1. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146373 by the_assayer on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 am

I'm afraid this is really bad news for atheism. (assuming the tests can be considered conclusive)

Believerism as a life-style choice still appears to be more attractive than atheism where we have to eschew superstition and rely on our own efforts and understanding to give us actual solutions to problems.

This has parallels with the "nerds are unhappy and uncool" tripe. The general population may always be turned away from such positions which are tougher to hold and practise. Lets face it, skepticism is tough but superstition is easy and gives better results- less worries!

You'd have to be dumb(not) to take that!

2. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145708 by the_assayer on March 18, 2008 at 3:01 am

Aren't these so called rebuttals gettting more paranoid by the day?

Now atheists are not just immoral they can't feel, they can't cry, they can't empathize, they have no reason to smile, they are just burning inside because they didn't think of taking that Damn!! net.

I wouldn't get so depressed over this. Even though its a bit disheartening to see so much prejudice prevalant in the beleiver camp, its a good sign that all arguments for God and religion has now turned into scare-mongering. But as with all social movements, these prejudices will die away as more people get to interact with other religious(different) or non-religious people and get to read on atheism/skepticism outside their claustrophobic-religious circles. It should only be temporary thing- atleast I hope so!

3. Fleabytes

Comment #140253 by the_assayer on March 7, 2008 at 4:34 am

:D.... And still others just sit and do nothing.

4. Fleabytes

Comment #140248 by the_assayer on March 7, 2008 at 4:25 am

I don't know If I should be posting my critique of theistic cosmological fine-tuning on this thread, but since it has been invoked a few times here, I'll use that as my excuse.

As I understand the argument from fine-tuning goes like this:

The values of certain physical constants of our universe have to be extremely fine-tuned to their current values failing which it would be impossible for "intelligent beings" to have come into existance. This fine-tuning can be done only by an Intelligent Desinger.

Doesn't it by now sound self-contradictory?



If Intelligent beings(IBs) are defined using our current understanding of life then God can not be the cause for fine-tuning because the premise of the argument asserts that fine-tuning is necessary for IBs to arise and God is not a product of fine-tuning. If a new definition of IB is used, that which includes even entities like Gods, then it is insofar unclear and impossible to argue that universes tuned differenlty can not have IBs as per this new meaning.


Thoughts?

5. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124349 by the_assayer on February 9, 2008 at 6:38 am

BAEOZ, I agree.

Infact, everytime we think of someone we love and giggle/smile to ourself, we are actively hallucinating. I guess its only that feeble sense of the real world existing in the background that helps us discern between what we saw and what we wanted to see.

6. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124344 by the_assayer on February 9, 2008 at 6:02 am

BAEOZ,

I'm not offended, and I don't intend to offend either you or Kurdashovel.

I'm not trying to dismiss Kardashovel by calling him insane. But then I'm not even sure if hallucinating needs to be treated as a form of insanity. I just thought it important to suggest to him that he see a psychiatrist for good measure.

7. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124338 by the_assayer on February 9, 2008 at 5:36 am

Kurdashovel,

Personal testimonials are not dependable for 3 main very reasonable reasons-
1. No real way of knowing if the person is lying. Often people may end up lying for reasons that are very hard to guess. So statements like "what would he/she gain from lying, therefore he/she should be telling the truth" can turn out to be spectacularly wrong sometimes.

2. No way of knowing if the person has given an accurate account of what happpened to him/her. People who say they witnessed the Loch Ness monster often base their claims on skewy data and show heavy selection bias. Another example is where priming people about ghosts can make them interpret random nioses as being caused by ghosts.

3. In your case schizophrenia or mild auditory hallucinations have not been ruled out. Have you been to a psychiatrist? My grandmother towards the end of her life had frequent auditory hallucinations and once even talked about god speaking to her. Ofcourse hers was a case of age induced dementia.


I don't know what its like to be hearing voices and I can understand why you think it just has to be real. Maybe it is real. Or Maybe you are just hallucinating.

May I suggest a test?

Here are two things you could try out.

1. If God is really speaking to you and it is not you confusing your thoughts for another entity then God should know things that you would not know. And since God is omniscient, he must know everything. So you may ask him what my grandmother's(father's side) name is. If you can give me the correct answer without cheating then I will be impressed.

2. You could also try taking anti-hallucinatory drugs and see if this God-person will continue to talk to you.

Ofcourse there are more tests you could try out, but I think these two should give us a more or less definitive answer.

8. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121662 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Death- tis but a scratch!

9. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121652 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:15 pm

One of my own ways of rationalising about death is to see it as "not an even in my life". If you think about it, the loss of consciousness is not gonna be a consciously percieved event. Just like how we don't recall or recognize the instant we drift on into sleep. We lose consciousness and we can't be conscious to know that we have lost it.

10. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121650 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm

dlitt, Isn't it ironic that even atheists like us have to come up with some not so rational justifications for death? The Mark Twain quote is cute, but it has its holes. The state of not being alive yet and the state of being dead after having lived is not the same. Sure objectively it is the same. We become cosmic dust, just like how we were before we were conceived. But death is not a problem for the universe, it is so only for us, those who are alive at the moment. Sure, those who love us will mourn our death but that they can forget about with time and move on makes it look less dramatic. Only for the person who is dying does it appear that he has not much time left to live as himself.

11. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121641 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 9:43 pm

hes2@usa you can have a wholesome and peaceful life without God. Look at ME. I'm happy. :D



The problem with pascals wager,as Richard Carrier points out, is that there are infinitely many. A wager is given out only when there is not sufficient evidence to support the proposed claim. So if we can't decide on God's existance, the question of what happens after death is still open to new possibilities.

Maybe we are all living in a dream and after death we wake up in another dream. Maybe thats the real nature of things. Now lets see if we can construct a wager on this notion:- Unless you believe that you are living in a dream and put complete faith in it you will never wake up from your dream into the "real" world, otherwise you will continue to be trapped in this space of different dream-worlds forever.

I hope you get the point. Given nobody can agree on what is the ultimate nature of reality. We can imagine infinitely many (in principle) possibilities for what might happen after death. And, for each of these possibilities we can have atleast one wager to offer.

And it is easy to make mutually exclusive wagers. Like that of religions of the present. If you are a muslim, you have to deny Jesus. You can't opt for both the wagers.

So on the whole wagers don't make life any easier.

12. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121623 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I had posted this yesterday on another thread. Me thinks its relevent to this one now.

Theists often fail to distinguish between the question of "Could God have created the universe?" from "Did God create the universe?"(assuming he exists) and failing to do so can mean you can end up with very different conclusions. COnsider the following-

Could tiny invisible refrigerators floating in the sky(TIRFITS for short) produce hail stones?
The answer to this question is "probably yes". But are TIRFITS the actual reason behind hail storms?

One boring creationist/ID mantra is "Only an intelligent being could have made this". If we didn't already have a good understanding of weather phenomena like that of hail storms, I too could make a similar claim "Only TIRFITS could explain how hail stones are produced."

I can ask- "Given our lack of a solution which is much more likely "TIRFITS" exist or they don't? "

All the while, happily ignoring that TIRFITS are not the only possibilities to be considered and that we don't know what would qualify as TIRFITS if we saw them.

13. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121616 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 8:26 pm

hes2@usa knows just enough science to know that its all bunk!

Being a creationist is so easy. Talk trash, read nothing, talk some more trash.... on and on...


Let the guy revel in the certainity of his conclusions. Please don't ruin it for him.

14. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121444 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:09 pm

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow,"

I like it how this sounds like they are on the women's side, fighting against an oppressive force. And also note that even a patient is not to bare her arms if she is a practising muslim.

STUPID!

15. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121432 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 11:48 am

KArdashovel are you darwin2 from "Richard Dawkin's Interview" thread? I get that feeling of deja vu, you see.

16. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #121373 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:11 am

Pope says some science can make us look silly!

17. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121354 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

Theists often fail to distinguish between the question of "Could God have created the universe?" from "Did God create the universe?" and failing to do so can mean you can end up with very different conclusions. COnsider the following-

Could tiny invisible refrigerators floating in the sky(TIRFITS for short) produce hail stones?
The answer to this question is "probably yes". But are TIRFITS the actual reason behind hail storms?

One boring creationist/ID mantra is "Only an intelligent being could have made this". If we didn't already have a good understanding of weather phenomena like that of hail storms, I too could make a similar claim "Only TIRFITS could explain how hail stones are produced."

I can ask- "Given our lack of a solution which is much more likely "TIRFITS" exist or they don't? "

All the while, they happily ignore that TIRFITS are not the only possibilities to be considered and that we don't know what would qualify as TIRFITS if we saw them.

18. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121308 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 8:04 am

:D ....Frankus thinks what I did was of value.
Yay!

*Blushes* :D THanks! MAN!!! You're the best!

19. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121293 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:42 am

TonyA. Another example would be "Good prayer always works".

First we need to know what would qualify something as "Good prayer". If we agree on certain external signs like facial expressions of deep devotion as a sign of Good Prayer, then we can move on the stage of testing if Good prayer does work. But most believers ratinalise negetive results to mean that they were NOT praying hard enough. Inother words, their claim about prayer stays untested(to us) yet they creatively interpret positve results to be caused by Good prayers and negative results to be caused by bad prayers, all the while ignoring that they have not defined what would qualify as a Good prayer. The judgement that a particular prayer is good or bad is made based on the results.

20. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121289 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:27 am

If "YOU" are reading this, my previous post was addressed to YOU!!! So you may reply YOU.

21. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121287 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:18 am

The other day my mother came back from her weekly shopping and told me about how she had accidently left her hand-bag inside the auto-rickshaw before going to the store(I hope you know what that is)but thanks to God she spotted the same Auto rickshaw some 20 mins later in another spot and got her bag back. Her comment- "Certain things are not meant to be lost. God wants you to have it and it will come back to you no matter what."


I asked her if she would know a that-which-is-not meant-to-be-lost if she saw one. I asked her "Ma! Did you know that you would get it back prior to you getting it back?" To which she replied, "Why do you always pick on me? Leave me alone". :D

On a serious note. Isn't that the problem with all the supernatural nonsense? They don't really provide new knowledge that is of any consequence.

The Claim- "Our universe was created by a godly-act". What would qualify something as a Godly-act? If we can answer that question without merely mirroring what we already know about our universe, then we would be providing/creating new knowledge that is useful.

I realise this is just a different way of stating the principle of falsifiability. All testable hypotheses give us a clue about 'what' in the real world would fit the meaning implied by the words used in framing the hypothesis. That way Homeopathic doctors would know what a vibration is when it bites them on their collective butt and would be adding new and important knowledge to the world.

22. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121247 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 6:00 am

MPhil- I guess thats the best answer we can give, given our limitations both known and unknown.

23. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121242 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:57 am

Steve- Well it shouldn't be tough to think of reasons why it would matter. But then I can see how such a question may be unanswerable as the question of 'Is our reality real?".

24. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121227 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:36 am

MPhil- I wonder what would happen if people in the future started living in virtual worlds more often than our real world. Assuming VR will be so real-life by then, wouldn't it become a serious problem for people then? How would they know which is real?

25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121216 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:20 am

"I did take a sneaky look at your "other comments", but decided to keep quiet 'cos it was looking like fun!" - Geoff.


Oh! It is Fun I tell you! Its a unique position for a debater to be in. I had intended it orginally for Kordashovel but righton had me thinking "Well a little dishonesty is not so bad, is it?".. :D.. On the whole I proved that I'm terrible at acting.

26. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121205 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:09 am

"People can be honest about what they think, but that does not necessarily make what they think true."- Steve Zara

How can you 'know' that your experience of watching your monitor and reading these words is real? I agree with your point. Just that I think there is a fundamental problem here. We use our senses to inform us about reality and then we conclude that our senses are not trustworthy. Which part of our world of experience is the false one? If I suddenly start seeing spots around the moon which no one else sees, should I conclude "inreality there are no spots, just that my eyes have a problem" or should I conclude "Inreality I've been seeing bad all this while(including others), now I can finally see the spots which were already there"?

27. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121198 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:00 am

Steve in case you didn't notice- I was only fooling around.

But to think that you fell for it is, well, flattering!... THanks.. :D

28. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121195 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 4:56 am

The problem with testimony is that it can be fabricated easily or is subject to all kinds of mis-interpretations. The Loch Ness monster as example of people seeing one thing and coming to the wrong conclusion about what they say. So ultimately people have to just have faith in the testimonial. But that isn't enough, is it?

Which is the more reasonable judgment:

1. You are being honest and there is a God. (based on just faith)

OR

2. You may be telling the truth but I can't decide in your favour unless I'm recieve much more conclusive evidence.

If I had continued on about Krishna and had acted better(sorry that it was poor satire), why should anyone trust your claim over mine? Moreover, even if they trust you to be honest, why should they think what you come to believe is actually true.


The reason for why atheists like us demand more evidence can be understood if you put yourself in our position and imagine someone(maybe your friend) claiming to have seen ghosts. Would you just say, "Oh he's an honest man, therefore ghosts exist", or would you say "Ok, I see that you may be telling the truth, but did you happen to take a photograph of the ghost. Do you have some "evidence"?"

29. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121139 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:46 am

To,

BAEOZ,righton,MPhill, Greyman and Kurdoshovel-

SORRY to have wasted your time. :D


If only I could lie with a straight face! Hmmmm... Must take acting lessons. :(

30. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121126 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:27 am

I'm a former atheist. You can read my earlier comments in RD.net if you want. And yes you have good reason to suspect it is JUST satire. Dumb me! I should have created another ID before I started posting comments again.

31. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121121 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:24 am

MPhill- Maybe my analogy was "textbook" like and probably I should have used a better analogy. What about a blind person with whole body paralysis(except for the part above his neck, lets say)? He can hear his friends speak and talk to them. Would he not have to trust the words of his friends and yet have no way of varifying things for himself?

32. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121113 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:17 am

Well Greyman, if you really and honestly have seen the pink unicorn then you are right. Man! I was so like you. Always eager to bring in "the pink unicorn" or "the celestial teapot" to win arguments with other opponents. The truth is, I was wrong. So Wrong!

33. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121110 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:13 am

God does exist. To ask- Can we touch/smell/fell/see him is a tricky question. Most of us think it term of moving around in space-time as a way to get from one experience to another. What if that is not enough?
I can't direct you to a place where God sits so that you can talk to him.

34. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121107 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:09 am

Your materialistic prejudices are showing through.

35. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121105 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:06 am

I understand your dilemma.

I am a colour blind person and when people tell me about something being a shade of green or blue I find it tough to understand what it means. But I have to trust them nonetheless. I guess that is what it is like with the God thing. You people have not experienced it and hence are skeptical like how I am about colours. I guess you'll have to trust me based on how honest an individual I am generally in life. But I'm hopeful that God will prove himself to you. If only you were open-minded enough to entertain thoughts about him and let yourself think in ways that you wouldn't otherwise have done.

36. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121100 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:58 am

Well I can't show it like how I may be able to show you the Taj Mahal. Its not something I know to be residing in some part of our universe. Its not like that. Like how we are aware of reality, we can be aware of it. I can't direct you to look in some direction and show you god.

37. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121094 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:48 am

Red is just a "thought"?

You say- "it's a wave of light with a certain frequency, your brain evolved to distinguish it in a certain way we now name red"-

And this is not a thought? Physical reality percieved in qualia is real but qualia is not?

Well the meta quality is something I know like how I know "red". If your how's-a-ma-gotcha is real and you've seen it, then you should kinda understand what I mean by "meta" when I talk about God.

38. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121090 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:33 am

Thats the problem. The evidence for God is not like evidence for "the earth being round". You need physical evidence to prove physical claim. But God is not like that. God has this meta quality to it. Trying to describe it to you would be like describing "red" to a blind person. You will get the evidence. Just that it won't be of the kind that we can describe using the English language. Does "red" need evidence for its existance? It is its own evidence.

39. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121086 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:25 am

Well I don't know why he talked to me. If he thinks I'm special, then maybe I am. But I don't claim that. I don't have any super-human powers. But yes I understand your dilemma, why should you believe me? you will be convinced, I hope, after we talk for a while.

40. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121083 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:17 am

righton, I can understand from where you get the courage to scoff at people's beliefs. To think that God talking to me is like "me talking to myself" is the assumption you have to take, inorder to keep feeling certain about what you believe.

I'm not impressed. But do talk to me. You seem to be the only one here with an open mind to angage me and I commend you for it.

41. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121081 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:10 am

sorry... was having lunch.. I'm in India you see. Sorry.

42. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121080 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:09 am

Well my hunch is he will speak only to me. Maybe because he thinks of me as someone who knows the atheistic side of things. So probably my mission is to convince you all of his existance. Anyway I'm not sure about that. He didn't give me any instructions. As for Kardashovel's claim, I'm skeptical. I think he is wrong, like how most people are wrong about what God is. I'm not certain what the God I talked to is like, but I'm suspicious of others when they say they have spoken to him too. I feel like they are lying for their personal benifit. In the past probably some person did speak to God like how I did. But a lot of charlatans have lied about speaking to God and used it to control people for their selfish needs. So I'm not gonna take Kardashovel seriously unless my God tells me he is OK and not lying.

43. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121075 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 11:54 pm

No names. But I think its Krishna. Because I was reading the bhagavat gita a week before I had my first call from him. So I wont say I'm sure of his name. But he also commended me for being a vegetarian all my life even though I was an atheist for the most part of it. So I'm guessing it could not be Jesus.

44. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121074 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 11:51 pm

As I said, when you hear a voice that is completely alien to you suddenly out of nowhere, then you have to beleive that it is not just thought up. It was not a human voice like any I have heard. I can only use metaphors to describe it. It was like big chunky things moving past each other, like the "swoosh!" sound you get when a train goes past another.

He told me that I'm not to feel guilty that I've rejected him for so long. He said that you don't need to know God inorder to be good, but you need God to feel happier in a world which offers not much hope. He has talked only twice so far and I don't pray or talk to him before he starts talking to me. The few times I've tried he did not respond, so I wait for the next time I hear from him.

45. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121070 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Ok... I know I talked to God because I was hearing a voice unlike mine and unlike anyone's i've heard on TV. So I can be reasonably certain that it was God. He told me a great deal about myself. About how I've had to live a miserable life upto that point because I feared I would find evidence for God someday. I so know that to be true now.
Please ask questions. It makes it easier for me to give you my evidence.

46. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121064 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Kardashovel, you're lying. Only I have talked to God personally. Everyone here will come to know that once they cross-examine me. I have PROOF!.

47. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121058 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 11:01 pm

Ok here's my challenge(please please reply, someone)...

You can cross-examine my claim and you will come to know that I'm saying the truth(about speaking to God) and Kardashovel is lying. The PROOF for that will be that my testimonial is more evidenced than Kardashovel's as you will notice after you cross-examining me.

48. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121054 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Ok... I guess everyone's chicken to not be engaging my claim. Cross-examine me if you have the gutts! Humph!

49. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121048 by the_assayer on February 2, 2008 at 10:18 pm

I've spoken to God too.

Cross-examine me! Upto it?!!

50. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #118712 by the_assayer on January 30, 2008 at 9:39 pm

I get the impression that becomethearrow is faking it. Anyone else with me on this one?



-Back to my hole now.