Why are atheists and agnostics so sad?

[crispybits]

So, you read my post and your first reaction wasn't that I was demonstrating the folly of not liking something just because it correlates (without causation) with something else you don't like, but that I was actually proposing that piracy levels have some sort of causal effect on the ice caps, or shoe size differences cause intelligence differences?

yeah, that was my first reaction, because anyone that advocated piracy in that situation would HAVE to believe that piracy had a causal effect on the ice caps. otherwise, why would they advocate piracy? think about what you wrote...

What? Like your "things you don't like about some people", even though you admit they're not causally related to atheism (they just have a correlation with it), is reason enough to assume atheism is enough of a reason to dislike that person? I'll remind you of your original statement seeing as neither of us is a fan of quote bubbling entire exchanges:

although atheism (in theory) may not cause certain behaviors, it correlates with certain behaviors. is that not good enough cause to dislike atheists, if you dislike the behaviors that correlate with atheism?

I'm not even arguing here about whether God exists or not, but about your statement that disliking something is enough of a reason to dislike other things that correlate with it, even with no causal link. It's ridiculous, and you're doing yourself no favours with it...

[john9blue]

What? Like your "things you don't like about some people", even though you admit they're not causally related to atheism (they just have a correlation with it), is reason enough to assume atheism is enough of a reason to dislike that person? I'll remind you of your original statement seeing as neither of us is a fan of quote bubbling entire exchanges:

I'm not even arguing here about whether God exists or not, but about your statement that disliking something is enough of a reason to dislike other things that correlate with it, even with no causal link. It's ridiculous, and you're doing yourself no favours with it...

as an example, suppose every russian person you've ever met was a total jerk. you don't know why, and you don't see why being russian would make someone a jerk, but wouldn't you start to avoid russian people after a while?

[chang50]

So, you read my post and your first reaction wasn't that I was demonstrating the folly of not liking something just because it correlates (without causation) with something else you don't like, but that I was actually proposing that piracy levels have some sort of causal effect on the ice caps, or shoe size differences cause intelligence differences?

yeah, that was my first reaction, because anyone that advocated piracy in that situation would HAVE to believe that piracy had a causal effect on the ice caps. otherwise, why would they advocate piracy? think about what you wrote...

as far as we know,gods don't exist,and have no reason to exist,and the universe cannot support the supernatural,and suspending the physical laws of nature is impossible,so i'm calling bullshit on this theory because any smart person can see it is no more plausible than any variation of Russell's teapot.The only people who would actually think that's a legit example are people like john who fancies himself a critical thinker.

provide evidence for:

- god has no reason to exist
- the universe cannot support the supernatural
- suspending the physical laws of nature (as we know them) is impossible

or are these all true by default? is the burden of proof still not on you? are babies born believing these statements??? lol

Just like Russell's teapot,which I would hope none of us believes in,the evidence is the lack of evidence for the opposite propositions.My disbelief rests reasonably here,this is the standard we use daily to discount the absurd and/or extremely unlikely.When my 8 year old tells me he can play chess,as happened this morning,although he almost certainly has no experience of the game,I don't take it too seriously.Instead I humour him a little and promise to teach him when he is older.

[john9blue]

Just like Russell's teapot,which I would hope none of us believes in,the evidence is the lack of evidence for the opposite propositions.My disbelief rests reasonably here,this is the standard we use daily to discount the absurd and/or extremely unlikely.When my 8 year old tells me he can play chess,as happened this morning,although he almost certainly has no experience of the game,I don't take it too seriously.Instead I humour him a little and promise to teach him when he is older.

nope. we have evidence against russell's teapot. for example, all teapots that we know of are man-made, and no man has sent a teapot into space, so there is no conceivable way that a teapot could be in space.

can you do the same with the god hypothesis?

[BigBallinStalin]

Just like Russell's teapot,which I would hope none of us believes in,the evidence is the lack of evidence for the opposite propositions.My disbelief rests reasonably here,this is the standard we use daily to discount the absurd and/or extremely unlikely.When my 8 year old tells me he can play chess,as happened this morning,although he almost certainly has no experience of the game,I don't take it too seriously.Instead I humour him a little and promise to teach him when he is older.

nope. we have evidence against russell's teapot. for example, all teapots that we know of are man-made, and no man has sent a teapot into space, so there is no conceivable way that a teapot could be in space.

can you do the same with the god hypothesis?

[chang50]

Just like Russell's teapot,which I would hope none of us believes in,the evidence is the lack of evidence for the opposite propositions.My disbelief rests reasonably here,this is the standard we use daily to discount the absurd and/or extremely unlikely.When my 8 year old tells me he can play chess,as happened this morning,although he almost certainly has no experience of the game,I don't take it too seriously.Instead I humour him a little and promise to teach him when he is older.

nope. we have evidence against russell's teapot. for example, all teapots that we know of are man-made, and no man has sent a teapot into space, so there is no conceivable way that a teapot could be in space.

can you do the same with the god hypothesis?

There is just as much evidence that all gods are man-made as evidence for all teapots being man-made,that's the whole point of the analogy,to show the absurdity of the proposition..
You might not accept it but to me both propositions are more or less equally absurd.

[john9blue]

There is just as much evidence that all gods are man-made as evidence for all teapots being man-made,that's the whole point of the analogy,to show the absurdity of the proposition..
You might not accept it but to me both propositions are more or less equally absurd.

...wat?

i have evidence that all teapots are man-made. what evidence is there that all gods are man-made?

[chang50]

There is just as much evidence that all gods are man-made as evidence for all teapots being man-made,that's the whole point of the analogy,to show the absurdity of the proposition..
You might not accept it but to me both propositions are more or less equally absurd.

...wat?

i have evidence that all teapots are man-made. what evidence is there that all gods are man-made?

My evidence for gods being man-made is the lack of evidence for them existing outside the human mind.Show me the counter evidence and I will consider it.

[chang50]

I theorise that there is a race of blue goblin-like creatures living under the surface of one of the moons of Saturn, and they have communicated telepathically with me. I'm lobbying government to pass laws and spend money on the premise that these aliens exist and are in desperate need of humanitarian aid due to the drought they had this summer destroying their food crops. What evidence can you show to refute my claim and stop me spending your tax dollars on mounting a rescue mission or restricting your freedoms because the aliens are offended by aspects of your lifestyle? Or is it reasonable that you should dismiss my wild claims without evidence that these little blue men do not exist?

There are a lot of problems with your example, especially given that it is impossible to verify (at least not without difficulty) that you are telling the truth. I have a very simple political philosophy here; if you want to spend the people's money or change the people's behavior then you have to convince the people.

Yet Crispy's example is no less fantastic than what Christianity expects us to believe,both contain wild claims lacking in evidence and should be dismissed as such until reasonable evidence emerges.

That is a gross overstatement. There is quite a lot of historical evidence for Christ and the resurrection. All that aside it's called "faith" for a reason.
I do not know how you live life the way you do. Do you sleep in the same bed as your wife? If so, why? How do you know she will not stab you in the back overnight and kill you in your sleep? You have no empirical evidence that she will not do so, all you have is pure faith that she is reliable. It's the same with Christ really.
This "you guys need to physically show me God before I budge" attitude does no one any favours, and is quite egotistical to be frank.

There is nothing I can think of that is more egotistical than believing we are a major part of the creation story.

[john9blue]

My evidence for gods being man-made is the lack of evidence for them existing outside the human mind.Show me the counter evidence and I will consider it.

i think the problem i have with this argument is that the god hypothesis explains things in nature, and the teapot doesn't explain anything.

what necessitates a teapot being in space? nothing.

what necessitates a creator? the fact that our universe apparently came from nothing, and that this violates everything non-supernatural that we know.

a "god of the gaps" really isn't that ridiculous if you consider that pretty much every scientific discovery has come about by trying to reconcile the difference between what we observe and what we know. the problem is that people have a tendency to tack on a bunch of other things that they don't know onto the god hypothesis, instead of just sticking with the basic question of "why is there something instead of nothing?"

[BigBallinStalin]

Just like Russell's teapot,which I would hope none of us believes in,the evidence is the lack of evidence for the opposite propositions.My disbelief rests reasonably here,this is the standard we use daily to discount the absurd and/or extremely unlikely.When my 8 year old tells me he can play chess,as happened this morning,although he almost certainly has no experience of the game,I don't take it too seriously.Instead I humour him a little and promise to teach him when he is older.

nope. we have evidence against russell's teapot. for example, all teapots that we know of are man-made, and no man has sent a teapot into space, so there is no conceivable way that a teapot could be in space.

can you do the same with the god hypothesis?

Can you disprove my explanation, john?

[chang50]

My evidence for gods being man-made is the lack of evidence for them existing outside the human mind.Show me the counter evidence and I will consider it.

i think the problem i have with this argument is that the god hypothesis explains things in nature, and the teapot doesn't explain anything.

what necessitates a teapot being in space? nothing.

what necessitates a creator? the fact that our universe apparently came from nothing, and that this violates everything non-supernatural that we know.

a "god of the gaps" really isn't that ridiculous if you consider that pretty much every scientific discovery has come about by trying to reconcile the difference between what we observe and what we know. the problem is that people have a tendency to tack on a bunch of other things that they don't know onto the god hypothesis, instead of just sticking with the basic question of "why is there something instead of nothing?"

If theists stuck with the god of the gaps they would be deists,a position I can respect a little even if I don't agree with it.Trouble is they don't leave it as a hypothesis as you say,they invent all manner of shit...
Given the enormity of the subject the most anyone can reasonably do is put forward tentative speculations,and most reasonable of all admit we probably haven't a clue.I look forward to Hahaha3 and UC and Viceroy et al being that humble,but I won't be holding my breath.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

What makes you guys so trustworthy of your mind to tell the truth about reality? After all, according to evolution, aren't our brains just highly evolved monkey brains? Or, if we go back even further, evolved from single-celled organisms. If the rational has indeed come from the non-rational, what makes you trust your brain so much?

First,in evolution theory there is no highly evolved anything or better,only differently adapted;that implies it is directed towards an ultimate goal which it is not.Second,we can't be at all sure about the nature of reality or if we have freewill to discern it even,but given we have what we have what else could we use?
Thirdly I'm not making the claims in this debate,I'm just sceptical of yours.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[mrswdk]

Who is to say that we are not all just the dream of a butterfly? Am I really living in the Matrix? Where is the evidence that my foot really exists? What is knowledge? Who am I?

[chang50]

What makes you guys so trustworthy of your mind to tell the truth about reality? After all, according to evolution, aren't our brains just highly evolved monkey brains? Or, if we go back even further, evolved from single-celled organisms. If the rational has indeed come from the non-rational, what makes you trust your brain so much?

First,in evolution theory there is no highly evolved anything or better,only differently adapted;that implies it is directed towards an ultimate goal which it is not.Second,we can't be at all sure about the nature of reality or if we have freewill to discern it even,but given we have what we have what else could we use?
Thirdly I'm not making the claims in this debate,I'm just sceptical of yours.

Quote hahaha3.........
1. I meant *trusting, not trustworthy
2. So there is no highly evolved anything...just differently adapted...therefore we are well adapted apes? Even more the reason to not trust your mind to tell you the truth, who would trust a primate's brain in discernment of ultimate truth?
3. You inadvertently have been making truth claims. But I'm not saying this in a negative light. Discussion can be constructive.[/quot
My reply.......
1. I realised that and answered accordingly
2. We ARE primates,so why do you trust your brain? I've already agreed there is good argument not to trust our brains.We have filled a niche,thats all,just as millions of other species have.
3,Nothing inadvertent,everyone makes truth CLAIMS,so what?Re the existence of gods I am only expressing disbelief,call it a claim if you insist,a negative claim.

[BigBallinStalin]

What makes you guys so trusting of your mind to tell the truth about reality?

Exactly, but that argument cuts both ways. For example, some Evil Genius could have created that Bible to mislead you. We could all be charging the batteries of the Overlord Cyborgs Incorporated. You'll have to rely on your mind and other sensory inputs in order to arrive at your conclusion about the Judeo-Christian God being real.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-

[chang50]

What makes you guys so trusting of your mind to tell the truth about reality?

Exactly, but that argument cuts both ways. For example, some Evil Genius could have created that Bible to mislead you. We could all be charging the batteries of the Overlord Cyborgs Incorporated. You'll have to rely on your mind and other sensory inputs in order to arrive at your conclusion about the Judeo-Christian God being real.

Correct.
But if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God you belief that your mind was sculpted by a creator, and that it was created to be rational and trustworthy.
However, if you believe in evolution, then you are (as Chris Kchnetle puts it so poignantly) pondscum evolved to a higher order, in which case your mind comes from the non-rational, and really is not reliable when it comes to giving you reality.

So nothing egotistical in that?

[BigBallinStalin]

What makes you guys so trusting of your mind to tell the truth about reality?

Exactly, but that argument cuts both ways. For example, some Evil Genius could have created that Bible to mislead you. We could all be charging the batteries of the Overlord Cyborgs Incorporated. You'll have to rely on your mind and other sensory inputs in order to arrive at your conclusion about the Judeo-Christian God being real.

Correct.
But if you believe in the Judeo-Christian God you belief that your mind was sculpted by a creator, and that it was created to be rational and trustworthy.
However, if you believe in evolution, then you are (as Chris Kchnetle puts it so poignantly) pondscum evolved to a higher order, in which case your mind comes from the non-rational, and really is not reliable when it comes to giving you reality.

At the very least, you'll have to admit that your position as a deist is just as minimally sound as an agnostic atheist's.
As a theist, you'll have less footing.

That last paragraph doesn't make sense. The human mind doesn't 'come from pondscum'--in the sense you stated. It is likely to be linked in some very long chain of events to bacteria, but it doesn't follow that we have 'pondscum' brains (well, maybe some humans do). There's a big difference between 'come from pondscum' and 'evolved from bacteria to x, y, z, so on and so forth, until finally humans'. Chris Kchnetle doesn't seem to understand what evolution entails.

Also, let's use reductio ad absurdum reasoning: a good portion--perhaps all--of the more complex elements come from supernovae. Our building blocks of life come from these big stars, thus human minds come from stars, which are non-rational, ergo human minds are non-rational.

[crispybits]

I'll come back to j9b's russian person point in my next post - I just want to ask a question about this origin of mind stuff.

Given that god deliberately withheld moral knowledge from us until adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit, on what do you base your belief that he has given us a rational toolset for everything else? What if there were other areas where he withheld knowledge from us (obviously we wouldnt even be aware of what they are as we dont know about them). Proclaiming that a god given mind allows for better understanding of reality than an evolved mind seems at best optimistic and at worst foolish when you consider this track record...

[tzor]

Yet Crispy's example is no less fantastic than what Christianity expects us to believe,both contain wild claims lacking in evidence and should be dismissed as such until reasonable evidence emerges.

Ironically, when you get down to the core "Christianity" doesn't make many "wild claims" at all. Protestant Fundamentalism might, but some people point out that this is Protestant Fundamentalism's problem.

[tzor]

i have evidence that all teapots are man-made.

I find this most fascinating. Let me play around with this for a moment ...

All teapots are man made ... (IS TRUE)
There exists a teapot that is not man made ... (IS FALSE)
There does not exist a teapot that is not man made ... (IS TRUE)

John9blue has evidence that there does not exist a teapot that is not man made.

I would like to see that evidence.

[hahaha3hahaha]

-deleted-