Are atheists smarter than theists?

[Operaghost]

title.

 

[Quiet Guy]

This is part of the whole "taking the idea seriously" thing. If there is currently no way to prove an idea wrong, then there's no reason to take it seriously until such a way presents itself. All of the currently available quantum theories come up with the same expected results, so who gives a fuck which one you decide to follow? This is exactly why the Copenhagen interpretation is typically the most favored because it's the one that is least prone to speculation and most geared towards "shut the fuck up and do the math, mathboy!"
For the record, there is at least one theory in QM that actually made a pretty solid, falsifiable claim: Loop Quantum Gravity. I'm not gonna go too far into the details but if it were true, light would travel at slightly different speeds in a vacuum depending on frequency. We tested this by measuring a spectrum of a distant pulsar's pulse and the spectrum looked exactly as we expected it to look had light's frequency been inconsequential to its speed.
We learned a lot more from falsifying this claim than we ever would have seeking constant affirmation. We can be pretty certain that some underlying premises of Loop Quantum Gravity are false and not to incorporate them in future models.


See Loop Quantum Gravity for why this is a very flawed way to think about things:
There's a ton of evidence supporting it. I mean, it fits very nicely with nearly every quantum observation that exists and unifies General Relativity with QM. Unfortunately, it appears to be wrong. And we only know this because those analyzing the theory had discovered a way to falsify it. And in doing so, our knowledge of the universe has expanded and we have a few fewer dead ends to waste our time tugging on.

Let me put it this way:
Is it falsifiable that Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago? I believe the consensus among historians is that there is enough evidence to say He existed. Perhaps sometimes something being falsifiable isn't feasible, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth studying. Do you understand what I mean?

 

[Penis Drager]

I believe the consensus among historians is that there is enough evidence to say He existed.

That's a bit more controversial than you might think. But it's overall irrelevant if some guy named Jesus was supposedly born to a virgin mother then claimed to be the Messiah, amassed some followers, and then was crucified. That's not a unique story.

Is it falsifiable that Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago?

As described in the Bible? Well given certain contradictions that exist between certain gospels, I'd say it is falsified that everything said about him in the Bible is true.
Then we could go the route of "are his reported feats even possible?" Unless you evoke the unfalsifiable claim of God, then that's something else about him that appears to have already been falsified.

 

[ToroidalBoat]

There are smarter theists and atheists?

And dumber theists and atheists?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Not necessarily smarter; just more intellectually honest.

 

[Quiet Guy]

That's a bit more controversial than you might think. But it's overall irrelevant if some guy named Jesus was supposedly born to a virgin mother then claimed to be the Messiah, amassed some followers, and then was crucified. That's not a unique story.

As described in the Bible? Well given certain contradictions that exist between certain gospels, I'd say it is falsified that everything said about him in the Bible is true.
Then we could go the route of "are his reported feats even possible?" Unless you evoke the unfalsifiable claim of God, then that's something else about him that appears to have already been falsified.

My point is that, "Jesus live about 2,000 years ago" is not really falsifiable, but He and the history surrounding Him is still worth studying. I believe history in general does not rely on falsifiability, so that probably shouldn't be a benchmark for everything.

As far as contradictions go, would you care to give any examples? The Bible isn't always easy to read given the subtleties of the text and language, so it could be that these alleged contradictions are simply misunderstandings.

In terms of the possibility of His feats, I wouldn't be surprised if God generally worked within the laws of physics by taking advantage of certain aspects. I believe I mentioned elsewhere that angels aren't omnipotent, so they must follow some set of rules. Let me give you an example: as I understand it, while the four forces, electromagnetism the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity are mediated by associated fields (I'm not sure if that has technically been confirmed for gravity), I believe it is theoretically possible for other fields mediating other forces to exist. This is typically discussed in the context of parallel universes, but could it be possible that angels carry such fields that could enable miracles? Personally, I suspect a different mechanism is used, but this is all very speculative. If nothing else it might be interesting to think about.

 

[Penis Drager]

I believe history in general does not rely on falsifiability,

I was gonna include a little blurb about this in the last post, but it, kinda like whether the many supposed prophets that were crucified by the Romans happened to be named "Jesus," is kinda irrelevant.

As far as contradictions go, would you care to give any examples? The Bible isn't always easy to read given the subtleties of the text and language, so it could be that these alleged contradictions are simply misunderstandings.

http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
Skimming through them, most are kinda dumb and come off as someone looking for contradictions that aren't even there, but some details, particularly around his resurrection, are irreconcilable.

I believe it is theoretically possible for other fields mediating other forces to exist

Could be. But until a falsifiable claim about such other forces that can be tested rears it's head, we can disregard their possible existence.

could it be possible that angels carry such fields that could enable miracles?

Sure. But you'd have to not only come up with a way to falsifiably test the existence of such a field, do the same with the existence of angels, then demonstrate that these angels are, in fact, the force carrier. Only then is this something to seriously consider.

 

[Quiet Guy]

I was gonna include a little blurb about this in the last post, but it, kinda like whether the many supposed prophets that were crucified by the Romans happened to be named "Jesus," is kinda irrelevant.


http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
Skimming through them, most are kinda dumb and come off as someone looking for contradictions that aren't even there, but some details, particularly around his resurrection, are irreconcilable.


Could be. But until a falsifiable claim about such other forces that can be tested rears it's head, we can disregard their possible existence.

Sure. But you'd have to not only come up with a way to falsifiably test the existence of such a field, do the same with the existence of angels, then demonstrate that these angels are, in fact, the force carrier. Only then is this something to seriously consider.

I think you might still not quite understand my point. Something can be accepted as true without attempting to falsify it given sufficient evidence. It is in general better and more reliable to try to perform an experiment that allows for falsification, but that may not always be feasible. Let me try to give a more general example. I'd imagine if an angel came down, made a loud proclamation to the world, and split an ocean in two, you might reconsider some parts of your worldview, even if it might be concluding something along the lines of, "aliens must exist" even though a falsifiable test hasn't been performed. Do you understand what I mean?

In terms of contradictions, some of them might be different books of the Gospel omitting different details. Do you have any specific examples that you want to discuss?

 

[Book Thief]

Yes. In fact, by disbelieving in God, my brain grew three sizes and I gained an extra five inches of cock.

 

[HunterHearstHelmsley]

Then we could go the route of "are his reported feats even possible?" Unless you evoke the unfalsifiable claim of God, then that's something else about him that appears to have already been falsified.

So is your argument here: the claims surrounding Jesus are miraculous and defy the laws of nature. Therefore the claims are false. Ergo Jesus is not God and incapable of miracles?

This is tautological. Moreover, it’s unfalsifiable.

As a side note, all this radical empiricism has an epistemological problem. I’m not going to get into that because I’m not a philosopher, I’m just going to assert it.

Do you apply such strict empiricism elsewhere in your life, or just towards the question of God? It’s really a sterile discussion to talk of God with somebody who insists on radical empiricism.

Perhaps God, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, has allowed us some veil from the truth. If there was a philosophical argument which proved the existence of God we would still turn from him, serve ourselves, and would suffer twice as much anguish in hell for having done so in certainty.

 

[Penis Drager]

In terms of contradictions, some of them might be different books of the Gospel omitting different details. Do you have any specific examples that you want to discuss?

Let's start with something simple:
How did the people react to the feeding of the multitude?

the claims surrounding Jesus are miraculous and defy the laws of nature. Therefore the claims are false. Ergo Jesus is not God and incapable of miracles?

Oh! you seem like a lot more fun than the other guy!
What I was saying is that if it relies on an unfalsifiable premise, it can be disregarded without justification. I'm not the one making a positive claim here.

Do you apply such strict empiricism elsewhere in your life, or just towards the question of God?

It all depends on the importance of the claim, personally.
If I told you "I own a baseball," you'd probably not even bother to ask me to present it unless we had some sort of outing planned involving said baseball. This is a case where you'd need little or no falsifiability.
If I told you "I own a baseball signed by Babe Ruth," you may want to see it and maybe cross reference it with examples of the man's signature. This is a case where you might actually want to falsifiably test the claim.
If I told you "I invented baseball," we're in a whole other realm of importance. To believe it, you'd need me to either prove to you that I'm some sort of immortal being or you'd want me to show you the time machine I used to invent the sport. Then you'd be left with the question of "If he has all the power he evidently has, why would he choose to invent baseball of all things?"

In other words: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
God is the most important, and extraordinary, of all claims.

Perhaps God, in His infinite mercy and wisdom, has allowed us some veil from the truth. If there was a philosophical argument which proved the existence of God we would still turn from him, serve ourselves, and would suffer twice as much anguish in hell for having done so in certainty.

Perhaps. But that's about as far as that gets you, isn't it?
Perhaps quantum immortality. None of us will ever die. We experience the average of all worlds which we could experience and so that pool only progressively shrinks as potential causes of death grows. Eventually you will be left with the rare few where you really do live forever.
Does that sound dumb? It's no less so than asserting the promise of eternal life gifted (or sentenced) by some ethereal being.

 

[entropino]

I don't follow. The absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence.

Why is the absence of evidence not evidence of absence? Seems like good evidence for me for existence of something leaves evidence if it doesn't is it really existing?

 

[Poppavalyim Andropoff]

<———- yes we are

 

[HunterHearstHelmsley]

What I was saying is that if it relies on an unfalsifiable premise, it can be disregarded without justification. I'm not the one making a positive claim here.

The claims relate directly to historical reality. In a strict sense, any claim relating to historical events is unfalsifiable. The claim “Napoleon existed” is unfalsifiable. As with the claims about Jesus, the evidence of Napoleon’s existence is merely accidental.

Falsifiability isn’t really a meaningful criterion if not considering observable events resulting from constant physical laws. Moreover, if a statement isn’t falsifiable you should adopt a position agnosticism not the negative. Applied to the question of religion, you should also be scrupulous not to argue or imply that God isn’t real. That statement is also non-falsifiable.

It all depends on the importance of the claim, personally.

I think this type of schizophrenia is necessary to make it a workable system. If empiricism is applied consistently, how could you have an opinion on a matter of law? On a matter of history? On a matter of economics? The majority of content in these fields is not falsifiable.

Do you really apply strict empiricism to all important questions? Do you believe that Hitler really killed the Jews? (I do and I believe this event is of immense importance to our earthly lives and Governance). Is that statement (i.e. The Holocaust of the Jewish people really happened) really falsifiable in a strict sense? I don’t believe that it is.

I will preempt obvious questions like “well what was Dachau for?” with “well what are Churches for?” and testimony of Holocaust survivors with the testimony of St Paul. Historical questions are immensely important and inherently unfalsifiable.

Edit: Consider: if Satan isn’t real, then who did Travis Scott sacrifice all those people to?

 

[KooksandFreaks]

Atheists tend to be kind of smug. How smart is that?

 

[Quiet Guy]

Let's start with something simple:
How did the people react to the feeding of the multitude?

After a quick glance, it looks like only John 6 mentions the reaction of the people, which was that they wanted to make Jesus king by force, but I'm not certain where any alleged contradiction might be. Am I missing something you're trying to point out?