701. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85486 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:21 am

There absolutely is a "twilight of reason" when there are 158 comments on a book no-one can possibly have read, as it isn't launched until tomorrow.

As for me, I was just providing a poor review of the title. If I read it correctly, it is associating an attack on religion with a "twilight of reason". Even this is pretty strange, considering the following quote from Martin Luther:

"Vernunft ... ist die höchste Hur, die der Teufel hat."

Roughly: "[reason] is the Devil's greatest whore"

It is richly ironic to consider attacks on religion to be a threat to reason.

Whatever the content, it seems that Beattie has a habit of writing books with (unintentionally?) ironic titles, such as "New Catholic Feminism: Theology and Theory".

702. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85462 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 1:04 am

Sure: I find absurd the idea that I do not possess libertarian free will, or that it's not objectively better to help somebody in need rather than to torture them, to mention just two implications of scientific naturalism. Indeed scientific naturalism's absurd implications is one of the reasons why I find it untenable.

This is why your views can't be taken seriously. We have millenia of experience that what people consider to be absurd is a very poor guide to what is false. The fact that you persist in this just makes you look silly. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is true. It ranks you alongside the scientist who claimed that we could not travel faster than 30mph, or we would suffocate.

To claim that no objective morality exists, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody, is the huge claim.

To claim that the earth is round, against what appears to be absolutely obvious to virtually everybody is the huge claim. See the parallel?

So what backing do you offer for it, except that to believe in it is necessary in order to maintain the viability of scientific naturalism?

I don't need to claim backing. You need to claim backing for the absurd opinion that what people believe about this is true, because so many people believe it. That, to be honest, is just nuts. Since when has what the majority consider to be true any measure of what is true? It is pretty certain that the majority of people in the world believe some kind of creationism.

Also, valid scientific statements such as "black holes exist" or "all metals melt at some temperature" cannot be falsified.

Yes, they can. I am responding to this as one of these statements is particularly interesting to me. Telescopes are soon to be constructed which should actually allow observations of the accretion disks of large (or close) black holes. That will allow us to begin to distingish between different models of condensed stars (such as classical black holes, black suns and gravastars). So that one should start to be sorted out soon. Personally, I favour Lawrence Krauss' model in which event horizons never form.

Nick Herbert is a physicist. Now I don't know about physicists "in general",

I do. It is an interest of mine.

but some of the greatest physicists who actually thought about the ontological implications of modern physics are on record on this issue and what they say does not square with scientific naturalism (see some of their quotes here).

No. You have pressed the 'reset' button here. We have gone over this. Einstein certainly believed in an objective world, and so do most modern physicists. And to claim that Wigner is anywhere close to Einstein is just making things up. Also, many of those do indeed believe in physical reality, even if they assume a rather strange relationship with our minds.

Ok. My job here is done. I'll leave it to others to respond to you on this thread.

703. The truth in religion

Comment #85379 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 4:03 pm

It's my understanding—again, correct me if I'm wrong—that speculations about multiple universes are not held in very high esteem by leading astrophysicists and cosmologists, and I haven't done very much reading about those notions anyway,

You are wrong here. Some of the most respected astronomers (such as Sir Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society) support the idea of a multiverse.

Objecting to a claim like (3) with a question like "Who designed the designer?" seems to me to push known principles of causality from within space-time to the outside of space-time. If there is, so to speak, any entity outside of space-time, there is no reason to think that said entity is subject to laws of cause and effect that would even be comprehensible to us, bounded as we are by our understanding of things from within space-time. In short, it seems more convincing to me to think that space-time has a "creator" who is outside of space-time itself than to take space-time merely as a brute fact. Put another way: postulating something outside the system as an explanation for the existence of the system makes more sense to me than postulating a self-generating system.

Ah, but you are missing another option. That laws of cause and effect have to hold when talking about the Universe and its origin even when considering purely natural phenomena. Below the Planck time, they just don't work any more, and according to some models of the origin of the Universe, causality as we understand it does not apply.

We can talk about natural processes that are outside of our space-time that don't follow the normal laws of cause and effect that could have created our Universe. No need for any intelligence.

but I'm not sure we can get on any better footing unless we can find a way to observe space-time from outside of space-time (I don't think our technology will ever enable this)

We are close to being able to do this now. In the near future we will have instruments that will look at patterns in the cosmic microwave background, and observe gravity waves. These observations could give us considerable information about the nature of our universe and what is beyond it, such as whether there are other dimensions, other universes, other space-times.

704. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #85316 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I am not a huge fan of the RSS, but I have to disagree with Janus. This seemed a lucid, well-written and useful article.

705. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #85299 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Squinky: I strongly agree. Developments in physics in the past century or so have made many theological arguments redundant. An idea of a Creator who sets up the universe and waits for people to appear has been shown to be impossible by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Discussions of the origin of the universe that involve a beginning of time or an eternal universe that has always existed as the only alternatives are out of date. There is no 'first cause' problem if causality as we understand it was not involved in the origin of the universe.

706. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85280 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 12:02 pm

I very rarely disagree with you Steve, but I think he follows it a great deal – obsessively even.

Sorry - I should have indicated irony!

He claimed that we don't debate with theists here - that the religious don't respond to what we post. Given the sheer volume of debates with theists on this site, there are two options: either he does not follow the site, or he is blatantly lying in order to be provocative.

However, being a man of the cloth, we should surely not claim he is lying - that would be such a bad example, so obviously he must not be following the site.... so it must be incompetence rather than malice.

707. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85223 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 10:12 am

So I will leave you to your wee enclosed fundamentalist world, where you can slate all theists to your hearts content, reaffirm one another in your atheist faith and wonder why no-one bothers to respond. Have fun....

You really don't follow this site much, do you?

708. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85189 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 8:58 am

I have yet to see ANYONE on this site recommend that any of the 'flea' books should be read - after all why should you? Without reading them you know what they will contain and you know that they are wrong!).

Don't be silly. There have been plenty of posts from people who have read one or more of these books, or extracts. I am one of those. I read the on-line version of 'The Dawkins Letters', and it was painful.

4) "you'd think that if the apologetics had a valid response, one book would suffice". Bizarre and stupid. You would think that if the anti-theists had a valid response to Christianity then only one book would suffice.

The problem is that the theists metaphorically just stick their fingers in their ears and shout 'I am not listening' when they are argued against. I mean how many more times do we need to hear tired old arguments like 'Beauty needs God', or 'That is not my religion Dawkins is criticising', and so on.

709. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85146 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 5:36 am

Perhaps it ought to go in the "Debate Points" page ;-)

Yes... "How to deal with Dianelos"! I think the thread would need some kind of counter, showing the number of times DG presses the 'reset' button for each point.

710. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85142 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 5:27 am

All of them presented as though the counter arguments had never been made. I make this at least the fourth thread in which this has been done.

Well, I thought it might be useful to show the flaws at least once in each new thread before disengaging.....

711. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #85137 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 4:58 am

It seems to me that the evidence against metaphysical naturalism at least is overwhelming.

No, it isn't. You only claim this because you personally have difficulty with the consequences of a naturalist view of the world. There are plenty of aspects of the world that people find problematic, but we know are correct, such as relativity. It is not reasonable to expect reality to fit into our ape brains, and it is arrogant to assume it will.

But at least equally reasonably one can affirm the existence of these and therefore deny the viability of scientific realism.

No, you can't reasonably affirm the existence of objective morality. It is a HUGE claim, and needs a lot of backing.

The flaw in your reasoning here is to assume that one can just as easily affirm the existence of something as affirm its absense.

Or for the insight that the hard sciences have lost sight of objective reality (or as Nick Herbert says: "One of the best-kept secrets of science is that physicists have lost their grip on reality").

The best people to judge that are the physicists themselves, who, in general, just don't believe that at all.

712. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85135 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 4:48 am

if our ethical beliefs have merely evolved anthropologically and one can therefore transcend their current state then on what standard can one appeal to when transcending them. I wonder how an atheist not stuck in a loop might answer this question.

That is a good question. I don't have an answer. But I am pretty sure that appealing to religion is not the right way, as it allows people to claim Godly authority for their views, rather than enter into negotiation with others.

713. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #85105 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 1:49 am

Fortunately, your atheism is very UNLIKE my belief. But it is a belief!

You can claim this all you like, but it is no evidence for what you believe, is it?

714. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #85104 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 1:48 am

Steve, I assume that you are referring to my comments. What are you suggesting? That a moderator should be excising this "religious nonsense" as soon as it appears if not before?

Only on these threads. If you follow this site, you see we have plenty of long and vigorous debates with the religious. But that is not the intention of these specific threads. They are intended to discuss the best way for us to put an argument. Your posting here is inappropriate.

Don't worry, I can see which way the tide is flowing. I have no intention of wasting any more of your precious time. You will have no more arguments from me to counter.

You can post all the arguments you like, but, please, not in these particular threads.

715. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #85101 by steve99 on November 5, 2007 at 1:31 am

Welcome back Doctor!

716. Face to faith

Comment #84985 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 12:23 pm

Why not leave a comment at the Guardian?

Although you write excellent comments, I think it achieves nothing. In fact, I take that back. I think it helps encourage the paper to use such writers again. Controversy equals publicity, and on a site with advertisers, publicity is good. You might do better to ignore such nonsense.

717. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84950 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 10:20 am

Would this be the same 'reason' that many major historical figures (like Martin Luther) said was so dangerous for religion?

Sometimes I think we militant (well, somewhat militant in my case) know more about religion that these Fleas.

718. The truth in religion

Comment #84918 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 7:55 am

Yeah, but he wouldn't stay dead until the Chinese authorities outlawed his reincarnation last month.

Ah, but Buddhas don't reincarnate.... its only unenlightened people and those pesky Lamas. The Chinese have only put a stop to the unlicensed re-incarnation of Lamas. Very clever of them to manage that, I think.

719. The truth in religion

Comment #84907 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 6:40 am

That's a decent slap on the wrist:-) and I will wear it.

Nothing so painful intended... consider it more like a friendly tap on the shoulder, and a polite English "excuse me".

The take home message is that all these ideas end up corrupted and manipulated for the hoi poloi and their subservience to a governing class. I can't see it any other way.

I think it is still possible to salvage some good ideas. I have a fondness for Buddhism (even though not a Buddhist), as it seems to me that the core principles are pretty good, and it is only later that much religious nonsense was wrapped around them. An example of why I have that fondness is a recent statement by the Dalai Lama that he would be prepared to modify even his core beliefs based on the findings of science. (OK, so I am not so much a fan of the Dalai Lama himself, but it shows a reasonableness about Buddhism that seems sadly lacking from monotheisms).

720. The truth in religion

Comment #84900 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 5:37 am

Sorry Steve, it's all still beautiful bullshit:-). You take out of it what you want to get you through the day; it doesn't make it real. And I know you know that.

I don't know that, because I don't believe it is all bullshit. A lot of what the Buddha taught was extremely sensible (*). Same for Jesus. To reject those bits simply because of the religious context seems extreme to me, as those same ideas have been expressed by good non-religious people.

*Just to give an idea, the Buddha taught much about the 'self' that I am sure Daniel Dennett would approve of .... it is pretty similar to his 'no Cartesian Theatre' idea. Are you going to call this 'bullshit' when it comes from the Buddha, but accept pretty much the same idea when it comes from Dennett?

I think there is a problem in that our experience of monotheistic religion has tainted our views of other ideas both in different places and times, views that are more philosophy than religion.

721. The truth in religion

Comment #84895 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 4:30 am

It's a mind-fuck, pure and simple.

I really have to disagree with you. No-one who has studied the teachings of the Buddha could claim he was a charlatan or a megalomaniac.

One of the themes of the Buddha's teachings is that what he proposes are simply ideas that people can use to improve happiness, and that if they don't work for you, fair enough - try something else. No inerrant words. Religion or not, it is a pragmatic philosophy.

I may have misinterpreted you, but if you are claiming that the Buddha was not much different from Muhammed, I think you are way out of line, sorry.

722. The truth in religion

Comment #84893 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 4:14 am

If your claim is that god is purely "supernatural" then I think steve99 and I would (provisionally) be prepared to accept this. Steve will correct this if he doesn't agree.

Not quite. I would still have a problem. There would, according to this idea, be two statements that seem to me to combine to form a logical inconsistency:

1. God exists and is supernatural.
2. We have come up with the concept of God because he exists.

If we have come up with the concept of God because he exists, then that must be because of some interaction with the natural world (our brains).

The only way I can see of God existing and being purely supernatural and us having come up with the idea is that there has been the most amazing co-incidence.

723. The truth in religion

Comment #84887 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 3:40 am

I'm not well up on this but didn't Jesus pre-date Buddha by about 600 years? If that is the case, then of course, he really must be the Messiah. QED!

It is the other way around. The Buddha lived hundreds of years before Christ (assuming both were real historical figures).

724. The truth in religion

Comment #84880 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 2:35 am

Quite a few doubt his existance, seeing in him more a continuation of Middle Eastern mythology.

And some believe his ideas (assuming he existed at all) were simply a continuation of existing beliefs from the East. For example, the Buddha was telling people to "love your enemy" centuries before.

The 'it all started with Jesus' idea is a trap that many Christians fall into.

725. The truth in religion

Comment #84879 by steve99 on November 4, 2007 at 2:31 am

Steve, I appreciate your difficulty in accepting that there was anything supernatural about him, if you already hold the position that the idea of the supernatural is itself an absurdity. In that case nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you that God could embody himself in a human being. How can he if God does not actually exist?

I do have a problem with responses like this. It assumes that for someone to have a certain opinion, you have to have a certain mental state. Well, I certainly don't hold an opinion that the idea of the supernatural is necessarily absurd. I was, for a long while, religious. I am prepared to accept supposedly supernatural phenomena on one condition - that someone actually provides me with concrete evidence. Not words in books, and not wishful thinking, not personal revelation and not what a friend of a friend reports having experienced.

This is a very simple filter for nonsense. Try it!

Actually, I don't actually believe that the term 'supernatural' is meaningful. I think the true distinction is between things that are real and that are unreal. I am fully prepared to accept things like psychic powers, or ghosts, given sufficient evidence.

If he was just another deluded mystic, another self-appointed guru afflicted with megalomania, then we will be hard-pressed to explain the enormity of his impact in every human culture right up to the present day.

He hasn't had impact in every human culture. The majority of cultures (and people) remain distinctly un-impacted - Christianity is a minority belief in the world today.

Yet that is not happening. Many top-ranking scientists and philosophers actually believe Jesus was who he said he was.

But the vast majority don't, and surveys show that, generally, the more educated you are, the less likely you are to believe.

726. The truth in religion

Comment #84814 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 5:26 pm

But there is something unique and special about Jeus, something about his words that rings true, that gives hope and purpose, and that deeply challenges all huma cultural constructs, even (and perhaps especially) the "Christian" ones.

There is nothing unique or special about Jesus and his words... many said the same thing before (such as the Buddha). Even if his words are special, that is no reason to believe anything supernatural about him.

727. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #84804 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Please, do not allow them to turn into trainwrecks as has happened with a lot of other threads lately.

The only way to stop that would be thread moderation, with posts not relevant to the subject being removed. That way religious nonsense that needs to be countered would not appear.

728. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #84778 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm

When did I say that it doesn't.

When you claimed it involved dogma.

Of course that is what we see when we observe nature (red in tooth and claw), because meaning and purpose are not visible or determinable using the tools that scientists emply when they do science. If you insist that everything must be established using such tools or not establishes at all, then that is the conclusion you are going to arrive at.

There are plenty of tools for finding meaning: philosophy and art for example. But if you looking for meaning as some objective part of the universe, what others tools are they but science? There is no intrisic meaning in DNA, in evolution, in the stars and galaxies. Meaning is in our minds, but no less significant because of that.

729. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #84777 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm

The name "steady state model" may not have been given to this paradigm until the mid-20th century (1948 to be precise), but this is a question of semantics.

No, it is a matter of being precise about what you mean. The issue that was disrupted in the 20th century was not about the universe being infinite and unchanging. Both the Steady State and Big Bang ideas represented a changing universe - it was simply that with the Steady State that change was continuous and maintained. The issue was about the universe being static.

It is ironic that the Vatican establishment clung tenaciously to the Aristotelean model for ideolgogical reasons, and several centuries later there have been equally powerful ideological reasons for which a large part of the scientific establishment have been clinging to some variation on the steady state theme. That smacks of dogmatism if anything does.

Oh come off it. Talk about 'reaching'. There was no 'scientific establishment' clinging to a variation of steady state. The scientific establishment simply did not have a consensus.

As I said before, the 'scientists are as bad as the religious' approach just doesn't work. Science can change very quickly indeed when evidence shows otherwise. Just because one or two people don't change their minds is no reason to use absurd terms like 'dogmatism'.

Dogmatism is when views are 'written in stone' and are held by the authorities. This was never the case in this area. As soon as Hubble's measurements were known, ideas changed.

You are confusing dogma with the personal stubborness of individuals like Fred Hoyle.

730. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #84755 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 12:51 pm

The steady state model was, in fact, a dogma which few dared to challenge.

This is just so wrong. There was heated debate between supporters of the Big Bang and those of Steady State. But to claim that the steady state model was dogma is nonsense - it is to re-write history. The Steady State was a recent model, devised pretty much in parallel with the Big Bang in order to explain the red shifts of galaxies found by Hubble.

There was no 'dogma'. As soon as the red shift evidence was in, ideas changed and came into competition, and the Big Bang won out because of evidence.

You just can't get away with trying to claim that science works as badly as religion. The 'you are just as bad as us' approach of theists is a sham.

731. AAI 07

Comment #84686 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 7:30 am

I must take leave of this thread for a couple of days, my father died last night at 1:26am, he was 83.

My sincerest condolences.

732. AAI 07

Comment #84685 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 7:29 am

Brian: I strongly agree with Phil. I think direct voter control of spending would be a disaster. I realise what I am about to say is going to sound very condescending, but it applied to me as well - I think most of us are too ignorant to decide in detail how money should be spent. It is sometimes said that it has been a very long time since any individual could have an understanding of most of human knowledge. Therefore, we have to rely on other's expertise. On almost all issues, the general public (and I include myself, obviously) just don't understand what is going on and what is needed.

Let's just take a one issue: Energy. There is a big debate about nuclear power right now, particularly in the context of global warming. So do we allow the public to vote on the use of nuclear power? How would they decide? What proportion of the public know what nuclear power actually is? Or radioactivity? Not that many.. most people will vote knowing only a fraction of the information needed to make a reasoned decision.

I am not sure even if education will help. Someone can spend years studying nuclear physics, but then how would they vote on matters of medicine, or economics?

This is why I feel that representative democracy is the only way, and people can vote on the general record of success or failure politicians and their parties.

733. AAI 07

Comment #84649 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 5:58 am

choosing how you want your taxes to be spent via check boxes on income tax returns

An interesting idea, but I have my doubts. Most democracies are representative, not direct. Goverments often have to take harsh decisions based on expert assessment, not on the direct wishes of the population. This check-box idea is a form of referendum, and usually when these are held there are major debates and campaigns.

734. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #84583 by steve99 on November 2, 2007 at 3:33 pm

with respect to your time comment, time is nothing more than the observance of energy exchange.

Time is actually a very specific type of dimension, as in the equations of relativity.

735. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #84573 by steve99 on November 2, 2007 at 2:49 pm

Have I lost you yet?

The problem with your idea is that there is indeed a set size scale; it the planck length. This is a minimum possible size for any physical object, from quantum theory. The universe is not fractal, and has quite different properties at different scales.

736. AAI 07

Comment #84304 by steve99 on November 1, 2007 at 5:10 pm

You just don't get it. You want a never ending cycle of people being irresponsible and not accountable.

Actually, now you come to mention it - yes, why not? Has that not been part of human nature since we first evolved? Who wants a society where everyone is calm, civilized and responsible? Where would we find our dreamers, our artists, our poets, our great philosophers, our scientists, our explorers?

So, yes, I DO want such a cycle. I want people to be able to be lazy, to waste their lives, to dream. I think that enriches humanity. I don't want to live in the dull, baren, puritan society that you desire.

737. AAI 07

Comment #84101 by steve99 on November 1, 2007 at 6:57 am

Yes, you're boring us with your "religious" dogma masquerading as liberal thought, of which it is anything but liberal.

I think this helps illustrate why this discussion is somewhat heated. You not only claim to know what other's motivations are (we are all 'victims'), but you throw around accusations that any views different from your are analagous to religious dogma. That gets us nowhere. It is this kind of thing that leads me to question the clarity of thinking.

738. AAI 07

Comment #84090 by steve99 on November 1, 2007 at 6:29 am

show me a single post of mine where I promoted 'heartless and immoral' stances. Show me a single post of mine which had no 'clear thinking' and 'rational' basis. And remember, this is supposed to be a discussion of possibilities so stop taking it so personally.
If you are unable to do that, your post is just another empty personal attack.

I admit it is going to be hard to show a post with what you consider a heartless and immoral stance, as we are arguing over the nature of what those mean.

However, I can think of no-one I know would would not consider the following statements apalling and shocking:

It's emotional to state examples like 'what is a poor guy supposed to do to feed his family.' Not having any family if he never could afford it is what he is supposed to do.
It's immoral to have kids if you know you can't and will not be able to take care of them. It's immoral to rely on others to take care of them if you knew you wouldn't be able. Using your children to get compassion from others is cold-blooded.

Regarding a lack of clear thinking, how about this:

That's not a rational capitalist act. Capitalism does not exist without respect for human and property rights.

Dealt with by epeeist

or this:

Compassion is a meaningless term

Dealt with by comets

739. AAI 07

Comment #84087 by steve99 on November 1, 2007 at 6:20 am

no matter how much you caress your ego by saying how compassionate and better you are it means nothing if it's not supported by your behaviour and actions.

Why do you assume it isn't?

740. AAI 07

Comment #84085 by steve99 on November 1, 2007 at 6:19 am

You're a victim who has felt abused.

What is with the amateur psychology?

741. AAI 07

Comment #84052 by steve99 on November 1, 2007 at 4:38 am

We're talking about people who drain our society's resources beyond a month or two of support

Like those pesky kids living in deprived areas. They may be only a few years old but, dammit, they just aren't helping themselves.

There's no intellect being engaged, it's all just emotional ranting and unfiltered blather.

I know, it is failing I have. When I see deprived children, suffering through no fault of their own, I tend to react in an emotional not intellectual level.

742. Huge Black Holes May Hold Keys to Galaxy Formation

Comment #83952 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Wish Carl Sagan could have lived longer so he could have been a part of it. He was so great at presenting this stuff to the general public on a level that could be easily understood and appreciated.

Don't get me wrong - I am a great fan of Carl Sagan. He was great at popularising science, and wrote perhaps one of the best science fiction novels ever (Contact), but I am not convinced that his own credentials as a general scientist were that good. In hindsight, he put forward many ideas, both in his books and in his TV presentations that not only did not stand the test of time, but where easily shown to be wrong at the time. I think he would have done better in some ways to have presented the ideas of others who were more knowledgeable. I see a parallel here with Stephen Gould.

743. AAI 07

Comment #83948 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 6:43 pm

It's late where I am, a bit tired plus a glass of red wine and didn't want to get into an argument so I thought I would just muse out loud about the way the thread has gone.

I have to admit that a glass or two of red wine, combined with my deep passion for intellectual argument have fuelled many of my posts.

Perhaps it was inevitable that hypothetical positions have become matters of intense debate about real views. I think this is good, as it shows beyond doubt that any claim that there is such a thing as 'atheist dogma' or any single position that atheists hold on any matter than a disbelief in God is a myth.

744. AAI 07

Comment #83940 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 6:01 pm

What began as a discussion on the merits of the atheist movement aligning itself with a particular policy stance has obviously morphed into something much bigger here.

I think you, and others, have misunderstood. This was not initially a discussion about the merits of any policy. This was a initially discussion about facts of psychology.

Chapman stated that religious organisations provide a framework of support for (1) those who feel that they have been left behind by society and (2) those who want to assist others. Chapman pointed out the obvious - that in societies without strong government backing for those two groups, they will fall back to religious groups if they are available.

If you forget Chapmans's statement that he is personally in favour of Big Government, then these two points are surely uncontroversial. Whatever you think of the merits of government support for those issues, it can hardly be a matter of controversy that if people want support, and want to give support, they then will use whatever framework is available for that. In the USA, that is primarily religious groups. The problem with the libertarian attitude is that it does not help with this in any useful way. It both denies that people should need any framework for support, and wants to remove any such framework. Well, that is not going to do any good while the religious offer such backing... and simply saying to people 'get real - there is no God, walk away from this', and 'those who wish to support others are ultimately selfish' is arrogant (as it assumes one can know the minds and motivations of others), hopelessly naive, and will achieve nothing. People aren't stupid. They will only move away from belief and support systems if they can be shown positive benefits will result, and I am afraid that philsophical and logical arguments alone aren't going to work. If there is a religious organisation that will provide education and support for your children, and a libertarian atheist approach that says 'there is no God ... cope by yourself'... what do you think parents will do?

745. AAI 07

Comment #83935 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 5:26 pm

They're both pretty much toeing the Libertarian line.

I find that very troubling, especially considering the huge interest in libertarian presidental candidates like Ron Paul, who would, with their anti-abortion, anti-gay agendas be considered far right in most of the Western world.

... Do we all need to don our tin foil hats now?

Well, when people come on a mainstream atheist site, promoting precisely the kind of stereotypical self-interested approach that the religious say is typical of godless people, what should we think?

746. AAI 07

Comment #83925 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Has anyone considered the possibility that scooter and notsobad may actually be theist trolls on this site, planted so as to boost the stereotypical 'heartless immoral atheist' stereotype so necessary for theist arguments? I am prepared to give scooter some benefit of the doubt, but I don't see any rational or 'clear thinking' basis for notsobad's views. I think it is time some people either came out as theists, or dogmatic believers.

747. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83922 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 4:41 pm

An excellent article. This should be a major resource.

748. AAI 07

Comment #83802 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 10:20 am

Also, you are no different from theists trying to turn their beliefs and "morals" into laws limiting other people's lives.

I find this a rather silly statement, along with others made in this thread trying to compare certain views with theistic views. One of the main ideas that some of us have been trying to get across to the religious is that we can get the same moral ideas without any need for a belief in God. We each have our moral sense. A lot of people who believe in God do good. All of us (if we are sane) support laws that limit others behaviour based on morals. We outlaw child abuse. We consider murder criminal. Almost all of us support those laws whether we are religious or not.

I find the implication that unless you are libertarian you are 'as bad as a theist' rather dangerous.

749. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #83797 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 10:06 am

Well, my understanding is that Buddha taught the way to escape from the suffering of continuous rebirth, so this seems to me is a central ontological belief of Buddhism. Not to mention the belief that Buddha in his previous incarnation was a Bodhisatta. But I do not know a lot about Buddhism, so let me quote from the Wikipedia:

I do know quite a bit about Buddhism. The problem is that these are western translations. 'Rebirth' can mean all kinds of things, depending on the Buddist school. Only in some (such as Tibbetan) does it mean 'the same person comes back').

So, in Buddhist ontology we have rebirths, supernatural gods resembling the gods of Greek mythology, not to mention hungry ghosts.

There is no such thing as 'Buddhist ontology', just like there is no such thing as 'atheist ontology'. Both terms are so broad, that to pin them down to one thing is just a total misrepresentation. You will find Zen Buddhism and Tibettan Buddism to be fundamentally different.

This is my point - you can't just grab terms out of thin air (or even from Wikipedia pages) and use them as you wish. Things are far more complex.

These beliefs look quite supernatural to me, but if you prefer to call Buddhism atheist because it does not have the concept of God the three great monotheistic religions share then be my guest.

Indeed I do. But it is not my preference. It is that of Buddhists themselves:

The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.

The Buddha suggested that it was fear that produced the religious impulse in humanity.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.
The Dhammapada, 188

Try and claim Buddhist ideas as your close to your own and you will be labelling yourself as attempting to go to the sacred due to fear.

But I wish to point out that the existence of gods and hungry ghosts is not compatible with atheism in the way that I (as well as I dare say most atheists in the West) use the term. And if anything traditional Buddhism's ontology strikes me as even more supernatural than traditional Christianity's.

But that is the point. Atheism has nothing whatever to do with supernaturalism or not. They are independent concepts. Each supposedly supernatural idea has to be subject to independent verification.

I am entirely prepared to believe in ghosts, fairies and so on providing someone supplies independently verifiable evidence.

From the BBC website on Buddhism:

Most Buddhists, especially western Buddhists, don't spend much time worrying about whether gods exist or not - it's just not an important question.

Buddhism is essentially about living one's life so as to gain enlightenment; there may or may not be some gods or spirits around, but they're not of any real importance.

That is a rather wonderful form of atheism/agnosticism in my view.

750. AAI 07

Comment #83731 by steve99 on October 31, 2007 at 4:17 am

Again, I've mentioned several times, you don't like the ideas I've mentioned because then YOU won't be taken care of if we don't take care of others even worse off then you. You defend because of YOUR OWN SELF INTEREST not the interest of others or humanity.

And yet again, I prove this false by mentioning charitable donations to situations like the Tsunami. There was no sense at all there of self-interest. Many people simply extend that unselfish attitude to those closer at home as well. You are wrong about this, at least for a significant number of people.