Atheists are no better than religious nuts

Post Reply New Topic

Religion is ultimately based in philosophical thinking. Philosophy questions everything, ergo the variety in religions. But culture is an entirely different force and religion more often than not takes a back seat to culture and the basic facts of the human psyche and sociological pressures. Whatever your religion, atheist or not (yes there are in fact atheist religions, if you don't believe me look more into religions like buddhism), society invariably exists in some repressive and backwards thinking form.

The problems that we like to blame on religion actually exist because of more basic pressures than theology and philosophy. When there is variation, difference in ideas and resources, when there are basic elements of human variations, different groups demonize and harass one another. In the earliest human remains we can find there is a significant portion of them that died violently.

And of course there is the trump card argument here. If you look at human suffering and compare time scales, atheistic societies have caused immeasurably more suffering in a shorter frame of time. There are hundred year periods of horror under the banner of religious fervor that pale in comparison to hundreds of millions of people slaughtered like animals by atheistic regimes during the 20th century. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ho Chi Min, Kim Jong Il, the cost of lives considering the time frame is simply staggering.

Every society draws up ideological shields around the ideas that confirm it's identity. Demonizing people unites the community. As sad as it is to say, this is the glue that has held us all together throughout history.

Last but not least, if you look at many religions around the world and come to a more intimate understanding of them you begin to understand that many people who have claimed these religions while committing horrible deeds were in fact acting out the antithesis of their religion. Invariably when I touch on this people love to mention the atrocities of the OT without any working knowledge of the original languages or any understanding of what actually historically happened and what the authors really meant. Conventional Christianity, conventional Islam, and conventional Hinduism are in many ways irrespective of the original movement and as languages change and people with cultural motivations revise stories the originals are obscured more and more.

Now you are ignoring the fact that you used Paul Davies and Stephen Hawking to validate your point that the universe is "fine tuned" and present Roger Penrose instead. Like I said in the previous thread I have not read any Paul Davies and I am not about to start wiki quoting him, however I have read Hawking extensively, he does not believe in a "fine tuned universe" in the sense that a creator has twiddled some physics to make it all work, other people in that thread had read Paul Davies and they said pretty much the same thing about him as I have said about Hawking.

This is not to say that both Davies and Hawking do not find the cosmological constants remarkable.

Regarding the suitability of this universe to support life and the fine parametres required to bring this about, it is a long bow to draw suggesting this is statistically significant evidence for a creator. Above all else you are assuming, with no justification, that ours is the only universe. Remember we once thought our solar system was all there was, it was not until 1923 that we discovered other galaxies and the first extra solar planet was discovered in 1988. Your argument most definitely belongs in the "God of the Gaps" camp. I acknowledge that the cosmological constants do afford some evidence towards a creator, but only in the sense of finding a coin under the pillow affords evidence of the tooth fairy.




Well don't be disturbed I have a reasonable memory and have not yet needed to resort to the WP database. Oh and as for "you looked up my occupation" no I did not, someone else in that thread pointed out that you had misled me.

As for suggesting that your occupation demonstrates that you know not to take things out of context, I find this a tad concerning. You talk as if it was only I who accused you of intellectual dishonesty when this is far from the case, nearly everone who responded to your suggestions pointed out that your were far from accurate in your representation of both papers and authors. As I said earlier that you are taken to court hundreds of times a year by companies and theirhigh priced lawyers may suggest they see you as intellectually dishonest as well.

Mr Dent, drop this "taken to court" line. I think you know as well as anyone that big technology firms value their patents a little bit, and are likely to challenge any decision that goes against them. Regardless, it's ad hominem - does LNH's competence or otherwise as a patent clerk have any relevance to his ability to form an argument here? If tomorrow he is declared the greatest patent clerk of all time by an independent review, will you concede that you are wrong?

Admittedly, LNH should drop his claims to infallibility. Maybe he is a great patent clerk; regardless, he is not capable of consistent intellectual honesty in scientific discussions, perhaps because the skills are not entirely transferable. If he is fired as a patent clerk tomorrow, he will not turn around and say he must be wrong.

I had already cited this, but now you bring it up as some new objection ...

- Physicist Paul Davies: "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ?fine-tuned' for life" [source 1]

- Hawking: "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." [source 1]

In 2010 Wallstreet Journal
"In the pages of The Wall Street Journal last week, Hawking and Mlodinow summarized their case against God. After presenting a case for the incredible fine-tuning that was required for conscious life on earth, they argued that the incredible ?coincidences? involved in this fine-tuning are not evidence of the work of God". [source 2]

Conclusion:
You don't appear to understand M-theory. His M-theory is based on fine-tuned universes, so if you think he does not believe that then explain why he wrote the book 'The Grand design', and why he is going around lecturing about fine-tuned universes ? Also, where is your evidence ? You provide no evidence. The wikipage is a fraud too? Because apparently, according to you, they are misrepresenting these people by "quoting them out of context"?

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/07/ ... -creation/

Back that up, cause I call you a liar of the worst kind.

I asked you a simple question about what you know, and you failed to answer. If you know something, anything at all, then enlighten us. All you have are insults. You seem to know nothing on the subject. I suspect you are the type of person who is so ignorant, that you don't even know what you don't know. And you use insults to deflect your ignorance. Am I close ?

Why can't you tell us what you know? I cite all these PHD people and yet you know they are wrong. Yet, you can't tell us how ? This is stuff I would expect from children. I just created a new topic about deterministic evolution, so if you know something these PHDs do not know, then speak up, otherwise I am left thinking you are ... [insert derogatory opinion of someone's intellect].

I am not even mentioning all the times I have observed your reading/thinking comprehension errors. And on the determinstic evolution topic you seemed to be totally oblivious to what was stated on the topic. I responded to all your statements, and of course you never responded, likely because you know nothing. And to think of it wasn't it you that when presented with the Ramussen polling survey, responded with "don't blame the victim", as if a survey is "blaming the victim". And on the other thread, it's obvious that 1 million+ immigration causes increases in cars, energy, homes .. yet your response is "it is idiotic to blame immigrants". That shows difficulties in basic reasoning.

Don't feel bad though. I did not even know what was happening in the world most of my life. Also, I am not a "he" but that is trivial.

From earlier in the thread ... which you did not respond ...

Atheism can become a religion to some. There are certainly zealous atheists out there who call Christians (yes, especially Christians) ignorant, hypocritical, hateful, bigoted, and whatever other pejorative adjective you like. Christians, on the other hand, may call the zealous atheists evil, immoral, selfish, unenlightened by God, etc.

I doubt if there will be any peace between the camps.

The knives are especially drawn in the USA because there is a clash between those who think Christian morality should be the basis of law and of human rights, and those who think that something else should provide such a basis. We find this clash especially when it comes to disagreement over abortion and gay unions.

P.S. Also - feel disclosure - I'm a Catholic priest, so you could guess (can you?) what I think of things. But I majored in physics before going to seminary. I loved studying physics. But it became very clear to me you can't construct a theology (or argue for a lack of theology) from the physical sciences. Evolution? Big Bang? Quantum fluctuations? Order vs. chaos? Both sides can find their own interpretations of the phenomena and claim victory. It's kind of a waste of mental effort and just makes people angry. Or am I wrong?

Walrus, maybe I have not made myself clear. I could not care what LNH does for a living, I only raised the subject as an example of her intellectual dishonesty IE in a previous thread she described her work in such a way as to lead me to think she was a highly paid lawyer, and at the same time asked me what I did for a living, giving the impression that her occupation implied greater credibility when it came to understanding scientific principles. Flowing from her assertions that her employment confers good scientific literacy I have simply been suggesting that maybe she is not as competent as she would like to think, all the time with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

I have been completely honest in my posts when my occupation comes up.

-I have made many past posts on the "Work" and "General" forums telling other U.S. ASD people here that my employer is hiring, and info on what they can do to apply.
-I explained to user "songofgandi" on PPR a few times, as he looked into working where I do.
-Also, some users here privately asked me to keep them updated if there is hiring for their degree.
-I also created a NASA jobs thread for "people with mental conditions" because as a federal employee I found out they implemented a hiring plan to hire people dx with a mental condition.
-And in the post you refer to, go back, and read what I wrote. I never said anything about my salary or occupation.



I never implied this. Out of frustration from your insults, I said a few million dollars is spent arguing with me per year, so I know what I am doing. And that is true.

I have said many times on here that in real life I get called "ret*d". My neighbor told the police last year that I am ret*d, and the police asked me many times which caused me PTSD. So, I don't "flower" anything. Also, my boss at my last job said "you need a new brain". Does that make you feel good? Is this an ego thing for you ?

You would appear to have an English comprehension deficiency, or at least an inability to understand what these authors mean when they talk about fine tuning, and as for your suggestion that M theory provides evidence for a creator or that many people involved in this field believe this, is quite frankly laughable.

I am done discussing this topic with you as you are unable to grasp what it is these authors are saying, maybe this is because you have not read their work past the odd newspaper article or wiki quote. Go do some proper reading and then maybe you will understand why some of us call you intellectually dishonest and say that you are taking the likes of Davies and Hawking grossly out of context.

Instead of naming some books why don't you actually go ahead and read them, if you have read them, read then again as it would appear you have not grasped what they are saying. Just in case you cannot be bothered I will spell it out for you

Both authors acknowledge the universe is finely balanced allowing for life to exist, both suggest that this may seem to some like deliberate directional fine tuning, both authors flatly refute this and give natural explanations that require no creator and no deliberate direction or purpose.

As well as reading Hawking and Davies I would also suggest 'A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing' Lawrence M Krauss

For one thing, the vast majority of this universe is completely inimical to life as we know it.

For another, if our universe had happened to have slightly different rules, which were statistically just as likely but which precluded life, no one would be around to speculate about it. Life is secondary to the laws, not the other way around.

Funny, after what 20 posts across four topics, you can't provide any evidence to support what you are saying. If you spent any time on physics website, or talked to someone, then perhaps you could learn something, instead you waste people's time fumbling around on this website. I have run out of patience with you.



You are confused about pretty everything, as far as i can tell, however, you are definitely confused about what is evidence:

extreme mathematical unlikeliness is evidence of non-randomness in any endeavor
extreme mathematical unlikeliness is evidence of non-randomness in any endeavor
extreme mathematical unlikeliness is evidence of non-randomness in any endeavor

This is precisely why Hawking tries to argue around non-randomness.



Where is your proof? How many posts have you made 20 or so, and not a single link. What is the problem ? Don't know how to use google? I cited the Wall Street Journal that Hawking [ apparently you like a lot], is going around lecturing about fine-tuned universes, based on his book of course, and yet you know that is wrong somehow ...



You are confusing the Cosmological argument with the Teleological argument. We are talking about "fine tuning" which is relevant to the Teleological. I suggest you read these wikipages :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

I remember you discussing your background in physics on the General thread. I don't remember you admitting that you are a Catholic priest. Well, philosophers do construct probability arguments to support their positions. These events have ascribed probabilities associated with them.

The more I study physics the more I believe in a creator.



I don't think it is a waste of mental effort to learn ideas.

On the Sixth Day God created tapeworms in his image, and gave them souls.

And the proof of that is how "fine tuned" the human body is to supporting tapeworms.

I mean...how can you doubt intelligent design when you consider what a great job God did in fashioning the human body for its role of keeping and preserving tapeworms?

This is quite common amongst those who read science they misunderstand through preconception-tinted glasses.

What in physics makes you believe a creator does not exist ?The physicist on this thread who is a Catholic priest, and all the religious physicists/astrophysicists "misunderstand science"? Your contribution to this thread is to insult a bunch of people?