Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[tango]

In the words of the great Christopher Hitchens "Since it is obviously inconceivable that ALL religions can be right. The most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong." and that really sums up my feelings on the topic.

I'm not sure that logically follows at all.

If I write 1000 hypotheses relating to which way the ball will go when I let go of it, among all the hypotheses that the ball will launch itself, will float away, will move sideways etc, there may be the one correct hypothesis that the ball will drop to the ground. The fact that most of them must be wrong doesn't make it even remotely reasonable to assume they are all wrong.

It makes more sense to consider each hypothesis in its own right. Otherwise all you have is little more than "it never happened before so it can't happen now"

 

[TubbyTubby]

I'm not sure that logically follows at all.

If I write 1000 hypotheses relating to which way the ball will go when I let go of it, among all the hypotheses that the ball will launch itself, will float away, will move sideways etc, there may be the one correct hypothesis that the ball will drop to the ground. The fact that most of them must be wrong doesn't make it even remotely reasonable to assume they are all wrong.

It makes more sense to consider each hypothesis in its own right. Otherwise all you have is little more than "it never happened before so it can't happen now"

Well that's just it, science criticises itself to huge levels until only the most viable explanation is remaining. That's how science works, poor hypothesis are weeded out quite quickly.

Religions, forbid critical thinking about their tenets and encourages blind acceptance without questioning.

You can see that on this and any other religious forum. You're quite happy to ignore established scientific theories but you would never dream of turning that same level of questioning to your bible.

Hitchens quote stands as none of the religions encourage this, they all insist that theirs is the one true religion and the rest are false. In this sense they are partly right.

 

[psalms 91]

One, it is called faith and I wouldask how do you explain miracles that go against science and there have been many. God is not defined by what man thinks

 

[TubbyTubby]

I don't know bill, how do I explain miracles? It's not something I tend to get involved in. Science doesn't attempt to explain miracles or the supernatural because there's no evidence or observations to get started. Basically science doesn't deal with magic or the supernatural, it leaves that stuff to religion.

 

[psalms 91]

Yet it still exists. Is it possible they dont want to admit that they cant explain it and that it blows some of their science to smithereens

 

[TubbyTubby]

Yet it still exists. Is it possible they dont want to admit that they cant explain it and that it blows some of their science to smithereens

Well no, most scientists will openly admit to not having a clue about the supernatural I would guess. You can't explain magic with science I'm afraid.

Not sure how miracles blow scientific theory to smithereens. Never heard of that ever happening.

 

[psalms 91]

It is not magic it is God doing what we think isnt possible,

 

[TubbyTubby]

You can believe in whatever you want, I'm simply pointing out that god/magic/supernatural/angels/miracles/unicorns or anything else that has no basis in reality is not a concern of science.

 

[psalms 91]

If it happens it is reality and miracles happen. Just because science has no answers does not mean it isnt real and factual. Guess they just cant admit that soemthing is beyond them

 

[TubbyTubby]

If you're happy that miracles can't be explained by science then so be it. Science doesn't concern you in that case so immerse yourself in your supernatural world of miracles.

 

[Josiah]

If you're happy that miracles can't be explained by science then so be it. Science doesn't concern you in that case so immerse yourself in your supernatural world of miracles.

I'm a scientist. It's my degree, it's my work, it's my passion. Sure - if you insist that this is a closed reality, that the ONLY reality that exists is physics/material then yes, nothing can exist or be understood outside that box... the box which you have limited everything to. But not all agree with you (not even all with a Ph.D. in Physics!). And just as you cannot "prove" that there's nothing beyond your "box" so others cannot prove that there is: your belief is simply different than others. But what I find unacceptable is to demand that those who embrace a bigger "box" than you are nonetheless mandated to "prove" such by YOUR smaller "box"..... that one must prove the SUPERnatural by the natural because that's all YOU choose to accept. It's a bit like saying one must prove their is life on Mars by evidence purely on Earth because you don't accept that there could be life on Mars.

I also disagree with your concept of miracle. A miracle NEED not be "unexplanable" (even to one whose view or reality is very different)... I have two nieces. I embrace their life as a miracle of God. Their mother (with a Ph.D. in Biology) celebrates both as pure miracles. Does that mean that God limited Himself to purely unnatural means to accomplish it? Of course not! Does it even mean that He used ANY unnatural means to accomplish such? Not necessarily. God certainly MAY use means to accomplish His goals and blessings (I think such is nearly always the case) but that does not make it any less His doing. By giving thanks to GOD for the GIFT of these two girls by no means even implies that science does not concern us (again, my sister has a Ph.D. in Biology..... I have a Ph.D. in Physics.... both of us work full time as researchers..... absurd to even suggest we have no concern for science).

 

[TubbyTubby]

So what research has been carried out in the study of miracles? Could you point me to some published papers discussing the supernatural?

What is your area of research?

 

[TubbyTubby]

Scientific research, as you surely know, pushes the boundaries at both ends of the scale from micro to macro. It has a pretty large 'box'. What it doesn't waste time on is those things that present no evidence or starting point for hypothesis, those things include miracles and the supernatural. You should know this.

Stating your profession and qualifications does not make claims of miracles true.

 

[tango]

Well that's just it, science criticises itself to huge levels until only the most viable explanation is remaining. That's how science works, poor hypothesis are weeded out quite quickly.

Sure, but the quote you provided that "they can't all be right so it's best to assume they are all wrong" is logically absurd. If two or more are mutually exclusive it's clear they can't all be right but it just doesn't follow that none of them are. It's not necessarily a bad thing to give them all an equal status until they have been investigated but to say "they're not all right so assume they are all wrong, case closed" is absurd.

Religions, forbid critical thinking about their tenets and encourages blind acceptance without questioning.

Really?

Is that why Paul lauded the Bereans for studying the Scriptures to test his teachings? Is it why he told the Thessalonians to "test all things, hold fast what is good"? Is it why John wrote to test the spirits?

A religion that doesn't allow critical thinking is a religion not worth following. Anything that tries to ignore testing usually has something to hide.

You can see that on this and any other religious forum. You're quite happy to ignore established scientific theories but you would never dream of turning that same level of questioning to your bible.

Speaking in generalities doesn't really help. If Scripture contradicts Scripture, or Scripture contradicts life, then either Scripture is wrong or we misunderstood it (or, potentially, we misunderstood life). Maybe the established scientific theory is wrong. Nowadays there seems to be an increasing tendency to look for strength in numbers, as if lots of people in agreement changes what is true. After all, when Galileo proposed the absurd notion that the earth revolved around the Sun he was decried as a heretic - everybody knew the sun revolved around the earth.

Hitchens quote stands as none of the religions encourage this, they all insist that theirs is the one true religion and the rest are false. In this sense they are partly right.

It doesn't stand because it starts with a fair observation and ends with an absurd conclusion. If there is no god then all religions that believe in a god are wrong. If there is a god then the chances are that at least one of the religions that requires the existence of a god is correct. If there is a god then Hitchens is demonstrably wrong; if there is not then Hitchens is still using fatally flawed reasoning. The flaws are further highlighted because his proposed solution is itself essentially a statement of faith. Either there is a god or there isn't. Those who have an active belief in the existence of god can be called theists; those who have an active belief in the non-existence of god might be called antitheists (to borrow the term from MarkFL). Neither can prove their case so, according to Hitchens we must regard them both as being wrong. But to say they are both wrong is absurd, because either there is a god or there is not. Either theists are right, or antitheists are right. It's not logically possible for both to be right, or for both to be wrong.

It's a perfectly fair conclusion to say that, faced with many competing claims and counterclaims, we can't be sure which is correct without looking into them in more detail. But to conclude that everybody must be wrong is clearly absurd.

 

[tango]

Scientific research, as you surely know, pushes the boundaries at both ends of the scale from micro to macro. It has a pretty large 'box'. What it doesn't waste time on is those things that present no evidence or starting point for hypothesis, those things include miracles and the supernatural. You should know this.

Stating your profession and qualifications does not make claims of miracles true.

Could you describe an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of miracles and the supernatural? The trouble is that, by definition, the supernatural is outside the realms of the natural and therefore doesn't necessarily lend itself to being measured in natural ways.

Would you propose that we abandon the current system of using eyewitnesses in a court of law and require scientific proof of everything, rejecting any case that cannot be backed by a suitable level of scientific research?

At some point we have to accept the testimony of witnesses we consider credible. To give you a silly example, I have never seen a shred of tangible evidence that the state of Nevada exists. I've seen a few photos that people tell me were taken in Nevada but no evidence that supports their outlandish claims. I hear rumors of a place where people go and gamble that they say is in Nevada but I don't see why I should believe it. Some deluded individuals even claim to live in Nevada but why they expect me to believe their claims is beyond me. Google Maps shows a wedge shaped bit of the continental US out west and calls it Nevada but we all know how easy it is to fiddle around in Photoshop and put something new there, especially when you've got the resources of a company like Google to play with. I'm not sure why they went to such elaborate lengths to concoct images and even imaginary maps of this place that doesn't really exist but I guess they have their reasons.

OK, I'll be the first to admit that this example is silly. But where do we stop accepting the personal testimony of people who do claim to have seen things that defy natural explanations? Do we merely insist that they must all be deluded, or do we at least consider that there might be some truth to their claims?

To make things personal again, I've described some personal examples of what I believe to be supernature. You are free to choose whether you believe my accounts or not - since you weren't there and I can't prove historical events one way or the other you may conclude that my accounts are true, embellished or totally fabricated. In the process, maybe consider whether or not I have anything to gain by lying to you. It makes little difference to me whether you believe me or not, my life will go on exactly the same regardless of whether you accept my claims in their entirety, reject them outright, or consider them wondering whether I embellished any of the details. You might write me off as some deluded soul who believes in sky fairies and medieval nonsense but when I'm describing things I saw with my own eyes, rather than the things I say I believe because my parents believe it and I'm afraid to question them for fear of an eternity being barbecued this isn't just a simple case of "don't ask questions".

 

[TubbyTubby]

Sure, but the quote you provided that "they can't all be right so it's best to assume they are all wrong" is logically absurd. If two or more are mutually exclusive it's clear they can't all be right but it just doesn't follow that none of them are. It's not necessarily a bad thing to give them all an equal status until they have been investigated but to say "they're not all right so assume they are all wrong, case closed" is absurd.

There are an estimated 4,200 current religions in the world. The thing that they have in common is that they are based on unevidenced mythical claims. I would imagine they are all mutually exclusive (or do you believe more than one religion). That leaves you pretty poor odds if every claimant of every religion dismisses the claim of every other single religion.

The claim that they are all wrong is an extension of the fact their are so many competing claims and that not one has evidence of a deity, all they have are stories.

 

[TubbyTubby]

At some point we have to accept the testimony of witnesses we consider credible. To give you a silly example, I have never seen a shred of tangible evidence that the state of Nevada exists. I've seen a few photos that people tell me were taken in Nevada but no evidence that supports their outlandish claims. I hear rumors of a place where people go and gamble that they say is in Nevada but I don't see why I should believe it. Some deluded individuals even claim to live in Nevada but why they expect me to believe their claims is beyond me. Google Maps shows a wedge shaped bit of the continental US out west and calls it Nevada but we all know how easy it is to fiddle around in Photoshop and put something new there, especially when you've got the resources of a company like Google to play with. I'm not sure why they went to such elaborate lengths to concoct images and even imaginary maps of this place that doesn't really exist but I guess they have their reasons.

OK, I'll be the first to admit that this example is silly. But where do we stop accepting the personal testimony of people who do claim to have seen things that defy natural explanations? Do we merely insist that they must all be deluded, or do we at least consider that there might be some truth to their claims?

A claim that Nevada exists is not incredible so it wouldn't be absurd to believe that claim. It is also pretty easy to verify.

If someone makes a personal claim that an all powerful, omniscient supernatural being created the Universe in 6 days (in your particular book) and then appeared in human form, died and was resurrected is not a trivial claim. That's where personal testimony can not be accepted. Incredible claims need credible evidence.

The Greek Pelagsian creation myth;

"The Goddess of All Things who rises naked from Chaos to part sea from sky so that she can dance upon the waves. Catching the north wind at her back and rubbing it between her hands, she warms the pneuma and spontaneously generates the serpent Ophion, who mates with her. In the form of a dove upon the waves she lays the Cosmic Egg and bids Ophion to incubate it by coiling seven times around until it splits in two and hatches all things that exist ... sun, moon, planets, stars, the earth with its mountains and rivers, its trees, herbs, and living creatures."

That is an example of an opposing creation myth, also an example of an incredible claim. This type of claim can not be accepted without evidence. Would you accept it?

 

[MarkFL]

Suppose I suspend my skepticism (which drives my atheism) for a moment, and accept that there is a realm beyond the natural order, in which one or more entities exist that can reach into the natural world and cause otherwise impossible events to occur...that is, I am now a deist like Thomas Jefferson. Now, how do I then determine that a specific religion accurately describes this supernatural realm? It seems the vast majority of my work is still ahead of me to align with any existing religion.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Suppose I suspend my skepticism (which drives my atheism) for a moment, and accept that there is a realm beyond the natural order, in which one or more entities exist that can reach into the natural world and cause otherwise impossible events to occur...that is, I am now a deist like Thomas Jefferson. Now, how do I then determine that a specific religion accurately describes this supernatural realm? It seems the vast majority of my work is still ahead of me to align with any existing religion.

Most theists don't have to deal with that particular hurdle - they believe the version that was told to them as being the one true religion by their parents before they developed sufficient reasoning skills to question it.

But yes, an adult starting from scratch would have an almighty task in considering all religious claims and choosing one. A belief in the supernatural would lead to deism in that case I suppose.

 

[Rens]

Suppose I suspend my skepticism (which drives my atheism) for a moment, and accept that there is a realm beyond the natural order, in which one or more entities exist that can reach into the natural world and cause otherwise impossible events to occur...that is, I am now a deist like Thomas Jefferson. Now, how do I then determine that a specific religion accurately describes this supernatural realm? It seems the vast majority of my work is still ahead of me to align with any existing religion.

By checking it out and see who answers. I only tested God, but Ian McCormack said: if there is a God help me to pray and He showed him what to pray and he saw Jesus and was raised from the dead. When I was atheist I reckoned if God exists and I want to know and test that why wouldn't He answer? It was really weird. For a year every stupid thing I said, if that doesn't happen I don't believe in God, happened and I was like that's a coincidence, but after a year I was convinced and went to a church. An atheist on a Dutch forum did it too, just for the rain to stop or something and it happened. Don't know if he's convinced yet, but it did impress him.