Arrogant Atheists and Crazy Christians

[Draconikus]

Again - that one side or another does something does not necessarily mean that it is okay for the other to do so. Incidentally, this argument started as a response to Dyakovo stating that atheists _never_ did such a thing. It may be massively out numbered by the Christian's doing it to the atheists. In fact, I would be surprised if it wasn't. But even if the one who ranted at me was the only atheist who ever ranted at a Christian about this, _that does not make it right_.

Normally, I'd agree that universal generalisations are inherently flawed, because you just need to provide one argument to the contrary and they become invalid - but it seems that what we're really looking for here is statistical significance.

The Amazing Atheist rants a lot, and not just about religion - but you have to go looking for him, he's not omnipresent - so it's hard to describe what he does as being forced down anyone's throat.

There would be a much better argument that JW's, for example, are forcing their beliefs down people's throats, since they specifically come looking for people to impose upon.

And you tell them 'sorry, not interested', and they bugger off. If they try to argue the point, then yes, they are forcing it down your throat. There is a difference between 'ranting' and 'forcing it down your throat', and there is also a difference between that and 'searching for an audience'.

... If laws have absolutely no basis on morality, what exactly is their purpose? Murder is illegal - why? Why did the law decide I should not steal?

Pragmatism? I don't want you stealing my shit and you don't want me stealing your shit... so we come up with a code of rules that say 'don't steal shit'.

And why do you not wish for me to steal your stuff and vice-versa? Because it is unpleasant. So 'stealing things is unpleasant'. Wait, that sounds like a moral/ethical statement to me..

... And who decided to abide by the constitution?

The Constitution was arguably designed for the specific purpose of creating a framework for laws that would be applicable over a very wide range of ideological and religious belief. 'Who decided to abide by it'? Arguably... everyone.

(Although, in reality, it was actually the representatives they sent that agreed, but you see the point).

So... the majority ruled? Granted, an unusually large majority, but a majority nonetheless. Representatives/ members of government merely wield the power of the majority until such a time as the majority decides to take it away from them - or they lose the majority.

Never forget that the basic force in the planet is force majeure. If a majority of people within the USA decided the Constitution needed to be thrown out - it would. Revolution, rebellion, revolt. Call it what you will. It's what happens when the majority decides to take their power back from the few they delegated it to. Governments know this, and it would be a very short-lived government that stuck by a law when the people decided to change it.

Which is why the Constitution contains mechanisms for adjustment of the Constitution.

So, again, the majority rules?

A respectable government, for sure, but short-lived, nevertheless. The best government is the one that ensures it always has a bigger stick.

The best government is arguably the government that does the most good. Big sticks may or may not be required.

Sorry, the 'big stick' was meant as a metaphor for the amount of power a group has relative to its opposition. Therefore a popular government will always have a 'big stick', and will have less reason to use it. And my definition for 'good' government was more along the lines of 'one that effectively maintains power'. The best one would be the one that does this so well that any opposition it has never grows large enough to pose a credible threat to it (Obviously, this is referring to external threats. For the purposes of this example, a party losing an election is not a threat to the government, as that is part of the governmental process).

[Four-sided Triangles]

From what I can figure out of them, they do possess extension in space, they don't simply exist as a convenient tool for aiding physicists in difficult calculations.
Therefore they are physical particles. Alright - let's see just what horrible trap I fell for this time.

No trap, it's just that modern physics has shown that our commonsense notion of "physical" is too simplistic to really fit quantum theory or cosmology or anything like that, so I can't really say whether or not everything is "physical." I can, however, say that everything follows some ultimate set of logically self-consistent laws that govern all possible interactions. If god exists, then the ultimate laws of existence must be such that god is permitted to exist within them. Even if we're too stupid to understand and/or figure out the correct explanation, everything is ultimate explainable, in principle.

[Grave_n_idle]

And you tell them 'sorry, not interested', and they bugger off. If they try to argue the point, then yes, they are forcing it down your throat. There is a difference between 'ranting' and 'forcing it down your throat', and there is also a difference between that and 'searching for an audience'.

I think you missed the point. I'm not saying I object to JW's coming and knocking at my door. I'm referring back to the original argument over forcing things down other people's throats - and the ubiquitous JW door-to-door ministry comes a lot closer to that, than the simple presence of one ranting Amazing Atheist does.

Of course, Christians imposing their worldview in real terms - like limiting who can marry, or legislating about abortion, or even just limiting which days alcohol can be purchased on, based on their faith - those are much better examples of forcing your belief down someone else's throat.

And why do you not wish for me to steal your stuff and vice-versa? Because it is unpleasant.

No. Because then I wouldn't have my stuff.

So 'stealing things is unpleasant'. Wait, that sounds like a moral/ethical statement to me..

No, it doesn't.

'Stealing things is wrong because it's wrong' would be a moral statement, albeit tautological.

'Stealing things makes people sad' is not a moral statement.

So... the majority ruled?

Indeed. But again you miss the point. The majority decided to set up a rule of law by which the majority did not rule. The Constitution is not perfect, but it's a very good attempt to create a framework of laws that are neither tyranny of the majority, nor of the minority.

So, again, the majority rules?

Again, not the point. The point is, the 'rights' of citizens is not determined by morality or ideology. At least, not according to the Constitution. Sometimes this doesn't hold true in practise, initially - but history suggests the trend is always towards eventual reconciliation with the spirit of the Constitution.

[Ora Amaris]

Question: is it okay to believe in something isn't real? Should we allow ignorance for the sake of allowing diversity of opinion?

[Grave_n_idle]

Question: is it okay to believe in something isn't real? Should we allow ignorance for the sake of allowing diversity of opinion?

Is it okay? Sure.

I don't care what anyone believes. Their beliefs are their own.

No - it's what they present as facts that I have an issue with.

[Draconikus]

From what I can figure out of them, they do possess extension in space, they don't simply exist as a convenient tool for aiding physicists in difficult calculations.
Therefore they are physical particles. Alright - let's see just what horrible trap I fell for this time.

No trap, it's just that modern physics has shown that our commonsense notion of "physical" is too simplistic to really fit quantum theory or cosmology or anything like that, so I can't really say whether or not everything is "physical." I can, however, say that everything follows some ultimate set of logically self-consistent laws that govern all possible interactions. If god exists, then the ultimate laws of existence must be such that god is permitted to exist within them. Even if we're too stupid to understand and/or figure out the correct explanation, everything is ultimate explainable, in principle.

As I understood the theory, the base structure of the universe is a sort of quantum foam, with each bubble being a universe. To allow for the Christian God's properties, he would exist 'behind' the foam, as a sort of extra-dimensional being. As He is outside our dimension, this grants Him the abilities of being omnipresent, omniscient, and transcendant. This does introduce an interaction problem, as we currently cannot explain how He would go about acting within this universe if he exists 'behind' it, however, I believe that solving three problems is worth the introduction of one - until that one is demonstrated as impossible.

[Four-sided Triangles]

As I understood the theory, the base structure of the universe is a sort of quantum foam, with each bubble being a universe. To allow for the Christian God's properties, he would exist 'behind' the foam, as a sort of extra-dimensional being. As He is outside our dimension, this grants Him the abilities of being omnipresent, omniscient, and transcendant. This does introduce an interaction problem, as we currently cannot explain how He would go about acting within this universe if he exists 'behind' it, however, I believe that solving three problems is worth the introduction of one - until that one is demonstrated as impossible.

The problem is that, if god knows the everything, then he would have to know what the result of any measurement on a quantum system will yield. However, with decoherence, you can always demonstrate that the result of a measurement is probabilistic unless there's no superposition of states. Since god knows what the measurement will yield, that must mean that there is never any superposition of states corresponding to the observable quantities we're trying to measure. However, that cannot be the case, as the superposition of states has demonstrable consequences. If particles weren't in superposed states, we wouldn't observe the strange effects that we do.

[Draconikus]

And you tell them 'sorry, not interested', and they bugger off. If they try to argue the point, then yes, they are forcing it down your throat. There is a difference between 'ranting' and 'forcing it down your throat', and there is also a difference between that and 'searching for an audience'.

I think you missed the point. I'm not saying I object to JW's coming and knocking at my door. I'm referring back to the original argument over forcing things down other people's throats - and the ubiquitous JW door-to-door ministry comes a lot closer to that, than the simple presence of one ranting Amazing Atheist does.

Okay, yeah, I fail to see where you are going with this. I have admitted that it is wrong for any party to try and force their beleifs on any other. From what I can see, you believe that the more personal approach of the Jehovah's Witnesses is more forceful than the more passive method of simply publishing your views. So, what, you want to argue over whether coming close to doing wrong is itself wrong?

[
Of course, Christians imposing their worldview in real terms - like limiting who can marry, or legislating about abortion, or even just limiting which days alcohol can be purchased on, based on their faith - those are much better examples of forcing your belief down someone else's throat.

Yes, yes they are.
The problem here is you are now talking about politics. If they are in a position to be able to do those things, it is because a majority of people have decided that those views are similar enough to their own that they are willing to have this person wield their power for them. Yes, according to my previous argument, it is wrong, as the will of the minority is crushed. However, on a utilitarian view, it is less wrong than having a minority in power, as crushing the will of the majority would cause more suffering (and a revolt, but still).

And why do you not wish for me to steal your stuff and vice-versa? Because it is unpleasant.

No. Because then I wouldn't have my stuff.

[/quote]
Which causes additional hardship, difficulty, and suffering. Which is unpleasant.

So 'stealing things is unpleasant'. Wait, that sounds like a moral/ethical statement to me..

No, it doesn't.

'Stealing things is wrong because it's wrong' would be a moral statement, albeit tautological.

'Stealing things makes people sad' is not a moral statement.

Eep, dammit, I left it inherent that upsetting a person is wrong.
It is wrong because we ourselves wouldn't want to be upset. And so we should not engender that reaction in other people.

[

So... the majority ruled?

Indeed. But again you miss the point. The majority decided to set up a rule of law by which the majority did not rule. The Constitution is not perfect, but it's a very good attempt to create a framework of laws that are neither tyranny of the majority, nor of the minority.

But the majority still elected to use their power, even if it was in an attempt to limit that power. As for the Constitution being a good attempt... eh, all government is bad. It is simply a matter of finding one that is less so.

So, again, the majority rules?

Again, not the point. The point is, the 'rights' of citizens is not determined by morality or ideology. At least, not according to the Constitution. Sometimes this doesn't hold true in practise, initially - but history suggests the trend is always towards eventual reconciliation with the spirit of the Constitution.[/quote]
Of course it does. If the Constitution favoured any particular ideology or beleif over others, it would be repealed as soon as those beliefs fell out of the majority. Or Amended, whichever is easier. Any law that favours one particular group over another will be repealed or changed as soon as that group loses the majority. Eventually you will have a system of laws that everyone hates, but can live with because everyone else is treated just as unfairly.
Besides which - all the works of mankind are affected by morality and ideology. Just because the Constitution never says 'right to free movement, as John Hancock reckons you aught be able to visit your grandma in the next state' doesn't mean it is free of these. You seem to beleive that ideology and morality refer to specific religious concepts. No - all men work according to their beliefs and their ideals (and women, too). The leaders who wrote the Constitution wrote a framework for wht they believed to be the ideal government. Those leaders who ratified it found little, or nothing which they either disagreed with, or disagreed with enough to refuse to sign it.Because it was written and negotiated over by many men, most of whom were smart, rational men, they caught and removed any references in there which favoured one ideological system over another - and what they missed has slowly been amended as the issues displayed themselves.
What you fail to explain is why we would have any laws at all if not for moral and ethical considerations.

[Draconikus]

As I understood the theory, the base structure of the universe is a sort of quantum foam, with each bubble being a universe. To allow for the Christian God's properties, he would exist 'behind' the foam, as a sort of extra-dimensional being. As He is outside our dimension, this grants Him the abilities of being omnipresent, omniscient, and transcendant. This does introduce an interaction problem, as we currently cannot explain how He would go about acting within this universe if he exists 'behind' it, however, I believe that solving three problems is worth the introduction of one - until that one is demonstrated as impossible.

The problem is that, if god knows the everything, then he would have to know what the result of any measurement on a quantum system will yield. However, with decoherence, you can always demonstrate that the result of a measurement is probabilistic unless there's no superposition of states. Since god knows what the measurement will yield, that must mean that there is never any superposition of states corresponding to the observable quantities we're trying to measure. However, that cannot be the case, as the superposition of states has demonstrable consequences. If particles weren't in superposed states, we wouldn't observe the strange effects that we do.

I beleive this would fall under the interaction problem. We don't currently know how God can be both outside our universe, and yet simultaneously affect things within it. So, how would this experiment be affected if the thing that is collapsing the superposition of states is outside the universe?
Another idea is that, as he is transcendant, God is constantly experiencing the entirety of existence. This could allow Him to somehow be the sole exception to the rule of 'no witnesses'.
Personally, I prefer the 'out of this world observer' theory - the other one seems a bit shaky.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I beleive this would fall under the interaction problem. We don't currently know how God can be both outside our universe, and yet simultaneously affect things within it. So, how would this experiment be affected if the thing that is collapsing the superposition of states is outside the universe?

It wouldn't. If x is guaranteed to be the value when you measure a system, then the system must be |x>. But, if it were |x>, then any other states couldn't effect evolution at all, and the wavefunction would evolve as exp(-i*t*H)|x>. However, that's not what happens.

Another idea is that, as he is transcendant, God is constantly experiencing the entirety of existence. This could allow Him to somehow be the sole exception to the rule of 'no witnesses'.
Personally, I prefer the 'out of this world observer' theory - the other one seems a bit shaky.

You really can't get it to work, I'm afraid.

[Ecans]

I am an atheist.
I think it is foolish to believe otherwise.
I also think you have every damn right to be foolish if you want to, if it makes you happy or a better person and doesn't hurt anything. Perfectly wonderful people make complete fools of themselves every day, and I love them all the more for it.
Religion, it has been said, is like a penis: It's perfectly fine to have one, it's perfectly fine to be proud of it. But don't whip it out in public, and don't shove it down my throat unless I ask.

AMEN!

[Ecans]

Again, not the point. The point is, the 'rights' of citizens is not determined by morality or ideology. At least, not according to the Constitution. Sometimes this doesn't hold true in practise, initially - but history suggests the trend is always towards eventual reconciliation with the spirit of the Constitution.[/quote]
Of course it does. If the Constitution favoured any particular ideology or beleif over others, it would be repealed as soon as those beliefs fell out of the majority. Or Amended, whichever is easier. Any law that favours one particular group over another will be repealed or changed as soon as that group loses the majority. Eventually you will have a system of laws that everyone hates, but can live with because everyone else is treated just as unfairly.
Besides which - all the works of mankind are affected by morality and ideology. Just because the Constitution never says 'right to free movement, as John Hancock reckons you aught be able to visit your grandma in the next state' doesn't mean it is free of these. You seem to beleive that ideology and morality refer to specific religious concepts. No - all men work according to their beliefs and their ideals (and women, too). The leaders who wrote the Constitution wrote a framework for wht they believed to be the ideal government. Those leaders who ratified it found little, or nothing which they either disagreed with, or disagreed with enough to refuse to sign it.Because it was written and negotiated over by many men, most of whom were smart, rational men, they caught and removed any references in there which favoured one ideological system over another - and what they missed has slowly been amended as the issues displayed themselves.
What you fail to explain is why we would have any laws at all if not for moral and ethical considerations.

There are constitutions other than American. Try looking around you...past the borders of your tiny universe.

[Draconikus]

I beleive this would fall under the interaction problem. We don't currently know how God can be both outside our universe, and yet simultaneously affect things within it. So, how would this experiment be affected if the thing that is collapsing the superposition of states is outside the universe?

It wouldn't. If x is guaranteed to be the value when you measure a system, then the system must be |x>. But, if it were |x>, then any other states couldn't effect evolution at all, and the wavefunction would evolve as exp(-i*t*H)|x>. However, that's not what happens.

Another idea is that, as he is transcendant, God is constantly experiencing the entirety of existence. This could allow Him to somehow be the sole exception to the rule of 'no witnesses'.
Personally, I prefer the 'out of this world observer' theory - the other one seems a bit shaky.

You really can't get it to work, I'm afraid.

... Bugger. Obviously, I'm going to go off now and discuss this with various people to see if there is any way out of this. I will admit that I can't see one right now.

[Draconikus]

There are constitutions other than American. Try looking around you...past the borders of your tiny universe.

*Sips tea* Of course there are. After all, I live in a constitutional monarchy known as the United Kingdom. Bit hard to be a constitutional monarchy without a constitution, wouldn't you say?
However, Grave_n_idle made specific reference to the American Constitution, and so I utilised it myself in composing my counter argument.
Honestly, if you are going to rebuke someone for being closed minded, the least you could do is ensure you rebuke the correct person.

[Four-sided Triangles]

... Bugger. Obviously, I'm going to go off now and discuss this with various people to see if there is any way out of this. I will admit that I can't see one right now.

You could have a god that's not all-knowing. He knows exactly what the wave-function is, but doesn't necessarily know how decoherence will occur.

[Draconikus]

... Bugger. Obviously, I'm going to go off now and discuss this with various people to see if there is any way out of this. I will admit that I can't see one right now.

You could have a god that's not all-knowing. He knows exactly what the wave-function is, but doesn't necessarily know how decoherence will occur.

Nah - as soon as I start making exceptions, the strict definition of God's properties loses all integrity. At that point, deification of _anything_ becomes possible.

[Dyakovo]

You could have a god that's not all-knowing. He knows exactly what the wave-function is, but doesn't necessarily know how decoherence will occur.

Nah - as soon as I start making exceptions, the strict definition of God's properties loses all integrity. At that point, deification of _anything_ becomes possible.

*deifies FST*

[Draconikus]

Nah - as soon as I start making exceptions, the strict definition of God's properties loses all integrity. At that point, deification of _anything_ becomes possible.

*deifies FST*

Yeah - and can you imagine how awkward that would make censuses?

[Bottle]

I think you missed the point. I'm not saying I object to JW's coming and knocking at my door. I'm referring back to the original argument over forcing things down other people's throats - and the ubiquitous JW door-to-door ministry comes a lot closer to that, than the simple presence of one ranting Amazing Atheist does.

The Amazing Atheist is really a great example, too, since he's pretty much the most spectacular asshole in all of godlessness right now...but his behavior still doesn't rise to the level of intrusiveness shown by JW's or other aggressive evangelicals.

[Four-sided Triangles]

The Amazing Atheist is really a great example, too, since he's pretty much the most spectacular asshole in all of godlessness right now...but his behavior still doesn't rise to the level of intrusiveness shown by JW's or other aggressive evangelicals.

Sure, he's an ass, and he definitely holds some "questionable" concern-troll opinions about feminism, but he's definitely not the biggest asshole in all of atheism. Also, he actually can make a good point, when he actually puts effort into it.

[Demen 2]

What do you mean by "I think there's nothing wrong with being an atheist". Because I certainly understand and accept atheists, but clearly if I believe in God, and I do, there is something "wrong" with being an atheist and that's namely that it isn't a route to salvation. There's nothing irrational about atheism perhaps, but there is something wrong, from a Christian perspective.

He never mentioned you in his tread. It's a thread on his thought, so it would mean that he finds nothing wrong with atheism.

[Romatticus]

The title alone is a flame magnet.

A least he insults us equally.

Fuckin commie.

That's what America is about right? Treating everyone like shit!

[Ecans]

There are constitutions other than American. Try looking around you...past the borders of your tiny universe.

*Sips tea* Of course there are. After all, I live in a constitutional monarchy known as the United Kingdom. Bit hard to be a constitutional monarchy without a constitution, wouldn't you say?
However, Grave_n_idle made specific reference to the American Constitution, and so I utilised it myself in composing my counter argument.
Honestly, if you are going to rebuke someone for being closed minded, the least you could do is ensure you rebuke the correct person.

*Gulps coffee with half-opened eyes* Quite correct. Please accept my apologies. I do get annoyed at the mindless arrogance of some American posters and I flew off the handle without looking back.

[Romatticus]

*Sips tea* Of course there are. After all, I live in a constitutional monarchy known as the United Kingdom. Bit hard to be a constitutional monarchy without a constitution, wouldn't you say?
However, Grave_n_idle made specific reference to the American Constitution, and so I utilised it myself in composing my counter argument.
Honestly, if you are going to rebuke someone for being closed minded, the least you could do is ensure you rebuke the correct person.

*Gulps coffee with half-opened eyes* Quite correct. Please accept my apologies. I do get annoyed at the mindless arrogance of some American posters and I flew off the handle without looking back.

Unless of course, we are talking about America, which I am.

[Draconikus]

*Gulps coffee with half-opened eyes* Quite correct. Please accept my apologies. I do get annoyed at the mindless arrogance of some American posters and I flew off the handle without looking back.

That's quite alright - no one is immune to error, after all.