Rationality and Religion: Debating Anti-Theists

[ironbite]

*munches popcorn*

Well golly gee willikers, sounds like UP is proving his own point here.

Ironbite-*sips soda*

[Ultimate Paragon]

This is the gist of what I'm gleaning from your more recent responses, UP:

Working theories that are incomprehensible for some science dude or philosopher (and most people) i.e., quantum mechanics + big bang + primogenesis + Higg's Boson + dark energy + string theory = "Hey-Itsa-Me! God".

Innate human propensity to feel emotional responses from abstract patterns observed in the world, and to apply abstract patterns onto reality = instinct for belief in god (or magic) = GodExists.

Not exactly.  Those are two (somewhat simplified) trains of thought that allow for rational belief in God.

[Even Then]

But belief in abstract ideas (and remember, according to you, this means any unifying ideas) in no way infers the existence of a specific creator deity.

[Sigmaleph]

is there any way to reduce ironchew's sentence? a week off is maybe a bit hardcore, perhaps just a stern reprimand would've been better?

I don't think a warning or shorter ban period would've helped. With any luck, a week off will be enough to stick in his memory.

EDIT: I know Ironchew is inflammatory, but Guizonode did take a potshot at him first. I think it's unfair that someone can call Ironchew out with zero repercussion, and then Ironchew gets a week ban for crossing a line with his retort.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Do you think I was overly harsh on Ironchew because he was provoked, or overly lenient on guizonde, or what?

I banned Ironchew because he crossed a pretty major line. I don't think what guizonde did was at all exceptional by forum standards.

Fair question, and I will concede that there is some gray area on which people may disagree. But my view is that there are certain members who can get away with certain behaviors and other members who cannot. For better or worse, Ironchew fits into the latter category.

True, but complicated. "Getting away with things" includes both reactions from the general forum community and from the mod staff. There's not much I can do about the former, while the latter is under my responsibility and I try to make it as even-handed as possible. It's hard to be sure I'm not coloured by bias here, but I don't think I would have excused Ironchew's behaviour from anyone.

While Chew's dig at Guizonode was more personal than generic, Guizonode did provoke the insult by calling Ironchew an asshole with zero provocation. I feel it's one thing to call someone an asshole for making an asinine point, while arguing that point (e.g. "And you're being an asshole Sigma for saying that homeless people should be used as a cheap food substitute.") and another to sua sponte call someone an asshole (e.g., going into thread killer and saying "Sigma's an asshole.")

A valid point; most insults in this forum tend to happen in the context of an ongoing debate, and guizonde's was not. But I discounted the severity of his comment because he highlighted it in blue, which he typically does to show he's not being serious, and I have reason to believe Ironchew knows that. If that wasn't the case, or the context was otherwise different, I would have issued a warning to keep it in F&B, but I don't think guizonde's intention was to make a personal attack.

Note: Sigma is not an asshole, he just has thick enough skin that I can use him to help illustrate my point.

Entirely off-topic, but I'm currently starting to transition and I prefer "she" or "they" pronouns (no reason you should've known, just thought I'd take the opportunity to mention it).

ETA: And thank you for asking the question. One thing about me is that, for better or worse, I will speak my mind even if it is unpopular. I think it shows maturity that you are willing to calmly address the issue without taking offense.

No problem.


(I have thoughts on the state of the evidence regarding God, but I'm too tired to post them here)

[Ultimate Paragon]

But belief in abstract ideas (and remember, according to you, this means any unifying ideas) in no way infers the existence of a specific creator deity.

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

[pyro]

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have beliefs in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.


Edit: typo

[Canadian Mojo]

I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?

You were using Flew. The Christlike Christian. You will have to excuse me if your beliefs color my perception of what exactly you are trying to defend particularly since his idea of god is and what I presume (in a generic sense) your idea of god is are pretty much at odds with one another.

[Art Vandelay]

But belief in abstract ideas (and remember, according to you, this means any unifying ideas) in no way infers the existence of a specific creator deity.

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

Erm, it's a side-effect of the species' massive instinct for pattern recognition (and that fact that it took an embarrassingly long time for most people to figure out that correlation does not equal causation)? Now, consider this theory, that's based entirely on already established facts, and yours, that assumes some sort of deity and all of the other unanswered questions that raises, remember everything we've learned so far about Occam's Razor, and tell me which one is the most rational solution?

[ironbite]

OOOH  OOOH!  PICK ME!  PICK ME! 

*waves arm over his head*

Ironbite-I KNOW THE ANSWER!

[Ultimate Paragon]

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

I wasn't using Flew to defend the Bible, merely to defend God's existence.  If you'll notice, I never claimed he was a Christian, merely that he was a theist.  But if you want an actual Christian, I can cite none other than C. S. Lewis.

And as for his background as a philosopher, what about the many atheist philosophers who didn't start believing in God(s)?

You were using Flew. The Christlike Christian. You will have to excuse me if your beliefs color my perception of what exactly you are trying to defend particularly since his idea of god is and what I presume (in a generic sense) your idea of god is are pretty much at odds with one another.

And you'll have to pardon me if I think you're ridiculously biased.  You assumed I couldn't be bothered to look at a guy's Wikipedia page to find out what his personal beliefs were, and from there, you strawmanned me into using a deist to defend the Bible.  Either that, or your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

Erm, it's a side-effect of the species' massive instinct for pattern recognition (and that fact that it took an embarrassingly long time for most people to figure out that correlation does not equal causation)? Now, consider this theory, that's based entirely on already established facts, and yours, that assumes some sort of deity and all of the other unanswered questions that raises, remember everything we've learned so far about Occam's Razor, and tell me which one is the most rational solution?

I hadn't heard the pattern recognition theory.  Could you give me a link or something?  I want to be informed before I make my decision.

[R. U. Sirius]

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

An alternate explanation that's been put forth is that we're simply projecting our own reasons for burying the dead onto Neanderthals. After all, it doesn't take much brainpower to recognize that decaying bodies can spread disease or attract scavengers. Burying bodies in a fetal position might indicate some religious significance...or might just be an attempt to make the hole as small as possible to save labor for the poor sap who had to dig it. The fact is, we simply don't know, and many of the discoveries that have been made that supposedly support the conclusion that they had supernatural beliefs are contradicted by others that indicate the opposite.

[Ultimate Paragon]

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

An alternate explanation that's been put forth is that we're simply projecting our own reasons for burying the dead onto Neanderthals. After all, it doesn't take much brainpower to recognize that decaying bodies can spread disease or attract scavengers. Burying bodies in a fetal position might indicate some religious significance...or might just be an attempt to make the hole as small as possible to save labor for the poor sap who had to dig it. The fact is, we simply don't know, and many of the discoveries that have been made that supposedly support the conclusion that they had supernatural beliefs are contradicted by others that indicate the opposite.

There's some evidence to contradict the theory that their burials were purely pragmatic.  Several Neanderthal graves had deposits of pollen, implying that they were buried with flowers.

[R. U. Sirius]

You sure about that?  See, belief in divinity of some kind was the first "grand unifying idea" of all.  People simply transfer that instinct to belief in something else.  Moreover, it seems very likely that belief in a higher power predates civilization by thousands of years.  Neanderthals, for example, are known to have buried their dead, rather than just dumping the carcass somewhere.  Now, belief in some form of religion does help when it comes to unifying enormous numbers of people, but it's basically useless for small tribes.  Which raises the question: why did it emerge?  Why did it spread across different populations and even subspecies?

They appear to have believes in an afterlife, but that doesn't imply that they believed in any god or gods.

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

An alternate explanation that's been put forth is that we're simply projecting our own reasons for burying the dead onto Neanderthals. After all, it doesn't take much brainpower to recognize that decaying bodies can spread disease or attract scavengers. Burying bodies in a fetal position might indicate some religious significance...or might just be an attempt to make the hole as small as possible to save labor for the poor sap who had to dig it. The fact is, we simply don't know, and many of the discoveries that have been made that supposedly support the conclusion that they had supernatural beliefs are contradicted by others that indicate the opposite.

There's some evidence to contradict the theory that their burials were purely pragmatic.  Several Neanderthal graves had deposits of pollen, implying that they were buried with flowers.

It's also possible that the pollen is a later intrusion, or that there was simply a large amount of pollen in the air at the time or wind blowing flowers around.

[Art Vandelay]

Erm, it's a side-effect of the species' massive instinct for pattern recognition (and that fact that it took an embarrassingly long time for most people to figure out that correlation does not equal causation)? Now, consider this theory, that's based entirely on already established facts, and yours, that assumes some sort of deity and all of the other unanswered questions that raises, remember everything we've learned so far about Occam's Razor, and tell me which one is the most rational solution?

I hadn't heard the pattern recognition theory.  Could you give me a link or something?  I want to be informed before I make my decision.

Sure. Here a brief Wiki article on pattern recognition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia#.22Patternicity.22
Here's a scientific paper linking it to the evolution of superstitious belief.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1654/31
Also, if you'd like it summed up in in layman's terms.
https://etyman.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/apophenia-aep%C9%92%CB%88finij%C9%99/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/patternicity-finding-meaningful-patterns/
Enjoy!

[pyro]

It's hard to have an afterlife without believing in some kind of religion.

It still doesn't imply that they were theists, merely that they believed in ghosts. Care to read a list of non-theistic religions?