The Problem with Atheism: by Sam Harris

[Ralph Wiggum]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't breed you are sure to be no more than a footnote in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this comment deserves extra attention. Its such a fantastic point! I mean, who remembers George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Immanuel Kant, Louis Armstrong, Francis Bacon, Beethoven, Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descartes, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Plato, Rosa Parks, Nietzche, and of course, Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this and shake my head.

Are you simply contrary by nature and thus blinded to previous content and context? I'm reasonably sure you're not stupid. I can't rule out stoned.

More likely insecure in your poorly founded philosophy and a desperate defender. You're well represented here.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, you're a funny guy, b/c you're actually serious. Do you sit on a really high stool and look down on your computer when you type these things, while shaking your head & saying things like, "Tsk tsk, that one is clearly pathetic and possibly a drug user. These minions are so weak-minded & insecure clearly not capable of grasping matters that come so easily to me."

If I've just been leveled, bravo! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

edit: LOL, your name is soooo money. <font color="white"> And this coming from a Ralph Wiggum.</font>

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't breed you are sure to be no more than a footnote in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this comment deserves extra attention. Its such a fantastic point! I mean, who remembers George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Immanuel Kant, Louis Armstrong, Francis Bacon, Beethoven, Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descartes, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Plato, Rosa Parks, Nietzche, and of course, Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this and shake my head.

Are you simply contrary by nature and thus blinded to previous content and context? I'm reasonably sure you're not stupid. I can't rule out stoned.

More likely insecure in your poorly founded philosophy and a desperate defender. You're well represented here.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL, you're a funny guy, b/c you're actually serious. Do you sit on a really high stool and look down on your computer when you type these things, while shaking your head &amp; saying things like, "Tsk tsk, that one is clearly pathetic and possibly a drug user. These minions are so weak-minded &amp; insecure clearly not capable of grasping matters that come so easily to me."

If I've just been leveled, bravo! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

edit: LOL, your name is soooo money. <font color="white"> And this coming from a Ralph Wiggum.</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

God I wish I were stoned right now. I just finished my first pharm exam and every other question was about antipsychotics or amphetamines or cocaine and i'm so burnt out right now that I could really, really use something.

I will be self-medicating with Et-OH shortly. I'll try not to drunk post ~2 am, but no promises.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Given the absence of evidence for God, and the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of religion, declaring oneself an “atheist” would seem the only appropriate response.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm regularly troubled by the arrogance of atheists, most particularly those looking to spread the 'good' word. There exists no significantly atheist/secular country that has a birthrate above replacement level, in fact the more secular the country, the lower the birthrate, in general. I can think of few more telling indicators of the health of a philosophy than its tendency to extinguish itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow... is your forum name apropos or what!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

I hope what David is saying is that there was a time when belief in gods was perhaps even a logical conclusion to arrive at. And that remains true today to some degree however uncomfortable it makes us atheists to admit it. Our continued ignorance about important matters of our universe leaves open the door for all kinds of possibilities that can't be ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone reason this doesn't sit comfortably. I feel like you could say, it was understandable that one would explain the tidal wave by attributing it to a God; simply because it was such a predominant part of the culture of the ancient man. But that doesn't mean it was well thought out, or that alternative explanations were much considered. Perhaps its arbitrary-- Perhaps instead of a God, someone had decided that animals created the earth and controlled the unexplained... if there was a giant tidal wave, it was caused by schools of angry Fish. No matter how silly that may sound, you could understand that; if someone was raised in this imaginary culture where he was taught that fish caused waves and could make the sea rise up if they were angry... You could understand how it would have some logic to it, even though its based on complete false and untested premises.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating this well... I think what I'm saying is the internal logic of a religion can make sense, though it relies on noone questioning certain premises which may not be remotely accurate.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't breed you are sure to be no more than a footnote in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this comment deserves extra attention. Its such a fantastic point! I mean, who remembers George Washington, Harriet Tubman, Joan of Arc, Mother Theresa, Immanuel Kant, Louis Armstrong, Francis Bacon, Beethoven, Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descartes, Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, Plato, Rosa Parks, Nietzche, and of course, Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this and shake my head.

Are you simply contrary by nature and thus blinded to previous content and context? I'm reasonably sure you're not stupid. I can't rule out stoned.

More likely insecure in your poorly founded philosophy and a desperate defender. You're well represented here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I followed the context. I made more serious points about that a few posts up. Why don't you respond to them?

I do like the amateur psychologist bit, though. Not sure where you got any idea what my philosophy is, much less how strong its foundations are, but perhaps you've been post-stalking me. It should go without saying that atheism is not a philosophy.

You do realize you made an absurd claim, that only those who breed have any chance at "being more than a footnote in history," right? I figured it was at least POSSIBLE you just didn't realize how inane that comment was, so I figured I'd educate you about it a little.

Jesus Christ has done more to propagate Christianity than Mike from Chicago, father of 5. This almost single-handedly refutes your point. Maybe it was too subtle?

Since this is a gambling forum, who do you think is a favorite to create more atheists/theists, me or you? You can have all the kids you want. I'll stick to my own methods (although I also plan on having kids, who knows if they will be atheists). You like your chances? You think you are a favorite?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're free to assume I'm a theist but that would simply add to your errors so far.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You've a keen eye for the outliers. Nice job isolating the right hand tail of both groups,.

If you're secure in your philosopy why must you resort to such techniques?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these are the outliers. I think atheists are much more likely to be responsible and caring than theists. However, in the absence of any evidence to support such a claim, personal experience is all I can point to. Where is your evidence, by the way? Or any kind of support or basis for your claims at all?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I hope what David is saying is that there was a time when belief in gods was perhaps even a logical conclusion to arrive at. And that remains true today to some degree however uncomfortable it makes us atheists to admit it. Our continued ignorance about important matters of our universe leaves open the door for all kinds of possibilities that can't be ruled out.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone reason this doesn't sit comfortably. I feel like you could say, it was understandable that one would explain the tidal wave by attributing it to a God; simply because it was such a predominant part of the culture of the ancient man. But that doesn't mean it was well thought out, or that alternative explanations were much considered. Perhaps its arbitrary-- Perhaps instead of a God, someone had decided that animals created the earth and controlled the unexplained... if there was a giant tidal wave, it was caused by schools of angry Fish. No matter how silly that may sound, you could understand that; if someone was raised in this imaginary culture where he was taught that fish caused waves and could make the sea rise up if they were angry... You could understand how it would have some logic to it, even though its based on complete false and untested premises.

I'm not sure if I'm articulating this well... I think what I'm saying is the internal logic of a religion can make sense, though it relies on noone questioning certain premises which may not be remotely accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Extended-family sized tribes of hunter gatherers usually are into animism not gods. As tribe size grows and governance arises in various forms, gods tend to be found, but not always. DS's acceptance of "god made more sense" is a symptom of his background. If he were raised in a Zen province in Asia, and still the bright mathematician he is, he would make the same argument for that view. Which DOES make more sense :-)
Or if he was a bright guy born into an animistic tribe, he may see the sense in that view.
It's not likely he would pull 'gods', however defined, out of the air in either of those cases.

They made sense in some parts of the world from 10,000 bc to 1900 ad, not prior or since, or in other cultures?

luckyme

[madnak]

I agree lucky, though I'm still waiting on chez to prove me wrong [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[David Sklansky]

"DS's acceptance of "god made more sense" is a symptom of his background. If he were raised in a Zen province in Asia, and still the bright mathematician he is, he would make the same argument for that view. Which DOES make more sense"

Firstly I never said god makes sense. I only said that people who don't understand physicss, or even realize that there are people who do, should, in their mind be more likely to believe that there was some kind of designer.

Secondly I have to set you straight once and for all about something. Math is not about numbers. Your comment about "my world" and "significant digits" was totally off the mark. Math is about logic and thinking ability. I know almost no math. I am as far away from being a mathmetician as you are. Unless a gun was pointed to our heads. Then I would probably learn it much more accurately and quicker than you would. But it wouldn't have anything to do with being "good with numbers". Most mathmeticians are not particularly good at arithmetic in their heads. They appear pretty good because they are aware of shortcuts based on logic.

Getting back to your quote. Remember in the movie A Beautiful Mind the line "I realize they must be hallucinattions because they aren't getting any older"?
The point is that if you are trained to think like a mathmetician or physicist you aim at every turn to shut out biases. And to not be influenced by your "background". So it is much less likely that matmeticians from different backgrounds would disagree about something than carpenters from different backgrounds.

And one thing mathmeticians would agree about is this: Given a designer has a non zero probability, the probability falls as it becomes more and more apparent that more and more things have an explanation we (actually not "we" but rather the top .1% smartest people) either understand completely or have an inkling "we" might understand in the future.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
nd one thing mathmeticians would agree about is this:

[/ QUOTE ]

If you promise not to speak for mathematicians, I'll promise not to speak for blue-eyed banjo players.
That may really help the points you try to make.
A version of, "here's what I, DS, think ... here's why".

luckyme