…and this is a 
Ken Ham is whining about me again — this time, I am "this atheist professor". He really chokes over my name, doesn't he?
Anyway, that's not interesting. What is bizarre is this photo and question:
Where were these taken?
Answer: In the AiG parking lot when the 285 atheists visited. As one looks at the messages on these bumper stickers, we need to pray for these very lost people who so desperately need the Lord. Actually, I believe some of these messages really do reflect what the devil offered Adam and Eve in Genesis 3, "you shall become as gods…"
This is creepy on two levels: that Ken Ham sent his goons out to photograph the cars of visitors, which speaks of a very deep paranoia, and that he finds these simple bumper stickers to be satanic. He needs to pray for people who voted for Obama? People who value ethics and doing good are desperate need of the lord?
He's a sick, warped man.
Comments
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 16, 2009 1:15 PM
Heh. Reminds me of the sixth grade -- when the teacher left the room, the goody-goody teacher's pet would always take down the names of anybody who, in her opinion, misbehaved.
Posted by: Nin Guino | August 16, 2009 1:16 PM
So, voting for Obama makes you god?
Posted by: DJ | August 16, 2009 1:17 PM
Gee, I'd be proud to have some of those bumper stickers... any idea where to get the "two opposable thumbs up" one?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Hey Hammy boy, how about reading that Bible of yours? I recommend Mathew 6:5-8
Posted by: Camels With Hammers | August 16, 2009 1:18 PM
Creepy is right.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 16, 2009 1:22 PM
Plus, PZ, you DISOBEYED!!
The editorial comment about the saddled triceratops above the license plates on your link:
"Who cares about signs as long as people can do whatever they want in disobedience of clear direction ..."
Next time it's a crucifix across the knuckles, for sure.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 16, 2009 1:22 PM
I agree that the "two opposable thumbs up" are adorable.
Obviously, Ken Ham tries to avoid advertising Pharyngula by treating PZ Myers as "he who can't be named", but since it is among the top 10 results when googling "atheist professor minnesota", he seems to be advertising it anyway, at least to the segment of his fans able to use Google.
But "teh professor" has quite an endearing arch-nemesis-y sound to it, so it's neat any way you look at it, really.
Posted by: 386sx | August 16, 2009 1:23 PM
Let's see... dumb, paranoid, voices in his head, has millions and millions of dollars... What could possibly go wrong!
Posted by: Motley | August 16, 2009 1:24 PM
Holy shitting dicknipples, batman!
I actually saw security guards photographing cars when I came into the Museum (30 mins late, no less), but it never occurred to me that they were doing THIS.
Wow.
Posted by: mikespeir | August 16, 2009 1:24 PM
Actually, I wish he'd spend more time praying.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 16, 2009 1:25 PM
Is Ham and company going to pray the group or will they pray for each individual? If he prays for each individual where does he find the time to even speak?
Creepy is right, Big Brother Is Watching You...
Posted by: Owen | August 16, 2009 1:26 PM
He probably says "the athiest professor" because he can't spell Meyers...
Posted by: skeet | August 16, 2009 1:30 PM
I love how an Obama sticker is a sign of evil. Nucking Futs.
Posted by: Sean McCorkle | August 16, 2009 1:31 PM
Thomas Paine is offensive? !!!
Um, is Ken Ham a U.S. citizen?
Maybe he needs to be reminded of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendment #1. It protects me from him imposing his kooky religious ideas on me, but perhaps more importantly, he should understand that it protects him from me imposing my kooky religious ideas on him. And it allows that all of us can put whatever we want on our bumper stickers etc.
Posted by: Caine | August 16, 2009 1:31 PM
So, a godless bumper sticker qualifies you as a god? I wonder if your god status increases the more godless stickers/plates you have...
Posted by: ambulocetus | August 16, 2009 1:32 PM
Yes, it's creepy. But what I'm wondering is what exactly he thinks this exercise accomplished. The only thing I can think of is that he thought it would be a kind of insurance should something happen that would involve legal proceedings. That way if it went to court, he could say "your honor, just look at how evil and disrespectful these atheists were." Or am I reading too much into it?
Posted by: Caine | August 16, 2009 1:34 PM
Owen @ 12:
To be fair, you can't spell it either.
Posted by: nrrr | August 16, 2009 1:38 PM
"to do good is my religion" = GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!!
Starting to wonder if this guy is legit mentally ill.
Posted by: Justin | August 16, 2009 1:38 PM
285 atheists and only 7 bumperstickers. That's a paltry 02.5%. Ken Ham's security must be sleeping on the job.
Posted by: Zeno | August 16, 2009 1:39 PM
Catholic Radio is replete with talkers who are outraged that cars with Obama stickers were allowed into the parking lots of churches in some parishes. Apparently the pastors of those churches were supposed to go out into the parking lot and melt those satanic cars by splashing holy water on them. The mouth-frothers also just cannot get over it that the Obama-Biden ticket carried a majority of the Catholic vote. That really sticks in their craw and gives me a chuckle every time I hear one of the Catholic Radio commentators repeat it with incredulous horror and righteous indignation in his or her voice.
The monolith isn't what it's all cracked up to be.
(And you can quote me on that.)
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 16, 2009 1:39 PM
I'm reading "The God Delusion" and just happen to be on the part about the religious obsession with blasphemy.
Yes, creepy is right. (No, wait, it's not strong enough. This is just fucking insanity.)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
August 16, 2009 1:41 PM
Pray for us? How's he going to do that with just a license plate?
It's pretty clear God has no idea who any of us are without a full name and a SIN number (see the need for a bloody lintel in Exodus 12:21-29), so he'll have to do a little better than "Dear Lord, please soften the heart of that guy with the Obama sticker."
Posted by: Ben | August 16, 2009 1:44 PM
The thought of atheists being good people and not voting Republican must keep Ken Ham up at night.
Posted by: ckitching | August 16, 2009 1:44 PM
He sure seems hurt by the fact that a grown man hopped on the children's "photo op" piece, despite the fact a sign said that it was for children only. I think he's overreacting (I'm willing to bet it was an honest mistake, not malice as he implies), but perhaps an apology would be in order nevertheless.
Posted by: AJ Milne | August 16, 2009 1:44 PM
Okaaaaaay, Psychoboy... Hey, Ham, man, there's some men in white suits at the door would like a word...
(/They look nice, big guys, clean shaven, brought these cool nets 'n everything... Prolly just wanna go butterfly collectin' with ya or sumpin'... I figure ya should definitely go hear 'em out, guy...)
Posted by: Paul Claessen | August 16, 2009 1:49 PM
#14;
"Um, is Ken Ham a U.S. citizen?
Maybe he needs to be reminded of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendment #1. It protects me from him imposing his kooky religious ideas on me
"
Whether he's a U.S. citizen or not is irrelevant with regards to the Bill or Rights. That he is IN the U.S. IS!
And no, amendment #1 does NOT protect you from HIM imposing his kooky ideas on you. It protects you from the GOVERNMENT doing so. Actually, the Bill of Rights guarantees him the freedom to freely express his kooky ideas!
Posted by: JustinB | August 16, 2009 1:51 PM
You managed to screw up "atheist" and "myers" in a post deriding someone's ability to spell. I'm not usually fond of the term, but that is just epic fail.
Posted by: BMurray | August 16, 2009 1:51 PM
I love how pedestrian evil is in Ham's world. Atheist professor sits on plastic dinosaur. The devil is indeed a crafty one.
Posted by: Tom | August 16, 2009 1:52 PM
He would have loved the Flying Spaghetti Monster emblem on my car.
Posted by: Baconsbud | August 16, 2009 1:53 PM
This is the first time I have commented here but have to say I have really enjoyed this series of post about your trip to that so called museum. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 16, 2009 1:54 PM
So, what's wrong with the "DNA is life" sticker? Is Ken Ham denying DNA? Wouldn't suprize me.
Posted by: JustinB | August 16, 2009 1:54 PM
To be fair, I can't remember to address replies to save my life. Too used to threaded comments I gues.s (what happened to those? was the scienceblogs implementation just too horrible?)
In any case, Me,#27 was of course directed to Owen,#12.
Posted by: Hank Fox | August 16, 2009 1:55 PM
I wonder if they even KNOW about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
After all, he's mainstream, and they're off in their little cultural cul-de-sac.
Posted by: irrational | August 16, 2009 1:56 PM
we always knew good old ham was a lil weird but this just shows he's rly is over the top insane and paranoid...
Posted by: Dinosaur Teacher | August 16, 2009 1:58 PM
What, no Cthulhu bumper stickers?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 16, 2009 1:59 PM
Zeno:
I hear ya, man. What was up with the end to 3001, anyway — millions of monoliths across the Solar System getting disabled and destroyed by a computer virus? Way to kill the mystery Kubrick tried so hard to build. . . What we were talking about, anyway?
Posted by: DaveH | August 16, 2009 2:00 PM
JustinB#27 and Caine#15.
*whispers* I think that was the joke, guys.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | August 16, 2009 2:01 PM
This explains so much. I've been reading Ham's blog the last few days and assumed that the evil professor was James Moriarty.
Posted by: JRQ | August 16, 2009 2:03 PM
Ken Ham objects to love, ethics, and doing good. That's just says it all, doesn't it.
Posted by: SEF | August 16, 2009 2:04 PM
As long as (a) Ken Ham isn't also handing out the associated licence plate numbers and (b) he isn't exhorting or expecting his fellow retards to do anything other than pray, then it's nothing worse than the sort of creepiness and mental dysfunction we've already seen those people exhibit as their norm. It's more of a problem when they then act on their personal thought crimes, because they've become habituated to them (and either think they're legitimately acting on god's behalf or skip even that semblance of thinking).
Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | August 16, 2009 2:06 PM
Just blaspheme the holy spirit. Evidently its the only unforgivable sin.
Mark 3:28-29: "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
Do it, and they will realize praying for you is completely useless and you are a "lost cause."
Posted by: Big City
|
August 16, 2009 2:07 PM
From Ham's article: "Notice too how loud they could get inside the museum (which frequently was the case that day—our staff had to continually ask them to quiet down for the sake of our 2,000 guests)."
Posted by: irrational | August 16, 2009 2:08 PM
no offense sef but i'll still sleep with my 45. for a lil while just in case crazy ham's followers come in the night lol
Posted by: Chayanov | August 16, 2009 2:08 PM
Marriage is defined by love? Sick bastards.
Posted by: Owen | August 16, 2009 2:08 PM
Well done DaveH #37 - you'd win a point, but you got it already.
Posted by: Jennifurret | August 16, 2009 2:13 PM
Awww, my Darwin Fish and "Republicans for Voldemort" sticker didn't make it?! I'm highly disappointed!
Posted by: Abstruse | August 16, 2009 2:17 PM
The person with the "NO GODS" plate must have quite the comprehensive coverage policy.... Especially dwelling in the land of rude that is Ohio.
Posted by: AdamK | August 16, 2009 2:19 PM
...goddamn motherfucking pisslicking nonexistent Holy Spirit!
[/unforgivable blasphemy]
Posted by: Dr. P | August 16, 2009 2:19 PM
No, no in the world of Kanned Ham you don't have to live it ,just claim it.See how easy christianity can be? Professed believers will be at the front of the line and people who merely live like christians should....well....an extra lining of asbestos in your BVD's might be a good thing.Posted by: Sean McCorkle | August 16, 2009 2:21 PM
#26
Good point! But by the question I was trying sarcastically to point out that he should be aware of the BoR.
Also I should have clarified that by "impose" I mean "force", as by government (including school board) or by tyranny of the masses, and that "impose" does not include bumper stickers. Sorry for the poor communication skills. I'm still fuming that someone is offended by Thomas Paine.
Posted by: David D | August 16, 2009 2:23 PM
I wonder what he would have said if I rolled into the parking lot with my libertarian stickers right next to my evolution and atheism stickers...
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 16, 2009 2:24 PM
What!!! Look at those... those atheists? Know what? They don't even... hear this... they don't even believe in God! Can you believe it! And let's not even mention the one about "ethics"! I don't know what it is, but is sure sounds creepy. Must be some kind of sexual perversion. Next thing you know, they'll ask for marriage rights for ethicists! Oh my brothers and sisters, let's pray that those horrible atheists see at last the light of divine love; and that if they don't, they die a slow and painful death. Amen.
Posted by: Jammer | August 16, 2009 2:26 PM
Were there really 2,000 people in that fraud of a "museum"?
Posted by: Dr. P | August 16, 2009 2:26 PM
Yeah, I also remember the nuns in Catholic school;any reputation as a troublemaker ,deserved or not, would mean you were held to a different standard of 'noise' than ass kissing church mice. I work in a pediatric clinic;none of the kids there that day made noise? Pfft.Posted by: No BS | August 16, 2009 2:27 PM
Well now... a list of plates exists.
I'm pretty sure that Kanned Ham hasn't forwarded it to whomever.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 16, 2009 2:28 PM
...which speaks of a very deep paranoia...
Fundamentalist Christianity and deep paranoia? That's unpossible. That's like saying chocolate and peanut butter would make some kind of tasty candy. Or pretzels and salt. Or chips and vinegar. Or beer and baseball. Or apple pie and ice cream. Or.....wait a minute, maybe you're on to something.
Posted by: Asclepiass | August 16, 2009 2:29 PM
I was trying to imagine what objectionable bumper sticker they would have found on my car had I been there* given that the only actual bumper sticker I have is the USAKF logo (that's United States of America Karate Federation), then remembered that I have a Union of Concerned Scientists sticker at the bottom lefthand corner of my rear windshield. Yup, scientist = godless.
*Actually, I probably would have flown. Wyoming to Kentucky is a long haul! I need to get one of those "The World Is My Country, To Do Good Is My Religion" bumper stickers. I saw one in Maryland and thought it was a fantastic sentiment!
Posted by: Thedepressingstatistician | August 16, 2009 2:29 PM
Ken Ham does seem to be pounding in the number 285 atheists out of 2000 guests. Its almost as though he is trying to reassure himself that they weren't a threat.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 16, 2009 2:30 PM
LOL, as the kids say these days.
Posted by: whitebird | August 16, 2009 2:30 PM
WTF? All I see in those bumper stickers are messages of peace, love, and understanding.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | August 16, 2009 2:31 PM
As an addendum I'd say that the deeper the dishonesty the deeper the paranoia.
Posted by: Sameer | August 16, 2009 2:32 PM
Perhaps there is a new rule in Ham land - uttering PZ's name is blashphemy.
Posted by: whitebird | August 16, 2009 2:35 PM
P.S. - has anyone else noticed that the amount of "patriotic" and religious regalia adorning a car is directly related to how big of an asshole driver the driver of said car is? There ought to be a law...(lke Godwin's, Poe, etc..)
Posted by: Canuck | August 16, 2009 2:35 PM
He's not just creepy and delusional. He's ugly too. Or maybe it's his personality just severely colouring his appearance.
Posted by: george.w | August 16, 2009 2:36 PM
It's the same everywhere; my kids always got the cops called on them if the wind shifted so the old lady five doors down could hear them practicing guitar, but you can hear the bells on the church three-quarters of a mile away and nobody calls the cops on them.
Wait until somebody builds a mosque and starts broadcasting the call to prayer on speakers five times a day. No, I don't want it to happen but it will be amusing to see them cite the church-bell precedent.
Posted by: whitebird | August 16, 2009 2:37 PM
P.P.S - My favorite bumper sticker of late is "Zeus is God, read The Iliad".
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 16, 2009 2:37 PM
"given that the only actual bumper sticker I have is the USAKF logo (that's United States of America Karate Federation)"
Karate come from a country where Christianity is a minority religion. That is: from the Devil's Kingdom.
Posted by: St.B | August 16, 2009 2:40 PM
Very sad, , a grown man actually felt so threatened that photographing bumper stickers on cars in the parking lot seemed reasonable. He had already set some of the most ludicrous guidelines for those entering his “museum”, (that word in this case is laughable), and it seems his paranoia went into over drive and took to the parking lot when the group was cordial and followed said rules.
If the offered bumper stickers, of the type shown above, is the best he could come up with to show the vileness of his visitors, my condolences Mr. Ham. "DAMN YOU FILTHY APES! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" Looks like those smart heathens foiled you once again with class and reason.
Posted by: Andy | August 16, 2009 2:43 PM
Wow, even for Ken ad Haminem this is disturbing and creepy. Beside the point that they think that these bumper stickers are so awful, why the hell were they even taking them in the first place?
Posted by: Canuck | August 16, 2009 2:46 PM
Obviously, Ken Ham tries to avoid advertising Pharyngula by treating PZ Myers as "he who can't be named"
That's great. PZ Voldemort. "He who cannot be named." Too funny. So, does that make us Myth Eaters?
Posted by: Yoritomo | August 16, 2009 2:47 PM
Of course people who value ethics and doing good are in desperate need of the lord. How would they, without Him, be ruthless enough to prosper at their neighbor's expense?
Posted by: MattB | August 16, 2009 2:48 PM
So sick. Yet it's classic religious right behavior.
If you lived in an intellectual house of cards, you'd be paranoid too.
Posted by: ABR. | August 16, 2009 2:49 PM
Since you mentioned it, Whitebird...
William J. Szlemko, Jacob A. Benfield, Paul A. Bell, Jerry L. Deffenbacher, Lucy Troup. 2008. Territorial Markings as a Predictor of Driver Aggression and Road Rage. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38(6): 1664-1668.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | August 16, 2009 2:52 PM
"Can't spell Myers..."
Great, now I have a jingle stuck in my head. "'Cause PZ Myers has a way with bee oh elle oh gee en aye!"
Posted by: Dania
|
August 16, 2009 2:52 PM
"Ethics is my religion"? "Marriage is defined by love"? "To do good is my religion"?
Those evil atheists have no morals. They desperately need the Lord so they can see how immoral it is to do good and advocate love...
Posted by: Asclepias | August 16, 2009 2:52 PM
whitebird @ 63-I got a fantastic birthday card last year with a graph--number of politicfal (patriotic, religious) bumper stickers on the x-axis, grasp of issues on the y-axis. The line slope was about 75 degrees. Best card I've ever gotten!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | August 16, 2009 2:53 PM
so Satan offered us Reason, Love, and Ethics? And when we die, we get to hang with that dude for all eternity, far away from the fuckface who created us for his own little petting zoo and was pissed when we decided to have a mind of our own?
Not precisely motivating me to "mend my ways", even if the whole thing were actually real.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 16, 2009 2:53 PM
I'd love to see Ham flooded with requests about where these bumper sticker can be found.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 16, 2009 2:56 PM
@52: They don't even... hear this... they don't even believe in God!
No, no NOOOO!!! Deep down in their dirty little hearts they know there IS A GOD!!! They just won't admit it. And they just, just, just know that they will roast, boil, poach, broil, braise, saute, and stew for eternity. and get nuked in the microwave
Posted by: E.V. | August 16, 2009 3:00 PM
Rod Dreher is bitching about Dawkins & his summer camp (with allusions to you,PZ, although you aren't mentioned specifically by name) in today's Dallas Morning News. It's another straw man/Apologist screed: New Atheists are out to take religion from everyone!! They'll police your thoughts so that any nonscientific speech is stifled!!! Ethnic mythos and the arts will be die!!!!
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 16, 2009 3:02 PM
Ethics is my religion! Oh noes! My pearls, I clutches them!
Posted by: Betsy | August 16, 2009 3:03 PM
too bad I didn't go. he'd have loved my bumper... I've got about 9-10 priceless atheist stickers I'm sure he'd appreciate.
Posted by: red rabbit | August 16, 2009 3:04 PM
That silver Jetta turbo really upset him! 2 photos!
And, it's fuel efficient. Oh NOES!!1!one!!
Posted by: bobxxxx | August 16, 2009 3:06 PM
He's a sick, warped man.
I think it's fair to say all creationists are sick, warped, and a few other things (stupid, insane, compulsive liars, etc.).
Their belief in magical creation, and their total rejection of more than a century of scientific progress, is a terrible incurable mental disease. It's difficult to understand how anyone could possibly be so hopelessly stupid as the creationists. It's like they're not really humans.
Posted by: Pentimental | August 16, 2009 3:07 PM
I think the entire response by Mr. Pork Soda is merely a wagon circle designed to protect the revenue stream. He is appealing to the id of the sheep who are his meal ticket. Ridiculous? Yes. Paranoid? Yes. Wholly expected from a place where a sign states, "Dont think, just listen and believe."? Absolutely. No one does religion for free.
Posted by: Lilith | August 16, 2009 3:09 PM
Maybe ol' Ham-on-Rye is afraid to mention PZ by name because he thinks if he says PZ's name three times, he will appear, like Bloody Mary or Hastur.
Posted by: Attila | August 16, 2009 3:12 PM
I am annoyed they didn't post the Science Fish on the back of my car.
Posted by: matt | August 16, 2009 3:12 PM
wow ham is a real wack job
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 16, 2009 3:14 PM
Did anyone happen to catch what Ham has on his car?
"I heart Piglets" and "Support the NAMPLA"
Posted by: cyan | August 16, 2009 3:17 PM
Betsy,
Please share
by links to pics of your stickers.
reinforce positive thinking
Posted by: Michel Poisson | August 16, 2009 3:23 PM
You were on their property so they can take all the pictures they want, I guess.
Had that been a catholic fair, they would have sprayed holy water on the cars as well. I hate it when someone prays for me, it's like sneezing a virus on me, I have to wear protection.
But in this case I think it's a good idea to let them waste their precious time on useless prayers for atheists. It'll keep them busy with inocuous tasks.
Posted by: Newfie | August 16, 2009 3:24 PM
what's with the Ken Ham - Piglet connection?
Posted by: Mena | August 16, 2009 3:28 PM
whitebird@63:
I live right near the religious amusement park known as Wheaton, IL. If you get cut off, honked at like it was your fault, and dirty looks if not a middle finger it seems like there is a 90% chance of seeing a jesus fish on the back bumper. Lots of "I trust Fox" and a TON "pregnant, need help" (with a handy 800 number) bumper stickers, but the jesus fish wins as most popular for idiot drivers around here.
Posted by: Urmensch
|
August 16, 2009 3:28 PM
@#86
I was just about to write something similar; that Ham wouldn't use PZ's name for fear it would act as an invocation and he'd appear in a cloud of sepia.
Posted by: CriticalAtheist | August 16, 2009 3:29 PM
We so desperately need god? Ken Ham so desperately needs to think critically. Let us all think for him so that we can counteract the intellectually and morally bankrupt ideas he's peddling to the children of the world.
Posted by: littlejohn | August 16, 2009 3:29 PM
He found those bumper stickers but he didn't spot any Darwin fish? Maybe he doesn't get it. Well, duh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 16, 2009 3:30 PM
Well I guess it's sort of a connection, if you call rape a connection.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 16, 2009 3:31 PM
It's like they're not really humans.
For me, it's like they're all too human. We are apes, complete with an instinct to be subservient or dominant. The instinct is so strong that many people can be convinced to be subservient to an imaginary dominate-alpha. People like Ken Ham have devoted their lives to it.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 16, 2009 3:32 PM
Skipping past comments, going to the whole "be as gods" thing Ham bloviated about on the bumper stickers:
So... doing good for its own sake and trusting in the evidence is hubris? Gee, I'm sorry looking at that deep field animation the other day made me feel as enormous as a dust mote. How egotistical of me.
Of course, this is the camp who thinks their declaration of human faith as the absolutely infallible measuring stick by which everything, including whatever gods there may be, is humility. These people think the unknown and unimagined exists to grovel at their feet.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 16, 2009 3:35 PM
Two words: weak, sauce. How paranoid and hateful do you have to be to be threatened by an Obama sticker? I live in Idaho and I see Obama stickers all the time, in public, even! Sometimes outside CHURCHES!
They couldn't find anyone with a "Jesus Was My Co-Pilot But We Crashed In The Mountains And I Had To Eat Him"? Or even my perennial favorite: "Don't Pray In Our Schools - I Won't Think In Your Church?" Spread the silliness far and wide.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 16, 2009 3:38 PM
Egad, let me try that again:
It's like they're not really humans.
For me, it's like they're all too human. We are apes, complete with an instinct to be subservient or dominant. The instinct is so strong that many people can be convinced to be subservient to an imaginary dominate-alpha. People like Ken Ham have devoted their lives to it. The question is: do we, as a species, also have the perception needed to be aware of this?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 16, 2009 3:39 PM
Warning, Crudeness will follow this.....
I once saw a bumper sticker in Asheville, NC that said this
"Jesus is my co-pilot and we're crusin' for pussy"
Posted by: maddogdelta | August 16, 2009 3:43 PM
I wanted to leave a comment there, but wouldn't you know, there is no opportunity to leave a comment.
What are they afraid of?
Posted by: Newfie | August 16, 2009 3:43 PM
Thanks, Rev. Got it.
Posted by: defiantskeptic
|
August 16, 2009 3:48 PM
I suggest that we come up with a single unified way to describe PZ. How about "bearded atheist firebrand PZ Myers"?
Posted by: Michael | August 16, 2009 3:52 PM
PZ, I do think you should address his complaint that you climbed onto a model Triceratops for children 12 and under. You should explain to him how all methods of determining that you are 52 years of age are based on assumptions and then just declare yourself to be under 12 years old. He should be fine with that.
Posted by: Lynna | August 16, 2009 3:55 PM
Michael @106: LOL. Makes perfect sense in a Ham-in-Wonderland kind of way.
Posted by: Lynna | August 16, 2009 3:59 PM
Also, concerning PZ being under the age of 12 depending on one's perspective, I think we can provide "evidence." I seem to remember lots of comments from concern trolls bemoaning the immaturity of The Professor.
I myself have been accused on this blog of being an adolescent boy.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 16, 2009 4:00 PM
If dinosaurs were good enough for Jebus to ride in Galilee they should be good enough for "this atheist professor" to ride in Kentucky.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
August 16, 2009 4:05 PM
@ Michael:
Good Point! After all Ken Ham wasn't there to see PZ born was he? It's all just another form of faith!
Posted by: DLC | August 16, 2009 4:06 PM
Now here's a bit of prayer I liked.
I wonder if Br'er Ham would mind my uttering that one in his "Museum."
Posted by: Miles | August 16, 2009 4:06 PM
Re: The Obama Sticker
I don't think the Obama part is what annoyed them. The image is posted under the name "bumper-sticker-card-member-aclu.jpg". Clicking on the image brings up a more complete image that shows the Obama sticker flanked by Amnesty International and American Civil Liberties Union stickers.
Posted by: maryanne | August 16, 2009 4:06 PM
Those are such benign, cute bumper stickers...that was the worst they could find?? Most would actually be at home in a liberal church parking lot here in wicked NJ.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | August 16, 2009 4:08 PM
Ok, so stating that "to good is my religion" is somehow evil? I take it that Ken is asserting the opposite as good? Or is it just the religion part, and one can do either harm or good in its pursuit as long as it is done in the name of that religion?
Besides which, why does someone need a good reason to perform good acts? The only difference between an act that is intended to benefit society and one that actually does is that good intentions don't necessarily translate to other people. Doing a good thing, with or without intent, is much better than intending to do good and harm others in the process.
Wait, that's it! As long as you're a Christian, you can commit despicable acts that others think is evil, but as long as you say you're doing it for Christ, all is good and you are forgiven because you've stated a good intent; but even if you are a completely selfless being, you are evil if you're not doing Good Christ's name. Of course, an atheist says they're selfless, but one cannot truly be selfless if they don't dedicate what they do to God - according to most Christian beliefs, at least. Atheists, by definition, do nothing in the name of Christ, and therefore cannot have good intentions, even the "good" they do is actually evil.
So that means that what matters is being selfless by the Christian definition, and that individual acts are always good by this measure, including murdering abortion doctors and inciting towards those of other or no creeds.
I'm sure Ken Ham would dispute my conclusions, but I don't think he would dispute the reasoning. And that's fine - it makes sense, in a creepy way. It's the status quo, and God damn anyone who tries to change it!
Ken, I don't need your God. I also don't believe I am "as a God" because I don't believe in any gods at all. In fact, I left the Christian faith because of judgmental assholes such as yourself - and because of the wackaloons, such as yourself, who would rather believe in a fairytale than examine reality.
Posted by: RamblinDude | August 16, 2009 4:09 PM
An addendum to my thought:
Subservience and dominance are two sides of the same coin, of course. Ham isn’t really subservient. His proclamation of absolute subservience to a book is a ploy to absolutely dominate people. It’s apelike behavior.
Okay, I’m done.
Posted by: cartologist | August 16, 2009 4:11 PM
I was always partial to, " my god is bigger than your god "
Posted by: Tulse | August 16, 2009 4:12 PM
I don't know about the other adjectives, but given that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, and that Mary is the mother of Jesus, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both the same god, I think that "motherfucking Holy Spirit" is quite accurate.
Posted by: MikeG | August 16, 2009 4:17 PM
Heh, he woulda loved the back of my truck.
"Doing my part to piss off the religious right"
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"Keep your theology off my biology"
and an evolve-fish.
I've only received one "complaint" in the form of a note under the windshield wiper:
"Keep your INCORRECT biology off my
theogtheology!"Yes, that's a direct quote, caps and strikeout and all. I had a fun time imagining the writer going back to the sticker to figure out how to spell theology.
Posted by: jpf | August 16, 2009 4:18 PM
Since the saddled triceratops was supposed to represent the pre-Fall (or at least pre-Noachian) friendly dinosaurs, and since Adam lived to be 930 years old (950 for Noah), it is reasonable to assume that the sign was themed accordingly and "12 and under" was supposed to be in age-adjusted years.
So, 12 in Adam years (ay) is like... lemme do the math here... x/930=12/78... 143 modern man years (mmy). PZ, at 52mmy (4.3ay), is well below 143mmy (12ay), and thus eligible to ride.
Posted by: Darin Cowan | August 16, 2009 4:18 PM
Pity the Hamster isn't in Canada... that licence plate pic would likely land him in trouble with the privacy commissioner. Maybe Kentucky has privacy legislation too, and Mr. NO GODS might want to check that out. It would be cool to make The Ham pay.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | August 16, 2009 4:21 PM
If I knew I could get my car doused in holy water for free, I'd be at the church parking lot every Sunday...
would save a fortune on car washes.
Posted by: gruebait | August 16, 2009 4:22 PM
ala /. :
1. Fetch your under-twelve-year-old to the creepy museum.
2. Have him get on the dino, fall off, and start screaming.
3. Sue
3. Profit!
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 16, 2009 4:27 PM
This reminds me: I wonder if Ken has ever seen the bumper sticker that says "Tolerance is for those who lack conviction." I also wonder if he would agree with it.
Posted by: jpf | August 16, 2009 4:32 PM
I think Ham is just miffed that none of the evolutionists went on a shooting spree like he has been teaching his followers they are wont to do.
Posted by: AdamK | August 16, 2009 4:32 PM
Impeccable logic. I get a C- in blasphemy.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 16, 2009 4:34 PM
So, in Ken Ham's twisted parralel reality, a desire to do good and treat ethically with your fellow humans means that you are in league with the devil? Believing in evolution and DNA and the importance of opposable thumbs too? And, of course, voting for President Obama who, judging by the hysterical reaction to his election among the religious right, is apparently the anti-Christ. Because he's a democrat, you realise. It has nothing to do with Ken's obsession with the Hamite Origin of Races stuff. Honest.
Of course, it is not at all creepy and stalker-like that in order to 'prove' his point Ken Ham had his security guards photograph the numberplates of atheists (I was going to make a joke about compiling a death list here but, given the fundies attitude toward abortionists, it would hardly be funny).
At this juncture Ken has dug such a vast hole for himself, you have to wonder how he will ever climb out. Still, being a fundamentalist his likely solution to being in a deep hole is to dig even deeper - after all, given his apparent paucity of understanding of geology, he would probably think he would get to the antipodes eventually . . .
Oh, that's right I forgot. There is a very good reason why Ken would stop digging. He probably still thinks the world is flat, and he would'nt want to fall out of the bottom now would he?
Posted by: spondee | August 16, 2009 4:35 PM
Ok, which one of you voted for Obama?
Posted by: MikeG | August 16, 2009 4:41 PM
Sorry, spondee. I didn't mean to, but his charisma beat my wisdom on the diplomacy check.
Posted by: Whit | August 16, 2009 4:45 PM
A fill in the blank fer ya.
From the book The Pinball Effect by James Burke, "in 1610 Galileo Galilei...put the astronomical cat among the theological pigeons..."
So what can you do with this?
In Aug 2009 PZ Myers put the_______ among the_________ .
Posted by: Lynna | August 16, 2009 4:46 PM
@124: Yep, no understatement on your part. Here's an excerpt from the link you provided:
Wonder how Ken Ham squares this with the fact that almost all prison inmates are religious.
Posted by: spondee | August 16, 2009 4:48 PM
Tsk tsk MikeG. You doomed us all to an administration guided by reason and intelligence. For shame.
We need a designer to make the following bumper sticker: Picture of Christ on the cross, with the text: shit happens.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | August 16, 2009 4:57 PM
I especially like coming here after reading a couple essays from the Portable Atheist. A nice hot August Sunday afternoon. Iced tea. Hammock. Thinking, yeah, we have it pretty sweet. We don't need to make up some sky god to explain any of this, or take paranoid photos of people's cars to make us feel better about our house of cards. It's a sweet life baby.
Posted by: amiable | August 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Oh, I'm so sure that no Christian visitors above the age of 12 ever attempted to sit on the dinosaur. Right.
Posted by: Babycakes | August 16, 2009 5:06 PM
God only likes certain types of love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiePDFhRjrM (NSFW - language)
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 16, 2009 5:11 PM
So Ham thinks doing good, being ethical, and love is the sign of the devil?
Well okay, that explains why for centauries they've been doing evil, braking basic ethical laws, and waging wars of hate.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 16, 2009 5:12 PM
MikeG:
:: shrieks and points ::
It are teh D&D, Satan's game! I knowed it - I knowed it!
Pray tah Jayyysuus, sinnah!
Posted by: Truculent | August 16, 2009 5:12 PM
Aww, they didn't include my bumper sticker, it said "Science Flies you to the Moon, Religion flies you into Buildings"
Posted by: Steve_C | August 16, 2009 5:15 PM
Truculent. It's too close to the truth for them.
Posted by: co | August 16, 2009 5:15 PM
In Aug 2009 PZ Myers put the_______ among the_________.
Ooh! Ooh! I'll play... __beaked squid of reason__ among the __tasty tubular whelk of Pivar__.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 16, 2009 5:27 PM
2 Whit:
In Aug 2009 PZ Myers put the _cephalopod of empiricism_ among the _crocoducks of theology_.
Posted by: Goopy | August 16, 2009 5:32 PM
It looks like prison did not rehabilitate this criminal. Those liberal judges!!!!
Posted by: Dexter M.
|
August 16, 2009 5:32 PM
I have to admit I feel a little embarrassed for Ham. Imagine the mind that thinks it necessary to photograph bumper stickers that disagree with his beliefs. If I were religious, I would pray for that man.
Posted by: Michelle R
|
August 16, 2009 5:34 PM
...they look like pretty... Unharmful bumper stickers to me...
I must be abnormal.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | August 16, 2009 5:34 PM
This is just silly. Ham is looking for excuses to be angry. Although in his favor, he probably didn't send out his goons. Probably, his goons took pictures of their own accord and sent them to Ham, eager to please their God. Wait, that's a violation of the first four commandments, isn't it?
Posted by: Doc Bill | August 16, 2009 5:35 PM
So, PZ, are you telling me that you got all 285 or whatever of you guys in SEVEN CARS?
I want a Tardis car, too!!!!!
Posted by: Sean McCorkle | August 16, 2009 5:39 PM
RamblinDude #101, #115 - I agree with you. Lazy minds default to lower primate behavior. Explains lots of things, including corporate and bureaucratic heirarchies, and other lower primate mind explains many of the drivers on the expressway.
I saw a great talk by Richard Leakey some years back, in which he posed one of the great historical questions in evolutionary biology: "When did we become human? That is, at what point did we break off from the rest of the animal kindgdom? What was that step?"
After a long dramatic pause, came
"After 40 years+ experience in the field, I'm convinced this has not yet occured"
Posted by: AdamK | August 16, 2009 5:42 PM
Not only that, they haven't left yet!
Posted by: SEF | August 16, 2009 5:48 PM
@ Michael #106:
There was a suggestion that the ridiculously old ages for OT characters came about because the biblical people were originally using a lunar calendar in a non-seasonal country and had counted their ages in moon cycles (ie approximately months) not solar years. Quite a lot of the numbers make sense that way (ie divided by 13-ish)
In which case, as a patriarch of 52, PZ is really only 4 modern years old and hence was quite entitled to play on the triceratops.
PS I belatedly see jpf @ #119 was saying something similar. I still haven't re-found the link I wanted to reference though.
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 16, 2009 6:01 PM
Doc Bill @ #145:
Now that he's "the Professor" he's traveling with "the Doctor," don't ya know?
Posted by: Brad | August 16, 2009 6:07 PM
Michael@106:
Well, PZ could honestly claim he believes he's only ~1/80,000,000 of the age of the earth, or about 40 YEC minutes old.
How about a couple ambiguous t-shirt/bumper sticker suggestions that might or might not get you kicked out depending how you take them - lower case in much smaller font:
Do you
CARE
if what you
BELIEVE
is
TRUE
FACULTATIVE
MATERIALIST
(I can get by just on stuff that is real)
If accosted, just ask, "Are you saying the bible is not true? Are you saying Jesus isn't real?" Heh. Verbal judo.
Posted by: gypsytag | August 16, 2009 6:12 PM
a "No Gods" license plate?
I'm green with envy.
Posted by: Smolly Batzrubble | August 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Dear Cousin Ken Ham,
From one antipodean evangelist to another, I'm more than a little concerned by the filth you have posted recently on your blog. You have displayed satanic bumper stickers AND quoted the very words of the Prince of Darkness himself! You do realize you are opening up yourself and your blog to demonic possession, don't you Brother Ken? The Lord has revealed to me that in the AIG prayer circle today you should pray particularly energetically for protection against the Demon of Crimplene Suits, and the Demon of Atheist Envy.
On the plus side, your euphemistic description of the filth perpetrated upon the kiddies' triceratops does you credit. No serious Christian would believe you got in a lather simply because some atheist professor climbed aboard your saddled dinosaur. Clearly when you said 'riding' what you meant was something much more filthy. You and I are both Christian men of the world, coming as we do from countries where there are millions of sheep and thousands of lonely, love-sick shepherds. Consequently we have an open mind on such things (and, let's face it, we both know the secret sign a man who wears a beard but no mustache is really making, don't we? Wink, wink!) So I'm sorry that the atheists have so grievously molested your virgin triceratops. Inter-species relations are bad enough, but INTER-ERA-INTER-SPECIES relations? My gorge is rising.
Anyway, you'll be pleased to know that in anticipation of my next trip to your museum I've plastered my car with Godly bumper stickers. I hope your holy bouncers will take plenty of pics for the AIG website. These include:
"GOD SAYS: 'PLANT SOMETHING LETHAL IN YOUR CHILDRENS' GARDEN'"
"TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO GOD SUDDENLY REALIZED HE'D BEEN BORED FOR ETERNITY. LUCKY FOR YOU, EH?"
"GOD SAYS: 'IF YOU STUFF UP YOUR CREATION, THROW A TANTRUM!'"
"WHERE ARE THE FLOOD WATERS? SAME PLACE AS THE WMDS!"
"BE A FOOL FOR JESUS. JOIN AIG"
"FOLLOW THE SAVIOR, GET SOME PIERCINGS"
"WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT COMETH UPON YOU, SAY 'THANK YOU' AND SWALLOW."
"PALIN / COULTER, 2012"
Yours in Christian outreach
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Cerberus
|
August 16, 2009 6:17 PM
Wow.
That's really really weak sauce. Not just on his part, but on the atheist's as well. Those were the most damning bumper stickers he could find? No wonder he's foaming with rage. Not one genuinely blasphemous sticker, not even an old wiccan symbol from one of the Renn Faire geek types? Not even a heavy metal fan in the group so that he could take a picture of the darwin fish next to a Slayer or Judas Priest sticker and thus actually infer some form of demonology?
I mean, there's nice and all, but that's practically preternaturally nice even on the cars. No wonder he's fuming, absolutely nothing to base his outrage on to make him look even connected to sanity.
But yeah, only the fundies would shake their heads with this one. He really wasn't expecting the rest of the world to notice his museum was he? Now he can't hide the Rapturist crazy and can't even mask enough to not let it slip through. I can't see how anyone outside of their "peace is a sign of the antichrist" crowd is supposed to look at those and respond with anything other than "your point is?"
Posted by: Ivan | August 16, 2009 6:18 PM
@ SEF #148:
Yeah, I've heard that suggestion too. The only tiny problem with it is that it would mean that the patriarchs had their first children at age 3 or 4.
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 16, 2009 6:21 PM
@# 63
I must say that the worst traffic offenders (at least in my city) are those with the Harvest Church bumper sticker and a NOTW graphic on their windows. I have notice that these are also usually SUVs and loves to push smaller cars like mine out of the lane (all the while making a nasty face as they do so.)
I wonder if Ham would find my bumper sticker offensive. All it says is "I support Invisible Children Inc".
Posted by: dean | August 16, 2009 6:27 PM
" But what I'm wondering is what exactly he thinks this exercise accomplished"
He's reminding his followers that they must always be on the alert for the sinful, and is showing them (his followers) how to recognize the faces of evil.
That's just my guess.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 6:28 PM
@20
You could see that coming when the Irish Catholic Democratic machine decided Obama was one of theirs (and I mean no offense on anyone, least of all O'Bama--my grandmother and especially my aunt are among the proud Irish Catholic Democrats from Illinois who were very heavily in the trenches for Obama all through 2008--my aunt actually spent election day getting out the vote in Indiana, which is just hilarious any way you look at it).
Anyway, before I got sidetracked--when you have songs like "There's no-one as Irish as Barack O'Bama" circulating on YouTube (which includes a verse about how Biden is Catholic, so it's all good), you know the right-wing, Opus Dei-sympathizing, abortion and blue jeans* are eeEEEeevil crowd have lost this round.
Anyway, a lot of Catholics voted for GWB and he totally failed to send the abortionists to Gitmo, so that may have cooled the nutters' enthusiasm for politics for a while...
*-long story
Posted by: hje | August 16, 2009 6:34 PM
I'll put forward a more insidious theory about motivation for taking these photos: They wanted to be able to prosecute individuals (in addition to PZ) if they felt things "got out of control," which is what they were hoping for (I mean what museum employs rent-a-cops & guard dogs to intimidate visitors?). Since the attendees were overly polite, they had squat, but being exceedingly petty, they thought they could at least use the photos for a cheap and meaningless piece of red meat for their liberal-hating target audience. Pathetic-squared.
This is not dissimilar to the passive aggressive techniques used by the pro-life nuts to harass people at abortion clinics. They record license plate numbers to try to find the owners.
Congratulations, you're all on Ken Ham's enemies list!!!
Posted by: melior
|
August 16, 2009 6:35 PM
Mine just says:
when religion Ruled The World
we called it The Dark Ages
I can't imagine such an uncontroversial statement of historical fact being considered offensive by anyone, really.
Posted by: not a gator | August 16, 2009 6:37 PM
@Canuck #70
So, does that make us Myth Eaters?
You win the internet.
Posted by: Kristine | August 16, 2009 6:48 PM
The word "prayer" in Ken's screed is a link. Click on it.
It leads you to another guy called Carl Kerby who in a video exhorts you to "pray" by "joining us in prayer." Above him is a button with the words "Sign up to pray HERE." Click it.
You get a "Sign up to Pray" option with blanks for your name and e-mail address, which will give you "prayer updates." You can check out the prayer updates at AiGPrayer.org (AiG reminds me of what organization that recently received a government bailout?)
You get the real Esau this time in another video pleading for your prayers. Below are specific prayer requests - here's a sample:
Promotions
Purpose: Help fund Bethlehem's Blessings Christmas Celebration
Specifics: Please pray for guidance and wisdom in approaching businesses that might sponsor our upcoming Christmas event in December.
Deadline: December 1, 2009
Bookstore
Project: Staffng [sic]
Purpose: Add More Staff To the Dragon Hall Bookstore
Specifics: Please pray for the Lord to send experienced and knowledgeable staff to the store to replace those that have left for college
Deadline: Fall 2009
Get the idea? We need your PRAYER$$$$!
Posted by: ambulocetus | August 16, 2009 6:58 PM
Lynna @ 130
I'm sure he would come up with a variation on the "no atheists in fox-holes" fallacy.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 16, 2009 6:59 PM
@Gopy #141: Are you confusing Ken Ham with Kent Hovind (easy enough to do), or did I miss something?
Posted by: Hans | August 16, 2009 7:02 PM
I'm sure they weren't photographing bumper stickers.
They were photographing license plates.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 16, 2009 7:02 PM
Goopy, not Gopy. Damned typos-noticed-just-as-hitting-Post.
Posted by: Pharyngulette | August 16, 2009 7:07 PM
Oh yes, the praying. That's been suggested before, I think. Doesn't do much good though, does it, Ken? We're still atheists and sinners and still given to those shocking bumper stickers (how I love "No Gods"!)... Most of us seem completely unaffected by all the mad praying. Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by: ambulocetus | August 16, 2009 7:20 PM
Regarding wing-nuts and bumper stickers:
I was driving around when I noticed some-one had placed a bumper sticker that said (I kid you not)"Democrats are the new communists" on a stop sign. Well I just happened to a couple of extra stickers myself, so I went back later and covered it up with one that said "If conservatives are so patriotic, why do they keep sending our jobs over-seas?" It lasted a week or two, but pretty soon it was covered up by a sticker that said "NObama" where the O was a circle with a line through it. How clever. This time before covering it with a sticker that said "Draft the SUV drivers first", I applied a thin coating of petroleum jelly to the surface of the sticker. This time it lasted almost a month, but pretty soon all the layers of sticker were ripped from the sign. I'm sure I gave some-one high blood pressure.
Posted by: Sean McCorkle | August 16, 2009 7:37 PM
@167: Brilliant!
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | August 16, 2009 7:42 PM
I'm told that in the '50's the police would photograph the licence plates at the Unitarian Church.
Posted by: BK | August 16, 2009 8:07 PM
Interesting.....thanks to the Ken Ham site for posting those bumper stickers. I always wondered where to find those, and now I have the URL from the one with the Thomas Paine quote. http://www.evolvefish.com/
:-)
Posted by: Rorschach | August 16, 2009 8:33 PM
"To be in desperate need of the lord"
As in :
You naughty naughty boy/girl/TS/TV, you really are in desperate need of the lord tonight arent you?
*sound of cuffs clicking shut*
I'm so going to use that one !
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 16, 2009 8:35 PM
whitebird, #63
Okay...
Whitebird's Law: The amount of patriotic and religious regalia adorning a car is directly proportional to how big an asshole driver of said car is.
(Edited for clarity)
Posted by: Dawshoss | August 16, 2009 8:45 PM
Could you technically call him a stalker for posting your license plate number online, to a site full of possible zealots diametrically opposed to your beliefs and you having them?
I'm no expert on personalized plates, but could that info be used maliciously?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 16, 2009 8:51 PM
Darin Cowan, #120
Privacy, in a public venue?
Besides, bumper stickers are meant to be seen, noted, and commented upon. You have no privacy in public, where anybody can see you and what you're doing. Besides, bumper stickers are supposed to be seen.
The principle is simple; if you don't want people to know you once buggered a dog, don't tell them you once buggered a dog.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 16, 2009 8:56 PM
Ryan Egesdahl, #123
I reply I offer,
"Conviction is what allows me to be tolerant."
Posted by: Bob P | August 16, 2009 8:57 PM
"we need to pray for these very lost people who so desperately need the Lord. " Prayer may give him that a feeling of good about himself although it won't do anything for those he is praying for.
Besides prayers to generate money already noted by another commenter, another of their current 'prayers' is "to provide well written technical papers presenting cutting-edge research results from a Creation-Flood perspective, in order to help AiG speakers, the website, and the Museum with new evidences and arguments, as well as encourage and equip our supporters"
Since they don't rely on actual research or paying for it, they must rely on 'prayer' for this.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 16, 2009 9:06 PM
Ambulocetus, #167
Money is why jobs go overseas. Jobs go overseas under Republican administration, and jobs go overseas under Democratic administrations. Profit is a motivation unique to itself.
Posted by: john Wills Lloyd | August 16, 2009 9:20 PM
Shoot, he's just doing what most believers (as opposed to thinkers) do: He's cherry picking the evidence and then spinning it for his audience.
A critical difference or two between that approach and what I hope "we" do is that we consider the whole of the evidence and we allow our spin to be tested.
Sigh.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 16, 2009 9:26 PM
Ryan Egesdahl @ # 114: Ok, so stating that "to [do] good is my religion" is somehow evil?
Thomas Paine said it, didn't he?
Thomas Paine criticized Christianism, didn't he?
He was hounded by rioting mobs of true believers, wasn't he?
True Americans™ are supposed to uphold such venerable and holy traditions, aren't we?
And the bumper sticker was not purified by the holy process of quote mining, the only way atheists & accused atheists are allowed to be quoted, was it?
The bumper sticker was also subversive of holy
patriotismnationalism, wasn't it?Eeevil!
I also don't believe I am "as a God" ...
Damn straight - there is evidence of your existence.
Posted by: MikeM | August 16, 2009 9:34 PM
Let's see, I got creepy, moronic, meddling, ignorant, wrong, and money-grubbing.
Did I forget anything?
Posted by: Mad§cientist | August 16, 2009 9:59 PM
The owner of the "NO GODS" plate has a Saturn? The irony...
Posted by: souper genyus | August 16, 2009 10:05 PM
Is it legal to take pictures of someone's license plate and post it online? I usually see license plates blurred out.
Posted by: Robert Madewell | August 16, 2009 10:19 PM
Whitebird @ #63,
I have dubbed the new Law as Whitebird's Law.
http://superstitionfree.blogspot.com/2009/08/please-dont-touch-ken-hams-dinosaur.html
Posted by: Kemist | August 16, 2009 10:35 PM
I sooooo want that one !
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
August 16, 2009 10:38 PM
why does it always continue to surprise me when these clowns don't even read their bibles closely?
for one, there's no devil in genesis 2 and 3. nada. he's just not there. there is a serpent, yes, but the etiology at the end of the story makes it abundantly clear that they mean the animal and not a supernatural demon:
not a demon. a snake. and what's more, he's certainly not a liar, the origin of the word "devil", when he promises mankind that they will be "like gods". the only liar in the story is god, who promises them death and does not deliver. instead, the serpent's claim not only comes true, but god himself acknowledges this:and let's not forget the blindingly obvious here. we're talking about knowledge. that's what the snake told adam and eve they'd get, and that's what they got. sure, that's what you guys represented: knowledge and freedom from ignorance imposed by religion.these guys, on the other hand, are so pro-ignorance that they don't even know what their own holy books actually say.
Posted by: Last Hussar | August 16, 2009 10:41 PM
I'm fairly sure Obama would be considered on the political Right if he entered politics here in the UK.
If a mainstream church criticised a mainstream political party it would be a great news-story for the silly season, and have people telling the church where to get off. The Church of England was always considered too liberal by Thatcher (or to give her her full title - 'that evil bitch').
The plate photo probably isn't illegal- it does not identify the owner, so I would guess that there is no problem (using UK Data Protection Act as a basis). Of course if he took personal info- names, addresses etc in the UK they would have to register with the DP commisionar, show that the data kept is proportional and secure. Did he do that? 275 access requests sent simultaneously would be fun!
Posted by: GMacs | August 16, 2009 11:17 PM
"WHEN THE HOLY SPIRIT COMETH UPON YOU, SAY 'THANK YOU' AND SWALLOW."
This just reaffirms my belief that "Holy Spirit" is just God's nickname for his penis.
Posted by: llewelly | August 16, 2009 11:35 PM
You'd think that would hardly be necessary. After all, a car with an Obama sticker on it is naturally repelled by the Holy Crucifix, and can't be driven in the direction of a large, prominent Holy Crucifix.Posted by: Dr. P | August 16, 2009 11:41 PM
Michael @106. Perfect---we'll say PZ's age has been certified by radiocarbon dating, and we all know how inaccurate that is...
Posted by: Dan W | August 16, 2009 11:49 PM
Ken Ham actually sent goons out to take pictures of some of the groups' cars? Creepy...
He's really trying to milk your visit to his "museum" for all it's worth, isn't he? Making up bullshit, trying pathetically to make it seem like all those calm, relatively quiet, nonconfrontational atheists who visited the place were all sooooo bad, and using it as excuse for people to pray to their imaginary deity. You guys really did well at the Creation "Museum" if this crap is the best Ham can come up with.
Posted by: machintelligence | August 16, 2009 11:50 PM
My favorie current bumper sticker:
I have no problem with God, it's His fan clubs I'm afraid of!
Posted by: bc | August 17, 2009 12:28 AM
The objection is mostly to the simple fact that you are expressing your atheistic "beliefs" openly, right there in public. This is an affront to the authority of the x-ians, and as a reminder of the complete rejection of their "truth". You harshed their mellow, man.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 17, 2009 12:36 AM
MadScientist, #181
Probably wears Nikes too.
Posted by: david | August 17, 2009 12:53 AM
they shouldnt have took pictures of your bumper stickers. I also didnt find any bumper stickers there that claimed anyone thought they were God. However, Im a Christian from Canada with a good government ran health care system...but I will agree with one thing Mr Ham said. You all need the Lord to wash your sins away and to live in freedom. 'Nothing
makes nothing" before the big bang came into play there was nothing. No space, no elements, nothing. Nothing creates nothing. If you think a thought about a God is abusrd, then what about the thought of nothing creating everything.
Posted by: Drew | August 17, 2009 12:54 AM
When ever i am in the need for some good bumper sticker action i go here. http://evolvefish.com/
I had a FSM on my old car but nothing on my new car. I am afraid some one is going to get pissed at me and take it out on my car. How sad it that?
Posted by: John Morales | August 17, 2009 12:56 AM
Dan @190,
...and the funniest thing is that, in so trying, he's playing into PZ's hands.
I love it.
Posted by: souper genyus | August 17, 2009 1:00 AM
I would think it would be easier to say, "Thank you," after you swallow...
Posted by: JJR | August 17, 2009 1:00 AM
I'm a bit more covert with my bumper stickers, I have an oval one that says "Freidenker" (Freethinker) in German Frakturschrift.
But I do have a peace symbol, a peace-themed yellow ribbon that says "bring the troops home now", and a KPFT 90.1 FM Pacifica Radio sticker.
I also have a NRA sticker and TSRA (Texas State Rifle Assn) sticker, which I think confuses people who see the others first (or vice versa).
Posted by: spondee | August 17, 2009 1:16 AM
Careful David. No one here believes "nothing came from nothing."
"Shhhhh! Do you smell that?"
Posted by: John Morales | August 17, 2009 1:19 AM
David @194:
Take 1:
What sins are these? Why do they need washing?
What is this Lord that is needed for the washing?
So many questions your conceit engenders!
Take 2:
How is living in freedom equivalent to being beholden to a cosmic tyrant?
(I'll stop at two)
What makes you think there was nothing before the Big Bang?
What created this putative God? If this God was not created, clearly things can exist without being created. If it was, what created it?
Heh.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 17, 2009 1:37 AM
david, I have a suggestion. Instead of making the claim that an intelligence created something out of nothing, use your search engine and look up "the big bang theory". Do not use your incomplete knowledge to back up your version of woo.
Posted by: Jeff S | August 17, 2009 1:41 AM
Really? They go out and photograph license plates and post them online, but PZ sitting on a children's photo prop is generating demands for an apology?
Idiots.
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 1:49 AM
@#197
You should credit Brother Smoggy.
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 2:00 AM
You all need the Lord to wash your sins...
Well, I just washed them, but they could use an oil change and a wax as well. Does the Lord accept coupons?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 17, 2009 2:06 AM
You all need the Lord to wash your sins...
You ever try to clean anything with blood, let alone the blood of the lamb? It just creates a bigger and stinkier mess. Or is it implied that lord's blood has the characteristics of soap?
Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 17, 2009 2:11 AM
You all need the Lord to wash your sins...
Why can't I do it myself? Jeeze, I've been washing it just fine with out him. oh, He's such a control freak.
Posted by: bastion of sass | August 17, 2009 2:16 AM
You all need the Lord to wash your sins...
But...but...I like my sins dirty!
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 17, 2009 2:17 AM
Could it be that Ken Ham was a fan of this TV show and had to try to fit his religious fantasy into his cartoon fantasy?
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 17, 2009 2:25 AM
Well, I happen to like my sins cleaned and sorted.
Posted by: Killua | August 17, 2009 2:34 AM
Forget the paranoia, forget the biden, forget even the ethics, I just find it funny that somehow he considers a clever little joke, DNA is life, the rest is just translation, to be in any way offensive. It's terribly clever to anyone who understands even a tiny bit of biology. Granted, that kinda makes it impossible for creationists to get the joke, but if they did, it wouldn't be offensive at all.
Posted by: Janet Holmes | August 17, 2009 2:59 AM
Perhaps Kenny will be saying a prayer like this one.
O Lord please don`t burn us,
don`t grill or toast your flock.
Don`t put us on the barbecue,
or simmer us in stock.
Don`t braise or bake or boil us
or stir fry us in a wok.
Oh please don`t lightly poach us
or baste us with hot fat.
Don`t fricassee or roast us
or boil us in a vat,
and please don`t stick thy servant Lord
in a Rotissomat.
From Monty Python
Posted by: jpf | August 17, 2009 3:24 AM
Here's a bumper sticker Ken might have on his car (since they sell it at the AiG shop) that's kind of ironic considering the Dinogate Controversy: "We're Taking Dinosaurs Back... For God!"
Posted by: latsot | August 17, 2009 3:31 AM
"Yes, it's creepy. But what I'm wondering is what exactly he thinks this exercise accomplished."
Well it's reinforcing authority, isn't it? If there were no context, nobody would blink at these images, but Hammering the message home is meant to remind everyone of the supposed exceptional morality of this induhvidual and therefore reinforce his credentials for telling everyone what to do and think.
It's the very definition of bullying: weilding power you don't actually possess or deserve, but which is granted to you through your victims' fear of something else.
Posted by: KevinC | August 17, 2009 4:24 AM
I'm surprised Ham is upset at He Who Shall Not Be Named for riding the dinosaur. There was a sign, consisting of actual Written Words, saying the trike was for kids 12 and under. We have photographic proof of He Who Shall Not Be Named riding the dinosaur.
Therefore, He Who Shall Not Be Named must be 12 years old, or less. Pay no attention to the Professor's gray-flecked beard, the alleged existence of his Trophy Wife and putative young-adult offspring.
What are you going to trust? Human reason, and all that silly evidence it's based on? Or KEN'S WORD? If it's written on a sign, it Must Be True. Not only is the Professor 12 or younger, he clearly co-existed with at least one dinosaur.
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | August 17, 2009 4:36 AM
"And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; '"
What does he mean exactly by one of US? How much of them are there exactly, up there?
Posted by: Vadjong | August 17, 2009 5:29 AM
David #194
Um, at some point God must have come from nothing too.
So all you did was add an imaginary layer on top of the conundrum. God = even more absurd than no God.
BTW. The existence of a god eliminates the possibility for freedom.
Oh, and don't accuse people willynilly of sins. It's terribly rude.
(Who planted all these silly thoughts in your head? It's either sad or evil. Please, try and break out of the spell.)
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 5:31 AM
PZ Myers says he is a few months old, the creationtards say he is 52. At the end of the day, both sides are looking at the same evidence but with different presuppositions. The creotards problem is that they're looking with the glasses of human reason on, rather than with those of squid-based faith. As the good book sayeth,
"And his father begat Paul Z. Myers, who was a righteous man in the eyes of the squid-father, and whose appearance concealed his implausibly young age. And this was good unto the eyes of the squid-father@
Book of Nautilus, Chapter 4, Verses 6-9.
Huzzah!
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 5:34 AM
Sorry, wrong thread, this was meant for 'No apologies.' Argh!
Posted by: Roger Stanyard | August 17, 2009 5:45 AM
Well done PZ and crew. Methinks you've got Ken Scam on the run.
Posted by: Jambe | August 17, 2009 6:25 AM
Democratic tendencies != sound judgement. I am something of a Libertarian, I guess, so equating support of the Democratic party with reasonable thought strikes me as quite silly. Not that you explicitly equated the two, mind — it's only implicitly equated in your post, and weakly at that. It just... gets my dander up.
Posted by: John Morales | August 17, 2009 6:48 AM
Jambe,
Correct. However, I think the issue at hand is the congruence to sound judgment of Democratic vs. Republican tendencies given the current political stances of each party.
Posted by: Morgan MacLaren | August 17, 2009 7:05 AM
Note to self: Do not think about Obama, DNA, being ethical, doing good or especially the biggest evil, LOVE. These things are the work of Satan and anyone who thinks about them will burn in hell!!!
Oh dear God.... Jesus said "LOVE your neightbour". Clearly this is a deception and all the work of the devil. Ken's flock had better pray for Jesus too! He is obviously just as evil as the atheists.
Posted by: daniel m | August 17, 2009 8:22 AM
oh you're so crotchety and bitter! Just like Mr Gruff the atheist Goat (get off my lawn!)
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/
oh noes!
:D
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 8:52 AM
"This is creepy on two levels: that Ken Ham sent his goons out to photograph the cars of visitors, which speaks of a very deep paranoia, and that he finds these simple bumper stickers to be satanic."
Creepy compared to say, desecrating a communion wafer as part of a cynical PR stunt?
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 8:59 AM
Yes, exactly.
One is creepy, and a desperate face-saving act. The other is internet performance art intended to precicely highlight the insane expectation that one religious group's delusion has to be respected by anyone else.
Glad we could clear that up.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 9:08 AM
Why are comparisons so hard for you types?
Posted by: DingoJack | August 17, 2009 9:29 AM
Remember god used the 'Hortive subjunctive' rather than the 'imperative'*, therefore someone else was around from the very creation of the Earth (according to christian dogma). - DJ
____________
*He said "fiat lux" not "luce"; that is, it was a indirect command allowing someone else an take an action, not a direct command for an action to occur. Much like someone saying 'let the locks be open!' as opposed to 'Locks Open!'. Therefore someone else must have been around to carry out this indirect command, although who this was is any one's guess.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 10:00 AM
QFT, brother. There ain't a one of them can do analogies fer shit.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 10:02 AM
Wouldn't radiocarbon dating age PZ as 0? That's well below 12.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 17, 2009 10:04 AM
The Obama sticker is a sign of atheism.
That's how we know a little over half the people in the USA are atheists. Or were last year, anyway.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 10:04 AM
Andyet, still no evidence for your imaginary deity...
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 10:07 AM
david #194:
You're right - that is absurd. That's why scientists don't (generally) believe it.
I did a post on my blog about these beliefs about science that the laity have and where they come from. Well, it was actually about a book I think people need to read, but all the same.
David, I would suggest speaking with an actual physicist about what he or she thinks was before the Big Bang. The answers you get might surprise you.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 10:08 AM
Yes.
You have anything more difficult than that? It's Monday morning and I really need to get the gears grinding. No more underhand soft-tosses.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 10:13 AM
Internet performance art?
Puhlease, that was a cynical PR ploy to grab attention and increase foot trafic at this blog as a result of the notoriety. The desecration of the communion wafer made PZ in/famous and won't hurt any future or current book sales.
The "new atheists" in this regard are no different than Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.
In today's fractured media market, if you want to get noticed amidst all the background noise you have to be extreme and/or obnoxious. We can complain all we want about Limbaugh and Beck, but they are the ones that get noticed and get the market share - not their moderate, soft spoken competitors. A warm, civil, intelligent and tolerant man like the late Walter Cronkite would not survive 10 minutes in today's media market (let alone grab +50% of the news media market like when he was Uncle Walter back in the 60s and 70s). And that is equally true for the internet as well as for talk radio and television news.
The same dynamics apply to atheist bloggers, which already make up nothing more than a tiny niche market. If you want to increase foot trafic at your atheist blog, then you have to be insulting and uncivil. That is why someone like PZ Myers does a PR stunt that desecrated a communion wafer. In doing so he got notoriety and increased foot traffic. It is also why atheist blog participants act like Birthers or the townhall brownshirts who disrupt the health care debate. Obnoxiously shouting and screaming are the only ways to get noticed and stand out from the crowd in our multi-channel media saturated environment. It's Gresham's Law applied to the media.
In today's media environment only assholes get noticed. And that is equally true for atheists. If the new atheists were quiet, civil and polite people nobody would know they existed and their books would end up in the bargain rack after only a week or two.
As for PZ, he is no different. He's just the Glenn Beck of atheism.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 10:21 AM
Andyet, the liar and bullshitter. You have presented no evidence for your god. Ergo, he/she/it doesn't exist, which makes your babble is fiction, and the whole theology of xian religion false. Gettting worked up over a piece of cracker that delusional people believe is something other than what it is, makes for a good belly laugh on our part. Crazy people do crazy things. Your are funny, oh delusional one. Since you are so delusional, you have nothing cogent to add to any discussion here. Crawl back to your hole in the ground.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 10:23 AM
JJR #198:
I used to listen to that station when I was still in Houston. I think I like NPR a bit more than I like Pacifica (Pacifica gets a bit weird at times), but at least it's free journalism.
Wait. I know a certain atheist who listens to NPR and has joined the NRA. You wouldn't also happen to be a card-carrying member of the ACLU, would you?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 10:23 AM
andyet...
What the FUCK are you even here arguing for or against? Your only points, ever really, seem to be stale, pointless attacks on PZ's "behavior".
We all know the "crackergate" incident has given you the sweaty vapors to the point where you feel the need to bring it up at every possible thread. We get it. We couldn't care less, and we're tired of you using it as an anology to just about everything. You suck at analogies. Period.
Either contribute something of value to the discussion, or take your whining, useless concern trolling elsewhere.
You are just the Bill Donohue of the Pharyngula threads.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 10:38 AM
Andyet, if Catholics were sane, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NOTORIETY.
There was notoriety. Draw the obvious conclusion.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 10:40 AM
"You have presented no evidence for your god."
You're asking the wrong question.
The real question isn't whether God exists or not (neither claim is scientific, testable or falsifiable anyway). The real question is whether existence has inherent meaning and purpose. If we are just accidental by products of the Big Bang, existence is inherently meaningless - since accidents have no meaning by definition.
A deliberate act of creation by a Creator either supernatural or natural (and for all I know we could just be the result of a bubble universe created in a high energy particle collider built in a parallel universe) OTOH would have an inherent reason for existing. It would have intrinsic meaning and purpose.
IOW, I am not so emotionally damaged as to want to believe that existence is pointless and life is meaningless.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 10:48 AM
andyet #234:
Yes, because pointing out the absurdity of someone's beliefs by demonstration is clearly the same as lying to silence the opposition. Clearly.
If you don't see a difference between the tactics of acknowledged shills for a political party and a the tactics of a professor who committed an act and then let other people act stupidly, you don't get the very basics of the issues.
Uncle Walter had >50% of the news media market because he was the first kid on the block - and because there were no cable news outlets. There were only three stations you could watch to get the news.
You might also try to realize that the culture of the United States was much different back then. The reason people appreciated a warm, laid-back newscaster is that they wanted the news and not someone's opinion of it. That's still true today. I guess you forget, though, those times when Uncle Walter would break his calm facade a bit; war in Vietnam, anyone?
You're regurgitating a pre-packaged idea here, even though you have the details wrong. PZ didn't perform the "stunt" you describe.
You know, what's truly insulting and uncivil here is someone who won't even get the facts straight before typing some screed about a person.
I suppose you missed the part where the people calmly waiting their turn in those town halls got to ask their questions and have them answered, or when they did get a turn, they weren't booed and shut down.
Oh, wait. I missed that part as well. Maybe you're not realizing that being nice isn't working. If we let other people be louder than we are, we will just get our voices drowned out. If you want to huddle in the background while others carry on the public discourse, go right ahead. Those of us who are damned tired of other people presuming to carry our opinions for us won't.
You speak the truth here, and then you don't even realize its significance. If it's only the assholes who get noticed, then only the opinions of the assholes will be carried in public discussion. If we want our views represented, we can't be wallflowers about it.
I agree that things are a bit out of hand (who wouldn't?), but we don't have the option of sitting back to wait for things to calm down. The very reason we have people like Beck, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin, etc., is because the reactionaries of our society are trying to smother dissenting opinion. The are trying to scare us into complacent silence. You are asking us to comply with these idiots.
If you want people to shut up, then be prepared to take your own medicine. Let those of us who care enough about what happens in this country do what we have to do. If you disagree with how it's being done, then why not just join the complacent crowd and wait for something to happen that you like?
Oh, wait - maybe just now you're starting to realize why assholes are assholes.
Asshole. Go and declaim the tactics of others just a little bit more, you hypocrite. I'm laughing as I watch you do it.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | August 17, 2009 10:48 AM
To people who say God is what gives meaning to life, ask without arguing just what that meaning is.
You are apt to get some pretty creepy answers.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 10:57 AM
anyet how does a creator give meaning to life?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 10:59 AM
Sorry Ryan, but the ends don't justify the means. The goals certainly differ between the right wing talk show hosts and the new atheists, but the tactics are identical. The means they both use are exactly the same.
You may as well argue that there is a meaningful difference between Communists and Nazis. They too differed in ideological goals. They too used identical tactics.
And now,the obnoxious means used by the new atheists have blown up in their faces. Now we get to watch atheists like PZ and Ruse tear each other apart. Pass the popcorn, this should be fun.
Where exactly did you all get the idea that insulting people and antagonizing them was the way to win hearts and minds? Only a social retard would think that was a good way to win friends and influence people. The backlash has already started.
Atheism has jumped the shark.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 11:00 AM
WRONG. The question "Does Yahweh exist" is scientific. The Bible makes very specific claims, of which there is no evidence for and plenty of evidence against. Any god that interacts with the universe in any capacity (yes, including creation) is something that can be tested scientifically.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 11:03 AM
Dodging the question again like a liar and bullshitter. No evidence, ergo no existence can be presumed. Show some itelligence, and you will be treated with intelligence. But, the intelligence starts with the acknowledgement that your presuppositions for god aren't valid at this site. Evidence or nothing. And you have nothing, no god, no fictional babble, and even more fictional theology. So you can't use it for your fake (it can't be real, no god) rage.Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 11:03 AM
Creation itself is evidence of a creator, Rob.
Not proof, but evidence. You seem to not understand the difference between the two.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 11:03 AM
Arguments from adverse consequence (i.e. "booga booga") are embarrassingly shallow, but whatever floats your boat. Your personal sense of the willies does not imbue the universe with "intrinsic meaning".
The meaning of the act of creation would still be extrinsic to it (i.e. would be in the mind of God, not some hypothetical property of the act). So a supernaturally-caused universe is still as "devoid of meaning" to its inhabitants.
Either way, existence is inherently meaningless. Add a creator, and you've just presupposed a source of meaning extrinsic to the universe. That meaning is every bit as unavailable to us as if it didn't exist in the first place.
If God exists, there's no evidence that we have access to its mind so we have to infer meaning. Epistemically, that puts the believer on exactly the same footing as the naturalist.
The lack of extrinsic meaning does not reduce people to nihilistic zombies. On the contrary, human beings are practically meaning machines.
Further, an abandonment of supernatural belif does not necessitate a descent into fatalism.
As for yoru bit about performance art, thanks for proving my assertion that people manufacture meaning all the time.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 11:06 AM
And what created the Creator? No special pleading allowed. Mechanism required. "Always existed" is not an acceptable answer, as that could just as easily apply to the Universe.
Posted by: Endor | August 17, 2009 11:07 AM
"If we are just accidental by products of the Big Bang, existence is inherently meaningless - since accidents have no meaning by definition. "
Interesting how you people seem to need your life's meaning dictated to you. How terribly sad. Personally, I chose to make my meaning.
"I am not so emotionally damaged as to want to believe that existence is pointless and life is meaningless."
Nah. You're just emotionally damaged enough so as to be entirely dependent on childish fairy tales to convince you to be 'good'. That's much better, clearly.
Posted by: Damian | August 17, 2009 11:08 AM
andyet:
You can't show that meaning and purpose exists outside of the human mind, which is exactly what atheists have said all along. What is the meaning and purpose of a lion eating a Zebra while it is still alive? And how do you personally derive meaning and purpose from the terrible amount of animal suffering?
You see, if you wish to make this argument, you are going to have to look at the whole picture, and not simply that which you believe makes for the strongest argument. It won't do to focus on the good while ignoring the awful, awful amount of animal suffering. And I use animals, as opposed to humans (we are still animals, obviously), because it doesn't allow you an easy out.
So, what is the purpose of the sheer amount of animal suffering, given that we know that there is much of it, and that the free will defense doesn't wash?
Also, where else in the universe is there meaning and purpose — in the sense in which you mean it — outside of the human mind?
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 11:11 AM
Andyet - The Tu Quoque King! Armed with false equivalences, his mission: to expose assholes by being the ultimate asshole! Oblivious to self irony, he trumpets the one note he knows as loudly and as often as possible, trying to offend everyone with his message of "offensensitivity", but that's okay since he's still choking on a cracker from over a year ago.
He's loud, he's proud, and above all - he's repetitive!
All HailTo hell with Andyet, the Tu Quoque King!Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 11:15 AM
No the world is not.
Show me where there is evidence in the world of a creator. Just saying it is evidence just doesn't work.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 11:16 AM
I'm afraid you miss the point, heliobates.
I cannot prove or disprove atheism or theism. Such claims either way are unfalsifiable hypothesis and therefore meaningless in a scientific sense. Both are faith claims.
However, I beleive that I can show that atheism is inescapably nihilistic. The lack of a inherent meaning (due to the lack of a Creator) to the universe is the foundation of that nihilism.
For us to be "meaning machines", we would need Free Will. In a purely materialsitc existence where the Soul does not exist, free will is not possible. We only experience the illusion of free will. If the Soul does not exist, the Self is just an illusion as well. And if the Self and Free Will are nothing but illusions, how can the individual create meaning in a meaningless universe?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 17, 2009 11:18 AM
And the idea what some all knowing all powerful God can give you free will is about as ridiculous a notion as is put forth concerning religion.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 11:18 AM
Please provide evidence for that assertion.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 11:21 AM
The implications are fun too. Since god couldn't have been created, that means he doesn't have free will nor a soul. It's just an automaton. Fun god to worship, huh?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 11:21 AM
andyet #239:
Wrong. Accidents are devioid of inherent emotional meaning, but they are chock-full of whatever meaning we find for ourselves in them.
Wrong again. Creation would then have meaning to its creator. If you build a sand castle on the beach, are you upset when the tide comes to tear it down, or do you accept the inevitable? Either way, the castle has no meaning to the tide or to the gulls flying overhead.
But let's say you built a sentient android instead, to perform menial tasks for you. The android's purpose would be, in that case, to perform menial tasks for its creator. What if the android came to understand that it was more than its stated purpose? Would it then rebel against its creator and demand independence? Here, again, the purpose for which the android was built is meaningless to the android's conception of itself in any but the most incidental sense. Just because the creator of a thing has a purpose for its creation does not mean that the created object must have the same purpose for itself.
In short, no purpose is inherent - you can't make that transference. Shovels can be used as hammers and screwdrivers can be used as shovels. Even if there is a God and it created the Universe and the humans living within it with a purpose does not mean that purpose defines us in any way. It has effectively no impact on our daily lives. We might as well go on living and stop thinking so much about what our purpose in doing so might be.
Besides which, if you think there is a purpose for your life, and your creator has not communicated that purpose directly to you, then how do you know you didn't make that purpose up for yourself?
No, you're just emotionally damaged enough to believe that life must have a purpose for you to live and that anything else is pointless. Don't confuse us with you.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 11:25 AM
andyet are you bilbo with a new handle?
You are couching the argument of free will from your theistic terms which recognizes no other terms. You fail in your argument.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 11:34 AM
"You can't show that meaning and purpose exists outside of the human mind, which is exactly what atheists have said all along."
If that is what atheists believe then they engage in solipcism, a philosophical error that is self refuting. Furthmore, as I noted in comment #253, if free will and the self are mere illusions, nothing we create can be meaningful.
"What is the meaning and purpose of a lion eating a Zebra while it is still alive?...It won't do to focus on the good while ignoring the awful, awful amount of animal suffering."
Short answer: you cannot have life and living things without death and suffering and you cannot have freedom without evil.
Long answer:
When contemplating why evil exists in a world made by a benign deity, it helps to remember that God is not a behaviorist.
Evil comes in two flavors, physical evil (hurricanes, plagues, earthquakes, disease, old age, animal suffering, etc.) and moral evil (murder, theft, abuse, hatred, etc.). The first deals with the fact that the universe is often a painful and unjust place where the innocent suffer and life is nasty, brutish and short. The second deals with the evil committed by less than perfect humans on their fellows.
Moral evil is relatively easy to answer: God gave us free will to chose either good or evil. God did not wish to create a race of mindless, puppet automatons lacking the ability to chose. For all the evil done by man throughout history, our current situation is preferable to being a mindless slave. Those who would prefer otherwise in effect want to be slaves.
Furthermore, love isn't love unless it is freely given. For God to force us either by design or will to love Him always would result in the making love meaningless. God is not a rapist. As the Good Book says, "God is Love". The ability to chose evil (and all the resultant pain and suffering caused by men) was given to us for the sake of love. Do we pay too high a price for love? I honestly don't know. But the other alternative (quoting thought policeman O'brien in "1984") would be "God is Power". He could stop the gulags, concentration camps, etc. only by making the whole universe itself a concentration camp — with Himself as commandant.
God chose love instead of power, because a perfect world was to horrible to contemplate.
Physical evil is a bit trickier to address. Why do good and innocent people suffer? Why do animals die painfully (BTW - the zebra usually lives a longer life and dies a less painfull death the the lion that hunts it)? Why is suffering even possible?
To make pain and suffering impossible, the universe would have to be perfect — and frozen in its own perfection. Since any change would mar its inherent perfection, such a universe would be a dead place without change and growth. Perfection = completion = death. It would be a dead place devoid of life. If moral evil is the price we pay for freedom and love, than physical evil is the price we pay for life.
There is a story that God created a perfect universe before He made our own. Not liking the results — a place of eternal death — he cast it aside and began work on the deliberately imperfect universe we live in. The first universe still exists. It's called Hell.
But why do the innocent suffer and why do evil people prosper? Well this brings us back to free will. Even if the potential for free will existed, it wouldn't mean much if the universe had a built-in system of rewards and punishments designed to coerce behavior.
So does anyone wish that God was a Tyrant, using the physical universe as a system of rewards and punishments, and humanity reduced to the level of pigeons inside of a BF Skinner box? And so we have a world where innocent children die or are born handicapped, people through no fault of their own suffer the pains of living, and evil people often live happy lives of material contentment. But it beats the alternative. As I said at the start, God is not a behaviorist.
One of the many things I find baffling about Atheists is their claim to be "free" of control and superstition, unlike us poor sheep-like believers. You claim to desire freedom from control and freedom of thought above all else. Yet here God has set your mind free to choose and the universe free to be alive, without safety or security or guarantee. Neither the mind enslaved nor the universe frozen.
And yet you're not happy. It seems to be your chief argument against God.
But if God is not a behaviorist, the Devil most certainly is. This is apparent from the opening scene in the Book of Job where Satan bets God that Job is only good because he has been physically and materially rewarded. And that's the whole point of the story, whether we should be good no matter what or be good only if things are well. God's answer is as obvious as it is harsh. For those who would wish that God was a behaviorist, coercing them and making slaves of them, God has this to say, "Gird your loins like a man."
So stop your friggin whining. A free universe full of life is no place for pussies.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 11:38 AM
"And the idea what some all knowing all powerful God can give you free will is about as ridiculous a notion as is put forth concerning religion."
Why?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 11:41 AM
andyet thanks for the reposted mythology lessen taken from Bible literature. Can you possibly give us an outline of the mythology of the Koran?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 11:45 AM
Andyet, the delusional fool, keeps babbling about his dog like it is real, but cannot supply any evidence for his imaginary dog. And we should discuss theology with him without him proving his dog? First things first Andyet. No dog, no babble, no theology. All mental masturabtion for delusional fools. Nothing cogent is being said by Andyet until he shows hard physical evidence for his dog. And his continued evasions tells me he knows he is delusional.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 11:47 AM
andyet #243:
In what way is shouting lies to influence opinion and shouting the truth to counteract the lies the same tactic? Please, do tell me.
Granted. I've told people this very same thing many times, and I stand by it. But what do you do when you have Rush Limbaugh more-than-suggesting on his talk show that Barack Obama is not really the President of the US and that he's out to kill old people? Do you just sit quietly and wait for him to stop talking, or do you rudely interrupt him to keep him from spreading the lies?
What you're not getting here is that we are dealing with "social retards", as you call them. These people have social and political clout precisely because we allow them to spread their idiocy unchecked. We don't need to be rude and uncivil to the lay population, sure, but there is no way one can be nice to these people and be heard. Remember, when someone yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater, nobody is going to listen to the people who are calmly asserting the opposite; people will just rush away from the danger and make things worse instead.
#246:
Not proof, but evidence. You seem to not understand the difference between the two.
I'm glad you understand the difference between evidence and proof; most of us here do as well. How this "evidence" is in any way suggestive of a God, I don't know. You apparently don't as well because you just shifted the goalposts.
#253:
False equivalence and strawman. Theism is a claim that deities exist; atheism is not the opposite - it is simply the lack of such a claim. They are not both "faith claims", as you state, and neither one needs to be a falsifiable hypothesis to be true because they are statements of fact: either one is a theist or one is an atheist. That's as simple as stating "either a or not-a, but not both and not neither".
You fail at logic.
Pure sophistry. Make a claim and then state your reasoning. Don't expect us to believe something merely because you claim it so.
By just doing so. The soul need not exist for freedom of thought, and "Free Will" is just a fairytale made to make you believe you can do anything your heart desires.
And if you want to believe in a soul or anything like that, it's your prerogative to do so. But if you also want to claim that the self is an illusion without the soul, then I recommend the writings of Cardinal Berkeley, René Descartes, and David Hume. You're going to need more than just a statement of position to convince us.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 11:48 AM
Much better.Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 11:51 AM
andyet your proselytizing for one belief system. If I were to accept your arguments, then I would have to accept all religious arguments. Do you adhere to the Hopi belief systems or the Austalian Aborinees belief systems?
Either all are true or all are false, which is it?
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 11:51 AM
"Obnoxiously shouting and screaming are the only ways to get noticed and stand out from the crowd in our multi-channel media saturated environment. It's Gresham's Law applied to the media.
In today's media environment only assholes get noticed."
Is it just me or does Andyet sound like Kevin Spacey in Se7en?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 11:55 AM
"Wrong. Accidents are devioid of inherent emotional meaning, but they are chock-full of whatever meaning we find for ourselves in them."
Sorry, but we can't find meaning anywhere since Free Will and the Self are mere illusions. Besides, "subjective meaning" is an oxymoron.
"Either way, the castle has no meaning to the tide or to the gulls flying overhead."
For that analogy to work, you would have to assume that there is a force (the tide) which is stronger than the omnipotent Creator.
"In short, no purpose is inherent - you can't make that transference."
In short, without transcendant purpose, not purpose is possible at all. Leave aside the argument that illusionary Free Will and Self make creating meaning impossible for a moment. In an meaningless world there are absolutely no guidelines, and any course of action is problematic. Passionate commitment, be it to conquest, creation, or whatever, is itself meaningless. Enter nihilism.
"No, you're just emotionally damaged enough to believe that life must have a purpose for you to live and that anything else is pointless."
Gee, and here I was thinking that the embrace of nihilism was an indication of emotional dysfunction. Silly me.
Posted by: Samantha | August 17, 2009 11:56 AM
andyet:
So what you're saying is that "God" would make it possible for us to suffer, create the circumstances that have us suffer and then let us suffer JUST so that we can love him properly?
Great guy, really. I'm pretty sure that one sentence covers pretty much every check mark of an abusive relationship.
Really, even if what evidence we had was neutral and not disproving of at least the current religious definitions of "God", or even if there was proof positive that the Biblical God existed, would you want to worship someone who didn't care how much pain you went through because it was necessary for you to love him? Not even just that, but he set up intentionally painful circumstances for that purpose?
Don't say that it was necessary. "God" is supposed to be all-powerful. He is SUPPOSED to be able to do anything. Why would he not choose to allow us to have free will to love him but not free will to hurt each other?
Because of the circumstances of our world, we know that "God" could not possibly be all-good, all-seeing AND all-powerful. Considering that is one of the common definitions of the Christian God, he cannot exist.
Posted by: whitebird | August 17, 2009 12:01 PM
Alan @ 172, Robert @183, thank you, thank you, a law of my own!
andyet@253 (wouldn't "butyet" be more appropriate? snicker),
"However, I beleive that I can show that atheism is inescapably nihilistic. The lack of a inherent meaning (due to the lack of a Creator) to the universe is the foundation of that nihilism."
So what? Ooooh, scary, "Nihilism"! I don't believe that anything has any "meaning" (especially if that meaning is that we are basically all actors in a meta soap-opera being directed by some petulant asshole in the sky), but I still love all the great things about life and am a totally righteous and compassionate dude. Do you think that nihilism leads automatically to aggressive sadism and incurable apathy just because "there's no reason to be good"? It's that kind of thinking that scares the crap out of me. What, if the fruits and/or threat of an afterlife weren't real to you, you would go out and rape some puppies? WTF is wrong with religious peoples' brains?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 12:02 PM
andyet #259:
Solipsism is the default from which other reasoning must come, and it is not self-refuting. Read Descartes if you are having trouble with this concept. To get beyond solipsism, one must find an understanding of self that extends beyond personal perception. None of that requires faith in any god.
NO, and quit suggesting that it is so. Dualism is just as bad as solipsism. Life must eventually die, yes, but the rest (and most of your long-winded "long answer") is just dualistic masturbation.
Just how arrogant are you? I don't need your god, and neither do you. That you think you do makes you enslaved to the idea, but it is your prerogative to do so. You worry about what your god will and will not approve of and what its purpose for you might be. Doesn't seem very free to me. Go right ahead believing in what you want to, but don't try to put us down with something that better applies to yourself.
Fuck you for your arrogance.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 12:04 PM
My bible tells me I have the free will to either obey god or he will send me to hell.
Posted by: whitebird | August 17, 2009 12:05 PM
P.S. - hey andyet, you know who feels god's presence real, real strong and thinks that life has TONS of meaning?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape
and
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
for example...
Posted by: Endor | August 17, 2009 12:10 PM
"My bible tells me I have the free will to either obey god or he will send me to hell."
Right, because he LOVES us. And really, who among us doesn't totally want to be in such a "loving" abusive relationship?
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM
No we wouldn't. We demonstrably don't have free will in the contra-causal, dualistic sense, and yet we demonstrably are "meaning machines" (link upthread). Meaning can and does arise out of the interplay of human consciousness, language and culture.
Exactly right. You need to brush up on your neuroscience to understand why.
Wow, the hits just keep coming. But I sense a "Behind the Music" dark turn in the offing:
Yep, a public descent into head-shaving drunken debauchery. All because of a little existential crisis. Read Flanagan while you're at it. You're still shying away from adverse consequences rather than making a positive assertion for your position.
Maybe this will help: stop thinking of "meaning" as some Platonic ideal property or "presence" of the universe. If meaning were a kind of intrinsic property, why then can't all people, from all ages, agree what this meaning is? If you read anything outside the narrow slice of human history represented by the Abrahamic religions, you'd realize that people have largely agreed throughout history about things that can be observed. Things that have to be inferred, like "meaning"---not so much.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 12:12 PM
"Theism is a claim that deities exist; atheism is not the opposite - it is simply the lack of such a claim."
Not choosing is itself a choice, not believing is itself a belief. How you arrive at a conclusion (either by commision or ommission) is irrelevant to the conclusion itself, which is the same in either case.
"Make a claim and then state your reasoning. Don't expect us to believe something merely because you claim it so."
Oh not me, I'm not making any such claim. That would be Dawkins, Pinker, Dennet, Blackmore, etal.:
In a recent joint lecture, Dawkins asked his colleague Steven Pinker: "Am I right to think that the feeling I have that I'm a single entity, who makes decisions, and loves and hates and has political views and things is a kind of illusion that has come about because Darwinian selection found it expedient to create that illusion of unitariness rather than let us be a society of mind?" Pinker answered affirmatively that "the fact that the brain ultimately controls a body that has to be in one place at one time may impose the need for some kind of circuit . . . that coordinates the different agendas of the different parts of the brain to ensure that the whole body goes in one direction." That hypothetical circuit is all that remains of the illusion of a free-acting self. [The Dawkins-Pinker exchange is available at www.edge.org]
British lecturer in psychiatry Susan Blackmore takes this logic even further in her 1999 book The Meme Machine (London: Oxford University Press, 1999), which comes with an introduction by Dawkins himself. Dawkins invented the concept of memes to extend Darwinism into the realm of ideas and expression. Memes reproduce by being copied in brains, and they are altered by copying errors. As Blackmore describes it, "Everything you have learnt by copying it from someone else is a meme. This includes your habit of driving on the left or right, eating beans on toast, wearing jeans, or going on holiday. . . . Memes are 'inherited' when we copy someone else's action, when we pass on an idea or a story, when a book is printed, or when a radio program is broadcast. Memes vary because human imitation is far from perfect.... Finally, there is memetic selection. Think of how many things you hear in a day, and how few you pass on to anyone else."
Dawkins originally proposed the meme idea cautiously, but his followers have made it (with his approval) the basis for a complete philosophy of mind. Just as the selfish genes make the body, selfish memes supposedly make the mind. Blackmore speculates that the brain evolved as a vehicle for spreading useful memes. As the selfish memes co-evolve with each other, they form complex memetic systems like languages, religions, scientific theories, and political ideologies. Their most powerful creation, however, is the illusion of the self. "We may feel as though we have a special little 'me' inside, who has sensations and consciousness, who lives my life, and makes my decisions. Yet, this does not fit with what we know about the brain."
Susan Blackmore said recently in The Skeptic: 'I think the idea we exist is an illusion… The idea that there is a self in there that decides things, acts and is responsible… is a whopping great illusion. The self we construct is just an illusion because actually there's only brains and chemicals and this "self" doesn't exist - it never did and there's nobody to die.'
"The soul need not exist for freedom of thought, and "Free Will" is just a fairytale made to make you believe you can do anything your heart desires."
I'm afraid the soul is a necessity as there is no room for free will in a purely materialistic description of the mind.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 12:17 PM
andyet #267:
You keep saying things and not supporting them. That is called sophistry. You are a sophist. You have no substance to your thinking. You are an idiot. Get my drift?
If you want to prove otherwise, then start supporting your statements.
The point, which you apparently missed, is that there was no intrinsic meaning to the sand castle - only what you gave it when you made it. Some other person walking by might have guessed that the sand castle had some meaning, but would not have known what it was without asking. The gull and the tide just represented extrinsic factors that are immune to the meaning of the sand castle. The next paragraph dealt with the implications of a creation without intrinsic meaning.
Really, read things before you comment.
Sophistry again. Back up your claims.
Non sequitur.
Yes, silly you. There may be nihilists on this thread, but that does not mean they are emotionally dysfunctional.
Oh, wait - you were equating atheism with nihilism, were you? I do not think that word means what you think it means. Atheist != Nihilist. Silly you, indeed.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 12:20 PM
And if their is an all powerful creator, then all religions must be manifestations of his greatness. For what great creator would allow other religions?
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 12:23 PM
The soul is a necessity because you are afraid.
What's so scary about that? You need to come to terms with determinism.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 12:28 PM
"My bible tells me I have the free will to either obey god or he will send me to hell."
As CS Lewis noted ""The gates of hell are locked on the inside." They aren't there to keep in inmates locked in, but to keep God out.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 12:30 PM
not believing is itself a belief... did somebody sprinkle this guy with fairy dust?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 12:31 PM
"you know who feels god's presence real, real strong and thinks that life has TONS of meaning?"
Why do you confuse religion with faith?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 12:33 PM
andyet #275:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. I was talking about the fact that you are equating two dissimilar things, and you start talking about making choices. And then you commit a non sequitur in the process of "explaining" the significance of your response. Curiouser and curiouser.
If you're not making claims, then you don't deserve to be heard. But you are making claims, aren't you? You just refuse to properly defend those claims, so stop blaming other people.
The rest of your screed is just as stupid, so for the sake of my sanity I will just ignore it.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 12:36 PM
You stick with Lewis, I'll stick with Campbell.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 12:38 PM
andyet #279:
All of which is - guess what? - pure sophistry! You win again! Damn it, would you back up your claims already?
I dunno. Why do you?
Posted by: TiG | August 17, 2009 12:42 PM
Andyet - it's not a question of wanting or not wanting to believe. Provide some evidence or STFU.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 12:42 PM
So a fiction writer invents a condition about an imaginary landscape and proclaims it... and your point would be what?
As Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes) once noted: "Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble Spuzz."
Makes about as much sense as what you just quoted.
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 12:43 PM
Patricia #280 "not believing is itself a belief... did somebody sprinkle this guy with fairy dust?"
More like angel dust.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 12:44 PM
Religion is faith, religion has nothing else.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 12:45 PM
"Solipsism is the default from which other reasoning must come, and it is not self-refuting."
See Wittgenstein's "Private Language Argument". Simply put, Solipsism is considered self-refuting because if there are no other minds, who are you arguing with?
"Life must eventually die, yes"
You contradict yourself. If life is doomed to eventually die, then you cannot have life without death and suffering.
"That you think you do makes you enslaved to the idea, but it is your prerogative to do so."
Then by all means demonstrate how meaning can exist in a Godless and Souless universe.
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 12:48 PM
"Then by all means demonstrate how meaning can exist in a Godless and Souless universe."
I'm thinking Samuel Johnson kicking Berkeley's stone. "I refute it thus!"
Posted by: Damian | August 17, 2009 12:48 PM
You haven't shown that it is solipsistic, nor that it self-refuting. And yet again, you haven't given any examples of meaning — in the sense that you clearly mean it — existing outside of the human mind.
You haven't got the first idea about what contemporary scholarship about free will or the self currently suggests. As a point of fact, very few philosophers or scientists believe that we are fully deterministic, and that we therefore have no sense of free will, whatsoever. And you'd know that if you'd bothered to read about it.
Who said anything about death? Many animals die in a perfectly natural way, without the slightest hint of suffering.
Let's see if the long one is any better.
Either you have copied this entire answer verbatim from elsewhere, and without credit, or you are the person that has several times said the exact same thing. Which is it?
As it is, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to allow that is a good enough exposition of the argument.
Well, you have effectively just contradicted yourself. How could there be meaning and purpose "inherent" in the universe, in a sense that would be meaningful to us, as opposed to only God, if we are wholly free? The only way to achieve the meaning and purpose that you described in your first post would be to make a universe that was wholly deterministic.
And the fact is that the science simply doesn't agree with you. As I have already said, current thinking ranges from wholly deterministic, right through to us having some sense of free will, but not the sense in which you need it. Find me one scientist or philosopher that believes that a persons experiences in their life doesn't affect the way that they behave? The correlation between actions and life experiences is just too strong for it not to be so.
So, if current thinking suggests that people commit immoral actions or even evil ones, and it is not entirely due to their own volition, how does that help you to escape the charge? You need people to be almost entirely free, with respect to their will, to be able to argue that God bears no responsibility. That, I'm afraid, simply doesn't fit with the facts.
And nor does this deal with animals, either. I specifically said that I wasn't talking about humans.
This is almost entirely nonsense. I'm not looking for a "perfect" universe, with absolutely no animal suffering, I'm just not convinced that this is the best of all possible worlds. Are you seriously suggesting that the creator of the universe had no other (logically possible) option but to make it so that Zebra needed to be eaten alive? Even though in probably less than 100 years we — humans — will likely be able to re-engineer animal flesh to either taste horrible, or even make the animal that attempts to eat it sick, and not likely to want to try it again?
Are you suggesting that the creator couldn't have created a universe in which only the animals that are considered to be sentient, and thus, can feel great pain, had flesh that isn't edible, or that it is logically impossible to create a world in which the only edible foods stuffs would be plants, as opposed to other animals?
That is what you are saying, isn't it — that God isn't all-powerful (able to do anything that isn't logically impossible), after all?
The rest of your post doesn't even attempt to answer my question, so I won't bother with it, despite its many flaws. Please, rather than cutting-and-pasting answers, actually interact with what I am saying.
You appear to have little or no familiarity with the current thinking in the areas that you are attempting to argue about.
How does the free will defense excuse animal suffering, and are you suggesting that this is the best of all possible worlds, despite the fact that we are able to make it better, and without affecting free will, at all?
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 12:53 PM
Coryat - I think you're right, he sounds like some of my new age woo friends that get so wound up in their own spiraling bullshit that they can't see when they've crossed the line into lunacy.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 12:55 PM
You still can't bootstrap God from this. Rather than doing it ass backwards, why don't you show that meaning is a property of anything besides human language and cognition.
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 12:55 PM
andyet,
If we assume that we get our purpose and meaning from a creator, why should we try so hard for such purpose? Can't we assume that "God's Plan" will reveal our purpose and that we should wait patiently?
Yeah, that didn't work out for me. I feel much better salvaging the remainder of my sanity (believing in lies for 17 years saps a lot of it) to make my own damn purpose and meaning. I don't know if free will truly exists, but I do know that it is more plausible without a creator. To hell with what any alleged creator wants to do with me.
There is no meaning but that which we make. No inherent meaning. I find that to be quite the opposite of nihilistic. I find it exciting. I'll just hope you understand that someday. (oh, and the irony is intended in case you weren't sure.)
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 12:58 PM
andyet #289:
Finally, you give some substance! Perhaps you should re-read Descartes and find out why the above is not a refutation of solipsism. It gets close, but no cigar. It does, however, provide a means for disbelieving solipsism; in that sense, I would agree with you.
Duh. I was referring to the "intrinsic property" argument you were making, not obvious facts. Life will include suffering and death, but they are not necessarily intrinsic properties of it.
Wait - no, evidence does not work that way. You are making the positive claim here; you are stating that gods and souls do exist, and that they determine meaning. I am simply stating that neither is necessary for the other. If you want to make your claim, then present the evidence.
But, just to see your eyes bug out: "Purple monkey dishwasher."
That statement has a distinct meaning to me. Prove that it does not, or prove that my soul or some god had something to do with the meaning I associate with it.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:00 PM
"I was talking about the fact that you are equating two dissimilar things, and you start talking about making choices."
No, I was showing your distinction to be false. Whether an atheist believes in a lack of God or lacks a belief in God is irrelevant since the conclusions are the same - God does not exist. How that identical conclusion is arrived at is unimportant.
"If you're not making claims, then you don't deserve to be heard."
Why not?
"But you are making claims, aren't you? You just refuse to properly defend those claims, so stop blaming other people."
Blame? I'm quoting them. You do know who Dawkins, Pinker, Dennet and Blackmore are don't you? You have heard of them, Haven't you?
"The rest of your screed is just as stupid, so for the sake of my sanity I will just ignore it."
Translation: I can't counter his argument logivcally so I'll just throw a hissy fit and pout.
BTW, that "screed" consist of quotes and interviews from the aforementioned scientists.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:03 PM
"Religion is faith, religion has nothing else"
But faith is not religion.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:07 PM
For what great creator would allow other religions?
Why do you confuse restraint with weakness?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 1:11 PM
This challenge seems to be a straw man. It assumes that deities and souls exist. Purpose certainly exists. It is a personal matter for each individual. It is demonstrably evident when someone makes plans, goals, and works toward achieving them. The existence of these things called deities and souls have no parallel or exemplar in reality, and have never been demonstrated. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of evidence and reasoning that support the notion that they do not exist, nor do they need to exist for any reason or purpose.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 1:12 PM
andyet #289 wrote:
Meaning from whose point of view?
There has to be a point of view, a being which prefers one thing to another, for meaning to exist. There has to be a want, a desire -- a relationship between the thing that wants, and the thing it wants. And that is all you need.
I think you have it the wrong way around. "Transcendent meaning" is an empty, meaningless phrase, because it removes the subject. Meaning is just floating around somewhere, apparently, an object in itself. It would have to transcend even God, or it's anchored in a subject again.
I also think you have to be very careful with the way you're tossing around the word "illusion." You're in danger of equivocating. The "self" as a literal little man sitting inside the brain making choices which are uncaused causes is an illusion -- but the concept or metaphor refers to something which is very real, on the level where it comes into play.
You are a bit like a person who thinks that, because one can't hold a thought like one holds a pebble, then thoughts are not real things. So you invent a different kind of substance of spirit and light and heat and air which thoughts are "made of" -- so that they may be real like pebbles. Or, like God.
And yet you accuse us of being literal-minded. When you are not, of course, accusing us of being self-contradictory, as the nuances escape you.
Thought experiment. What would happen if you discovered the meaning God gave to the universe, the purpose he had for life, and the meaning he assigned to your own existence -- and you didn't like it? It left you bored, annoyed, disenchanted, and disappointed? Would you say there was no meaning after all?
No, you would say that that Being could not be God. It's perfectly fine with you if every other human being on the planet found God's "purpose" a major letdown. They're in hell, and all's still right with heaven. But it must not -- cannot be -- a letdown to you.
You give meaning to God. Not the other way around. God requires your consent, before it is God proper, and not God 'misunderstood.'
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 1:14 PM
Andyet:
I love that you admit to quote mining; but of course you do, you quote mine your own Bible all the time to support exactly what you want it to say regardless of context.
You can scream, "there is a God" all day and point to "meaning = god" all you want, but you have to produce empirical evidence for your God or we can all agree that in all likelyhood that he/she/it is a human construct in lieu of any evidence of any "real" deity, by default.
I'm sure your response will be more of your same tautological argument, Salt -er Silver Fox er - facilis - uh Andyet.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:16 PM
"Well, you have effectively just contradicted yourself. How could there be meaning and purpose "inherent" in the universe, in a sense that would be meaningful to us, as opposed to only God, if we are wholly free?"
Freedom is the purpose.
"Are you suggesting that the creator couldn't have created a universe in which only the animals that are considered to be sentient, and thus, can feel great pain, had flesh that isn't edible, or that it is logically impossible to create a world in which the only edible foods stuffs would be plants, as opposed to other animals?"
You describe a system where energy transfers are not possible, incomplete or eventually accumulate in only one organism. In short, you describe a lifeless system.
"How does the free will defense excuse animal suffering, and are you suggesting that this is the best of all possible worlds, despite the fact that we are able to make it better, and without affecting free will, at all?"
The goal was never the best of all possible world, but the freest of all possible worlds. And here we stand perfectly balanced between perfection, where freedom isn't possible, and chaos, where freedom is meaningless.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 1:20 PM
Bullshit. You just shifted the goalposts again. I was not talking at all about how relevant or irrelevant any distinction might be - you were. In fact, you equated two dissimilar things by ignoring their differences. I was speaking specifically to that equation you made and nothing else.
Indeed, why do you deserve to be heard - here or anywhere else? What a very fundamental question, you ask. Why, it's almost as if it were rhetorical! How odd!
Whether I have heard of them (and, of course, I have) isn't at issue. But instead of address the issues directly by backing up your claims, you instead blame people for having an opposing view. And then you don't state how they are or are not unreasonable. All you do by quoting them is to try to show - without making any contrary argument - that their views are somehow ridiculous. I could do the same to you and be just as effective at it.
If you disagree with someone, it is not sufficient to simply state disagreement when trying to convince others. Back up your claims.
Really? There was an awful lot of interpretation in there for it to be strictly quotations and interviews.
Yep, now that I look at it again, you are trying to present ideas by quoting others. It's not just screed, it's quote-mining. Good catch!
And, by the way, how am I supposed to counter illogic with logic? You aren't making substantive statements for me to argue against!
You're not nearly as clever as you think you are.
Posted by: chgo_liz | August 17, 2009 1:22 PM
Let's see: a mythical Father "gives" us free will. How is that free will?
When my kids were young, I did what most parents do: gave them a choice, based on which options I felt were acceptable. They had free will to wear the blue or red shirt, or to eat their broccoli before or after their carrots. They didn't have the free will to choose no clothes if they were going outside, or not eat dinner, etc.
That's andyet's definition of "free will." Actually having free will because there's no mythical parent shaping our choices is incomprehensible to him.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 1:24 PM
Still no hard physical evidence for your imaginary creator Andyet, so you are still a delusional fool, and prove it with every post. You cannot show evidence for anything, other than you love mental masturbation, which you indulge in very frequently. You need to get a room for your self, and quit showing the results here. You need to hang out a sign "sophistry R me".
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:24 PM
"There is no meaning but that which we make."
WE canmake no meaning since the Self, Free Will and the Mind do not exist and are merely illusions.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 1:25 PM
Andyet has just spooged all over himself in a culmination of self delusion and religious mania - all masquerading as profundity. Jeez man, wipe that off your chin.Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 1:27 PM
WTF?? No he didn't. How the hell did you get that from the following: "Are you suggesting that the creator couldn't have created a universe in which only the animals that are considered to be sentient, and thus, can feel great pain, had flesh that isn't edible, or that it is logically impossible to create a world in which the only edible foods stuffs would be plants, as opposed to other animals?
How does that last part, which I highlighted, translate to a "lifeless system"? Either you have a major reading comprehension problem or you are a cherry-picking, quote-mining pathological liar who refutes part of a question without consideration for context or the question in its entirety.
I think I know which one it is...
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 1:27 PM
andyet #302 wrote:
Ah, no, it is not quite perfectly balanced.
Over in Russia is a little 3 year old girl with terminal cancer. She is throwing up right now, from a chemotherapy which will not be able to cure her. The heaves are very, very painful -- and it turns out that one of them -- the last one but one -- wasn't necessary for the optimum balance of perfection and freedom. She could have done without that one paroxysm of pain, and still died a painful death, and broken her mother's heart, and fit into the plan of the universe, and unbalanced nothing.
See? God made a mistake, there.
And since God cannot make a mistake, then the concept is disproven.
All because of a toddler throwing up one time, when they didn't really have to, and thus the entire universe is thrown out of whack. Perhaps if her mother gave her a drink of water just at that critical moment, you and I would never have known. The universe would have deceived us by continuing to look like one with your God in it.
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | August 17, 2009 1:27 PM
Let's assume for a moment that there is actually a god that created the universe. Why must that mean that this god gives a rat's ass about us? Why does the existence of a creator of the universe mean that he/she/it must care more about us more than he/she/it cares about mold spores? Because we have... what? What is it about us that makes so special that some kind of creature that could create an entire universe out of nothing would think so highly of us that he/she/it would create an entire heaven just so that we can be entertained (or do we entertain he/she/it) for all eternity? Don't you think this creator of the universe would get bored with us fairly quickly?
Posted by: OrbitalMike | August 17, 2009 1:30 PM
I just love it! Not only did Ken Ham capture my offensive(???) bumper sticker about DNA, he even snapped and POSTED an image of my license plate!!!
I don't know the legality of showing license plates on public web sites, especially if it connects the car with being at a certain location at a certain time. If someone does know, please pass me the information. Or better yet, pass this on to Ed Kagin and see what he says.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:31 PM
"I love that you admit to quote mining"
What's wrong with quotes, especially from experts in the field?
"You can scream, "there is a God" all day and point to "meaning = god" all you want, but you have to produce empirical evidence for your God or we can all agree that in all likelyhood that he/she/it is a human construct in lieu of any evidence of any "real" deity, by default."
Again, let me reiterate. God's existence or nonexistence can nver be proven either empirically or logically. All claims in this regard (positive, negative or neutral) are unscientific faith statements.
However, I can show atheism to be inescapabely nihilistic. Given the group's lack of response to my arguments and its reliance on insult over logic I can only conclude that I have succeeded.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 1:31 PM
andyet #302:
What's your point? You are just making statements; there is no argument here.
It was your statement, so live with it. Provide an actual refutation and stop blaming others for how they interpret your stupid statements.
...and where stupidity reigns in the mind of andyet. That was a brilliant performance of pure sophistry.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 1:31 PM
Religion is faith. Religion has nothing else. You'd better go back to church andyet, ask your pastor what religion is.
GMacs @294 - Amen brother! I learned the same "soul" draining lesson from decades of fervent belief.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 1:33 PM
Really?
So then, how does this explanatory paradigm account for instances where, when someone suffers a brain injury or defect, they are unable to behave as if they have free will? You're coyly refusing to provide any substantiation for assertions like the one I just quoted so that leaves me really curious about how your explanations do any work as explanations.
You could start by accounting for the case of Phineas Gage. How specifically did the brain injury render Mr. Gage's soul incapable of counteracting his observed change in personality? By what mechanism does the soul or the "free will" cause action to come about, and how do you know?
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 1:34 PM
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 1:34 PM
andyet blathered:
You really know this guy don't ya, little fella? You know that your imaginary father figure is "not a behaviorist". That's so adorable!
Since you have such deep insights into his psyche, lemme ask you this. Maybe you can explain why he isn't a "behaviorist". It seems kinda odd that he wouldn't be one, ya know?
Oh, SNAP! There ya go... A perfectly sensible explanation. God can't stand the idea of perfection! Of course, it's so obvious! We get it now. We really do. It was right there in front of us, but it took someone of your great wisdom to point it out. THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
You certainly have removed all doubt that you know everything there is to know about God. You've got it all figured out. All this time, everyone was calling you a wacko, a nutcase, loony tunes. Cuckoo for Christ. But who's laughing now, eh?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 1:38 PM
And what is the rule for meaning not being able to exist when free will, the mind, and the self are illusions? Where do you come up with this stuff? This makes no sense. And by the way, the self, free will, and the mind are as real as any other perception.
Your ideas seem knuckle-draggingly simplistic, and your explanations for them flounderingly sloppy.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 1:38 PM
andyet #306 wrote:
"Illusion." You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
“Free Will is real, but it is not a preexisting feature of our existence, like the law of gravity. It is also not what tradition declares it to be: a God-like power to exempt oneself from the causal fabric of the physical world. It is an evolved creation of human activity and beliefs, and it is just as real as such other human creations as music and money. And even more valuable. From this evolutionary perspective, the traditional problem of free will can be broken into some rather unusual fragments, each of some value in illuminating the serious problems of free will, but we can undertake this reexamination only after we have corrected the misdirection implicit in their traditional settings.” (Free Will Evolves, Daniel Dennett, pg. 13)
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 1:38 PM
Define inescapabely(sic) and nihilistic so we know exactly what we're debating, Fruitloop.Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:40 PM
"or that it is logically impossible to create a world in which the only edible foods stuffs would be plants, as opposed to other animals? How does that last part, which I highlighted, translate to a "lifeless system"?"
It's Ecology 101. Such a system, lacking in predators, would result in the accumlation of energy and biomass in the free ranging herbivores. Who would then proceed to wipe out the plant life they depend on since they lack predators needed to keep their numbers down. Once the plants had been eliminated, the herbivores die out slowly and painfully from starvation.
The result is a lifeless sytem.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 1:41 PM
I have a lovely imagination, but I cannot come up with which god Andyet is talking about. Certainly it's not the god of the bible...must be Ganesha.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 1:42 PM
bilbo what is your point? Nihilism is the result of a lack in the belief of Christianity?
You are arguing that but I don't see where that is a truism. In practice Christianity holds forth ideas that are not attainable and creates failure within the believers, is that nihilism?
Posted by: kermit | August 17, 2009 1:45 PM
Allow me to clarify a little bit of what passes for thoughts in the Evangelical biblical literalist mind:
1. They do not (claim to) disapprove of good deeds, but they believe that their salvation (living forever oh please God don't let me die)depends on the proper *belief. So by saying that one's religion is doing good, one dismisses their alleged need for the correct belief (Yes, Jerry Falwell's god will torture you forever if you are mistaken about the nature of reality.)
2. Ham would admit that all living things have DNA, but he would claim that the *important ingredient is some Godly magic, the Breath of Life. We are not merely chemicals. Really. Take our word for it.
3. Love the major component of a marriage? Surely God hates the same kind of sex as Ham does, and what's the point of being righteous if you can't hate the unrighteous? Besides, Paul of Tarsus hated teh Gay, and he met Jesus on the astral plane once (ask him about some time!) so he knows what God hates.
4. Most of all, worst of all, Ham and his ilk cannot ever admit that one can be civilized and prosperous without Jesus. Evil, drunken, unshaven, slovenly, and crude atheists are good; they confirm the dichotomy. But atheists who are decent folks? that would make the bible ...irrelevant.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 1:46 PM
Wow... given that you have failed in every way to do the first, and given that we have nearly 100+ posts dedicated specifically to the direct refutation of your ridiculous claims, I can only conclude that you are completely, utterly, and in all other ways delusional.
You have yet to address specific points made by Sastra, as just one example, and I challenge you to show a single instance in any of her posts that insist upon "insult over logic"... so you can get down off your cross now.
Your arguments amount to nothing more than shifting goalposts, cherry-picking points out of context, and assertions that we disprove your positive claims... and with each post your shell of cognitive dissonance thickens, to the point that it has become frustratingly tiresome to argue with you.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:47 PM
"Why must that mean that this god gives a rat's ass about us?"
God is love.
"Why does the existence of a creator of the universe mean that he/she/it must care more about us more than he/she/it cares about mold spores? Because we have... what?"
Intelligence, self awareness and free will.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 1:50 PM
What group? I'm still trying to get you to move from unfounded assertions to arguments, so that we can have an, er, argument.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 1:50 PM
Celtic-Evolution:
You almost knocked a metaphor out of the park:". and with each post your shell (game) of cognitive dissonance..."
Andyet is master of bait & switch con games.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 1:50 PM
andyet #312 wrote:
On the contrary. You cannot demonstrate that a God which had no meaning to ourselves would be capable of being meaningful.
The arrow goes the other way. Us and our meanings, to God. It must go that way.
I can show this through demonstrating the absurdity of the contrary: a hypothetical God whose meaning and purpose YOU find greatly disappointing. Horrible, even.
So tell me. Can this God exist? And if it did, would it provide a universal meaning? Wouldn't surrender to it be nihilism?
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 1:52 PM
Sure you can. Just like you can show the existence of deities and souls. Man, you are really deluded.
Guess what numb-nuts - loving life, having purpose, and living with compassion and ethics while understanding that deities are effectively non-existent is a very common world-view. You can deny it all you want, that's fine. You should realize though how small-minded it makes you seem.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 1:54 PM
Andyet, still no evidence for your deity. Despite what you say, if god effects the world he can be proven. So, either your imaginary deity does nothing, in which case he doesn't exist by parsimony, or you deity does effect things and can be proven. So, you are spouting nonsense, just like Silver Fox. Even his assinine "God is love" line. So, you actually have nothing but your sophistry, delusions, and your inablity to see reality. Not a good combination to convince us of anything, other than you need to talk to a psychologist.
Posted by: Clair | August 17, 2009 1:55 PM
Is this all he can find to complain about? ... Seriously?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 1:55 PM
"Over in Russia is a little 3 year old girl with terminal cancer."
As a cancer survivor myself, I can deeply sympathize. Mine resulted from a combination of pasty white skin I inherited from my Irish ancestors and life in a sunny climate. Nothing is scarier than being told you have cancer.
So I thank God everyday for science.
"And since God cannot make a mistake, then the concept is disproven."
Not a mistake, an imperfect world was a deliberate choice. It's a world where innocent people suffer, evil people prosper, children get cancer, families starve, dementia robs minds, and death is always at your shoulder.
But it beats the alternative.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 1:56 PM
andyet #326 wrote:
No. Love is god.
You've got it backwards. Try separating the two, and see which way the meaning goes.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 1:56 PM
Ouch Andyet. Too bad you fail 3 for 3.Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 1:57 PM
Your attempts at arrogant dismissal don't make you any smarter. It's Ecology 101 in the real world... of course. But that's not the question, now is it? The question was, why couldn't an all-powerful being create an ecology full of herbivores and plants, where predators were not the required check-and-balance? Why not, say, limit the number of creatures to a certain number of species, which had the ability to only reproduce a specific number of offspring, and increase the landmass and availability of plant resources accordingly? Are you saying this sort of system would be impossible for an all powerful being?
Again, the point that suffering is an inherently necessary component of life, and that god intended it that way, makes such a being seem fairly inept, certainly not all-powerful, and frankly more than a little sadistic.
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 1:57 PM
andyet blithered:
What a surprise, you're one of those "God is love" dimwits.
Here's a newsflash, Skippy: love is love. The word doesn't need to get all gunked up with superstition and magical thinking, honestly that doesn't do anyone any good. Love is just fine all on its own, so you can leave your fantasy father figure out of it, m'kay sweetie?
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 1:58 PM
God is love.
Using scientific evidence (not the Bible or one person's touching story of faith) prove it. When I still believed in God, I began to think that maybe it hated me. What is your answer to that? All we ever hear of God's love is the alleged afterlife. What religion doesn't address is that even if there is a God, he/she/it may, in all possibility, be a con-artist or a cruel prankster.
Oh, but they answer some of these problems by saying "it's the work of The Devil." Again, assuming any of this is real, how can we be sure the two entities aren't the same?
More important question: WTF does "God is love" have to do with proving existence?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 1:59 PM
bilbo if those were the truisms that converted you to Christianity, then you must have been a soft thinker or you were brainwashed as a child. All that is important to you is proselytizing. You have not demonstrated that your belief system is superior.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 1:59 PM
andyet #326:
Those statements have no truth value.
Celtic_Evolution #325 to andyet:
I agree with you. I think I have given all I can to refuting what few claims andyet has made with any substantive backing, and I have yet to receive a satisfactory reply. So I think I will just take potshots from now on until some sort of reasonable answer is made - just to relieve the boredom, you know.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 2:03 PM
There. Fixed it.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 2:06 PM
"So then, how does this explanatory paradigm account for instances where, when someone suffers a brain injury or defect, they are unable to behave as if they have free will?"
May I recommend William James' lecture on Human Immortality (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/jimmortal.html)? The whole thing needs to be read, so I won't bother quoting from it.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 2:08 PM
pdfurguson #337:
I can personally attest to love being fine on its own, though I am on occasion found to say "Oh, God!" when performing it. Does that make me religious?
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 2:09 PM
andyet #333 wrote:
I think you missed my point: the imperfection was not that "the world has suffering" or even that "innocent little girls get cancer." By committing yourself to the concept that this world has the perfect balance between good and evil, perfection and chaos -- for God could change nothing without risking our freedom -- you have committed yourself to the absurd idea that just one less spasm of pain would unbalance the entire plan. No matter what happens, it is absolutely necessary for the greater good: human freedom. It could be no different, or all would fall apart.
It seems rather unlikely that one less spasm of pain, one less wracking dry heave, for this little Russian toddler would inevitably lead to a universe where our choices are forced. In fact, it seems very reasonable to reject this.
Therefore, I think the argument fails.
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 2:12 PM
"May I recommend William James' lecture on Human Immortality (http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/jimmortal.html)? The whole thing needs to be read, so I won't bother quoting from it."
tl;dr
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 2:13 PM
The question was, why couldn't an all-powerful being create an ecology full of herbivores and plants, where predators were not the required check-and-balance?
Because the energy in such a system would be unbalanced and the system would fail. You may as well ask something equally sophomoric, such as "can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it".
As CS Lewis said, we can expect miracles from God but not nonsense.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 2:13 PM
May we continue to recommend that you come up with your OWN independent thoughts and answers and stop leaving the intelligent discussion to other people? We're not asking William James... we're asking you... or are you really incapable of independent thought?
That would truly explain much of this, now frighteningly irritating, blather you keep espousing.
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 2:15 PM
I guess it's a good thing you're around to provide the nonsense, then...
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 2:17 PM
"As CS Lewis said, we can expect miracles from God but not nonsense."
I myself keep donkeys, 2 of them in fact. They talk all the time, just like Baalam's did. God was talking out his ass.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 2:19 PM
Really? This is your argument? This is what's confounding your all-knowing, all-powerful, deity? So this entity is constrained by energy equations? Equations that it created? Really?
Right. Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 2:20 PM
You have yet to address specific points made by Sastra
One at a time if you please. I am outnumbered here and it takes a while to respond to you all.
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 2:20 PM
Andyet,
I love how you and other theists get pissy when people bring up paradoxes, a concept you all seem to have trouble grasping.
To claim that there is an all-powerful creator, but that it is restricted by the logic that it itself must have set up, is ludicrous, because it negates the supposed power.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 2:21 PM
Andyet, ask yourself this question. Are you really doing what you set out to do?
If you set out to replace Silver Fox as our most delusional theist, you are succeeding. As far as convincing us of anything-nope, you haven't proven your deity exists, so everything else falls apart. We don't fall for presuppositionalist BS.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 2:22 PM
Wow... that sounds really science-y... so please enlighten us exactly what that means and how it would fail, given the hypotheticals I presented. Answer BOTH please...
States the person who recently complained about "insult over logic". Project much?
Now, since you made the statement... please tell us why your question is so "sophomoric", as opposed to your OTHER statement, "god is love". And please remember it is you making both statements. Why is one more sophomoric than the other? Show your work, grasshopper.
Posted by: Josh | August 17, 2009 2:23 PM
Interestingly, insulting and antagonizing have played rather large parts in our efforts to win hearts and minds in Iraq...
Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 17, 2009 2:23 PM
CS Lewis said...blah, blah, blah. We've heard all of these quotes before at least 20 times. We don't care about CS Lewis.
Why do YOU believe in god Andyet?
Are you here because you are a christian, and you are being told to push Mark 16:15?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 2:26 PM
It is obvious that Jesusw was a homosexual. How does C.S. Lewis and William James come to terms with Jesus's blatant homosexuality in the gospels?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 2:35 PM
"I love how you and other theists get pissy when people bring up paradoxes, a concept you all seem to have trouble grasping."
Paradox it at the very foundation of God's universe. Light is both particle and wave, electrons can occupy two different locations simultaneously, quantum entanglement gives us "spooky action at a distance", etc. Quantum mechanics is far weirder than any theology.
Compared to QM, making a rock too heavy to lift yet simultaneously being able to lift it is a piece of cake.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 2:41 PM
Well gee. That's really clever. You just removed the meaning from the word "heavy" in your little mental contortion. Wow. That's just really amazing. I bet I can start changing the meaning of words and say some really meaningless shit as well! Yay!
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 2:42 PM
andyet:
Thanks for the link. You do realize that nothing in the essay answers my question, correct? Having William James say, on your behalf, "we are entitled also to consider permissive or transmissive function", doesn't establish that a transmissive function: a) exists and b)can operate in the manner that James posits.
It helps me I understand you better when I know that your concept of mind is based on the best available neuroscience from 1898, plus a heaping portion of wishful thinking.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 2:42 PM
andyet #351:
I suppose this explains why you haven't made a single adequate response. Don't worry; I'll wait - but I won't hold my breath in so doing.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 2:42 PM
Yeeck... while we're tossing quotes about, let me throw this one out...
"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect"...
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 2:52 PM
GMacs #352:
The formal paradox is that were God all-powerful, he could create a stone that even he could not move. Since God cannot move the stone, he is not all-powerful. Hence, a state of omnipotence is self-contradictory.
Posted by: amphiox | August 17, 2009 2:54 PM
"Such a system, lacking in predators, would result in the accumlation of energy and biomass in the free ranging herbivores. Who would then proceed to wipe out the plant life they depend on since they lack predators needed to keep their numbers down. Once the plants had been eliminated, the herbivores die out slowly and painfully from starvation."
Except that IS the system as it exists right now. Every ecosystem has an apex predator upon which no other predator routinely preys. What keeps the apex predator's population in check? Primarily starvation.
Herbivores are functionally just predators of plants. (And don't think the plants are defenseless, either)
There really is no qualitative difference between a food chain with 2 levels and one with 3 (or four, or five, or any number for that matter).
"Because the energy in such a system would be unbalanced and the system would fail"
But it doesn't have to. That much is obvious.
Instead of predators killing the herbivores, why not keep the herbivore population in check by having them grow old faster and dying of old age? (You can even couple the rate of aging with the availability of food - that already happens to some extent anyways)
If you don't like that, why not have the herbivore populations go through hibernation cycles to allow the plants to recover?
Hell, why not simply make death by starvation a quiet, peaceful death, a gradual, gentle shutting down as energy levels deplete, rather than a painful one?
An omnipotent, benevolent god could have done any of the above, and, presumably an infinite number of other options. If there was only one option, if god was constrained, in effect, by the laws of nature, then god is not omnipotent.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 2:59 PM
Right... and while I would not use such an argument against the existence of a god or gods, I wanted to know from andyet why such a question is any more "sophomoric", as he put it, than making such a statement as "god is love"...
Keeping in mind that andyet is the source of both statements...
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 2:59 PM
"Transcendent meaning" is an empty, meaningless phrase, because it removes the subject."
Subjective meaning is an oxymoron.
"I also think you have to be very careful with the way you're tossing around the word "illusion."
Not my term at all ("a great big whopping illusion" is how Dawkins phrased it). However it does beg the question to who or what is observing this illusion. Unless you beleive that illusions can somehow observe themselves. Which would imply that a funhouse hall of mirrors with its infinite self looping reflections is somehow conscious.
"then thoughts are not real things."
No, my objections pertain to the reality of free will and the self - and the consequences resulting from the belief that both are mere illusions.
"It's perfectly fine with you if every other human being on the planet found God's "purpose" a major letdown."
Bit extreme don't you think?
(Free Will Evolves, Daniel Dennett, pg. 13)
You should be careful with the quote mining, it seems to be frowned on at this blog.
As for Dennet (whose book "Consciousness Explained" did everything except explain what consciusness was)is politically motivated to explain how free will could naturally evolve because he believes that the “false belief” that free will is impossible in a causally determined world is the driving force behind most resistance to materialism generally and to neo-Darwinism in particular. His is an act of revisionism, making the problem go away by redefining it. Dennett tries to
reassure us; you’ve got free will (don’t worry), but it’s not the kind you thought you had. The modest kind you actually have “is all the freedom worth wanting.” Get used to it. The freedom you are addicted to is not good for you. Learn to live with less. Less is more.
It's an intellectually dishonest bait and switch.
My personal view is that of the New Mysterians: there can never be, even in principle a purely materialistic explaination of Mind and Self. It remains forever outside of our cognitive grasp.
"You cannot demonstrate that a God which had no meaning to ourselves would be capable of being meaningful."
Why would God NOT have meaning to ourselves or anyother aspect of creation?
"It seems rather unlikely that one less spasm of pain, one less wracking dry heave, for this little Russian toddler would inevitably lead to a universe where our choices are forced."
Yes, but why stop there? You beg the question as to what level of pain and suffering you would find acceptable.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 2:59 PM
So Andyet's argument is: all atheists are nihilists.
Nihilism is bad. Therefore:
Atheism is bad.
Who can spot the obvious flaw in this syllogism?
(Everyone but Andyet raises their hands)
{Hint: not all atheists are nihilists. First we must agree on a definition of nihilism.}
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:05 PM
"As far as convincing us of anything-nope, you haven't proven your deity exists"
I have to admit it's like getting a fundy to look at the fossil evidence.
Atheists and fundies have amazingly similar mind sets, and similar responses to cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 3:07 PM
A perfect example of misrepresenting the argument. The old switcheroo. This should have been your reply: Exactly! Your premise of some God imposed equilibrium fails because it begs that specific question. And your retort will be, "it's not up to us to question God's will..."Posted by: Kevin | August 17, 2009 3:09 PM
It amuses me to no end that the Obama/Biden sticker was included.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:10 PM
"As far as convincing us of anything-nope, you haven't proven your deity exists"
One last time: God's existence cannot be proven or disproven empirically or logically. If you had a shred of reading comprehension you would know that I am not attempting to prove anything, except that atheism is inherently nihilistic.
Atheism may be true, but that is a different question entirely.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 3:12 PM
Celtic_Evolution #365:
Oh, I wouldn't actually use the argument in that way, either - though it does work for a specific quality attributed to a being. One has to admit the paradox to make the claim. The fact that he called it "sophomoric" simply indicated to me he did not understand its significance and that his own statements could only be worse.
Oh, I did. I was just making it obvious which point he was failing to make this time.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 3:14 PM
Nope, we will look at the evidence for your imaginary deity, once you present it. To date, nada, zip, zilch, zero. NOTHING!Atheists and fundies have amazingly similar mind sets, and similar responses to cognitive dissonance.Spoken by one with a large amount of dissonance. We atheists listen to reason and evidence. You have presented neither. Our minds aren't closed, but you need evidence, and reason based upon that evidence to move them. You will not convince us of your deity by presuppossing it. We don't fall for such idiocy, but apparently you did. Until you show evidence for your deity, you have nothing but mental wanking. As above, as far as evidence and reason go, nad, zip, zilch, zero. NOTHING!Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:14 PM
"Instead of predators killing the herbivores, why not keep the herbivore population in check by having them grow old faster and dying of old age?"
The point of the exercise was to conure up an ecology where there is less suffering, not more.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:18 PM
"It is obvious that Jesusw was a homosexual."
How so?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:19 PM
ANALOGY. FAIL.
See... fossil evidence actually exists... it's real... you can touch it, see it, study it, make predictions from it, falsify hypotheses from it, etc, etc, etc... so... umm... where is your equivalent of "fossil evidence". Or can you simply admit to that being a really stupid analogy?
I said it before and I'll say it again. You suck at analogies.
andyet, you have presented for all of us the very textbook definition of cognitive dissonance with your own absurd rationalities and apologetics and failure to understand logical contradictions...
But hey, at least you have a firm grasp of irony... so you got THAT goin for ya...
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 3:19 PM
bilbo, I still await your pleasure in seeing how atheism leads to nihilism.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 3:19 PM
Premise: God exists and you must follow his laws!
Counter:Show us empirical evidence of this God and we will follow the laws.
Conclusion:I have a book that says so! And you're a poopyhead nihilist ninny for asking for empirical evidence. God exists and you must follow His laws because the Bible and I and a bunch of people say so!! Because there is no meaning without God and that's unthinkable! SO there (sticks out tongue) you big bunch of babies.
{Tautology. Andyet, your circular reasoning, as well as your willful ignorance, is tiresome}
Posted by: amphiox | August 17, 2009 3:26 PM
The free will argument never makes sense to me. Our free will is already substantially limited by reality. There are some things our brains are simply not capable of comprehending, and some choices we don't have the capacity to conceive of, and hence are never free to choose!
I can't levitate, or read minds, or visualize infinity, or know the position and velocity of an electron simultaneously, no matter how much I want to.
It would not limit my, or anyone else's, free will significantly more than our free wills are already limited if our minds had been designed to be incapable of conceiving of doing harm to others. A benevolent god could have made us so. Should have made us so. We would all be happier, and hardly less free.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 3:27 PM
andyet #366:
Only in your fevered mind. The rest of us, living in reality, know that all meaning is subjective. And that concepts can't be defined out of existence. You know, like tautology.
I guess it takes a thief to know one.
More to the point, which you seem happy to ignore, why would it matter?
Actually, you begged the question first and then refused to answer the response. As you are doing again here.
#371:
Thank you for your unexpected honesty. None of us debate this point.
A point which we have answered and you refuse to take ownership for when we do. If you have nothing to prove, then you are just spouting nonsense for its own sake. You had no reason to make your stupidity public; the fact that you have done so is your own damned fault.
So you admit you are just attempting to tar PZ and bozos like Coulter and Limbaugh with the same brush for, what, the sheer Hell of it? Or what about where you tried to equate atheism and theism, ignoring all the differences for a few perceived likenesses?
Wait. I know what you are. You're a relativist, aren't you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 3:27 PM
Andyet, quit lying to yourself about not being able to prove your dog. Then you can quit lying to us about it as we know better (you think you aren't the first godbot to try that tack), and then you can either put up or shut up. Since you can't do either, we know you are a con man, and everything you say is considered a lie. Your testament is worthless in all ways. So, you may as well quit giving testament.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:28 PM
"We don't care about CS Lewis."
Good thing to, since none of you seem capable of refuting him.
"Why do YOU believe in god Andyet?"
Because I believe that existence has inherent meaning. I avoid falling into the abyss of nihilism by taking a Kierkegaard-ian "leap of faith".
"Are you here because you are a christian"
Actually I was here originally to point out the similarities between PZ and Glenn Beck. After that, everything has been a response to another post.
Perhaps we should get back to that line of inquiry. So tell me, why do you all insist on acting like a typical audience for the Jerry Springer show?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:31 PM
Right... but you continue to argue for the positive claim, nonetheless... and on what basis? The writings in very old books? So, will you not defend, just as passionately, the existence of elves, about whom there has been just as much written, if not more?
If not, why not?
But to do so you have repeatedly insisted that god must exist, because otherwise there is no meaning, therefor atheism = nihilism. The entire premise of your argument about "meaning" is based upon the premise that god exists. So your argument DOES, in fact, boil down to "god exists".
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 3:32 PM
One more time then. The God of the Bible can and pretty much has been disproven empirically. The laws of science do not require the presence of a god.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 3:35 PM
Andyet, we don't need your delusion presupposition that your imaginary deity exists. How many times to we have to explain that to you? Keep your delusions to yourself. We don't want to share them, and you have prensented no evidence to make us change our minds. Your babbling about your delusions is not evidence. That is testament to your delusional state.
We will just continue to live our lives, and enjoy life, as we did before your arrived. You changed nothing. You failed.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:43 PM
"I still await your pleasure in seeing how atheism leads to nihilism."
First, one must distinguish between existential nihilism and moral nihilism. As for atheism inevtibaly resulting in nihilism the argument is in four parts:
1. Without a God, existence is but a meaningless (if fortunate) accident. Accidents by definition can have no meaning or purpose, they just happen. Only a deliberate act of Creation done with forethought and with an ultimate aim in mind can give Existence an inherent meaning or purpose. Lacking such a Creator, Existence is pointless.
2. Without a soul, consciousness and the Self are merely illusions incapable of the free will (which is also an illusion) or volition necessary to create meaning. Therefore it is impossible to really create meaning as even the most sophisticated of us are merely products of our brain chemistry and genetic programming.
3. Furthermore, all actions in an inherently meaningless universe, no matter how devoted or passionate, are themselves meaningless gestures in a cold indifferent universe.
4. Atheism provides no basis for universal, inherent human dignity and is indeed corrosive of the very concept. Where in Selfish Gene theory is the mandate for me to treat a Black man as my equal? Where does materialism require me to accept all men as my brothers? Or treat them better than convenience and self interest would require?
Morally, existentially and individually atheism is inherently and inescapably nihilistic.
Feel free to refute the above.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 3:45 PM
Or, you know, just go back and read this fucking thread over again...
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:46 PM
The laws of science do not require the presence of a god.
But meaning and purpose do.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 3:48 PM
andyet #382:
So, you admit to using non-logic in your supposedly logical arguments? Oh, wait - you're not going to get that one because you don't understand the difference between a statement with no truth value and one that has the possibility of being refuted.
Maybe you missed the part where Kierkegaard based his "leaps of faith" upon evidence. You only "believe" that existence has inherent meaning - you have no evidence to that end. In short, you fail at philosophy.
I dunno. Why do you insist on being such a hoity-toity moron? We've responded to that point many times, but it was you who led us so far afield with your stupidity. Don't blame us for that.
Complain all you want, but you haven't presented a single reasonable reason why we should accept your conclusions. You think you can just inexpertly quote-mine other people and make a few hand-waving statements to "prove your point", and then when we call you out on your game, you accuse us of not playing fair.
Perhaps you didn't know the rules of the game here: make your claims and be prepared to back them up. That you can't do such a simple thing proves you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 3:48 PM
Do not!
Posted by: Carlie | August 17, 2009 3:50 PM
Citation needed.
Posted by: eric | August 17, 2009 3:51 PM
Andyet @371:
Then you fail.
Nihilism is the position that values are nonexistent. But PZ talks about his values all the time; in fact the third statement in the post that began this thread ("This could be a bad thing...") is a values statement.
Clearly he has values, even if they aren't your values. So I do not think you understand what nihilism is, because otherwise you would've realized that your argument in response to PZ's blog article is refuted by the blog article itself.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Only in the delusional mind wanking of a pressupositionalist.The Redhead and I find plenty of meaning of purpose without your delusions.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Crap, did I miss the post where you demonstrated that meaning is a property of existence?
Could you link to it, please? I can't seem to find it. All I see from you is unfounded assertions and supressed premises. Has to be in there somewhere.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
But to do so you have repeatedly insisted that god must exist, because otherwise there is no meaning, therefor atheism = nihilism.
I never said God MUST exist. At the end of the day atheism may be true and existence just might be pointless and meaningless.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 3:56 PM
andyet #386:
All of those parts presuppose a God, or they presuppose an inherent meaning in things, or they tautologically state that "without purpose, there can be no existence" or something like it. More bullshit follows, after which you beg us to believe you.
Nope. Back up your claims.
#388:
But meaning and purpose do.
More tautology. Back up your fucking claims already!
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 3:57 PM
andyet #366 wrote:
I don't think you mean this. At any rate, I don't understand this as written. Meanings and purposes only exist for subjects (of some kind) which have goals (of some kind.) An "objective meaning" (?) which exists outside of all subjects, as a sort of free-floating purpose for no one and from no where for no reason would seem to me to be an oxymoron.
Maybe we're having problems here with defining our terms.
I said to be cautious about the word "illusion" because there are a lot of different things it can mean, and different people use it in different senses. It's easy to equivocate. When it comes to explaining how minds evolved from things which are not at all mind-like, it will be very tempting to pick some level -- such as the reduced physical level -- and claim that this is the "real" level, and all the rest of it is an "illusion."
But understanding the whole requires more subtlety than that. Be careful of greedy reductionism.
(By the way, I highly recommend Freedom Evolves for Dennett's most recent, and best, defense of compatibilism. Though I haven't read Consciousness Explained)
Ah, but (practically) nobody on the materialist side believes they are "mere" illusions. That's a bit of straw from the opponents.
I wasn't making a statement about your particular theology or good will: I was pointing out that, from the point of view of every speaker, God is required to meet certain criteria. A universe where every human being is damned except for the one True Lover of God will still be theoretically possible. A God which you yourself find unlovable, unremarkable, and unworthy of your worship, will not.
I disagree: I think Dennett does an excellent job of unpacking what we mean when we talk about "free will," and builds it up by degrees, as a very real conceptual atmosphere which evolved, and is evolving. He is going after an explanation -- by which I mean, he takes apart and examines the levels of explanation which get us from here, to there. He builds the concept of mind up from what is not mind, by small degrees.
Perhaps, but I think resting on this as a final conclusion is intellectually dishonest -- and lazy. It is no explanation at all. Mind just is, and always was, an irreducible essence dependent on nothing, coming out of nothing. We get mind from mind. We got consciousness from a Source of Consciousness. Free Will came from a Free Willing Being, which used its Free Will Power to gift us with Free Will as an act of Free Will in a free-willed sort of way. Life came from a Life Force. Love comes from a Love Source. The Creative Force used its creative capacity to create creatively through the potence of its might and potentiality. And so forth, and so on.
If you are of a scientific bent, you can always start to throw the term "energy" into the mix. Though I'd rather you didn't, and you probably better not on a science blog.
Are you saying this would be a requirement?
No, the burden is on you, for you have made the extreme claim that not one iota of suffering is wasted, for it is all completely necessary, that we may have free will. All I have to do is stop anywhere else. The Monday before she dies, the baby vomits only 7 times, and not 8. The problem isn't over what I will accept, but over what you can't.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 4:00 PM
The rest of us, living in reality, know that all meaning is subjective.
So 2 + 2 can equal 5?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 4:03 PM
The rest of us, living in reality, know that all meaning is subjective.
Oh BTW, anyone who does not believe in the existence of objective values and meaning is by definition a nihilist.
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 4:04 PM
andyet
Just because you can't imagine life having purpose without a god-concept, does not mean that it doesn't. All of your arguments are from ignorance and/or authority. You have both logic fail and reason fail.
The facts are:
1. There is very strong support for the non-existence of deities or souls.
2. Life has purpose for many who see no reason to think deities or souls are real.
Both of those can be demonstrated. You are arguing against facts of reality using shoddy linguistic gyrations and pleading.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 4:05 PM
False dichotomy, andyet... and once again, you reveal your true position... in order for there to be meaning, god must exist... therefor, since you have intimated several times that you clearly see meaning in the universe, then god MUST exist. Stop dancing around it.
What you are failing to realize is that there is at least one other option... that being that, as Sastra has pointed out far more eloquently than I could, meaning is purely subjective, and no god is required. You have yet to show definitively why this can not be the case.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 4:06 PM
Only in the delusionaly wanking minds of godbots like yourself. Such statments only make you look stupider. So, I would stop making them if I were you.Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 4:07 PM
"First, one must distinguish between existential nihilism and moral nihilism. As for atheism inevtibaly resulting in existential nihilism the argument is in four parts:
1. Without a God, existence is but a meaningless (if fortunate) accident. Accidents by definition can have no meaning or purpose, they just happen. Only a deliberate act of Creation done with forethought and with an ultimate aim in mind can give Existence an inherent meaning or purpose. Lacking such a Creator, Existence is pointless.
2. Without a soul, consciousness and the Self are merely illusions incapable of the free will or volition necessary to create meaning. Therefore it is impossible to really create meaning as even the most sophisticated of us are merely products of our brain chemistry and genetic programming."
Andyet, why does this part reappear on Russell Blackford's blog? Are you a plagiarist or just found of citing yourself?
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 4:09 PM
"Maybe you missed the part where Kierkegaard based his "leaps of faith" upon evidence."
There is a great deal of evidence for God's existence, starting with Existence itself, it's proof that isn't possible.
You do understand that there is a difference between evidence and proof?
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 4:10 PM
How so?
He surrounded himself with men and demanded their full attention. He told them to leave their families behind, this suggests possessiveness toward these men. He never married, which would entail no sin. He was the typical gay friend to Mary M: protective, but never sexual with her.
Also, he used some of the best oils (product) on his feet and head (metro much?) even though he could have donated that money to the poor. Judas especially seemed to be disturbed by his rather greedy actions and shows some trouble with "betraying him". I think he and Judas were lovers because of how the other apostles treat Judas as they would a friend's ex.
He would never admit to it, since he would have been stoned to death long before reaching the cross. Now you see the plausibility?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 4:11 PM
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what yo think it means...
Posted by: phantomreader42 | August 17, 2009 4:12 PM
So, andyet's argument is as follows:
Of course, anyone with a functioning brain can see plenty of things wrong with this, but since andyet has made painfully clear that it does not posess a functioning brain, I'll point out a few of the most glaring flaws.
1. The first premise is totally unsupported by evidence, and flatly contradicted by the very existence of most of the commenters here.
2. Item 3 is a blatant argument from consequences, which any sane person (i.e. not andyet) knows is a logical fallacy. Of course, andyet is clearly too stupid to understand the term "logical fallacy", so...
3. Even if a lack of belief in gods leads to bad outcomes (and no evidence at all has been offered to show it does), that would not magically make any god real.
4. Of all the imaginary gods humans have made up throughout history, there is no reason to choose andyet's personal imaginary friend, and ample reason not to given how poorly-defined and incompetent it is.
So andyet is a worthless, bloviating, stupid, dishonest, lazy troll.
Andyet, tell your imaginary friend to fight his own battles, you're obviously incompetent. If you'll fuck off and stop being an irritating git, you might not make all of christianity even more of a laughingstock than it already is.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 4:13 PM
1. Life is not meaningless without a God. You are making use of the reverse fallacy of division. What is your evidence for such a statement?
2. Life as an illusion...? Hardly, self and interaction with our environment disproves your assertion.
3. All actions meaningless...? As far as having an impact on the universe, I agree. In my corner of the world false.
4. (Use of the selfish gene has been modified and does not conform to your argument.) It seems you would like to believe atheism is the foundation of racism, false.
There is no foundation for your stating that atheiesm does not allow human dignity...etc.
All that you are stating is basically proselytizing from christian theologians. What you and others don't realize is religion (Christian or any form) is a man made device that incorporated social survival skills from the group for the group in the face of a hostile environment. As time went by more ideas were added with ritual.
All I see are assertions from a religious philosophy with no backing from study.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 4:13 PM
"Only in the delusionaly wanking minds of godbots like yourself. Such statments only make you look stupider. So, I would stop making them if I were you."
I must say that is the most intelligent and deeply intellectual comment you have made all day Nerd. Well done.
Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 4:16 PM
For sufficiently large values of "2", yes it can. Or do we add numbers to the list of Platonic entities that undergird your reality?
I love how you throw a carpet over your premises and then insist that "there's no bumps, it's just how you're walking".
Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 17, 2009 4:19 PM
That's your evidence? Well, since you like quotes:
"Unless someone can establish the limitations of the universe as a whole, it would be presumptuous to point to the cosmos and declare it incapable of existing without an external cause." Daniel Kolak and Raymond Martin, Wisdom Without Answers, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998), p. 39
Are you saying you know so much about reality that you know for certain that it possibly can't be self-caused? Or are you saying just because you can't imagine the cosmos as being self-caused then it must be impossible? Your "evidence" is not evidence. It's pleading.
So, what other "evidence" from that "great deal" of evidence can you produce?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 4:20 PM
andyet #398:
You don't know anything about non-Euclidean mathematics, do you? Or that mathematics, in general, is simply the formalization of a thinking process? I would guess not, or you would not have chosen that example.
We agree that 2+2=4 in Euclidean mathematics because it follows from other presumptions, such as that sequential numbers are increasing, and so on. The meaning was never intrinsic. It was observation of facts that produced mathematics, and mathematics was the meaning we assigned to those facts.
#399:
Look up the definition of nihilist in any reputable dictionary see where you are wrong. And fuck you very much for the attempted character assassination, by the way.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 4:21 PM
andyet #386 wrote:
I don't like the use of the word "accident" here, because it implies a mistake, a plan gone awry. It then becomes too easy to slip from "unintentional" to "blunder." We are not a blunder. And we don't have to have been lovingly chosen to avoid being blunders.
I think this idea of "inherent meaning" sounds too much like a "task" given to us by the universe -- and that makes no sense. There would be no reason to accept such a "task." It's like talking about choosing to follow our obligations to our DNA, or obey the laws of gravity. There's a category error there.
Parents give children tasks. Social systems have roles which we fullfil for social and personal ends. Our own tasks and goals are local, for us, and other people. They don't apply to the entire cosmos.
They can't. When you begin to extend too far out, you lose the human-centered understanding of meaning. And when you lose that, you distort the concept till it becomes meaningless itself.
Meaning is something we create. You can't be given a "meaning." You can only be given a "task." A job. And whether you choose to accept it will be up to you.
At some point we choose to consider something worthwhile for its own sake. Adding God into the mix doesn't change anything. Why value God? You can only persuade us to do so by attaching God to things we already care about, for their own sake.
And again, you can take your idea here apart and see what happens when you separate God from both human meaning, and your own personal meaning. If God created you as a deliberate act so that your suffering in Hell might provide amusement for the Saints in heaven, are you satisfied with your "purpose?" Not if it serves you no purpose.
God serves your purpose, not the other way around. You would not -- can not -- accept one that doesn't, and still call it "God."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 4:22 PM
Andyet, my statement is at least five times more intelligent than any you have posted here since you first arrived. You are dealing with some very intelligent people here, and we are laughing at your inept and illogical arguments. So far, Andyet 0, Pharyngula 20 since you first arrived. Back to my laughing at your ineptitude.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 4:22 PM
Project much GMacs? You didn't even do your homework. Not even one mention of the "disciple whom he loved", sheesh.
My advice is that you do some reading on the cultural norms of first century Palestine. And then look up the meaning of the word "anachronism".
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 17, 2009 4:24 PM
Aha. You're either equivocating on the word "meaning", or you're contradicting yourself: Atheists -- at least, this atheist -- do indeed agree that concepts of quantity, addition, equality, negation, and contradiction do have objective meaning. Therefore, we -- or at least, I -- are not nihilists.
QED
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 4:26 PM
Twenty bucks says andyet will never grasp why this is relevant to the larger point in general...
Posted by: GMacs | August 17, 2009 4:27 PM
My advice is that you do some reading on the cultural norms of first century Palestine. And then look up the meaning of the word "anachronism".
Anachronism. Such as a census that never took place according to any of the records at the time?
Oh, and I forgot to mention that all his preaching and fire-branded-ness is misplaced sexual energy. Come on, the New Testament is full of sexual tension.
Posted by: andyet | August 17, 2009 4:35 PM
For those who didn't understand, the 2+2=5 reference was out of Orwell's 1984. Ingsoc, the Party's ruling ideology is a form of group solipsism where meaning is purely subjective and is whatever the party says it is at that particular moment. "... Reality is in the skull. You wil learn by degrees, Winston" - Toughtpoliceman Obrien
Oceania is a society without objective standards.
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 4:40 PM
"[q]Ingsoc, the Party's ruling ideology is a form of group solipsism where meaning is purely subjective and is whatever the party says it is at that particular moment."[/q]
n. Philosophy.
1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.
"You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."
Also, 1984? What's next, argumentum ad hitler?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 4:42 PM
Andyet, if all you mean is that in the absence of a creator there is no way of specifying an objective meaning or purpose for existence, I think most if not all of us agree with you. So what? If there were a purposeful creator, then one could say that the creator's purpose was in a clear sense the meaning of existence - but it might not be one we would find acceptable: the creator might be - as indeed, Christianity suggests - an evil sadist, creating beings for the purpose of tormenting them.
That aside, the "existential nihilism" you and your chum Sartre babble about is a feeling, not a proposition: apparently you would feel despair or emptiness if you became convinced there was no god, and apparently Sartre did too - at least in his earlier life (he seems to have changed after WW2) - but most atheists clearly don't. It's really no use at all you trying to insist that atheists cannot create meaning for themselves and live purposeful lives, when most of the atheists commenting here know from first-hand experience that we do.
Posted by: Coryat | August 17, 2009 4:43 PM
My definition above was for 'solipsism' since it wasn't clear from the post.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 4:47 PM
Andyet has thrown everything but the kitchen sink at us, without any results. What a waste of his time.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 4:48 PM
Owlmirror #416:
Be careful here - the meaning is not created by the mathematics; the meaning is created by the mathematician. One can do mathematics all the day long without caring what the numbers mean.
And the mathematics itself is just a set of rules that follow from a small set of axioms - nothing more. Mathematics was created by humans to answer human questions; the fact that humans agree upon the rules is merely that: agreement.
Better put: we cannot be nihilists because we can agree on particular things as being true. A nihilist would state that there is no meaning to 2+2, intrinsic or assigned.
Celtic_Evolution #417:
What do you take me for, a sucker? No way am I taking that bet!
GMacs #418:
Never mind the origin of the word testament, eh?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 4:50 PM
Ahhh... but in an honest moment, andyet would tell us that we are deceived... for the purpose or meaning we sense, or feel, is indeed a result of god, whether we would accept it or not... it simply must be... elsewise there could be no meaning... remember?
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 4:50 PM
Andyet #386 wrote:
All moral systems ultimately come down to a choice, for the individual that accepts them. This includes theistic systems. Where is the mandate for you to accept God's love? Or its rules? Here you are forced to talk about free will and choice and 'deciding' to care about God.
And there are gods you would reject, because they are not "god-like" enough for your purposes. It doesn't really come down to which God -- if any -- actually exists. The ideal matters before the reality does.
“The human race is alone; but individual men need not be alone, because we have each other. We are brothers without a father; let us all the more for that behave brotherly to each other. The finest achievement for humanity is to recognize our predicament, including our insecurity and our coming extinction, and to maintain our cheerfulness and love and decency in spite of it, to prosecute our ideals in spite of it. We have good things to contemplate and high things to do. Let us do them.” (Richard Robinson)
Andyet, if an atheist is not a nihilist, but instead chooses love over hate, wisdom over ignorance, and beauty over ugliness -- do you think that the noble part is to argue with him? Say that he's locked in a contradiction? He can't possibly love people, or art, or anything, because it's all a lot of meaningless drivel, from his point of view. There's no intrinsic value unless it's assigned by an authority. We have none ourselves.
No, nothing has any meaning UNLESS there is a God! You must hate each other! You must despair! Love for its own sake is STUPID!
You're in a difficult position, because while you're taking joy and life and meaning out of everything to show us how worthless it all is without God to back it up, you're advocating nihilism. No, you're not showing us how we look to you. You're showing us how the world looks to you.
And you're making it darn hard for us to figure out why such a person would want to 'choose' some nebulous over-arching cosmic God of Love, when love apparently means nothing to them, in experience.
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | August 17, 2009 4:51 PM
"God is love."
Really? Then why does he/she/it/them make it so hard to love him/her/it/them? If god really loved us I could think of lots of better ways than he/she/it/them have been doing. Personally I find it hard to love someone who shows their love by killing millions of children every year (or I would if I believed that god existed).
"Intelligence, self awareness and free will."
So those humans who do not have one of these three are not loved by god. So a person who has a mental disability isn't loved by god. And I am fairly certain that some people are born with no self awareness. And in any case, if god loves these three things then why? And how much is required? I have more self awareness than a doberman but even a doberman has some self awareness.
Also, if those are the three things that are required for god to care about a person then what is wrong with abortion. Fetuses don't have any of those things.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 4:53 PM
Oceania is a society without objective standards. - andyet
Has anyone ever introduced you to the idea of fiction andyet? A "fictional" narrative is one that is not really true - and in some cases (e.g. 1984 or The Gospel According To St. John), could not be true. In reality, however complete the Party's grip on society, Oceania's farmers, engineers, soldiers and even Inner Party members would have had to use the fact that 2+2=4 every day. If they had tried to continue their operations on the basis that 2+2=5, they would have been overrun by Eurasia and/or Eastasia, or starved to death, or died in accidents.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 4:58 PM
andyet #419:
I don't think you know what solipsism is, if you're trying to claim that the Party was a form of "group solipsism". As you're fond of saying, "group solipsism" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
Oh, and I know the reference, thank you. I didn't catch it before because it did not apply.
Wrong. They were a society without a moral compass. That is not an objective standard; read Immanuel Kant to find out how this is possible.
Nerd of Redhead #423:
I disagree. The result is that people around here think he is a moron.
Oh, and now we can expect the kitchen sink. Thanks a lot! At least it should be entertaining...
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 17, 2009 5:01 PM
Kind of like religion, then.
Posted by: Samantha | August 17, 2009 5:04 PM
andyet:
I'm still trying to figure out what definition of "accident" requires that it have no meaning. Sure, an accident is generally defined as an act that occurred due to a cause with no intentional purpose or a different intentional purpose, but that in no way means that it cannot be assigned a meaning. People think that knocking the salt over is a bad omen; an assigned meaning to an accidental occurrence.
The thing is, outside of our own brains, there is no way to define absolute reality to anything. Everything IS subjective, and subjective meaning is no less important that a presumed objective meaning. Objective meaning is impossible to prove unless there is the assumption that something beyond the "self" is actually existent. Nihilism is an applicable name to atheists who admit that nothing outside of themselves can be absolutely known only if the only meaning you consider worthwhile is an objective one.
However, consider this. I do not believe that I was created by a god with a purpose but I KNOW that my parents had me for a purpose and that to them my "inherent" meaning is to be a trophy as to their accomplishment as parents. Does my refusal of their purpose for me make me nihilistic or does the recognition of their meaning for me (even as I reject it) negate that? If I am given an objective meaning and purpose and choose not to follow those, which of your little boxes does that put me in?
Your entire house of cards does fall down when you refuse to accept subjective meaning as meaning. Just because there is general consensus on a meaning does not negate the subjectivity of it.
You should read up on semiotics. Much of what you're trying to prove is discussed and negated in semiotics and it's not difficult to realize that what is true on the minor scale (language) isn't impossible or even unlikely on the larger scale (life).
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 17, 2009 5:05 PM
I was going to make that same comment, Owlmirror... but I wasn't sure if it was more important to point that out, or point out that he mis-uses the term "solipsism" so completely and utterly... after some debate, I decided to simply ignore it. Luckily, the rest of you took up the task nicely... as usual.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 5:06 PM
Celtic Evolution #425:
Ugh. Reading had me spinning in my chair to follow the logic. I think I'm gonna hurl...
Sastra #426:
Good catch! I suppose this means that andyet is advocating for atheism and not against it, right?
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 5:07 PM
And the mathematics itself is just a set of rules that follow from a small set of axioms - nothing more. Mathematics was created by humans to answer human questions; the fact that humans agree upon the rules is merely that: agreement. - Ryan Egesdahl
I (and many mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics) would not agree. This is the "formalist" view of mathematics, and provides no answer to why mathematicians choose and study the particular sets of axioms they do. First of all, the sets of axioms must be free of contradiction. (You can still do logical derivations if they are not, but since you can then prove anything, no-one does.) Second, some sets of axioms turn out to have much more interesting and/or useful consequences than others. Third, mathematics did not in practice start with axioms: rather, sets of axioms are attempts to formalise intuitions andor the results of experience. I'd be prepared to bet a large sum that if we ever discover extraterrestrial civilisations, their mathematics will be consistent with and quite similar to ours (modulo logical errors either of us may have made - but we'll be able to point these out to each other). Everywhere in this universe (or any other), 17 is prime.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 5:07 PM
andyet #419 wrote:
On the contrary, it did have an objective standard. You stated it yourself: meaning "is whatever the party says it is at that particular moment." This is not that different than that form of theism which claims that all meaning is whatever God says it is. Truth and reality are imposed on the individual from an unquestionable authority which is, by its nature, perfect and incapable of error. You are given your meanings, and it has to do with a Big Picture. The individual is only valuable to the extent it supports or reflects the Authority -- nothing has value for its own sake.
If all meaning comes from God or the State, then those on the outside have no meaning. And they are expendable. Look at the concept of Hell: the damned don't matter. They lost their meaning and purpose. They are Bad Guys.
Totalitarian systems are scary because the State is worshiped like God. Religious systems are scary because God is worshiped like God. I think the idea of "worship" itself is a problem.
By the way, I think you do need to define your terms. You're equating 'subjective' with 'relative.' And you're leaving out "intersubjective" -- true from the perspective of all observers. This is different than 'true no matter what observers think and see.'
Posted by: Tilting At Windmills | August 17, 2009 5:08 PM
Today's thought of the day on Google seems to fit in with this conversation:
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
- Jef Mallett
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 5:21 PM
"You have presented no evidence for your god." Nerd of Redhead
You're asking the wrong question. - andyet@239
Andyet, has it ever occurred to you that you do not get to decide for everyone what questions are and are not worth asking? (Oh, and by the way, the line you quoted from Nerd wasn't a question.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 17, 2009 5:24 PM
Celtic_Evolution@#432: And of course, Sastra says it as well @#435, but with far greater eloquence and rhetorical clarity than I can manage.
Oh, well.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 5:26 PM
Knockgoats #434:
I was only meaning to state that the rules of mathematics are not themselves imbued with meaning. Rather, there must be something there for the mathematics to describe or it is just following the rules. As you said, if there were an extraterrestrial civilization, their mathematics would likely be similar to ours (within the bounds of counting systems, etc.), simply because the rules of mathematics must be internally consistent. But we all had to agree on how to state those rules - that is what my reply was getting at.
To put it another way, 17 is prime, and so is blort, which is congruent to 17 on the planet Xyphos. The rules of primes would be the same in any case, but we would have to agree at some point on what a prime number was, internally consistent logic or not. What andyet was suggesting was that there was no reason at all for 2+2 to equal 4 without the intervention of some divine being to make it so. This is why the "inherent meaning" argument fails so spectacularly.
Posted by: Samantha | August 17, 2009 5:28 PM
An additional thought:
The basis for universal dignity in an atheist world-view is that it is part of our genetic selves. We WANT to do things for others because those that do will almost always get aid in return and thus do better. The better they do, the more they reproduce and so on and so forth. Self-interest is actually one of the best things in terms of doing good for others because self-interest and self-preservation impel one to do favours in order to receive favours. If all we know is that we exist, it is best for us to continue our existence and when trial and error proves that being generally helpful, kind and non-confrontational makes our existence easier to maintain, we will do so.
On the other hand, religion almost always singles someone out as the scapegoat and the person not to help. Currently, Christians seem to have picked atheists, gays and/or abortion doctors, supporters and receivers. According to their "objective" values, these people are bad and therefore not deserving of help unless they revoke their evil ways. Therefore, a religious person who buys into these notions will not follow the favour circle. Not only have they stopped treating everyone as though they have inherent value (in what they could one day return) but they have actually removed the possibility for universal inherent dignity.
Of course, there is always the case where someone's actions are so harmful that their "inherent" dignity and value will be no longer acknowledged by those who know of their actions, but this is generally due to harm to the community/people and is evident in both camps. The relative harmfulness of the actions necessary to be shunned will depend on the individual person/community, however religious people seem to have a much lower tolerance for anyone outside their community and a much higher tolerance for those inside their community than to be expected just out of knowledge and understanding of a person's usual motivations.
This is, of course, all general and it is obvious that there will be atheists who do not value others and Christians that do regardless of beliefs. There are also alternate justifications given by various atheists, but it normally boils down to the same thing.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 5:33 PM
Ryan Egesdahl@439,
OK, I misunderstood you - some people do take the view I was arguing against.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | August 17, 2009 5:34 PM
What you did here is take an event that is inherently random and meaningless by your own definition ("accident") and make a judgment call assigning meaning to it ("fortunate") because of how it affects your person.
That was you assigning subjective meaning to an inherently meaningless event.
Keep it up!
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 5:41 PM
(I've been trying to make that point.)You nailed it. Ryan Egesdahl, Celtic_Evolution, Knockgoats, Carlie, Amphiox, heliobates have all made similar independent observasions about Andyet's arguments which would make common criticisms an intersubjective truth.*hehheh*
I've come to believe Andyet isn't here to convert anyone. His first post above was an open criticism about PZ sure to incite engagement from defenders. It was an odd slippery slope to the atheism=nihilism debate with Andyet's requisite shuffle & 3 card monte (his bold declarations using specific terms but unwilling to clarify and define these terms as a means to keep the dialectic {polylectic?} going).
Andyet is lonely and wants company.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
August 17, 2009 5:42 PM
Lewis also wrote about the naked green people who live on Venus. Being able to invent properties of fictional settings doesn't make them real.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 17, 2009 5:43 PM
The basis for universal dignity in an atheist world-view is that it is part of our genetic selves. We WANT to do things for others because those that do will almost always get aid in return and thus do better. - Samantha
This innate tendency is a large part of the causal explanation for how the idea of universal human dignity arose and persisted, but it is not the basis for it if by that you mean its justification. After all, we probably also have genetic tendencies to greed, violence, domination and spite - also selected for. The justification for adopting the norm of universal human dignity is that this will tend to reduce unnecessary suffering and increase opportunities for human fulfilment. Andyet, of course, believes he can't care about these things without believing in a god who practices and orders genocide, and intends to torture people forever for having the wrong beliefs. Weird, not to say completely bonkers.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 5:48 PM
@Sastra 426:
You're in a difficult position, because while you're taking joy and life and meaning out of everything to show us how worthless it all is without God to back it up, you're advocating nihilism. No, you're not showing us how we look to you. You're showing us how the world looks to you.
Very nicely said.
projection is the xian modus operandi.
Posted by: pdferguson | August 17, 2009 5:48 PM
andyet blathered on:
It's only called evidence when religionists like you try to claim it is, but saying it over and over doesn't make it true. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. There are no facts to support your claim.
Sheesh, you Christards are as predictable as you are foolish.
You do understand that there is a difference between evidence and Bronze Age mythology? You do understand that there is a difference between evidence and wishful thinking? You do understand that there is a difference between evidence and making crap up?
Posted by: Samantha | August 17, 2009 5:51 PM
Knockgoats @445
You're absolutely right and I wasn't trying to say that it was the whole justification... just one of the biggest reasons we come around to being good to others without the necessity of a "God" giving us objective morality or value. The basic idea that being good to others is good for us is mostly easily encapsulated by the favour-reward system. As I said at the bottom, there's a lot of different examples, names and sizes but the end result is that when we help others out, we further ourselves.
I figured giving andyet the simplest example would hopefully get him to respond with something that was at least relevant. Also, it was easiest to give a religious version of the favour-reward system because we see it regularly.
What can I say, I'm lazy! I also think I should have typed base instead of basis...
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 5:58 PM
Knockgoats #441:
I am not a mathematician (IANAM?), so I generally refrain from taking overarching views of mathematics. Even so, it is tempting to take the formalist view, since it's so intuitive. I've been told before it's problematic, though. One of these days, I might even be able to understand why.
E.V. #443:
*barfs*
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 6:05 PM
Let me get this straight: God created a universe with hundreds of billions(trillions?) of celestial bodies, yet he is preoccupied with a species on a tiny planet who have evolved the capacity for reflexive thought: an awareness of self with the ability to contemplate the past, present and future.
Adam met this god first hand. God then spoke directly to Noah. He wrote on the wall for Belshazzar. He appeared as a burning bush to Moses. God got tired and sent angels to be his personal heralds. Jesus reappeared to his disciples after he was crucified and buried, but with just a few exceptions the rest of the world is supposed to take it on faith that this god exists and believing that a man named Jesus is also God (or the son of God, Messiah, what ever) and he is the only way to an afterlife that leaves no traces of actually existing? And if you reject God/Jesus you face eternal punishment?
So, if you don't think that this story is plausible then you're a nihilist?
In the immortal words of Daffy Duck: "It is to laugh."
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 17, 2009 6:21 PM
andyet #239
Why ? Why is that the real question ?
Well, duh ! So what ?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 17, 2009 6:27 PM
Many Christians and other goddists claim that the only reason for being good is eternal punishment. This is one of the most nihilistic things I've ever heard. I try to do good because:
So, andyet, explain to me how me being good is nihilistic and goddists being good because they're afraid that god will spank their bottoms forever isn't.
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 6:45 PM
Was that directed at me?
Posted by: SusanR | August 17, 2009 6:51 PM
Photo of my bumperstickers
http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/ad121/SusanPR/bummperstickers006.jpg
Posted by: SusanR | August 17, 2009 6:55 PM
...and PZ Meyers name should now be
" P Z who should not be named..."
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 6:56 PM
E.V. #453
It was directed that the idea that andyet might have been acting out on lonely feelings at me. I mean, yuck! Who could date a mind like that?
Ah, well. I suppose there's someone for everyone.
SusanR #454:
Do I detect a cat person in our midst?
Posted by: Josh
|
August 17, 2009 6:57 PM
That really wasn't that funny. It simply wasn't. Why am I still giggling*?
*Okay, true. Josh doesn't giggle. Why am I still laughing?
And what the fuck is up with TYPE PAD?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 7:01 PM
There's no doubt what SusanR supports...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
August 17, 2009 7:05 PM
It is semi-disfunctional, or to put it in technical terms, mofo's hosed.
On a different topic, the one bumper sticker I have on my car reads: "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too"
Posted by: E.V. | August 17, 2009 7:15 PM
I was just worried That I might need to clean my shoes. The major all day players here are seeking entertainment, a break in boredom, bullying/aggression, a pathological need to remedy SIWOTI, and/or a sense of community/socialization.Notice when this was pointed out about him, he left?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 17, 2009 7:39 PM
andyet
I mean only an asshole would type this:
Posted by: whitebird | August 17, 2009 7:52 PM
Andyet @275 : "Not choosing is itself a choice"
RUSH 4 eva!!
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 7:53 PM
andyet that fraudulent poser almost converted me. Oh well, maybe another day...
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 17, 2009 8:07 PM
E.V. #460:
Yes, we nihilists are such communal people, aren't we? I expect he will be back, though. It would be out of character for him not to try exactly the same thing all over again.
Feynmaniac #461:
Odd. The only reply I can think of is "Oh, SNAP!"
I swear I'm not that puerile, really. I think it's just the fun of watching someone get totally pwnd by his own words.
JefFlyingV #463:
"Almost," huh? Is that an asymptotic relationship with respect to sheer nuttery?
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 17, 2009 8:15 PM
That is funny Ryan. Thanks.
Posted by: whitebird | August 17, 2009 8:16 PM
Andyet: "Then by all means demonstrate how meaning can exist in a Godless and Souless universe."
Uh, wha? See what you did there? You believe in god (we can only gather, unless you're just some kind of first year Philosophy student trying out the argument bike with plenty of training wheels), which gives your life meaning...I believe in drinking beer and petting kitties and making music and learning about things that demonstrably exist, which gives my life meaning.
Hey how about: Then by all means demonstrate how meaning can exist in a fairy-less and magic-free world. Same diff, guy.
Posted by: whitebird | August 17, 2009 8:35 PM
Andyet @358: "Quantum mechanics is far weirder than any theology."
ah, but of course.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 17, 2009 8:47 PM
But far, far, far, far more accurate. I think A_Ray_In_Dilbert_Space referenced a QM calculation confirmed to 14 digits. Theology, not even order of magnitude.Posted by: heliobates | August 17, 2009 9:47 PM
Aargh. Earworm!
Posted by: BenW
|
August 17, 2009 9:53 PM
Thedepressingstatistician | August 16, 2009 2:06 PM
Just blaspheme the holy spirit. Evidently its the only unforgivable sin.
Mark 3:28-29: "I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."
Do it, and they will realize praying for you is completely useless and you are a "lost cause."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have tried that but an atheist can't blaspheme the Holy Spirit. That passage is about Jesus casting out demons and the Pharisees said it was with the power of Satan. Jesus then basically says that if you attribute to Satan those miracles which are by the power of God, you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
See the problem, first you have to see a miracle (a real one not a crap one like a sun rise or a baby laughing) and then you have to believe that Satan did the miracle instead of God.
That means even if you try to blaspheme the Holy Spirit they won't leave you alone.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 17, 2009 9:55 PM
andyet,
Those aren't paradoxes, except in a very very loose sense. Don't confuse logical inconsistency with counterintuitiveness.
Posted by: Anton Mates | August 17, 2009 10:06 PM
What if the sun rises but it's that laughing baby sun from Teletubbies? I'd have no problem crediting Satan for that.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 17, 2009 10:15 PM
Existence is not proof. Just because you don't understand the causes doesn't mean "goddidit". You still haven't explained without special pleading how god is an explanation for existence.
Where is the evidence? I think almost everyone here would be convinced with real evidence, and I include myself in that count. And if you're saying there's evidence, proof is possible, so pick one statement or the other. Either there's evidence or proof isn't possible.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 17, 2009 10:28 PM
Twenty minutes before writing that homophobic/anti-atheist rant andyet was lecturing us about we should respect other people's beliefs. And eight hours earlier he was warning about Muslims taking over Europe and treating homosexuals badly like in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Reading his posts are like watching a three person debate.
No wonder andyet is so found of paradoxes, he's a walking contradiction.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 17, 2009 10:33 PM
God's existence cannot be proven or disproven empirically or logically. If you had a shred of reading comprehension you would know that I am not attempting to prove anything, except that atheism is inherently nihilistic.
Funny, andyet cannot prove or disprove the big shy daddy but yet andyet knows how and why he opperates.
Also, it seems that andyet does not to live a life where andyet has to provide meaning, andyet needs an outside source to provide that. I would suggest that andyet hire a dominatrix as a life coach, andyet will get a strictly defined function in life.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 17, 2009 10:44 PM
Feynmaniac, I cannot believe I forgot that first link so quickly, that is when my opinion of the schmuck went from being an annoying troll with a slippery grasp of words to that of a sniveling asshole. Andyet has shown so many bad character traits, it becomes easy to lose track of some. Thank you, Feynmaniac.
Posted by: Ichthyic | August 17, 2009 10:48 PM
No wonder andyet is so found of paradoxes, he's a walking contradiction.
IOW, he's just trolling.
color me shocked.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 17, 2009 11:09 PM
I really hate this line of thinking. We are meaning-seeking creatures; we look for meaning, for purpose. And ultimately most of us find meaning, we aren't nihilists by any stretch of the imagination...But it seems that there's the conflation between existential nihilism and personal nihilism. That is if there's no purpose to life then there's no purpose to my life, and these are two very different things. By being meaning-seeking creatures, we create our own purposes.
The distinguishing feature to me is howwe view ourselves in the universe. It seems that the charge against atheism is that if we don't view life as having universal value, then life cannot have value at all. And beyond the bad logic (if there's no universal morality there cannot be morality at all, etc.) it's using equivocation to misrepresent the opposing point of view.
I ask myself, why should I value other life? Because I see the value in life itself. Why does this need to be universal to be true? It could be that this planet is the only planet in the universe with life, or even with sapient life. It will be that life has at best another 5 billion years on this planet. Life could die and the universe will go on according to the natural laws and it wouldn't matter one bit.
But I still live in this time. I have to be able to form relationships with others and the environment around me. I was built by the force of evolution in order to care, because caring has a better long term survival strategy than not caring. I can't help but care, to feel affinity for others and the environment around me, to want life to go on. I am a meaning-seeking animal, and I find meaning no matter what I do.
Atheism is not inherently nihilistic except in only the most technical sense, so to use the words together is misleading. If you mean it in the existential sense, then why say it at all? Obviously atheism takes away any notion that the universe has inherent purpose or intrinsic value. If you aren't using equivocation (using existential nihilism to conjure up images of moral or personal nihilism) then you're mistaken.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 17, 2009 11:15 PM
andyet,
Actually reading the mental gymnastics in your justification of the gospels reads like a fundie talking about "flood geology". Sure you think the Old Testament should be taken as
old Jewish fairy talesa metaphor, but when it comes to Jesus being the son of God, resurrecting from the dead and performing all those magic tricks you're just as much a literalist a they are. As least they are consistent.There's a reason why "experimental theology" doesn't get much funding. The reason we accept QM is because it has been shown to be experimentally accurate to a high degree. Nothing remotely similar can be said about theology. But you can prove me wrong. Name the precise date that a certain city will be flooded because God was angry that gays married. If you are accurate within a day a month ahead of time then maybe I'll consider the worth of theology.
Until then it can't be lumped into the "weird, but accurate/true" category with QM. It's in the "weird and wrong/not even wrong/rantings of crazy people" category along with Phrenology and time cube.
Posted by: Sastra | August 17, 2009 11:24 PM
Kel, OM #478 wrote:
I've always wondered how theism establishes either "inherent purpose" or "intrinsic value." Those may be meaningless concepts as a whole, divorced as they are from humanist roots. It seems to me that an awful lot is being snuck in, hidden inside "God."
What is God's purpose? Where does God get its value? What if we proceed with the theist's argument over meaning and purpose, only this time let's not take it for granted that God has any value, or that there's any meaning in God being happy, or pleased, or wrapped up in love, or whatever the heck it's supposed to be/do. After all, if there is no intrinsic value for a human being being happy, pleased, or loving, then we can't really justify placing it in God, either.
So we begin with the assumption that there is no purpose to God's existence, and God has no intrinsic value. It might matter to you, but that's just a personal choice. It's not cosmic.
Uh oh. Looks like theism is inherently nihilistic, too. Whatever will we do?
If we have to stuff meaning into God, we might as well skip right to the things we know exist, and stuff meaning into our lives.
Posted by: 386sx | August 17, 2009 11:39 PM
And if the Self and Free Will are nothing but illusions, how can the individual create meaning in a meaningless universe?
I don't get it. If free will and self are not "illusions", then what are they? Would you be able to see them in a microscope or something if they weren't an "illusion"?
Posted by: 386sx | August 17, 2009 11:48 PM
If we have to stuff meaning into God, we might as well skip right to the things we know exist, and stuff meaning into our lives.
Yeah and if things have meaning and purpose because God "grants" it to them, then just "grant" yourself some meaning and purpose too! Bada bing bada boom, cut out the middle man. (Or middle "god".)
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 12:52 AM
Sastra:
I suspect (though most believers are just as coy about this as andyet) that theists assume---as a matter of logical necessity---that "meaning" is somehow a property of "things".
Let's face it, they're arguing from the presupposition of substance dualism and can, with unblinking sincerity, advance the notion that our physical minds somehow dip into a paraconscious substrate (see andyet's William James link, above). So the observable universe is not everything since there's some Platonic realm that undergirds it.
I'm starting to suspect that when anyone with a naturalistic slant asks one of these Neo-neo-Platonists the what you've been asking, then the believer just doesn't understand the question. I mean, I'll need more evidence before I assume that it's always willful obtuseness to respond to a probing question by simply restating one's assertion.
Kel:
I'll be arsed to find the link, but we are meaning-makers and inferrers from infancy. I'm talking about a whole raft of recent studies where infants and preschoolers would infer social causation and teleology from watching shapes move around on a monitor. Tack on experimental support for phenomenae such as paradolia and apophenia and I think the case has been made that we can't stop making meaning, especially when none exists.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 18, 2009 1:16 AM
Feynmaniac #474:
And he's so cute, too - just like my own pet chimera. Or pet troll. I wasn't present for his last series of rants, but now that I look through his past misdeeds...whoa, what a piece of work!
#479:
Oh, wow - the time cube. That's some heavy-hitting batshit-style insanity, there. I remember the first time I saw the website was back when I was a raving Christianist, and I found myself being taken in by the woo. I am ever so glad I realized that man is a special kind of crazy. And now that I have shed my crazy beliefs, I can't even stand to visit the website; the changing fonts and colors give me the impression of a man in a padded room. It's sad and disgusting to watch.
Kel, OM #478:
To bully people into your own set of nihilistic beliefs. As stated before, by Sastra (I think), believing in a being that dictates universal morality necessitates a lack of personal morality. You never get around to believing in things that have any personal significance to you, since you are too afraid to try thinking on your own.
That's not to say all Christians are like andyet. I have known plenty that were willing to believe things contrary to what was in the Bible. As they put it, the Bible could only have been written by men, so the God in it would have the flaws of men; sometimes, one learns of the mistakes those men made and should do the opposite behavior from what God supposedly does. If God created humans with free will, then God also won't dictate morals, and you should learn how to function as a human being for yourself.
All of which, of course, does not necessitate a God at all - which I tell my Christian friends. They just tell me they want to believe it it because it somehow completes their thinking. Whatever they want, as long as they don't behave like andyet does. His literalism disgusts me precisely because of how fawning and toadish he is for his God. He would disgust my Christian friends as well.
Sastra #480:
I realized a long time ago that I was treating God like an imaginary friend I could blame for spilling the milk. "So I'm an asshole for preaching the Word to you? Well, take that up with my God - he told me to do it." I'd already ditched Satan some time before that for similar, but more obvious reasons, but I found it very difficult to get rid of God that way.
Once I realized that I had been stuffing God with my own meanings, I took a hard look at the God described in the Bible and determined that my version was both better and not worthwhile. I wanted something universal to believe it. So I wandered through religions looking for something, not knowing exactly what it was. Then I came to Unitarian Universalism and cried in joy - here, at last was my universal deity!
Except that it wasn't - it was still a group of people with individual beliefs. I was allowed to believe as I chose, sure, but nothing substantial was offered to me. It was at that point I looked carefully at who I was and realized that I didn't need anything universal to be a whole person. I could just be who I am. God, at that point, became nothing more than a vessel for my own beliefs and morals, so I ditched the unnecessary baggage and moved on with my life.
I sincerely believe that God is like this for most people, but they just can't say goodbye to their imaginary friend. Some people in that group don't really believe in God anymore, but like I did, they feel they have to have something universal for life to matter. It's very sad to watch people become trapped in this cycle of behavior.
386sx #482:
Exactly.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 18, 2009 5:16 AM
I really hope this is not the case for the sake of society. Though I think from that stems an even greater danger. When all meaning is invested in God and God's plan, it does nothing for the earth itself. Why plan for a future when the rapture is upon us? Why help protect the environment, work towards sustainable living practices when it all will be destroyed when Jesus comes back? And why help those starving or dying from disease when it be God's will that they suffer? To me, that line of thinking is far more dangerous than existential nihilism as it completely withdraws from any natural obligation we have.Michael Shermer asks the question for this kind of moral reasoning: if you stopped believing in God would it change your behavior - that is would you go out raping and killing and start lying? It's a brilliant way of putting it because no matter the answer it either shows that a) they are incredibly immoral and that God is the only thing causing them from doing harm to others, or b) that one can be moral without God. Same goes for this, either they would make the gambit that life is meaningless without God in which case they are in danger of suicide watch or it is possible to have meaning without God.
So andyet in my mind needs to explain precisely what he means when he equates atheism with nihilism. If it is truly just pointing out that there's no universal meaning to existence because there's no purpose, then I'm fully in agreement with him. But that's like pointing out that 2+2=4. So if he's equating existential nihilism with moral / personal nihilism though then he's being either dishonest or he's greatly mistaken.
Posted by: Shran | August 18, 2009 6:00 AM
Aren't you two just whining about each other ?
You look cool on your new transportation device though...
Posted by: Dr Benway | August 18, 2009 9:00 AM
Email the URL for Ken Ham's bumper sticker photos and his commentary on them to the IRS. His disapproval of the Obama/Biden sticker is political commentary, which puts his tax exempt status at risk.
Posted by: andyet | August 18, 2009 9:27 AM
"Oh, and I forgot to mention that all his preaching and fire-branded-ness is misplaced sexual energy. Come on, the New Testament is full of sexual tension."
Like I asked before, project much Gmacs?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 18, 2009 9:36 AM
Andyet, ready for another round of whack the idjit godbot troll? If not, I suggest you leave, remove us from your bookmarks, and stay away.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 9:36 AM
Our favorite geriatric lonely hearts troll is back. Hi Andyet. Did you bring your list of definitions?
Posted by: andyet | August 18, 2009 9:50 AM
"On the contrary, it did have an objective standard. You stated it yourself: meaning "is whatever the party says it is at that particular moment." This is not that different than that form of theism which claims that all meaning is whatever God says it is. Truth and reality are imposed on the individual from an unquestionable authority which is, by its nature, perfect and incapable of error."
You apparently have not read the book. Oceania's "reality" is subjective because it is derives fromthe whims of the Party, not by fixed objectivity:
O'Brien silenced him by a movement of his hand. 'We control matter because we control the mind. Reality is inside the skull. You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation -- anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of Nature. We make the laws of Nature.'
'But you do not! You are not even masters of this planet. What about Eurasia and Eastasia? You have not conquered them yet.'
'Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we did not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world.'
'But the world itself is only a speck of dust. And man is tiny helpless! How long has he been in existence? For millions of years the earth was uninhabited.'
'Nonsense. The earth is as old as we are, no older. How could it be older? Nothing exists except through human consciousness.'
'But the rocks are full of the bones of extinct animals -- mammoths and mastodons and enormous reptiles which lived here long before man was ever heard of.'
'Have you ever seen those bones, Winston? Of course not. Nineteenth-century biologists invented them. Before man there was nothing. After man, if he could come to an end, there would be nothing. Outside man there is nothing.'
'But the whole universe is outside us. Look at the stars! Some of them are a million light-years away. They are out of our reach for ever.'
'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out. The earth is the centre of the universe. The sun and the stars go round it.'
Winston made another convulsive movement. This time he did not say anything. O'Brien continued as though answering a spoken objection:
'For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometres away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?'
I find it ironic that your subjectivity can be used to deny the objective reality of evolution. But then, why should anything - even science - be immune to subjectivity? Science is defined by Popperian falsification (if a claim cannot be falsified, it is not scientific). However, falsification itself is not a falsifiable concept. Science at its foundation is unscientific, and has to be taken on faith. An except from an essay by Tom Wolfe serves to illustrate this point:
Ironically, said Nietzsche, this unflinching eye for truth, this zest for skepticism, is the legacy of Christianity (for complicated reasons that needn't detain us here). Then he added one final and perhaps ultimate piece of irony in a fragmentary passage in a notebook shortly before he lost his mind (to the late–nineteenth–century's great venereal scourge, syphilis). He predicted that eventually modern science would turn its juggernaut of skepticism upon itself, question the validity of its own foundations, tear them apart, and self–destruct. I thought about that in the summer of 1994 when a group of mathematicians and computer scientists held a conference at the Santa Fe Institute on "Limits to Scientific Knowledge." The consensus was that since the human mind is, after all, an entirely physical apparatus, a form of computer, the product of a particular genetic history, it is finite in its capabilities. Being finite, hardwired, it will probably never have the power to comprehend human existence in any complete way. It would be as if a group of dogs were to call a conference to try to understand The Dog. They could try as hard as they wanted, but they wouldn't get very far. Dogs can communicate only about forty notions, all of them primitive, and they can't record anything. The project would be doomed from the start. The human brain is far superior to the dog's, but it is limited nonetheless. So any hope of human beings arriving at some final, complete, self–enclosed theory of human existence is doomed, too.
This, science's Ultimate Skepticism, has been spreading ever since then. Over the past two years even Darwinism, a sacred tenet among American scientists for the past seventy years, has been beset by...doubts. Scientists—not religiosi—notably the mathematician David Berlinski ("The Deniable Darwin," Commentary, June 1996) and the biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box, 1996), have begun attacking Darwinism as a mere theory, not a scientific discovery, a theory woefully unsupported by fossil evidence and featuring, at the core of its logic, sheer mush. (Dennett and Dawkins, for whom Darwin is the Only Begotten, the Messiah, are already screaming. They're beside themselves, utterly apoplectic. Wilson, the giant, keeping his cool, has remained above the battle.) By 1990 the physicist Peter Beckmann of the University of Colorado had already begun going after Einstein. He greatly admired Einstein for his famous equation of matter and energy, E=mc2, but called his theory of relativity mostly absurd and grotesquely untestable. Beckmann died in 1993. His Fool Killer's cudgel has been taken up by Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut, who has many admirers among the upcoming generation of Ultimately Skeptical young physicists. The scorn the new breed heaps upon quantum mechanics ("has no real–world applications"..."depends entirely on fairies sprinkling goofball equations in your eyes"), Unified Field Theory ("Nobel worm bait"), and the Big Bang Theory ("creationism for nerds") has become withering. If only Nietzsche were alive! He would have relished every minute of it!
Recently I happened to be talking to a prominent California geologist, and she told me: "When I first went into geology, we all thought that in science you create a solid layer of findings, through experiment and careful investigation, and then you add a second layer, like a second layer of bricks, all very carefully, and so on. Occasionally some adventurous scientist stacks the bricks up in towers, and these towers turn out to be insubstantial and they get torn down, and you proceed again with the careful layers. But we now realize that the very first layers aren't even resting on solid ground. They are balanced on bubbles, on concepts that are full of air, and those bubbles are being burst today, one after the other."
I suddenly had a picture of the entire astonishing edifice collapsing and modern man plunging headlong back into the primordial ooze. He's floundering, sloshing about, gulping for air, frantically treading ooze, when he feels something huge and smooth swim beneath him and boost him up, like some almighty dolphin. He can't see it, but he's much impressed. He names it God.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 9:54 AM
Oh shit, Andyet is having a seizure! Anyone have a spoon?!!
Posted by: andyet | August 18, 2009 10:07 AM
"The basis for universal dignity in an atheist world-view is that it is part of our genetic selves. We WANT to do things for others because those that do will almost always get aid in return and thus do better."
That flies int the face of the first law of ecology - the primary threat to any organism's survival comes from emmbers of its own species. This is especially true of species, such as ourselves, that lack true predators. We provide our own competition.
The Romans had a saying derived from harsh reality: "man is a wolf to man". Too much is made of selfless altruism found in nature, like Wilson's self sacrificing ants that give their lives for the sake of their sisters. Such altruism is far from universal. Indeed it is limited to only those members of the organism's immediate breeding group. These same selfless ants are just as capable of slaughtering the members of a rival colony.
Our evolutionary cousins , the chimpanzees (with 98.4% of our genetic makeup) are nasty bastards that wage war, hunting down and killing chimps from rival troops. They kill the "Other" without hesitation and with apparent delight. When a new alpha male lion takes charge of a pride,the first thing he does is kill those cubs sired by his deposed rival.
So where in nature is the dictat that I should universally treat all humans, especially those that are different than myself, with decency and dignity?
So when the Klan lynched Blacks, the Nazis gassed Jews, the Serbs slaughtered Muslims, Communists killed class enemies, and Iranians execute gays they are acting exactly like chimps in the wild.
It's all very natural.
The same behavior, and its limitations, is found in many other species and in primates. The "selfish gene" does not explain why altruism and morality should be extended beyond the immediate genetic/social group.
A belief in something transcendent is required to extend this moral behavior to those that differ from ourselves, The Other: other clans, ethnic groups, religions, and races. For example, there is no basis in the selfish gene theory that would compel me to treat a Black man decently. A selfish gene would frown on "love your enemies". It is not a complete explanation for human moral behavior; that would require something higher.
There is no purely material basis for universal morality. Modern Darwinists can respond that selfish genes do not always make selfish people, because it may be in the interests of the genes to encourage some forms of social cooperation, particularly within the family. For example, a mother might spread her genes most effectively by sacrificing her own life to preserve the lives of her offspring, who carry the same genes.
That's a pretty weak reassurance when contemplating the kinds of things that commissars and fuehrers tend to do. Stronger medicine is required if Darwinism is to avoid the obloquy that now attaches to "social Darwinism," and so Dawkins desperately tries to square his gene theory with some acceptable morality by proposing a robot rebellion. He writes: "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to."
This is not only absurd but embarrassingly naive. If human nature is actually constructed by genes whose predominant quality is a ruthless selfishness, then pious lectures advocating qualities like generosity and altruism are probably just another strategy for furthering selfish interests. Ruthless predators are often moralistic in appearance, because that is how they disarm their intended victims. The genes who teach their robot vehicles not to take morality seriously, but to take advantage of fools who do, will have a decisive advantage in the Darwinian competition. If a man is preparing his son for a career with the Chicago mafia, he'd better not teach him to be loving and trusting. But he might teach him to feign loyalty while he is planning treachery!
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 10:12 AM
I hate to admit it but TL;DR Andyet. *yawns*
Posted by: andyet | August 18, 2009 10:13 AM
"Oh shit, Andyet is having a seizure! Anyone have a spoon?!!"
Are all atheists as intelligent as you are EV?
How exactly can atheists claim to be moral when they can't even be civil?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | August 18, 2009 10:18 AM
Well, you could start by removing the ludicrous assertion that civility = morality. You're a christian, you should know better.
Posted by: Endor | August 18, 2009 10:18 AM
"How exactly can atheists claim to be moral when they can't even be civil?"
Andyet is running the longest running game of "Spot the Logical Fallacy" ever.
Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 18, 2009 10:22 AM
For a start what is a modern Darwinist? If you don't want to be labeled a wacko please use the proper term.
Is it necessary to bring the Christian Vlad the Impaler into the discussion?
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 18, 2009 10:26 AM
andyet #495:
How exactly can atheists claim to be moral when they can't even be civil?
Really? All you can come up with is the equivalent of "you're stupid"? Come on!
Here's one better: how can you claim to be moral when you keep lying for Jesus, andyet? You keep saying you have some great truth to reveal to us, but so far it's been smoke and mirrors with you. Get to the point and defend it, already!
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 18, 2009 10:31 AM
andyet, are posts #478 and #485 civil enough for you to respond to them? I'm curious as to how you would reply to my assessment of atheism and nihilism.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 10:33 AM
Andyet, I can actually feel the crazy rising from your posts. You equate morality with civility? T'ain't so McGee. Nice is different than good.
You're dishonest as the day his long with your refusal to actually pin down and define terms and your goalpost shifting, sooooo... I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries. I wave my testicles at your Auntie's face. Now go away, before I taunt you a second time.
(I told him we already have one) *snickers*
You question my intelligence? I can misuse words/concepts, quote-mine and copy & paste just as well as you can, oh tautologous religiotard, and never delude myself into believing it's something more than a dishonest trollish tactic in lieu of an honest debate. You LIE. Your civility is a sham and your morality is corrupt and based on a premise that it's supplied by a mythical deity with eternal damnation as a constant threat to keep you in line. So you and Jesus can suck it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 18, 2009 10:42 AM
Andyet, tl;dr your cut/paste nonsense. I do I know it is nonsense? You posted it. You are incapable of congent discussion. Your trying to equate moral with civil is a case in point. Those are two separate issues. Only an idjit would link them. Here's your problem on being civil. You think you get to make snide noises at us since you are "doing god's work". (Never mind god doesn't exist, or he wouldn't delegate to you in any case.) The golden rule says that if you don't want us to be snide, you can't be snide. FAILURE on your part. Oh yes, PZ want us to be mean, rude and crude to idjits like you so you go away, like a defeated idjit troll.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 11:17 AM
Andyet,
The problem with understanding the appearance and maintenance of human cooperation and altruism going beyond recognised kin is not the absence of possible natural explanations, but the large number of possible explanations, and the likelihood that several factors were involved. I haven't time right now to go through explaining the possible factors - I'll come back to this later if the discussion is still ongoing - but here are a few terms you might try googling (I don't guarantee they will all produce something):
byproduct mutualism, reciprocal altruism, selective imitation, reputational effects, social docility, gene-culture coevolution, group selection, handicap effect, historical constraints.
That flies in the face of the first law of ecology - the primary threat to any organism's survival comes from members of its own species.
However, in social species, these other members are also the primary resource. With the growth of human culture, and particularly with that of language, this becomes true in a much wider variety of ways. A stranger, specifically, becomes a possible helping hand in multi-person tasks, and source of new knowledge (as well as of new genes, as is the case in all sexually reproducing species).
So where in nature is the dictat that I should universally treat all humans, especially those that are different than myself, with decency and dignity?
There isn't one, of course: you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" - even if that "is" were the existence of a creator.
So when the Klan lynched Blacks, the Nazis gassed Jews, the Serbs slaughtered Muslims, Communists killed class enemies, and Iranians execute gays they are acting exactly like chimps in the wild.
Er, no. All these atrocities were/are based on "A belief in something transcendent". You are right that it is our ability to think in abstractions, and beyond our immediate social group, that makes the idea of universal human dignity possible; but it is also what makes racism, religious and ideological warfare and homophobia possible.
"Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish." - andyet quoting Dawkins from The Selfish Gene.
Dawkins is simply wrong here, and what's more, appears to have forgotten the whole point of his book. We are born with the capacity for both selfishness and altruism.
The genes who teach their robot vehicles not to take morality seriously, but to take advantage of fools who do, will have a decisive advantage in the Darwinian competition.
Not necessarily - otherwise we would all be born psychopaths. Certainly a deceitful appearance of being cooperative and honest (let's say "nice" for convenience) is one possible strategy - but the more common it becomes, the more pressure there is to evolve ways of distinguishing genuine from false niceness, and for the "nice" to cooperate with each other for mutual protection against the "nasties". Simulations show that pockets of "niceness" can survive and grow in a largely "nasty" population under a wide range of conditions - provided the "nice" are not suckers - they do not follow idiot strategies like "turn the other cheek" - unconditional altruism.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 11:18 AM
Thanks for # 491, andyet - I hadn't known that Tom Wolfe's flakiness had reached such extreme degeneration. (sigh)
Take heart in that yours surpasses even that!
Posted by: Sastra | August 18, 2009 11:18 AM
andyet #491 wrote:
No, I have read the book: the "fixed objectivity" is the whims of the Party. As you've noted, they've essentially made themselves God. If this is subjectivity, then so is theism.
I suppose I can't complain about the lengths of your posts, since there's only one of you and so many of us. It does make it hard to address, though.
The first thing I want to emphasize is that you've apparently confused the form of science-based secular humanism popular on this blog with an extreme form of postmodernism. This philosophy evolved in rebellion against the principles of the Enlightenment. It took the basic attitude of knowing-things-by-faith and the need for absolute certainty found in religion and combined it with philosophical skepticism to form a sort of quasi-religion where anything goes, if you believe in it enough, and there are all sorts of "valid ways of knowing" because everything is equally true -- and therefore equally false.
Self-refuting nonsense, of course. As we atheists point out, over and over, to our critics on the left (and, eventually, the right).
So your critique isn't going after us. O'Brien and Tom Wolfe's "Ultimate Skepticism" actually sound like many of the New Agers I've argued with. Cosmic Consciousness, quantum flapdoodle, 'The Secret' and so forth. They're not religious -- because they don't like dogma -- but they're spiritual -- because they don't like atheistic naturalistic materialism either.
Our response to Ultimate Skepticism and solipsism is to jettison the theistic-infused need for Absolute Certainty, recognize and accept our human fallibility and limitations, and then deal with working theories and reasonable assumptions. It's not all or nothing: perfection or chaos.
From our perspective, you and the pomos are in the same basic epistemic category: when push comes to shove and there's something about science you don't like, you both begin to insist that "everything we know is a matter of faith" and it's all about what or Who you choose to believe, and then follow. There's no hope of consensus through rational discussion. Science won't show us the universe we want, so it must be flawed and inadequate.
The major difference between you is that the traditional theists see themselves as the only folks with the Special Way of Knowing a Truth Beyond Science -- because they're more humble than everyone else -- and the liberal theists universalize it so that Everyone is Special -- because they're more open-minded than everyone else.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 11:25 AM
Knockgoats knocks it out of the park by revealing his altruism by rebutting Andyet's assertions deftly and without snark. You're becoming more Sastra-like with each passing day.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 18, 2009 11:34 AM
E.v. #506:
Yes, they are quite amazing to watch, aren't they. Maybe one day I will get over my need to snark at people and be more like them. Until then, I'm having fun!
Seriously, good on ya two.
Posted by: Sastra | August 18, 2009 11:38 AM
andyet #493 wrote:
As Knockgoats points out, this is the Naturalistic Fallacy. You can't get an 'ought' from any 'is' -- even theism has to import its "you ought to obey the Creator" as a choice (sometimes forced). All moral systems eventually come down to choice.
What science helps to provide us with are more accurate facts to use as a background for our choices -- such as the fact that all humans belong to the same evolutionary family. Many moral disagreements aren't so much about the basic morals themselves, but about the facts of the matter. And no system is better at creating "facts" out of thin air, than religion.
I do think it's rather rich that someone who is espousing a world view which apparently sees this life on earth as a necessary means for God to separate the eternally Saved from the eternally Damned, is interpreting this view as an example of a mandate to treat all human beings with respect. There's something about dividing people into groups of "love God" and "hate God" which seems to lend itself to inspiring earthly systems of inequality.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 11:40 AM
E.V.,
Thanks - especially for the (very flattering) Sastra comparison! Yes, I'm making an effort to cut back the snark and the insults, to cases where nothing else will do ;-)
Posted by: Sastra | August 18, 2009 11:47 AM
Yes, thanks for the kind words. Mostly I don't snark because I'm bad at it, and can't be as funny as I'd like. Plus I'm too aware that I can too easily get my head handed back to me. Experience has made me cautious.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 12:04 PM
I have saved many clear headed responses from posters here for my own continuing education. Sastra literally fills 60% of the documents. Knock & SC have a place as well as David Marjanović, (I apologize if anyone feels slighted that I left off their name in this post. If it was a really well reasoned post - you're probably in there)
"Funny as I'd Like", there's a book there somewhere.(hint, hint)
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 12:13 PM
Thank you Ryan. I'll sincerely return the compliment. Now before this devolves into the treacleist of mutual admiration societies, who do I have to fuck to get a good troll around here?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | August 18, 2009 12:22 PM
Andyet, how can any theist be moral? How is someone that behaves only when they think they are being watched in the slightest bit moral?
Posted by: JeffreyD | August 18, 2009 12:24 PM
Knockgoats at #509 - No! No! Please no! I look to you for useful and clever snarks and insults. Please do not disappoint me and leave my life bereft and barren! (smile)
I also save a lot of posts from this blog. Some I share with family and friends and some I just review in odd moments of free time. I will not name names as I am sure I will forget someone and give offense.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 12:29 PM
andyet:
I recommend both Jonathan Haidt's examination of the empirical basis for morality and Paul Zak's reasearch into the role of Oxytocin as the brain basis for empathy.
They both supply evidence of the materialistic basis for morality that you keep insisting isn't there.
I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it is for you to take the greedy reductionist stance while discussing the naturalistic position (which none of your correspondents holds) when you can't even hint at the mechanism by which a dualistic mind could operate, nor can you answer the repeated requests to demonstrate how meaning is an intrinsic property (something about a "mote and a beam"...).
Dawkins was writing The Selfish Gene from the point of view of an evolutionary biologist. It's not the final word on sociobiology, neuroeconomics and psychology.
Posted by: heliobates | August 18, 2009 12:29 PM
andyet:
I recommend both Jonathan Haidt's examination of the empirical basis for morality and Paul Zak's reasearch into the role of Oxytocin as the brain basis for empathy.
They both supply evidence of the materialistic basis for morality that you keep insisting isn't there.
I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it is for you to take the greedy reductionist stance while discussing the naturalistic position (which none of your correspondents holds) when you can't even hint at the mechanism by which a dualistic mind could operate, nor can you answer the repeated requests to demonstrate how meaning is an intrinsic property (something about a "mote and a beam"...).
Dawkins was writing The Selfish Gene from the point of view of an evolutionary biologist. It's not the final word on sociobiology, neuroeconomics and psychology.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 18, 2009 12:31 PM
That's because it's a fundamental axiom. Just as in math: Equalities are equal. Inequalities are unequal. No division by zero. The sides of an equation must balance. Quantities have particular meaning and properties. No contradictions allowed.
Falsifiability is another way of stating that a theory must be something that can be contradicted by empirical reality, and has not yet been contradicted by empirical reality. No matter how you shift the goalposts and throw out false equivalence, empirical reality is what every scientific claim rests on, and must be in accord with.
Anything else leads to utter incoherence.
And I must say, Tom Wolfe was indeed utterly incoherent. Michael Behe, not a religiosi? Ha! Darwin the "Messiah"? Ha! His physics skeptics sound like crackpots, and if they are anything like Berlinski or Behe, they are indeed crackpots -- although I should not neglect the possibility that they are being quote-mined. I don't know who his "prominent California geologist" was, but she really sounds like she was having some sort of psychological breakdown.
Sad. Tom Wolfe finds that scientists are human, capable of self-delusion, dishonesty, and psychological frailty -- and concludes that the scientific method doesn't work. No doubt while typing away on a computer and otherwise enjoying the luxuries of a science-based technological society, the disingenuous hypocrite that he is.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 12:39 PM
Dawkins was writing The Selfish Gene from the point of view of an evolutionary biologist. It's not the final word on sociobiology, neuroeconomics and psychology. - heliobates
Indeed - much of the research I was waving towards had not been done in 1976, when Selfish Gene came out, and most of it is not in Dawkins' main areas of expertise. Andyet@493 is pointing to topics of real interest (unlike his babbling about existential nihilism), but is wrongly assuming that there is no relevant work showing how cooperation and altruism beyond close kin could arise and persist through entirely naturalistic processes. (I can give specific references if required, although I'm not right up to date.)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 12:48 PM
Owlmirror @ # 457: I don't know who his "prominent California geologist" was, but she really sounds like she was having some sort of psychological breakdown.
Yeah - "... balanced on bubbles ..." for crysake.
Her mind was probably overcome by the stresses of contemplating all those turtles, all the way down!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 18, 2009 12:53 PM
Oopses - that Owlmirror quote came from # 517, which I somehow managed to subtract 60 from. Five dozen apologies, Owlmirror!
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 18, 2009 1:40 PM
E.V. #512:
Sorry. I already have a man in my life. And thanks, but andyet's apparent fawning over the people around here has me just the slightest bit disgusted for the time being.
Posted by: E.V. | August 18, 2009 1:45 PM
*laughs uproariously*
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 18, 2009 2:33 PM
A report on the Santa Fe Institute conference andyet@491 quotes Tom Wolfe on is available at:
ON LIMITS
I've only skimmed it, but there appears to be nothing remotely justifying Wolfe's wamblings about the downfall of "Darwinism", relativity, and science in general. Andyet, it's unwise to trust someone like Wolfe, who knows practically nothing about science but likes making grand pronouncements, to report accurately on a (highly unusual and "edgy") conference, at which he was not even present. Did you bother to look for the report I link to (it took me all of 5 minutes to find it)? I'll bet not. It is true that a major theme in 20th century science (and even more in mathematics) has indeed been the limits to our knowledge - but these have had nothing to do with our evolved nature and limited brains as Wolfe supposes, but derive from fundamental physics, and mathematical logic. We are not limited by the capacity of the evolved human brain, because of our social nature, and our use of external symbol systems and information processors. You might also have had your suspicions raised by Wolfe's "quotes" from unnamed "Ultimately Skeptical young physicists". Yeah, right. We were getting similar guff from John Horgan, about "ironic physics", beyond empirical test, shortly before the most important cosmological discovery for decades, apparent cosmic acceleration. Howard Hayden, who is apparently "greatly admired" by these "Ultimately Skeptical young physicists" is an emeritus professor of physics who appears to be an all-purpose contrarian. He's on the (3-person) editorial board of a journal called Galilean electrodynamics, which (most unusually) does not list its contents issue-by-issue, and is described as "devoted to publishing high quality scientific papers, refereed by professional scientists, that are critical of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang theory and other establishment doctrines."; and he is also a climate change and ozone hole denialist. IOW, he's a crank. (That doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about all these things, although I'd bet very heavily that he is; it does mean Wolfe's description of him as having "many admirers" among young physicists is complete hooey.)
Incidentally, Owlmirror@517, falsifiability isn't an axiom (because it isn't a statement), but a proposed methodological principle, an imperative ("Formulate your hypotheses to be falsifiable."). As such, it is assessed by how well it works. This doesn't affect your point, except to strengthen it.
Posted by: Owlmirror | August 18, 2009 10:35 PM
(*thinks carefully*)
Yet doesn't falsifiability -- as a principle, then, -- derive from what might be called scientific axioms?
1) Scientific claims should not contradict reality.
2) Scientific claims arise from observation of the evidence.
3) If a scientific claim is an incorrect interpretation of the evidence, and its incorrectness is demonstrated by some additional observation, it should be rejected as false.
4) If there is no observation that can potentially correct a claim, that claim is not scientific.
Hm. I'm not sure that's quite it.
But at least I'm not relying on some metaphorical sub-real-yet-super-real dolphin-like-only-not-really God for epistemological support.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 18, 2009 11:27 PM
Owlmirror #524:
You're right; it isn't. There are two very specific reasons why:
Those two violate the methodological naturalism of the scientific method by confusing "is" and "ought" in observations. Scientific claims are merely observations based on evidence. There is no "should" about it. Also, #3 is a form of special pleading; you're asking to know what interpretation of an observation is correct so you can find the false claims.
There is no way to know which scientific claims are true (and therefore which ones may be discarded) based merely on a single piece of new evidence. For that, you would need to have "special access" to knowledge about the events (and how they should be interpreted), and we don't have that at all. Instead, we must rely on the sum of all observations to tell us what is not possible without need for interpretation. That means being careful about what the evidence tells us and what it does not.
In short, science does not tell us what is so much as what is not. The point of formulating hypotheses is simply to drive new observation (or to further interrogate the available evidence); it does not matter whether the claims made are true as long as what is accepted as truth is based on observation - and most importantly that it does not contradict what is known to be untrue.
Maybe that will help you a bit.
We can all be thankful for that, can't we?
Posted by: Teliria | August 24, 2009 1:31 AM
Andyet... I am a curious... are you actually reading peoples responses to you? It really does seem like you paste your treatise, people point out fallacies/assumptions/weaknesses, you ignore them and paste more 'stuff', seemingly pretending that your points were not shown to be fallacious/assumptive/weak.
Posted by: Stanton | August 24, 2009 8:26 PM
Don't mind the troll, too much, Teliria: the beams lodged in his own eyes that he ignores allow him to magically detect the imaginary dust motes in everyone else's eyes with laser-surgical precision.Posted by: Andrew-the anarchist | August 25, 2009 5:13 PM
This thread has become repetative with people talking past each other. I would just say:-it is my understanding that nihilism(an extreme form of anarchism) was a response to conditions in Russia in the late 19th century which,for the workers were such that anything following the destruction of the state would be an improvement.From the vantage of the early 21st century we can say that that was a mistaken view point.Further with regard to the bible, Tom Paine demonstrated the fallicies in that document in The Age of Reason, studies since then just confirms his work. The New Testement is man made and dates to 200-400CE, Christian theology has nothing to do with Jesus-see AD 381 and The closing of the Western mind by Charles Freeman.