The True Intentions of Rational Responders (A Call and a Question)

Kenny5682
Theist
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The True Intentions of Rational Responders (A Call and a Question)

This is not an attack, just simply a point and a question.

 When I see a Christian with a bumper sticker that says "National Athiest Day: April 1st," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward athiests.  Is it the Christian's motive to lead the Athiest to Christ, or is it the Christian's motive to get the atiest to believe what he believes?  There's a difference as far as having good intentions and having selfish intention.

In the same way, when I see shirts advertised that say "Jesus is for Suckers," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward Christians.  Is it your motive to "free people from religion," or is it a simple attack on something which you have been harboring bitter feelings against?

 I look to my right and I see an MP3 download "Sapient Blasts Todd Friel. (Explict Lyrics)"  Does Sapient reach out to Todd Friel because Sapient feels that Todd Friel is lost in the clutches of Christianity?  No, because that was never his intention to begin with.  Sapient, like most athiests, is motivated by an inward bitterness covered up with a false claim of good intention. 

The motivation behind your claim of good intention is the very thing that motivates you to attack Christianity; the need to feel like a good person; even if it means you have to be ignorant to the ugliness inside of you.  If Christianity is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own intellect; and that's just not something you can bear... is it?

If Saul of Tarsus could be changed by the power of Christ from a Church persecutor to perhaps the most aggressive and effective evangelical in history; certainly there is hope for you.  That is my prayer, that you will find that hope. 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
If Christianity is true

If Christianity is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own intellect;

What? I don't think any of us are murderers, and I hope none are adulterers. Why is it you think we reject Christianity because of the burden it puts on the Christian? Christianity is ridiculous, that is why I discard it. Just like I (and you) discard Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoraostarianism, Wicca, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster.

If Saul of Tarsus could be changed by the power of Christ from a Church persecutor to perhaps the most aggressive and effective evangelical in history; certainly there is hope for you.

Ah! There's the Christian condescendingness I hoped to find.

Look buddy, I disagree with some of the agressive pushers of atheism on this site, but you are doing exactly the same thing.

that is my prayer, that you will find that hope.

 OK. Can't resist this: My hope is that you will think.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Kenny5682 wrote: This is

Kenny5682 wrote:

This is not an attack, just simply a point and a question.

When I see a Christian with a bumper sticker that says "National Athiest Day: April 1st," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward athiests. Is it the Christian's motive to lead the Athiest to Christ, or is it the Christian's motive to get the atiest to believe what he believes? There's a difference as far as having good intentions and having selfish intention.

In the same way, when I see shirts advertised that say "Jesus is for Suckers," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward Christians. Is it your motive to "free people from religion," or is it a simple attack on something which you have been harboring bitter feelings against?

I look to my right and I see an MP3 download "Sapient Blasts Todd Friel. (Explict Lyrics)" Does Sapient reach out to Todd Friel because Sapient feels that Todd Friel is lost in the clutches of Christianity? No, because that was never his intention to begin with. Sapient, like most athiests, is motivated by an inward bitterness covered up with a false claim of good intention.

The motivation behind your claim of good intention is the very thing that motivates you to attack Christianity; the need to feel like a good person; even if it means you have to be ignorant to the ugliness inside of you. If Christianity is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own intellect; and that's just not something you can bear... is it?

If Saul of Tarsus could be changed by the power of Christ from a Church persecutor to perhaps the most aggressive and effective evangelical in history; certainly there is hope for you. That is my prayer, that you will find that hope.

 

For something that's not supposed to be an attack, you certainly say some hurtful, generalized things. 

To me, here's the difference between an atheist and a theist.

Neither of us kill or rape or steal or cheat on our spouses, or taxes, or tests.

Both of us do good things for other people, we give to charity, we vote, we recycle, we voluteer our time, we give blood.

Only one of us expects an eternal reward for doing these things.

 

 

And, I attack christianity because it attacks me.

Because I can't walk down the street without being witnessed to, because people who think radically differently than I do are making laws and passing bills that impact my life, and they're doing so in the name of their god.

Christians are calling for a return to the old time religion, to an evangalistic state, and if we atheists don't oppose it, who will? 


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Kenny5682 wrote: This is

Kenny5682 wrote:

This is not an attack, just simply a point and a question.

 When I see a Christian with a bumper sticker that says "National Athiest Day: April 1st," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward athiests.  Is it the Christian's motive to lead the Athiest to Christ, or is it the Christian's motive to get the atiest to believe what he believes?  There's a difference as far as having good intentions and having selfish intention.

In the same way, when I see shirts advertised that say "Jesus is for Suckers," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward Christians.  Is it your motive to "free people from religion," or is it a simple attack on something which you have been harboring bitter feelings against?

 I look to my right and I see an MP3 download "Sapient Blasts Todd Friel. (Explict Lyrics)"  Does Sapient reach out to Todd Friel because Sapient feels that Todd Friel is lost in the clutches of Christianity?  No, because that was never his intention to begin with.  Sapient, like most athiests, is motivated by an inward bitterness covered up with a false claim of good intention. 

The motivation behind your claim of good intention is the very thing that motivates you to attack Christianity; the need to feel like a good person; even if it means you have to be ignorant to the ugliness inside of you.  If Christianity is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own intellect; and that's just not something you can bear... is it?

If Saul of Tarsus could be changed by the power of Christ from a Church persecutor to perhaps the most aggressive and effective evangelical in history; certainly there is hope for you.  That is my prayer, that you will find that hope. 

If you want to know why I am an anti-theist, read the self-righteous hypocritical quote above.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
You have a point about

You have a point about atheists going on the attack. I don't like to act that way myself. 

Quote:
The motivation behind your claim of good intention is the very thing that motivates you to attack Christianity; the need to feel like a good person; even if it means you have to be ignorant to the ugliness inside of you.  If Christianity is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own intellect; and that's just not something you can bear... is it?
If I have never adultered or murdered then I am not an adulterer or a murderer whether I believe in god or not. As far as lying and blasphemy: Lying is not always a bad thing. Any god (or person, for that matter) that would hold blasphemy against me or anyone else is an idiot and I wouldn't have anything to do with them.

Quote:
If Saul of Tarsus could be changed by the power of Christ from a Church persecutor to perhaps the most aggressive and effective evangelical in history; certainly there is hope for you.  That is my prayer, that you will find that hope.
Your talking about a guy from 2000 years ago. Compared to modern advanced societies he was a total ignoramus no matter how you cut it. I would say that BACK THEN it was much easier to be fooled by superstition and wishful thinking. What I don't understand is why people still fall for it today. 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kenny5682 wrote:

Kenny5682 wrote:

I look to my right and I see an MP3 download "Sapient Blasts Todd Friel. (Explict Lyrics)" Does Sapient reach out to Todd Friel because Sapient feels that Todd Friel is lost in the clutches of Christianity? No, because that was never his intention to begin with. Sapient, like most athiests, is motivated by an inward bitterness covered up with a false claim of good intention.

I prefer to look at my bitterness for that d*****bag Todd Friel as a more overt and obvious bitterness, not hidden internally but worn proudly on my sleeve as proof that I have keen bull**** detecting abilities.

You can see the picture and hear the mp3 of just how overt I am about that quote mining dishonest fraud.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/kirk_i_have_to_tell_you_something

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
When did human emotion

When did human emotion become our enemy?  Or somehting we have to run away from?  Why can't we be motivated by anger, as well as love?  Anger is not somehting I am ashamed of, but complacency is ...

I think we forget that bitterness and anger are not just necessary emotions that we must deal with maturely - they are also, when coupled with love and compassion, the chief motivator of what we do.  Every movement against colonialism (whether physical or mental) is based partly on the anger and bitterness we feel as subjected people - you don't think, for instance, Toussaint L'Ouverture wasn't bitter about French repression in Haiti, but also driven by love of his fellow human beings?  How about Ibn Warraq after the Rushdie Affair?  Was he not acting out of both outrage and out of love to help expose Islamic Fascism?

Anger is as much a part of the human experience as love and we mustn't, in order to free ourselves from the stereotype of the angry atheist, not claim that anger.  We also must remember to always exclaim and extend our compassion and humanism as well, which I think we do frequently ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
If hinduism is true then

If hinduism is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If islam is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If scientology is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If buddhism is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If The FSM is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If Anceint religion X is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

I love the murdering bit, did we kill god by not believing him?

If we believe in him, do we revive him?

Can I switch back and forth, just to see him die and un-die again?

I unbelieved a man in Reno, just to watch him die. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
If hinduism is true then

Double post: I'm getting sick of the fatal error.


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
It's a great question and

It's a great question and answering to it would make a great first post!

There are actually three reasons for Christians (or religious people in general) and atheists and they are all true at the same time. In other words, neither of the specific reasons is more important than the others.

Religious people seek to convert other people into religion because:

1) They do want to lead an atheist to their $deity, perceiving that as a good thing for the atheist

2) They do want more people to be like them, perceiving it as a good thing for themselves and the society. Religious people tend to exhibit the behaviour all religious people approve of (except for Haggard).

And the reason three that you didn't bring up is:

3) Fear. As long as there are atheists openly walking around and challenging religion, it might turn out that they are right, and whoever challenged them would look really really dumb.

This third reason may seem to be blurry or even the same as the second one but it is not. The distinction is very important because atheists, too, have their three reasons and the third one is completely different.

1) Atheists do believe that unconverting a theist is a good thing for the theist, and more often than not they do that out of their self-confidence

2) Atheists do believe that unconverting a theist is a good thing for themselves, as religious people tend to act irrationally and find it necessarily to literally opress those who contend.

3) Anger. Atheists do have every right to be mad at the theists because worst of the society's opression against sex, homosexuality, individuality and humanism, drugs, questioning the authority and demanding answers stem from religion. In other words, religion stands in atheists' way to be liberated from religion.


Incendiary
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: If hinduism

Ophios wrote:

If hinduism is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If islam is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If scientology is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If buddhism is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If The FSM is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

If Anceint religion X is true then you are a lying, blaspheming, adultering, murderer in need of a savior other than your own;

I love the murdering bit, did we kill god by not believing him?

If we believe in him, do we revive him?

Can I switch back and forth, just to see him die and un-die again?

I unbelieved a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

Uhh, since when did every ancient religion get clumped into the same category...and additionally, since when did buddhism have a savior? As far as I know, very few buddhists actually worship buddha as a god...that would be blasphemous to the original teachings. As for adultery/murdering/etc. in buddhism, none of that really exists...apparently whoever said these things hasn't done their research. If you commit really immoral acts, worst that can happen is that you get reincarnated as an insect. You aren't going to need a savior, or burn in hell, though.


Incendiary
Theist
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Mike Seth wrote: It's a

Mike Seth wrote:

It's a great question and answering to it would make a great first post!

There are actually three reasons for Christians (or religious people in general) and atheists and they are all true at the same time. In other words, neither of the specific reasons is more important than the others.

Religious people seek to convert other people into religion because:

1) They do want to lead an atheist to their $deity, perceiving that as a good thing for the atheist

2) They do want more people to be like them, perceiving it as a good thing for themselves and the society. Religious people tend to exhibit the behaviour all religious people approve of (except for Haggard).

And the reason three that you didn't bring up is:

3) Fear. As long as there are atheists openly walking around and challenging religion, it might turn out that they are right, and whoever challenged them would look really really dumb.

This third reason may seem to be blurry or even the same as the second one but it is not. The distinction is very important because atheists, too, have their three reasons and the third one is completely different.

1) Atheists do believe that unconverting a theist is a good thing for the theist, and more often than not they do that out of their self-confidence

2) Atheists do believe that unconverting a theist is a good thing for themselves, as religious people tend to act irrationally and find it necessarily to literally opress those who contend.

3) Anger. Atheists do have every right to be mad at the theists because worst of the society's opression against sex, homosexuality, individuality and humanism, drugs, questioning the authority and demanding answers stem from religion. In other words, religion stands in atheists' way to be liberated from religion.

I might note there is no successful proof for the nonexistence of god, and even using Occam's razor, you can't say one theory is "more successful" than the other - and that's all athiest and theism are, theories.

Additionally, you're using generalization to support athiests actively converting others. That's an F in intro philosophy. Not only this, but your #3 is saying that Athiests have every right to be mad at theists for the above reasons, but in actuality, that isn't any reason at all. You're more than welcome to burn yourself out on drugs, have sex with as many people as you like, question authority often, and be homosexual. You can't run around expecting everyone to like you because you do all of those things, though. I can't believe how absurd an idea it is to believe that everyone should support your perspective on reality. It isn't absurd to ask that everyone respect your free will, but then again, running around having sex with everyone you like is liable to spread disease, and doing a lot of drugs, especially without self-control, is liable to make you a danger to society.


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Incendiary wrote: I might

Incendiary wrote:

I might note there is no successful proof for the nonexistence of god

None is needed. As long as there is no positive proof there is god, it is dishonest to presume so in light of absence of evidence suggesting otherwise (which is, anyway, not the case in this debate).

Quote:
and even using Occam's razor, you can't say one theory is "more successful" than the other - and that's all athiest and theism are, theories.

False. Neither atheism or theism are a theory. This is the third time I have to say that to a theist in 24 hours, and I am growing sick of doing that. Occam's razor does not apply to just theories; it is applicable to general explanations, and its underlying assumption is that while the evaluated matters can both be subject to rational questioning, they must have an otherwise equal standing. For this reason, Occam's razor can only be applied to theism hypothetically, if we are to presume that there is some factual basis under theism, which is not the case, and that was the context I was suggesting, for debate's sake.

Quote:
Additionally, you're using generalization to support athiests actively converting others.

Yes. It is a moral thing to do when religion poisons minds and destroys the society. If theists kept their religion to themselves, this site would not have been created.

I bet you will try to argue that it is atheism that sponsors immorality, but I would then challenge you to establish clear example of atheist doctrine being a fundamental reason for malice. Not the communist doctrine, not the capitalist doctrine, not the national socialist doctrine, not the pagan doctrine, not the multiculturalism or humanism, but specifically the atheist doctrine. For every example you bring to the table, I promise you to either debunk it or show you at least three heinous crimes by devoted christians which were committed purely out of religious prescription. You in?

Oh, and don't even try to bring up adultery. Unless you observe the Sabbath commandment the way orthodox Jews do, I would hit it so hard missionaries in Africa would cringe in pain and convert to Wicca.

Quote:
That's an F in intro philosophy. Not only this, but your #3 is saying that Athiests have every right to be mad at theists for the above reasons, but in actuality, that isn't any reason at all.

That is very much the reason, since theists want to legislate their morality into everyone's law, and that's only on days when they don't use intimidation by fear and bombs. It is unacceptable to everyone who is an atheist, agnostic, or even a pantheist like me. In fact, it is unacceptable to decent people of all creeds. The social consequences are so severe and so threatening to our liberty that we are willing to go very far to prevent you - the theists - from messing up our world more than it is messed up already. And, we have a demonstrable moral basis for doing so.

Quote:
You're more than welcome to burn yourself out on drugs, have sex with as many people as you like, question authority often, and be homosexual.

Correct.

Quote:
You can't run around expecting everyone to like you because you do all of those things, though.

Whether people like other people doing things in private is completely irrelevant to the argument I am making. You may choose to kill a puppy every time your neighbour mentions the word "vagina". I don't care (well, I do for the puppies). However, you have to be malevolent to legislate a prohibition that prevents your neighbour from using that word.

Law does not exist to set forth morality. It exists to define people's rights according to modern consensus, and protect these rights. This consensus is secular in nature, and is derived from philosophy of democracy and liberty. One of the parts of this consensus is that no person may cause bodily harm to another person but in self defense. For this reason, any attempt to create a law that forces women to carry children - under whatever excuse, be it artificial and fictional personhood of an unborn baby, the rights of a father, you name it - is immoral, because it is a statutory sexual slavery that is being legislated, and our society does not allow slavery and does not view favourably anyone who is promoting it.

Quote:
I can't believe how absurd an idea it is to believe that everyone should support your perspective on reality.

You are not being asked to do that. You are being asked to restrain your influence on society so that other people, too, can follow their own perspective of reality, again without infringing on yours.

Quote:
It isn't absurd to ask that everyone respect your free will, but then again, running around having sex with everyone you like is liable to spread disease,

So, this would not be an actual problem if people were to use contraceptives and monitor they health? Wait, they do, so it is not an actual problem. Even if it was, would you like me to show you how religion and law is not the answer to it?

Quote:
and doing a lot of drugs, especially without self-control, is liable to make you a danger to society.

Correct. That is why it is illegal to drive under influence. However, if I am doing drugs (or screwing a handcuffed prostitute in a furry coat with a cola bottle) in my house, who are you to authorize the police to stop me?


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
WHY does it matter what our

WHY does it matter what our motives are? It still doesn't make a truth any more or less truthful!

But if you want to exchange ad hominem, you're condescending tone is hypocritical because it is EXACTLY what you're criticizing against.

But yeah, so what was your argument again?

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I was interested until the

I was interested until the second to last paragraph. You took what could have been a meaningful criticism and turned it into a conversion attempt.

 For shame.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Incendiary wrote: and even

Incendiary wrote:
and even using Occam's razor, you can't say one theory is "more successful" than the other

Yes I can
Proposition 1. There is no god
Proposition 2. There is a god whom had a son called jesus whom was crucified and died for all our sins. subsequently when he came back to life the Angels carried him to a magical paradise. where you can go when you die if you believe in jesus

If these two arguments are equal. which is the simplest ? Occam's razor,


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Occam's Razor is soooo

Occam's Razor is soooo abused these days.  Most people don't even know what it really means.  It does NOT say that the "simplest" argument is true.  It ONLY says the the "simplest" argument TENDS to be true.  Of course, "simplest" is relative too without agreeing on some strict standards to judge arguments' "complexity."  Until then, one might say a supernatural explanation is simpler while another might differ.

 Of course, that is all IGNORING the fact that the simplest argument ALSO needs to have good reason to believe is possible.  I could make an even simpler argument based on the powers of the flying spaghetti monster, but I have no good reason to believe in that argument, EVEN IF it is simpler.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Careful, folks. This is the

Careful, folks.

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness Forum.

No insults.  No name calling.  No swearing.

Please be on your very best behavior in this forum.

Thank you.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote:   For

Maragon wrote:

 

For something that's not supposed to be an attack, you certainly say some hurtful, generalized things.

To me, here's the difference between an atheist and a theist.

Neither of us kill or rape or steal or cheat on our spouses, or taxes, or tests.

Both of us do good things for other people, we give to charity, we vote, we recycle, we voluteer our time, we give blood.

Only one of us expects an eternal reward for doing these things.

For the record, a Christian will not be rewarded for these good deeds either. No amount of good deeds can ever get one to Heaven.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
simple theist

simple theist wrote:
Maragon wrote:

 

For something that's not supposed to be an attack, you certainly say some hurtful, generalized things.

To me, here's the difference between an atheist and a theist.

Neither of us kill or rape or steal or cheat on our spouses, or taxes, or tests.

Both of us do good things for other people, we give to charity, we vote, we recycle, we voluteer our time, we give blood.

Only one of us expects an eternal reward for doing these things.

For the record, a Christian will not be rewarded for these good deeds either. No amount of good deeds can ever get one to Heaven.
I'm an atheist, but I used to be a Christian and a Christian leader and Christian sunday school teacher at Christian church for the longest time. I actually don't find anything logical flaw in criteria of going to Heaven only through a belief in God and yada yada.

I see 2 ways to put "good deeds" into a more Christian perspective:

 

1. There is no such thing as 100% true altruism. Everything is done selfishly; perhaps this is more evident among non-theists, but I'll even go so far to extend this observation to theists as well, but that is another can of worms. Eye-wink

2. Let's say good deeds CAN be done 100% altruistically. In the big picture, no person can humanly amount any number of good deeds "significantly." It's like trying to jump across the Pacific Ocean, where the other side is salvation. You can build a mega 100,000 foot bridge, but you are still no where close to the other side.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

Occam's Razor is soooo abused these days. Most people don't even know what it really means. It does NOT say that the "simplest" argument is true. It ONLY says the the "simplest" argument TENDS to be true. Of course, "simplest" is relative too without agreeing on some strict standards to judge arguments' "complexity." Until then, one might say a supernatural explanation is simpler while another might differ.

Of course, that is all IGNORING the fact that the simplest argument ALSO needs to have good reason to believe is possible. I could make an even simpler argument based on the powers of the flying spaghetti monster, but I have no good reason to believe in that argument, EVEN IF it is simpler.

Just wanted to add something to my post:

 

I quotationed "simplest" because complexity of a claim is exceedingly difficult to quantify for comparison. And even if you're able to, complexity would be semantically hidden. Consider these claims:

 

A. The bombadier beetle was created by God.

B. The bombadier beetle was created by evolution.

 

Now how do you grade each claim by level of complexity? To take the side of creationists, we can semantically unravel "B":

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE

 

Does "B" now suddenly become more complex? How about unravelling "A?" And how much more unravelling can we do with each claim, and at what point do we stop unravelling? Or consider how unravelling "B" actually further discredits "A," despite becoming more "complex." Another example of Occam's Razor does not necessarily point to truth.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Kenny5682 wrote: This is

Kenny5682 wrote:

This is not an attack, just simply a point and a question.

When I see a Christian with a bumper sticker that says "National Athiest Day: April 1st," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward athiests. Is it the Christian's motive to lead the Athiest to Christ, or is it the Christian's motive to get the atiest to believe what he believes? There's a difference as far as having good intentions and having selfish intention.

In the same way, when I see shirts advertised that say "Jesus is for Suckers," I see somebody who obviously has bitter feelings toward Christians. Is it your motive to "free people from religion," or is it a simple attack on something which you have been harboring bitter feelings against?

I look to my right and I see an MP3 download "Sapient Blasts Todd Friel. (Explict Lyrics)" Does Sapient reach out to Todd Friel because Sapient feels that Todd Friel is lost in the clutches of Christianity? No, because that was never his intention to begin with. Sapient, like most athiests, is motivated by an inward bitterness covered up with a false claim of good intention.

Actually, Brian's motivated by his annoyance over Todd Friel's dishonesty and snake-like character.

Your viewpoint is not the parsimonious explanation. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Concerning Ockham's

Concerning Ockham's Razor;

It's my understanding that the razor says that the explanation with the least ad hoc propositions or assumptions is the one that tends to be right.

An explanation is 'simpler' when it has less ad hoc assumptions (or none!) because without these assumptions, you can trace all of the explanations to things that we have evidence for, proof of, etc.

 Thus, when we compare evolution to 'goddidit,' while the god explanation ultimately uses less actual words, it is only simpler in this quantitative sense.  Less words used to explain a concept, a set of data, etc doesn't make the idea simpler or less ad hoc, it just makes it easier to say.

I almost said that it is easier to understand (for example, goddidit is easier to understand than the vast scientific evidence for evolution through natural selection), but this is not the case either.  The fact is that nobody understands god or god's methods because they are, by definition, beyond our ken.  Thus, the god explanation is not simple at all, because we cannot even tackle it to begin with--it's simply an escape route.

In summation, the god of the gaps is not simpler than the complexities of scientific information in any way except in how long t takes to say each in a debate.  This is why a 5-10 second comment by a theist can often require an hour to effectively respond to by their atheist interlocutor.  

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
ShaunPhilly, thanks for the

ShaunPhilly, thanks for the clarification on the definition of Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor no longer seem so...relative anymore lol! I stand corrected! Smiling

 

I still maintain to others (not directed at you or anyone in particular) though that Occam's Razor is not a barometer of cogency though.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person