A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

@failures art,

Quote:

Good. Then in using positive terms, explain how there can be no winner or loser, or for that matter multiple losers in that there are an infinite amount of wrong assertions

I don't understand this. Why does there need be a winner or a loser?
We all go the same way in the end. I'm not proposing any consequence for not subscribing to a god belief. If there proves to be no god, I haven't lost anything, and I'm guessing if you find yourself in an afterlife you won't feel you've lost either.

Quote:

Yes, and like the lightning, god wont be a god anymore than lightning ever was magic.

Well, we could still call it god, won't be an enigma anymore though.

Quote:

Sure, if we grab a lottery ticket and scratch. The difference being that people have actually won the lottery.

Would you purchase UFO abduction insurance? How does the "realm of possibility" factor here? Is the possibility lesser or greater than the existence of god(s)? Provide your reasoning.

Somehow I knew the lottery would come up Smile

I didn't get what the odds were on the existence of god.
UFO's or aliens? I would say I consider the possibility of alien abduction to be far less. I have to consider the odds spread over 7 billion earthlings, for one. Not to mention the odds of finding earth out of all the universe.

The existence of god would be an entirely different equation.
If I had to say, I would have to say 50/50, I don't see any preponderence of evidence either way.

Quote:

Unless your expression is solitude or silence. In that case, you are helpless and your mental sovereignty is violated.

That's an interesting thought, brings to mind Adam and Eve clothing themselves.
Makes me wonder about our desire for privacy.
Personally, I realised long ago that if there was a god, I couldn't hide from him. I never doubted the benevolence of such a god, so it was kind of a relief to feel that I didn't have to explain myself.

That really is an excellent point, I'm glad you brought that up.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

That's what set's my mind apart from religious beliefs.
I don't have any problem viewing god belief as an hypothesis.
Thanks for bringing that up.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I've never heard it's only a hypothesis. I'm fairly positive it's a formal theory, and the testability of it has only been stonewalled by current engineering abilities, namely, needing a particle collider some 10 times the size of the LHC. This isn't my area of study, and I'll admit I only have read enough to be vaguely familiar, but I had never heard your hypothesis statement before. Also, and this is a matter scientific legalist nomenclature I suppose, I still think something is a theory in circumstances like this.

I'd be interested in feedback from someone like Thomas on this.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

I'm saying it's an hypothesis. I don't care what you have to say on the matter. If we are unable to test it because of engineering limitations, then it remains "unproveable" in Bills vague and witless terms, and therefore, according to him, irrational.

0 Replies

From Science-dot-Slashdot-dot-org:

Quote:

"Dozens of string-theory conferences have been held, hundreds of new Ph.D.s have been minted, and thousands of papers have been written. Yet... not a single new testable prediction has been made, not a single theoretical puzzle has been solved. In fact, there is no theory so far — just a set of hunches and calculations suggesting that a theory might exist. And, even if it does, this theory will come in such a bewildering number of versions that it will be of no practical use: a Theory of Nothing... String theory has always had a few vocal skeptics... Sheldon Glashow, who won a Nobel Prize for making one of the last great advances in physics before the beginning of the string-theory era, has likened string theory to a 'new version of medieval theology,' and campaigned to keep string theorists out of his own department at Harvard. (He failed.)"

Their source is an article in The New Yorker.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Quote:
Good. Then in using positive terms, explain how there can be no winner or loser, or for that matter multiple losers in that there are an infinite amount of wrong assertions

I don't understand this. Why does there need be a winner or a loser?

I never said anything about necessity. I only addressed your claim that their could be no winner/loser.

wayne wrote:

We all go the same way in the end. I'm not proposing any consequence for not subscribing to a god belief.

That's a tangential topic.

wayne wrote:

If there proves to be no god, I haven't lost anything, and I'm guessing if you find yourself in an afterlife you won't feel you've lost either.

That depends. Spend 80 years on this earth. Die. End up in afterlife. Have experiences in afterlife equivalent to 8000 years of earth life. Perhaps I'll curse the endlessness. Why assume the afterlife is a good thing? Such an idea sounds maddening.

wayne wrote:

Quote:
Yes, and like the lightning, god wont be a god anymore than lightning ever was magic.

Well, we could still call it god, won't be an enigma anymore though.

No we wouldn't. Look at the countless things that literally were gods at one point. We don't still refer to them as gods now that they are no longer enigmas. Why would removing more enigmas from the universe lend us to break with this tradition?

wayne wrote:

Quote:
Sure, if we grab a lottery ticket and scratch. The difference being that people have actually won the lottery.

Would you purchase UFO abduction insurance? How does the "realm of possibility" factor here? Is the possibility lesser or greater than the existence of god(s)? Provide your reasoning.

Somehow I knew the lottery would come up
I didn't get what the odds were on the existence of god.

They are statistically very low.

wayne wrote:

UFO's or aliens? I would say I consider the possibility of alien abduction to be far less. I have to consider the odds spread over 7 billion earthlings, for one. Not to mention the odds of finding earth out of all the universe.

Huh? How are being who are credited with no supernatural claims, less likely to exist and interfere with human affairs than god(s)?

wayne wrote:

The existence of god would be an entirely different equation.
If I had to say, I would have to say 50/50, I don't see any preponderence of evidence either way.

You're not using the same statistical method for both examples. The 7 billion number would carry for both. Also, 50/50 is a statement on probability, not statistics.

As an example, I'll demonstrate the relationship between the specifics of a claim and their likeliness.

Consider the following claims:
a) I saw a girl today.
b) I saw a girl with red hair today.
c) I saw a girl with red hair today firing laser out of her eyes.

All technically fall within the realm of possibility, but that's not the point. The point should be that even in the very normal and likely cases (a) and (b), the added claim that I saw a girl with red hair, is less likely than simply just the claim that I saw a girl. Consider then trying to compare:

a) A being with advanced technological powers and knowledge
b) A being with infinite power and knowledge

How would (a) be less likely of a claim than (b)? We know that over time technology and knowledge increase. To claim to see a being with greater of both is far more likely than seeing one with all power and all knowledge.

wayne wrote:

Quote:
Unless your expression is solitude or silence. In that case, you are helpless and your mental sovereignty is violated.

That's an interesting thought, brings to mind Adam and Eve clothing themselves.

A futile gesture when you think about it.

wayne wrote:

Makes me wonder about our desire for privacy.

I'm thinking this is nurture, not nature. Socialization gets credit in my view if this is the case for an individual or even as a part of a person's habits.

wayne wrote:

Personally, I realised long ago that if there was a god, I couldn't hide from him.

Or her, or it, or them... There's no reasoning I've heard to believe the number of gods are even finite.

wayne wrote:

I never doubted the benevolence of such a god, so it was kind of a relief to feel that I didn't have to explain myself.

Why make this assumption? Having no evidence for any gods existence by itself, it seems premature to characterize their temperament/morality/ethics.

wayne wrote:

That really is an excellent point, I'm glad you brought that up.

Casual chit chat.

A
R
T

1 Reply

FART is hilarious. He wants to be taken seriously himself, despite consistently either presenting flawed logic or being unable to express himself properly, and yet wants to condemn what we discuss as casual chit chat. I'll be glad when he gets over his obsessive need to prove that he's right and i'm wrong.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Ah, yes. Thank you for the link. This does provide a working example for comparison.

Compare the belief in god(s) being real to String theory being true, and yes you are correct it's irrational. I disagree that it's equally rational though.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

Sorry, Ossobuco. I never said I didn't like this place. I was being a bit tongue in cheek. If we were starting out now I would not believe in an established religion. We've got one though, and the result is not a theocracy, but the exact opposite. I don't mind arguing politics, we can focus on facts. Religion/Spirituality is different, you don't change opinions you just upset people, regardless of whichever side of the argument they're on. As far as I'm concerned people can believe what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else.

I don't like proselytisation though, and some atheists are just as guilty as religious fundamentalists. Last father's day my daughter bought me Derren Brown's latest book. In case you don't know he's a stage magician a bit like your David Blaine. I was really looking forward to it, but instead of being about his career as a stage magician, it was peppered with references to why there is no god or purpose to any of this. If I had wanted that I would have bought something by Richard Dawkins.

I think Yeates summed it up best.
'The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'

0 Replies

@failures art,

I haven't said that it's equally rational. Pick a fight with someone else. I was just pointing out how idiotic Bill's claim was.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

FART is hilarious.

And here I thought you had no sense of humor.

Setanta wrote:

He wants to be taken seriously himself, despite consistently either presenting flawed logic or being unable to express himself properly, and yet wants to condemn what we discuss as casual chit chat.

My comment RE: "casual chit chat" was not in condemnation of Wayne. I merely meant to say I was enjoying the conversation.

Setanta wrote:

I'll be glad when he gets over his obsessive need to prove that he's right and i'm wrong.

Stop pretending like you're some sort of gatekeeper. I don't really care to prove you wrong, and I had just posted I agreed with you as you posted this ego-driven predictably boring response.

If you'd like to talk obsessive needs, we can discuss your need for authority and macho posturing.

Yes yes I know... kiss your red Irish ass... right?

How about something new Set? I was asking questions about something you posted, and I didn't make myself an authority on string theory. Stop being such a dick. You make it hard to discuss things. It becomes not worth the time to challenge anything you say, because you get so damn nasty. Worse, is when I simply want clarification, and you take it as being challenged or whatever.

Thank you for the link to the slash dot article. No thank you for the bullshit you're incapable separating from info sharing. It's like I say that I don't see the salt shaker, and you hand me the salt and say: "Here's the salt asshole."

Keep it classy Set.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I haven't said that it's equally rational. Pick a fight with someone else. I was just pointing out how idiotic Bill's claim was.

Setanta wrote:

I do not accept that a belief in god is inherently irrational, that's foolish. Many people believe in god as prime mover, and that is as rational as any other belief, including belief in scientific propositons which cannot be unquestionably demonstrated.

You've not said that green apples and red apples are equally expensive. You've only said that green apples are as expensive as red apples.

Ahhhhh....

I'm only replying to what you posted, Set. Don't criticize me for poor communication.

I'm not picking any fights--You are.

Again.
R
T

0 Replies

This is typical of what passes for logic at your house. I said that a belief in god as prime mover is equally as rational. I haven't said that any theistic belief is equally as rational.

I'm not surprised, though, that either you are incapable of seeing the distinction, or too dishonest to acknowledge it in your rush to argue with me.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Here, as you don't seem to pay much attention to nuance, allow me to quote you your own post:

failures art wrote:

Compare the belief in god(s) being real to String theory being true, and yes you are correct it's irrational. I disagree that it's equally rational though.

I didn't compare "the belief in god(s) to string theory," i compared the belief in god as prime mover to scientific hypotheses which are not proven. Thereafter Bill jumped in with his bullshit about irrational beliefs.

This just like your hysteria whenever the subject is vegetarianism or veganism. You jump in when you haven't been addressed or referred to, start throwing around accusations, and then not only deny that you're trying to pick a fight, you accuse your interlocutor of doing it, as you've just done now.

And that stupidity with your verticle letters is just a symptom of how puerile your expository style is.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

How would "Bill's idiotic claim" that:

Quote:

Any firmly held believe system with zero proof is by it nature irrational.

...exclude your "god as a prime mover" distinction? There's no support/proof for god as a prime mover either. Your distinction doesn't matter. It still falls within Bill's claim. It doesn't matter that you aren't talking about "any theistic belief."

Bill: Beliefs with zero proof are irrational.
Set: Bill's claim is idiotic.
Set: A god as prime mover belief is as rational as a belief with no demonstration.
Set: String theory has no demonstration/evidence/support.
Art: God as a prime mover has no demonstration/evidence/support.
Set: I'm not saying any theistic belief are equally rational with a god prime mover.
Art: They have equal demonstration/evidence/support; None.

So how exactly is a god as prime mover any different? Your distinction seems meaningless given Bill's actual claim, and your statements in reply.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Setanta,

hahaha...

By all means Set, let us get to the base of your "distinction." Please compare a belief in gods verses a belief in god as a prime mover based on Bill's metric of observability/proof/evidence.

How is a god prime mover any more rational that the base belief in a god. Neither have support. Remember, you were criticizing Bill's claim, Señor Nuance.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Quote:

That depends. Spend 80 years on this earth. Die. End up in afterlife. Have experiences in afterlife equivalent to 8000 years of earth life. Perhaps I'll curse the endlessness. Why assume the afterlife is a good thing? Such an idea sounds maddening.

That's one possibility, of course.

Quote:

No we wouldn't. Look at the countless things that literally were gods at one point. We don't still refer to them as gods now that they are no longer enigmas. Why would removing more enigmas from the universe lend us to break with this tradition?

Depends on the nature of the enigma.
I'm not sure which things were thought of as gods.
A lot of things were attributed to various gods in a manner which we now know to be false.

Quote:

They are statistically very low

Where might I find these statistics?

Quote:

Huh? How are being who are credited with no supernatural claims, less likely to exist and interfere with human affairs than god(s)?

You asked about abduction.

Quote:

How would (a) be less likely of a claim than (b)? We know that over time technology and knowledge increase. To claim to see a being with greater of both is far more likely than seeing one with all power and all knowledge.

Again, you asked about abduction.
You are asking me to subject a possible creator, with all power and knowledge to the laws of his creation.
Isn't that a bit like saying a photographer is 2 dimensional?

Quote:

Why make this assumption? Having no evidence for any gods existence by itself, it seems premature to characterize their temperament/morality/ethics.

True, I suppose it could be malevolent just as well.
Although, I haven't been ill treated as yet, so I find it reasonable to trust it's benevolence.

1 Reply

@failures art,

You know, you're really piss poor at rhetoric. I am not obliged to compare anything to what you grandiloquently refer to as Bill's "metric." Throwing around words that are currently fashionable, such as metric, does not lend any weight to your arguments. I said that god as prime mover is as rational as "any other belief, including belief in scientific propositons which cannot be unquestionably demonstrated." I only brought up string "theory" after Bill made his stupid remark.

As for god as prime mover being more rational than (the word you wanted was than, not that) "the base belief in god"--i had already addressed that.

Quote:

We really can't reasonably assert irrationality until the point at which silly, puerile human conceit intervenes in the form of claims that we are made in a god's image and that god has nothing better to do with his/her/its omnipotent and omniscient time than to sit around watching the fall of every sparrow and toting up our sins against us. Whereas one might argue that most human descriptions of god have been irrational, it is specious to suggest that any and all concepts of a god are ipso fatso, sozyeroldman, irrational.

I guess you're either too lazy, or perhaps to dull-witted to keep track of what people actually write, as opposed to how you want to characterize it to suit your argument. I don't necessarily ascribe malevolence to your constant reliance on straw man fallacies--i think you just aren't bright enought to do any better.

1 Reply

@wayne,

wayne wrote:

Depends on the nature of the enigma. I'm not sure which things were thought of as gods. A lot of things were attributed to various gods in a manner which we now know to be false.

That's kind of my point, and why I reached to lightning as an example. Wind is another good one. Heck, even the earth itself has been deified by many cultures.

wayne wrote:

You asked about abduction.

Yes, and I believe that would qualify under "interfere with human affairs."

wayne wrote:

You are asking me to subject a possible creator, with all power and knowledge to the laws of his creation. Isn't that a bit like saying a photographer is 2 dimensional?

I don't follow your photographer analogy. My point is simple: The greater the claim, the greater the burden of evidence. Infinite power and knowledge is to assume an infinite burden which is unlikely to be met. Similarly, a being who is simply more advanced, while still unlikely to be seen let alone abducted by, is still more likely than one whose claim is finitely larger.

wayne wrote:

True, I suppose it could be malevolent just as well. Although, I haven't been ill treated as yet, so I find it reasonable to trust it's benevolence.

You have no reason to assume that even if a being existed, that it has been a part of your life affairs or has any interest in you.

A child burning ants with a magnifying glass is malevolent to the ants. If you're an ant who thinks that the child is benevolent simply because you have been burned (or possibly just unnoticed), you are simply assuming. It's not a rational conclusion until you've actually interacted with the child and it choose to burn you or not. Even if you aren't burned (read: "You haven't been ill treated"), the fact that others have had ill treatment should factor in.

The big difference here is that if you're an ant, the child is real, and you know it. It at least makes sense to draw conclusions (even incorrect ones) on something you know is real.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You're correct that you're not obliged to compare anything at my request. Suit yourself. I'm not one to try and convince the Set to do anything the Set doesn't want to do.

You criticized Bill's statement of "without proof" by citing string theory. You've made some special distinction for sake of your own argument using an example of god as a prime mover, but there is no distinction in proof for such a claim, which was Bill's original criticism of belief in god(s). You type that you aren't making them equivilent, but your logic has not justified your special distinction as being meaningful in any way.

Oh and sorry for the typo. Are we doing that? I wasn't going to mention your curious use of the word "verticle." I think you meant "vertical." Are you really that in need of some way to feel superior to me? Tell me what going out of your way to point out typos is symptomatic of in regards to expository style and maturity.

Ah ah ah
R
Temper temper.

1 Reply

A dying message from Hitchens an American Atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know