Any atheists here?

Post Reply New Topic

"I have some discomfort with both believers and with nonbelievers when their opinions are not based on facts ... If we don't know the answer, why are we under so much pressure to make up our minds, to declare our allegiance to one hypothesis or the other?"

"An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

-Carl Sagan

He is missed. Especially now that charlatans like Richard Dawkins are in the spotlight.

Driving your car is not a metaphysical question. You don't approach metaphysics the same way you drive a car. Get real. And who is applauding letting a child die for religious reasons?

And I'm sorry that intellectual and rational beings like yourself are so discriminated against.

Why not? Out continuous has to deal with the phenomena it is confronted with and had to make sense out of it. This sense can be only based on the facts present.

An atheist is one who does not believe in god (or the gods) because there is no credible evidence to support the claim that there are gods and that the gods are involved with us. So an atheist does not have to know more than you. He just has to believe less than you.

As to Dawkins and Carl Sagan. Both accepted the theory of evolution as a well founded theory and both accepted the -fact- of evolution, to with life on this planet started off simple (we do not yet know how) and became more complicated over time (that we -do- know). So how is Dawkins a charlatan. Have you read his latest popular book on evolution -The Ancestor's Tale-? If you have, what specifically do you object to. Dawkins is no charlatan nor is Daniel Dennett or any other of the "four horsemen".

ruveyn

Because science is a byproduct of human evolution. Our brains were not made for it. They were made for things like surviving predators and driving a car. Things directly related to our immediate worldly environment. They were not evolved with science or metaphysical questions in mind. They are totally inadequate for these questions.

Not sure what evolution has to do with this. The fact is, Dawkins is an insecure authoritarian a**hole. He is a seller of books first, and a thinker about fifth. He is a pop scientist and philosopher who adds as much to the religion/science debate as Ann Coulter and Michael Moore do to the political debate. They are only interested in taking cheap shots that will be applauded by their choir. Carl Sagan was the exact opposite of this.

Who the hell are you to say our minds aren't qualified to handle the "metaphysical"? Our minds weren't "made" for science, but we've done pretty well with them, I must say. And If we are totally unable to ponder the metaphysical, who are you to believe in it then? You surely can't have any evidence that will mean anything to your primitive animal brain. Based on your avatar, I'm inferring you believe in the existence of chakras? What are you basing this upon? There is nothing physically manifest to suggest anything like chakras exist in the human body... just "tradition". What separates one tradition from another like faeries or goblins? What specific statements of Dawkins' do you take issue with? And when he was alive, Carl Sagan was always criticized by scientists for being a "pop" scientist. That certain scientists are religious, or pander to the religious, I do not deny. His definition of atheist was inaccurate (if the quote is correct. Einstein is often quoted as talking about God when he explicitly stated he did not believe in a personal god, just nature)

Edit: basically when you said driving your car is not a metaphysical question, you're playing that game where one ten year old says "I got you" and the other says "no you didn't I had a shield". You're creating your own world where rules don't apply so whatever you say can't be touched. If you're going to posit such a world exists beyond an entertaining idea, you'd better have something to back it up. Similarly, ad hominem attacks hold no weight. Refute something Dawkins has said (not that it's impossible, when he's wrong he's wrong). The only thing I ever hear is that he doesn't handle your superstitions with kid gloves as our culture has been cowed into doing. The religious can't handle bluntness.

Last edited by Transplantman on 27 Jan 2009, 2:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You assume a lot. I don't believe in Chakras. I like the picture. I am not a believer in anything supernatural. It may be possible but it isnt something I assume exists.

Our minds are doing "pretty good" in science relative to what? Compared to what? A toddler can control and predict his environment to some extent too. How do we know we are not just as ill-equiped as an infant? We have nothing to compare ourselves or results to. There can be no objective interpretation of the universe with a subjective observer. We have nothing to appeal to but our own minds. That is the lone authority. It is not divine. There is a level of certainity that the human mind cannot pass.

Carl Sagan wasn't some bomb throwing buffoon who went on crusades against the X-Files and Harry Potter. Dawkins is as good at dipping into his choir's pocket as any preacher. and lol at memes. That should be enough to not take Dawkins seriously. And Dennet is another joke whose theories on consciousness, among other things, are outdated and laughable. Any cognitive scientist who defends memes really has no credibility.

It was a valid assumption. You speak of metaphysics and have a diagram of the seven chakras in your avatar. I know nothing else about you. I stand corrected. Sure, It "may" be possible, but why should we entertain such a thing until some sort of manifestation suggests it is true?
By "doing well" I meant compared to other animals, considering you say our mind has only evolved only to survive predators. We can comprehend our own existence, build complex tools to see space on a grand scale and a micro scale. Infants can't build Large Hadron Collidors, and I think you would agree, we don't know of anything "divine" that knows *everything* there is to know. However, you speak of the "level of certainty the human mind cannot pass" with quite a level of certainty. How do you know? Maybe it ends at the big bang and there's nothing else? Maybe the universe is just a vast web of mathematical probabilities and we lie on one plane of possible space-time? If that's true, maybe all of existence is measurable through mathematics? How do you know we cannot know? Is it right to just throw up your arms and assume we can't know everything? Aren't you really just taking that on faith?

"There can be no objective interpretation of the universe with a subjective observer." BS. Multiple subjective observers and confirmed predictions can certainly construct an objective view of the universe. That's what this evil science thing is all about. Unless you're suggesting you don't know if other consciousnesses exist besides yourself, then you've got a point. For all practical reasons, assuming reality is real... we can paint a pretty good picture that gets clearer every day.

As for Dawkins, X-Files, Harry Potter..... Saying that fiction that glamorizes the paranormal explanations and portrays skeptical points of view as weak-minded has a negative effect on society is perfectly valid....... it does. Don't get me wrong, I love Sci-Fi and even Fantasy, but I get tired of every TV show portraying the scientist who offers realistic explanations for things as the cold, calculating, closed-minded fool who just cannot see the truth. Skeptical characters in most TV shows are just obstacles and are always wrong in the end. And yes, I think showing lots of magically-minded stories to children can lead them to seek magical explanations for things. I know that's the way I grew up. I agree there should also be shows with messages teaching children to think critically. I don't think kids should be barred from watching Harry Potter, and neither does Dawkins. He told his kids there was a Santa Claus. He says it's just a fun thing you do with kids, however he "doesn't know" if he would do it again.
"lol at memes" isn't an argument either. Memetics is an interesting theory comparing the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena with the replication of genes. Of course it oversimplifies (memes aren't a literal molecular structure afterall) but I don't think Dawkins is advocating they are exactly the same. This isn't even a scientific theory, it's more of an observation of parallels. What about pointing out the similarity of genes and memes destroys his credibility? You've failed to show this, but also this isn't related to the topic. Neither is your "criticism" of Daniel Dennet. What on the topic of Religion (specifically not just generalizations) do you find "laughable"?
PS I hope you don't think Dennet talking about the Cartesian Theatre is meant literally? I haven't listened to him talk on consciousness in a long while but I think I may have disagreed with him. It's been a while.

Memes is a clunky, vague, and useless theory that has produced nothing in 30 years. Who uses it? For what? It has no momentum and most of its journals are filled with broken links and are rarely updated. It is dying, if not already dead. "Memes" are what happens when biologists try to reduce everything to their field. It is just an incredibly dopey term for culture.

As I said before, math is flawed. Logic is flawed. Even our flawed minds can recognize its flaws. A major particle collider could very well be infantile as far as the grand scheme of knowledge is concerned. It could be sticks and stones to a more advanced intelligence.

You are missing the point. ALL HUMANS are subjective observers. Every human is using the same hardware. Humans can't step outside themselves and view the world. No human knows what this collected data would look like outside human consciouness. Outside the human experience. Corroboration of the exact two subjective experiences does not make the experience objective. Two blind men not seeing the sun doesnt mean the sun doesnt exist. It just means they share the same handicap.

I think we should do our best to find out but I am under no assumption that the universe and its laws must bow and conform to the human mind. Assuming the entire universe is comprehensible by us takes more faith than believing in the opposite. Science is great and certainly improves our lives. It is the best tool we have for working with the world, and one cant deny the progress. I am not suggesting we hesitate at all. I want us to continue full speed ahead.

I am reading a book on this subject right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Impossibility-Limits-Science/dp/0198518900

Math is flawed? Logic is flawed? Have you made some grand discovery you're about to unleash on mankind? Please elaborate. Yes, there could absolutely be many levels of magnitude more to understand. I never "assumed" the universe is comprehensible, don't throw "faith" at me. I said what if? You said it isn't. That's a bold assertion and the burden of proof is on you, unless you wish to retract it. I agree, science is the best tool we have for "working with the world" (not sure what you mean by that though) but I believe it is the only tool we have to *understand* reality. We are like blind mice feeling around the floor, building a mental map of reality from the ground up. Our progress has been relatively astounding, considering we started as mere replicating molecules, but none of it came from gods, spirits or what have you. We have made it this far using only compounded human knowledge, and as far as we can tell that is all we have. Should we discover dimensions beyond our own understanding of reality, It will become part of science. Should we meet some more civilized race on another world, it will be our science plus theirs.

Of course humans are subjective observers. What other kind of observer is there? We don't know what data looks like outside human consciousness? Maybe not in a literal sense, because "looks like" requires eyes. We are able to comprehend the fact that color, texture, solidity etc don't really exist outside of consciousness. We are able to imagine, as abstract as it is, that they are just tools our brain has evolved to assess information. That the wall in front of me is mostly empty space and that its color is merely a label used by my brain for frequencies of light waves. We can calculate and understand nature scientifically, a method of observation much more tied to reality than seeing or touching. You sell our understanding short. The scope of our understanding only broadens with time, and the gaps in it narrow.

We can figure out what is true outside of human consciousness. That's what experimentation and prediction are about. If two observers observe the same thing independently, it is relatively certain that it exists outside our mind. Your blind man analogy only works with the negative, with what we don't know. Sure, the men can't see the sun, but if they both feel its warmth at the same time every day, they can agree something is there.

The only way to observe the universe "objectively" would be to *be* the universe. That's what some would call God. Well, if God is the universe, I'm not an atheist.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I don't know how far this meme thing goes or whether memetics is supposed to "produce" anything (and I certainly wasn't aware there were journals), but looking at how genetic information, cultural trends, computer viruses, and religions replicate is a perfectly valid and useful observation. Of course genes and memes aren't the same thing and no one's saying they are. I don't know why you're playing it up like it's trying to be a new frontier of discovery. If it is I haven't heard of it. Reality has many patterns and tends to show itself in fractals. It's like comparing atoms to little solar systems or the cell to a little city. It's a helpful analogy for our useless human consciousness.

Ideas do evolve. For example, the rumour about the girl in accounting that changes (usually gets "jucier") the more people who have passed it along, and the parts of the rumour that are more scandalous are more likely to be included as it gets passed on. Information and genetic information are obviously analogous to some degree, and it is therefore a legitimate area of study. It may be more suitable for a sociologist than a biologist, sure, but would a sociologist have the insight into genetic replication? Dawkins discusses weaknesses of "meme theory" in his own books. I don't get why you place so much weight on it, and I certainly am dumbfounded as to how it could shatter someone's credibility.

I would argue that marketing people have been studying memes since money was invented, and it's been working. Ever heard of "viral marketing"?

Only if we can comprehend the science of more advanced intelligences.

As to the rest, science is the attempt to build the view from Nowhere based on many views from Somewhere by Someone. You are quite right in that regard. Science at its root is a hunt for invariant properties and measures governed by objective symmetries. What is invariant under the transformation my view -> your view.

ruveyn

So, math and logic are infallible? If math can be reduced to logic, what can logic be reduced to?

How can we be sure the universe exists outside of consciousness? Prove it. We are still all using the same medium. All humans have the same subjective experience. The same subjective existence. Not a single one of us can step outside this experience and view the world differently than the rest. Just as no wolf can see the world differently than another wolf. We can't transcend consciousness. Of course people with the same tools will see the same things. Many physicists are now proposing that consciousness is an integral part of the universe. And are turning towards it more and more to try and figure out why their measurements break down at the lowest level. Something is missing. Or something is in the way. Consciousness could be this something.

How do you know a more advanced alien civilization didnt create our whole universe? You are thinking way too small.

There is no empirical evidence to support this supposition.

ruveyn

lol. well no s**t. There is no empirical evidence of any ET intelligence. We are speculating here. But as far as theoretical ET classes go, there ones than can manipulate or create an entire universe. This has been proposed by some scientists as to why there seems to be an intelligent design to the universe.

Math cannot be reduced to logic. Formalizations of basic arithmetic are essentially incomplete.

Please elaborate on the meaning of the word "flawed" and how it makes sense when attached to math and logic and how you have derived the conclusion that this is the case. Really, I don't think people who posit that there might be something greater than math have any clue what math actually is.