are you an atheist?

again, if i honestly and consistently perceived the presence of the divine in the world,

you mean that thing that's unknowable and cannot be shown to have any interaction with the universe we inhabit? is it reasonable/rational to conclude elves all named Thomas are responsible for the night sky, so long as one perceives it to be so? pretty weak criteria for rational thought.

Basically, every critique you have offered towards theism is something that is also inherent in science.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:02 PM (3 minutes ago)

Science seeks explanations and reevaluates when new information presents itself.
Theism starts with a conclusion works backwards by relying on uncertainties to somehow assert that specific belief.

Basically, every critique you have offered towards theism is something that is also inherent in science.

the part where you make shit up? the part where you have the conclusion first and work backwards? the part that doesn't change it's belief even when mounds of conflicting evidence is presented? the part that champions "faith" in the face of this conflicting evidence.
yeah they're totally the same, thanks for letting me see that.

if this night sky elf was half-horse would it be thomas... equinas?

Congratulations on defining those words in ways that contrast each other.

anyone who trots out that tired "science is just like religion" shit can gtfo

wtf are you talking about. are you ok?

Science seeks explanations and reevaluates when new information presents itself.
Theism starts with a conclusion works backwards by relying on uncertainties to somehow assert that specific belief.

And once you've accepted that these are true statements, what conclusions do you draw from them?

the part where you make shit up?

Yes nobody in science has ever made up an untested 'theory' to explain a hypnothesis.

the part where you have the conclusion first and work backwards?

Yes nobody has ever reverse-engineered anything in science, that is for backwards hillfolk.

the part that doesn't change it's belief even when mounds of conflicting evidence is presented?

You are confusing literary myth with historical truth. You and the Creationist see the Bible the same way.

the part that champions "faith" in the face of this conflicting evidence.

So individual will should be crushed in the face of authority?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3NqIqSExfA

thanks guys its been too long since i dusted off the old "oh good an atheist thread" comment

― Corpsepaint Counterpaint (jjjusten), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:44 PM (32 minutes ago)

this makes me miss a. nairn

― Corpsepaint Counterpaint (jjjusten), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:44 PM (32 minutes ago)

I thought he came back as waterface

Pilate listened to lots of Deicide

Adam, seriously, are you ok?

Good rebuttal.

show me one untested theory that someone made up and that the scientific community accepts as fact. I just need one! Take your time.

it's a great rebuttal to really poorly thought out statements from you. not worth my time. sorry to be a dick but then you should be sorry for such bad logic.

show me one untested theory that someone made up and that the scientific community accepts as fact. I just need one! Take your time.

The Big Bang?

As if they guessed?

you can't even get your terms right. you don't make up a theory to explain a hypothesis. have you taken any science courses? how did you do in them?

hahahaha you seriously think someone just was sitting around at a coffee shop one day and goes hey guys I got it, it was a Big Bang! and everyone else goes oh shit that idea is str8 fire!! let's roll with it.

Yeah where did I say that? I said it was an untested theory at one time that the scientific community accepts as a fact. Is that not true?

GD, when you demean the intelligence of the person you're speaking to, it's nagl.

but it's a great look when people tsk tsk other posters, can't get enough of that shit.
dude is speaking nonsense, could drive a truck thru the logic holes, idgaf

Feel like outside of the scientific investigation (not something that troubles me too much, tbh...the divine would presumably work outside of that etc) is the historical one. Spending some years studying the Medieval Church and its decisions and dogmas seem to be pretty consistently about addressing issues that have arisen (social or otherwise) or consolidating power and so on and so on. In short, there's a human logic to it and you can usually find some reasoning behind the changes that have a practical, real world effect. Of course, some will make the argument that God was working through the pontiffs and so forth to affect the changes He wanted, the same way that He divinely intervened to ensure Christianity became the state religion of Rome and could utilise its structures to continue to expand after the demise of the political power. Still, it seems a leap, and that's outside of the old "which religion is right!?" argument.

Not that religion wasn't (i would argue) necessary for a long time, though I don't think it's as necessary as it once was when it comes to ordering a civilization. I, personally, just can't make the leap to explain away religious beliefs that just so happen to coincide with the benefit of x, y, or z as timely Divine intervention. I recognise that others can and even make the constant discussion a feature (Talmud, as far as I understand it, does this).

On a day to day basis I don't really care what people believe. Whatever works for them works and that's cool. Otoh it is sort of an issue when people exploit religious beliefs to deny something like climate change ("It's not possible because God gave us dominion over the earth and how could anything we do be bad for it!?" etc)

Is that not true?

It's not true. Try again. Just 1 example. Shouldn't be hard, right?

you mean that thing that's unknowable and cannot be shown to have any interaction with the universe we inhabit? is it reasonable/rational to conclude elves all named Thomas are responsible for the night sky, so long as one perceives it to be so? pretty weak criteria for rational thought.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:15 PM (6 minutes ago)

you're misrepresenting my argument. if i perceive some kind of spiritual/metaphysical something and credit that perception with validity, then I've determined that the thing in question does have some interaction with the universe. q erat d.

if science, in turn, can find no evidence for the thing i seem to perceive, that does not necessarily mean either i or science must be wrong. it might be, as I've argued, that science simply cannot "see" what i do. as scientifically-minded, rational people, we must accept this possibility. we have no good reason to discount it.

if, in accepting it, we are forced to admit that we lack the ability to perceive whatever it is that the more spiritually-inclined among us claim to, well then, so be it. i don't see ghosts either, and nor does science. doesn't mean i have to assume that those who do are fools or liars. just another unknown in the great sea.

i think one important difference between science and religion that's often glossed over is that the predictive qualities of science are always local, provisional, irreversible, contextual etc. that is, the sort things that science can reveal are in each and every case a product of something like a willed partiality. this is the only way science can proceed.

science runs into trouble when it starts talking about "totality" because that concept implies things (eternity, immutability, the "whole") that cannot appear as scientific "truth." this is why i say religion doesn't really make claims about "reality"--that's science's job--religion makes claims about totality and that's why religious discourse can get hella crazy and weird and cool.

and so you rate all beliefs the same? all are equal in your eyes? so long as 1 person out there "perceives" it to be true, that's enough?

the arguments about subjectivity in this thread are an endless rabbit hole.

if i perceive some kind of spiritual/metaphysical something and credit that perception with validity, then I've determined that the thing in question does have some interaction with the universe. q erat d.

your thoughts can produce actions and other thoughts, and those can etc etc. so?

GD is gonna run the board and tell everyone what they think from now on. Good night, folks.

idgaf

noted. thx for showing yr hand

if science, in turn, can find no evidence for the thing i seem to perceive, that does not necessarily mean either i or science must be wrong. it might be, as I've argued, that science simply cannot "see" what i do. as scientifically-minded, rational people, we must accept this possibility. we have no good reason to discount it.

― CANONICAL artists, etc., etc. (contenderizer), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:33 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is where probability enters the picture...

re: big bang...you do realize there were certain observations (mainly, stars/galaxies were all moving away from each other) and that lead to a hypothesis being formed, and that hypothesis led to predictions, and those predictions were evaluated and shown to hold true, and that even still, if there's evidence to contradict this tentative theory, scientists would be THRILLED to have a new, better grasp on the origin of our universe.
still think that is exactly like religion?

and so you rate all beliefs the same? all are equal in your eyes? so long as 1 person out there "perceives" it to be true, that's enough?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:35 PM (5 seconds ago)

for that 1 person, sure, it ought to be enough. when presented with unverifiable but apparently more-or-less rational beliefs that don't square with my own, i generally stick with, "okay, sure, that's possible." anything more definitive strikes me as irrational. if i think the beliefs are pernicious, i'll oppose them on those grounds, but that's another discussion...

GD is gonna run the board and tell everyone what they think from now on. Good night, folks.

good night, drama queen. disagree with, even mocking, others' beliefs doesn't equate to telling them what they think (or what to think, if that's what you meant?). I could see how you would struggle with the distinction, though.

This is where probability enters the picture...

― Evan, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:39 PM (5 minutes ago)

oh sure. i don't think it's likely that divinity exists. much less likely that any given religion gets the details right. after all, i seem to lack the apparatus for spiritual perception (wink). but that's a far cry from calling believers irrational.

that wasn't the question. do YOU think all beliefs are equally valid?

i generally stick with, "okay, sure, that's possible."

yes, I'm sure if people came up to you telling you how aliens stole the brain of Prez Clinton and are using him to do their bidding, you'd just go "okay sure that's possible" and file them in the exact some slot you file people who say "I love my dog, he's cute". gimmme a break, dude.

Science seeks explanations and reevaluates when new information presents itself.
Theism starts with a conclusion works backwards by relying on uncertainties to somehow assert that specific belief.

And once you've accepted that these are true statements, what conclusions do you draw from them?

― Aimless, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:20 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Which, those ^^^ two specific statements?

This is where probability enters the picture...

I would be fine with atheists making the claim that they find most religious beliefs to be improbable, if they stopped there.

It would, of course, help, if they showed much familiarity with those beliefs. In the western world, they mostly seem familiar with the most literalist of Christian fundamentalist beliefs and any attempt to shift the grounds of the discussion to other sets of beliefs falls into realms they would prefer not to explore, as it would require an effort they are not prepared to make.

Which, those ^^^ two specific statements?

Yes. I thought that was clear.

I find most religious beliefs to be improbable

I do, too.

your thoughts can produce actions and other thoughts, and those can etc etc. so?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:36 PM (9 minutes ago)

i was talking about perception in a much more simple sense. if i look outside and see that it's raining, i'm probably gonna place faith in the wetness of things out there. i'm habituated to placing faith in my perceptions (with a grain of salt, of course), and have a fair amount of experience w precipitation.

similarly, if i were to look outside one day and see (with my cosmic third eye or w/e) that it was godding out, then it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to at least tentatively credit this perception with some validity. i mean, if it were me, i'd wanna check myself for signs of lost marbles, but if everything else seemed okay and the perceptions of goddishness were persistent, consistent and in some sense useful, then i might well go with them. unfortunately, the lord hides himself from my sight...

improbable things can still be true, and the probability that some improbable things will end up being shown as true is pretty high, so probability can't be the whole story.

your thoughts can produce actions and other thoughts, and those can etc etc. so?

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:36 PM (9 minutes ago)

no, absolutely not. but i don't categorically reject all beliefs i don't share - or all beliefs that can't be scientifically verified. some i scoff at, some i ignore, some i file for future study.

Which, those ^^^ two specific statements?

Yes. I thought that was clear.

― Aimless, Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:51 PM (1 minute ago)

Well, that science is a better method for explaining nature.

like there's a cultural responsibility to affirm that global warming is real and people should get vaccinated not just because of probabilities.

Well, that science is a better method for explaining nature.

That seems like a fair conclusion and one I'd agree with.