atheists (Page 2)

orkanen: No, Geoff. What she means is that truths are lies and lies are truths. It's how one thinks when following the Bahai religion, according to every single Bahai follower I have encountered. This is how she will only be embarrassed if she told the truth.

Zanjan: Geoff, are you here to convince you're an atheist, or to convert me to atheism?

Ork, we know what you're here for.

Geoff: Why do you ask? Are you starting to question the sense in your faith?

To be honest, neither - If you want to believe that it is god and not your conscience that tells you when something is right and something is wrong, then so be it. If you choose to refrain from doing evil for fear of eternal punishment, or do good in hope of heavenly reward; then go for it.

Since you live in a democracy then those like me who prefer to use logic and reason, and who and use those two tools to define right from wrong. And who don't then commit acts that are wrong simply because it's a dick thing to do; would prefer it if the believers would make sure that they were acting their own conscience when voting - rather than what they'd been told.

If I can make one believer question their dogma, not their faith mark you; their dogma - then I will be happy.

Zanjan: Geoff, do you refrain from doing evil? What made you think some things are wrong to do?

Do you obey the laws of the land because the government told you to do it, or because you're afraid to pay a big fine and go to jail, maybe lose your job etc?

How did you get into voting? Did someone pressure you to do it? How do you feel about people who don't vote? Does your vote change any law?

"If I can make one believer question their dogma, not their faith mark you; their dogma - then I will be happy."

What's in it for you? Apparently, you haven't been very successful to date, since you've admitted your'e not happy yet.

CoIin: Um, hi guys. I don't mean to be argumentative, but certain comments here are simply not true.

"I also know that should I ever feel the need, I could repeat the experiments carried out myself." - Geoff

"Science is testable, meaning others can repeat those same experiments and get the same results." - Zanjan

Do you guys have a particle accelerator at home? Or a Hubble telescope? I only have a chemistry set


"If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it out again. Without hype, Lot's salt-heap ho would never be thought of again. Without science, the Earth still goes around the sun and someday someone will find a way to prove that again."

--Penn Jillette

With all due respect to Ms/Mr (?) Jillette, his remarks would never pass philosophical muster, and are quite frankly, extremely naive. I think what he's trying to say is that without science, reality would still do what it does. Well, so what? How does this redound to the credit of science?

"It would still [all] be true"? You mean all the parts of science that are true would still be true? What about the parts that are/were in error?

And why not "Without religion, the Earth still goes around the sun"

Don't hit me, please . I'm just trying to be objective while I fear your own objectivity is being held hostage to emotion.

Geoff: What's in it for me? I get to live in a world where dogmatic views have less and less impact on democratic systems.

Do I refrain from doing wrong (I will use the word 'wrong' rather than 'evil' which has too many connotations of absolutism), yes, I do refrain doing what I know to be wrong. I try to do what I can to help my fellow humans whenever and wherever I can. Not because I am scared of hell or hoping for paradise, but because it is what I would hope all other people on this planet would do, and if I don't start with myself how I can have any hope for the future my children will grow up into?

My sense of right and wrong is based on social pressures, but then has been modified by logical deduction; the infamous "Path of least harm".

And yes, votes matter. If you have any delusions that they don't - why do people fight, kill and die for them?

Zanjan: One day, Colin, the earth will be swallowed by the sun, then the truth of earth orbiting it will be proven wrong.

CoIin: Tomorrow being Wednesday does not negate the truth of today being Tuesday

Geoff: Penn (and it's a He, Mr Jilette is a world famous stage magician, and debunker of fraud much like Derren Brown and PT Barnum), was pointing out that what science learns is from studying the universe around us, not just making stuff up - if religion were not made up; all religion around the world talking of the "one true god" would be all the same, with the same myths and the same laws.

//Edit - inclusion of the word "religion" to remove ambiguity in my post.

CoIin: My sympathies lie (by and large) on your side, Geoff, but Mr Jillette's comments are simply untenable.

Geoff: I would say it was a simplified sound bite; just as "survival of the fittest" does little justice to the magnificence of the natural world, or "do as you would be done by" does little justice to the wonderful work of literature that is the bible - when taken in context they do tend to sum it up.

//Edit - missed two whole words, it is obviously time for my bed and I to become reacquainted.

Zanjan: " where dogmatic views have less and less impact on democratic systems."

What makes you think all religious people are interested in the democratic systems existing in the world today? Have those not proven to be totally dysfunctional dens of corruption? Why would a truly religious person want to roll around in that snake pit?

I, amongst many people don't fight, kill and die for votes. We're not animals. So, ask the ones who do. Are they atheists too?

The "infamous path of least harm"................harm to whom? You? Do you feel you're able to see all kinds of harm, all people connected to those involved, and all harmful influences resounding for future generations?

Geoff: So, people in Ireland voting to deny women life saving operations because some famously celibate old men in Rome tell them that its wrong is not religious dogma interfering in democracy?

People around the world have fought oppression and tyranny to have a say in how their countries are run. It's nice that people like you in your safe former British colony with all of the freedoms and protective laws that you have took the time to notice.

If you don't stand up for what is right, then you are no better than those who perpetrate wrong.

And since your knowledge of philosophy is obviously more tenuous than your grasp of logical deduction, I shall simply say goodnight. Since I am not a teacher of ethics; perhaps your local library would have something. Possibly in big print with pictures of animals.

orkanen: They're not celibate, the jokes are true.

Zanjan: People in Ireland voting........is that interfering in democracy? Is this a civil election? I'd say that government is dysfunctional........as I've said before. By the way, what you vote for isn't the definition of democracy.

As for our "British Colony" as you call it, Geoff - heads up - we had more rights and freedoms before the government got involved.

I'm not concerned with how any country is run. I'm concerned about people who've been unnecessarily deprived of their birthright to a well-rounded education and the essentials to sustain life. I'm concerned for their sorrow and want to see their happiness. Every moment I breathe I uphold justice without a fee - screaming, whining, complaining or money doesn't achieve that.

The people in my Faith don't fight against others - they provide them with what they need. Some of them are killed for it and some are punished by other methods; meanwhile, none are supported by civilian government. Still, nothing has changed the way we feel or prevented us from successfully helping the needy.

Zanjan: So far, out of all the posters, there are what - 2 admitted atheists? Well, this is the religious department - why would we expect them to roam here? Perhaps some are shy.

Maybe try posting this question in another category - perhaps science, lifestyle or Off Topic? Where are their normal haunts?

CoIin: Um, I'm just reflecting a little more on Mr Jillette's remarks, not with the intention of deriding him or anyone else, but rather just as an exercise in fairness and critical thinking., and I do believe it's important for us to be as unbiased as possible in these matters. Here's what he said again:-


"If every trace of any single religion were wiped out again and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it out again. Without hype, Lot's salt-heap ho would never be thought of again. Without science, the Earth still goes around the sun and someday someone will find a way to prove that again."


Apart from the difficulties I pointed out earlier, it seems to me that Mr Jillette's comments are problematic in all kinds of ways.

He's suggesting a kind of thought experiment in which all/some human knowledge or memory is wiped out, the exact details of which needn't concern us too much. He then suggests that all scientific knowledge which we now possess would be rediscovered. He's assuming firstly that ALL the scientific knowledge we now possess is "true", which is, of course, preposterous, and secondly that there is one and only one way of systematizing and organizing our experience of natural phenomena, i.e. our science is the only science, and this assumption is also philosophically very problematic.

As an over-simplified example consider changing all positives in science to negatives and vice versa - protons now carry a negative charge and electrons a positive charge, etc, etc. The "new system" would be empirically adequate to precisely the same degree as our current system.

Again, this needn't concern us too much either. Instead I'd rather just make a more mundane observation...

Scientific knowledge tends to take the form of the general and the theoretical; it detects regularities and patterns in nature. The Earth revolving around the Sun, for example, or the laws of thermodynamics, copper conducting electricity, or Halley's Comet's 76-year cycle. If we miss one or two, or a million instances, fear not, it'll happen again. THIS IS WHY THEY CAN BE REDISCOVERED.

On the other hand, historical or even "fictitious-historical" events are of the "one-time-only" variety. If we lose all evidence of our history - the JFK assassination, the Battle of Waterloo, life of Jesus, life of Robin Hood, Lot's salt heap, the 9-11 attacks, etc, etc - then obviously this knowledge is gone for good, WHETHER SAID EVENTS ACTUALLY HAPPENED OR NOT.

Such a permanent loss is not necessarily symptomatic of the mendacity of the knowledge, as Mr Jillette is clearly implying. The same surely applies to these minority areas of science which do not deal with the general, but with the particular and one-time-only events - the meteor impact which (purportedly) caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, say.

To paraphrase Mr Jillette, "If every trace of our knowledge of the Aztec civilization was wiped out and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again."

I submit it would never be created at all. And why should we be surprised?

If all the evidence of ANYTHING, real or imaginary, is erased, how on earth could we ever know about it? The reason we'd still discover that the Earth revolves around the Sun is that IT CONTINUES TO DO SO!


The above is not intended to advertise any conviction of mine in Lot's unfortunate saline fate, but rather to expose what I believe to be an intuitively-beguiling, but wholly inappropriate analogy.

Geoff: tut tut Colin.

You of all people should know that science is NOT a body of established fact, but a means by which hypotheses are tested and rejected.

Penn's comment boils down to nothing more than pointing out that the scientific method of determining truth from evidence would arise again and those truths it has discovered would be discovered once again. Whereas religion is not based on anything but personal opinion.

You are nit picking on his wording because he chose those words for popular consumption, "sound bite" as I said. The focus was on clarity of his intent, rather than absolute fact.

Zanjan: "If every trace of any single religion were wiped out again and nothing was passed on........"

" If all of science were wiped out......."

Absurd hypothesis plus an inequitable comparison -> a single = a single, not a multiple.

Wipe out one science to make it fair. Take the science of "Probability"; its recent discovery was that the longer a cow has been lying down, the more likely that cow will soon stand up, but once a cow stands up, you cannot easily predict how soon that cow will lie down again.

Or more interestingly, the science of "Bionomy" (combined research of biology and astronomy), which recently discovered that lost dung beetles can find their way home by using the Milky Way.

Back to the hypothesis:

While primitive religions have disappeared into antiquity, they've always left truths to posterity. Every religion of God has collected these and peeled off the crust of embellishments and misunderstandings that had collected over the centuries. Bright and shiny once again, these truths are always passed forward. The ball keeps rolling. This will remain a true and ongoing fact as long as mankind exists.

Of course, that new religion can't be identical to the former - it's dimensions have expanded! You see, as mankind develops a greater capacity to absorb knowledge, more truths are passed on; ergo, the bigger the ball, the more the social customs of religion must change. A refined man doesn't need rudimentary religion.

" the JFK assassination, the Battle of Waterloo, life of Jesus, life of Robin Hood, Lot's salt heap, the 9-11 attacks"

The same thing happens again with names changed. If you think the comet returning is identical to the comet that left, think again....yet it's still a comet.

Colin - apparently, Lot had a very fortunate experience - he didn't need that bitch; she gave no sugar.

deuce916: I wonder why so many people aren't 100% sure?

orkanen: Being 100% sure there are no gods is asserting a positive. While it's easy to show that the gods of religions available today are false, this doesn't rule out the possibility, infinitesimal it may be, that even one might exist.

Zanjan: We call that a game of chance; most people love to play it.

May I offer you a pretty plate of sliced blowfish, Ork?

orkanen: Thanks for the offer. Blowfish is an overrated experience though. Got fermented trout here, I prefer eating that. Can I offer you some?

CoIin: Pass the fugu over, guys

CoIin: A little more on Mr Jillette's remarks. I'm honestly not trying to be annoying or anything . I'm just trying to be as objective as possible, especially when scientific claims are involved. I personally don't hold out much hope for rationality in religion, and it's not even clear that religion is MEANT to be rational, but science most certainly is.

Therefore I do believe that we should try to hold ourselves to the highest possible standards of rationality, even if that necessitates the unpleasant task of pointing out errors in other people's comments. I would expect them to extend the same courtesy and integrity to myself if or when I get muddled, as we all do sooner or later, preferably without a public humiliation thrown in to the deal.


"Without science, the Earth still goes around the sun and someday someone will find a way to prove that again." - Penn Jillette


I've seen this kind of comment many-a-time here in Wireclub from the well-meaning science fan, usually offered as if science somehow should be given credit for REALITY , and that this is somehow "The Bottom Line" - the religious nuts can delude themselves and the airy-fairy philosophers can talk their recondite shite ( ) - but science is, um, "Truth", and we have science to thank for it.

Get to the point, dammit!!

Oops, well, the point is that the science fan can't seem to make up his mind what kind of universe he lives in; he seems to want a finger in both the Newtonian as well as the Einsteinian pie. In a Newtonian universe of absolute space and motion, Mr Jillette's comment would make perfect sense - the Earth goes around the Sun AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF AN ABSOLUTE SPACE.

But we don't live in a Newtonian universe. There is no absolute space or absolute motion, at least if modern science is to be believed. So what possible sense does it make for us to continue asserting that "the Earth revolves around the Sun"?

This is a question I've pondered for some time. It seems purely a matter of convention. It makes sense for US to picture it this way. It's a question of pragmatics, not absolutes, much as we speak of the mosquito buzzing around our head.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it, so here's me ole mucker Stephen Hawking to explain it...



"A famous example of different pictures of reality is the model introduced around A.D. 150 by Ptolemy (ca. 85–ca. 165) to describe the motion of the celestial bodies. Ptolemy published his work in a treatise explaining reasons for thinking that the earth is spherical, motionless, positioned at the center of the universe, and negligibly small in comparison to the distance of the heavens.

This model seemed natural because we don't feel the earth under our feet moving (except in earthquakes or moments of passion). Ptolemy's model of the cosmos was adopted by the Catholic Church and held as official doctrine for fourteen hundred years. It was not until 1543 that an alternative model was put forward by Copernicus. So which is real? Although it is not uncommon for people to say Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe. The real advantage of the Copernican system is that the mathematics is much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest."

http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2017262,00.html