Interesting to note that, like many religious folk, an atheist (as defined above) is belief-driven, not knowledge-driven. In fact, atheism (as has been pointed out by many) is just another belief system--i.e, based on his ideas and direct experiences, an atheist simply has not accumulated the data to know (not believe) otherwise.

Probability of the universe forming spontaneously: almost zero.

Next up:


“What you fail to understand is that adding god to the universe does not explain the formation of the universe any better than not adding god to the universe, and since adding god is one of infinitely many possible unhelpful additions you could make to the universe, you cannot justify the addition -- you've just arbitrarily picked one unhelpful addition out of an infinite population of unhelpful additions, a basic Occam's razor violation.”

You’ve backed yourself into a corner here by inferring that “God” is the self-safe as that proposed in Biblical scripture, as a sort of Oz-like creator that creats by fiat.

Also, Alfred North Whitehead, one of the great mathematicians and philosophers of the last century, included God in his cosmology simply because this WAS the easiest explanation (The Razor example), all things considered (including the insurmountable problem of something coming from nothing, and what WAS before the big bang).

[

The Harvard committee rightly noted that students coming to college today struggle with an academy that is "profoundly secular." This was not always the case, at Harvard or at many other universities. For centuries scholars, scientists and artists agreed that convictions of faith were wholly compatible with the highest levels of reasoning, inquiry and creativity. But in recent centuries this assumption had been challenged and assertions of faith marginalized in, and even banished from, academic departments and university curricula. Requiring courses in "Reason and Faith" would be a welcome step toward reintroducing faith to the academy.

Yes, I was responding specifically to Tradrenn, and his Christian God.

This is interesting. Are you going to tell us that you have no problem with religion? Would you like to try to convince us that Dawkins and Harris have no problem with religion?

Similarly, would you like to try to convince us that "The End of Faith" is not anti-religion? How about "The God delusion"?

Don't be coy, Tristan. You yourself have described - in your own last post, no less - religion and its content as "barbaric", "infantile", "bloodthirsty", "tyrannical" and "self-contradictory".

Are you seriously going to try to convince us that atheism as demonstrated by you, Harris and Dawkins, is not anti-religion?

(This should be good)

:D

"I described the contents of the Christian Bible as such, not all of religion."

The "Christian Bible" is, strictly speaking, the Gospels (Mat., Mark, Luke, John), before which Christ wasn't around.

The previous stuff is in keeping with the psychological development of people from the ancient past, though in light of what's going on in Iraq and Africa (and other places), there's little to suggest we've come very far since Exodus. If we were to produce an updated bible, reflecting the morality and actual practices of modern day, would it not reflect the same barbarity found in the ancient text? The illusion I believe is that folks have actually evolved because these days we have more facts and figures. Sadly, this hasn't changed human nature, it's just made some of us more comfortable.

JL

For starters, your supposition, that knowledge and beliefs are basically the same thing, ....

... negates the kind of incontrovertible “knowing” that comes from direct experience and that is not a belief at all, rather a plain and simple fact.

exactly. This is the reason that I've always said in these conversations that "I lack the faith to be an atheist." People usually do not get it.

No.


What are you talking about? I don't see any connection between what I said and this gibberish.

The point is: if you mean to argue that (some set of) religious propositions are "plain and simple fact" from "direct experience", and thus are "knowledge", not "beliefs", you're simply assuming your conclusion.

What I am talking about was spelled out clearly (I think) in my hot-stove example which apparently you didn’t read.

In the last graph you totally lose your way by implying, falsely, that, one, religious and spiritual realities are the same thing (not so--religious stuff is doctrinal driven, spiritual stuff is experiential);

[..] and two, that all spiritual realities are "propositions."

This is not only entirly incorrect, it's like saying that a hot stove is itself a proposition, [..]

[..] and that the plain fact that if you sit on it, it will torch your very ass, is a belief, when in fact experiential direct knowing (of getting burned) will show you without a shadow of a doubt that the stove is more than a proposition, it's a hot fricking stove and remains so no matter what you believe or don't believe.

The bare and simple fact of a hot stove has nothing to do with propositions, conclusions, suppositions, or mentalizing of any kind under the sun.

The real problem with a fundamentalist-materialist perspective is the all to obvious limitions of trying to quantify truth and reality, and the default position of calling anything that you cannot measure "unreal." Direct experiences would show you otherwise in a heartbeat--but doctrine never will, of that we may be sure.

An interesting thing here is that most humans really want to know. Most of us come to know something from direct experience, not from science interpreting and measuring and quantifying the facets of our experience so we can "know for sure."

Using the example of the hot stove, we don't need heat measurements to know for sure that the stove will blaze our gams if we sit on it. Even without those measurements we know we'll get burned, and we know for sure, from direct experience.

The problem with most religious arguments is that folks are trying to "know for sure" by way of measurements or scientific qualification, not from direct experience, which is principally how we come to know what we know. Moreover, many people believe that the only way to brush shoulders with the Divine is through beliefs, not from direct experience, even though the later is totally open to anyone willing to do the work to get there. Like much of life, we expect something for nothing (no effort) when we expect to know transcendence by merely thinking about it, as though it were all just a bundle of thoughts as opposed to being the spiritual equivalant of that hot stove.

JL

Probability of the universe forming spontaneously: almost zero.

Probability of life beginning without outside intervention: almost zero.

Oh, and regarding the OP:

People who have faith: 97% of all human beings.

People who don't: a tiny fringe minority of wackos.

tradman, are you really this stupid? you have the gall to complain about bias, and then you say this?

i'm nothing like a wacko, and i can give you loads of character references from nice christians if that is what you require.

you are a narrow minded bigot who lets dogma blind you to reality by that statement. not sure if you really are, or just posted without thinking. hopefully the latter

no offence, Tradman, but how do you know? I know I don't. I don't think anyone does. Can you ask a scientist why the universe started and get an absolute answer?

The current scientific thinking on how the universe works throws up what's called a "fine-tuning problem". It's simple: there are number of values in the universe - the strength of gravity, the relationship between gravity and mass, for instance - that have to be very specific for the universe to exist. If they were even a tiny fraction of a percent different, there wouldn't be a universe.

The same is true of abiogenesis, the formation of the first life. Many tiny things have to be right for it to happen.

Now, I'm not saying that these problems don't have solutions. But the current thinking is that the probability of either of these things happening by themselves is very, very small.

Perhaps there are or were a trillion other universes in which it didn't happen.

The current scientific thinking on how the universe works throws up what's called a "fine-tuning problem". It's simple: there are number of values in the universe - the strength of gravity, the relationship between gravity and mass, for instance - that have to be very specific for the universe to exist. If they were even a tiny fraction of a percent different, there wouldn't be a universe.

The same is true of abiogenesis, the formation of the first life. Many tiny things have to be right for it to happen.

Now, I'm not saying that these problems don't have solutions. But the current thinking is that the probability of either of these things happening by themselves is very, very small.

Change some constants by 1-2 percent and life as we know it would not be possible - all hydrogen would fuse to heavier elements, or no hydrogen would fuse, etc... see here. Some universe would still exist. It might even support some sort of life.

probability of our universe existing with the properties it does: 1.0.

probability of life appearing on earth: 1.0.

"Look at all this! How can it possibly have come about through chance?

...


therefore, God exists."