Atheists Play Their Hand - Probability

ktulu »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter

'Does this mean that you approve of such cultural practices ...'
Well of course not and nothing I wrote even remotely suggested that I would approve of such things.

Possibly the people that do those atrocities can somehow reconcile them with their moralities (though how they could I do not know), but even if they can consider such things moral that does not stop the rest of us from considering their acts immoral.

There needs to be a means of deciding which moralities are correct. Whether this is decided by majority or agreed by selected few leaders by philosophical debate or rational argument it is clear that the moralities used in society change over time. For those who think their moralities are decided by the bible or other book, people pick and chose which bits to follow and use their morality to decide which bits to pick, so morality comes before religion.

Whether it is morally right to impose our moralities on other countries because that country demonstrates moralities we do not like is itself a moral question. One that is hard to answer, is it right to impose on a country because it gases its own population or because it denies basic human rights to minority groups(for example homosexuals)?

Maybe in the future eating meat will be considered morally wrong and anyone doing it will be viewed as evil. Does that mean we are evil to eat meat now, no it doesn't. (note I am not saying I would like such a change, I'm not a vegetarian.) Some morals are near universally accepted, but that does not mean that morality is a fixed absolute. Maybe a moral that is mostly consistent around the world is mostly due to genes and maybe those that vary more are more due to environment and memes. Understanding the source of morals could give great benefits and I suspect the answer to that is more likely to come from science that religious studies. It might help us end the very attrocities you mentioned.

Atheists Play Their Hand - Probability

ktulu »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 6:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Re big bang
First stating the obvious, if the big bang was shown to be wrong, that would not automatically make an alternative hyposthesis true. So an argument against the big bang is not an argument in favour of a god.

Regarding the circular orbits. I'd guess that this is due to the particles spreading out from the big bang not being evenly distributed resulting in an uneven forces acting on the particles causing them to group up and collide with each other. According to big bang theorty the particles are still moving away from the centre they are just interacting with each other on the way. Look at the study of the centre of our galaxy where the suspected black hole is, what the telescopes see there is anything but orderly. (At least according to a very good tv program I saw on just that the other day.) I am no expert on this and rather that pick apart my vague answer check out what an expert says on the matter http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM (the first of a series of five clips).

Atheists Play Their Hand - Probability

ktulu »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 3:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter

Regarding his refusal to debate Craig; This links gives Richards explaination of why he wont debate creationists
http://richarddawkins.net/article,119,Why-I-Wont-Debate-Creationists,Richard-Dawkins

I had not heard of Craig and did a google search and I noticed a number of sites wrongly attributed the following quote to Dawkins. 'That would look great on your CV; not so good on mine'. According to Dawkins book the God Delusion that quote actually comes from an Austrialian colleague of his.

Re morality evolves. Yes I believe it does. The average morality today is different to what is was just a hundred years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. My country now has no death penalty. Morality regarding attitudes towards women, homosexuality and slavery have changed considerably over the years. Morality is not a constant.

Atheists Play Their Hand - Probability

ktulu »

Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:59 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Hi mathetes

If by evidence you mean when you said 'These evidences include His attributes as seen in creation/nature, near universal moral law, fulfilled prophecy, and the miracles + resurrection of Jesus.' then this is my response.

Creation/nature - how is this a proof of any god, let alone proof of one specific god. Did a god leave his signature in a fjord on Norway to prove it was his creation? Even if scientific theories for nature are shown to be false, that does not automatically make an alternative hypothesis true.
Near universal moral law - well as morality exists in all people, Christian and non Christian, this is not proof of any one god over another. Also Dawkins and others have given good explaination for the fact that morality is the result of human evolution. Religion is not necessary for morality.
Fulfilled prophecy - Well this assumes that what the bible says is true. With an assumption that it is true then you believe in god because you believe in the bible and believe in the bible because you believe in god. Start with an assumption that it is false and it is hard to get into that cycle. Between believing Luke's gospel is true and believing that he altered the stories he heard to match the prophecies, the latter seems more likely. Greek myths have stories about fulfilled prophecies but that does not make me believe those myths to be true.
Miracles + resurrection of Jesus - again you have to start with an assumption of truth of the bible for this to count as evidence.

As for genuine evidence, the best is something I can observe or verify for myself. Obviously it is not possible for me to observe or verify everything for myself so for deciding the truth of a claim in that case I simply have to use my judgement based on the knowledge I have, the reliability of source of the claim and the plausibility of the argument and the evidence they have to back it up.

Atheists Play Their Hand - Probability

ktulu »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Re worrying as a Christian. As a young child I did hear lots of warnings of eternal pain and suffering in hell given in considerable and gruesome detail, so realising that it was all pure fiction was indeed a freedom from worry. I live in Northern Ireland and even to this day there are firebrand preachers on the streets threatening passers-by with everlasting torment if you do not believe in their god (heard one earlier today!). I pass Christian ads on billboards nearly every day. Unlike England religion still holds strong in Northern Ireland and here being openly atheist can lead to hostile reactions which means most who don't believe still pretend they do. As a child I assumed everyone around me believed and if I questioned it to my teachers they mocked me for doubting it so I just assumed it just me who 'couldn't get it'. I was told to just accept it was true without questioning it.
When older I realised they nearly everyone I knew who publicly professed to being a Christian didn't even remotely believe it to be true, it was just convenient to go along with it to fit in. It was about being seen to believe regardless of actual belief held. Then I got it. Then I felt true enlightenment. This is why religions have survived despite no deity ever intervening in human history and no god giving genunine evidence that they exist or being actively involved in mankind. The benefits occur regardless of the gods existence! Realising that I was not unusual in not having faith made me happier. Realising that in fact it was very common and learning about groups like humanists and their beliefs has lead to me having a much more positive attitude to life. The poster campaign is not trying to convert devoted believers, but is for those uncomfortable with their faith, letting them know that atheism is a valid acceptable option. If your faith works for you and makes you happy then I am pleased for you. But it doesn't work for everyone and for some of them the poster says exactly what they need to hear.

Atheist Ads Hit London Buses

ktulu »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking

You seem to be suggesting that the only two options are naturalism as defined by the quote you gave and supernaturalism. Therefore if you can show that naturalism is wrong supernaturalism must be right. However naturalism has more than one definition and not all naturalist have the same idea of what naturalism is. So showing the first option is wrong does not automatically make your second option right. Also even if supernaturalism is right, how do you decide which god to pick, there are thousand to pick from. What evidence is there for one religion being right that only applies to that one religion and cannot apply equally well for all religions.

Re 'consistent experience' If you have consistent experience of something happening on a regular basis your entire life and have no reason to think it will stop happening then it is rational to reason that it will continue to happen. Just because I didn't come to that conclusion by working it out from first principles doesn't make my reason for being certain not rational.

My comments on peoples reactions to denial of a god was not in any way intended as evidence for or against any god, but just as an explaination why using 'probably' makes it easier in conversation when denying an existence of a god. Its just avoids the usual response of 'how can you be so certain'. I also added that thinking I was arrogant for denying their religion while not considering themselves arrogant for denying all other religions was hypocritical. Of course this makes no comment on whether they are right or not. A person could be arrogant and hypocritical and still be completely correct.

Atheist Ads Hit London Buses

ktulu »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

There should be the word 'discussions' after 'philosophical' in my last post.

Atheist Ads Hit London Buses

ktulu »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking

I used "certain of this as anyone can be of anything" as in philosophical any claim to be certain is usually met (in my experience) with 'well you cannot be absolutely 100% certain'. Well I cannot be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, it might go supernova overnight, but I consider the chance so remote and the odds of the sun rising tomorrow so close to 100% that I might as well assume it is 100% for any decision dependant on that. So I tend to use some form of 'as certain as possible' statement to preempt that.

Regarding certainty of non existence of a god. I can say 'I am certain that Zeus does not exist' without needing to clarify that I do not mean absolute certainty. However for modern religions saying, for example, that you are certain that Allah does not exist will be met with accusations of being arrogant and the statement of 'you cannot prove he doesn't exist', though I can no more prove that than I can prove Zeus doesn't exist and denying Zeus' existence is not arrogant. Hence use of 'probably' when denying existence of something, it avoids this hypocrisy. Lack of belief in something does not require absolute certainty, just a lack of any reason TO believe.

Even if you are right that they have no rational argument to back up their position, that doesn't stop them from being certain that they are right does it? Whether a person is certain and whether a person is right are two separate concepts and one does not guarantee or preclude the other.

(p.s In The God Delusion, Richard does give many arguments for his position, if you can show that not one of those arguments is rational I'd love to see that proof.)

Prop. 8 Backers Blast Calif. Attorney General

ktulu »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rather than redefining the meaning of marriage to include gay couples, use a different term. In the UK there is a non religious civil union that is available to everyone straight or gay, so gay couples can have the same legal rights as straight couples (the giving of such rights being the main argument gay couples use on this issue). This allows a clear separation between the religious ceremony of marriage between a man and a woman and the legal union of a couple. Religions should be aloud to restrict their ceremonies as they see fit and state legal agreements should be open to all. This arrangement removes most peoples objections in the UK (as far as I am aware anyway).

Atheist Ads Hit London Buses

ktulu »

Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Regarding the use of 'probably' that was only included due to advertising restrictions. The ASA wouldn't let them run the ad without that word. Richard Dawkins and most involved are as certain as anyone can be certain of anything that there is no god. As most stories I've seen about this have made that clear I'd guess Mark Russell is aware of this. He wouldn't have deliberately ignored this fact to make a cheap and misleading gibe at atheists would he?