  Given how unlikely "Talking to Kythia is amazing" AND "It is possible to enjoy one's life without doing so" is.

I'm never gonna stop doing this.  Just FYI

[Ephiral]

People have done sums wrong before, others have failed to notice the error before.  Maths doesn't have to be wonrg, just Bayes.

I reject your silly British mixing of singular and plural. Unlike other areas of empirical study, math actually does have solid proofs - it's relatively trivial to prove every case that would invalidate a statement false. Bayes is backed by such proof. Any case where it would be wrong, then, is either wrong or constitutes a proof of p and ~p, which breaks... pretty much everything.

Hence my mention of them designing the test.

Which leaves us back at selectively ignoring evidence, which is a matter of failing to update on the evidence. Sure, and you won't be driving today if you don't start your car. Bayes is not a method of making a human being infallible, because no human can apply it perfectly. It's a method of making a human less wrong. 

But Thor's exact power set, psychology, etc is the same as the inhabitants of an unseen planet.  I'll make that up when we need it. "Thor can shoot lightning" is less bytes than Maxwell's equations.

You need them the moment you introduce Thor as a distinct entity in your equation, else your specification is incomplete.

But I have a train to catch.  Have a good weekend.  Though I doubt you will.  The chances of "Not talking to Kythia" AND "Having a good weekend" are pretty damn tiny.  Given how unlikely "Talking to Kythia is amazing" AND "It is possible to enjoy one's life without doing so" is.

The probability of having a good weekend without talking to you is equal to the probability that I can do something else I find entertaining. Which is pretty damn high.

I'm never gonna stop doing this.  Just FYI

Given that the only other time you have made this statement to me, you were wrong, I'm gonna have to tag that with a low prior.

[Shjade]

Shjade, I've been thinking on our discussion for a bit now, because the conclusion still bugged me. And here's the thing: If all is faith (the position you assert)

Stopped reading there. I never made such an assertion; that has been your assertion since the start of our interaction, one which I have repeatedly refused and which refusals you have repeatedly ignored, which is the main reason I ceased posting: I have no interest in a one-way conversation.

[Ephiral]

Stopped reading there. I never made such an assertion; that has been your assertion since the start of our interaction, one which I have repeatedly refused and which refusals you have repeatedly ignored, which is the main reason I ceased posting: I have no interest in a one-way conversation.

I'm sorry, I'm... quite confused, in that case. You seemed to be stating that we need absolute proof in order for something to not be faith; absolute proof is pretty much impossible outside of math. Where did I go wrong, here?

[Shjade]

It'd be back where I said all you need is something you can test/measure/etc. to be conclusive in an observable way, rather than relying wholly on probability. Take your pick on which time I said it, there's a few to choose from.

[Kythia]

Can't quote on phone:

You need them the moment you introduce Thor as a distinct entity in your equation, else your specification is incomplete.

And?  Doesn't matter.  My entire point is that I don't need to fully specify things.  Might well lead to an inconsistent world, sure, but you won't notice.  Quite honestly, I only made Canada up this morning.  And I was in a bit of a rush, that's why there's huge empty sections with no cities.

[Ephiral]

It'd be back where I said all you need is something you can test/measure/etc. to be conclusive in an observable way, rather than relying wholly on probability. Take your pick on which time I said it, there's a few to choose from.

But... such a thing does not exist. There is not a single thing outside of math which has been proven, because positive proofs are not how any means of observing reality, including with your own senses, works.

Can't quote on phone:

You need them the moment you introduce Thor as a distinct entity in your equation, else your specification is incomplete.

And?  Doesn't matter.  My entire point is that I don't need to fully specify things.  Might well lead to an inconsistent world, sure, but you won't notice.  Quite honestly, I only made Canada up this morning.  And I was in a bit of a rush, that's why there's huge empty sections with no cities.

You do if you want to test it against MML. Complete specification is a requirement, else any proposition could be reduced to a single bit.

[Shjade]

But... such a thing does not exist. There is not a single thing outside of math which has been proven, because positive proofs are not how any means of observing reality, including with your own senses, works.

I'd like you to re-read my last post and point out where it includes the words "proven" or "proofs."

Then I'd like you to reflect on the humor of the statement "such a thing does not exist" given the current context.

[Rogue]

Why Religious Arguments Don't Fail

"I believe the Bible is the ultimate authority on truth"
"How do you know the world isn't just a figment of your imagination"
"Bible says so"
"How do you know other people exist"
"Bible says so"
"How do you know the Bible is the ultimate source of truth"
"Bible says so"

In general, the further you get from accepting reason and the evidence of your senses as a basis for truth, the more immune you are to charges your argument leads to solipsism.  That's not me claiming superiority of biblical literalism, I've already said that being immune to leading to solipsism isn't a benefit.

Of course, the religious aren't immune to actually being solipsists - having made up the bible and everything in it in the first place - I'm simply saying that that position doesn't lead to solipsism

Sorry Kythia, but this bugs me more than the other things. Why? Partly because I'm not a skilled enough debater/know enough logic to understand all the other terms/points. Partly because no one has addressed this and it really, really bugs me.

There's a book. It says it's a true story. But it also says that names and locations have been changed to protect the identities of those around it. No sources have been given. There is no other evidence than the word of the author and the word of the publishing company. Add in that it's about ghosts or them developing psychic abilities. Okay... suspension of belief is tested...

Now, take a book. A book that has been around more than 2000 years, starting with the Old Testament, with additions made about 1900 years ago, which I believe if I remember my history right is when the Gospels were written.

During the period these books were written people believed many things. Many Pantheons still existed, many still believed that natural disasters were caused by a God's fury, and superstitions still were a large part of people's lives. A person hands these people a book and the book tells them it's true. The people in control tell them it's true. And so it becomes true.

Now I'm going to use another famous instance of that very logic you just used (aka: Circular logic).

Circular Logic reference

These people grew up in an age where a drink becomes a major source of nutrients. It has water so it's perfectly okay for humans to drink and get away with. On the other hand people also start to use it for their plants.

Now the plants are dying.

A person suggests using Water.

They are met with the argument this drink is better.

Why is this drink better for the plants?

Because it's got electrolytes?

Why are electrolytes better for the plants?

Because the plants need it?

Well why do they need it?

Because it's got electrolytes.

And I'm sure everyone knows which movie I'm talking about and which drink it is and how this argument continues.

They'd been hand fed this by the government and taught not to think outside that and let the government think for them.

And that's exactly what the church does and did until the protestant reformation.

Now we're part of a time where most of us in the US are encouraged to think freely (even if school systems mess that up but that's another discussion). Now why shouldn't we utilize it and study for ourselves? I was taught to do research outside of the class room for history, to do different lab work to show how what we were learning was correct. Attempt to find as many first hand accounts as possible that all collaborate the same story.

Why should people blindly follow a book for truth?

Maybe, if you were to hand me 20 people, or even 10 people. Some not so educated, some really educated and they all experienced a miracle. A true miracle, not a "miracle" made from coincidence. Maybe. Maybe I'd change my mind if their stories all matched. But without evidence to support a belief, why should we believe it?

[Kythia]

Think we're talking at cross purposes.  Making no truth claims about bible, simply saying its not a theory that leads inexorably to solipsism.

We're having two wildly different conversations.

[Kythia]

Incidentally, don't know the film you're referring to, either.

[Rogue]

Think we're talking at cross purposes.  Making no truth claims about bible, simply saying its not a theory that leads inexorably to solipsism.

We're having two wildly different conversations.

Ah... I see that I'm the lost one here. I saw the "Why Religious Arguments Don't Fail" spoiler and went "no no no no no...." And my head exploded.

Incidentally, don't know the film you're referring to, either.

The film is actually not that great so I'm not surprised. It's called Idiocracy. I just like using that argument to show people why circular logic is so very much made of fail.

[Kythia]

No worries, happens to best of us (as best of us, can say that with certainty).  Probably never gonna watch idiocracy, quick Wikipedia suggests its not about a privileged white girl who meets a street black youth and they learn about dance from each other.  Therefore, probably won't enjoy it.

Would question that the protestant reformation was the turning point you claim, but a) on my phone and b) can't be bothered.

[Rogue]

No worries, happens to best of us (as best of us, can say that with certainty).  Probably never gonna watch idiocracy, quick Wikipedia suggests its not about a privileged white girl who meets a street black youth and they learn about dance from each other.  Therefore, probably won't enjoy it.

Would question that the protestant reformation was the turning point you claim, but a) on my phone and b) can't be bothered.

Eh... I believe it, just from memory from a little over 4 years ago with a slight refresher about three, based on the kinda handing of the bible to more common people, in the common language, and encouraging them to read and interpret it as well.

Scientists have been coming from the church for forever, (Punnet Squares anyone?) but if I recall most were either sanctioned by the church or sanctioned by an authority sanctioned by the church. Scary RC power back then, but that is neither here nor there and completely off topic.

Also, idiocracy is not Save the Last Dance.... though now I have a slight urge to watch it...

[Kythia]

Don't forget that latin was the language of everyone who could read at time of vulgate - fourth century.  Common language translation, commissioned by church.  Aldhem (I think) translated bible to old English in seventh century.  Long tradition of bible in the common language.  Key point is printing press, not language per se. 

[Ephiral]

I'd like you to re-read my last post and point out where it includes the words "proven" or "proofs."

Then I'd like you to reflect on the humor of the statement "such a thing does not exist" given the current context.

...then perhaps it's "conclusive" I'm misunderstanding. Either way, I get the impression that this is irritating you, so I'll simply apologise for misunderstanding and misrepresenting your position and bow out of this conversation.

[Rogue]

According to what I found via Google, you are quite correct, but at the same time, we are looking at how expected it was for people of that time period to be educated. Another point, a common misconception that may have still been around when I was last paying decent attention, was that it was first translated in 1380s. But that may have been also because he was the first to translate it in it's entirety (or more likely compile others translations all into one book into a modern English.

I do agree with the fact that the printing press did serve a major role in the ability of the Protestant reformation to take hold, I disagree in that the RC vastly discouraged free learning outside of it's boarders, so: advent of printing press, allows more people more books, RC can't keep hold of learning anymore since they no longer write most the books....

Perhaps should adjust that point to Until the printing press not Until the protestant reformation....

[Kythia]

Yeah, wont argue that point.  Also fall of Constantinople led to whole load of Muslim learning coming to Europe.  Interesting time, hard for Catholic censors to keep up.