Why are "progressives" so eager to defend Islam?

[PsYcHo]

Hmm. Why would it be so bad if they were equal. After all, if either side had definitive proof, this entire thread would be moot, correct?

Most atheists merely assert "we don't know", while most theists assert "God did it!".

I'd have to disagree in regards to my fellow atheist. They ( from my perspective) usually tend to just dismiss theists. This would seem like they are, in fact, claiming that "you are wrong!", not " I do not know".

It's very rare to find somebody well enough versed in quantum physics and cosmology for him or her to say he or she has a pretty good idea of how it did happen.

Well yeah, who has time for that? You know Youtube exist, right?

Lawrence Krauss is one; I'd encourage you to listen to some of his talks (if I haven't already).

I'm sure you have, but let's pretend I'm a common man with a less than average intelligent quotient.

Even if I were to comprehend all of Krauss's theories, wouldn't they still be theories? And I'm not speaking of theories like some persons talk about climate change or vaccinations. Those ( climate and vaccinations) are provable, yet some pseudo scientist types use the confusions for their own reasons.

But in the realm of quantum physics and cosmology, isn't that a more fluid study?

I will accept that which is provable, but in the realm of theory, I will only accept that which is provable. If this seems unreasonable, go back 400 years, and expect me to accept that which is considered "true" by their standards.

We're not talking about hobbies. We're discussing beliefs.

Most atheists are not making any assertion, they simply lack the belief or are unconvinced.
"I am not persuaded by your claims about god" is a pretty defensible claim.

As much as I'd like to defend my fellow atheist, I'd assert that the most vocal are actually trying to actively denounce all theist. And (while I agree with them) while my (and their) assumptions are most likely correct, there is always the possibility that they are not. Even if I were to gain knowledge that proved beyond a doubt that I was correct in my hypothesis, that would not encourage me to be "smug" about my beliefs. (or facts, if they were proven true.)

Those of us who are truly logical should have an understanding that there is a possibility that we may be wrong. (Of course if we are being logical, we'd consider it a lesser chance, but a chance nonetheless. )

[brimstoneSalad]

I'd have to disagree in regards to my fellow atheist. They ( from my perspective) usually tend to just dismiss theists.

Dismissal is a proper response. As the saying goes: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

To my knowledge, none of the "four atheist horsemen" asserted absolutely that god did not exist, only that they have been shown no credible evidence of it and the burden of proof lies with theists.
They have at various times asserted religion is evil due to its effects, though, and that the claims of the religious should be ridiculed.

The anti-theist claim is very different, and usually has little to do with god (beyond demonstrating what an evil role model the scriptural god is) and much to do with the people claiming to represent god.

Even if I were to comprehend all of Krauss's theories, wouldn't they still be theories? And I'm not speaking of theories like some persons talk about climate change or vaccinations. Those ( climate and vaccinations) are provable, yet some pseudo scientist types use the confusions for their own reasons.

Quantum physics and cosmology are founded on just as strong evidence. Probably more convincing in the case of quantum physics, since it can be experimentally verified in real time.

Now "String theory" isn't; right now it's a model and not a theory, and sometimes argued to be unfalsifiable. That's a rare and probably unique exception to the rule.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-string-theory-science/

The MWI is an interpretation, which is a little different; that's more of a logical conclusion based on the known facts.
This probably goes into some of it, but I could only skim it:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r8/and_the_winner_is_manyworlds/
It's more that there are logical issues with other interpretations, rather than there being direct evidence for MW.

But in the realm of quantum physics and cosmology, isn't that a more fluid study?

It shouldn't be.

If this seems unreasonable, go back 400 years, and expect me to accept that which is considered "true" by their standards.

Science proper didn't really exist 400 years ago.

Anyway, something shouldn't have to be physically provable to be understood as logically necessary. A kind of A then B, B then C, therefore A then C.

As much as I'd like to defend my fellow atheist, I'd assert that the most vocal are actually trying to actively denounce all theist.

There are some stupid atheists on youtube who make bad arguments, or are unnecessarily rude or certain (which IS unjustified when they don't understand any of the science), but this isn't inherent to atheism.

Those of us who are truly logical should have an understanding that there is a possibility that we may be wrong. (Of course if we are being logical, we'd consider it a lesser chance, but a chance nonetheless. )

When god is demonstrated impossible by logic (which depends on the definition and self-contradiction, but it's pretty universal to the concept of god the vast majority of theists hold), then it's quite reasonable to be certain.

When this god goes against empirical reality, then it's reasonable to believe to a moral certainty that it doesn't exist. We could always be deceived or trapped in the matrix, but we have to understand that not to be a useful line of thought because in that case we can know nothing at all.

[PsYcHo]

When this god goes against empirical reality, then it's reasonable to believe to a moral certainty that it doesn't exist. We could always be deceived or trapped in the matrix, but we have to understand that not to be a useful line of thought because in that case we can know nothing at all.

Exactly. We really don't know. We just make an assumption based on the most probable reasoning.

Those like you and I try to understand the universe based on hard science (which obviously one of us is well more versed in than the other), and theist tend to just accept explanations given to them by their parents.

I don't lose sleep at night wondering if I have angered a fictional (IMO) god, but I do find it interesting to ponder the thought, and even challenge others who hold my same "beliefs"...

[brimstoneSalad]

When this god goes against empirical reality, then it's reasonable to believe to a moral certainty that it doesn't exist. We could always be deceived or trapped in the matrix, but we have to understand that not to be a useful line of thought because in that case we can know nothing at all.

Exactly. We really don't know. We just make an assumption based on the most probable reasoning.

We don't have to know anything to an absolute certainty to have a moral certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_certainty

An important point is that if something is vastly more probable than another thing, choosing to believe the improbable option is not reasonable. And it's usually immoral too, because our beliefs inform our actions, and in order to act morally we have to act on the most probable reality.

When it's a 50/50 chance, then it's more or less reasonable to choose either. If atheism was as likely as theism then there would be no grounds for one to criticize the other. But that's not the case here.

Doesn't mean atheists should be asshole to theists, but having 100% faith in something that's already 99.999% sure to be true is far less of a sin than having 100% faith something is true that has only a 0.001% chance of being true.

[PsYcHo]

An important point is that if something is vastly more probable than another thing, choosing to believe the improbable option is not reasonable. And it's usually immoral too, because our beliefs inform our actions, and in order to act morally we have to act on the most probable reality.

I think this is key to why I am trying to (somewhat) defend theist.

Consider the implications if a large subset of theists didn't have the fear of supernatural punishment. Wouldn't that make the world a much worse place?

For those who try to use morals to guide their lives, a very large subset only does so based on a fear of otherworldly punishment. Despite their reasoning, that should be a good thing.

[brimstoneSalad]

I think this is key to why I am trying to (somewhat) defend theist.

Consider the implications if a large subset of theists didn't have the fear of supernatural punishment. Wouldn't that make the world a much worse place?

No, there's not any evidence of that.

Atheism is correlated with lower crime rates on national scales. Most scientists are atheists, most prison inmates are theists.
Becoming atheist doesn't seem to incline people to criminality, it usually just makes them more tolerant of groups their religion had marginalized like homosexuals.

For those who try to use morals to guide their lives, a very large subset only does so based on a fear of otherworldly punishment.

So many theists claim, but I don't think that's correct. Can you show me any hard evidence to suggest this might be the case?

We know theism comes with real risks, from anti-social behavior like bigotry, to outright terrorism and people murdering their children.
When a theist hears the voice of god telling her to drown her kids, she obeys. When an atheist does, she goes to the hospital because she knows she's hallucinating.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg

[Greatest I am]

When this god goes against empirical reality, then it's reasonable to believe to a moral certainty that it doesn't exist. We could always be deceived or trapped in the matrix, but we have to understand that not to be a useful line of thought because in that case we can know nothing at all.

Exactly. We really don't know. We just make an assumption based on the most probable reasoning.

Those like you and I try to understand the universe based on hard science (which obviously one of us is well more versed in than the other), and theist tend to just accept explanations given to them by their parents.

I don't lose sleep at night wondering if I have angered a fictional (IMO) god, but I do find it interesting to ponder the thought, and even challenge others who hold my same "beliefs"...

The inadvertent lies their parents pass on is not as harmful as the lies that priests, preachers and imams feed them on a constant basis. I see that as a greater breach of trust as those liars know they are lying.

Not to mention our own governments that perpetuate the Noble Lie that immoral religions are worthy of respect and tax breaks that you and I have to make up, be we believers or not.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

An important point is that if something is vastly more probable than another thing, choosing to believe the improbable option is not reasonable. And it's usually immoral too, because our beliefs inform our actions, and in order to act morally we have to act on the most probable reality.

I think this is key to why I am trying to (somewhat) defend theist.

Consider the implications if a large subset of theists didn't have the fear of supernatural punishment. Wouldn't that make the world a much worse place?

For those who try to use morals to guide their lives, a very large subset only does so based on a fear of otherworldly punishment. Despite their reasoning, that should be a good thing.

Statistics say no to both premises.

Where there is less belief in Gods, the people are more peaceful and law abiding.

Further, secular law is way more moral than theistic laws. That is why secular law is the law in most civilized countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Regards
DL

[PsYcHo]

I think this is key to why I am trying to (somewhat) defend theist.

Consider the implications if a large subset of theists didn't have the fear of supernatural punishment. Wouldn't that make the world a much worse place?

No, there's not any evidence of that.

Atheism is correlated with lower crime rates on national scales. Most scientists are atheists, most prison inmates are theists.
Becoming atheist doesn't seem to incline people to criminality, it usually just makes them more tolerant of groups their religion had marginalized like homosexuals.

I'm curious about the evidence based on an Atheistic nation. I believe most of the governments who report as Atheistic are very heavily ran by the Government.

During the cold war, there were no shortages of food in Russia, to hear the Russians tell it, correct?

[Greatest I am]

I think this is key to why I am trying to (somewhat) defend theist.

Consider the implications if a large subset of theists didn't have the fear of supernatural punishment. Wouldn't that make the world a much worse place?

No, there's not any evidence of that.

Atheism is correlated with lower crime rates on national scales. Most scientists are atheists, most prison inmates are theists.
Becoming atheist doesn't seem to incline people to criminality, it usually just makes them more tolerant of groups their religion had marginalized like homosexuals.

I'm curious about the evidence based on an Atheistic nation. I believe most of the governments who report as Atheistic are very heavily ran by the Government.

During the cold war, there were no shortages of food in Russia, to hear the Russians tell it, correct?

In Muslim majority nations, there is little divide between region and government thanks to Sharia, which is the government half of Islam.

Governments everywhere have used religions as pawns in their power struggles. Governments are more important and powerful than religions as they control the military and police.

Governments and religions try to control the physical populations even though religions are supposed to be more interested in the spirituality of their sheeple and not their bodies. Instead Islam concerns itself with the physical and promote Jihad. Islam does not believe in the separation of church and state.

Regards
DL