Why The Dude Converted

[Scorpion Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Scorpion Man you are wrong slightly IMO. Me, being from the bay area, I can understand why you hold these views. After all, 99% of the ppl you live w/ share the same views as you, so that may have shaped you.

There are lots of things my friends/society/parents do. Many of these things are like "pressure".

1. Parents are liberals (as well as large portion of the area I live in), I am a republican.

2. Parents go to church every week, I go 5x a year.

3. Parents believe in 4-6 years of college after high school, I don't.

4. Friends like to get drunk, I really don't (anymore), for no particular reason.

I can list countless things.

Your assumption however is correct; If you lived in a certain environment, you would def fallow its mainstream views/way of life. However, I don't think you become a slave to it.

Second; what difference does it matter why ppl hold a belief? By your reasoning, you cannot believe anything unless you have experienced it w/o any foreign force. So for me, I cannot hold judgment or opinion about 99% of things, because each of those things has been skewed from its pure form;

IE: all the [censored] they teach in school. Do I truly believe it? Would I believe all these things if I was born into another form of education on another planet? No, I wouldn't, I would believe something else (which is your point). However, all I can do is believe in what I am presented w/.

Throughout my life I have been presented with several views on religion. Currently I pray at night, and go to church once every few months. This is by my own choice, and not b/c I was born into it. I actually observe a different religion (technically) from what my parents observe.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I grew up in Western Massachusetts, not the Bay Area.
2) From your mouth the God's ears (!) that 99% of the people here agree with me. So not true. Most of my neighbors and friends believe in God and most of them attend either Church or synagogue (no Muslims, sorry).
3) I don't care if there are other things you do or do not do because of pressure. We are talking about whether or not there is a God.
4) Why do I care about why people hold a belief? Because to me, belief is about truth and it should be a reflection of an objective reality. There either is a God or there isn't. If you took me at my word about worshipping the lettuce, you would think I was nuts. Why? Why do you care why I believe what I believe? To me, religious people are worshipping the lettuce. It's not as different as it sounds in my mind.
5) I absolutely did not say you can't believe things you haven't experienced without a foreign force. I am an atheist and noone talked me into it. I am saying that most religious people do not even realize that they have not chosen their beliefs - they have been indoctrinated into them.
6) Your "technically" different religion is a funny comment to me. If my views are a 1 and yours are 100, your parents are probably about a 99.6 in comparison. It's all the same noise. You just stand up and sit down at different times and eat different stuff once in awhile.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
So, how does this make God unlikely to exist? Well, it’s a simple probability comparison. One of two things existed without a cause: a non-complex mass, or a being that has the power to create, control, and know the entire universe. That being, by definition, would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the simple mass, and therefore, almost infinitely less likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

This argument is silly.

How are we defining complexity? Number of moving parts? Number of amino acids comprising its genetic code? Number of fundamental particles comprising the entity?

I don't think you will see too many theists trying to claim God has N amino acids or X protons with Y electrons that comprise his body. How on earth can the term "complexity" be even used to define God?

To see what I am getting at, what would you say is more complex: A computer or a neural cell. Do you see how the classification of "complex" is completely arbitrary? You can subjectively say one is more complex than the other, or you can define some criteria making something more or less complex. But it doesn't make any sense to do it for something that we cannot even measure. How "complex" is a graviton?

In short,

[ QUOTE ]
That being, by definition, would have to be almost infinitely more complex than the simple mass, and therefore, almost infinitely less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not "by definition" that a being/entity which created our physical reality must be "more complex" than that reality. Using the term complexity doesn't make any sense. Also, notice how he uses the terms "simple mass" to describe our universe. Nice choice of wording to get your point across, but I hardly think a universe which the most brilliant minds in history have hardly even come close to comprehending can be (honestly) called a "simple mass".

Just to note, I concede that there may be some deeper point to using the term "complexity" to describe a God. I just don't see it given the context and maybe he explains it further in his book. However, I have asked this question a few others times and it has been ignored by people claiming this is a great argument (hence my attitude that the argument is worthless). Maybe you can explain how he is using the word "complexity" a bit better?

As I aide note, I commend you for following what you truly believe in spite of what others around you are pushing you to do. I may disagree with your position and your reasoning, but that's what makes things interesting. So yes, I'm a theist, but I'm not trying to make any attempt to "convert" you back, just trying to understand this argument.

[Zeno]

Obviously this has been a long path and journey for you and not some 'overnight conversion' or knee-jerk reaction to a reading of a single book. Thanks for the summary, however brief.


Just a few comments:

[ QUOTE ]
2) something like 80% of people believe what their parents believe

[/ QUOTE ]

This fact is of fundamental importance - and often glossed or passed over by those with an agenda to promote or a bottle of snake oil to sell. Another way to say somewhat the same thing: All one-year-old children are atheists.

[ QUOTE ]
I became aware of the fact that it is very possible to hold a solid, respectable ethical framework completely devoid of God's existence. In fact, people don't really get their values from the fact that God exists at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

An important realization.

[ QUOTE ]
Judaism and Christianity were thus my only real options as a theist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not quite true in my opinion but it is a minor point and not worth quibbling about.


Only the fortunate can take life without mythology. - Will Durant.


-Zeno

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Another way to say somewhat the same thing: All one-year-old children are atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

All one-year-old children don't believe 9X9 = 81 either.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am thinking wrong, its like saying there can are no computer engineers, becuase computers are so complex that the probability of an engineer building one is less than that of it just occuring naturally.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's saying that explaining the existence of computers by positing the existence of computer engineers is not an explanation (at least, not a complete one) unless you also explain why computer engineers exist. Otherwise you've simply shifted the complexity you're trying to explain to some other entity, and you might as well have not bothered and simply declared that computers require no explanation.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Another way to say somewhat the same thing: All one-year-old children are atheists.


[/ QUOTE ]

All one-year-old children don't believe 9X9 = 81 either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Last I checked no religons claim that believing 9x9=81 will send you to heaven.

[Tuco]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I hear you. You just randomly happened to choose the massively majority religion in this country. If you were elsewhere, you would have rebelled against those majority religions and picked Christianity because its so much better supported by reason, experience or, better yet, what you just feel and see all around you.

The facts are that the VAST majority of Christians (and other religious people) hold their beliefs because family and/or friends and/or society push them and/or make them ubiquitous and attractive to people who need the crutch because being an atheist means you have to figure out how to make meaning of the big bad world on your own. No afterlife. No absolute mandated morality. No higher power giving a crap about how you live your life. Nada.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't necessarily like the condecending tone of this post, it is spot-on.

Tuco.

[BPA234]

You should start a thread, that would be an excellent topic. I grew up in a socio-economic environment with the following priorities: money, drugs, gambling, criminality, violence>>>>>>>>>>&g t;>>>>>>>>>>>> academics, sports, honest work.

I think a thread on the choice of direction would be very interesting and, if you are in a place where you are making some version of that choice, it could be helpful.

[maddog2030]

Matt,

Think of "more complex" as "more/grandeur assumptions."

Or reworded as: the more you have to assume various things for your explanation of the world to be correct, the less likely it is correct.

[J.A.K.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post NotReady. Obviously science is the tool for man's discovery of the natural world. Logic and reason can push that tool in either direction.

This is purely opinion, but I do not think God set it up so that we come to know Him empirically. Faith is illogical and therefore of more value to God. But AFTER that initial step of faith the empirical evidence is there to be interpreted as a matter of reinforcing the believer's faith but not absolute natural proof for the unbeliever. I don't know if I am saying that right.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with all other religious people, you assume a hidden premise: that the truth of reality includes a (higher) dimension that can only be accessed subjectively, through faith.
<font color="blue"> You are correct, I do believe that faith is the path to God. I do not know a scientific/logical explanation of faith. Having to believe because 1+1=2 and choosing to believe are two different things was my only point.</font>

Since this is an objectively unfalsifiable premise, you are safe from scientific disproof.Nonetheless, there are strong existential reasons for denying this premise the privileged status that you religious people assume it has . <font color="blue">Huh? </font>


Personally &lt;---- <font color="blue">Isn't this the crux of the whole thing? </font>



I would argue that these existential reasons are strong enough to make the premise downright intellectually dishonest, and if you're interested in the argument, I'll start a thread in SMP.

But I'm really replying to address this thought:

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, I do believe the zeitgeist will continue in your direction. It's kind of sad really and I cannot put my finger on it. But your conversion really brings up the heart of the matter: What is the individual man going to do with God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who shares this feeling that scientific truth is merely a shadow of religious truth needs to stop despairing and read up on some science! <font color="blue">Who said that? I have no animosity towards science. I embrace it. I say it is a way to understand God's natural world and you say it is a way to disprove God. I will say your argument is sophistry and you will say the same of mine. </font> The insight, imagination, and ravishing genius that have inspired scientific accomplishments <font color="blue">COULD </font> make any theological system look about as sophisticated and interesting as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. <font color="blue">Or it could further evidence wonderful design </font>


[/ QUOTE ]