EEVblog #833 - Mailbag

[Fungus]

The Catholic church is run as a business and always has been.

In times gone past the Catholic Church was against charging interest on lending money then in 1929 Mussolini gave them a piece of land to call home and $500 million, an awful lot of money in those days. Then all of a sudden they changed their mind about charging interest on loans... Fancy that!

Here in Spain 0.7% of all the tax collected by the government goes to The Catholic Church.

Or it did until quite recently. Now we have a check box to donate it to other charities if we can remember to check it.

There's also been a few petitions to add another check box to give the money to science but they've gone nowhere.

[jonw0224]

I'm going to bring my comments to an end here.  It's been a good discussion.  The truth is, at some point even the atheist has to make an unfalsifiable claim (like appealing to the Anthropic Principle) to support the unfalsifiable claim that there is no God.  You can have good reasons for believing in God or not believing in God.  Still, at some point we all leave our experimental data and testable scientific theories and delve into matters of philosophy or religion.  Even, if that philosophy is a commitment that all things are to be explained by natural means or if that philosophy is a commitment to a supernatural explanation, in my case the Christian God.

Therefore, I'd suggest to be careful when you criticize or dismiss another person's beliefs.  They either have sufficient reasons for believing what they believe or they have been too busy with other matters to be concerned and have simply taken what others have said as their own.  But rest assured, making fun of another person's beliefs or demeaning them is worst than saying something bad about their mother.  And in general, even if people don't agree on moral issues, most people hold that being a jerk is bad. 

I am one of around 6 billion people on this planet.  There is a good chance that I have done business or had a relationship either in my career or in my personal life with people who don't hold my beliefs.  In fact, I know I'm related to people that I love deeply who disagree with me on religious or philosophical topics.  We still have healthy relationships and my love for them trumps any difference of opinion.  So, I think a little humility and tolerance would serve us well.  A reasonable estimate of what we do know for certain and what we believe and for what reasons would serve us well also.

From a personal perspective, since I am a Christian, the idea that human morality is broken, that humanity has been responsible for evil upon one another, and the idea that God offered Jesus's death and resurrection as a bridge to restoration with God and with each other, is reasonable.  And to me and Pascal, consideration of that view is of primary importance and eternal significance for each of us.  Again, thank you for reading and for engaging in the discussion.

[Fungus]

I'm going to bring my comments to an end here.  It's been a good discussion.  The truth is, at some point even the atheist has to make an unfalsifiable claim (like appealing to the Anthropic Principle) to support the unfalsifiable claim that there is no God.

Nope. An Atheist is allowed to say "we don't know".

PS: The Anthropic Principle isn't an unfalsifiable claim. It's not actually a claim at all, more of an observation.

You can have good reasons for believing in God or not believing in God.

Some people desperately want to believe in a god, eg. the human genome guy in the video. These people are capable of twisting any data to support their claims.

eg. In the video he says the the two contradictory versions of creation in Genesis is actually a hint to really smart readers that Genesis isn't supposed to be read literally. Each individual verse is supposed to be interpreted by the reader as either literal or metaphor depending on context.

I'm guessing "context" is another way of saying "if it makes any sense". With logic like that you can literally use The Bible as proof of anything.

What I want to know is why Christians don't hold Atheists the the same loose standards? 

In this very thread I've been asked for exact proof of how life began on earth by the same people who think genome guy has a rock-solid argument.

Therefore, I'd suggest to be careful when you criticize or dismiss another person's beliefs. 

Sigh...   

If the politicians were openly using astrology, Ouija boards or calling on Poseidon in their political decisions I bet a lot of Christians would be quite vocal about that.

How many teenagers (and adults) are having their lives made miserable right now by bunches of Christians trying to "Pray Away The Gay". Where did the "tolerance" go?

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

Religion is FAR from harmless.

[Lightages]

I'm going to bring my comments to an end here.  It's been a good discussion.  The truth is, at some point even the atheist has to make an unfalsifiable claim (like appealing to the Anthropic Principle) to support the unfalsifiable claim that there is no God.  You can have good reasons for believing in God or not believing in God.  Still, at some point we all leave our experimental data and testable scientific theories and delve into matters of philosophy or religion.  Even, if that philosophy is a commitment that all things are to be explained by natural means or if that philosophy is a commitment to a supernatural explanation, in my case the Christian God.

An atheist makes the basic claim that not enough evidence has been provided to believe in a god. That's it.What a person believes or does not believe beyond that is not a matter for atheism. I don't have to make any falsifiable claims as an atheist. I can say "I don't know". I can make the 100% falsifiable claim that the god of the bible does not exist. The bible contradicts itself on the nature of god and the universe many times. If it is the word of god as is claimed, then the bible is wrong or the god described is self contradictory and cannot exist. In writing what I have so far, I have made no falsifiable unfalsifiable claims, nor any contradictory statements.

Therefore, I'd suggest to be careful when you criticize or dismiss another person's beliefs.  They either have sufficient reasons for believing what they believe or they have been too busy with other matters to be concerned and have simply taken what others have said as their own.  But rest assured, making fun of another person's beliefs or demeaning them is worst than saying something bad about their mother.  And in general, even if people don't agree on moral issues, most people hold that being a jerk is bad.

Some people have reasons to believe what they believe, most don't. Criticizing the belief of something is different than criticizing the person. If beliefs cannot be criticized then a person shouldn't even try to express anything. Claims require proof to be believed. Anyone who takes offense to a challenge to what they believe as an offense is usually insecure with their beliefs.

I am one of around 6 billion people on this planet.  There is a good chance that I have done business or had a relationship either in my career or in my personal life with people who don't hold my beliefs.  In fact, I know I'm related to people that I love deeply who disagree with me on religious or philosophical topics.  We still have healthy relationships and my love for them trumps any difference of opinion.  So, I think a little humility and tolerance would serve us well.  A reasonable estimate of what we do know for certain and what we believe and for what reasons would serve us well also.

I am not accusing you of anything, but humility is exactly the opposite of what most theists demonstrate. They are right and cannot be wrong, despite evidence. This is the opposite of humility.

From a personal perspective, since I am a Christian, the idea that human morality is broken, that humanity has been responsible for evil upon one another, and the idea that God offered Jesus's death and resurrection as a bridge to restoration with God and with each other, is reasonable.  And to me and Pascal, consideration of that view is of primary importance and eternal significance for each of us.  Again, thank you for reading and for engaging in the discussion.

So supposedly, your god made the rules, made them so we would fail the rules by putting the source of failure within our reach, on purpose, and because he already knew the future, then decided to clone himself, send the clone to earth, torture and kill him in a blood sacrifice, just so that he could forgive us for breaking the rules that he made and forced us to break? You god is perfect but couldn't make it so we would not sin. Isn't he all powerful, all knowing, and all loving?  Yet he couldn't get a human that he made in his image to behave correctly from day one? Oh no, maybe I offended you by asking questions.

[Marco]

And in general, even if people don't agree on moral issues, most people hold that being a jerk is bad. 

The other two Abrahamic religions give plenty of scriptural leeway to be a jerk to non believers.

[EEVblog]

FYI, I followed this a long time ago and helped support the change, but it seems we (Australia) will finally have a Census question on religion that is less biased toward people picking the religion of their upbringing!
http://www.smh.com.au/national/is-australia-losing-its-religion-20150827-gj94ts.html

Watch the "official" number of "religious" people in Australia plummet after the next census this year! 

The change isn't perfect, as it seems they are not changing the wording of the question, just the order of the answers. The wording still "assumes" that the person has a religion", and puts that impression into their mind. Hence why many (majority?) have ticked the "religion of their upbringing", rather than if they actually believe in or care about it it any more.

It will now look like this:


It used to look like this:


But even with that horrible and non obvious bottom spot, 22% of the population still picked it.

[coppice]

FYI, I followed this a long time ago and helped support the change, but it seems we (Australia) will finally have a Census question on religion that is less biased toward people picking the religion of their upbringing!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-religion-tops-census-choices/news-story/36c71be3be524e754f5a463af74d650e

It looks like that link requires a subscription.

Watch the "official" number of "religious" people in Australia plummet after the next census this year! 

The change isn't perfect, as I'm not sure they are changing the wording of the question, just the order of the answers.

In the UK the number of people ticking Christian on the census form has fallen, but still seems pretty high when you look at the behaviour of the population. When surveys have been tried among people who tick the Christian box, the answers show a rather different picture. Questions like "was there actually a historical Jesus?" gets quite a lot of yes or probably responses. Things like "was he born of a virgin?", "did he rise from the dead", and "was he divine" get a pretty weak response. It seems most of those who believe he existed just think of him as some dude from 2000 years ago who said a few good things.

[EEVblog]

FYI, I followed this a long time ago and helped support the change, but it seems we (Australia) will finally have a Census question on religion that is less biased toward people picking the religion of their upbringing!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/no-religion-tops-census-choices/news-story/36c71be3be524e754f5a463af74d650e

It looks like that link requires a subscription.

New link added.

[Circlotron]

Sigh...   

If the politicians were openly using astrology, Ouija boards or calling on Poseidon in their political decisions I bet a lot of Christians would be quite vocal about that.

If???

http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Joan-
Say-Astrologer/dp/1559720328

"Never in the history of the U.S. Presidency has an astrologer played such a significant role in a nation's affairs of State. Quigley wielded considerable influence in the creation of major U.S. policy, including the Bitburg crisis, the INF Treaty, and the President's historical shift from viewing Russia as the Evil Empire to accepting Gorbachev as a peace-seeking leader. 16 pages of photographs."

[EEVblog]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Joan-
Say-Astrologer/dp/1559720328

OK, that's scary 

[miguelvp]

I thought it was common knowledge and the reason he posted that as a sarcastic remark.

[Circlotron]

Not sarcastic; incredulous.

[Fungus]

http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Joan-
Say-Astrologer/dp/1559720328

OK, that's scary 

I thought it was common knowledge and the reason he posted that as a sarcastic remark.

Apparently not common enough.

(And this is why Atheists need to keep on being "jerks" in forums...)

Any Christians care to weigh in on the topic of Presidents with personal Astrologers?

[AlxDroidDev]

That Reagan thing is something I didn't know (and yes, that's scary), but I am not entirely surprised.

One of Brazil's president (Fernando Collor de Mello) followed an African religion called "candomblé", that has the same roots as another religion often shown in movies: santeria (practiced in the Caribbean). The problem is that candomblé, just like santeria, involves the sacrifices of animals. First hand accounts (like from his his ex-wife) dennounced that Collor often sacrificed animals and was involved in macabre rituals of black magic. I guess his rituals didn't work, since he was impeached just a couple years after being elected.

I guess it's time to pack my stuff and move to Australia! It might be a joy to live in a less religious country.

[Fungus]

That Reagan thing is something I didn't know (and yes, that's scary), but I am not entirely surprised.

And that's the point: In a modern society you should be surprised.

The whole "a mans beliefs are sacred, leave him alone" attitude covers things like this up, it allows them to happen.

[EEVblog]

I guess it's time to pack my stuff and move to Australia! It might be a joy to live in a less religious country.

Here, if you overtly show your faith, you get looked at kinda strange

[Fungus]

I guess it's time to pack my stuff and move to Australia! It might be a joy to live in a less religious country.

Here, if you overtly show your faith, you get looked at kinda strange

That's because not many religious people were shipped over there when it was founded. Mostly they were thieves and murderers. 

[AlxDroidDev]

I guess it's time to pack my stuff and move to Australia! It might be a joy to live in a less religious country.

Here, if you overtly show your faith, you get looked at kinda strange

That's my kinda place!

[Brumby]

I guess it's time to pack my stuff and move to Australia! It might be a joy to live in a less religious country.

Here, if you overtly show your faith, you get looked at kinda strange

That's because not many religious people were shipped over there when it was founded. Mostly they were thieves and murderers. 

You would be hard pressed to find anyone here who can claim that they are a descendant of that particular group of settlers.

[Fungus]

That's because not many religious people were shipped over there when it was founded. Mostly they were thieves and murderers.

You would be hard pressed to find anyone here who can claim that they are a descendant of that particular group of settlers.

Paperwork and knowing who your father was was probably low on the list of priorities for a while. 

[mtdoc]

I guess it's time to pack my stuff and move to Australia! It might be a joy to live in a less religious country.

Here, if you overtly show your faith, you get looked at kinda strange

Despite what many non-Americans may think (and what is often portrayed in the media), the same is also true in most social circles and large regions of this country.   Especially during election season - and now with the numerous Republican candidates all pandering to the politically active and vocal evangelical subculture - the media does make it seem that this country is full of religious zealots.   Thankfully that is not the truth on the ground in most places.

[EEVblog]

I'm going to bring my comments to an end here.  It's been a good discussion.  The truth is, at some point even the atheist has to make an unfalsifiable claim (like appealing to the Anthropic Principle) to support the unfalsifiable claim that there is no God.

Nope. An Atheist is allowed to say "we don't know".

+1
And that's the trick.
It's the atheist who holds the position that there almost certainly is no god because:
a) There is zero evidence for it
and actually reasonable grounds to suspect it's all bunk because:
b) There are countless religions with incompatible ideas (the "they can't all be right" bit)
c) The "holy books" are demonstrably flawed and obviously surely the work of iron age humans.

It's the religious people making what is at face value, absurd claims.
Religious belief and the atheistic position do not have the same chance of being true.

[EEVblog]

You would be hard pressed to find anyone here who can claim that they are a descendant of that particular group of settlers.

I am related to the first free settlers to come to Australia.

[AlxDroidDev]

Despite what many non-Americans may think (and what is often portrayed in the media), the same is also true in most social circles and large regions of this country.   Especially during election season - and now with the numerous Republican candidates all pandering to the politically active and vocal evangelical subculture - the media does make it seem that this country is full of religious zealots.   Thankfully that is not the truth on the ground in most places.

The US is perhaps the most portraied country in the world by the movies, thus it is to be expected that people have already formed some erroneous concepts about it.

In the early 90s I lived in the USA as an exchange student for 1 year. I lived in a rural area in upstate NY, and as far as I can remember, religion was a very important part of everybody's life. There were a multitude of faiths: mormons, catholics (minority), protestants, baptists, and so one, but it seemed like everyone had to adhere to one form or another of christianism. By the time I didn't declare myself as an atheist, but I didn't like going to church and I had my quarrels with "god": apparently there is no "Customer Service" in heaven for a poorly heard prayer!

I also spent some time in Arlington, VA, and I was literally just across the street from Washington, DC. The folks I lived there with were also religious, although not as much as people in NY state.

OTOH, I often travel to Florida, specially Miami, and I don't seem to notice religion as a huge part of their life. Actually, if it weren't for the hispanics living there, who are quite religious, I think Florida could easily pass as an atheist state. Giving it a second thought, if most Americans living in Miami were religious, the porn film industry wouldn't be so big!

[Circlotron]

b) There are countless religions with incompatible ideas (the "they can't all be right" bit)

If there was one that was right, what would you expect from it?