Because the normal method of atheists is, that because those who believe in a deity, can't "prove" its existence, therefore they are wrong in their beliefs.
It is true that absence of proof is not proof of absence. However there is about at much proof of god as there is of Zeus, faeries and teapots in orbit around Alpha Centauri. Belief in those things and building ones life around these 'facts' could be concidered irrational.
Thus, I say, "prove" the Turing test, or I shall bugg you forever more.
The Turing test is not provable as such as it is just an assignment set fort by Turing to programmers. And as far as I know, they haven't succeded yet.
Just because there is ambient evidence of the existence of programmers, doesn't necessarily make their existence plausible.
Yes it does. I'm glad you use the word 'plausible', because according to scientists, everything they claim as facts are just theories with varying degree of plausibility. Even a thing such as gravity is labeled a theory, and if it where disproven just once, by an apple falling upwards or something similar, the theory would be seen as flawed and would have to be changed or thrown out all together. Science doesn't believe in facts, but in the method that produces the facts. If the method shows the facts to be false, they must be changed.
Let's say it's similar to me pointing out the existence of God, by the fact that we exist, or photosyntesis for that matter. As far as I have been able to determine your reasoning for God not existing, and thus me being a bullshitter, is the fact that you can not see or touch any evidence of his existence. Well, I can't read any programming codes, that you use to make programms work, are you non-existent, or your work, for that matter?
Not being able to touch god is not a proof either way, that is correct. However, we see if it is plausible that programs and programmers exist by testing them. One of the basic ideas of empirical science is the ability to predict something using the theory. My theory is that programs work, and I test it by creating a program that writes 'Hello world' on the screen. The theory of god does not predict anything and is therefore unprovable. And to many, irrational.
Finally, the reason many are so hostile agains religion is that religion has been proven to be dangerous. A point I was trying to make in my previous post.
But no one has ever been killed for believing Einsteins theory of relativity over the theory of Aether.
ps: This is a post I wrote at work and thus reserve the right to edit it later when I have more time.
I am wondering if we are discussing this on the right level.
However there is about at much proof of god as there is of Zeus, faeries and teapots in orbit around Alpha Centauri. Belief in those things and building ones life around these 'facts' could be concidered irrational.
I am just going to focus on that little bit of what Torellion said.
There are several aspect of life that science stays well clear off for very good reasons. Aspects such as anger, envy, love, ethics, free will or sentience are simply too abstract (or advanced) for science to approach at the moment. Science relies on reproducable evidence to back up theories and some things just can not be reproduced in a scientific way, at least not at the moment.
Most of these things we accept on the basis of circumstantial (anekdotal, personal, experience, philosophical etc) evidence - and if you get onto that topic then suddenly you have an abundance of "evidence" for God or Chi or even love.
If you then accept the theory at hand then the lack of reproducable scientific evidence looses some value, for example people can rationally say "Because God does exist it is most plausible that life has been created by him/her" or something else. The reason I think this is rational is because the acceptance of the theory shifts the goalposts completely.
Therefore my thoughts at the moment are that such statements as the quote above may be correct but I think they loose a bit of relevance if we think outside the science box.
Celdar wrote:
My feelings are that (irr)rationality is depends on the axioms or fundamental principles your rationality is based on. I can’t remember what the base axiom for our maths is (1+1=2 rings a bell I think), but if somebody used a different one then it would be difficult for people to see the rationality/irrationality in each others claims.
Yes, it's quite true that one's rationality depends on the one's rationale, or base axiom, if you will. What I meant was that if this base axiom is flawed, then the entire reasoning that stems from this rationale will also be flawed. This underlines the importance of one's base axiom. (I hope I'm being somewhat clear here, even if we may muddle around a bit in the terms we are using). As was made brilliantly clear in the movie Contact (based on Carl Sagan's book), the principles of math are universal, and as such, any base axiom in math can be understood by anyone, no matter how this person/being defined it himself. This may be hard to understand initially, but basic math can only be universal. I'm not sure if all of math is universal, but at least basic math is. Even if the laws of nature were different (and thus invalidating physics) math would still remain as is. (I'm not sure if the universal logic of math can be called axioms, it seems to defy the definition, but I don't want to spend time on this).
My point is, a persons basis of reasoning should stem from something universal and immutable. My suggestion is logic (which follows basic math), and in extension, the scientific method. If we base our reasoning on this we can still be mistaken, but our reasoning will be self-correcting. If we base our reasoning on dogma, our reasoning will eventually be stuck and any errors will be un-correctable. The only way to get out of this loop is to reject the dogma, the base axiom, if you will. I could have worded this better, but I hope you can see that it is self-evident that a system of reasoning based on dogma will be logically inadequate.
Logically both would be equally valid, but nobody would agree. (Is my logic valid?)
No. As mentioned above, basic math and logic are universal. 1+1=2 is true in any universe; definitions, labels, words, etc. may be different, but the essence will be the same.
Vuzman seems to believe that any talk of a supernatural force (any?) is bullshit – and that is fine.
Yes, I believe any supernatural force is bullshit. That does not mean I have ruled out their existence, it just means that I believe that if their existence can be proved, a natural explanation for them can also be proved.
I also have to take issue with the "and that is fine" part of your quote. I don't think it is fine. I don't think we should let everyone else have their own opinions unchallenged if we disagree with them. In matters of taste, yes, but in matters of what we base our life and values on, definitely no. If I let you hold irrational beliefs (however rational it may be based on the dogma you believe ), then I allow a breeding ground that breeds homophobics, suicide bombers and everything evil in between. I agree there's a big stretch between those two, but the point is that with irrational beliefs, irrational behavior follows. Please don't reply to this, I will post an article in some days where I follow this thread.
But if we were to imagine for a moment that some supernatural force really does exist then surely we must agree that it changes things pretty drastically
Yes, and if this supernatural force is Zeus, then you're all fucked!
Again, if my reasoning is based on universal logic, then my reasoning is self-correcting, and nay flawed conclusion I have arrived at will be discarded when I realize the flaw. That is why I encourage people to point out flaws in my logic, rather than forbid people to mention anything related to it.
However right/wrong is not the same as rational/irrational…
No argument there, but I believe that logic (and not dogma) is the only possible way to find out what is right/wrong.
In response to your points:
B: I don't consider you an idiot either. Just somewhat deluded.
C: I am pretty far removed from the other participants in this thread as well. I agree that it is stupid to become angry or hold a grudge due to something someone has posted here. It is too easy to misinterpret sarcasm and satire, or misunderstand someone's viewpoint. I sincerely hope no one becomes RL pissed at each other, and knowing the people who frequent this site, I don't think that is likely.
I believe that Liverpool FC (and Havnar Boltfelag) fans are misguided and irrational though…
I don't think christians are idiots. Atheism isn't a 'club' (like religion is), so one shouldn't generalize about atheists non-religious viewpoints. And to quote Stephen Roberts: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Torellion has eloquently responded to your points, so I won't repeat what he said as I pretty much agree with him. I still have no idea where you are going with Turing test though...
Celdar wrote:
There are several aspect of life that science stays well clear off for very good reasons. Aspects such as anger, envy, love, ethics, free will or sentience are simply too abstract (or advanced) for science to approach at the moment.
Not quite true. The theory of evolution coupled with the history of mankind elegantly explains why we are the way we are. It explains our physical appearance, which is accepted by most, but also explains why we are sentient and why we have morals and feelings and yes, love. "Free will" and other philosophical concepts are best left to the philosophers (This does not include theologians... they can't explain anything without referring to their belief that things are the way they are "because God said so".
Most of these things we accept on the basis of circumstantial (anekdotal, personal, experience, philosophical etc) evidence - and if you get onto that topic then suddenly you have an abundance of "evidence" for God or Chi or even love.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that because we don't understand some things it is proof that god exists?
If you then accept the theory at hand then the lack of reproducable scientific evidence looses some value, for example people can rationally say "Because God does exist it is most plausible that life has been created by him/her" or something else. The reason I think this is rational is because the acceptance of the theory shifts the goalposts completely.
Again I do not understand. Are you saying that if we base our reasoning on the dogma that god exists, then the reasoning that follows is rational? If that is what you meant, then I agree somewhat (as also touched upon in my previous post). I just think it is wrong to call any reasoning 'rational' when the basis for the reasoning has been chosen irrationally.
Therefore my thoughts at the moment are that such statements as the quote above may be correct but I think they loose a bit of relevance if we think outside the science box.
Why would you want to think outside the science box? That's where the crazy people are!
There is a very fine line, between genius and insanity.
My point with the Turing test is, that if you absolutely dismiss the existence of any deity, because they cannot be proven without any doubt by science, then I can dismiss your capabilities as a computer programmer, because you cannot prove to me your capability, by proving, what sounds to me, as an extremely simple programming task.
Your reasoning persists with the notion that ANYTHING based on dogma, is based on flawed, non-scientifically, non-mathematical reasoning, and must therefore be considered to be wrong. This is were we disagree. I can still see the scientifically, mathematical reasoning used by science to prove the origin of the universe and its interconnection with everything, as undoubted proof of a deity. But, then I am also a very liberal christian in my belief. The more fanatical (like J. A. Rana) would think me a heretic, for uttering such statements. But, nevertheless, the Big Bang, evolution, dinosaurs, Pangea and sofort are all pieces of evidence to me, of the existence of a deity. So, Vuz, all your reasoning is to me proof of a greater masterplan, and not the wild chaos-theory of modern science.
Science leaves plenty of room for the possibility of a Deity of some sorts, even if it doesn't find it probable. To believe in one is fine as long as you recognize that the basis for such belief is irrational and as such completely outside the realm of science. The problems only arise when irrational beliefs lead to irrational decisions about important stuff, such as human rights.
@Grizlas: So believing in the biblical "love thy neighbour, as thyself", and the other "messages of love and compation" that Jesus gave us to live by are irrational, and should not be considered as realistic rules to live by?
As stated in my previous post to Vuz, I consider the religious "dogma", (if you will) and the scientific theoretical evidence on this matter, as 2 sides of the same story. Only difference is, I consider the biblical version to be written in a simplified form, so that everyone can understand it (meaning, without a university degree in astrophysics). thus, you can never "prove" to me that God is non-existent by any scientific method.
Am I then an irrational being, and a danger to society in general?
(...) you cannot prove to me your capability, by proving, what sounds to me, as an extremely simple programming task.
In that case you have severely mistaken what the Turing test is about. Many human beings can not pass the test...
Your reasoning persists with the notion that ANYTHING based on dogma, is based on flawed, non-scientifically, non-mathematical reasoning, and must therefore be considered to be wrong.
No, not necessarily, it might be correct by chance. But obviously, if your starting point is wrong, it can be hard to reach the right conclusion.
I can still see the scientifically, mathematical reasoning used by science to prove the origin of the universe and its interconnection with everything, as undoubted proof of a deity. (...) the Big Bang, evolution, dinosaurs, Pangea and sofort are all pieces of evidence to me, of the existence of a deity.
Uhmm... so because you don't understand how and/or why these things came to be, you reason that there must be a divine entity behind it? (That's called Intelligent Design, btw). The problem with that reasoning is that where did this divine entity come from? If the complexity of nature requires a designer, then the designer must be complex too, hence the designer must be designed too, by your own criteria.
So, Vuz, all your reasoning is to me proof of a greater masterplan, and not the wild chaos-theory of modern science.
While there is chaos and randomness in the universe, nature isn't chaotic or random. Evolution (which is the 'creator' or 'designer' of plants and animals) does not work by random chance.
So believing in the biblical "love thy neighbour, as thyself", and the other "messages of love and compation" that Jesus gave us to live by are irrational, and should not be considered as realistic rules to live by?
These aren't biblical ideas per se. Buddha taught similar behavior 500 years before Jesus. What about all the other stuff Jesus said? Jesus thought slavery was A-OK. Jesus introduced our concept of Hell as a punishment for those who didn't believe in him (not for wrong-doers, mind you). Was that particularly Jesusy of him?
(...) I consider the biblical version to be written in a simplified form, so that everyone can understand it (...)
Everyone can understand the bible? WTF? Why is it that the most staunchest of believers usually haven't even read it?
(...) you can never "prove" to me that God is non-existent by any scientific method.
That is correct. It has also never been proven that Zeus does not exist. I can however point at the flaws in your logic. I wish you & Co. would understand that.
Am I then an irrational being, and a danger to society in general?
You're not an irrational being, but you hold irrational beliefs. Whether or not you're a danger to society remains to be seen. Irrational beliefs most certainly are.
Vuz, you should really consider running a political career, you are definately politician material. You don't answer the questions, and question everything. no offense btw
@Grizlas: So believing in the biblical "love thy neighbour, as thyself", and the other "messages of love and compation" that Jesus gave us to live by are irrational, and should not be considered as realistic rules to live by?
What vuz said. Besides, you cannot just cherrypick a random thing about christianity and argue from it, like you're doing. Jesus also opens doors in the bible. A very rational decision. It doesn't however, make belief in christianity rational.
@vuz
Well, the real problem is that irrational beliefs tend to lead to irrational decisions.
Many things tend to lead to one another. Poverty for example, tends to lead to crime, criminals released from jail tend to be repeat offenders and black taxi drivers in new york tend to mug their customers more often than white drivers. This doesnt mean that we shouldn't always give these people the benefit of the doubt.
Homosexuality is a physical state, while christianity is a belief. Christians have a choice, homosexuals don't. I don't think the two can be compared.
Sorry Vuz, but I have to disagree with you on that one. Something being a physical state does not make it ok. Physical states should also be subject to scrutiny.
Vuz, you did not answer the question from Yutani !!!!!!!!!
Stop comparing, and answer the question.
Because I can't prove to you the existence of a deity, wich by your set of thinking should be extremely easy, if such a deity existed, it is a massive undertaking from my side to convince you of its existence, because you are consiently blind to my efforts of conviction, thus automatically dismissing any argument from my side. This is why I now feel free to present you with, what I consider to be, a task of similar worth. Prove to me your capability of programming trough this, what at least sounds like, a very simple test, or aknowledge factors without going automatically blind to them.
If, by chance, I believe that YOUR starting point is flawed, then by your own conclusion YOU are wrong in your conclusions. just because you're convinced that your result is perfect, you can be blind because of your flawed starting point.
Who makes you the expert on rationalization? To me, your continuing efforts to dance around the subject at hand are extremely rational, if you don't want to aknowledge the fact, that you could possible be wrong in your assumptions. I, for instance, believe your ideas of gun-control to be completely idiotic, irrational and chaotic at best. I still listen to your point of view on the subject, without automatically "shutting down" to any statements you make, that would contradict my statements to the contrary.
To me, your thought about a gun in every hand, are irrational, dangerous, idiotic and at best, will cause complete and utter mayhem as well as a at least hundredfold increase in death-tolls from shooting around the world.
To me, your views on this subject, present you as an extremely dangerous and irrational person, but I will still listen before I decide, if you wished to try and convince me to the contrary.
Just because Jesus was not the first in the world to preach "love and understanding" does not make him less accurate and true in his statements. Slavery in the year 0, was not at all like the modern conception of slavery, that is normaly based on the conditions of slavery in the US a couple of hundred years ago. In addition, hell was presented in the old testament, and not introduced by Jesus as punisment.
And to finish this post a repetition, still not answered:
Do you think, that you show the same indiscrimination and respect towards christians, as you expect christians to show towards homosexuals?
Was I comparing the choice of religion to the preference of sexuality with my question?
I thought I was comparing the rights of people in those two groups not to be discriminated.
Do you think that people should be protected against discrimination because of their religious choice?
Which of these statements are discriminating, if any?
a. "Christanity breeds homophobia"
b. "Homosexuality spreads aids"
Yutani, it would be prudent to make your own stance clear before posing a question to someone else.
Vuz stated that the two cannot be compared and I agree. Disrespecting homosexuals would be like disrespecting people with stout chins, long arms or big knees. Your question, in its revised edition seems to indicate that you think that both those statements are discriminating. Legally, that would only be true if we were having this discussion in a newspaper or somewhere that was readily accessable to the public. If this forum was more known then maybe that would constitute a violation of the discrimination act. In private, you are free to call homosexuals what you like, as well as christians.
), then I allow a breeding ground that breeds homophobics, suicide bombers and everything evil in between. I agree there's a big stretch between those two, but the point is that with irrational beliefs, irrational behavior follows. Please don't reply to this, I will post an article in some days where I follow this thread.
