Richard Dawkins claims “psycho” cyclist smashed up his Tesla – while he was in it

Thinking now on what level of tech is necessary to confirm QM or relativity predictions and I think you'd just need some ability to craft optical equipment such as lenses or polarised glass/minerals. With a rudimentary telescope, Mercury can be spotted and its precession explained. The two slit experiment can show QM effects and that'd be easy to do. Of course we'd most likely end up with steam punk killer robots if human knowledge was jump started like that.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Thinking now on what level of tech is necessary to confirm QM or relativity predictions and I think you'd just need some ability to craft optical equipment such as lenses or polarised glass/minerals. With a rudimentary telescope, Mercury can be spotted and its precession explained. The two slit experiment can show QM effects and that'd be easy to do. Of course we'd most likely end up with steam punk killer robots if human knowledge was jump started like that.

If only we had some kind of informed recreation of what might happen if somehow the technology and knowledge of the present was available to people from earlier times...

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cgIHS7am9g

TheBillder wrote:

[ ... ] courteously done. Particularly iandusud as he's riding without domestiques.

Courtesy's all the rage round here! Well put though, an exchange of views doesn't always need to be a barracking. I think the effort to understand / make a charitable reading often brings more over the long term than snark.

Mind you the interwebs often serves as a general steam discharge area. Or people see it as a pool of marks on which to deploy their sales pitches. Did I mention cycling infra?

TheBillder wrote:

There are pretty much no agnostics.

I think you're just choosing not to address the question of their existence.

chrisonatrike wrote:

I think you're just choosing to ignore their existence, or not...

No, they and I are quite sure they don't exist.

TheBillder wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

I think you're just choosing to ignore their existence, or not...

No, they and I are quite sure they don't exist.

I think you'll find that they're open to the possibility, but they don't let it effect their day to day....

I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds RD irksome. I hope I have demonstrated here that I have no problems with atheists, or with anyone who holds views with which I disagree (which might well be some car drivers and their opinions about cyclists) as long as they can put their arguments in a rational and polite manner, and have the humility to listen to counter arguments in the same manner (as I'm pleased to say has been demonstated here). 

Crikey! This one's going on a bit. Dawkins is a great scientist, writer and thinker and I have no doubt he is telling the truth about the nutter cyclist. Obviously, there is/ are no god(s) but we're quite happy for all the different flavours of believer to carry on believing as long as they keep out of the way- like the Church of England, say.

wtjs wrote:

Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)

Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 - 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don't think it's obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it's obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion.

But by your logic, as there are more drivers on our roads than cyclists, they must be correct.

ktache wrote:

But by your logic, as there are more drivers on our roads than cyclists, they must be correct.

Not if the car drivers who make all the noise are a minority. But I take your point. Maybe a better analogy would be car drivers in London (where they are in a minority) who complain about LTNs. 

Or how about, there are more antivaccers than virologists, immunologists and vaccinologists but I who is right?

ktache wrote:

Or how about, there are more antivaccers than virologists, immunologists and vaccinologists but I who is right?

Wouldn't a more reasonable comparasion be anti-vaxer vs pro-vaxers? By comparing a group that comprises anyone from the general population to a group made up of a relatively small group who are educated and trained in very specific areas of science is hardly a fair comparasion. I do suspect that you are being deliberately provocative though

iandusud wrote:

wtjs wrote:

Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)

Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 - 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don't think it's obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it's obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion.

I can't help but wonder if those numbers might be incorrect, given that in many countries it is a capital offence to admit atheism... (maybe not an official Govt/legal offence, but the locals might beat you to death...).

brooksby wrote:

iandusud wrote:

wtjs wrote:

Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)

Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 - 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don't think it's obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it's obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion.

I can't help but wonder if those numbers might be incorrect, given that in many countries it is a capital offence to admit atheism... (maybe not an official Govt/legal offence, but the locals might beat you to death...).

You may well be right (I was surprised) but the trend is nonetheless very much towards deism and theism. 

iandusud wrote:

wtjs wrote:

Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)

Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 - 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don't think it's obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it's obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion.

On the contrary. The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them.

I think we can agree that the argumentum ad populum is fallacious - after all ToE 150 years ago was understood and accepted by a only a handful of people, against pretty staggering opposition, and has been steadfastly unscientifically opposed ever since, particularly by religious groups. You yourself in spite of saying you accept it have gone on to then dispute it as an accepted scientific theory on this very thread.

Does it matter? well yes and no - you might not believe in evolution, but it most definitely believes in you (to be clear this is a moment of levity - evolution does not think, or care, has no aim, no pity. It is essentially applied statistical probability), and anyway for your day to day it has little significance. 

However, it has staggering importance in virology, genetics, cancer treatment, and yes its relevance even stretches as far as ethics and public policy. For example if you don't understand ToE, you can't understand genetics. I don't believe that many people would say that this is not key to being able to formulate effective public policy in this extraordinarily important area.

RD's caricature as an arrogant scientist I think largely stems from being able to clearly reject incorrect notions. Those that want to learn and understand find no offence. Those that are emotionally or intellectually invested might find it harder to swallow. 

I've not heard RD ever say that you can't dispute ideas. However if you do, make sure you have your ducks in a row, and don't be surprised that they get picked off swiftly. Not cos it's RD, but that any hypothesis has to go through the crucible, and in science this can be intellectually savage. 

One of the difficulties that people have when disputing scientific facts from a religious standpoint is that the arguments are rarely new, and have been debunked before. I might get somewhat irrascible having to rake over teh same arguments again and again, particularly when they are fairly straightforward. As I have already said, I believe the RD is largely compassionate and respectful, even when saying "I think you are wrong, and here is why.". How that is taken of course is subjective, and I can empathise with people who find their worldview shaken with contrary evidence - there is a distinct emotional investment in being religious and again as I have mentioned cognitive disonance can be pretty horrible to live with. That does not say that RD (or Krauss, or Hawking) is impolite or irrational. They might merely be guilty of being closer to the truth.

Captain Badger wrote:

iandusud wrote:

wtjs wrote:

Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)

Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 - 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don't think it's obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it's obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion.

On the contrary. The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them.

You're going back to the "everyone's an atheist" argument. The statement I was questioning was:

"Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)"

Now that may well be the opinion of wtjs who posted it but it clearly isn't the opinion of 99% of the world population. Whether or not they agree on what their god or gods are called is not what was being suggested nor something that I would dispute.

iandusud wrote:

......

You're going back to the "everyone's an atheist" argument. ...

No. I've never been there, so I can hardly return.

I would probably agree with you that it is not obvious there are no gods. However those that have been put forward are poorly defined, and don't stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. The problem is that in heavily religious societies or communities there are distinct consequences for that kind of scrutiny, so many people keep their ideas to themselves and their mouths shut.

Captain Badger wrote:

iandusud wrote:

......

You're going back to the "everyone's an atheist" argument. ...

No. I've never been there, so I can hardly return.

I would probably agree with you that it is not obvious there are no gods. However those that have been put forward are poorly defined, and don't stand up to a great deal of scrutiny. The problem is that in heavily religious societies or communities there are distinct consequences for that kind of scrutiny, so many people keep their ideas to themselves and their mouths shut.

Sorry I wasn't suggesting that you brought up the argument, only that it had been brought up and your assertion was basically that.

You said "The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them."

Your argument: "The problem is that in heavily religious societies or communities there are distinct consequences for that kind of scrutiny, so many people keep their ideas to themselves and their mouths shut."

Likewise in our post enlightenment era professing to believe in God if you are not someone who practises a religion is also not an easy position to hold (it not necessarily an easy position to hold for those who do practise a religion). Many people may well believe in God but wouldn't be able to say why or defend their position and therefore keep their ideas to themselves. There are many people who will openly deride them for such and therefore they will hold fire.

In China where there is a strong history of religious persecution and where the state is officially atheist there is still a huge theist / deist population (officially over 50%), so the argument of scrutiny works both ways and those who claim to believe in god or gods in China are likely to more than the offical 700 million.

iandusud wrote:

......

Sorry I wasn't suggesting that you brought up the argument, only that it had been brought up and your assertion was basically that.

No, my assertion wasn't that. I don't hold with the argument that you are atheist - you clearly aren't. However your feelings about the norse gods, Zeus, Bel Shamharoth et al would be very familiar to me I imagine. I just don't make a distinction between these and the Abrahamic god.

iandusud wrote:

You said "The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them."

Your argument: "The problem is that in heavily religious societies or communities there are distinct consequences for that kind of scrutiny, so many people keep their ideas to themselves and their mouths shut."

Likewise in our post enlightenment era professing to believe in God if you are not someone who practises a religion is also not an easy position to hold (it not necessarily an easy position to hold for those who do practise a religion). Many people may well believe in God but wouldn't be able to say why or defend their position and therefore keep their ideas to themselves. There are many people who will openly deride them for such and therefore they will hold fire.

This is true to an extent, and derision for a given viewpoint on the metaphysical is neither warranted nor helpful. This is something that many religious would do well to remember. That may be difficult when hatred and derision for the areligious is a common theme in the ACOP - I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the hatred and derision dripping out of Psalm 53:1, but I wish that more would remember the tale of the good samaritan, and actually apply it day to day - I have said stories are important, and the stories we take to heart are relevant for better or worse.

However when engaging in matters of science I'm afraid a religious viewpoint is likely to be plain rebutted, for the same reason any other unsupported viewpoints would be. Sometimes the response may not be to keep your mouth shut, but to ensure that your argument stacks up scientifically. Sometimes with reflection however it may actually it be the best policy. This is what all scientists have to do - arguments must stand on their objective  merits, there is no special pleading.

iandusud wrote:

In China where there is a strong history of religious persecution and where the state is officially atheist there is still a huge theist / deist population (officially over 50%), so the argument of scrutiny works both ways and those who claim to believe in god or gods in China are likely to more than the offical 700 million.

The Chinese State may be officially atheist, however this is likely incidental rather than causative. In short in a totalitarian state there can be no superior power - the ruling party is God, and it is a jealous God. 

In any case I fear that the likes of me would fare little better than the Uyghurs, the main advantage I might have might be being able to sink into the crowd (ignore for my argument racial characteristics if you please), whilst keeping my mouth firmly shut. This as we know can be a hard life to live.  The scrutiny does not work both ways - the persecution and punishment of those scrutinising up is a near-universal theme to a greater or lesser extent.

iandusud wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

iandusud wrote:

wtjs wrote:

Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)

Obvious to whom? According to Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism the most generous estimate seems to be that there are 500 - 700 million atheists in the world (other estimates put it much lower). So that means that aprox 90% of the world population don't think it's obvious at all. It sounds a bit like car drivers saying that it's obvious that bike lanes cause more congestion.

On the contrary. The vast majority of the world think there are no gods except theirs. Therefore all gods are disbelieved in by many more people than actually believe in them.

You're going back to the "everyone's an atheist" argument. The statement I was questioning was:

"Obviously, there is/ are no god(s)"

Now that may well be the opinion of wtjs who posted it but it clearly isn't the opinion of 99% of the world population. Whether or not they agree on what their god or gods are called is not what was being suggested nor something that I would dispute.

I would agree with you that some kind of belief is probably the norm. However I think the numbers on this are tricky. Partly for reasons mentioned by brooksby and partly because - as pointed out by hawkinspeter in slightly different context - what you're measuring here is inherently slippery. It's not just that reporting your "true" belief might have bad consquences. What is a true belief? (And indeed is that so important? Apparently not so much for some religions). Well, we better send out experts to examine people's beliefs. But of course these will need to be suitably qualified experts in each religion for who else could judge? And it turns out that not all of those from a particular religion agree, and some say it's not even up to humans to decide...?

So OK, we're relying on self-reporting. There are other reasons this may be off. Does going to church for midnight mass a Christian make (for our survey purposes)? Or being "brought up a Parsi"? I might aspire to the benefits of being a Muslim - for social connections / improvement, say. I write that I'm a follower of Cthulu / Thor / a Jedi on the census but is that valid or just trolling?

We're also all correcting for our Western perspective of a few "big religions" that are generally mutually exclusive. That's certainly not the case even in "first world" countries (e.g. Japan - where Shinto / Buddhism mix to a great degree - and as an aside the majority don't categorise themselves as following a "religion" at all!) or for "monotheistic faiths" (pretty much all co-exist somewhere - more or less - with one or more other beliefs - even Islam e.g. in Indonesia). Plenty of places where "religion" is much more situational / about practice rather than belief per se.

Finally to return to your nice car analogy. Say 95% of the world "believe in god". OK - but isn't that a bit like "95% of people use the road"? Yes - and they do so in very different ways (driving a bus, a car, playing on roller skates, crossing at a light, riding the Tour de France). The differences are both substantial and important. (To religious people also - would you be content if you knew that of these 95%, 94% were folk Daoists?). Why this is important is a second point but this is long enough already!

alansmurphy wrote:

“Crazed cyclist launched unprovoked attack....."

 

So cars not drivers hit cyclists, shouldn't it be a crazed bike?

 

It was a crazed D-lock apparently.

jh2727 wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

“Crazed cyclist launched unprovoked attack....."

 

So cars not drivers hit cyclists, shouldn't it be a crazed bike?

 

It was a crazed D-lock apparently.

The D-lock crazed the window (well the parts that didn't shatter)...