hackenslash wrote:
It should be noted that some of the blame for this is laid at the feet of Osimander, who is thought to have edited the work

I thought the first Copernican
was Rheticus who encouraged him
to publish De Revolutionibus before he died
[ same BBC 4 documentary with Marcus Du Sautoy ]

Examples of Beliefs holding back Science

Aristotle?

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
It should be noted that some of the blame for this is laid at the feet of Osimander, who is thought to have edited the work

I thought the first Copernican
was Rheticus who encouraged him
to publish De Revolutionibus before he died
[ same BBC 4 documentary with Marcus Du Sautoy ]

No. The first "Copernican" was Aristarchos of Samos who died about 1700 years before Copernicus was born.

Lion IRC wrote:

IIzO wrote:I don't see any pragmatic reasons to believe in god .Theism does nothing special and the justifications for it are unsuccessfull .That ubuntuAnyone dude really needs to do better, a pragmatic keep the most basic belief needed for everyday life what is belief in a god used for ?

A pragmatic reason might be that every created being - we didnt CAUSE ourselves - is subordinate to a Higher Being.

Mere blind assertion. Moreover, one that contains an implicit second assertion, namely that we were purportedly "created". An assertion that enjoys zero evidential support, and indeed, would appear to be refuted by the evidence from relevant scientific research.

Which, of course, still leaves you with the problem of supporting the assertion that your so-called "higher being" actually exists, an assertion that no supernaturalist has ever provided proper evidential support for.

Lion IRC wrote:Its not pretty, but it is pragmatic to point out that if you dont love God He does have the prerogative and the capability, as celestial dictator, to beat you in an arm wrestling competion.

Only if one presumes in advance that this entity actually exists, and in addition, presumes that all the corollary assertions contained in the relevant mythology constitute established fact. Which is the whole problem with supernaturalism, namely that it treats unsupported blind assertions as purportedly constituting established fact, regardless of what reality has to say about this. The existence assertion on its own has several problems associated with it, two that I've covered in the past being that [1] the events of 1348 in Europe constitute a test to destruction of this assertion, and [2] the complete absence of any need for magic entities of any sort in the whole of science, which has been able to produce precise quantitative theories enhancing our understanding of the universe massively, and has done so using nothing more than investigation of testable natural processes. Observed fact [2] renders supernatural entities of any sort superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, and observed fact [1] rather wraps it up for your pet magic entity.

Lion IRC wrote:Mr Hitchens said he wouldnt "want" it (God) to be true and that the idea of a celestial dictator bothers him.

As indeed it should worry any natural democrat. The very idea of a wholly unaccountable entity ordering humanity about on the basis of mere whim should be troubling to anyone who actually thinks about the ramifications, as opposed to accepting uncritically unsupported mythological assertions. Craig's hideous apologia for genocide provides a particularly compelling, as well as chilling, example of where supernaturalist assertions lead, and provide evidence supporting the postulate that uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, and the treatment therof as purportedly constituting established fact, regardless of whatever reality might have to say on the subject, ultimately makes anything permissible. Because at bottom, uncritical acceptance of unsupported blind assertions, and the treatment thereof as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world that purportedly dictate to reality, leads inexorably to the process of inventing fabrications in order to prop up those assertions, and the treatment of those fabrications as purportedly constituting "fact" as well. Once one treats fabrications and wishful thinking as fact, anything becomes permissible, as Craig has amply demonstrated.

Lion IRC wrote:Well gravity is a celestial dictator. UV radiation is a celestial dictator. Entropy is a celestial dictator. They couldnt give a stuff whether Mr Hitchens "wants" something to be true or not.

A huge difference being that these are all entities whose existence is supported by large bodies of evidence. Furthermore, none of these entities issues ethical strictures, they simply act in accordance with their governing physical laws, and engage in relevant permitted interactions. None of these entities possesses any sentience. Once again, we see the familiar supernaturalist practice of erecting fake "symmetries" where none exist, for wholly specious apologetic purposes.

Lion IRC wrote:Cooperate with the inevitable. Humans are NOT the Boss of the universe. Suck it up!

I don't recall anyone here asserting that humans possessed that particular privilege. The difference, of course, is that you, and other supernaturalists, assert that an entity possessing that particular privilege exists, whilst remaining wholly unable to point to one single piece of evidence supporting that assertion. We, on the other hand, dispense with that assertion as superfluous to requirements and irrelevant, and cite relevant evidence (such as my points [1] and [2] above) in support of our regarding that assertion as superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Lion IRC wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Who cares if one atheist converted to Christianity? Pretty much everyone on this website de-converted from Christianity at some point, and what does that prove? nothing. But when the former happens, Christians jump up with joy ... 'score 1 for the God, yeeehaaaw!".

Take a look at the reaction of atheists over at that thread. Not exactly yawning indifference.

I was indifferent enough not to bother even looking at the thread over at RRS. Next?

If someone wants to entertain fanciful delusions, that's his problem. However, it becomes my problem when he starts insisting that I treat his delusions as constituting established fact. Trouble is, all too many supernaturalists fall into this category, and keep insisting that I regard their wishful thinking as dictating how reality behaves, regardless of whether reality agrees with this or not. Even worse, some of them not only insist that I treat their delusions as fact, but peddle lies about valid science in order to try and force me to treat their delusions as fact. I'l give you three guesses what I think of that approach.

Lion IRC wrote:I dont think ubuntuAnyone converted to Christianity but would certainly jump for joy unashamedly if anyone did.

Meh.

Lion IRC wrote:Atheists converting. Theists de-converting. The God Delusion. The God Conclusion.....

We're still waiting for that evidence for your magic man ...

Lion IRC wrote:There is something wonderful about the freedom of thought and will that human beings have.

Which supernaturalists have ruthlessly trampled upon in the past. Just look at the difference in our approaches.

Supernaturalist: "Treat my mythology and its assertions as established fact, or else!"

Atheist: "You want to treat fairy stories as real, fine, just don't expect me to be that gullible".

Lion IRC wrote:And practically every formal AvT debate I have seen/heard included an acknowledgment by both sides that this subject is one of the most important questions that has ever occupied human thought.

Actually, the only reason I consider this question important, is because the evidence points inexorably to the malign influence of supernaturalism, and a pressing need to encourage the human species to grow out of it.

Indeed, I have, in the past, commented to the effect that the big battle to be fought in the third millennium, is the battle between doctrine centred world views, based upon unsupported blind assertions treated as purportedly constituting "axioms" about the world, and a world view based upon paying attention to reality. If the doctrine centred approach wins, we slither back into a new Dark Age. If paying attention to reality wins, the stars are ours.

Cali wrote:If paying attention to reality wins, the stars are ours.

Nicely put.

We'd need to add 'longer attention spans', 'less generational egocentricity', and 'nonpopulist politicians' though, I think. Maybe some other stuff too.

Made of Stars wrote:
We'd need to add longer attention spans, less generational egocentricity, and nonpopulist politicians though

Yes but by definition non populist
politicians are not going to be elected
though. You are right about longer attention
spans. We do tend to live in a society in which
everything has to be done immediately and instant
solutions and quick fixes are the order of the day. We
need to encourage greater reading amongst the population
and I do not mean popular fiction here but serious study of any
thing that references the human condition such as religion, history
science, philosophy and psychology. An adult today of average intelligence
living in the West needs to have a general all round knowlege on the basics and
It appears that that is not the case. Though on that I may be wrong. For learning is an
activity we should all be engaged in. It is not just something you do at school but all through life

Meanwhile, referring back to the original post, and my own earlier post in this thread, I'd like to see the following answered:

[1] Given that belief, as practised by supernaturalists, consists of accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions, and treating those assertions as established fact regardless of whatever reality has to say on the subject, how can the possession of such presuppositions be anything other than a hindrance to science, given that science is predicated upon testing assertions to destruction? Anyone who insists that their favourite collection of mythological assertions constitute "axioms" about the world, are to be treated uncritically and unquestioningly as such, and that said assertions are to be forever protected from even the most basic inquiry, necessarily insists as a corollary that those assertions dictate how reality behaves, and as a further corollary, must insist that science is somehow "wrong" whenever it challenges those assertions, in order to remain consistent with respect to adherence to those assertions.

[2] How is the whole process of belief, as covered above, in any way compatible with science, given that science is predicated upon testing assertions to destruction, and rejecting any assertions found not to be in accord with observational reality?

No matter how many times you keep on repeating your mantra..."accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." ad nauseam, you are not going to change the fact that theism arises from evidence and reason.

Atheists ask for evidence.

I say what kind of evidence do you want?

They say I want to see a dead-set, in your face, incontrovertable proof of a miracle.

I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Actually, I say show me what you got and we will work from there. Though I have to say that you have not been all that forthcoming so far if, as you insist here, that theism arises from "evidence and reason". Are you holding the good stuff back for some reason Lion?

ETA:

Lion IRC wrote:
I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Although are you trying to suggest that these things have already been shown to somebody? Only, last time I checked, all you had was a dusty old compilation of assorted stories that claims that they happened.

Lion IRC wrote:No matter how many times you keep on repeating your mantra..."accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." ad nauseam, you are not going to change the fact that theism arises from evidence and reason.

Atheists ask for evidence.

I say what kind of evidence do you want?

They say I want to see a dead-set, in your face, incontrovertable proof of a miracle.

I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Yes. Show me evidence like that and I'll believe it. So, where is it?

;Lion wrote:
I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Yes. I'd also settle on bringing back the dead, walking on water or ascending to the heavens before my very eyes. The Burning Bush is a bit weak.

Yeah it's a bit silly. Though, if it kept burning for days without end and spoke to me in a great booming voice I'd probably still think it was pretty cool.

So in effect Lion, your "evidence" for fantastical claims is, well, more fantastical claims?

Haha, I guess that's why Cali's most pertinent exposition of theism as "accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." bothers him so much, it's simply spot-on.

Rumraket wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:No matter how many times you keep on repeating your mantra..."accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." ad nauseam, you are not going to change the fact that theism arises from evidence and reason.

Atheists ask for evidence.

I say what kind of evidence do you want?

They say I want to see a dead-set, in your face, incontrovertable proof of a miracle.

I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Yes. Show me evidence like that and I'll believe it. So, where is it?

If you had that evidence you would be summarily dismissed as deluded by people like Rumraket.

Lion IRC wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:No matter how many times you keep on repeating your mantra..."accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." ad nauseam, you are not going to change the fact that theism arises from evidence and reason.

Atheists ask for evidence.

I say what kind of evidence do you want?

They say I want to see a dead-set, in your face, incontrovertable proof of a miracle.

I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Yes. Show me evidence like that and I'll believe it. So, where is it?

If you had that evidence you would be summarily dismissed as deluded by people like Rumraket.

Cop out.

Lion IRC wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:No matter how many times you keep on repeating your mantra..."accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." ad nauseam, you are not going to change the fact that theism arises from evidence and reason.

Atheists ask for evidence.

I say what kind of evidence do you want?

They say I want to see a dead-set, in your face, incontrovertable proof of a miracle.

I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Yes. Show me evidence like that and I'll believe it. So, where is it?

If you had that evidence you would be summarily dismissed as deluded by people like Rumraket.

So you don't have it then?

Lion IRC wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:No matter how many times you keep on repeating your mantra..."accepting uncritically unsupported blind mythological assertions..." ad nauseam, you are not going to change the fact that theism arises from evidence and reason.

Atheists ask for evidence.

I say what kind of evidence do you want?

They say I want to see a dead-set, in your face, incontrovertable proof of a miracle.

I say...what, you mean like... someone parting the Red Sea before your very eyes? Water into wine? Burning bush? Voice of God?

Yes. Show me evidence like that and I'll believe it. So, where is it?

If you had that evidence you would be summarily dismissed as deluded by people like Rumraket.

You know, I could understand this kind of attitude in a one on one discussion with no audience. But think of the lurkers.

Though if you are not willing to actually discuss your beliefs and the claimed rationality behind them, one could be forgiven for wondering what the fuck you are doing here at all.

Don't be so harsh. Being here is more fun than going to mass.

I don't want him to go away, rarely do we see such wonderful examples of the sillyness of theism as the scribbles he produces. In a really ironic twist he's an excellent spokesperson for atheism.