Posts that don't deserve threads, Volume I.

Stern, you realize that I didn't write this. But is it safe to say that you would say that Atheism is a conclusion based on objective faith?

I don't like how it sounds.

Here is how I responded to the post:

Atheism is not the conclusion that God can’t exist, it is the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence that God exists and therefore one can also conclude that God is a concept made up by man, and there is as much empirical reason to believe in God as there is in the Tooth Fairy.
No faith needed.
Very few Atheists I know can say God doesn’t exist 100% for sure, just like we can’t say the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist 100% for sure.
Your point about us still evolving is ridiculous as I pointed out on the other blog. Whether we are still evolving, which we are ever so slightly be is of no consequence. We are at the stage where we understand math and science where other animals can’t, as yet (some can understand certain aspects of math, like chimps)
If man were to be wiped off the earth tomorrow, from a deadly virus, it still wouldn’t alter the law of gravity for example. Man has it figured out, but without man here, objects won’t start flying off the planet.

[Sternwallow]

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

Stern, you realize that I didn't write this. But is it safe to say that you would say that Atheism is a conclusion based on objective faith?

I don't like how it sounds.

Atheism, for me, is not a conclusion; it is a best working hypothesis where "working" pertains to the amount of objective evidence that has been found to support it. It constantly adjusts as new experiences occur and more data arrives.

I would like to confine the term "faith" to those strictly subjective areas that have no evidence, or even contradict the evidence. That would cover all religious, New Age and pseudo-science forms.

Whether faith feels good and comforting or not, we must instead seek the closest possible approach to truth.

Cal says that faith is inversely proportional to knowledge. I agree with the basic idea, but it requires different math. Zero faith would imply infinite knowledge under his formula and zero knowledge would imply infinite faith. I am also not sure that the relationship is linear. So, as a refinement rather than a refutation of Cal's Law, I propose a parametric interpolation between X amount of faith at zero knowledge and Y amount of knowledge (the total amount of knowledge currently possible about the subject) at zero faith.

[Sternwallow]

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

Here is how I responded to the post:

Atheism is not the conclusion that God can’t exist, it is the conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence that God exists and therefore one can also conclude that God is a concept made up by man, and there is as much empirical reason to believe in God as there is in the Tooth Fairy.
No faith needed.
Very few Atheists I know can say God doesn’t exist 100% for sure, just like we can’t say the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist 100% for sure.
Your point about us still evolving is ridiculous as I pointed out on the other blog. Whether we are still evolving, which we are ever so slightly be is of no consequence. We are at the stage where we understand math and science where other animals can’t, as yet (some can understand certain aspects of math, like chimps)
If man were to be wiped off the earth tomorrow, from a deadly virus, it still wouldn’t alter the law of gravity for example. Man has it figured out, but without man here, objects won’t start flying off the planet.

That is a good, but somewhat long way to say "reality is what remains when you stop believing"
(approximation to unattributed quote from somewhere).

I went to the (catholic) easter vigil mass yesterday...it was actually somewhat interesting:

It begins in the dark. everyone sits silently in the pews clutching a little unlit candle whispering about how much of a drama queen the priest is (well I was...my mother surprisingly and hilariously agreed). then a call is heard from the back of the church: they are lighting a big candle with the "light of christ". other candles are lit from this one and soon everybody's candle is bright and dripping wax on the upholstery. the church is now dimly lit and the mass proceeds. The lights turn on (thank you science) and then we blow out the candles (look, we can actually see better, no more need for this "light of christ" bullshit).

The readings are from genesis: oh goody, god made a world somewhere (they obviously aren't talking about this one), abraham is willing to kill his son (nice!)...and then we get this awesome reading from I think Ezekiel about how god caused/allowed a calamity which spread the jewish people among the nations...and now he is going to "cleanse" them

the order of the readings basically said this: god made the world, he made a pact with abraham (your children will number as the stars), the holocaust was divine retribution for perceived injury (your children are now forfeit). christians, you can have a new pact with me through jesus (fuck those jews).

it's like it was set up to say supercessionalism (google it if you must) is proved correct by the holocaust (or 'shoah', as some prefer). it doesn't help that the word 'holocaust' means something close to 'burnt offering'.

what I took away from this experience was that the church is ethically detestable and everyone in the building would be greatly helped by a philosophy class or two. the short priest needs to watch his symbolism a little closer too: if your "light of christ" is fucking dim, sooty, easily extinguished and occasionally sets an innocent woman's hair on fire, you've got some problems. oh, and your choir is terrible.

Sternwallow wrote

That is a good, but somewhat long way to say "reality is what remains when you stop believing"
(approximation to unattributed quote from somewhere).

The awesome and profoundly bonkers Philip K. Dick (my favourite author) :"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

[HeathenLifer]

darwinfish wrote

I went to the (catholic) easter vigil mass yesterday...it was actually somewhat interesting:

It begins in the dark. everyone sits silently in the pews clutching a little unlit candle whispering about how much of a drama queen the priest is (well I was...my mother surprisingly and hilariously agreed). then a call is heard from the back of the church: they are lighting a big candle with the "light of christ". other candles are lit from this one and soon everybody's candle is bright and dripping wax on the upholstery. the church is now dimly lit and the mass proceeds. The lights turn on (thank you science) and then we blow out the candles (look, we can actually see better, no more need for this "light of christ" bullshit).

The readings are from genesis: oh goody, god made a world somewhere (they obviously aren't talking about this one), abraham is willing to kill his son (nice!)...and then we get this awesome reading from I think Ezekiel about how god caused/allowed a calamity which spread the jewish people among the nations...and now he is going to "cleanse" them

the order of the readings basically said this: god made the world, he made a pact with abraham (your children will number as the stars), the holocaust was divine retribution for perceived injury (your children are now forfeit). christians, you can have a new pact with me through jesus (fuck those jews).

it's like it was set up to say supercessionalism (google it if you must) is proved correct by the holocaust (or 'shoah', as some prefer). it doesn't help that the word 'holocaust' means something close to 'burnt offering'.

what I took away from this experience was that the church is ethically detestable and everyone in the building would be greatly helped by a philosophy class or two. the short priest needs to watch his symbolism a little closer too: if your "light of christ" is fucking dim, sooty, easily extinguished and occasionally sets an innocent woman's hair on fire, you've got some problems. oh, and your choir is terrible.

Eww. That's completely awful. Those ignant cocksuckers.

[R and All]

HeathenLifer wrote

Eww. That's completely awful. Those ignant cocksuckers.

Well, ignance is stoopid, but cocksuckers ain't so bad, from the perspective of one who has got a cock.

[Sternwallow]

Wakkun wrote

The awesome and profoundly bonkers Philip K. Dick (my favourite author) :"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Of course! Thank you. I'm not sure that mine isn't a little better. :whistle:

[R and All]

I also prefer yours, Stern

Can't disagree. I like the sentiment, but I've always found PKD's wording a bit awkward (in this case, that is, I like his writing style generally).

Via Pharyngula, a rather interesting article at the Washington Post about rush hour, Kantian ideas about beauty, human foibles, and why I wish I was at L'Enfant Plaza Station in DC on January 12th.

[Philboid Studge]

ocmpoma wrote

Via Pharyngula, a rather interesting article at the Washington Post about rush hour, Kantian ideas about beauty, human foibles, and why I wish I was at L'Enfant Plaza Station in DC on January 12th.

Frigging busker makes $44/hr ! What are they whining about? (The author of the WashPost piece is a tool, and that story was one of the dumber journamalism stunts I've seen lately)

Really? I found it rather interesting, and found myself wondering how it would have turned out with a different genre of music.

[Philboid Studge]

ocmpoma wrote

Really? I found it rather interesting, and found myself wondering how it would have turned out with a different genre of music.

I think I was mostly put off by the writer's world-weary tone, as if it could be expected that one person in five hundred to recognize Joshua Bell during rush hour at a metro stop. Was he really shocked? Did he really expect that his readers would be?

The stuff about Kant and Leibniz seemed gratuitously thrown in to me, but, as Hume said, opinions vary. :|