Infinite_Loser

I've seen that video before.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

I don't think that you're understanding what i am saying. Think about crossing a bridge. You don't understand the mechanics of it, you don't understand the different factors that went into the design process, the choice of materials, even if you did know all these things, you still don't even know for certain that the bridge won't collapse while you are on it. You still cross bridges, right? That's faith right there. Theism is just one example of how faith can come into play when information is lacking.

If you think a theist can't than you don't understand what it means to be a theist.

Biology has nothing to do with whether you exist- things that lack biology still exist. It's not science, it's axiomatic.

Willravel

I see a car cross the bridge first. Bam. Evidence that it's safe. I've never been the first to cross a bridge. If I were to be the first to cross a bridge, I'd probably check it out first. You're reaching here.
It's not like I was a theist for the first 17 years of my life, or like my dad is a pastor or anything. Oh... wait...
Are you talking about "self" and all that spiritual stuff? Then no, there's absolutely no evidence. Things that have no evidence that they exist tend not to exist.

filtherton

You know the 35w bridge had about 140,000 people cross it every day and was 40 years old and was also undergoing fairly regular inspection. Bam, indeed. I thought you were a disciple of science here, that's not a very scientific strategy. One might even call it irrational, though i wouldn't.

You're reaching here if you can't acknowledge that you don't have any way to know whether a bridge will collapse while you are on it. Why do you cross bridges, will? Are you really that careless with your life? Don't you have a family?

There's a difference between having experience as a theist and thinking that the experience that you had as a theist is functionally equivalent to the experience of every other theist ever. You went to church for 17 years. So what? That doesn't mean that you're qualified to claim that every theist automatically looks to god before anything else when they come into contact with uncertainty, which is what it seemed like you were trying to claim up above in #40.

No, i'm talking about you, existing. Anything existing. Nothing spiritual. Prove it. Use science. GO!

Nope, things that don't exist tend not to exist. Things whose existence is unsubstantiated tend to either remain unsubstantiated, or somehow get "evidenced" into acceptance. C'mon man, if you're going to try to champion science, at least try and be a bit scientific about things.

Willravel

And what are the odds of a bridge collapsing while I'm under it? 58 out of all major bridges in the world have ever collapsed. That's it. Statistically speaking, I'm safe. I have every way to know based on precedence.
Likewise.
You're asking a vague question. What do you mean by existing?
If we're talking about quantum physics, then matter tends to exist. What I'm talking about is way more basic. No real evidence exists to suggest that the JudeoChristian god exists, yet people say he's real. That's no logical or reasonable. Reason dictates that if something exists, in order to demonstrate or prove it's existence there is evidence. I exist from your perspective because there are words being typed in argument against your points. Since words don't come from nowhere, and even complex computers can't formulate arguments like this, reason dictates that you're arguing with at least someone. If you were ever in the area and we bumped into each other, your eyes would provide evidence that I was real. You must understand that you can trust your eyes, otherwise how can you believe what they read in the bible?

ubertuber

Isn't the difference between faith and expectation in the observations and repeatability of predictions? That's what science is all about. That's why crossing a bridge is different from believing all the stuff in the bible.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

filtherton

Theoretically, i think, the answer is yes. In practice, such things are less certain. Not everything is testable, most things are not. The farther i get in my engineering education the more i come to understand how much of an approximation everything is. In actual reality, you can only make educated guesses as to whether the bridge is going to collapse, because as 35w showed, the fact that you can get some experts to sign off on the safety of a bridge doesn't make it safe.


I'm sure everybody who happens to be on a collapsing bridge absolutely knew that it was safe (except for the tacoma narrows bridge). Right? I mean, 58 out of all major bridges in the world have collapsed, so what are the odds of both a bridge collapsing, and that a specific person, out of the billions on this planet, would happen to be on it? They've got to be astronomical. I'm starting to convince myself it never happened- how could it, the odds are against it?

Likewise? I'm sorry, i'm not sure what you're getting at here.

It's not vague, its impossible. We know nothing of nonexistence, how can we prove that we exist when we can't even prove that there is a single specific thing that doesn't exist?

Reason dictates? Why? Why would reason dictate anything? You're putting the cart before the horse here; you're reasoning that it is unreasonable for something to exist for which there is no evidence. What sort of evidence can you possibly have to make such a bold claim? What kinds of assumptions are you making about the nature of existence and what sort of rigorous justification can you offer in their defense?

No real evidence exists to suggest that the JudeoChristian god exists, that's true. No real evidence exists to suggest that we exist either because all of the evidence that we could ever hope to gather is based on the assumption that we exist- i think, therefore i am. Just like all the evidence one could gather to support the notion that there is a god is based on the assumption that there is a god(at least it is as long as god continues this curious vow of silence ). Nobody can prove that we exist, and if you really think about it you can see that it functionally doesn't even matter if we really exist or not. If somehow it was shown that we don't actually exist, absolutely nothing would change about anything that we do.

I don't know that i can always trusts my senses. I know people who've gone crazy- they're pretty fucking convinced about some pretty, well, crazy, shit.

Ustwo

So you are saying having faith in god is like having faith in union bridge contractors?

I'd say one is an assumption, you assume the bridge is safe or it would have had a problem prior to you using it. One is faith. You have faith there is an invisible sky god that reads your minds, has issues with how you use your genitals, and well send you to eternal torment if you dare question him with your logic.

Assumptions are based on past data. They can be wrong.

Faith is based on, well nothing.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

You're confusing statistical improbability with impossibility. No one prepares for an impossibility at all, but when one decides to prepare for an improbability one must consider the reasonability of said preparation. It's statistically improbable that I'll be killed by a deer, therefor I don't prepare for it. It's much more likely I'll get in a car accident, so I buckle up and I drive a car wit airbags. I prioritize my preparedness based on estimated probability of danger. That, of course, doesn't mean that the improbable things won't happen, but to chastise someone for being a statistic makes no sense.
Assuming you're right and my extensive experiences in being a theist doesn't give me enough to make statements about the faithful, the same can be said of you, no? So when you post here, you're not posting for all theists.
Your question isn't impossible, it's vague. I can answer what I am guessing you're asking, but there's a chance I'm not guessing the correct interpretation of the question. Prove I exist? I can see my body, and I trust my eyes because I understand how they work. There. Boom. Answered.
This is getting really boring. If you're going to go that far back, then the conversation is too disconnected from reality to work. "How can you trust reason and your senses? it's clearly faith!"
Faith: belief that is not based on proof.
Proof: evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
Evidence is only verifiable based on deductive reasoning and precedence based on perceptions. If you can't assume perceptions are correct, then how can we have a basis of anything? You've gone way past "faith". Faith is something that happens outside of or in spite of evidence. Evidence is something based on perception, therefore it's still completely different. I don't know how to make this more clear.
Without the basis of trusting the perception, there is no understanding. But that's completely different than belief without evidence. Evidence comes after accepting perception. Conclusions come after accepting evidence. Faith is separate from all of that because it works 'outside' of the system. It says "Yeah, that perception, evidence, proof stuff is great, and trust it... except when it comes to this old book".

filtherton

Nope. I'm saying that faith is a implicit in everybody's life. Whether you choose to have faith in a higher power is just another form of that.

Why would you assume that the bridge is safe because it hasn't failed before? Do you assume that everything that hasn't failed is safe?

Nope, i'm not. You're confusing statistical improbability with reality. I know the odds that i get struck by lightning are pretty small. This fact is of little consolation if i ever get struck by lightning. It's statistically improbable that you get killed by a deer, sure. Is that fact going to matter if you get killed by a deer? No.

I know i'm not posting for all theists, and unlike you, i wasn't trying to speak on behalf of all of them. All i was alluding to is that there are many diverse perspectives that fall into the category of theism. You were saying that all theists automatically defer to god whenever they come across uncertainty. You said all theists were the same, i said they weren't.

Here's a hint: first you would have to offer some sort of evidence (experimental, because, you know, if it isn't how can we be sure of its consistency) of existence, then you would have to show that you meet the criteria.

I know, it's stupid, but it works.

I'm trying to show you that if you go far enough, the concepts of proof or evidence break down. The impression i get from you is that you think that there ain't no problem that science can't shed light on. To me, this flies in the face of everything that i know about science.

All that i'm saying is that accepting perception implicitly requires belief without evidence.

Ustwo

We are about 2 posts from a Matrix discussion and that would be bad.

I'm assuming the contractors did their job properly.
I'm assuming the inspectors did theirs.
I'm assuming no one has sabotaged the bridge.
I'm assuming there won't be a natural disaster while I'm crossing it like an earthquake.

I have 'faith' in none of these things though. I am assuming that the penalties for not doing a proper job such as legal action and even jail time is motivation enough to do the proper job. The only faith I have is in probability. Its far more probable that everything was up to spec due to the safeguards put in the system than that the bridge will collapse do to shoddy work. Its quite possible it was sabotaged and will collapse but again not probable. Its possible again that an earthquake or even a meteor may hit the bridge as I'm crossing but again not probable. The faith there is the faith in low numbers.

I see the probability of god lower than the probability of the universe without a god, therefore again my faith is in the numbers. Even Dawkins rates himself as almost but not quite an absolute atheist. He and I may well be wrong but its a low probability.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

i think things are getting tangled up here, so i decided to drop in.
trying to write this kind of thing out in a messageboard is always an interesting little exercise.
no doubt they usually are a bit dicey in terms of coherence and certainly have no relation to completeness at all....but tant pis, a little constraint exercise. let's go.

this business of "faith"----i see why filtherton would go here and it seems like the issue is the dismissal of the category in the name of "science" altogether.

but the fact that we call the assumption of continuity in say objects (or in phase-states) from one moment to another seems to follow from the reliance on pattern that enables perception to happen--so is more on the order of an assumption, one that requires no particular investment. like an after-image, say.

religious faith is not the same thing. it requires investment and so is an act.
you can say that continuity of objects etc. is also an act, but that'd be true only in special cases--like in the context of this thread because you are asked to think about it, or in a situation where experience is such that continuity canot be taken for granted.

actually the more i think about this the trickier it gets.

another way of looking at this: perception is the organization of information. this organization in humans typically is mediated by categories, by words.
so there's a loop implicit between the nature of the categories used and the data that these categories order.
that loop is the basis for assumptions of continuity.
and that kind of loop is central in enabling perception at all==if only because we operate in a time-flux and so are showered with data all the time and these loops enable data reduction, complexity reduction--which is a big deal--perception then is as much about data erasure/management/reduction as it is about apprehension.
so there is an intertwining of the nature of categories and information gathered from the world, the former shaping and limiting (and extending) the latter.
this seems a basic feature of coherent experience and follows from something of the nature of language mediation (something of..because for simplicity's sake, i'm only talking abut nouns)

metaphysics involves these same features of language, but the relation that frames them is basically different---if in the model above nouns enable continuity enables data reduction because nouns are the basis for our assumptions about stability of perceptual data (in general), it follows that this loop has to lean on the characteristics of nouns themselves--and so does metaphysics....so does religion---except that in the latter case, the way in which we organize the world via language is unhinged from experience at the perceptual level and projected outward onto the order of the cosmos/universe/big kfc that we all live in.

this would enable the fashioning of different orders of what i guess you'd call meta-loops.
loops that involve the organization of background conditions, say.
horizon ordering in another terminology.

it seems to me that these loops are just as powerful experientially as the immediate perception-level loops if you are inclined to not see them as mediating experience, but as elements of experience.
faith is a practice. it is the result of repetition. it is an outcome.
the curious characteristic of this outcome is that it is used to structure other variables in its terms--but then again so would any category on this order, a meta-category, a category that is about the second or third-order organization of experience, that kicks in when you move from immediate perceptual information to fitting that information into a sense of being-in-the-world. from this viewpoint, there is no difference between abstractions--no particular difference between religious faith and belief in science.
this because you can make yourself believe almost anything if you repeat it long enough.
pascal was right.
and if you repeat a frame long enough, aspects of experience that might contradict the frame would tend to be filtered out.
from this viewpoint, all perception is involved in self-confirming loops and nothing distinguishes one frame from another, so there is nothing from within the experience of a believer (in being-baptist or in being-spectator of science) that would contradict the organizating power of these meta-categories.

so you (we) make your (our) own experience non-falsifiable.


this may be little more than a long-winded repetition of filtherton's point.
but i'm having some fun trying to sort this out in a constrained space.

anyway....so there's nothing from inside experience mediated by the meta-frame of religious faith and that mediated by some abstraction called "science" and would make one more or less stupid than the other.

from this viewpoint, you could say the same thing about political viewpoints: if you assume that belief is a function of repetition, then there would be nothing from within, say, my experience and that of ustwo that would lead us to think that either of our political worldviews are stupider than the others. and this i mention simply because we are diametrically opposed on almost everything.

debates about frames happen at a different level.
you can find arguments concerning frame to be compelling, you can decide to alter yours, but it will still take a period of repetition to enact that decision.

things from here would get complicated again, so i'll shut up.
this is kinda fun tho.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

RB, and Ustwo get it.

roachboy

actually, will, my position is basically an extension of what filtherton has been saying. i think his basic point is correct and that this question of "perceptual faith" is fundamental to how it is that we operate in the world.
the problem comes in the relation of "perceptual faith" to other meanings ascribed to the word "faith"--pushing them apart was the idea behind the post.

i dont know if it was successful simply because the messageboard is not good for arguments of any complexity or that require much detailed explanation. it's just like that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

filtherton

As long as we stay away from the sequels we should be fine.

As far as we can tell so far, all of your assumptions very accurately describe the conditions of the 35w bridge immediately preceding the collapse. While they certainly are reasonable, they fall short when it comes to actually helping you avoid collapsing bridges.

But, it sounds like the only difference between you and a theist is that you're more conservative when it comes to taking probabilities into account. If what i am understanding is correct, i generally agree with you.

But beyond this, i don't think that there really is much that can be said about the whole of theism, or of theist people. It certainly does make sense to talk about specific examples of theism as being a catalyst of sorts for all types of unfortunate things, but the key thing here is that the individuals are to blame, not the theism. "Sorry your honor, but i was under the influence of god" is not an effective excuse for anything. So something that cannot be justified, but still occurs quite regularly, is that someone attempts to extend what is actually a relatively inconsequential difference of opinion into an overly broad denunciation of all theists.

As far as perception being an accurate measure of reality:

This can only be the case if your senses would not limit you from perceiving, either directly or indirectly, everything that exists. I don't know that this is necessarily a reasonable assumption- and i don't think there is a probability calculation on it yet- so it's kind of a take it or leave it thing. There is no reason to expect it to be true, and even if it were, there'd be no way to know. So at the very least the idea is on the same probability level as believing in god.

So you have this hypothetical form of intelligence, or say that i do. I created it, and i purposefully limited it's ability to experience certain phenomena. Now, say i limit its experiences in such a way so that it never hears anything, exists in a complete vacuum, and it can't see anything for three minutes out of every four. Now say i have a bunch of these beings, all subject to the same constraints, and let them communicate with each other. Imagine the intense philosophical discussions with various contrived explanations for their intermittent blindness that would ensue. Given the opportunity they would no doubt create the most complex and robust society possible under the constraints of their existence. They would exist in reality, and would thus be experiencing reality, but they'd be the last people you'd expect to be able speak with authority about the nature of reality in any kind of general sense.

So most of us can see and hear and experience air pressure, so aside from that what makes us different from these beings?

If it is not "reasonable" to expect that humans are able to experience everything that exists, how is it unreasonable to believe in things for which there is no evidence for or against?

Willravel

The difference between the bridge and faith on god is there is evidence that the bridge will not collapse. While it may not be all variables, and is therefore not a certainty, there is a reasonable leap of assumption because there is at least some evidence upon which to base the assumption. The assumption isn't baseless. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of faith in the supernatural. No real evidence whatsoever exists to suggest that god or gods exist, therefore belief in it's existence is faith, not an assumption based on some evidence. This was already an apples and oranges comparison as we reasonably know the bridge exists, so speaking to whether it will collapse or not is already delving into the apples and oranges problem.

DaveOrion

We've heard the same tired rhetoric before will, I understand your position but still totally disagree. I'll state my tired rhetoric again too, I don't need proof to believe in God, Its a matter a faith, and also a matter of the unlimited power of the human mind, when all doubt is erased. We're just beginning to understand (scientifically) what that power can do. The ancients had a keen sense of this, yet somewhere in the vast expanse of time this was lost and is only now been reawakened. Believe that this mountain can be moved, doubting nothing, and it will be so..........'will be so', Ha!! Thats almost funny will.....almost....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

We agree, Dave, on the fact that belief in god is based on faith. We only disagree on the merits of faith. Filth is confusing faith and assumption. I think you'll agree that your belief in god is not based on assumption, but faith. Am I correct in thinking this?

DaveOrion

Correct. I still have the utmost respect for you will, you weigh all the possibilities and make your choice. At least you're not wishy-washy in the slightest.

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

Likewise, and what a nice compliment. Thanks much.

DaveOrion

Time for another group hug. As long as Shani & MixedMedia are involved, I will be so totally into it. If Sultana joins in, I may actually melt into the floor....

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

roachboy

another way of looking at this is that since faith in general is an outcome of repetition and only its precondition to the extent that it gives repetition its direction, once that repetition is underway (a) the outcomes are non-falsifiable for the individual involved but (b) arguments made on that basis are wholly unconvincing to anyone who does not share the same predispositions, and so whose loop characteristics are different.

i think this has been amply demonstrated in any of the thousands of repetitions of this basic argument.

you could have an actual debate about this god character or this "science" business, but it'd have to operate at a remove from one's actual everyday beliefs and in order to subject them to perspectives that are not already conditioned by them.
the main difference between people "of faith" in a religious sense and others is that folk in the former set cannot and will not play along.
so because there is no agreement abotu procedure/relation there is never any meaningful agreement about rules or outcomes so there is never any actual debate. just two sets of people who share the view that the other is entirely, completely wrong.

so it goes.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Infinite_Loser

It's amazing how much time the average atheist wastes debating the existence of a God they don't believe exists

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

ubertuber

Not really, if you subscribe to Dawkins' and Hitchens' theories, which hold that religion has not been a benign or even neutral force in human history.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

That's nothing. It's amazing how many liberals talk about Bush.

Infinite_Loser

While fascinating, doesn't really answer my question.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

filtherton

What evidence is there? Let's go over the things that aren't evidence that a bridge will not collapse: regular inspection is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse, the fact that other people have crossed the bridge is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse, the fact that the bridge has stood for decades is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse, the fact that any number of experts have signed off on the safety of the bridge is not evidence that a bridge won't collapse. Evidence is something that is reinforced by what goes on in the real world, it isn't something we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel more comfortable in certain situations. What happened in the real world, was that despite all his evidence, the bridge still collapsed. If you were really a scientist, august 1 2007 would have marked the beginning of you starting to question your assumptions concerning the safety of bridges.

No, you're wrong. It would be nice if we lived in a world where bridge designers and bridge builders and bridge maintainers weren't human and didn't make mistakes, or didn't try to maintain them on the cheap, but we don't. All of the well supported assumptions that you consider evidence didn't amount to much of anything when the shit hit the fan. Baseless assumptions, by your own definition, are matters of faith, whether you are aware of their baselessness or not.

The average doesn't think that the assumptions on which they base their faith are baseless either.

Willravel

1) The fact that cars have driven on it before.
2) The fact that most ridges do not collapse.

Each fact that acts as evidence of the bridge's reliability. Mind you, there are no certainties, but there are reasonable conclusions. Each things I've mentioned, and reason this discussion is becoming redundant. You're not reading what I'm writing, or you're ignoring it. Neither of these possibilities is acceptable if progress is desired. I'll come back if you've got something new to say or if there's evidence you've read, comprehended, and replied to my points.

People with opposing viewpoints can still discuss one another's viewpoints. While I may not believe in god, it's very simple for me to enter into a conversation regarding whether god exists, or even working within the framework of presupposing the existence of god. I'll admit the fact that people believe in this so much does set it apart from conversations about, say, Zeus, but they do run along the same vein.

Ustwo

You didn't ask one.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

I don't think what you're talking about here could be considered evidence. You're talking about the things you tell yourself about the bridges you cross so that you feel comfortable crossing them. They are not the same thing as evidence that a bridge will not collapse.

Here's why they aren't evidence:

A reasonable assumption is that all bridges that were built for carrying cars and have collapsed have done so after cars have driven on them. The fact that a bridge can bear a load is not evidence that a bridge will not collapse, in fact, if you look up the process of metal fatigue it will become clear to you that the more cars that drive across a bridge the more likely it is, even if only theoretically, to collapse. The fact that cars have driven across a bridge is in no way whatsoever evidence that it won't collapse. I really can't make it much plainer than that. If you continue to push this point, the only supposition you will be providing evidence for is the one that states that you don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, i don't mean to sound like a prick, but i don't think you're right at all about this, and if there's anyone who can tell me i'm full of shit i fully encourage them to do so.

As for the fact that most bridges don't collapse being evidence that a given bridge won't collapse, come on. That's not how things work. In the parlance of probability, since apparently many atheists are probability nuts, the odds that a bridge will collapse can quite reasonably modeled be as a continuous time markov process, which is just a fancy way of saying that the odds of a bridge collapsing have pretty much nothing to do with the odds of another bridge collapsing. I think that this is a reasonable assumption, at least in the short term, because there is nothing about a bridge collapsing that necessarily has any effect on whether another bridge will collapse. This isn't necessarily the case, since apparently there are some folks who think that a collapsed bridge is a sign that we need to start spending more money on bridges, a fact which might suggest that a collapsed bridge could inspire people to actually elect leaders who place a priority on maintaining the nation's infrastructure, which would lessen the odds that another bridge will fall. Unfortunately, these people aren't in the majority, so we'll see. Another reason that a markov process also might not be a completely accurate model is that the lessons learned from one bridge collapse may inspire better bridge design, and/or better bridge maintenance. However, since bridges aren't built all that often, and given no broad, reactionary public support for infrastructure maintenance, it should make sense that the odds of an existing bridge collapsing depend not at all on whether another bridge has collapsed.

But i agree, this is tedious, and only tangentially related to the topic of the thread, so be that as it may, it isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things.

albania

I read the God Delusion, he makes some good points. But, overall I wasn’t particularly impressed by the book. Still he's an intersting person to listen to. Though, I’m much more of a Daniel Dennett fan. You could think of him as Richard Dawkins but without the snobby British attitude.
Part1
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zd6EmF2A3uo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zd6EmF2A3uo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

part 2

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HK-lz9X9h_k"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HK-lz9X9h_k" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

part3
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHG_20efsgU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EHG_20efsgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


This one is a lot longer and the part that sort of deals with atheism is towards the beginning. He makes a few points over again and it deals with other aspects of philosophy. The subtitles are annoying, but you’ll get used to them. I’ve really only included it since I like the part towards the middle and end about consciousness.

<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3133438412578691486&hl=en" flashvars="&subtitle=on"> </embed>

Plus, he looks like Santy Claus.

Slims

Dogla Adams (of Hitchickers Guide to the Galaxy fame) has an interesting perspective on this:

"AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.

I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all. "



http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Willravel

Do you have to be old to be an outspoken atheist?

Slims

No, but it probably helps to be articulate enough to be taken seriously, and age helps.

akh, keybard prblems

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Bill O'Rights

Really?

You'll notice that I have not, up to now, chimed in at all. I debate nothing. I am an atheist, and am secure in my lack of belief. Just as, I am sure, you are secure in you belief. And...that's fine. You see, I don't force my lack of beliefs upon you, and I tend to expect the same courtesy. I find it all really rather pointless, actually. Although...I will admit...it's fun to watch.

I have, however, noticed that theists tend to get much more emotional, in their arguments, than do atheists. I find myself wondering why. I mean, if I'm wrong...then all I have to answer to is a god that I don't believe in...right? Why do theists care so much about what I believe, or don't believe. Certainly my lack of belief takes nothing from your belief. Right? Or, perhaps I'm missing something.

Tomorrow, I shall cross the I-480 bridge, from Omaha into Iowa. I will do so, because I see it. I've crossed it before. I know that it is there. I will not try to cross the Missouri River 200 yards to the south of that bridge. I will not do so because I do not see a bridge there. Therefore, I do not believe that a bridge exists there. So, until I see a car mysteriously floating in the air, over the river, into Iowa...I'll stick to the verifiable. I'll leave it at that.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

filtherton

I think it probably has more to do with the casual arrogance and overstated sense of superiority that often accompanies atheist statements about atheism. It ain't in all of them, but it exists in varying degrees in many of them, you know, like equating belief in the unverifiable with a willingness to drive over bridges that don't exist.

It usually involves some sort of statement alluding to the irrationality, or folly, of believing in something that isn't verifiable, as if the person making the statement has completely verified every idea that they've ever subscribed to. It's usually nothing more than an overly complex rationalization of why the way the atheist sees the world is fundamentally superior than the way any nonatheist sees the world, in spite of the fact that cultivating a preference for a particular way of looking at the world is a decidedly arbitrary endeavor. As if standards of proof were a new and important way of competing with your fellow human being.

Some sort of variation of, "I favor verification to a greater degree than you, you are of lesser mental capabilities than i am."

At least these are the types of sentiments that annoy me. I'm not really a theist, though.

Baraka_Guru

The Christians cribbed from the pagans, and now the atheists want the Christians to show their work rather than just their answers.


....I don't know what to believe anymore.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Infinite_Loser

Foiled again by the English language.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

albania

I must say older people have the I don't give a crap attitude that can only come with having lived a full life. Atheism is still a somewhat radical idea. When you're making your inroads in academia I think the last thing you want to start off doing is alienating people or making enemies. So maybe there is some propensity towards being old and an outspoken atheist.

filtherton

I don't know. At least here in the tfp i think that all the older atheists generally seem to stay away from the topic when it comes up.