The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A carnival of un-belief > Comments

A carnival of un-belief : Comments

By Nick Moodie, published 17/3/2010

Atheism can unite people in a movement of human, compassionate and thoughtful ideals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Thank you for this article. It is terrific to read an account of the ideas and content of the discussions.
Posted by tonyf, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 10:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay Nick, but what is the atheist take on the awful rape incident in the Congo?

The atheists gathered in Melbourne presumably regarded that event as being terribly wrong. The rapists in the Congo presumably do not regard their actions as being wrong. Who gets to decide who is right, and on what principled basis?

The rapists in the Congo may or may not have been atheists but there is no denying that avowed atheists under Stalin and Mao carried out equally monstrous actions. On what basis can you say that the beliefs of the atheists gathered in Melbourne are better or more “right” than the beliefs of fellow atheists who do horrendous things?

Obviously you have different standards but which standard is the “right” standard?

If we are all ultimately products that have been randomly thrown up from the slime why should one standard of behaviour be deemed better than the other? Rather than talking about one behaviour being “right” and another “wrong” would it not be more logical to talk simply about people having preferences?

Some people prefer to rape and pillage while others don’t. So the rapists don’t do anything wrong, they just do things that we may not like.

Surely it would be more honest for atheists to ditch the use of moral language altogether
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 10:34:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP you write
'Surely it would be more honest for atheists to ditch the use of moral language altogether'

In actual fact they redefine language due to lack of honesty. They refuse to call the unborn human beings and call fantasies that can't be observed science. But with their 'logic' who is to say they are wrong despite them claiming they are absolutely right. No wonder so many agnostics are sending their kids to private schools when you see the delusions that these guys preach so passionately. Surely the sinner who just enjoys adultery, porn fornication etc is far more honest then these snakes who claim to take the higher moral ground.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 11:24:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beautifully expressed article. Thank you for putting atheism into perspective.

I was heartened by the sentiments that atheists should not think themselves superior and by the fact that many compassionate and human rights campaigns by people, who just happen to be atheists, is very much part of being human.

It is ironic that those who denigrate atheists as lacking a value system,themselves oblivious to the fact that religious belief systems are man-made.

I agree with Phillip Adams that atheists need do nothing - and why should they. I was initially concerned that a gathering of atheists in such a formal way may just end up in a religion-bashing exercise and become dogmatic in the same way as religion.

Thank goodness commonsense prevailed.

Religion will eventually have less significance particularly in Western democracies. In other parts of the developing world tribal and other religious dogmas may linger depending on social and educational improvements.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 1:15:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Nick. Informative and fun. Good to see some counter to the "wicked amoral atheist" tag.

JP, my view is that we can choose to act from love, or be driven by fear. I think much of the harm in the world is inflicted by people driven by fear. Our challenge is to mature enough to recognise our fear and choose not to act from it. In my observation this level of maturity doesn't have much to do with religiosity or atheism.
Posted by Geoff Davies, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 1:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In actual fact they redefine language due to lack of honesty. They refuse to call the unborn human beings and call fantasies that can't be observed science."

I normally don't respond to your mad ravings runner, but I have to challenge this nonsense. You allege that pro-choice atheists deny that a foetus is a human being. But this is specious and trivially wrong. In point of fact, nobody in the pro-choice camp denies that a foetus is made up of human genetic material. The disagreement is far deeper. What you fail to understand is that secular ethicists simply dismiss membership of homo sapiens as arbitrary basis for ethical concern. That is, any particular entity of human genetic material may or may not be alive in a relevant ethical sense. What counts is whether they have the inner capacities unique to human being - which collectively are known as 'personhood'. This is a consistent position, which unlike the religious view of life, can coherently explain why most people are pro-death for PVS Terri Schiavo, or cases of anencephaly, where a child is literally born without any brain. These cases show that a human being is not the same as a 'person'.

As someone who is constantly railing against secularism and abortion, you should at least know this stuff. It is basic secular moral philosophy 101. Indeed, Peter Singer, one of the Convention star speakers, is a famous Melbourne moral philosopher and bioethicist in this area.
Posted by BBoy, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 1:48:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted." - Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

“Only one way of life is logically compatible with Christianity; ANY kind of life is logically compatible with atheism”. – Dr John Dickson, Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Senior Research Fellow of the Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University.

Atheists can be ethical, altruistic, kind, considerate, tolerant .... OR Machiavellian, egoistic, Nietzschean, elitist, callous, you name it. Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Peter Singer, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot aren't a particularly compatible set of bedfellows - are they?

Atheism, like life, is what you make it. With no external "superego" looking over your shoulder, you can decide or make up whatever you like. Good or evil. Of course, postmodernists are into the disconcerting habit of denying that good and evil, beautiful and ugly, have any valid meaning at all - all is relative. Quicksand!

As Nietzsche's Madman in 'Parable on the Death of God' (1882) screams, as he runs into the marketplace:

“How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Where is it moving now? Where are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left?”

In The Lord of the Rings, Bilbo declaims to the Council of Elrond: “All that is gold does not glitter, not all those who wander are lost; the old that is strong does not wither, deep roots are not reached by the frost...." So it is indeed with religious faith. Previous sages like Lao Tze and the Buddha could be called wanderers who were not lost. I certainly believe though that plenty of "wanderers" ARE lost. How can you tell? Hmm ... someone who certainly wasn't lost said "By their fruit you will know them."
Posted by Glorfindel, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 5:47:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YEAST RELIGIONS, Well that is the name I give to those religions that propagate the idea of go forth and multiply and to have their infallible leaders ban contraceptives for their members. This is to breed like yeast till you have no food left or die in your own excrement. Recently when a leader of a yeast religion came to Australia, the Australian newspaper was full of articles on how the world can support many more people. Atheists may hopefully see a problem with this. Religious Members of our Parliament impose their ideals on the world at large eg a ex Senator who held the balance in the senate used this position to prevent the distribution of contraceptives in developing countries by NGOs. Perhaps a real separation of State and religion needs to be implemented in Australia, eg no prayers in Parliament. More Atheists in Parliament please.
Posted by JONES2U, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 6:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pelican,
>>atheists should not think themselves superior<<
I agree, and would add that neither should Christians (or “theists” in general) think themselves superior as they used in the past (and some “leftovers” still do).

In case of Christians that feeling of superiority is expressed by “denigrating atheists as lacking a value system”, in case of atheists it is expressed by “denigrating Christians as being irrational (even illogical), lacking an understanding of science” etc. There are immoral atheists as there are irrational Christians, and vice versa. There are believers as well as unbelievers among ethicists as they are among logicians and scientists.

You cannot speak about Western morals ignoring the concepts of religion and God, if only for historical reasons. However, I think it is silly if a Christian (ethicist) wants to discuss ethics with an atheist (ethicist) starting with the assumption that religion (e.g. the Bible) is “God-inspired”. I also think that Christian scientists have already learned this: Laplace’s reply to Napoleon “je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypotheses”, expressing the irrelevance of religious beliefs (about the metaphysics of reality) to scientific theories is now implicitly accepted by most scientists, both atheist and Christian.

>>Religion will eventually have less significance particularly in Western democracies.<<
This is what my Marx-Leninist teachers also believed. I think neither you nor I shall see to what extent this will transpire, although I can share your hope if you mean that religion (religious world-views) will evolve into something more sophisticated than how we know it now. Well, so will, science, mathematics, information technology etc.

There is always the old joke - Nietzsche: God is dead … (a couple of years later) … God: Nietzsche is dead.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 8:04:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Atheism can unite people in a movement of human, compassionate and thoughtful ideals."

That is a rather vague and meaningless statement from our author. What exactly does Human and Thoughtful actually mean in this context?

Atheists are currently attempting to invent a new religion without the concept of God but that has already been done. There is already a compassionate way of living in the world which does not include concept of God - its called Buddhism. Whats wrong with that?
No, atheists really want moral relativism and a consequences free belief system which is why Buddhism is also rejected as an alternative.

In the final analysis atheism makes no sense. It has at its heart the need to escape responsibility for actions which must lead to anarchy and chaos.

Ultimately, all such arguments are irrelevant anyway because what humans believe has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 8:50:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*sigh*.... As an agnostic dyslexic insomniac, I stay up all night, every night, wondering if there really is a Dog.... *sigh*...
Posted by Yuri, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 9:23:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It’s clear that no self-respecting so-called atheist is 100 per cent sure that God doesn’t exist."

It's a nice article, but I wish we could get rid of this silly caveat. If the words '100% sure' mean anything at all, then we can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, and for exactly the same reasons we can be 100% sure of everything else. Why am I 100% sure that I live in Australia? Because all of the empirical evidence I have confirms that belief and none of the empirical evidence I have disconfirms it. Exactly the same applies to my disbelief in God.

To go on making the concession that we are only '99% sure' is silly and misleading: it suggests that we are doubtful when we are only trying to be tolerant. Let's be honest: many of us are 100% sure, certain, absolutely rock-solid positive that there is no God, and it's about time we said so.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 18 March 2010 8:19:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J

I am not sure what else may exist out there in the universe (or multiverse) but I too am 100% sure it is not the god described by any of the Abrahamic religions or anyone else's for that matter. The universe is too vast for such petty deities.

Cheers
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 18 March 2010 9:17:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Nick, a good article. We should never underestimate the power of humor or the weight of religious emotional baggage.

It seems that ever since we humans developed awareness, we have struggled to explain both our environment and our rudimentary intelligence. Agnostics and atheists seem to be content to accept that, through the application of our intellect; we will progressively grow and apply our understanding of both.

For theists, and for reasons as yet unexplained, there is an immediate need for answers. In the absence of those answers theists create them.

In particular over the past 1,000 years, these explanations in the form of theology have grown exponentially into some 34,000 registered religions and millions of rules. This is an enormous volume of emotional baggage for humans to carry and requires the equally enormous expenditure of emotional energy to sustain it. Just observe the howling at the perceived threat posed by the prospect of “organized atheism”.

I’m concerned that the impact of the schizophrenia required to live in today’s complex reality, whilst subscribing to the even more complex and inexplicable religious faiths will eventually result in emotional damage.

The manifestation of fundamentalism in many religions may be the early indications of this breakdown. If so, our great thinkers, sociologists, psychologists and philosophers might need to stop deconstructing the past and focus upon the potential socio-political impact and policies that could head off the deteriorating rift between religions themselves, and between theism and atheism.

Satisfying though it may be for atheists, humor and ridicule have the potential to simply make things worse. Clearly it is also pointless to try to debate this complex, man made theology, its complexity is its inherent defense. Theology has become a massive library of irrational “one liner” rebuttals, so comprehensive and voluminous, that even the most inept religious exponents can fire off salvos.

Surely human cognitive powers are capable of developing something little more intellectual?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why bother Spindoc? What does it really matter what people believe?

From your perspective, in the end everyone - religious believer, agnostic, atheist, whatever - all end up as worm food and forgotten.

So why worry what anyone believes: it does not make any ultimate difference.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 18 March 2010 12:06:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So why worry what anyone believes: it does not make any ultimate difference."

Oh dear, here we go again: atheists are all despairing misery-guts with no sense of joy or wonder. How many do you actually know, I wonder? Most of the atheists I know pursue - and achieve - happiness wholeheartedly, much more so than believers who have arbitrary rules to tell them what they can and cannot do.

If it makes no 'ultimate difference' whether I have lobster or cabbage for dinner tonight then I might as well have lobster and enjoy it, no? Far better and more pleasant than making myself suffer to appease some imaginary Sky Fairy.

Something else I enjoy is baiting believers to see what further heights of nonsense they are capable of achieving. Could there -- I wonder -- be just a hint of jealousy and projection in this desperate, evidence-free, attempt to pretend that atheists are all gloomy Gusses?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 18 March 2010 12:20:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John J – I don’t think you got my point. Why do you, or Richard Dawkins for that matter, care what I or anyone else believes?

Obviously Dawkins does care as he writes and speaks with the clear intent of trying to convert everyone to atheism. He doesn’t think people should be left as they are: does he believe he has some sort of responsibility to other people or to the world to set them/it straight?

If so, where does that responsibility come from?

Or is he just a busybody who should just shut up and leave other people alone? As I noted before, if he is correct, it makes no difference in the long run what we believe – it all comes to nothing.

Also, you spoke disparagingly of the “arbitrary rules” that (presumably) you believe that religious people have. In saying that are you implying that your rules are not arbitrary or are you saying that you do not have any rules?

Geoff Davies – you want people to choose to act from love. What do you say to the fellow atheist who does not want to choose to act from love but from revenge or jealousy, for example? What makes your choice “right” and his/her choice “wrong”? Sure, you may be able to choose to act from any motive you like but why should anyone take any notice of your choice?
Posted by JP, Thursday, 18 March 2010 2:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP

I don't give a rat's what you believe. What I and other atheists are concerned about is having myth taught as fact in schools, eroding the critical thinking of children, tax breaks for non-charitable organisations, for example businesses like Sanitarian or for spurious 'religions' like Exclusive Brethren, Scientologists, blurring of lines between church and state (if Christianity becomes the national religion where does that leave Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and others?). That religion remains sacrosanct from any criticism, that critics are labelled as 'strident', 'extreme', 'militant', 'socialists', even Marxists all for stating comments like those above.

Or having the temerity to speak out against bombing medical clinics or discriminating against homosexuals.

Take a look at education in Texas - Christians are busy rewriting history. http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=70959

<<< Editorial: Conservative changes mean setback for Texas education
March 17, 2010

On March 11, the Texas Board of Education made some very controversial decisions regarding the materials that will be covered in curriculums.

These changes that were made by the board are based heavily on conservative Republican principles.

These changes included more emphasis on the importance of American capitalism and the Christian beliefs on which the Founding Fathers based the government of the United States.

One notable change that will be made in future textbooks will be that "capitalism," a word with an arguably negative connotation, will now be referred to as "free enterprise."

Another change being made is the large emphasis put on Christian principles, like the basis on which the forefathers of America developed the country. >>>

This is why atheists and other free-thinkers are afraid, very afraid.
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 18 March 2010 2:42:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP << Why bother Spindoc? What does it really matter what people believe? >>

True, it shouldn’t matter what people believe and it doesn’t to me, but that misses the most significant point. Which is why should those who do not subscribe to one of the 34,000 man made religions, be abused, labeled, vilified or marginalized for not believing? Why should my children and grandchildren be taught the many religious values to which we do not subscribe.

I really do not care what people believe in, pixies, fairies, aliens or divine, personified, interventionist Gods. I care about the damage done to society over the past thousand years and I do care about the potential escalation of conflict through growing fundamentalism between faiths and between believers and non believers, and I do care about the emotional damage done to members of our societies.

JP, I regularly get visits to my home from local “religious folk”, I don’t need to tell you which ones. I’m always polite, I offer a glass of water and I invite them in from the rain or the heat. I always accept their brochures and listen to their pitch. Last week two lovely young women, maybe mid to late 20’s, paid a visit. Like their entire fellow congregation, they couldn’t even answer basic questions, gently put, about their own faith. They were so “sheltered” from the real world yet they were bright eyed, open and enthusiastic.

It occurred to me, how might I feel if my similar aged daughter was this vulnerable and naïve? To our family it would be a tragedy, as a father I would feel I had failed her terribly. I admit I became angry afterwards as I focused on the person(s) who had deprived these two young women of the ability to relate to those outside their closed loop.

So, on the one hand I don’t care about their beliefs, on the other hand I feel so desperately sad for the closed minds and wasted opportunities imposed by their faith
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 18 March 2010 4:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP: << Why do you, or Richard Dawkins for that matter, care what I or anyone else believes? >>

Given some of the paranoid posts about the Atheist Convention from the exclusively Christian religious types here, I think the relevant question is why do they care what I or any other atheist doesn't believe?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 18 March 2010 4:13:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What organized religious groups believe matters because of their actions. We see lethal, destructive and criminal behaviour by religious fundamentalists in many parts of the world and terrorist conspiracies here in Australia.

We also see that PM Rudd promised the Australian Christian Lobby that his government would not legislate for same-sex marriage. He is sticking to his promise because the ALP apparently believes that the ACL delivers the crucial votes in marginal suburban electorates. Thus, committed same-sex couples are denied equal rights as citizens, even though more than 60% of Australians support equal marriage. Civil unions do not exist across the country and are not universally understood the way marriage is. This opens the way for discrimination against same-sex couples in situations such as hospital visiting rights, medical decisions and funeral arrangements. The condemnation of same-sex relationships by some religious leaders encourages gay bashers.
Posted by tonyf, Thursday, 18 March 2010 8:30:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, CJ Morgan, tonyf - You all feel free to criticise other people, but what makes your values superior to theirs? Against what standard are you measuring their values?

If your standard is just your own subject made up value system on what basis can you say that it is any better than the value system which you believe they have made up?

It is possible to be able to call Christians hypocrites because Christians claim that there are objective moral standards and if they fail to try to live by those standards then they are rightly called hypocrites.

However it does not make much sense to call atheists hypocrites. That is because if an atheist professes to hold certain moral values but then breaches those values, the atheist can always change their professed values to fall in line with their behaviour. They have no external values by which they have to abide.

An atheist can do whatever they like, or at least whatever they can get away with.
Posted by JP, Thursday, 18 March 2010 10:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does the "rape in the Congo" fit in with the 800,000 butchered in Rwanda, where the killing was not only condoned by various Catholic priests and nuns but where some of them actively participated?

Morality is not exclusive to religious belief but exists in spite of it.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 19 March 2010 1:00:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP - you still don't get it, do you? We support atheism because atheists are nicer to be with than believers. My life is better because at least some of the people in power are making decisions based on reason rather than their interpretation of what their Sky Fairy wants. The life of people I care about around the world is better because they don't have to go in fear of attacks from rival religious cults. The life of people in Arab countries is better when they can kiss in public without running the risk of going to jail. Atheism makes life better in so many ways; it's a simple and obvious way of improving the world. Why would we want to improve the world? To make it a happier place to be for ourselves and our loved ones. And what better reason can there possibly be to do anything?

Applying atheist values makes people happier. Except people like you, of course. End of story.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 19 March 2010 8:44:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP, you ask << but what makes your values superior to theirs? Against what standard are you measuring their values? >>

Fair questions however, I get the feeling that you view “values” in terms of just moral standards. I suspect that most of us would have absolutely no problem with all the “be good” attributes of most religions, particularly the christianic variants. Unfortunately each man made religion comes with baggage; these are contradiction, hypocrisy, schizophrenia and conflict. These are all part of the value system of each.

So when you ask what makes my values superior to theirs, my answer to the moral aspect is “absolutely nothing”. My answer to the parts relating to contradiction, hypocrisy, schizophrenia and conflict is, “absolutely everything”.

When you ask << Against what standard are you measuring their values? >> My answer is “mine”. If and when any religion can demonstrate its ability to abide by its own values, I will buy it.

For at least 2,000 years our societies have been trying to stamp out the human propensity for “duding” our neighbors. Religions have created millions of “do the right thing” rules however; we have also created similar millions of “civic rules” covering social, economic, political and even ecological domains.

The one “blinding glimpse of the obvious” we seem to miss every time is that each set of rules has been created and managed by humans, the very species the rules were designed to “make good” in the first place.

It’s not the rules that are wrong; it’s the fact that human nature makes us break them, even the humans that made the rules and who implement them, that’s the problem. That is why I say and repeat my assertion, “If and when any religion can demonstrate its ability to abide by its own values, I will buy it”, because only then will we know they have it right.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 19 March 2010 8:51:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beautiful article, Nick. Love it. LOVE IT!

“If the words '100% sure' mean anything at all, then we can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, and for exactly the same reasons we can be 100% sure of everything else."

I agree with you, Jon J, that we need to be careful about the way we use this sort of language. At the same time, however, I think we need to differentiate ourselves from fundamentalist beliefs by refraining from using the phrase “I am 100% sure god does not exist”.

I am certainly an atheist, but like Nick I think it is more reasonable to be 99% sure that god doesn’t exist, rather than 100%. In the same way, I am pretty damn certain that this table exists in front of me, but I would not say 100% certain. All I have to trust are my five senses and there is a (very) tiny possibility that my senses are providing me with completely false information (or that I am living in a constant dream). These ideas in philosophy have been around for a long time - reference Locke and Berkeley from as early as the 17th Century.

I think you're right, Jon J, that “all of the empirical evidence confirms that belief and none of the empirical evidence disconfirms it”, therefore we can be very confident that we are correct. But from a scientific perspective, it is impossible to ever prove a hypothesis to be true, just as it is impossible to prove it to be false. All we can show is that the weight of the evidence “strongly suggests” that god does not exist, but we can never “prove” it.

Also, I think that if we’re too cocky and say we’re 100% certain that god does not exist, that makes us no better than religious fundamentalists. I think that’s where the majority of atheists (certainly not all) are one up on believers: we continue to question our beliefs and the world around us. Doubt is a beautiful thing.
Posted by Michael Gate, Saturday, 20 March 2010 1:13:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the Congo everybody...

This event and the thousands like it each year remain the conundrum. We all appreciate free speech, and this is contigent on a number of things, primarily, free will.

If I wish to protect myself, or the women involved, I am obliged to curtail anothers actions and deny them acting according to their choice, even if that choice is internationally unlawful or, dare I judge it it (along with most) inhuman.

If we look at what some value in God - truth, justice, and salvation from our human failings - then atheists need to be able to say how they deal with the 'Congo' scenario.

The author blames God for the situation, but, unless the writer and his ilk want to renounce the option for freewill, what is God to do, selectively intervene? Well we kind of know how Pharoah might have felt about that unlevel playing field.

Rationally, the Congo acts could be defended if the anarchists are happy with their lifestyle and, as is often the case, can act with impunity.

Where is justice, and if we aren't eternal beings, then why does it matter, other than for an easy life for me and the others lucky enough to benefit from Judeo-Christian and western concepts of rule of law.

God(?)save the Queen, because no one - short of force of will and arms - will stop evil, wherever and however it occurs.

Now evil, where does that fit in with all this? Good Lord...back to the start again!
Posted by Reality Check, Monday, 22 March 2010 4:47:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was reading the following part of Nick Moodie's Essay dealing with Islam:

"This talk of liberal principles and gender equality are examples of a focus on the dark side of religion. This was clearest in the talk given by physician and writer Taslima Nasrin, an exile from her home country of Bangladesh. God squirmed in his seat as Taslima explained the violent riots and death threats that saw her flee Bangladesh in 1994 and India in 2007. He continued to squirm as she picked up on a theme by the previous speech of atheist activist John Perkins, who had explored the fundamentally violent and intolerant messages of the Koran. I did however see God trying to hide a tear in his eye as Taslima talked of what she had missed due to exile, such as deathbed goodbyes to her parents, and the fact that she could find a home only in the hearts of those who oppose ignorance and darkness. He denied it afterwards, He said there had been something in His eye."

Does anyone know whether Taslima Nasrin or John Perkins can read Arabic and whether they have any formal training in Islamic studies?

Surely if Islam is so bad one could find real scholars in Islam to tell us just how bad and nasty it is.

Or lets put this another way. Is this a sign that atheist could not find a real scholar of Islam who would be prepared to say what the atheists want to hear?
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:25:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been reading some of the essays writen by John Perkins (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/Articles.htm), one of the speakers who addressed the issue of Islam at the confernce.

In his essays on Islam, John offers a lot of opinions but so far i have not been able to find one reference to a serious scholar to support his opinion.

Does anyone know of an article by John Perkins on Islam that is supported by serious scholarship?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 27 March 2010 1:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks JonJ and JP for taking the trouble to note some of the obvious weaknesses in this article.

Since when is not being sure of something 100% classed as a virtue? I didn’t realise that I could be so virtuous. There are countless thousands of things about which I know much less than 100%. Yet I don’t organise conferences about them on that basis.

Nick, when someone advertises a talk or seminar or conference, I’d like to come and hear about what they know, or what they’ve learned or discovered. I’m not interested in them boasting about what they don’t know.

It reminds me of the Swiss ski-instructor who charged $50 a lesson. At the first lesson, he told his students (in his French accent) zat he’z going to teach zem how to fall correctly. One student replied, ‘Look mate, at $50 an hour, I think you ought to tell me how to stand up.’

Then there were those appalling stories of the war crimes and human rights abuses in the Congo. While I’m sure those stories would tug at the heart strings of any full blooded human, atheist or religious, the author didn’t explain how that specifically relates to atheism. Is atheism only based on appeals to emotion?

Nick, you haven’t it through. As JP noted, if at the bottom of everything, the universe is all about chemical reactions and atoms bumping together, then what is the atheist’s basis for saying that war crimes are wrong?

So when the young student is raped walking between the evening lecture theatre and the dorm, we arrive at a crime so horrible we class it an absolute evil. So from where does their sense of ‘absolute’ come from? Moral indignation is well founded in us all being created in the image of a moral being.

In fact, some victims of crime even take refuge in there being a God that will ultimately judge such horrors in the future. Some claim that only in the light of there being a God of justice can there come any sense from their suffering.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 29 March 2010 2:43:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S – “Since when is not being sure of something 100% classed as a virtue?”

No self-respecting scientist says they are 100% sure about a theory. I think it’s arrogant to be 100% sure about anything. If someone says they are 100% sure that the earth is flat or that there is no extra-terrestrial life or that there is a god, I wouldn’t say their certainty is a virtue.

“when someone advertises a talk or seminar or conference, I’d like to come and hear about what they know, or what they’ve learned or discovered. I’m not interested in them boasting about what they don’t know.”

I don’t know if you were at the conference – but it was not about boasting about what we do know, it was largely about how we can live in a secular society with people who have religious beliefs. There were even agnostic speakers who said they did not know if there is a god. In fact I’ve never heard of a scientific conference in which they only talk about what they “know” – most of the time they talk about contradicting evidence and how to resolve inconsistencies in the results of studies or how to improve the method. If all they were interested in was what they know, there wouldn’t be any point debating or continuing research on a topic.
Posted by Michael Gate, Monday, 29 March 2010 6:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael, I was not at the conference. I’ve heard that Dawkins lectured on the topic of evolution. Can I ask how sure you are about this well accepted view of our origins? Is it 100% or 99% or something else?

’It’s because we value scepticism and evidence, and try to apply it to all things and for all claims, that most of us have turned to atheism in the first place.’ N.M.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 29 March 2010 11:27:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The hairs you are splitting, Dan S de Merengue, are getting thinner and thinner, aren't they?

>>Can I ask how sure you are about this well accepted view of our origins? Is it 100% or 99% or something else?<<

I can't answer for Michael, of course, but I'd put my own level of certainty that the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth 4.6 billion years old, at 100%.

http://www.ips-planetarium.org/pubs/age-of-universe.html

I expect the scientists will continue to discover new methods to refine these numbers, at which point my level of certainty that they are right will continue at 100%.

Mind you, if I were one of those scientists, I would never, ever, allow myself to think in terms of certainties. If they were to become certain, they would stop looking.

Interestingly, if they were to do that, my own personal level of certainty would start to dwindle. Why have they stopped looking, I would ask myself. What makes them so sure that there isn't a whole lot more to find out, and to learn about.

Which is the problem I have with Creationism. Having reached what they believe is a "conclusion", there remains nothing left for creationists to learn. The only avenue of enquiry or exploration remaining to them is to think up new ways to defend an increasingly untenable position.

Which certainly keeps the brain active, no doubt about that.

But it doesn't actually teach us anything.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 8:27:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My point about the '100% certainty' is that it is usually used by believers as a debating trick:

Atheist: "I don't believe God exists."
Believer: "But are you totally sure? After all, you could be mistaken."
A: "I COULD be mistaken, so I guess I am not 100% sure."

The fact that this has nothing to do with the content of the belief can be illustrated by using a different claim:

Fred: "I believe my name is Fred."
Sue: "But are you totally sure? After all, you could be mistaken."
Fred: "I COULD be mistaken, so I guess I am not 100% sure."

We are humans and fallible, and could be mistaken about anything. But so what? There is still just as much reason to believe in the non-existence of God as there is for any empirical claim. Unless believers can come up with any reasons to believe that a God exists, we are entitled to be as certain that it doesn't as we are certain of our own names. Arguments like this are just obfuscating the meaning of 'certainty'.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 8:53:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, Dan. While you were gone, you JP, myself and others already sorted this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10117&page=0...

<< As JP noted, if at the bottom of everything, the universe is all about chemical reactions and atoms bumping together, then what is the atheist’s basis for saying that war crimes are wrong?>>

The answer is that atheists get their basis for what’s right and wrong from the same place theists get their ability to know how to cherry-pick to good bits in the Bible and pretend the nasty stuff doesn’t count anymore.

Anyone who actually needs an imaginary authoritative figure to remain good probably shouldn’t be walking the streets, and anyone who does good deeds because of the potential rewards and punishments at the end doesn’t deserve any credit.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 10:54:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That should read...

"While you were gone, JP, myself and others already sorted this out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10117&page=0"

...of course.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 10:57:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan S,

I suppose if I had to choose I would say I’m 99.999% sure. I suppose I’m just saying I think it’s dangerous to talk about things in terms of 100% certainties. It forces us to keep thinking.
Posted by Michael Gate, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:25:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is not a debating trick or about splitting hairs.

It’s quite straight forward. Nick Moodie claims to be quite strong in scepticism and uncertainty. He almost boasts in them. However, I’ve found atheists to be rather selective when applying these skills or qualities, with special blind spots in regards to their account of evolution. At this point scepticism becomes a luxury they can’t afford.

In school children are taught that hydrogen, following long periods (14 billion years, Per.) of time and improbable events, became people. And they’re discouraged from applying scepticism towards this account.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 11:42:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

<<...I’ve found atheists to be rather selective when applying these skills or qualities, with special blind spots in regards to their account of evolution.>>

Interesting point considering you’ve never been able to point out what any of these aspects of evolution are that those who accept it (which are not just atheists by the way) need to apply “special blind spots” to.

Care to list them for us now?

<<In school children are taught that hydrogen, following long periods (14 billion years, Per.) of time and improbable events, became people. And they’re discouraged from applying scepticism towards this account.>>

Since when have children ever been discouraged from applying scepticism? Please inform us of what the methods are used to discourage children from applying scepticism?

The point you continuously seem to miss, Dan, is that rejecting Creationism doesn’t mean forgoing scepticism especially considering Creationism has been conclusively and unequivocally debunked in its entirety.

As I’ve mentioned to you a few times before, it is a false dichotomy to assume that if evolution is false, then Creationism, by default, becomes true.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 12:09:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I guess the really interesting thing about all this, is the mental processes employed.

Dan S de Merengue opines...

>>In school children are taught that hydrogen, following long periods (14 billion years, Per.) of time and improbable events, became people. And they’re discouraged from applying scepticism towards this account.<<

The key difference is that we evolutionists start in the year 2010, and work backwards. Every year, it seems, we get a slightly clearer view of what actually went on in our past, thanks to the efforts of science and technology.

It wasn't that long ago that we were only able to see the stars with the naked eye, helped along by a couple of judiciously placed pieces of glass. Now we have all sorts of "telescopes" that measure a wide variety of wavelengths, and allow us to see stuff that happened billions of years ago, billions of light-years away.

In the fullness of time, if the human race is lucky enough to survive long enough, science and technology will start to complete the picture on "how hydrogen became people". (I didn't bother to look that one up - is that really how creationists think?).

In the meantime we work with the knowledge we have, which is generally enough for the bulk of intelligent beings.

Creationists, on the other hand, can only work forward, from a date that they worked out from something they read in a book.

Which, I would suggest, puts them at a slight disadvantage.

Incidentally, Dan S de Merengue...

>>At this point scepticism becomes a luxury they can’t afford.<<

At what point in the Creationist story do you, personally, employ scepticism?
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 12:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

My response to this version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity is simply this: how do you know what hydrogen can accomplish in fourteen billion years? How much personal experience do you have of developments in hydrogen over long periods of time, and how does this experience lead you to believe that hydrogen CAN'T 'produce people'? How many cases of hydrogen sitting around for fourteen billion years do you know of, and what proportion of them failed to produce 'people' or something like them?

The fact that you find it hard to imagine says more about the paucity of your imagination than it does about the probability of the event.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 1:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Is everything *still* hydrogen? No? Go look up an encyclopaedia as to why.

Why did you make a fatuous statement? To make christians look dumb?

If I roll a six with a normal die, that is only 1/6. If I use 6 dice, it approaches certainty that *one* of them will be six.

Lots of atoms in the universe. The mass of organic molecules that have formed in interstellar clouds is immense. Improbable? only in the absense of energy.

Why pretend organic molecules cannot exist by simple means? To make literalist dogma look dumb?

Now, you chemical illiterate, You go and get an education and come back and tell *me* why your statements are wrong. *we* know. Pastor may have misinformed *you* though.

Go on. Just do it.

Like runner, you are not worth instructing. If you don't do it yourself, you will remain irrelevant.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Tuesday, 30 March 2010 10:04:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
The probability of rolling a 6 (at least one) with six dice is approximately 66.51%.

Believing that anything is possible given enough time and energy is not sustainable. Some things naturally do not occur. If the same person was winning lotto every week, we’d know someone was intervening with the possible outcomes. Anyone should and would be highly sceptical of that occurrence before long.

JonJ,
Incredulity is a relation of scepticism. When a claim is rather large, grand, and incredible, then scepticism should be our first natural reaction.

The story of hydrogen becoming people is quite a whopping story. This is why I ask that you not be so ready to swallow it so unquestioningly. Can’t you apply a little of this famed scepticism?

How do I know what hydrogen can accomplish in fourteen billion years? I can’t. But imagination should be tempered by reality if imagination isn’t going to get away from us. What do we know about hydrogen now that leads to thinking it is capable of making the leaps and bounds required for it to become a sentient being?

Pericles,
“I didn’t bother to look that one up.” Not the statement of a real sceptic.

This also doesn’t sound like a true sceptic, “I'd put my own level of certainty that the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth 4.6 billion years old, at 100%. I expect the scientists will continue to discover new methods to refine these numbers, at which point my level of certainty that they are right will continue at 100%”.

Nick Moodie says that we should value scepticism and apply it to ALL things and to ALL claims. Your acceptance of this incredibly large figure on the authority of these particular scientists is not a step in the direction of scepticism.

This is more evident in your willingness to keep faith on their authority after they’ve adjusted figures and shown themselves in need of correction. If their pronouncements are continually subject to change, this should underline the need to be more sceptical in your initially approach.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 1 April 2010 1:12:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How do I know what hydrogen can accomplish in fourteen billion years? I can’t."

Exactly. End of story.

"But imagination should be tempered by reality if imagination isn’t going to get away from us. What do we know about hydrogen now that leads to thinking it is capable of making the leaps and bounds required for it to become a sentient being?"

We know it's the most credible current explanation for the state of the universe that we have. Do you have a better one?
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 April 2010 12:13:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I believe I’ve discredited this a number of times now...

<< If the same person was winning lotto every week, we’d know someone was intervening with the possible outcomes.>>

Sorry, but as I’ve said on many occasions, natural selection makes turns the randomness of mutations into the non-random process of evolution.

For example, using your lottery analogy, if we were to continue dropping numbers to get a particular set in a particular order, we would eventually arrive at the intended set of numbers if we were to keep the ones that were right and only re-roll on the incorrect numbers.

Your analogy of simply continuing to try and get the same set of numbers without keeping the ones that are correct shows that you don’t understand evolution in the slightest unfortunately.

<<Incredulity is a relation of scepticism.>>

Yes, but incredulity becomes a logical fallacy when it is your only basis for the rejection of an idea.

<<When a claim is rather large, grand, and incredible, then scepticism should be our first natural reaction.>>

Exactly!

And when the evidence continues to support that theory consistently, that scepticism will dwindle a little. It was scepticism that brought us what we know today.

<<The story of hydrogen becoming people is quite a whopping story.>>

To those who don’t understand science, absolutely it is. And if you could supply any of us with some data that contradicts the current theories, then by all means list them, and we’ll duly increase our scepticism.

<<...imagination should be tempered by reality if imagination isn’t going to get away from us.>>
This is a little strange coming from someone who apparently tempers their imagination by claiming that an invisible magician made it all happen.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 1 April 2010 1:21:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Do you understand "approaches unity"?

From under 17% to over 66% with just five additional rounds *is* an approach to unity. How few additional rounds give greater than 90% Dan?

If one person buys more tickets in the lotto than all others by an order of magnitude, then it is *not* a surprise if they win consistently.

You have not addressed my objection. The question is not hydrogen to humans.

A well-understood process has generated all the other elements from hydrogen. Look it up.
We have considerable evidence of the existence of organic molecules in otherwise abiotic conditions.

So: the odds just shortened a lot and I believe you display a self-serving dishonesty by not having acknowledged this yourself and *correcting* pastor's little quip *yourself*.

Thank you for showing that yet more examples of "christians" are self-serving liars.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 1 April 2010 9:55:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rusty,
One of the main reasons I and others come to this forum is to listen to and engage with people of different opinions and mindsets other than our own.

Generally, I find numerous atheists come to this forum in proportion to the number of Christians. Some are a pleasure to talk to and know how to be civil.

That we might disagree is not a reason to descend into name calling.

I will answer one of your questions, and maybe see where we can go from there.

How many dice are needed before one reaches a probability of 90% that one of them will show a 6?

Answer: you need to roll 13 dice to achieve a probability of 90.65% that at least one of them will be a six. And 26 dice to achieve a probability of 99.13%.

However, I don’t think this demonstrates what you wish it will.

After rolling 42 dice, the desired outcome is still not a certainty (99.95%). And all this is to arrive at a fairly mundane and meaningless occurrence of seeing a six on a die.

Now to achieve something truly meaningful along the long road for hydrogen to become a person requires unlikely probabilities of much higher magnitude.

Living things require prodigious amounts of information, most of which is coded in DNA. To arrive at the simplest living cell, with its hundreds of starches, proteins, and genetic material all correctly arranged conveniently in that ‘primeval soup’, goes beyond winning the big one in lotto.

We can imagine that this remarkable sequence of events occurred for hydrogen to become a person, and without intelligent intervention. I was simply asking that we apply an ounce of scepticism before accepting as an article of faith that it did happen (i.e. be open to the possibility that it didn’t).

Or are you proposing, Rusty, that the evolution of non-living elements into people is quite a straight forward and likely occurrence?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 3 April 2010 8:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JonJ,
You ask, “We know it's the most credible current explanation for the state of the universe that we have. Do you have a better one?”

Do I have an explanation for the state of the universe? Do I have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything?

I know Adams said the answer was 42.

While you ask an interesting question, I hesitate to answer, as I think it is rather open. Discussing such a wide ranging question could lead us off into any direction.

I am aiming to focus within the bounds of the article by Moodie and his discussion of the Atheist convention. Moodie confuses ideas of faith, certainty, and scepticism. While the atheist Nick Moodie encourages us to value scepticism and apply it to ALL things and to ALL claims, I am trying to point out how atheists are not so quick to take their own advice regarding their view of life’s origins.

However, to give a brief answer, I might momentarily borrow the thoughts of another. One ex-atheist who might previously be expected to attend these types of atheist conferences is philosopher, Antony Flew. Flew has now abandoned atheism. One major factor in this was the enormous complexity of the simplest self-producing cell. -

“It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, … pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.

“Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” A. Flew www.illustramedia.com/IDArticles/flew-interview.pdf
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 3 April 2010 8:41:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank God for atheists.
Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 3 April 2010 9:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Now to achieve something truly meaningful along the long road for hydrogen to become a person requires unlikely probabilities of much higher magnitude.”

Dan – I’m not sure whether you understand the process of evolution. Probability is no weakness in the theory. There is low probability of CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS coming into being, but not that the process will take place over millions of years. That is a certainty. It is a natural, accumulative process. It’s not like evolution anticipated or had “in mind” the goal of creating a human being. Dawkins explains it better than me:

“The whole sequence of cumulative steps constitutes anything but a chance process...
Mutation is random in the sense that it's not anticipatory of what's needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes don't survive. That's a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they do-hunting, flying, fishing, swimming, digging-whatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes.”
Posted by Michael Gate, Sunday, 4 April 2010 12:41:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...the molecules that write the best instructions produce the most successful DNA, etc...
Posted by Proxy, Sunday, 4 April 2010 1:32:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I think it’s dangerous to talk about things in terms of 100% certainties.” (Michael Gate, 30/3/10)

“There is low probability of certain characteristics coming into being, but not that the process will take place over millions of years. That is a certainty.” (Michael Gate, 4/4/10)

Atheists being conveniently selective about when to apply their skepticism and when to declare certainty is what I’m talking about.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 8 April 2010 2:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ha ha you know I actually deleted the sentence “That is a certainty” when I was revising the comment and then accidentally posted the older version of my comment without updating it, because I didn’t like the use of the word ‘certainty’ – I agree, I shouldn’t have used that word.

But my point is that the "theory" of evolution is not at all about probability.
Posted by Michael Gate, Thursday, 8 April 2010 4:00:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Probability of evolution occurring, that is.)
Posted by Michael Gate, Thursday, 8 April 2010 4:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Could you please give an example of some data that atheists have conveniently relaxed their scepticism with?

Thanks.

P.S. You needn’t bother with the “I’m not taking to you because you’re rude to me” act, especially since it was so apparent to myself and others that your accusations of rudeness (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#164102) were merely fabricated in order to avoid doing the honorable thing and addressing or retracting some false claims that you had made. Speaking of which, we can now add this to the list...

“In school children are taught that hydrogen, following long periods (14 billion years, Per.) of time and improbable events, became people. And they’re discouraged from applying scepticism towards this account.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10185#166852)

Whether or not you ignore me, I will continue to respond to you so long as you continue to assault truth, reason and logic. As I’ve said before, Dan, I don’t do what I do to get a reaction, I do it because I care about the truth.

If you choose to ignore me then that’s fine, as that in itself will be revealing enough to fulfill my purpose here.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 8 April 2010 4:31:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

So, you grasp that the odds of a straightforward event happening "at least once" increase with time and number of attempts. You cling to the idea that just beacause numbers get bigger, their behaviour in this regard is in some way different. For instance, rolling 100 on a theoretical d120, given 2exp10 rolls of 2exp10 dice approaches the same unity.

Let us consider a convenient modern example:

You no doubt consider it "unlikely" that a random sequence of 100 of the usual 4 bases in an RNA strand would form a catalyst.

In actual fact, 100 micrograms of such material yields thousands of molecules that display *just one* arbitrarily chosen catalytic activity (ligase). Of the dozens or thousands of catalytic activities that might be applicable in a pre-biotic chemistry, I would expect to find at least hundreds of differing molecules displaying each such catalysis, all coexisting in the same 100 microgram sample.

Not so meaningless, or mundane, really, is it?

Multiplying the probabilities of exclusive events considered in the light of limited opportunities is not analogous to the *summing* of probabilities of non-exclusive outcomes given a vast excess of opportunities. Chemistry is not dice-rolls. For each *defined* outcome there are *more* than one way to get there, and since mixtures are dynamic, *all* ways get tried repeatedly.

Your argument is bunk.

The existing evidence of great sweep of biological evolution, demonstrates the dishonest intent in your basic argument. (are you *deliberately* bearing false witness, or just spouting a throwaway quote from pastor?)
Our already detailed knowledge of how fusion proceeds in stars is well established. Why conflate this with the emergence of life, except to misrepresent the matter? Again, is it just dishonesty?

That details of the emergence of the earliest cellular life are murky is not an excuse. Good work has been done in this area and you are remiss to not acknowledge it yourself. Ilya Prigogine established a thermodynamic analysis of simplified pre-biotic metabolism. Any university library will provide you with at least a few volumes on "protocells", and so on.

Catch up, Dan.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Friday, 9 April 2010 10:39:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael, if evolution theory is not about probability, this could only be a very good thing considering how truly we recognise the unlikelihood of its components.

I’ve already mentioned Flew above. The late Sir Fred Hoyle said, ‘Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate … . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect … higher intelligences … even to the limit of God … such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident.’

Nobel Prize winner, Francis Crick, said: ‘What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events … . An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle …’

Evolutionist Robert Shapiro, at this point would prefer to abandon all scepticism, ‘One escape hatch yet exists for spontaneous generation. Why need the event have been probable? We can just stare at the odds, shrug, and note with thanks how lucky we were … After all, improbable events occur all the time.’

So Michael, am I correct in hearing you say evolution theory is not a certainty but only 99.999%?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 10 April 2010 2:11:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan - No one actually knows what the probability of life originating on its own is, so I don't think we can say it's "too" improbable.

But if there is any possibility at all - no matter how small - when you have billions of planets over a period of billions of year, it is certainly possible that life will originate on at least one of them that has the right environmental conditions (like Earth).
Posted by Michael Gate, Saturday, 10 April 2010 5:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan - Can I ask you a question? You're obviously a thinking person, so I'd be really interested in hearing your response.

I am often surprised when I hear theists make the argument you are making - That life could not have originated without a creator. And here's why - my question is:

If you believe that the logical answer to how humans got here is "god created us", doesn't that just raise a much larger question:

"How did god get here?"

Rather than resolving the problem, it creates a far greater problem, for if there were a god, he or she would have to be far more complex and intelligent that we are in order to create us. So how did god get here? Was he/she created by another god? If so, how did that god get here?

And I'm begging you - please don't say the answer is "god has always been here, he is eternal", because I think we both know that's no thinking person's answer at all, that's a total cop out.
Posted by Michael Gate, Saturday, 10 April 2010 5:13:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh and sorry, I didn't answer your question - I'd prefer not to put a percentage on it, just like I wouldn't put a percentage on this table existing in front of me - there is a very high chance that this table is real, but it's possible that my five senses are giving me false information, it's possible I am hallucinating, it's possible I am dreaming, it's possible that all I am is a brain in a jar that a mad scientist is doing experiments on. My point was that it's cocky for atheists to say they are "100% certain" that god does not exist, just as it would be cocky for Christians to say they are "100% certain" that god does exist. I believe god does not exist, because that's what the evidence conveys to me, but it's possible that my five senses are giving me false information. I would never say I'm 100% certain, unless I knew everything about everything, which I do not.
Posted by Michael Gate, Saturday, 10 April 2010 5:32:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Whatever: << So Michael, am I correct in hearing you say evolution theory is not a certainty but only 99.999%? >>

Sounds about right to me.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 10 April 2010 7:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael,
I can well relate to your last post. I can understand you not wanting to put a percentage figure on some of these bigger questions considering our incomplete knowledge. But you still hold your ground with a certain confidence, claiming that the evidence favours your position.

Fair enough. I’d do the same. But this prompts me to try and define the word ‘faith’ considering how much we will never know. Holding to a position in the face of incomplete knowledge is one definition of faith. Like one Biblical definition: ‘faith gives us assurance about things we cannot see,’ ‘faith is the conviction of things not seen,’ ‘faith is being certain of what we do not see.’

I disagree with the assertion, so often stated, that given enough time (billions of years) anything can happen. Scientific thinking encourages us to observe occurrences that actually do happen, and note what we actually see. And we note that some things occur more readily, and are a lot more likely, than others. Certain complex chemical alignments are just not seen to neatly arrange themselves without direction.

With regard to evolution, atheists never claim they hold their position with anything like faith. Nevertheless, carry as they do a type of self-enchanted self-confidence.

To say that a creator god must itself have a creator begins an infinite regression. Such a regression is not feasible. There must be a first cause that brought the space-time continuum into being and set cause and effect relationships into motion.

If the notion of an eternal god is unacceptable to atheists, why can they accept another type of uncaused first cause? Generally the atheist will accept that matter (and energy) made everything and nothing made matter. For them, matter is the uncaused first cause.

Evidence points to a creative intelligence beyond our own. If you ask who made this god, I can’t find another answer than the one you don’t want. Sometimes an answer acceptable for the kid in Sunday school is also profound enough for the philosopher. God is the uncaused first cause.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 12 April 2010 10:35:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to be fair to Francis Crick:

"Outside biology, we do not see the process of exact geometrical replication, which, together with the

replication of mutants, leads to rare events becoming common"

and

"biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved"

"Physicists are all to apt to look for the wrong sort of generalisations"

All of these from Francic Crick's retrospective "what mad pusuit" 1988.

Lying for god, Dan?

Robert Shapiro who holds that metabolism (of the sort modelled by Prigogine) predates RNA.

Dan *really* thinks his stuff prefers his explanation? Is he so desperate? Should we go look it up?

Dan even clutches at the fred hoyle position, Dan should (if honest, which as a christian apologist he is not) look up the references himself.

What about it Dan? A Student-life-type approached me in a tute last week with approximately your argument. I told her she will get no marks on the current assignment unless she went and looked up why her assertion was wrong. She has paid for her education (or her parents), so I gave her a starting reference. I have no reason to believe you deserve such accommodation, find your own. Why you are *wrong*, that is. She, like you, needs a much better basis for faith if you expect me to "respect" it.

In the meantime, like runner, you discredit christianity by taking juvenile positions. Catch up.

Here's a suggestion, when a single sentence suggests a conspiracy to you, don't bite. You and runner may think there is a global atheist conspiracy, let slip by such snippets as you are able to glean from wieland et al... but there isn't, and wieland et al aren't smart enough to inform you usefully.

Oh yes: Does misprepresenting the views of great scientists glorify your god, or show him to be satisfied by the products of liars? Just wondering. Will enough lies get you into heaven? or just make the church and and it's dependents more comfortable?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 12 April 2010 11:17:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan is correct about the infinite regression being bollocks, but let's look closer.

Dan's problem here is that he does not want to acknowledge where the infinite progression started. It did not start with atheists asking "who made god?". It started with the assumption that all complex things are designed and built, therefore "god".

If "god" is "special" and does not need a creator, why? On what do you base this beyond the fictional phrase "god does not need one"?

Why just the immediately superior level of godhood? why *not* three or twenty-eight? Given the lack of evidence of even one, there is no basis for your assertion.

On the other hand,

The universe *does* exist. We don't need to invoke a fictional one just as a talking point. It's here. In addition, it contains matter which *does* self-organise into simple forms with only energy and time. For instance, the classical sub atomic particles form atoms *all by themselves*. Given only ultraviolet radiation, organic monomers can and do form directly from gaseous atmospheres. and so on.

Matter as an uncaused first event is much more satisfactory than "god" as an uncaused first event. The "matter" need not be differentiated, in fact may be indistinguishable from energy. Just about the simplest instantiation of mass/energy possible is what physicists propose.

Our own little experiments show that enough energy transforms matter into other types of matter, that matter can be destroyed to make energy and that much smaller particles do just form matter. We
*understand* some of the processs by which matter can become more complex.

So, a sequence of development that is dependent on a *simpler* first cause (say one lump of hot degenerate matter) requires less explanation.

Dan, your assertion of god as an uncaused first cause is as bollocks now as when Aquinas suggested it.

It is *not* good enough for philosophers, and it most certainly is *not* good enough for kids either.

Who made "god" dan?

Here's the answer *you* don't want to hear: Somebody made it up, just like all the other fictional gods.

Catch up, dan.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 11:29:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy