So how about a "Rationality, Scepticism & Atheism" section?

[UnquietDad]

Where people can actually have sensible discussions about the debunking of the paranormal, and the lack of evidence for any of the crystal-healing-aura-chakra-reiki-throw-your-hands-in the-air-and-say woooooooooo healing rubbish.

Because I'm getting fed up with trying to remind the people in Philosophy, Religion and Woo that we actually live in the 21st Century.

the stress of not posting on a thread about crystals is making my eyebrows ache.

try again

I remember that thread MB, but I do remember wondering whether the poster was just suggestible by nature:

'Get your DNA activated, it's great'
'Oh ok I will'
'No don't it's all bollocks'
'Oh ok I won't'
'Have reiki it's fab'
'Oh ok then'
'No don't it's all bollocks'
'Oh ok then'...

Someone should really start a discussion about philosophy in the Phil,rel,spirit topic.

Threadie - We always end up discussing Wittgenstein and that other Kant in Pedants' Corner.

ok KC let's have a fight then you lid dem atheist waste of space you

UQD I will pray for you

UQD - why are you such an arse about all this?
Most of us who don't believe are quite happy to accept that others choose a different way of being. Why can't you?

Lazycow - I disagree with you, totally!

Atheism absolutely is not a statement of faith. There are several reasons for this.

I cannot prove a negative. It is philosophically impossible. The fact that I'm often asked to do this doesn't mean I have lost the argument - it just means I am being asked to do something philosophically impossible. It has no bearing on the argument - you might as well say I have lost the argument because I cannot float 6 inches above the ground.

Atheism is not a position arrived at without rational thought. It is arrived at through weighing the evidence. If contrary evidence were to be presented, I and other atheists I know would weight it up and, if necessary, change our position. This is what scientists do with hypothesis/experiment ALL THE TIME. It's just that nobody has, as yet, presented sufficient evidence.

There are two pairs of things people confuse when talking about God.

1. Proof/evidence. Obviously you cannot "prove" a negative, so sensible atheists neither present nor demand proof. What we demand is evidence.

Analogy: You cannot prove there is no Loch Ness Monster - lack of sightings could merely prove that she is very good at hiding or is capable of making herself invisible. But you can weigh up the evidence for (some anecdotes some blurry photos and some shaky film) and the evidence against (a comprehensive, 500-probe sonar sweep of the loch done a few years ago which produced nothing). Of course that doesn't prove there is no Nessie - you cannot prove a negative. But it makes her existence as unlikely as you can reasonably show.

2. Probability/likelihood. The question "Does God exist?" has two answers - yes or no. Some people argue that this is a 50/50 split, and can never be resolved one way or the other. But that's just mathematical probability - the answer would be the same if the question were "Does Thor exist?" or "Does the loch Ness Monster exist?" or "Does Wighjggygrkgkll exist?" The thing you need to look at is the likelihood - and God's existence can be demonstrated to be very, very unlikely.

Analogy: The World Cup. Each team has a 1/32 chance (probability) of winning. But Trinidad & Tobago (say) don't have the same likelihood of winning as Brazil. They have, I imagine, about a 200-1 likelihood, based on their team's previous form. Brazil have about a 2-1 likelihood. So Brazil are 100 times more likely to win the World Cup than T&T. You can bet on T&T winning if you like, but it's very, very unlikely.

Rationality & scepticism do NOT necessarily go hand in hand with atheism, though I will admit that an atheist is most likely more spiritually developed and aware than someone who is a literalist in religious terms (many evangelical christians would fall into this category_

I like James Fowler's model of faith which is independent of religion as such.

[[http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/2219.ht

I suspect that most people who post in that section disagree with at least 80% of the others, but the problem is, Which 80%? Personally, despite being a Christian, I disagree with at least 95% of it, with the extra 15% made up of lots of other Christians..... So what you gonna do? Mostly I leave them to it....

I'd be happy to try to discuss philosophy if anyone's up for it, but I start from a very ignorant position so it would have to start with a lot of explanation before we could get a real debate going

MB
That link won't work!
But if it's the Science vs Faith diagram, then yes!

JeremyVile: I'll stop talking about religion when the religious stop talking about science.

What??

That is the shittiest argument ever

MartianB : is that what you were after?

That is the one!

UQD - Are you really "getting fed up with trying"? You seem to enjoy flexing your militant atheist credentials.

I agree with Jeremy Vile.

Plenty of religious people are perfectly capable of talking about science

How about

if you could prove it there would be no need for faith
therefore it is essential that you cannot prove it

there are many arguments disproving the existence of the Christian god, all of them logically valid

I accept them all as logically valid and still have faith

it's a choice

nobody was ever converted to Christianity by losing an argument

How is it "the shittiest argument ever"? Dawkins was told the same when his book came out - "you're not qualified to talk about theology, you're a scientist, not a theologian, you haven't studied it properly." The fact is, the theists have spent so long treading on his toes - without "studying it properly" - that it was about time he answered back.

I get annoyed - outraged, even - by the claims for the effects of psuedoscientific gobbledigook and crap that I see on here all the time. I don't know why, but this forum seems more susceptible to it than any other I've ever posted on. And if you take a stand against it you are made to feel like the odd one... it's cognitive dissonance in action.

The problem I have with that is how you even go about measuring 'likelihood'. This is a very definite statistical concept and as you say requires sufficient evidence one way or another.

I believe that there is insufficient 'evidence' in the scientific sense to make a scientifically based decision on the question of the existence of God. There for I believe any statements about the existence or not of God are statements of faith.

Of course it is always possible to say that there is insufficent evidence one way or another and therefore to refuse to engage with the question- that I would describe as an agnostic response (I don't know) and a much more 'rational' response to the question than either atheism or the answer yes.

Hmm, "militant atheist"? That arse Theo Hobson in the Guardian came out with a similar load of cobblers last year.

I refer you, again, to Sam Harris.

"It is worth noting that no one ever need identify himself as a non-astrologer or a non-alchemist. Consequently, we do not have words for people who deny the validity of these pseudo-disciplines. Likewise, ?atheism? is a term that should not even exist. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make when in the presence of religious dogma."

If there were no woo, there would be no need for atheism and scepticism - militant or otherwise.

UQD - Re the claims of pseudoscientific gobbledygook that you see on here all of the time - can you provide an example, please?

Lazycow - belief in the existence of God is a valid theory like any other. And so it deserves to be treated with exactly the same level of scrutiny as any other theory. No more, no less.

Swedes:
Crystal healing
indigo children
Reiki
Faith "healing"

etc.
etc.
etc.

Of course a person with religious beliefs can talk about science. They do not cancel each other out.
I dont see any religious peopple on here getting arsy about non-believers. But I see you, quite often, being provocative, seemingly just for the fun of it.

PS: You aren't Dawkins...