Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant

an explanation is not less likely to be true, nor less parsimonious just because it is “hard” to investigate

Really? Why?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why?

You responded to, "Supernatural claims fall at the bottom of lists of possible hypotheses according to Occam (needlessly complicated claims), Hitchens (insufficiently supported claims), Sagan (extraordinary claims), and Popper (unfalsifiable claims). But note that that doesn't rule them out."

You and I have discussed this at least twice before, and you didn't understand Occam's parsimony principle in hypothesis formation either time then. What makes you think it would be different this time if I were to go through it all again? Furthermore, you have access to resources on the Internet and elsewhere that can explain it to you if you can understand what you read about it. Try Google. Here is a suggested search parameter: "what is parsimony in Occam's razor?"

 

[Heyo]

Irrelevant

an explanation is not less likely to be true, nor less parsimonious just because it is “hard” to investigate

When you use "likely" as you did above, you refer to a probability. The probability of an event is the positive outcome over all possible outcomes, in our case (supernatural event)/(supernatural + natural event). If that, in the past, has been less than (natural event)/(supernatural + natural event) we can say that supernatural events are less likely than natural events.

 

[leroy]

When you use "likely" as you did above, you refer to a probability. The probability of an event is the positive outcome over all possible outcomes, in our case (supernatural event)/(supernatural + natural event). If that, in the past, has been less than (natural event)/(supernatural + natural event) we can say that supernatural events are less likely than natural events.

Sure granted, if your point is that supernatural events are intrinsically less likely than natural events (in general) I would agree

But I don’t see how can you build case from that premise……….. and it is still irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Occam.

 

[leroy]

You responded to, "Supernatural claims fall at the bottom of lists of possible hypotheses according to Occam (needlessly complicated claims), Hitchens (insufficiently supported claims), Sagan (extraordinary claims), and Popper (unfalsifiable claims). But note that that doesn't rule them out."

You and I have discussed this at least twice before, and you didn't understand Occam's parsimony principle in hypothesis formation either time then. What makes you think it would be different this time if I were to go through it all again? Furthermore, you have access to resources on the Internet and elsewhere that can explain it to you if you can understand what you read about it. Try Google. Here is a suggested search parameter: "what is parsimony in Occam's razor?"

Ok I will add that to the list of unsupported clams made by you


Your clam is demonstrably wrong

Consider these 2 hypothesis

Observation: a nebulous image of person that died yesterday, who talked to you and said Booo

HYPOTHESIS 1:

1 It is ghost (supernatural)

Hypothesis 2

2 Your neighbor created the image, he used alien technology , and played joke to you (natural)

Obviously 2 is less parsimonious than 1…………. This shows that supernatural hypothesis are not necessarily less parsimonious than natural hypothesis,

…

So would you admit that your claim was refuted by this argument? ……… NO

Will you refute my argument…………NO

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok I will add that to the list of unsupported clams made by you


Your clam is demonstrably wrong

Consider these 2 hypothesis

Observation: a nebulous image of person that died yesterday, who talked to you and said Booo

HYPOTHESIS 1:

1 It is ghost (supernatural)

Hypothesis 2

2 Your neighbor created the image, he used alien technology , and played joke to you (natural)

Obviously 2 is less parsimonious than 1…………. This shows that supernatural hypothesis are not necessarily less parsimonious than natural hypothesis,

…

So would you admit that your claim was refuted by this argument? ……… NO

Will you refute my argument…………NO

You still do not know how to use hypotheses properly. Of course if you did learn how to use the tools that you abuse you would almost certainly no longer make the poor arguments that you make.

 

[Heyo]

Sure granted, if your point is that supernatural events are intrinsically less likely than natural events (in general) I would agree

Good that we agree on that.

But I don’t see how can you build case from that premise……….. and it is still irrelevant because it has nothing to do with Occam.

As has already been pointed out, Occam is not about truth but about efficiently searching for the truth. That means investigating the easy cases first. And a complex explanation with "unnecessarily multiplied entities", i.e. many parameters, requires more work in controlling all parameters. Therefore it is useful to start an investigation with the least complex explanation.

 

[leroy]

You still do not know how to use hypotheses properly. Of course if you did learn how to use the tools that you abuse you would almost certainly no longer make the poor arguments that you make.

Added to the list of unsupported assertions

 

[leroy]

Good that we agree on that.

As has already been pointed out, Occam is not about truth but about efficiently searching for the truth. That means investigating the easy cases first. And a complex explanation with "unnecessarily multiplied entities", i.e. many parameters, requires more work in controlling all parameters. Therefore it is useful to start an investigation with the least complex explanation.

Granted, you should start investigating the simplest expansions…………..so what?

You still have to show that your favorite naturalistic explanation is equally good than the resurrection in terms of expletory power (and other criteria)……….. but simpler (and therefore better)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Added to the list of unsupported assertions

That is an observation. Your "hypothesis" at the start of this thread was a joke. I would explain it to you but you have to apologize for your "unsupported assertions" crack and promise not to do it again. Just a little honesty and you will get the answer that you demand.

 

[lukethethird]

Actively oppose theism? Did they use violence or the threat of violence? If not, what makes them militant? Nothing. And if that's militance, how is trying to get prayer and creationism back into secular public schools, which limits individual freedom from religion and assaults the Constitution not more militant?

I tend to distrust language like, "a stridently militant form of atheism." Virtually any opinion against religious belief even when expressed as a personal choice is framed in militant language - rebellion against a good god by god haters in the pursuit of wanton hedonism.

I've been called a militant atheist for challenging the wisdom of belief by faith in these threads. The faithful aren't used to that. My grandparent's generation saw the Scopes trials. How dare that teacher teach evolution? By my day, atheists were still largely silent. We had no voice, no platform, and we were disesteemed by Christian society, which still considered atheists too immoral to teach, coach, or adopt, were considered unfit to serve on juries or give expert testimony, and they were unelectable. Those were the good old days in these people's estimation.

But then came the modern telecommunications beginning with televangelism and the church's endless litany of hypocrisies and scandals, followed a host of best-selling atheist authors that made atheism more tenable for many, and the Internet, which gave the atheists a voice. That wasn't OK with people who were used to atheists being unheard. This was framed just as it was when blacks were called uppity for resistance to racism and women were called "independent" in a disapproving manner for pushing back against inequality. The analogous word for atheists is militant.

Today, this is considered militant atheism:

View attachment 83180

View attachment 83181

It never ceases to amaze how the word militant is used to describe the few atheists that open their mouths. All this BS about so called new atheists when in fact how many were there, four? Does a persecution complex come with accepting prescribed beliefs?

 

[Heyo]

Granted, you should start investigating the simplest expansions…………..so what?

You still have to show that your favorite naturalistic explanation is equally good than the resurrection in terms of expletory power (and other criteria)……….. but simpler (and therefore better)

I don't. Any natural explanation that takes all known facts into account is better than magic. And my favourite explanation does that with no assumption to make, I don't have to look any further.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does a persecution complex come with accepting prescribed beliefs?

I understand the reaction as being surprised and offended by what is understood as insolence, blasphemy, and an unprovoked, mean-spirited attack:

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

1 It is ghost (supernatural)
Hypothesis 2 Your neighbor created the image, he used alien technology , and played joke to you (natural)
Obviously 2 is less parsimonious than 1…………. This shows that supernatural hypothesis are not necessarily less parsimonious than natural hypothesis

What it shows is that you still don't understand parsimony in this context. You seem to think it has something to do with the number of words you use. It doesn't.

Learn what that word means and demonstrate that you have, and then we can have this discussion. That's not too much to ask, and if you won't or can't, then there is nothing more I can say to you on that matter that you haven't seen before. If you disagree with any of that, please explain why you think it's wrong - not merely THAT you think it's wrong, but what part of it is incorrect in your estimation and WHY you think that, that is, your falsification of the claim.

Maybe you think you already understand Occam's razor and how to apply it. If so, I disagree. Study the topic and return with a new and correct understanding, and then we can continue.

Maybe you think that if we go through this a few more times, you'll eventually understand. Once again, I disagree. The material went by you and you missed it more than once, and it had no impact on your subsequent posting.

Maybe you think you can't learn this independently. I told you where to go for answers and suggested search parameters. I don't need to ask whether you did that or not.

I have interacted with you for years, Leroy. You ask a lot of questions, but you're not really paying attention to or interested in the answers enough to focus on them. You don't engage. I don't know if you know what I mean by that - what I'm looking for and not getting - and because of this habit of not engaging, I expect that I still won't after your reply to this.

Let me illustrate with an example response:

"Sorry you think that I don't pay attention to your words and am unaffected by them. Let me prove you wrong with this reply. Yes, I think I understand and know how to apply the razor. What do you think is wrong with my definition of parsimony, which is [...]? How does that differ from yours or the ones on the Internet I studied at your recommendation, which are [...]? And you're wrong (or correct) about my not paying attention to your answers or learning anything from them. This is what you said: [...]. Ane here is where and why I disagree: [...]. "

This would be the kind of reply that lets me know that we are having the same discussion. What I'm more used to is something like another ghost example and the same questions previously asked and answered.

 

[Windwalker]

It never ceases to amaze how the word militant is used to describe the few atheists that open their mouths. All this BS about so called new atheists when in fact how many were there, four? Does a persecution complex come with accepting prescribed beliefs?

Do you believe that it is impossible for atheists to be black and white fundamentalists in their zeal? Do you believe all atheists are serene, well-reasoned, rational, moderate and fair in their thinking and attitudes towards all others who think and believe differently than themselves, and that militant attitudes only exist in defined religions and their belief systems?

Secondly, do you believe all Christians are militant? If not, then if you believe no atheist can be, or only just a very few outliers, then how can that be?

What to me is most telling here, is the unwillingness of some atheists to accept that many their fellow atheists are in fact fundamentalists. Why would that be? Is it an uncomfortable truth to something they see in themselves they wish to deny? That is what it appears to be.

So who exactly was Einstein speaking about here, if not a significant portion of "militant atheists" of his day, before Dawkins and Harris and company existed?

“fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”​

​

It seems clear to me there have been far more than just four to which they drew the attention of Einstein himself. Doesn't it to you? If you think my pointing this out is just an overreaction to but a mere few, do you think Einstein erred in this too?

 

[lukethethird]

Do you believe that it is impossible for atheists to be black and white fundamentalists in their zeal? Do you believe all atheists are serene, well-reasoned, rational, moderate and fair in their thinking and attitudes towards all others who think and believe differently than themselves, and that militant attitudes only exist in defined religions and their belief systems?

Secondly, do you believe all Christians are militant? If not, then if you believe no atheist can be, or only just a very few outliers, then how can that be?

What to me is most telling here, is the unwillingness of some atheists to accept that many their fellow atheists are in fact fundamentalists. Why would that be? Is it an uncomfortable truth to something they see in themselves they wish to deny? That is what it appears to be.

So who exactly was Einstein speaking about here, if not a significant portion of "militant atheists" of his day, before Dawkins and Harris and company existed?

“fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”​

​

It seems clear to me there have been far more than just four to which they drew the attention of Einstein himself. Doesn't it to you? If you think my pointing this out is just an overreaction to but a mere few, do you think Einstein erred in this too?

I have heard of Christians shooting abortion doctors in the belief that they are fighting a Christian crusade over what they call evil doers, but I don't know of any atheists harming anyone in any way. It appears Einstein was talking about atheists dealing with an inner struggle, I don't see anything about militancy in his words, about atheists harming anyone but themselves. The word militant doesn't apply, and I don't see atheist literature supporting militancy whereas The Bible is perhaps the most genocidal text in existence. Sorry, just don't see it.

What is the atheist equivalent of Christian militants such as the KKK and neo-nazis?

 

[Windwalker]

I have heard of Christians shooting abortion doctors in the belief that they are fighting a Christian crusade over what they call evil doers, but I don't know of any atheists harming anyone in any way.

I don't think anyone who refers to atheists, or any other type of believer as militant means that they are terrorists who kill people. Here is the common usage of the word militant. Militant - Wikipedia

The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and it is generally used to mean vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in "militant reformers".​

​

...​

​

The current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. A "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant.​

​

Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like. The Trotskyist Militant group in the United Kingdom published a newspaper, was active in labour disputes, moved resolutions in political meetings, but was not based on violence. The purpose of the Christian Church Militant is to struggle against sin, the devil and ". . . the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12), but it is not a violent movement.​

​

A "militant reformer" does not mean they blow up buildings. No one is meaning to suggest that militant atheists are terrorists. That's not the common meaning of the term.

It appears Einstein was talking about atheists dealing with an inner struggle, I don't see anything about militancy in his words, about atheists harming anyone but themselves.

Fanatics, is another word for "militant". The meaning is the same. But yes, I agree, fanatical, or miltant atheists are dealing with an inner struggle. Exactly. An atheist friend of mine with a doctorate in philosophy once said about Richard Dawkins, "I just wish he wouldn't do his whole Ex-Christian thing on the world stage". That really is what that book "The God Delusion" was. It wasn't anything of real substance to the debate. Just religion bashing.

The word militant doesn't apply, and I don't see atheist literature supporting militancy whereas The Bible is perhaps the most genocidal text in existence. Sorry, just don't see it.

I hope the dictionary definition and the Wiki article above helps clarify the common meaning of the term for you. This isn't a strained use of the word. It's commonly understood as being fanatical, black and white, I'm right and your wrong, axe to grind zealotry.

What is the atheist equivalent of Christian militants such as the KKK and neo-nazis?

I suppose if you are talking about actual armed atheist militias, then probably something along the lines of Stalin's Russia? But that is not what anyone is thinking of when they say the term militatant atheists.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't think anyone who refers to atheists, or any other type of believer as militant means that they are terrorists who kill people. Here is the common usage of the word militant. Militant - Wikipedia

The English word militant is both an adjective and a noun, and it is generally used to mean vigorously active, combative and/or aggressive, especially in support of a cause, as in "militant reformers".​

​

...​

​

The current meaning of militant does not usually refer to a registered soldier: it can be anyone who subscribes to the idea of using vigorous, sometimes extreme, activity to achieve an objective, usually political. A "militant [political] activist" would be expected to be more confrontational and aggressive than an activist not described as militant.​

​

Militance may or may not include physical violence, armed combat, terrorism, and the like. The Trotskyist Militant group in the United Kingdom published a newspaper, was active in labour disputes, moved resolutions in political meetings, but was not based on violence. The purpose of the Christian Church Militant is to struggle against sin, the devil and ". . . the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12), but it is not a violent movement.​

​

A "militant reformer" does not mean they blow up buildings. No one is meaning to suggest that militant atheists are terrorists. That's not the common meaning of the term.

Fanatics, is another word for "militant". The meaning is the same. But yes, I agree, fanatical, or miltant atheists are dealing with an inner struggle. Exactly. An atheist friend of mine with a doctorate in philosophy once said about Richard Dawkins, "I just wish he wouldn't do his whole Ex-Christian thing on the world stage". That really is what that book "The God Delusion" was. It wasn't anything of real substance to the debate. Just religion bashing.

I hope the dictionary definition and the Wiki article above helps clarify the common meaning of the term for you. This isn't a strained use of the word. It's commonly understood as being fanatical, black and white, I'm right and your wrong, axe to grind zealotry.

I suppose if you are talking about actual armed atheist militias, then probably something along the lines of Stalin's Russia? But that is not what anyone is thinking of when they say the term militatant atheists.

So where is the militancy as regards to atheism? Where is the fanaticism as regards to atheism? It's not there. Dawkins was a biologist that used dialogue to oppose the creationists that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools, you call that fanaticism, well I would call yours a typical religious and fanatical response to those that oppose creationism being taught in public schools. There's your fanaticism.

 

[Valjean]

Irrelevant

an explanation is not less likely to be true, nor less parsimonious just because it is “hard” to investigate

It is less likely to be true, inasmuch as it's based on nothing but a whim, and supported by fantasy.

 

[Valjean]

It never ceases to amaze how the word militant is used to describe the few atheists that open their mouths. All this BS about so called new atheists when in fact how many were there, four? Does a persecution complex come with accepting prescribed beliefs?

Militant's a loaded term. A compelling and well reasoned defense of one's position doesn't equate with violent extremism, but calling it militant can certainly imply it.

As for radical action, I don't see any violence of compulsion from the non-believers. It's those with something to loose, an ego-investment to defend, or a position built on sand who are likely to resort to violence.
The non-believing dissenters fight with words. Their position is defensible intellectually.

 

[Windwalker]

So where is the militancy as regards to atheism?

Where is the militancy in anything that people who are prone towards fanaticism find? It's not atheism itself, nor Christianity, nor any other cause that is the issue. But it's the individuals themselves.

Where is the fanaticism as regards to atheism? It's not there.

Certainly there are fantantical atheists. Einstein himself said so....

“fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.”​

​

Ask yourself what is it he was looking at to say that. And then ask yourself what is it that those who refer to militant atheists are seeing. They are not saying that atheism itself is fanatical. It's not. But you certainly do have those individuals who are fanatical atheists, just as you have fanatical Christians. You have fundi Christians, and you have fundi atheists.

I put this way all the time. It's not you believe, but how you believe it that makes you a fundamentalist or not.

Dawkins was a biologist that used dialogue to oppose the creationists that banned the teaching of evolution in public schools, you call that fanaticism

No, I do not call that fanaticism. His book "The God Delusion" is saying that anyone who believe in God is delusional. That's what is his own ill-founded personal grudge, which I'd say makes his cause overboard, or fanatical if you wish.

well I would call yours a typical religious and fanatical response to those that oppose creationism being taught in public schools. There's your fanaticism.

Opposing Creationism isn't fanaticism. It's pretend science, and shouldn't be considered science. That's reasonable. Calling all religious beliefs from top to bottom "delusional" however, is something altogether different. You don't hear me say atheism is fanatical, or delusional. I don't say that about religions either. However, you have those who are fanatics who adhere to both positions. It's not what you believe in, but how you believe in it that matters. This really isn't hard to understand.