How many of you are atheists?

[Damocles]

This is an interesting discussion that you two have going but I'll take issue with one small comment

The fact is that it is completely fine to reject the god hypothesis without presenting any alternative whatsoever

I know what you mean but that's not strictly true.

Scientific discovery is sort of like a neverending race. When we see something that we don't understand, the race starts.

In this race are competing ideas that explain specific parts of the thing that we don't understand. This adds 1 to the score of that idea in a perfect world.

When one idea has such a commanding points lead that it seems to be unsurpassable, we sort of think that that is probably the answer to explain the thing we don't understand.

The specific race that you are talking about has no clear winner between the competing ideas and the scores are so very low that there isn't even a trend that we can look at to make a prediction.

Dismissing any idea within that race before another one has an insurmountable points lead is bad science.

 

[Skashion]

It's called looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion. And the evidence in your initial post suggested someone who hasn't read the book carefully enough.

Dawkins doesn't used the term agnostic on his scale at all, so you are putting words in his mouth. From The God Delusion: "4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.""

Dawkins own description of himself is: "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.""

So as I said, in practical terms he would describe himself as an atheist, but a philosopher might technically still call this agnostic. Either way, it's just semantics really. The real point here is that there is that it's entirely reasonable to be highly sceptical about the god claim given the available evidence, and being so does not require you to make a 100% denial.

And I'm pretty sure that Dawkins doesn't portray the multiverse as anything other than an interesting hypothesis that scientists are discussing. You claim that all we have are a few pointers towards a multiverse, but then earlier, you criticise him for going into so little depth about it. The fact is that it is completely fine to reject the god hypothesis without presenting any alternative whatsoever. The fact that I don't know why the universe is as it is, doesn't make the alternative theory any more valid.

Obviously it's an interesting problem for science to work out. I meant why would it potentially prove to be a problem for atheists in the sense that it might prove them wrong? What in this scientific truth leads you to believe that god is a realistic (even if small) possibility, any more so than any other crackpot idea I might come up with? Why does it merit my attention as a serious possibility? For a start, how would you even begin to define "god" in this situation? One of the reasons I can't take it seriously, beyond believing there's no evidence even hinting at the possibility, is simply because it's such a vaguely defined concept that you end up discussing the possibility of some undefined "thing." And it's very difficult to have any sort of opinion on whether "something" might exist beyond the current universe or "something" might have caused the big bang.

So you are agreeing you did state it then rather than suggest it. Good, although you still haven't shown why in your opinion I haven't read it carefully. If anything it's you shifting from your original position.

You do know you're the one who called him an agnostic atheist don't you...

Dawkins is quite clear that philosophically speaking, he is one of the agnostic atheists you claim are on solid ground

So it would be you putting words in his mouth... Anyway, you're now saying he's a de facto atheist. I'll settle for that.

His problem is that his argument hinges on the hypothesis for which there is little evidence. The creator deity explanation stops climbing the ladder whilst the multiverse has to step up one more rung. This destroys the entire argument and leaves them on level pegging. His entire argument is that God equals n+1 so no matter what complexities we come across, a designer doesn't solve them. The problem is creator deity stops at multiverse. A creator deity explanation doesn't need the multiverse. At that point it stops being God n+1 so the argument collapses, He then starts babbling about the multiverse for a paragraph or so, and then asserts wholly without evidence, that a multiverse would still be less complex than a designer. So how can he be so sure of himself? It's also worth pointing out, he's a biologist, he's not a physicist. His expertise is highly questionable.

I'm agnostic atheist, I'm around 4.5 to 5. I don't need to explain myself, or my position. I am not making any claims to knowledge other than a few pointers towards a multiverse. It's people more assertive of their knowledge who must do that. People like Dawkins who are 6.9 or believers who are 1.1. His argument self-destructs from my standpoint and nothing you have said has made me re-evaluate that.

 

[Damocles]

I think your hopes of the multiverse problem solving the God=n+1 issue is a little hopeful.

As I've said in this thread, the problem that most people have in terms of creation isn't really scripture based but causality based. The idea that something didn't need to be created is a concept that is difficult to grasp without the understanding behind it. We don't often encounter infinities in our daily lives and they sort of boggle the brain.

Just as many other goalposts have shifted in the past with the explanation of the Sun's path through the sky, the explanation of the Earth's formation, all a multiverse will do in the eyes of many is prompt the inevitable question of "well who created the multiverse?"

In my personal opinion, I don't believe that the question of who created the Universe is a valid one because I don't see the need for a creator if we remove the laws forced upon us by time from the logic. X created Y is a function of time.

I suspect that you'll suffer the same frustrations if (more likely at this point, when) the multiverse idea becomes more evidentially supported.

 

[SWP's back]

What is fine tuning?

If I think he's talking about what I think he's talking about then fine tuning is the idea that life could not have arisen if you change certain Universal constants to a different value.

The problem I have with this is that it is somewhat self-defeating. Life couldn't have arisen under any other circumstances so to point at those laws is circular logic. Life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists because those laws exists which we know because life exists. Etc.

I might have gotten his idea of fine tuning wrong but to me it isn't something that needs to be addressed.

Exactly my view on this. And I always stated it before I ever heard of the anthropic principle. (Weak or strong)

 

[tbarber]

Inexplicable to me how people can have blind faith in something for which there is no proof. Faith is the trump card, it tops all logical reasoning, wheres the evidence? Doesnt matter people just BELIEVE. People are Hindus, Muslims, Christians or any number of 166 different god worshipers mostly just because their mum and dad's were. Similarly I have blind faith in MCFC because my dad is a supporter, difference is that with MCFC miracles do happen!!

 

[zisisfutbol]

Religion is legalised madness.

 

[Gillespie]

Just saw this priest on TV that looked very much like the ogre that used to preach to me (when I five years of age, FFS) that we were all going to burn in hell forever.

I am sick of religion and all its ignorance mongering twatteries. It is a source of great evil. And if the God of the testaments really did exist, he would be a hateful, sadistic, voyeuristic freak and I wouldn't want to meet him. Not ever.

Only this.

Well now, let's put it this way.

If he did exist, I'm sure he'd be unmoved by your righteous stand here. Likely he'd turn you into a pillar of salt. Frankly, you probably deserve it regardless of any merit in your passionate outpouring if only for being so feckin stupid.

 

[Skashion]

I think your hopes of the multiverse problem solving the God=n+1 issue is a little hopeful.

As I've said in this thread, the problem that most people have in terms of creation isn't really scripture based but causality based. The idea that something didn't need to be created is a concept that is difficult to grasp without the understanding behind it. We don't often encounter infinities in our daily lives and they sort of boggle the brain.

Just as many other goalposts have shifted in the past with the explanation of the Sun's path through the sky, the explanation of the Earth's formation, all a multiverse will do in the eyes of many is prompt the inevitable question of "well who created the multiverse?"

In my personal opinion, I don't believe that the question of who created the Universe is a valid one because I don't see the need for a creator if we remove the laws forced upon us by time from the logic. X created Y is a function of time.

I suspect that you'll suffer the same frustrations if (more likely at this point, when) the multiverse idea becomes more evidentially supported.

You must have a really low opinion of me. Oh well.

 

[Rocket-footed kolarov]

Just saw this priest on TV that looked very much like the ogre that used to preach to me (when I five years of age, FFS) that we were all going to burn in hell forever.

I am sick of religion and all its ignorance mongering twatteries. It is a source of great evil. And if the God of the testaments really did exist, he would be a hateful, sadistic, voyeuristic freak and I wouldn't want to meet him. Not ever.

Only this.

Well now, let's put it this way.

If he did exist, I'm sure he'd be unmoved by your righteous stand here. Likely he'd turn you into a pillar of salt. Frankly, you probably deserve it regardless of any merit in your passionate outpouring if only for being so feckin stupid.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

Keep bloody thinking this thread says how many of you are athletes :(