Oh Maher... you need to learn the meaning of words; first "atheism", now faith?

Kristen Bell is great on all talk shows apparently, but she appears often on Craig Ferguson's show.....and is really good there too.

Craig Ferguson, a Scot, hates the English. Comically, but a grain of truth.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

We watched this recently on DVD too - liked it so much we watched Long Way Down - (the Africa one) too. I think @persephone is a bit of a McGregor fan. >> ^Yogi:

I started to really like Ewan McGregor after watching "Long Way Round". Now I just wanna chill with him, he seems like such a cool guy. It definitely made up for his pathetic portrayal of Obi Wan.

That's your retort? That religions don't have hearts?

When I say heart above, I mean the core idea, the central thesis, the essence, the main thing. In all religions, it is rotten.

Sure, Christianity gets some things right, so does Buddhism, so does Islam, but the core of their philosophical interpretation of the world is false and misleading.
>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^gwiz665:
I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:
Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.


religions don't have hearts, people do. You might as well say all gov't is bad because a few corrupt people get in power.

>> ^gwiz665:

I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:
Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.



religions don't have hearts, people do. You might as well say all gov't is bad because a few corrupt people get in power.

@SDGundamX

WARNING: pretty harsh words ahead.

First, I'm not going to take up the "to toast or not to toast" subject, only point out that if you choose to ignore my "sarcasm" label, you can't go on to blame me from straying off topic (also: Hitchens is not an alcoholic, which is why I posted the citation from him about his drinking. What with all the dolts he's debated though, it's little wonder he felt like taking the edge off).

Sifters up/down-vote a comment based on their (dis-)agreement with it's content/sentiment, as do you, so no need to get self-righteous about it. Some comments are sarcastic, some funny, some serious arguments; that's communication for you (you'll note the highest rated comments on VS are not necessarily the most snarky (see here, or my top comment for example).

Saying that we don't pay attention to what other comments say is ridiculous in this context: it is because attention has been paid that snarky witticisms can be writ (and so spot on, may I add). Seriously though, saying that the religion/atheism discussion has been "O'Reillyfied" is incredibly insulting and downright false (unless you're talking about shiny's comments... but since he's pretty much the only one to stand up for his absurd convictions on VS I can see why you'd get that impression, from that side of the argument in any case). You point to my response as an example, but it only shows that I'm making two points: correcting your false statement about what Hitchens does in his debates in the briefest possible manner, and arguing that there is nothing sinister or wrong in drinking to a sick man in homage of what he's accomplished, no matter if alcohol is responsible for his sickness.

It seems to me that, as @ChaosEngine points out, you simply don't like being called out on your false assumptions and accusations. I find it telling that you took the time to answer my comment here, whining about how it's impossible to have a debate, but you chose not to answer to my comment here, in which I call you out on your false assumptions without sarcasm, but with evidence (more on that here). So coming here on your high horse to look down on those of us who sprinkle our arguments with both evidence and sarcasm is the height of hypocrisy when you choose to ignore all the actual debate going on. No wonder you can't understand why sifters no longer respond to shiny's bs, or if they do, with nothing but scorn and derision. Not all of us have the patience of a Christopher Hitchens with people who repeatedly spout the same nonsense no matter how many times it is refuted. If all you can do is resort to complaining about tone then by all means, go somewhere where people do not rustle your feathers or question your assumptions, but don't delude yourself into thinking that that is a more rational debate than the ones here.

Yes, the above is harsh, but sometimes one need be to get a point across. If I didn't think you were capable of rational debate I would simply ignore you (as I do shiny).

I disagree. Religions themselves are at their heart rotten, but religious people are not necessarily. People in power are not always rotten at the core either.
>> ^VoodooV:

Maybe they are at the political bureaucratic level @gwiz665 but that's more of a statement about people in power than it is about religion.
There are plenty of people out there who believe in a god but do not suspend rational thought. These people are not rotten. Members of most churches at the local level are not rotten. The problem is the rotten leaders, not the religions.
Remove the bureaucratic power structure from religion and I guarantee you'll see massive change for the better. But it's not religion that is rotten, it's the rotten people who run it.

*quality

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/SDGundamX" title="member since March 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">SDGundamX

<div id="widget_545555799"></div><script>s=document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';s.src='http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=206157&wid
th=500&comments=15&minimized=1';document.getElementById('widget_545555799').appendChild(s);</script>

I don't know where you get your info from, but Dawkins, as well as most atheists (myself included) are reward you if you do."

"Son, some people believe that there is... . Other people

>> ^hpqp:

You make a good point in most of your comment, but I must object to the bit below. A person's belief in god(s) is unfortunately hardly ever a purely personal thing. They might teach it to their children (religious indoctrination is never a good thing, no matter how tame), they might base their political/ethical choices/decisions upon it, and they are upholding - by their adherence - a system of belief that is anti-rational, almost always totalitarian, often misogynistic and hateful, not to mention generally immoral, all because it is what they were indoctrinated with to begin with.
If one wants to have imaginary friends based on ancient books, fine. But they should at least be able to first grow up in a world where rational/critical thought is taught and respected, not its contrary. And that's not going to happen as long as religious beliefs aren't continually exposed for the hokum that they are.

_{drat, i ended up ranting again, sorry.}>> ^NetRunner:
[...] I find the whole concept of going around and challenging religious people's belief in God a bit repugnant -- much better to go after just the people who are using lines of scripture as a substitute for thinking for themselves.



Your objections are reasonable only if you make the following assumptions:

1) That teaching your children about your religion is the same as indoctrination (it isn't, though I know Dawkins proclaims that it is)
2) That "indoctrination" will, the majority of the time, result in adults who are incapable of rational/critical thought (cite me some studies that show this and you might persuade me its true; I suppose in a closed society in which a single religion permeated every aspect of daily life including work and education this might actually be plausible)
3) That making political or ethical choices based on a religion is always a bad thing (it might be... or it might not be--depends on the situation; Hitchens's story of the time a Muslim taxi driver went to great lengths to return the wallet Hitchens had left in his taxi precisely because he felt his religion required him to do so is one counter-example).
4) That all religions are anti-rational, misogynistic, totalitarian, and hateful (they aren't; check out Baha'i as just one counter-example)

@NetRunner, in reply to your comment, made the astute point that atheism does not "preclude dogma, bigotry, or hatred." In that same vein I would add it doesn't preclude irrationality either, though there seem to be no end these days of atheists--including yourself--insinuating that somehow atheists are more rational than their religious counterparts (for more on the fallibility of atheists in the areas of reason and logic, I recommend these interesting websites, all by the same author--an atheist for over 40 years):

The Reasoning Atheist
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 1
Handbook of Logic and Rational Thought, Book 2

My point is that atheism has gone beyond a mere denial of the existence of a deity or deities and become for many people a type of worldview. And for those people, this worldview is as hostile to criticism and as capable of gross logic fails/critical thinking errors as the most fundamentalist of religions. That's one reason why I wholeheartedly agree with Netrunner that time is better spent arguing with people about what is moral or immoral than to waste time aggressively attacking people who--in many case--will actually agree with you about what is moral/immoral (just not for the same reasons that you have).

You don't care on a personal level whether someone believes in a god/gods or not, but does it matter to you whether your elected officials do, and whether they base the laws they create on their religious beliefs? Like, what's your stance on teaching Intelligent Design as science?>> ^Yogi:

Ok I admit it, I'm an atheist. But I don't want to ever have a conversation about it or talk to other atheists just because we're both atheists. I don't give a shit about you Richard Dawkins, I don't give a shit about you Pope. Religion is interesting if only as a window into the entire fucking history of humanity.
So no I don't care if you believe in god...I don't care if you're an atheist. Just like I don't care if you're black or if you're white.

FWIW, a brief Google search shows this not to be the case. Agnosticism is more nuanced than that. And since that nuance actually seems to be quite important, to me anyway, I find it a shame that we've lost the use of a perfectly good concept, due to misunderstanding.
>> ^enoch:

"agnostic" translates to "not-knowing".
nothing more.
nothing less.

Your conflation of islam with judiasm and christianity not-withstanding, the explanatory power therein describes no less than, the condition of man, the nature of truth, world history, the natural world, all of the fundemental questions of life, and how to know God personally. Quite a lot of explanatory power, I would say.

But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you

Or perhaps you just don't have anything intelligent to say because you don't understand the subject matter as well as you portray yourself to, so you weakly justify your cop-out by attacking me instead of the argument.

>> ^hpqp:
@shinyblurry said: blah blah blah same old non-arguments blah blah blah
It is rather hilarious that you go on about "explanatory power", of which the Abrahamic faiths have none. But I'm not going to waste my time/energy on you.

When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).

If He is so easily disproven, it's interesting how no one in history has ever done so. What you're detailing in the supposed conflict between Gods omnipotence and omni-benevolence is the logical problem of evil. Plantigas free will defense proves that they are in fact logically compatible, so you don't have an argument here.

Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.

See where this is getting?

Yes, I see where you're conflating the issue. Anyone can make a claim, but that doesn't make every claim equally valid. Yes, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you can't disprove a universal negative. Yet just because you cannot disprove the existence of God does not make the God hypothesis equal to cosmic teapots. There is no good reason to believe there are cosmic teapots, but plenty of good reasons to believe there is a God. The difference lies in the explanatory power of the claim, which is the basis for believing any theory.

You believe in the theory of abiogenesis, presumably, even though there is no actual evidence for life from non-life. So by your logic, a magic teapot could be an equally valid explanation for the origin of life. But since Abiogenesis has more explanatory power (barely) for the origin of life than a magic teapot, that makes it more probable and gives you justification for believing it.

The burden of proof lies with whomever is making a claim, for or against. Your epistemological position about uncertainty is countered by the fact that certain claims have more explanatory power than others. I cannot absolutely prove magic teapots don't exist, but that doesn't mean I don't have good reasons to believe they don't exist; since they explain precisely nothing they can safely be discarded as a valid claim.

>> ^hpqp:
@GeeSussFreeK: I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@shinyblurry: Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".
When atheists argue that "God" does not exist, they are usually arguing against a specific idea of god as defined by one or another religion, which is possible to do, both with logic and physical/scientific evidence (example: the Abrahamic God that apparently made all of humanity from the incestuous offspring of two people is easily disproven, while his omnipotence is logically incompatible with his omni-benevolence).
I love how shiny uses the expression "want to have our cake and eat it to", which is a very rational and feasible desire (I'm a greedy atheist, I don't share my babby-cake with anyone. Mmmm, fetus fudge! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smileevil.gif">).
Let's put it this way: do you believe fairies exist? If no, prove it! You can't explain why dew drops are so neatly arranged on spider webs, or how the beautiful designs in the frost of windowpanes are made, so fairies make them. Tada!! Sure, you can be agnostic about fairies, arguing that they're manmade fiction, and explain scientifically how dew drops and frost patterns work, but that's just eliminating one definition of "fairy", there are infinitely more! A-fairyists, meanwhile, live with the evidence-based assumption that the probability of fairies existing is null, and the burden of proof lies on those who insist that some sort of fairies exist.
See where this is getting?

How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.

I agree; this is saying "I don't know", which I think is a legitimate answer, and the only intellectually honest one barring actual knowledge. This was my point that the atheist position is "no" to the proposition "does God exist?", which requires a justification.

As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.

This was my position as an agnostic, so I understand what you mean. It was very difficult to even define what truth could be in that mode of thinking. When I understood that truth was a tangible concept that could be grasped, it blew me away. I will say that you have a good way of knowing whether God exists. If you prayed to Jesus and asked Him what the truth is, He would show it to you.

When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.

The tension is between the objective and the subjective viewpoint. To define a universal concept such as truth, you would need an objective viewpoint. God is the only being which could have such a viewpoint, so therefore, unless God tells us, we have no way of knowing. Finite human beings are locked into their subjective bias. We cannot get outside of the Universe to look in and see what is really going on.

I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, they do like to posit that. When asked for that evidence however, they like to say they merely "lack belief", which is meaningless. Basically, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to say no to the question of whether God exists but escape the burden of proof. That is what this "lack of belief" is all about. It's not an "i don't know", it's a "no, but i dont have to provide any evidence for that".

There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.

That you're interested in the truth, and you are open to what it could be, is a very good thing. When I was agnostic, I felt much the same way. When I found out God is real, I wasn't even specifically looking for Him. I was searching for that truth and it ended up finding me. God rewards that open mindedness, that curiosity and drive to know what is real. What I suggested above is the shortcut; just ask Him and He will show you.

By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all

I agree, and I will submit to you that all other truths are relevant to this question, and in fact, their ultimate reality could only be determined by the answer to that question. The funny thing about it is, the answer to it could only ever be yes. If it is no, you will never hear about it. The only thing you will ever hear is yes.

Your work sounds highly interesting. Could you direct me to any resources which would describe it in more detail?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hey @hpqp, I'd like to thank you for your reply and let you know I plan to have a furthering of that discussion when I get off work (on lunch break), but I had to address @shinyblurry rock argument.
How does a baby fair to the idea of a yes or no statement about a concept he has no idea of? Further, how can you say no to a concept than you don't understand to be true? Moreover, how is abstaining from a decision about something not a 3rd choice? For instance, what do you believe about the cardinality of infinities being infinite as they relate to the divisibility of finite sums? Huh? Not thought about it before? Need more information or time to form an opinion, I know I do. Abstaining from making a choice is not a no, yet, but nor is it a yes. Both yes and no require a justification, and for myself, that justification needs to be something more than just an inclining.
As to belief, I think you are misusing the word here. Everything one thinks about something is a belief. Belief is the cognitive recognition of an idea. So yes, while the answer to the certain knowledge of God's existence is, indeed yes or no, the tribulation of the human experience is that we have few good ways of "knowing", and for the agnostic, we have no good way of "knowing" God's existence.
When I refer to knowing, I refer back to the Cartesian understanding of knowledge (which has been challenged rather unsuccessfully, imo, by Popper); justified, true, belief. True is uppercase true, belief is cognitively asserting the true belief, and justified is a more complex idea in that you need some way of asserting this IS the way it has to be and not some other, a possition that can't be reduced away froml by reductio ad absurdum, for example, or any other means.
I do agree, however, that many atheists like to posit the position that God, indeed, does not exist. That would require some evidence as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no compelling reason, to me, to decide either way. So in that, I am an Atheist because there is no overwhelming compelling story, beyond all doubt, what the idea of God should even be. I am Agnostic because I don't think there is a way we will ever be able to know. This is one area I would hope to be wrong on. I would prefer there to be some order, some cause, some point to life beyond some cosmic hapistance, but so far, I have no real reason to believe either story; purpose or accident.
By the way, there is a whole area of computer science based in this idea. Multi-valued logic is my current area of study for developing asynchronous computing systems. The Aristotelian view of logic; of values being true or false, is, like I mentioned before, still the ontological certain position of outcomes (if you don't consider Turing's halting problem that is), but many times, the certainty of outcomes isn't needed to continue process on some other value of computing (like waiting on the slow ass system clock, when the ram is ready for more data from the bus, which is also ready). In that same way, I realize the great value in answering the question of God, it forever consumes my thoughts, but this doesn't have to halt me to processed onto other thoughts without a current answer. Humans are, in fact, natures most amazing asymmetric processor after all <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">
Ok, rant over! Back to work, slave!