Does atheism matter?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

My bunda, they do. Like, seriously, what kind of person writes this kind of silly nonsense?

And more to the point, who on earth would shell out $26.95 to buy a book full of it?And for an encore, the excellent Swinburne inadvertently "proves" to himself that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists too.

Truly his wisdom knows no bounds!

Buy the man a beer for me -- I do enjoy a good laugh.

Hey I dont have a view - I was just questioning the logic of using probability as its a bit of a nonsense

CDfm

BombSquad wrote: »

Except of course if you could pull out some evidence of god's existence. In that case the probability would jump to 100% and it would be your best friend. In the mean time you choose to ignore it. Fair enough.

I have never thought it can be done either way because you have an inherent bias.Its still down to personal belief or faith which you have or have not.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Hey I dont have a view - I was just questioning the logic of using probability as its a bit of a nonsense

It's really not. What I originally said was that a large number of experiements have been done to try to prove claims of the supernatural and that every single one of these has failed.

Every time you try to prove a hypothesis and the experiment fails, it makes it a little bit less likely that your hypothesis is correct. That is not a nonsense and personal biases don't come into it

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's really not. What I originally said was that a large number of experiements have been done to try to prove claims of the supernatural and that every single one of these has failed.

Every time you try to prove a hypothesis and the experiment fails, it makes it a little bit less likely that your hypothesis is correct. That is not a nonsense

The fact that an experiment fails does nothing to influence the facts. Take DNA - Occams Razor conclusions made it an unlikely outcome but it still "is".

BombSquad

CDfm wrote: »

I have never thought it can be done either way because you have an inherent bias.

1. Bias:A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.

2. Bias:A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others

I don't have an inherent bias. It would be far more beneficial for me if there was a God and I got to go to Heaven. Sounds like a great place. I'd be all in favour of that. I actually favour YOUR beliefs over my own!

You, however, do have a bias in accepting what you want to believe without anything to back you up.

(I'm obviously presuming that you do belive in God. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

The fact that an experiment fails does nothing to influence the facts. Take DNA - Occams Razor conclusions made it an unlikely outcome but it still "is".

No it doesn't influence the facts if your experiment fails but if you are trying to find out what the facts are and you have a hypothesis about what the facts might be and you do an experiment to find out if your hypothesis is correct, it makes it less likely that your hypothesis is correct. It might still be correct but it's less likely to be. That's why we do experiments.


As for Occam's razor making DNA unlikely, you're absolutely right but I don't know what that has to do with this conversation. As you pointed out before, it can't be applied to all circumstances and can lead you to the wrong conclusion.

edit: btw, Occam's razor isn't an experiment

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

The fact that an experiment fails does nothing to influence the facts. Take DNA - Occams Razor conclusions made it an unlikely outcome but it still "is".

Really? Which part?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit: btw, Occam's razor isn't an experiment

Probability isnt an experiment.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

I was just questioning the logic of using probability as its a bit of a nonsense

Well, obviously you think that - since probability suggests that you deity doesn't exist!

I think you need to be more open-minded.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Probability isnt an experiment.

No it isn't but experiments can effect probability

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Well, obviously you think that - since probability suggests that you deity doesn't exist!

I think you need to be more open-minded.

No - it would be the same if someone was using an economic model and using assumptions that were tenuos.

Thats why I am raising it - rationally its nonsense.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it isn't but experiments can effect probability

Too abstract Sam.Its not a greyhound race.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

No - it would be the same if someone was using an economic model and using assumptions that were tenuos.

Thats why I am raising it - rationally its nonsense.

It's only nonsense if the assumptions you make are invalid. so what you do is you carry out experiments to find out if your assumptions are valid. You're pretty much arguing here that the whole of probability is nonsense because assumptions can be invalid in any area

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Too abstract Sam.Its not a greyhound race.

too abstract....in your opinion.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

too abstract....in your opinion.

I am not disputing your non belief and I am not arguing with you about scripture as proof and never do.

I just think that using probability in this way is giving you a self fulfilling prophesy and is a bit of a sham.

You dont need it.

edit : What does it add?

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

I am not disputing your non belief and I am not arguing with you about scripture as proof and never do.

I just think that using probability in this way is giving you a self fulfilling prophesy and is a bit of a sham.

You dont need it.

edit : What does it add?

That its probable gods don't exist.

I'll get my coat.

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That its probable gods don't exist.

I'll get my coat.

Based on whose assumptions.

It doesnt change your belief and its a sophist argument that is based on theoretical assumptions to which there are equal counter assumtions based on your point of view.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I am not disputing your non belief and I am not arguing with you about scripture as proof and never do.

I just think that using probability in this way is giving you a self fulfilling prophesy and is a bit of a sham.

You dont need it.

edit : What does it add?

It's only a self fulfilling prophecy if people who are using probability to argue against God are personally biased towards making incorrect assumptions. Since that could apply to any area where probability is being applied, that would make probability completely invalid as a branch of maths.

Probability has not been rejected as invalid and is used to great effect quite regularly, which would suggest that people are generally quite capable of making correct assumptions and I see no reason to think why that would go out the window when applying it to the God question.

I think the mistake you're making here is that the theist's approach to things is to go with their gut feeling on everything and neglect evidence so their assumptions would indeed be invalid, as we saw with Swinburn where he argued about Occam's razor and gave an example, not quite understanding that in the example he gave scientists were using a simpler value for the speed of light, knowing that doing so would give an incorrect solution. Occam's razor cannot be applied to that situation.

basically, just because theist's make their assumptions based on nothing but gut feeling and dodgy logic doesn't mean that it's not possible to form valid assumptions based on evidence

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Based on whose assumptions.

It doesnt change your belief and its a sophist argument that is based on theoretical assumptions to which there are equal counter assumtions based on your point of view.

I have no idea what you're talking about?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Based on whose assumptions.

It doesnt change your belief and its a sophist argument that is based on theoretical assumptions to which there are equal counter assumtions based on your point of view.

That all depends on whether the counter assumptions are equal. The Swinburn one you gave makes several logical errors so it's not equal

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think the mistake you're making here is that the theist's approach to things is to go with their gut feeling on everything and neglect evidence so their assumptions would indeed be invalid, as we saw with Swinburn where he argued about Occam's razor and gave an example, not quite understanding that in the example he gave scientists were using a simpler value for the speed of light, knowing that doing so would give an incorrect solution. Occam's razor cannot be applied to that situation.

I just pulled that of a philosophy website and had never seen it before. The God question is one of the areas where is doesnt apply I imagine. Just like Occam and DNA. Its a pub argument dressed up as science.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

I just pulled that of a philosophy website and had never seen it before. The God question is one of the areas where is doesnt apply I imagine. Just like Occam and DNA. Its a pub argument dressed up as science.

Your entire point here depends on the idea that it's not possible to come up with valid assumptions with the God question but that's simply not true. The fact that you're able to give a load of arguments contradicting our assumptions doesn't prove anything unless their assumptions are actually valid. In the example you gave, they're most definitely not

Sam Vimes

Here's an example of an experiment that is independent of personal bias and could effect the probability of God's existence:

People pray to God and ask for things so an experiment could be done where a large number of people pray regularly for things and there is a control group of equal size who don't pray for anything and maybe call God a motherfcuker on a daily basis.

The number of people could be massive and it could be spread out over years and if after many years it was found that the people who prayed did not tend to get what they asked for any more than the people who didn't, it would suggest that prayer doesn't work.

And since the idea of prayer is fundamental to the christian god it would effect the probability that this God exists

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your entire point here depends on the idea that it's not possible to come up with valid assumptions with the God question but that's simply not true. The fact that you're able to give a load of arguments contradicting our assumptions doesn't prove anything unless their assumptions are actually valid. In the example you gave, they're most definitely not

Not a bad argument for a materialist in a non-materialist area.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Here's an example of an experiment that is independent of personal bias and could effect the probability of God's existence:

The probability argument just isn't convincing.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Not a bad argument for a materialist in a non-materialist area.

To even call it a non-materialist area assumes the existence of God. Most of the arguments I would make would be over if it's non-materialist at all, such as the example I gave where the fact that almost all societies had some form of religion but they all varied massively suggests that the whole thing is entirely materialist and originated in the minds of the people who thought it up.

And in contrast, if they all independently came up with the same religion, it would suggest that it was implanted in their heads from somewhere else

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

The probability argument just isn't convincing.

You have yet to give a good reason for why that is

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You have yet to give a good reason for why that is

You implied it yourself above -youn just cant eliminate bias whatever you do.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

You implied it yourself above -youn just cant eliminate bias whatever you do.

In fact, no, I was saying the exact opposite and that if the above statement was true we'd have to throw the whole mathematical concept of probability in the bin

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact, no, I was saying the exact opposite and that if the above statement was true we'd have to throw the whole mathematical concept of probability in the bin

Ah well - thats probability disproved. Do you need help with anything else:D

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ah well - thats probability disproved. Do you need help with anything else:D

Right, but seriously, you do understand how your statement could be applied to any area where probability is employed right?

And you do understand that probability is employed all over the world and it has been proven to be effective?

And you do understand how that makes your argument that you cannot use probability in the area of God because biases cannot be eliminated invalid? I see no reason why it would be any more difficult to come up with valid assumptions in the area of God than in any other area where people might have personal biases.

Sam Vimes

To give you some concession

I can see how it would make it more difficult to make valid assumptions because of these biases but it's by no means impossible to overcome them any more than it would be impossible for someone working at paddy power to give a valid probability of Man United winning a match just because he supports the team (or hates them).

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, but seriously, you do understand how your statement could be applied to any area where probability is employed right?

And you do understand that probability is employed all over the world and it has been proven to be effective?

And you do understand how that makes your argument that you cannot use probability in the area of God because biases cannot be eliminated invalid? I see no reason why it would be any more difficult to come up with valid assumptions in the area of God than in any other area where people might have personal biases.

Well if science cant handle its own limitations then its not good science.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well if science cant handle its own limitations then its not good science.

Who said science can't do what now

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Who said science can't do what now

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about

You have an inherent science bias which is why you cant see it.Now you are an agnostic you can ditch that:D

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

You have an inherent science bias which is why you cant see it.Now you are an agnostic you can ditch that:D

What is that supposed to mean?

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

You have an inherent science bias which is why you cant see it.Now you are an agnostic you can ditch that:D

As opposed to an inherent believing whatever I'm told bias? I'm alright thanks

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

Smartarse answer on a definition of an atheist and doubt. Its back in the thread a bit.

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

Smartarse answer on a definition of an atheist and doubt. Its back in the thread a bit.

Not what I was on about. I was refering to the part in bold "inherent science bias".

Húrin

togster wrote: »

If it's natural how can it be shown that people who meditate exhibit improved mental well being as wicknight said?

Surely if something is natural it should be to your benefit?

I don't see why a practise that improves mental well-being (but not, perhaps physical well-being) would be any more or less natural than another state of mind.

The conflation of the "natural" with what is good for us is a thoughtless invention of modern marketing.

Wicknight wrote: »

Personal assessment and interpretation of data is very flawed. Humans are particularly bad at doing this.

Who's better at it?

That is why we have things like science in the first place, and why science has over turned almost all of the concepts that man came up with on his own to explain the world around us (for example everything is made of fire Earth water and wind).

What extra-human help did man have in order to come up with science?

togster wrote: »

There are no words to explain it. Clarity gets close.

An understanding of everything and everyone. Knowing what it would be like to fly like an eagle or swim like a fish. Compassion and love and joy. Complete peace and acceptance of every situation and the ability to change if needed.

While this is not bad or unnatural, I don't see how it is more natural than the normal state of high awareness of surroundings, instant responses, etc that Wicknight was talking about.

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Not what I was on about. I was refering to the part in bold "inherent science bias".

Oh that - Im just teasing as i dont think these biases can be overcome in the same way a theist bias cant be. We discussed Occams at lenght on the Theocracy thread and spent a lot of time on assumptions.

Húrin

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Nope, I'm what Mr. Dawkins calls a level 6 atheist

As I said to you the idea that all atheists think the universe popped out of nothing is a theist caricature of the position of atheists.

Level 6 is:
6. Very low probability [of god], but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

In fairness a lot of atheists claim that Christians are all at 1 on that scale, when certainly many would be nearer to 2, thinking that God is very probable and living their lives on the assumption that he is there.

Dawkins himself is at 6.9!

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

Who's better at it?

Machines.

Húrin wrote: »

What extra-human help did man have in order to come up with science?

Again, machines. Very few experiments reply on the interpretation of the scientist of what they think they saw or heard or experienced. We get far more accurate results when we remove the human's assessment from the equation.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness a lot of atheists claim that Christians are all at 1 on that scale, when certainly many would be nearer to 2, thinking that God is very probable and living their lives on the assumption that he is there.

Dawkins himself is at 6.9!

This is probably true. I know you put yourself down as a 2 in that thread a while ago. I'd hope that most people on this forum wouldn't make that mistake

Zombrex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is probably true. I know you put yourself down as a 2 in that thread a while ago. I'd hope that most people on this forum wouldn't make that mistake

well you get quite a few on the Christian forum who say they know beyond all doubt or possibly of being wrong that God exists, normally quoting some Bible passage or saying that God has put them in a state of knowing. The consideration that they may be wrong seems impossible to them becasue they have rationalised that nothing but God could produce this feeling.

I find that if you meet a 7 atheist you can explain to them why 6 is a more rational position and they will happily accept that, but talking to a 1 theist is like talking to a brick wall. More often than not they see it as a Satanic trick, trying to make them doubt their religion. I suppose that is the problem with a religion that treats doubt as something bad

CerebralCortex

Kelly1 for example.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

well you get quite a few on the Christian forum who say they know beyond all doubt or possibly of being wrong that God exists, normally quoting some Bible passage or saying that God has put them in a state of knowing. The consideration that they may be wrong seems impossible to them becasue they have rationalised that nothing but God could produce this feeling.

This is also true

edit: An example would be a guy who said somewhere a few weeks ago that god's existence is the one thing in life that he's sure of. I'll see if I can find it....

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Kelly1 for example.

or Wolfsbane

both have stated before that God has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't God. A highly irrational position, but meh they seem happy :pac:

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

or Wolfsbane

both have stated before that God has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't God. A highly irrational position, but meh they seem happy :pac:

I wonder how many people have said in their lives:

Allah has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't Allah

Vishnu has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't Vishnu

Zeus has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't Zeus

The flying spaghetti monster has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't The flying spaghetti monster

And at the same time I wonder if anyone has said:
Jesus has revealed himself in such a way that it is impossible that it wasn't Jesus

who had never heard of Jesus until he miraculously revealed himself where it couldn't be explained as their mind modeling what they were experiencing based on its own understanding

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness a lot of atheists claim that Christians are all at 1 on that scale, when certainly many would be nearer to 2, thinking that God is very probable and living their lives on the assumption that he is there.

My first question to someone who tries to begin a "How can you not believe in God?" debate with me, whether online or in person is always "Do you accept that there's a possibility that your God does not exist and your <holy book> could be wrong?"

The answer is usually "No" followed by a look of puzzlement like I'm telling them the sky isn't blue, at which point I end the conversation as proceeding is too much of an uphill battle.

To many Christians that I've spoken to the existence of their God is as real as the sun and moon in the sky. They instinctively pray to their God when bad things happen, pray for help, pray to be thankful and have a constant feeling of awareness that their God is present around them, protecting them from evil spirits and temptations. When they feel good, it's because of God, when good things happen in their life, it's God. When bad things happen it's Satan and Demons and the trials of this world.

In no way have they ever entertained the idea that God does not exist. In fact any doubts they have about Gods existence in the past they put down to being tests by Satan to test their faith. This is not your crackpot fundamentalist Christian, this is your average individual who believes in Christianity. I think it highly disingenuous to say that the average Christian thinks that their God probably exists and they are following the bible to hedge their bets.

This simply is not the case, apart from online I've never met a Christian in person that was willing to admit there was less than a 100% chance that their God existed. Sure why would they? They have a lifetime of subjective memories and emotive coincidences that they have put down to being directly influenced by their God. In their minds they remember Gods tangible influence on their lives like I remember the Sun on my face this morning.