[billw55]

32519, on 2013-October-13, 23:22, said:

MikeH: ... Thus far you have expressed virtually no opinion of your own in this thread.

This one made me laugh. Mikeh always leads the crowd in expressing his opinions in religion threads, and this one is no exception. A question: why is your opinion "your own" while his is "regurgitated"?

Suppose a worldwide poll was held in which every one of the 7 billion plus inhabitants was forced to participate. The question on the ballot paper is this:
HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT ORIGINATED?
Voters are given the following two choices –
1. It all started with a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago
2. It came about at the hands of a super-natural being
How do you believe the vote will go? You may easily end up with a situation where the number of spoilt ballot papers outnumbers 1 & 2 combined. How do you think option 1 is going to fare?

Truth is not a popularity contest. Majority vote is irrelevant. Interestingly, even if you limit yourself to surveying religious believers, you will find very large numbers of "votes" for differing propositions. For example:

1. jesus christ is the son of god and savior.
2. he is not.

Globally, you will find point 1 to be in the minority. Does this sway your opinion?

In my early twenties I was trapped in a very similar situation to the one you are now in. I too rejected outright the possible existence of a super-natural being. I too was carefully selecting the books and newspaper articles which I was reading to back up my self-denial. I too was engaging believers in all sorts of arguments; if there is a God why does he allow all this misery and inequality and diseases and rape and murder and whatever you care to name?

An interesting question. What is your answer?

So I am inviting you to take your first step as well. Start with something that won't threaten you in any way e.g. make a printout of the link higher up in this thread and watch the Matrix movie again. Invite Vampyr to join you.

OK, Pink Floyd and The Matrix. Got it.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2013-October-14, 06:02, said:

Yet they fail to instruct their fundamentalist brothers on this. They often just sit in the corner and shrug. Uncle Tony is drunk again, what can you do? Tomorrow he will sober up, maybe then we can talk to him. But these Uncle Tonies are fully aware and proud of how drunk they are and they rejoice in how unlikely it is that they will ever sober up. And they definitely miss all the shrugs and embarrassed looks around them and take their relatives' silence as tacit approval.

By coincidence, I had an experience last night relevant to this comment. We had dinner with a coupe whom we have known for many years. They are younger than we are, maybe 50 or so, and I have always understood that they take their religion seriously. The wife had in fact considered becoming perhaps a lay minister, or something of that nature, but she found that she had to state that she belived without question things that she in fact found less than certain, in some cases far less than certain. One thing led to another, and she has now moved to a church that is far less insistent on the acceptance of specific theological assertions.

Recently, while shopping, she ran across someone from her previous church and they fell into a discussion of this change of view. It did not go well at all. As they parted, the other woman said something about the different fates that would await them at the time of the rapture. Something was mentioned about the sign of the beast.

The point here is that our friend felt that further conversation would be totally pointless. Very frustrating, very unpleasant, and totally pointless. I doubt she would want to repeat this experience with her former church colleague or with anyone of a similar persuasion.

I don't think it is right to hold my friend responsible in any way as an enabler of this other woman's views. I mentioned many posts back that I have no expectation that 32519 will be changing his views as a result of anything I say.

Actions and beliefs are related, but I am not so sure that they are as strongly related as some seem to think. There are people who have very generous beliefs except for when it comes to acting on those beliefs, and there are some who sound like real jerks but are there to lend a hand when it is needed. It seems to me we should just pay more attention to what people do, and let them build whatever theoretical structures they might wish. Me, I am content with a very minimal philosophical foundation.

[gwnn]

Changing someone's mind should never be the primary goal of any discussion, especially not about religion. Informing the other party on your opinion as politely, clearly, and firmly is a much better goal, both in terms of ease and productivity. Even if the other party refuses to listen to or understand your point of view or opinion, they will nevertheless be forced to accept that there *are* other points of view out there and plenty of people who disagree with them.

[Winstonm]

gwnn, on 2013-October-14, 06:02, said:

(disclaimer: I admit that I have not read every single post in this thread and that the below is possibly distorting facts somewhat and I'm ready to recant/modify the below, but anyway, here goes:)

It seems to me the religious moderates or sympathisers thereof in this thread have spent a great deal of time arguing against the points raised by Sam Harris and Mike H. but have done little to counter the never-ending drivel our religious fundamentalist 32519 or to try to make him participate in less pseudoscientific rhetoric and more dialogue with us. I have seen mikeh being regarded as arrogant etc but no one from the religious moderates said anything bad about 32519. This seems to be very reminiscent to what Sam Harris decries. Moderates themselves would never say things like
because they know how arrogant, threatening and meaningless it sounds. Yet they fail to instruct their fundamentalist brothers on this. They often just sit in the corner and shrug. Uncle Tony is drunk again, what can you do? Tomorrow he will sober up, maybe then we can talk to him. But these Uncle Tonies are fully aware and proud of how drunk they are and they rejoice in how unlikely it is that they will ever sober up. And they definitely miss all the shrugs and embarrassed looks around them and take their relatives' silence as tacit approval.

IMO the basic problem is similar to the one Ken points out with his anecdote in that the fundamentalist views everyone who disagrees as "the enemy". It really does no good for a moderate to challenge a fundamentalist because the fundamentalist knows "the truth". In my limited experience, the only real change I have seen occur is after a length of time a believer may rethink that position because of repeatedly being challenged to find an explanation for the inconsistencies within the belief.

[gwnn]

The post hrothgar was referring to is this, BTW, for curious souls:

http://www.bridgebas...708#entry696708

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2013-October-14, 07:06, said:

Changing someone's mind should never be the primary goal of any discussion, especially not about religion.

I don't agree. In many discussions my primary goal is to change my own mind. Without this, it usually is not worth the trouble having the discussion in the first place.

Rik

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2013-October-14, 07:12, said:

In my limited experience, the only real change I have seen occur is after a length of time a believer may rethink that position because of repeatedly being challenged to find an explanation for the inconsistencies within the belief.

I think the change happens most often when the ideal becomes the practical; when an issue hits the individual personally. Ken's friend was ok with her former church for a long time, until she wanted to become an elder/deacon/etc. Then they came to her personally with a very specific demand. It was this personal experience that drove her change. There are simpler cases, for example religions that believe in faith healing only - no doctors. How many mothers have their epiphany when their own child gets ill and needs a doctor - but not before?

[gwnn]

Trinidad, on 2013-October-14, 07:27, said:

I don't agree. In many discussions my primary goal is to change my own mind. Without this, it usually is not worth the trouble having the discussion in the first place.

Rik

Very good counterexample. And now that I reread my post I can think of other counterexamples as well. Still, in kenberg's example I definitely disagree with the reasoning "Clearly, I cannot change her mind." => "I will stop talking to her and walk away." Now, I'm not saying that is all kenberg's friend (KF) did and it is all but certain that kenberg's friend's fundamentalist friend (KFFF) did not think that KF is convinced by her (KFFF). In that case, KF's job is very much done: she made it clear that she disagrees with KFFF and hopefully KFFF also has some idea about KF's reasons of disagreeing.

But is it a coincidence that 32519 only names mikeh and Vampyr as people who disagree with him and people who he needs to convince? I think not. awm may be right that his group 2 is closer to group 3 on a logical level, but in many of these discussions they are much, much closer to group 1 if you count the points they bring for/against the other two groups (1 and 3).

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2013-October-14, 01:20, said:

I finally discovered a use for the 'ignore user' function so this thread's troll is now invisible to me

But now you will miss updates on the Secret Bridge Olympics.

[c_corgi]

Vampyr, on 2013-October-14, 06:22, said:

The problem is that fundamentalists form a kind of buffer zone for moderates. As long as the former are there spewing their nonsense, the latter are "safe". If the moderates attack the excesses of the fundies, and even make them see sense, then the moderates will be next in the "line of fire" of nonbelievers and believers who nonetheless do not approve of religion. This may be one reason why Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens directed a great deal of their criticism at moderates. They are a really big part of the problem, although those who have not thought about it much tend to assume otherwise. (By "problem" I mean not just the dangers and threats of fundamentalism, but also other consequences of magical thinking.)

If moderates need a buffer zone to protect them from attacks by non-believers, that is indeed a problem. Many of the problems associated with religion derive from attacking or being attacked by those with different beliefs. It is unfortunate if non-religious people are going to fall into this trap as well.

[32519]

gwnn, on 2013-October-14, 07:06, said:

Changing someone's mind should never be the primary goal of any discussion, especially not about religion. Informing the other party on your opinion as politely, clearly, and firmly is a much better goal, both in terms of ease and productivity. Even if the other party refuses to listen to or understand your point of view or opinion, they will nevertheless be forced to accept that there *are* other points of view out there and plenty of people who disagree with them.

Your argument is very conveniently biased towards anti-religion. Why not try and share your views with MikeH and similar thinkers on the absolute absurdity of the BIG BANG theory and all its flaws. This thread has already pointed out some. I am waiting for the day when an enlightened free-thinking scientist starts looking into the numbers of how they got to the 14 500 000 000 figure in the first place and points out all sorts of errors in the calculation. What are you going to label him/her?

billw55, on 2013-October-11, 14:36, said:

These are not especially difficult questions, all have well established scientific answers. Per my own best understanding:
“I believe the current best estimate is about 13.7 billion years. Not a huge difference comparatively, but it can't hurt to be as accurate as possible.”

So we have already shed off 800 000 000 years?

This thing won the 2013 Nobel Prize? Here is an extract from the article on Wikipedia, "one of the great engineering milestones of mankind." Have a look at what they say on “Cost.” What’s the point of this thing in the first place when the starting point is flawed?

[gwnn]

32519, on 2013-October-14, 09:03, said:

Your argument is very conveniently biased towards anti-religion.

You are quoting a paragraph of my post that does not even mention religion. Read the paragraph before responding to it.

Quote

Why not try and share your views with MikeH and similar thinkers on the absolute absurdity of the BIG BANG theory and all its flaws. This thread has already pointed out some.

Because I do not see the Big Bang theory as absurd and I know of no major flaws that it has. I definitely saw no flaws pointed out "by this thread," only some vacuous questions raised by you.

Quote

I am waiting for the day when an enlightened free-thinking scientist starts looking into the numbers of how they got to the 14 500 000 000 figure in the first place and points out all sorts of errors in the calculation. What are you going to label him/her?

I am not sure what you mean by "free-thinking scientist" but I'm afraid you are talking about a kind who are usually ignorant and mathematically illiterate. You can grade any contenders with the crackpot index: http://math.ucr.edu/...z/crackpot.html

[Trinidad]

32519, on 2013-October-14, 09:03, said:

Have a look at what they say on “Cost.” What’s the point of this thing [Large Hadron Collider] in the first place when the starting point is flawed?

Perhaps the fact that it was allowed to cost this much shows just how confident scientists were about their theory and how much confidence the world had in these scientists when they gave them the money?

Would it be possible that your starting point is flawed?

Rik

[Vampyr]

c_corgi, on 2013-October-14, 08:53, said:

If moderates need a buffer zone to protect them from attacks by non-believers, that is indeed a problem. Many of the problems associated with religion derive from attacking or being attacked by those with different beliefs. It is unfortunate if non-religious people are going to fall into this trap as well.

I didn't mean "attack" as any kind of violence. I meant questions about their beliefs and eventual lack of special treatment in society.

Religious moderates do not want to be told how harmful to society their magical thinking is, so they would rather people focused on the excesses of their fanatic brethren. And in fact the fanatics make the moderates seem, to many, to be reasonable.

I have found that, in general, a lunatic fringe tends to make the relatively saner branches of a movement seem mainstream.

[Fluffy]

gwnn, on 2013-October-14, 06:02, said:

It seems to me the religious moderates or sympathisers thereof in this thread have spent a great deal of time arguing against the points raised by Sam Harris and Mike H. but have done little to counter the never-ending drivel our religious fundamentalist 32519 or to try to make him participate in less pseudoscientific rhetoric and more dialogue with us.

Were there anyone else on the believers side besides the troll?, I haven't payed much attention. It seemed like the usual thing here, a hoard of of atheist trying to put down an impenetrable wall of beliefs. And the usual stuff from Mikeh.

To be honest I almost upvoted a post from mikeh quoting the troll, but anyway when you are heavily outnumbered there is little sense on wasting energies against the opposition of your opposition. and for the most part I ignore the trolls.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-October-13, 23:22, said:

Suppose a worldwide poll was held in which every one of the 7 billion plus inhabitants was forced to participate. The question on the ballot paper is this:
HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT ORIGINATED?
Voters are given the following two choices –
1. It all started with a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago
2. It came about at the hands of a super-natural being
How do you believe the vote will go? You may easily end up with a situation where the number of spoilt ballot papers outnumbers 1 & 2 combined. How do you think option 1 is going to fare?

I think that the results would surprise you, at least in countries with a high level of literacy and education. Most moderate Christians and Jews believe that the 7-day creation thing is not a literal account of events.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-October-13, 23:22, said:

Suppose a worldwide poll was held in which every one of the 7 billion plus inhabitants was forced to participate. The question on the ballot paper is this:
HOW DO YOU BELIEVE THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING IN IT ORIGINATED?
Voters are given the following two choices –
1. It all started with a BIG BANG 14 500 000 000 years ago
2. It came about at the hands of a super-natural being
How do you believe the vote will go? You may easily end up with a situation where the number of spoilt ballot papers outnumbers 1 & 2 combined. How do you think option 1 is going to fare?

I think that the results would surprise you, at least in countries with a high level of literacy and education. Most moderate Christians and Jews believe that the 7-day creation thing is not a literal account of events.

[billw55]

32519, on 2013-October-14, 09:03, said:

Your argument is very conveniently biased towards anti-religion. Why not try and share your views with MikeH and similar thinkers on the absolute absurdity of the BIG BANG theory and all its flaws. This thread has already pointed out some.

It has? Maybe you can refresh me. What do you consider the flaws of big bang theory?

I am waiting for the day when an enlightened free-thinking scientist starts looking into the numbers of how they got to the 14 500 000 000 figure in the first place and points out all sorts of errors in the calculation. What are you going to label him/her?

All scientific measurements and calculations have error. Reporting error accurately is essential to good science. The time elapsed since the big bang has been calculated by several different methods (each with some margin for error), and you can easily look up these methods and results. If you think there is a problem with the measurements or calculations, can you be more specific?

So we have already shed off 800 000 000 years?

Yes, or if you prefer, 5.5% from 14.5 billion years. That is not a large error for this type of calculation. While I do not know the source of the 14.5 billion figure, I do know that the "current best" value has been improved several times over the decades since the theory was introduced.

From wikipedia: "The best measurement of the age of the universe is 13.798±0.037 billion years". That is ± 37 million years, or less than 1%. I consider that very accurate at this magnitude.

You have not proposed an alternative age. How old do *you* think the universe is? Based on what? What is the margin of error in your belief?

This thing won the 2013 Nobel Prize? Here is an extract from the article on Wikipedia, "one of the great engineering milestones of mankind." Have a look at what they say on "Cost." What's the point of this thing in the first place when the starting point is flawed?

The LHC has yielded some significant results, but I do think the cost is too high. Imagine how many worthwhile projects in other sciences could be funded for this amount. I think humanity would get greater benefit from a more diverse research investment.

But still: why is the starting point flawed?

[Trinidad]

Perhaps we have used the wrong style to convince everybody.

Perhaps we should write something like:

The Scientists gathered and presented the Unified Theory to the world. And the world saw the Unified Theory and the world saw that it was good.
And the Scientists separated the quarks, that form the neutrons and the protons, from the gluons, photons, bosons and gravitons. They presented their work to the world and the world saw their work and the world saw that it was good.
And the Scientists were working harder and found: "We need a Higgs boson! It must be somewhere, but we haven't found it yet. For without the Higgs boson all particles would be without mass and proceed at the speed of light.". And the world did not see the Higgs boson, yet the world saw that this was bad.
The Scientists gathered and said: "We may be able to find the Higgs boson, but it will cost the world $9 000 000 000. And there shall not be any absolute certainty that it can be found for Science does not work with absolute certainties.".
And the world said: "That is an awful lot of money, but we have so much confidence in Science, given the glorious things it has achieved in the past, that we will give to the Scientists what should be rightfully Theirs." And the world saw that it was good.
And that is how it unfolded. The Engineers gathered in Geneva to start the construction of the Large Hadron Collider. In the tenth year the construction was completed. And the Scientists gathered in Geneva and They saw the Large Hadron Collider and They saw that it was good.
The Scientists performed Their experiments and gathered Their data, and behold, in the fifth year, the Higgs boson was confirmed.
And scientists all over the world applauded their Colleagues for this glorious event.
And the world said: "Hallelujah! Praise Englert, Praise Higgs, for they have predicted the future for us!". And the world gathered in Stockholm on the tenth day of December (in commemoration of the death of Alfred Nobel) to award Them the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2013. And the world saw Englert and the world saw Higgs and the world saw that They were good.

Rik

[gwnn]

Fluffy, on 2013-October-14, 09:41, said:

Were there anyone else on the believers side besides the troll?, I haven't payed much attention. It seemed like the usual thing here, a hoard of of atheist trying to put down an impenetrable wall of beliefs. And the usual stuff from Mikeh.

Mikeh was debating people other than 32519 in this thread, for example nige1, billw5, onoway, etc. You may want to call the participants of this thread as a "hoard of atheists" but that is a gross misrepresentation. I would say it is much closer to 50-50 in terms of pro-religious moderation vs. anti-religious moderation. And there are clearly more people who confronted mikeh and Vampyr than those who confronted 32519. If you doubt any of this, you are welcome to re-read the thread.