The unreasoning hostility to religion...

[happyjack27]

atheists may hold a set of beliefs concerning the nature of the universe

Unless they follow some alternate ideology, they dont believe in anything. They use science to explain the universe. Science is not about believe. There is no believe in science.

if the believe in science they believe that our current understanding is a practically useful approximation. they may also believe that the chicken will be about ready in 5 minutes. (only to discover they didn't turn the oven on). all in all they have beliefs - as temporary and tentative as they may be - concerning the nature of the universe, ranging everywhere from the trivial to the profound. it is inescapable.

[Betruger]

What you describe could just as well be explained by expectation rather than faith. Probability, not ideology. Put yet another way (Ayn Rand's) - convictions, not beliefs.

The above better passes Occam's than all atheists, agnostics, and scientists being closet mystics because they stand on solipsism's shoulders as everyone must. As Descartes popularized.

[happyjack27]

What you describe could just as well be explained by expectation rather than faith. Probability, not ideology. Put yet another way (Ayn Rand's) - convictions, not beliefs.

The above better passes Occam's than all atheists, agnostics, and scientists being closet mystics because they stand on solipsism's shoulders as everyone must. As Descartes popularized.

oh yes, expectations is a good word, and faith is not. though as far as convictions go.... hopefully not.

"Convictions are worse enemies to truth than are lies." -Fredrich Neitzsche

[Betruger]

Which would stymie my argument if people like Rand weren't convinced that their convictions are always up for re-assessment provided adequate evidence.

[bcglorf]

I would suggest that a key word here is 'belief'. 'Faith' and 'belief' are not things I would associate with clear-headed secularism and atheism. Sure, some individuals in those categories may hold odd beliefs, but the scientific way of modern man aims to hold interpretation against testable observations.

And who says Christians can't follow the scientific way of modern man and aim to hold interpretation against testable observations? Sure, some individuals in the category hold odd beliefs, but if you get to hand pick your 'atheists' you are biasing the outcome unless the other side gets to hand pick their members as well.

I think the real problem is differentiating between belief, and blind irrational faith based on nothing at all. As Christian myself, I hold the irrational crowd that believes in whatever most recently moved them even more irritating than most atheists, mainly because they often self identify as 'Christian'. It's parallel to atheists who not only firmly believe aliens are visiting earth, but believe their faith in alien visits is founded in their atheist philosophy. Or closer to home, atheists who believe the scientific process is the sole domain of those following an atheist philosophy.

Granted, sometime sufficient reliable observations and logical explanations are a bit thin on the ground and one has to spread a few facts a long way without actually knowing for sure, but that is over-stretching what you know and it is not falling into a belief system, by any measure.

And you'll of course recognize that applies to the human question of 'why'. Not only in testable examples, like why did that explode when it was put near the fire, but also to less testable ones like why did this happen to me. I'm not sure you can blanket all atheists with giving the same answer, but generally you seem to suggest that they all follow occam's razor and declare why 'me' is always simple coincidence. If someone with a religious belief though has witnessed all manner of coincedence in their life that is given a consistent explanation by their religious belief, is it irrational belief anymore or is that a form of evidence in a place where the facts available are a bit thin? Are they really being more rational by declaring hundreds of events they've witnessed in their life that were explained by their religious beliefs as being all so much coincedence?

Do not confuse 'not knowing all the facts and coming to a provisional conclusion' with 'religious belief'.

Just because not all provisional conclusions are religious belief, does not preclude that some beliefs in religion are rational provisional conclusions.

There is nothing stopping those who have belief and faith in a religion, based on evidences they've witnessed in their lives from looking at scientific evidence and accepting both. There is nothing stopping them from assessing the evidence on both sides and coming to a rational conclusion. There is even nothing irrational about someone who's seen a lifetime of evidence in personal experience reinforcing their religious beliefs to look at a small set of scientific data they don't understand that is at odds with a part of their religion and to dismiss it. The are just rationally assessing the evidence they can understand and coming to a conclusion, nothing about the rational process ensures coming to the correct decision.

One observation I'm supremely confidant in is that human beings, collectively are rarely rational and far more often think on an emotional and/or religious basis. This is a blanket statement covering everybody, no matter how devout an atheist or scientist they may be. How many Elvis sightings have been made by atheists? How many holding scientific PhD's hold at least one absolutely nutter crazy belief in something? I'm afraid that considering Atheist's as uniquely rational and suited to assessing evidence in an unbiased and rational manner is the exact same trap every major religion in history has fallen into and been hated for. I will state that consistently it has been the human nature, more than any base belief system, that destroyed the illusion and Atheism is no different.

[GIThruster]

Skip, I promise you, you have in mind a mere caricature of religious people.

Ah really? You think that I dont personally know religious people?
Do you think that religion has in no way ever come across my own life?

No. I think you deliberately formed a self-serving generalization to deprecate others, that has lead you foolishly to condemn those you don't agree with.

[happyjack27]

Skip, I promise you, you have in mind a mere caricature of religious people.

Ah really? You think that I dont personally know religious people?
Do you think that religion has in no way ever come across my own life?

No. I think you deliberately formed a self-serving generalization to deprecate others, that has lead you foolishly to condemn those you don't agree with.

that is not the simplest explanation. occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation is more likely correct. the simplest explanation is that he is just making a statement about empirical observations. anything more than that would be a more complicated explanation and as such would require more evidence to justify.

[Skipjack]

No. I think you deliberately formed a self-serving generalization to deprecate others, that has lead you foolishly to condemn those you don't agree with.

You dont know anything about me. I am not condemning religious people. Some of the most important people in my personal life were/are VERY religious. You mistake my aversion to religion in government and science to an aversion for religion in general.
You are the one who is foolishly condemning those that dont agree with you.

[bcglorf]

Ah really? You think that I dont personally know religious people?
Do you think that religion has in no way ever come across my own life?

No. I think you deliberately formed a self-serving generalization to deprecate others, that has lead you foolishly to condemn those you don't agree with.

that is not the simplest explanation. occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation is more likely correct. the simplest explanation is that he is just making a statement about empirical observations. anything more than that would be a more complicated explanation and as such would require more evidence to justify.

That's just plain idiotic. Your defending someone's generalizations of a group of people by invoking occam's razor, because the generalization being untrue is a more complicate explanation?

Are you insane?

[happyjack27]

No. I think you deliberately formed a self-serving generalization to deprecate others, that has lead you foolishly to condemn those you don't agree with.

that is not the simplest explanation. occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation is more likely correct. the simplest explanation is that he is just making a statement about empirical observations. anything more than that would be a more complicated explanation and as such would require more evidence to justify.

That's just plain idiotic. Your defending someone's generalizations of a group of people by invoking occam's razor, because the generalization being untrue is a more complicate explanation?

Are you insane?

no that is not my reasoning. and no i am not insane. also, there is usually some degree of truth to any given stereotype. (how else do you think it came about?) a standard sociology textbook will tell you that.

[GIThruster]

Ah really? You think that I dont personally know religious people?
Do you think that religion has in no way ever come across my own life?

No. I think you deliberately formed a self-serving generalization to deprecate others, that has lead you foolishly to condemn those you don't agree with.

that is not the simplest explanation. occam's razor suggests the simplest explanation is more likely correct. the simplest explanation is that he is just making a statement about empirical observations. anything more than that would be a more complicated explanation and as such would require more evidence to justify.

But it's not an empirical observation. Observations are not obviously and stupidly wrong and his caricature most certainly is. The world abounds with brilliant theists. He's pretending that isn't so for obviously self-serving purposes. It's not an observation. It's delusion.

[happyjack27]

But it's not an empirical observation. Observations are not obviously and stupidly wrong and his caricature most certainly is. The world abounds with brilliant theists. He's pretending that isn't so for obviously self-serving purposes. It's not an observation. It's delusion.

i didn't even look at what he was saying. the statements i made are valid regardless. you're saying he's saying theists are generally less intelligent? i do recall that social statistics do indeed show that to be the case.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosit ... telligence

EDIT: it may be offensive, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. nature has no regard for human emotions.

[Skipjack]

Ok, whatever guys, I am outa here.
You are offending and annoying and this really is enough!
I should remember to stay out of General. To stupid of me to put my head back in here. All I can say is: You guys are responsible for the bad image the US has in most of the civilized world.

[AcesHigh]

Ok, whatever guys, I am outa here.
You are offending and annoying and this really is enough!
I should remember to stay out of General. To stupid of me to put my head back in here. All I can say is: You guys are responsible for the bad image the US has in most of the civilized world.

somewhat. The american guy who asked yesterday at Yahoo Answers if the solar eclipse this week had caused a spike at the number of sacrifices in the 3rd World, is more responsible for it.

[GIThruster]

i didn't even look at what he was saying. the statements i made are valid regardless. you're saying he's saying theists are generally less intelligent? i do recall that social statistics do indeed show that to be the case.

No. That'a not what he said and that's not what I said he said. How can you continue to post about posts you don't know what they said?

Is there a better example of "unreasoning hostility to religion" than people who float ridiculous deluded caricatures of religious people that are obviously on their face, quite absurd?