On 'the odds' of reality

[Diederick]

Sometimes, when a religious person is once more lost in his or her wilderness of unfortunate beliefs, the person offers the notion that Atheism requires a much greater leap of faith than Theism does. This is of course wrong.

So here I am, some gay guy from the Netherlands (not Holland) trying to get his fellow man (and woman) to find the right path in life, the secular path that is. I might succeed, I might not succeed; but just in case it is any help: I pose the following comparison, you go figure out which is the greater leap of faith - and by 'faith' I mean confidence provided with ignorance, the same 'faith' the religious person poses when offering the statement mentioned earlier.

Oh, by the way. This stuff is called "Secular Beliefs"!? Secularity is lack of belief, so what are you talking about RE? I'm not buying in with Darwin, I'm just observing reality - Darwin just so happens to have been right, so far.

Here we go: What the Atheist has to 'believe' in...
Physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Physical cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gravitation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_(biology)
Psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Death - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And of course Science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in all its other forms.

Then this is what the religious person has to put up with...
Omnipotence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Intelligent design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Demon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
History - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (only the convenient parts of course)
Apostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Damnation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And Theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in all its other forms.

Now, to me, the most important suggestions that there is no Deity controlling the world around me, is that the world around me has always abided Secular logic - a.k.a. the laws of physics. Nature is very predictable. Another point is the immense, ever growing diversity of life on earth; I cannot comprehend how a Deity, one designer, could possibly have thought out the one single movement which triggered this all and ever expanding nature around us. Another point for me is that Omnipotence is the most absurd idea ever imagined, it is inherently impossible to connect in any way to modern religion and the reality at hand.

So people, don't make a guess, make a conclusion. The facts are there.

One last question, concerning reality. Where do you draw the line in the sand? Can everything be real, or do you take the most likely scenario for reality; to know; that which can be witnessed by sensation (vision, touch, smell, hearing, taste)? Because, we could of course all be living in the matrix since all that we think we perceive are just stimuli for our brain - so where do you put the border? Personally I am a little divided over this; on one hand I like to keep my options open, but on the other, there has to be some ground on which to base anything, my existence for example - so I put it in what I find most obviously the best possibility; which is that which I seem to perceive. I guess real is what appears to be real; but I can't really be sure (hence the guess).

Sorry if this was a lot, just thought I'd make a come-back here after a couple of months without a word. Play nice, boys.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Now, to me, the most important suggestions that there is no Deity controlling the world around me, is that the world around me has always abided Secular logic - a.k.a. the laws of physics.

1. Secular logic is not known as the laws of physics.
2. Quantum physics suggests some rather counter-intuitive things.
3. Stop ******* on Gödel

 

[Diederick]

1. Secular logic is not known as the laws of physics.
2. Quantum physics suggests some rather counter-intuitive things.
3. Stop ******* on Gödel

1. Secular Logic is a newly invented term, by me, and it includes the laws of physics, among all other natural laws aand logics of this world.
2. Quantum Mechanics (which I presume you mean with 'Quantum physics') is overrated in the sense that there is nothing supernatural about it - though that's what most people think about when the word is being thrown around. Quantum mechanics is a part of this world and abides to its natural laws perfectly, though it has of course laws of its own - as everything does.
3. I'm not too good at recalling names of dead guys; I just posed a simple (though perhaps deeper than usual) question on the essence of reality. I know, I should have done it in another thread...

 

[3.14]

so how do you explain particals behaving diffrently when being observed?

 

[Diederick]

so how do you explain particals behaving diffrently when being observed?

In the deepest sense every action is nothing more than a reaction from another action. Two perfectly the same particles will, under exactly the same circumstances, behave precisely the same. If there is no scientific answer yet, that means it is just a work in progress and; watching what the other 99,99% of the world's scientific questions did; it'll probably boil down to action-reaction logic.

 

[Bedlam]

The universe is one effed-up piece of malfunctioning crapware. There is actually no such thing as a perfectly ideal scenario, there are only observable practicalities. For example, you can't build a Resistor with exactly ten Ohms of resistance, and this becomes obvious when you test it with increasing levels of precision. (Eventually you'll find the Resistor has 10.000000000001 Ohms of resistance. No matter how good you are, you can't make it perfect)

I point this out because it relates (sorta) to the question of, "Are we living in the Matrix?", and the related question of, "Can we trust in our senses that what we see and feel is real?"

Instead of understanding exactly what is happening, it is better to make a practical conclusion. "If I can observe it with my senses, it is real until my senses prove it is false." Because, given enough time and information, we'll eventually find any hidden truth that might be fooling our senses. Or we'll die without learning we were wrong, and at that point it won't really matter.

 

[Diederick]

The universe is one effed-up piece of malfunctioning crapware. There is actually no such thing as a perfectly ideal scenario, there are only observable practicalities. For example, you can't build a Resistor with exactly ten Ohms of resistance, and this becomes obvious when you test it with increasing levels of precision. (Eventually you'll find the Resistor has 10.000000000001 Ohms of resistance. No matter how good you are, you can't make it perfect)

I point this out because it relates (sorta) to the question of, "Are we living in the Matrix?", and the related question of, "Can we trust in our senses that what we see and feel is real?"

Instead of understanding exactly what is happening, it is better to make a practical conclusion. "If I can observe it with my senses, it is real until my senses prove it is false." Because, given enough time and information, we'll eventually find any hidden truth that might be fooling our senses. Or we'll die without learning we were wrong, and at that point it won't really matter.

An important factor, for me, is that things I observe have to abide to certain rules, like those of nature. A mad man might observe the strangest ordeals, but how can he know it is not real? Because it doesn't make sense.

Of course we are inferior to decide what is real or what is unreal; after all, we're very short on knowledge to make such guesses. But we are equipped with an eye and mind that looks for patterns, if something deflects from the 'normal' systematic rhythm of nature, a bell should start ringing. My big point on "what is real" is much like the Matrix, since I can't think of any check that would suggest my brain is telling me what is really happening. This could very well be a mental reality, while the actual world is very different.

And I'm not talking about how our eyes could be different and perceive more or less of the world, or that our ears could range higher or lower in Hz. Though I assume that must be clear with the mentioning of the Matrix (unless you've never seen it).

 

[rageoftyrael]

Yeah, science seems to be more about consistency than actual rigidity. you can have some variance, but in general the flow is fairly steady. I guess an example would be your heart. In general, if you aren't very active, and not excited, it will beat at a fairly regular pace. Now, if you add variables, you will see the beats go up or down, depending on the situation.

So, i guess what i'm saying, without getting to technical,(cause i don't know enough to get technical) is that science and nature makes more sense BECAUSE of that give. From what i can see, religion is extremely rigid and inflexible. Nature/science allows for variables, whereas, it seems that religion does not.

 

[rageoftyrael]

And i must also say, that i would think that even laws can be bent, cause we can never allow for all variables. Should a new variable be added, something new may happen. That doesn't disprove a law, simply shoes some more of that give im so fond of.

 

[Bedlam]

An important factor, for me, is that things I observe have to abide to certain rules, like those of nature. A mad man might observe the strangest ordeals, but how can he know it is not real? Because it doesn't make sense.

Of course we are inferior to decide what is real or what is unreal; after all, we're very short on knowledge to make such guesses. But we are equipped with an eye and mind that looks for patterns, if something deflects from the 'normal' systematic rhythm of nature, a bell should start ringing. My big point on "what is real" is much like the Matrix, since I can't think of any check that would suggest my brain is telling me what is really happening. This could very well be a mental reality, while the actual world is very different.

And I'm not talking about how our eyes could be different and perceive more or less of the world, or that our ears could range higher or lower in Hz. Though I assume that must be clear with the mentioning of the Matrix (unless you've never seen it).

I think we can both agree that what we consider "reality" is that which we observe with our senses, which presents itself in observable predictable ways. The idea of another, deeper, more "real" layer underneath everything is an interesting concept, but probably best left to fiction writers (and obviously not the point of your OP. Though it could make an interesting topic for another thread).

Getting back to your original point, I've personally never understood why secular beliefs are so quickly and ignorantly dismissed by the religious community as a whole. My best guess is that they feel like they're being told they're wrong about their entire life, and the natural reaction to that is to argue or dismiss the idea out of hand.

If you're trying to make people give up their religious ideals and embrace a secular belief system, I wish you the best of luck! I've never been very successful with it. The more you challenge someone's beliefs, the more they seem to cling to them.

I certainly agree that secular beliefs require less of a leap of faith than theistic beliefs. But I also find that the two groups use the words "faith" and "belief" in two entirely different ways.

Theist: "I believe in God. I don't need to see him, or even feel his presence, because I have faith in him."

Atheist: "I believe my car will start. Because I know it has a good engine, it has gas, it started the last time I put the key in the ignition. I have faith in it because I can see it's not missing any parts."

In my opinion faith and belief can't be applied to both groups in the same way, but what's your take on it?

 

[Diederick]

I think we can both agree that what we consider "reality" is that which we observe with our senses, which presents itself in observable predictable ways. The idea of another, deeper, more "real" layer underneath everything is an interesting concept, but probably best left to fiction writers (and obviously not the point of your OP. Though it could make an interesting topic for another thread).

I know, personally I feel I should buy into what is most likely to be real; among all fantastic possibilities, the plain world as my senses witness it seems the best possibility.

Getting back to your original point, I've personally never understood why secular beliefs are so quickly and ignorantly dismissed by the religious community as a whole. My best guess is that they feel like they're being told they're wrong about their entire life, and the natural reaction to that is to argue or dismiss the idea out of hand.

If you're trying to make people give up their religious ideals and embrace a secular belief system, I wish you the best of luck! I've never been very successful with it. The more you challenge someone's beliefs, the more they seem to cling to them.

I think you're actually right about this. I've been 'Christian' for about two months and before I cured I was absolutely ignorant of common critique and waved them off as irrelevant - while I'm sure I would find them perfectly considerable objections to Theism.

I certainly agree that secular beliefs require less of a leap of faith than theistic beliefs. But I also find that the two groups use the words "faith" and "belief" in two entirely different ways.

Theist: "I believe in God. I don't need to see him, or even feel his presence, because I have faith in him."

Atheist: "I believe my car will start. Because I know it has a good engine, it has gas, it started the last time I put the key in the ignition. I have faith in it because I can see it's not missing any parts."

In my opinion faith and belief can't be applied to both groups in the same way, but what's your take on it?

Great comparison. A word can have so many different meanings, it sometimes is a little confusing. Obviously fantasy and realism are two very different settings and the words, consequently, point to two very different things. I do, however, think the word essentially means the same. Belief is being close to being sure about something forthcoming of supporting 'evidence' (which is a word Theists abuse and only Atheists use as it was meant to be used; which is where I think the difference lies rooted). Faith is a word more like 'evidence', where in secular terms it means trust in loyalty (a faithful husband), which is derived from, again, evidence that this is somehow justified. Faith in the Theist mind is linked to God, where there is absolutely no evidence and the word 'Faith' becomes essential to believing; it is the word Faith; with it's alleged meaning of trust in loyalty with some backing up; that really helps the religious person. They don't think about it too much, they just use it a lot, to others and to themselves. It is a must, because it makes them think they're more right, though the word is actually meaningless because there is no support behind this trust in loyalty.

I think there are many ways to look at this. Essentially I find it a sidetrack to discouraging religion. It is the basis I am concerned with. To be honest, I think it is a trinity of ignorance, laziness and lack of education. What do you think is at the heart of every religious motivation?

 

[Kathryn]

I go to Wikipedia for inconsequential factoids. I don't count on the contents of Wikipedia to define tenets of my faith. I have MUCH better sources for that!

 

[Green Gaia]

Diederick, I find your definitions of a religious person to be very limiting and very Westernized.

Despite my current sig line, I do not see identify as an Atheist, yet I agree with or accept pretty much all the the "Here we go: What the Atheist has to 'believe' in..." list.

I do view myself as a Religious person, yet I do not believe in and/or agree with pretty much all of your "Then this is what the religious person has to put up with..." list.

Now, instead of trying to make everyone "find .... the secular path" perhaps you should spend sometime trying to understand why religion plays a big role in many people's lives and stop making assumptions about what people who call themselves religious believe or do not believe.

 

[Bedlam]

Diederick, I find your definitions of a religious person to be very limiting and very Westernized.

Despite my current sig line, I do not see identify as an Atheist, yet I agree with or accept pretty much all the the "Here we go: What the Atheist has to 'believe' in..." list.

I do view myself as a Religious person, yet I do not believe in and/or agree with pretty much all of your "Then this is what the religious person has to put up with..." list.

Now, instead of trying to make everyone "find .... the secular path" perhaps you should spend sometime trying to understand why religion plays a big role in many people's lives and stop making assumptions about what people who call themselves religious believe or do not believe.

Perhaps it would have been better if he'd titled the list, "What Christians have to believe in"?

The list includes, "Omnipotence, Intelligent design, Heaven, Hell, Demon, Religion, History, Apostasy, Damnation, and Theism". With the possible exception of ID, I think this is a pretty accurate list of what a modern Christian has on his or her plate in terms of beliefs.

-Can a being (in this case, the Christian god Jehovah) be truly Omnipotent? That is to say can he create a boulder so heavy that he himself can't lift it?
-How can it be possible, if the world is only about 6,000 years old, for us to find fossils that are well over 60 million years old? (This one can be an exception because not all Christians buy into the "6,000 years old" jazz. It is a bit much.)
-Is Heaven truly a place that exists, or just a misinterpretation of the holy bible?
-Is Hell truly a place that exists, or just a misinterpretation of the holy bible?
-Are there really invisible evil things that enter into our bodies and force us to do wrong? What can these "Demons" possibly gain from doing something so pointless?
-You must believe every single part of your Religion, even the parts of the bible you don't like. Even when Jehovah tortures people just to see if they'll keep believing.
-History is a bit loose of a term. But history (particularly the field of archaeology) has failed to find any concrete evidence that can support the bible. As time goes on and our scientific practices become more refined, it seems more likely that no religion can be right.
-If you willingly renounce your religion, you will become an Apostate. And everyone from your Christian church will hate you and never talk to you again. This one is untrue, but you would not believe how many people are terrified of it.
-Damnation. This one's my favorite. If you don't believe in Jehovah you'll go to Hell and burn for eternity. Are you really Christian if you don't believe this is true? More to the point, has there ever been any Christian that thought they would go to hell? In their minds it's a place reserved for everyone else.
-And of course, Theism as a whole. Believing in something that can't be identified with our five senses. It can only be detected with emotions and with an equally invisible part of ourselves called the soul. If you'd never heard of it and I tried to convince you it was real, wouldn't you just think I was a crazy person?

Now these examples are meant to be extreme, obviously, and they're purely rhetorical. I'm not trying to, nor would it be appropriate, to start a religious debate in this forum. (If you'd like to debate this, we can take it to the debate section.)

The point is, this most certainly is an appropriate description for the things that a Christian has to believe in. I didn't even have to reference the Wikipedia entries to have an understanding of the material, so the fact that the website was used to cite the concepts doesn't really have anything to do with Diederick's position on the matter.

(Why do so many people think that Wikipedia is unreliable?)

Green Gia: Your tag line seems to suggest you're Agnostic more than Atheist. But why have a tag line hinting that you're Atheist if, in fact, you're not?

 

[Green Gaia]

Green Gia: Your tag line seems to suggest you're Agnostic more than Atheist. But why have a tag line hinting that you're Atheist if, in fact, you're not?

Because I like the quote. Why do you care?

 

[Jackytar]

Now, instead of trying to make everyone "find .... the secular path" perhaps you should spend sometime trying to understand why religion plays a big role in many people's lives and stop making assumptions about what people who call themselves religious believe or do not believe.

What are your thoughts on why people are religious?

BTW, I agree that is an agnostic sig line. I like it!

Jackytar

 

[Green Gaia]

What are your thoughts on why people are religiuos?

I'm pretty sure that is another thread.

BTW, I agree that is an agnostic sig line. I like it!

Thanks.

 

[Jackytar]

I'm pretty sure that is another thread.

Then start that thread and stop crapping on this one.

Jackytar

 

[Alceste]

Sometimes, when a religious person is once more lost in his or her wilderness of unfortunate beliefs, the person offers the notion that Atheism requires a much greater leap of faith than Theism does. This is of course wrong.

It may be wrong, but it's an inevitable consequence of certain belief sets. Imagine you believe there is One True Church, which serves a vengeful god who punishes disbelievers with eternal torture, and who demands the rejection of empirical evidence, logic, reason whenever it conflicts with his incomprehensible book of laws. If you are a member of that True Church, this vengeful, jealous god - instead of punishing you with eternal torture - will reward you with eternal life, I dunno, gazing into his glorious face or something (heaven is never as clearly defined as hell).

So, picture this is what you believe. Now, you should see that to you, atheists are REJECTING this God and risking damnation. (Obviously, that's not what's going on, but if you really believe this stuff that's how it looks.)

So when theists talk about the superior faith of atheists, they are talking about how we have the courage, integrity and audacity not to believe, even though (to them) we risk eternal torment. They're not talking about science. From their perspective, since they think God exists and will punish the non-believers, it takes more faith to be a non-believer and risk punishment than it takes to be a believer in the hope of a reward.

 

[Bedlam]

Because I like the quote. Why do you care?

Curiosity? :thud: