Atheist buses denying God's existence take to streets(telegraph.co.uk)
telegraph.co.uk
Atheist buses denying God's existence take to streets
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4141765/Atheist-buses-denying-Gods-existence-take-to-streets.html
6 comments
Dawkins has said that he wouldn't use the term 'probably' preferring to use something like 'highly improbable'.
I don't think saying god is highly improbable based on the evidence before us is dogmatic. Dawkins is on record saying he would like there to be a god and is waiting for concrete evidence. That doesn't sound dogmatic to me.
I don't think saying god is highly improbable based on the evidence before us is dogmatic. Dawkins is on record saying he would like there to be a god and is waiting for concrete evidence. That doesn't sound dogmatic to me.
I've had the privilege of meeting Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist,
http://friendlyatheist.com/
at a talk in my town, and I think he gets the issue of communicating with believers very well, perhaps because he was brought up in the Jain religion. It is quite an art to understand where the other person is coming from and to communicate with that person.
I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith.
At the risk of showing I'm not as smooth a communicator as Hemant, "permit me to not completely agree with this opinion," in the words of my favorite mathematician. I think what religious belief (which I used to have) and secular rationalism differ in is HOW they assign confidence to what they rely on, and I think, properly speaking, the natural scientist doesn't have faith in the sense of faith in a body of religious doctrine. I think the truth-seeking of the scientist, and of the members of the general public who learn from scientists, is different in nature from the truth-assuming of those who put faith in religions. I've been there, and I've done that. I have a LOT of compassion for people who have deep religious faith, and I appreciate gentle efforts to communicate with them, but I don't think people who go through life in active, fact-tested truth-seeking are just putting their faith in a different object.
Thanks for making an interesting early comment that got me thinking about my rather recent "conversion."
http://friendlyatheist.com/
at a talk in my town, and I think he gets the issue of communicating with believers very well, perhaps because he was brought up in the Jain religion. It is quite an art to understand where the other person is coming from and to communicate with that person.
I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith.
At the risk of showing I'm not as smooth a communicator as Hemant, "permit me to not completely agree with this opinion," in the words of my favorite mathematician. I think what religious belief (which I used to have) and secular rationalism differ in is HOW they assign confidence to what they rely on, and I think, properly speaking, the natural scientist doesn't have faith in the sense of faith in a body of religious doctrine. I think the truth-seeking of the scientist, and of the members of the general public who learn from scientists, is different in nature from the truth-assuming of those who put faith in religions. I've been there, and I've done that. I have a LOT of compassion for people who have deep religious faith, and I appreciate gentle efforts to communicate with them, but I don't think people who go through life in active, fact-tested truth-seeking are just putting their faith in a different object.
Thanks for making an interesting early comment that got me thinking about my rather recent "conversion."
i interpreted kirsh's claim as:
"in spite of the theoretical procedural differences in assigning faith, both camps are substantially influenced by culture and tradition.
"in spite of the theoretical procedural differences in assigning faith, both camps are substantially influenced by culture and tradition.
bite
can't think outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone
The point is that these "powerful background assumptions" are common to both 'macro evolutionists' & micro evolutionists(?). The latter simply have more, additional 'faith-based' assumptions. I assume we are talking about things like 'I'm not a brain in a vat,' 'tomorrow will follow today' & other unresolved fundamental issues.
It seems interesting to me that recently whenever I get into these discussions (I know, bad habit), 'God doesn't exist' is countered with (metaphorically) 'maybe you don't exist' or 'Maybe you call red what I call green'
While that is a good question, it's not really relevant ( I don't think so anyway). In fact, it's cheating. Define your fundamentals however you lie. I'll admit our fundamentals are all shaky. But lets move past that. Especially if if in the same breath as macro evolution (Do we really have to say macro now? Feels like the term is under attempted hijack). Yes, we assume that human logic works & that our observations are reality & that we are not a brain in a vat.
can't think outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone
The point is that these "powerful background assumptions" are common to both 'macro evolutionists' & micro evolutionists(?). The latter simply have more, additional 'faith-based' assumptions. I assume we are talking about things like 'I'm not a brain in a vat,' 'tomorrow will follow today' & other unresolved fundamental issues.
It seems interesting to me that recently whenever I get into these discussions (I know, bad habit), 'God doesn't exist' is countered with (metaphorically) 'maybe you don't exist' or 'Maybe you call red what I call green'
While that is a good question, it's not really relevant ( I don't think so anyway). In fact, it's cheating. Define your fundamentals however you lie. I'll admit our fundamentals are all shaky. But lets move past that. Especially if if in the same breath as macro evolution (Do we really have to say macro now? Feels like the term is under attempted hijack). Yes, we assume that human logic works & that our observations are reality & that we are not a brain in a vat.
I like to argue that people should take pascals wager to the next level and believe in absolutely every possibly permutation of a higher being/afterlife. you know... just in case.
Grounded in faith alone? Unlike theists and deists, atheists reach their conclusion through critical, rational thinking.
Isn't it funny how we can intuitively identify almost every single object in this world as designed (or not), except somehow our intuition is only wrong about the very thing we know best -- ourselves?
Highly logical there, isn't it?
It's also pretty clear there are non-physical entities (such as human consciousness) that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism, nor will they ever be explained. To claim that the metaphysical domain does not exist (or if it does, is really explained by laws of an entirely different domain - the physical) is far from rational and completely faith-based, especially when you have your own conscious existence as personal evidence.
Highly logical there, isn't it?
It's also pretty clear there are non-physical entities (such as human consciousness) that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism, nor will they ever be explained. To claim that the metaphysical domain does not exist (or if it does, is really explained by laws of an entirely different domain - the physical) is far from rational and completely faith-based, especially when you have your own conscious existence as personal evidence.
we can intuitively identify almost every single object in this world as designed (or not)
The economy?
It's also pretty clear there are
We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident
The economy?
It's also pretty clear there are
We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident
"that cannot be explained by scientific naturalism"
Sure, with you so far.
"nor will they ever be explained"
How do you know?
Sure, with you so far.
"nor will they ever be explained"
How do you know?
Atheist buses? You mean some buses believe in one or more deities? Amazing! I'll bet it's those kneeling buses that lower their front right suspension for people to get on.
heh... why bother? "Believers" won't stop believing because of a bus and atheists already don't.
Yes & No.
A book, conversation, argument, radio show or even a bus ad never make anyone believe or disbelieve anything along these lines 'off the bat'. But then, it probably doesn't make you buy laundry detergent. But having concepts out there in this form does have an effect.
A big one is normalising atheism. Making sure it's not something foreign or taboo. Making people comfortable having it around them. Making sure it's not an extreme position. The immediate things to counter is the idea that atheism is an extreme position, an arrogant position or a dangerous one.
A book, conversation, argument, radio show or even a bus ad never make anyone believe or disbelieve anything along these lines 'off the bat'. But then, it probably doesn't make you buy laundry detergent. But having concepts out there in this form does have an effect.
A big one is normalising atheism. Making sure it's not something foreign or taboo. Making people comfortable having it around them. Making sure it's not an extreme position. The immediate things to counter is the idea that atheism is an extreme position, an arrogant position or a dangerous one.
A big one is normalising atheism. Making sure it's not something foreign or taboo.
That's an interesting perspective. Having once been an evangelical Christian, I now as an atheist have more than a little desire to proselytize. I haven't found any of the "new atheist" literature that I could give to my many Christian friends with much hope that that literature would communicate to their concerns. Probably a lot of incrementalism here and there on different fronts will help more people have space and gumption to begin examining the world without the assumption that this or that religion is an accurate description of reality. Then more people can join in the great human enterprise of investigating reality and sharing what we find out.
I do like friendly, even concessive-to-a-fault statements over harsh, in-your-face statements, and I think that is a winning approach for many atheists to take.
That's an interesting perspective. Having once been an evangelical Christian, I now as an atheist have more than a little desire to proselytize. I haven't found any of the "new atheist" literature that I could give to my many Christian friends with much hope that that literature would communicate to their concerns. Probably a lot of incrementalism here and there on different fronts will help more people have space and gumption to begin examining the world without the assumption that this or that religion is an accurate description of reality. Then more people can join in the great human enterprise of investigating reality and sharing what we find out.
I do like friendly, even concessive-to-a-fault statements over harsh, in-your-face statements, and I think that is a winning approach for many atheists to take.
We people think emotionally. We also think rationally. But emotions always play a part. It is not just access to different literature that made the majority of Russians 100 years ago Marxist while making most Americans 40 years ago anti communist free marketeers.
The rational behind most atheists' position is pretty simple. It is also pretty dry. You can dress it up in Russell's Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Dawkins' garden fairies. That is insulting because what you are inserting into the framework of the argument is: 'X is stupid. You are like X'
Everything else is politics. Is religion good or bad? Is it an innate human property etc. etc. None of that is very important to the argument. Nor are the various arguments within religion presented by atheists (shouldn't you believe that.. Why do you believe x & not y).
I don't have much contact with 'Evangelicals.' I have had a fair bit to do with with 'progressive Christians,' Jews of various positions & (mostly expat) Muslims. I have to say that I think they all react to completely different things emotionally. The first group are usually concerned with the community & work of the churches. There are in fact many jobs performed by them that are otherwise left undone. Jews are often moved by identity issues. Many of the Muslims I have known seemed moved by a sort of loyalty. The latter is similar to how I've seen (normally leftists) Americans react to 'foreigners' making the same complaints they themselves make about their culture.
In none of the questions did the simple argument that convinces me, have much bearing on anything. Ocasionaly I was indulged with a discussion so that we could move on to the more important things. These things I find irrelevant before i am satisfied on the teapot point.
In a way it is similar to the argument I criticised here: The concepts of 'justice' or 'ethics' stand on philosophically unsound foundations. You might indulge someone for a few minutes if you want to discuss Gaza, Mumbai, South Ossetia or something, but you don't want to get bogged down in Kant or Bentham.
But anyway what I am saying in this long winded way is that for the purpose of 'winning' the argument. It is important to acclimatise your audience to an idea. Convince them that it is not insane. The argument themselves will come into play are not in defence mode. It may at some later point. A good time is if/when they ever find themselves defending against a more 'extreme' point.
As I said, I know few evangelicals. But I hear that they often associate atheism with crime, immorality etc. To counter that, you just need to show them that morality is possible without believing in god (even if it does requires His existence). You would have heard all sorts of rubbish said about Communists back in the day. A young American refusing to buy in & attacking the anti-communist rubbish (there was plenty that anyone would now consider rubbish) would have been in a position to consider communism on it's merits. Dido on Soviets with Atlas Shrugged under the tiles.
They may find themselves defending humanism. Which is step to considering it.
The rational behind most atheists' position is pretty simple. It is also pretty dry. You can dress it up in Russell's Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Dawkins' garden fairies. That is insulting because what you are inserting into the framework of the argument is: 'X is stupid. You are like X'
Everything else is politics. Is religion good or bad? Is it an innate human property etc. etc. None of that is very important to the argument. Nor are the various arguments within religion presented by atheists (shouldn't you believe that.. Why do you believe x & not y).
I don't have much contact with 'Evangelicals.' I have had a fair bit to do with with 'progressive Christians,' Jews of various positions & (mostly expat) Muslims. I have to say that I think they all react to completely different things emotionally. The first group are usually concerned with the community & work of the churches. There are in fact many jobs performed by them that are otherwise left undone. Jews are often moved by identity issues. Many of the Muslims I have known seemed moved by a sort of loyalty. The latter is similar to how I've seen (normally leftists) Americans react to 'foreigners' making the same complaints they themselves make about their culture.
In none of the questions did the simple argument that convinces me, have much bearing on anything. Ocasionaly I was indulged with a discussion so that we could move on to the more important things. These things I find irrelevant before i am satisfied on the teapot point.
In a way it is similar to the argument I criticised here: The concepts of 'justice' or 'ethics' stand on philosophically unsound foundations. You might indulge someone for a few minutes if you want to discuss Gaza, Mumbai, South Ossetia or something, but you don't want to get bogged down in Kant or Bentham.
But anyway what I am saying in this long winded way is that for the purpose of 'winning' the argument. It is important to acclimatise your audience to an idea. Convince them that it is not insane. The argument themselves will come into play are not in defence mode. It may at some later point. A good time is if/when they ever find themselves defending against a more 'extreme' point.
As I said, I know few evangelicals. But I hear that they often associate atheism with crime, immorality etc. To counter that, you just need to show them that morality is possible without believing in god (even if it does requires His existence). You would have heard all sorts of rubbish said about Communists back in the day. A young American refusing to buy in & attacking the anti-communist rubbish (there was plenty that anyone would now consider rubbish) would have been in a position to consider communism on it's merits. Dido on Soviets with Atlas Shrugged under the tiles.
They may find themselves defending humanism. Which is step to considering it.
I believe the goal is to make people that are already non-believers feel more comfortable.
If it makes some people think about the idea of no god, I'd say it's worth it. Besides, we've been bombarded by religious propaganda our entire lives (at least in America), it's about time the other side started speaking out.
Do we seriously need to open up the god debate on HN too?
I thought this would be deemed off-topic enough to never see the light of day here. Sigh.
I thought this would be deemed off-topic enough to never see the light of day here. Sigh.
"... Do we seriously need to open up the god debate on HN too? ..."
Yes, unfortunately.
The foundations of (biological) science (evolution) are under attack by advocates of 'belief' systems. Everything you take for granted generated by scientific backed knowledge is the result of 'provable' ideas and to go backwards as a result of pressure for people with feeble unsupportable, kooky ideas has to be defended. MMR immunisation vaccines not taken in the mistaken belief it causes Asperger Syndrome ~ http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/ the Pope declaring "The Pill cuts mail fertility" ~ http://www.google.com.au/search?pope+Vatican+says+pill+cuts+... what about Dinosaurs & humans co-existing ~ http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html The examples go on and on.
As a hacker it's good to have and practice a skeptical mindset. Otherwise you'll end up like this poor sod, "Quadrant falls victim to its own reasoning" ~ http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quadrant-falls-victim-to...
Yes, unfortunately.
The foundations of (biological) science (evolution) are under attack by advocates of 'belief' systems. Everything you take for granted generated by scientific backed knowledge is the result of 'provable' ideas and to go backwards as a result of pressure for people with feeble unsupportable, kooky ideas has to be defended. MMR immunisation vaccines not taken in the mistaken belief it causes Asperger Syndrome ~ http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/ the Pope declaring "The Pill cuts mail fertility" ~ http://www.google.com.au/search?pope+Vatican+says+pill+cuts+... what about Dinosaurs & humans co-existing ~ http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html The examples go on and on.
As a hacker it's good to have and practice a skeptical mindset. Otherwise you'll end up like this poor sod, "Quadrant falls victim to its own reasoning" ~ http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quadrant-falls-victim-to...
- The foundations of (biological) science (evolution) are under attack by advocates of 'belief' systems.
No they aren't. 90% of religious people have no objection to science. The two areas of study to them are not contradictory. Just because there is a vocal minority, specifically in the US, doesn't mean the world is ending.
Your examples don't really support your claims. The MMR vaccine is based on faulty science, not religious belief. If anyone actually cared about the pope's opinions on sex, I'd give a damn. (Although, we should be questioning the increase of estrogen in our environment, from not just the pill but from plastics and all sorts of stuff)
Being skeptical and religious have nothing to do with one another. This is most certainly true if the religion in question isn't Christianity.
No they aren't. 90% of religious people have no objection to science. The two areas of study to them are not contradictory. Just because there is a vocal minority, specifically in the US, doesn't mean the world is ending.
Your examples don't really support your claims. The MMR vaccine is based on faulty science, not religious belief. If anyone actually cared about the pope's opinions on sex, I'd give a damn. (Although, we should be questioning the increase of estrogen in our environment, from not just the pill but from plastics and all sorts of stuff)
Being skeptical and religious have nothing to do with one another. This is most certainly true if the religion in question isn't Christianity.
I'm not the most religious guy, but I think that posting ads stating that THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD is probably a good way to get Him to show up in interesting ways in the responsible parties' lives.
Also, I find it lame that anti-religious movements would resort to proselytism.
Also, I find it lame that anti-religious movements would resort to proselytism.
Hacker news?
>Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Nope. Clearly Reddit.
Hacker news?
Arguably not.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But maybe so under the "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" guideline. I waited for the upvotes before joining in. I would find a discussion of this same topic very tedious over on Reddit, but I respect the atmosphere that most HN participants attempt to maintain, and would like to discuss how more people in society at large can discuss atheism (pro or con) nonvituperatively.
Arguably not.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But maybe so under the "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" guideline. I waited for the upvotes before joining in. I would find a discussion of this same topic very tedious over on Reddit, but I respect the atmosphere that most HN participants attempt to maintain, and would like to discuss how more people in society at large can discuss atheism (pro or con) nonvituperatively.
Maybe not, but as with most "not Hacker News" articles, the commentary is worth reading in itself.
I was going to be critical of that weak use of the word "probably" (especially in the context of atheistic belief), but then I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith.
Too many atheists and macro-evolutionists (especially Dawkins), can't think outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone. These assumptions, of course, are then used as a framework for claiming what is the "truth".