b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 561336 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post Sorry, mate, but that's such crap
And I know we've had this out before, but seriously, what does he 'ignore'? There *is* no evidence that opposes his case. There are loads of interesting unsolved problems in biology, but none of them seriously challenge evolution or give any evidence of intelligent design.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:20, , Reply)
This is a normal post ^This^
There's nothing there for him to ignore.

He basically points out that, and explains why, there's no reason to take the god-hypothesis seriously, and several reasons why not to.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:26, , Reply)
This is a normal post There is no evidence that supports his case either.
His position (that there is no deity) is precisely as undefended as the positions he claims to be exposing.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:36, , Reply)
This is a normal post No no no....
You see, the existence of an omnipresent all-powerful being and the particular actions attributed to him in scripture....are ruled out by the laws of science.

There is firm empirical evidence to support Dawkin's view - there is no such evidence to support god.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:41, , Reply)
This is a normal post No there is not.
There is zero empirical evidence to support a deity, but also zero empirical evidence to support Dawkins's belief that there is no deity.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:45, , Reply)
This is a normal post So with zero empirical evidence to support something....
Isn't it more rational to not believe in it rather than state its existence is definite?

*edit* Also - if you're talking about the scripture-defined form of god (which I think the people who write him hate mail probably are), there's LOTS of empirical evidence to support his non-existence (if you partly define his existence by stated actions and causal effect).
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post No.
Absolutely not.

Of course, you are looking at this from our perspective, not a logical one.

An atheist maintains, with zero empirical evidence to support his position, that there is no Deity. By your argument, it would be more rational not to believe in Atheism than to state that it is definitely true.

I am not arguing with Dawkins's beliefs, merely ranting about his hypocrisy in applying logic to theists which he does not, in turn, apply to atheism.

If you are an empiricalist and not an agnostic then you are shit at empiricalism.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:56, , Reply)
This is a normal post Try looking at it from a different perspective.
If you ask simply 'does God exist?' you can answer in whatever way you want. There's no logical basis to start from and so as you say, the only logical answer is an indecisive one.

The question should instead be 'why do people believe in God?' One answer is that we evolved that way. Consider it's just a biological mechanism within our brains to help us to bond and grow communities with moral uniformity. Or there's the religious view that there is a real, all powerful being we experience through our thoughts and emotions. Either could be true... but which one of those answers sounds more likely? I would certainly say God has been a useful evolutionary trait, so that alone convinces me he's imaginary.

Can't it be both? Can we argue that there's a second, REAL God besides the evolved imaginary God? Sure, but if we can explain the experience of God without God being present, then the real God is clearly doing absolutely nothing. If a God does nothing, why worship him?

tl;dr - I'm an Atheist, argue with me.
 (Alfinch With wisdom comes owls, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 18:46, , Reply)
This is a normal post I think that's possibly a step too far
They're ruled out by the laws of science as we currently know them, but that's not quite the same thing. I lean more towards Enzyme's way of putting it: God is an unnecessary hypothesis to account for the world we see around us.

Of course, there are also logical flaws in the God concept, but that leads to word games and doesn't really help anyone.

My personal favourite argument against creationism is this: given the staggering amount of evidence for evolution, the only possible conclusion is that God was deliberately lying to us (cf Terry Pratchett's 'Strata'). Once you accept that (you can call it 'testing your faith', then it becomes difficult to see why God mightn't just as easily have been lying to us in the Biblical account. Surely once you accept a mendacious God, all bets are off?
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post I like all of that.
The thing is, I have no problem with saying that there are logical issues with religion, but then I don't support any faith nuts, be they Muslim Extremists, Creationalists or Dawkins.

I also find that many, many Dawkins supporters seem to equate any religion with a strict following and utter belief in the bible, as though faith had rules. Not many Christians are creationists.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:00, , Reply)
This is a normal post And our survey says - wah wahhh
www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
 (I helped save b3ta! OldWhit, Tue 23 Nov 2010, 13:15, , Reply)
This is a normal post That's utter nonsense, and a misreading of his case.
He has never - to my knowledge - said that there is positively no deity. What he has done is to argue - reasonably - that there's no need to invoke a deity to explain observed phenomena.

He then takes this one step further, to argue that tacking a deity onto the world does not help us understand anything: it just muddies the water. After all, it doesn't really tell us how a phenomenon occurs, but it does give us a whole other set of mysteries about the nature and agency of an entity for which we have no independent evidence.

Therefore, if you want to understand the world, don't invoke deities. They'll leave you worse off.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:44, , Reply)
This is a normal post I personally believe that recognising that some things surpass our understanding is a very
valuable position and deities are a nice way to get people to do so, but that aside, he is an out atheist and has stated that those who believe in a deity are suffering from a mental illness.

That is a fairly clear standpoint, one might say.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:50, , Reply)
This is a normal post "[R]ecognising that some things surpass our understanding is a very valuable position..."
I don't see that as being coherent.

I don't think anyone really denies that there may be things that we, as humans, will never understand. The reconciliation of quantum and relativistic physics may be one of those things: they plainly do coexist, but noone has got them to fit together yet. Maybe noone will.

But to recognise that there're perhaps things that are beyond us is not a licence to introduce any old crap into a field. There is a reason to believe that the models of physics do fit together - after all, the universe is here - but there's no reason to believe in a deity. As I said before, such a belief adds nothing to any debate about the nature, workings, or content of the universe except mystery.

Why should we ascribe value to beliefs that add nothing except mystery?

People who continually beleive in stuff for which there is no evidence, and that is inaccessible to others who do not hold those beliefs, are frequently mentally ill; so the comparison - though a bit cheeky - may not be entirely specious.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:04, , Reply)
This is a normal post So you contest that Stephen Hawkin is mentally ill
since he clings to a belief that there are black holes?
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:06, , Reply)
This is a normal post


I'm going outside.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:17, , Reply)
This is a normal post So they are only mentally ill if their beliefs do not coincide with yours?

(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:23, , Reply)
This is a normal post No, only if their beliefs don't coincide with the observable and testable laws of the universe.

(Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:32, , Reply)
This is a normal post And you suggest that this is true of all beliefs involving a deity?

(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:48, , Reply)
This is a normal post Not in the slightest.
Black holes are predicted by a theory that is testable. That theory has been tested in other ways, and been found to be sound. So we have a reason to, and the ability to, go ahead and make predictions about the nature of these predicted black holes, and test for their existence.

And - what do we find? Well, that the universe seems to behave as we predicted it would. Thus the evidence strongly suggests that there are supermassive black holes at the centre of most galaxies, and that there're smaller ones elsewhere. Score one of Einstein and Hawking.

Had the universe differed radically from the predictions, then the theory would be ditched. That's why noone believes in phlogiston any more.

What we have is a picture in which a theory explains some phenomena in an efficient manner, and makes testable predictions about others. The god hypothesis does neither of these things.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:21, , Reply)
This is a normal post On the contrary,
a deity explains some otherwise inexplicable phenomena in an efficient manner.

There is no evidence for it and we may have to readdress, but for the moment it fits - it is VERY similar to black holes.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:25, , Reply)
This is a normal post What phenomena are you referring to, specifically?
With which phenomena does the input of a god make the most sense?
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:29, , Reply)
This is a normal post Pretty much EVERYTHING for which we have no answer.
See also 'magic'.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:32, , Reply)
This is a normal post That's not an explanation.
That's just a way of saying "Dunno, mate".
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:35, , Reply)
This is a normal post Oh, right...magic - yes.
I'd forgotten about that.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:36, , Reply)
This is a normal post Not at all.
Imagine a hitherto explained phenomenon. Now invoke a deity to "explain" it. Do we really have a better grip on that phenomenon? No. We're just saying "God did it". That's not an explanation.

What we do have, though, is a whole range of other things to explain, such as the nature and existence of that deity - what kind of thing it is, how it interacts with the world, and so on - a deity that we've invoked merely to explain the phenomenon, and without any supporting or independently-testable reason.

That's not an efficient answer. It's a refusal to answer.

It's not the same as with black holes, which - as I explained - are predicted by a theory that is independently testable, and the existence of which is in itself independently testable in principle.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:34, , Reply)
This is a normal post "God did it" IS an explanation.
I accept that you reject that hypothesis - I do myself, but just because it is not our belief that does not negate its innate value.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:50, , Reply)
This is a normal post Innate value?
What currency are you using to value God?

It's an untestable position, just one of an infinite number of possible explanations for shit we don't understand yet.

If you ascribe value to something that by definition can never be tested (it's faith, you're not meant to prove it) and for which an infinite number of alternative variations exist, infinite dilution of your value system to worthlessness is the only logical conclusion.
 (I helped save b3ta! chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:30, , Reply)
This is a normal post He doesn't say there is no God
He says there 'almost certainly' is no God, and defends that thesis with a large number of strong arguments and evidence.
People who say absence of evidence is not evidence of absence are just plain wrong. It is impossible to prove that there are no mauve swans in Dorset, but every year you spend observing the swan population without seeing one is evidence in favour of that hypothesis - and there are all kinds of Bayesian methods to quantify exactly how strong that evidence is.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:45, , Reply)
This is a normal post There are, but the lack of a deity is not observable.
It is more like saying that there is no life off the Earth. For now unmeasurable.

Aside from this, the man is an atheist. He absolutely has stated this as categorical fact and, as such, his beliefs are not in keeping with his stated doctrine.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:48, , Reply)
This is a normal post Yes, but we can analyse the probability of life...taking into account all of the variables it needs to exist
...compare that to the size of the universe...and reasonably surmise that it probably does exist elsewhere.

It's not the same as the god / no god question at all.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:55, , Reply)
This is a normal post Strawman.
I was writing off the swan analogy, not providing my own.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:01, , Reply)
This is a normal post Atheism is a broad church :)
There is a logical distinction between the following statements:

'There is no God'
'I believe there is no God'
'There is almost certainly no God'

You can truthfully state 2 and 3. To state 2 is logically equivalent to saying 'I am an atheist'. Meanwhile, 1 is a factual statement that may be either true or false.

I am an atheist ("I believe there is no God"), but that is not inconsistent with saying "The nonexistence of God is not proven". If God were to manifest tomorrow on the roof of St Paul's Cathedral, I would change my belief.

As for your first point, there is a huge difference between the question of extraterrestrial life, about which surely everyone must be agnostic, and the question of God. God is supposed to have an active presence here on Earth. That is a question about which we have empirical evidence. Obviously there is no evidence for or against a passive, non-material God who exists in some sense but doesn't affect the physical world in any way, but who *cares* whether a God like that 'exists'?
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:00, , Reply)
This is a normal post I agree that one can truthfully state 2 and 3.
I have absolutely no issue at all with people who state 2. I have a problem with those who state 2, but then go on to say that those who have alternate beliefs are wrong.

I have no time for anyone saying that the beliefs of others is wrong, be those beliefs Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Christianity or any other belief based on non-empirical evidence.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:05, , Reply)
This is a normal post I just disagree
Surely if I believe something different from you I am perfectly entitled (even obliged) to try to persuade you to my point of view. 'I believe there is no God' is the same as 'I believe you are wrong to believe in God'. I *love* being told I'm wrong about things and getting a chance to argue my case or be persuaded to a new belief.

In fact, I'd say this has already happened with me in the case of Dawkins, who certainly pushed me further down the path from vague agnosticism to outright (even evangelical!) atheism.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:10, , Reply)
This is a normal post That's wrong, which is a shame, because up until now I thought it was all going very well.
'I believe there is no God' is not the same as 'I believe you are wrong to believe in God'.

I don't really know what more to say about that, it clearly is the case.

I do not like Marmite, but I do not believe that you are wrong to like Marmite.

The existence of any deity is unproven (unprovable even) and therefore people can happily have different beliefs without disregarding the possibility of the beliefs of others.

If you wish to convince others then the onus of proof is on you, not on them (in either direction, of course) and it is precisely the fact that Dawkins tries to convert others to his faith without providing proof, whilst at the same time attacking them for not providing proof, which is so very distasteful.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:15, , Reply)
This is a normal post What is the difference?
'I believe that there is life on other planets'
'I don't believe that there is life on other planets'
Doesn't that mean that each believes the other is wrong? 'I believe A' and 'I disbelieve not-A' are the same thing.

'I like marmite' isn't the same thing at all. 'Liking' and 'Believing' are totally different mental processes. To believe in something is to have an opinion about a putative fact, which has to be either true or false (or a shade of grey in between). It's perfectly possible for one person to say 'I like marmite' and another to say 'I dislike marmite' and for them both to be correct. Isn't that blindingly obvious?

Meanwhile it is perfectly coherent to say 'I believe there is no God. I believe you are wrong to believe in God. But your belief may turn out to be correct'. That's what 'believe' *means*!
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:24, , Reply)
This is a normal post Okay, scrap Marmite (although i hold that it is sound)
Let's have a race. I believe that the red horse will win. You believe that the blue horse will win.

Neither of us is 'right' so to say that the other is wrong is logically flawed.

Dawkins's faith is not wrong, nor is that of an extremist Muslim. The actions of those individuals can be wrong and, in this instance, it is Dawkins's insistence that those who believe differently to him are 'wrong' which is inconsistent with his arguments.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:29, , Reply)
This is a normal post What?
'Neither of us is "right"'? Of course we are - either the red horse or the blue horse will win, and then one of us will have been right (and will have been right all along) and the other will have been wrong. Just because an event is in the future doesn't make it any less factual (cf 'grue'). And of course, this still isn't relevant to the God question because that's talking about a supposed entity that exists now, or in the past. I'm obviously agnostic about the existence of a *future* God (although I still tend towards the 'there is not now and will never be a God' belief, I recognise that it is a marginally weaker position)

Dawkins doesn't have 'faith'. He has a rationally argued belief based on evidence and laws of probability. Faith is a belief *in opposition* to evidence: "I believe in God and will continue to hold that belief whatever you say". That's emphatically *not* the same as a scientific position.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:40, , Reply)
This is a normal post I agree with your last statement strongly.
"I believe in God and will continue to hold that belief whatever you say". That's emphatically *not* the same as a scientific position.

As is "I do not believe in God and, indeed, state that he does not exist, regardless of any lack of evidence.

That would be faith. He believes in something without being able to know it.

You started here well, but fell logically at this rather small hurdle and are now arguing for atheism, rather than accepting logical inconsistencies in Dawkins's argument.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 18:07, , Reply)
This is a normal post One of you is right...
But unfortunately, in a fair race, the truth value of neither proposition is knowable until after the race.

"It will rain tomorrow" has a truth value; we just do not know with perfect confidence what that value is.
 (ChickPea, Sat 27 Nov 2010, 21:31, , Reply)
This is a normal post God vs, Marmite
Not the same thing at all.

Saying "I don't like Marmite" is (unless it's an outright lie), a statement about my personal mental state. No-one else has any valid opinions on the subject. Saying "I don't *believe* in Marmite" would be a closer analogy. If someone can buy me a jar of God from Tesco, I'll change my opinion.
 (ChickPea, Sat 27 Nov 2010, 21:29, , Reply)
This is a normal post "It is more like saying that there is no life off the Earth."
Not quite.

Looking for extraterrestrial life would involve looking for things that are basically like us: medium-sized solid objects. We know that we came from somewhere, and so it's not a wild leap to suppose that something similar may have happened elsewhere.

A deity, by contrast, is by definition utterly unlike anything we've experienced, and it's unclear how you'd go about looking for one; a deity is not a medium-sized solid object, and possibly not an object at all. So your analogy doesn't quite fit.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:08, , Reply)
This is a normal post I accept this.

(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:10, , Reply)