Lo there.

[herbius]

Guess I may as well get started off. My name's Jonathan Poncelet, usually Herbius online (which goes back to my first gaming days), and I'm currently in my first year at college in the UK. In my spare time I like to design levels for games (for example Team Fortress 2 or Left 4 Dead), play the games themselves, do some drawing and some writing, play squash, etc. I'm also a furry - I don't know how many people may have come across this term but it generally means someone with an interest in anthropomorphic media, usually art; it's my sole subject matter for drawing (since it's what I learned to draw) and the main content of writing. I know there are an awful lot of rumours regarding this whole scene, so I'd obviously be happy to clear up any questions.

[Crow]

Welcome Herbius,


What type of anthropomorphic media are you interested in as its quite a varied area or do you just like the subject matter in general?

[herbius]

I guess I'm what could be considered "mainstream", if there was such a thing - a lot of the scene is comprised of artwork, which was the reason I felt I wanted to start to learn to draw, although pretty much any form of media (be it literature, art, films, etc.) containing or concerning anthros is fine by me. The canine and feline species are fairly popular with the general population of furs and I too just seem to like them more than other species such as birds, reptiles and so forth, which is another reason why I feel pretty mainstream. I also don't wear suits (although it might be a fun experience to try sometime), don't spiritually believe I'm an animal (I think the term for someone who does is a "therian") and am not a stereotypical sexual deviant.

[Crow]

and am not a stereotypical sexual deviant.

Hahaha I wasn't even aware that was a stereotype. My actual knowledge of the subject area is pretty limited it mainly comes from old art history lectures and the rise of its popularity as an artistic style mainly made popular in the mainstream by Beatrix Potter and Disney, and other forms of it in folklore and mythology.

[herbius]

I won't lie, it does exist, and there are also a lot of "in" jokes made about it by those in the know. I have my own theories about the inevitable decline into adult content (I think it's used as the way that brings the characters involved the closest they can possibly be to being experienced as real by the people who enjoy it) but the polls show that the majority aren't that interested, although you wouldn't necessarily know it from the journalism articles that are around.

I've also found that the online furry community is one of the most accepting (if not the most) communities around; it's certainly the most accepting I've come across. I think this might be a reason why such a broad spectrum of lifestyles can be found within, because they're much less likely to be persecuted and much more likely to be able to flourish with others of a similar persuasion.

[xSilverPhinx]

Welcome!

From the site:

One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.

If the supernatural operates in the natural world, it would no longer be supernatural, would it? An atheist (who as he said relies on physical measurements) would not see the supernatural in the natural world. If he's talking about behind-the-scenes "whys" for events - he could be right, but without providing the evidence skeptics need (ummm...conceptual proofs, since we have no access to the supernatural anyways), he isn't going to make a strong case for his claim. In this case, are there strong enough premises to reach a conclusion? Why should people who do not have emotional ties to a worldview accept something which does not sit on strong foundations?

Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind.

Bingo!

We have no reason to believe otherwise.

It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

An atheist is just someone who has no belief in god, which is subtly different to belief that no gods exist. For all we know an intelligent (or non intelligent) being could've farted the universe into existence, with no intelligent planning. I can't deny that possibility as much as I can deny the elaborate explanations theists come up with of their god being the first cause. To me one is just as lacking in evidence as the other. I certainly couldn't prove either one wrong. For one only the anthropic principle would apply, though, but both would be just as good as any non answers - with no explanatory value beyond the obvious (that the universe exists).  

How could we tell if we're the unplanned (because there's no planning) emerged product of the universe's laws or the planned result of a universe consciously built to harbour life? There are even some arguments against the intelligently fine-tuned universe. I think that in either case we don't have enough knowledge to know either way. It's something to look up and think about.

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon Evidence that is based upon physical measurement of some kind. It does not refer to evidence that only has been personally observed by every individual nor is it only of a visible nature (visual observation).observational evidence.

This seems to be kind of unfair, isn't it? A theist can get away with believing in whatever fairy tale they want because they're in an intellectually privileged position of "knowing" details that are beyond their reach without having to prove them whereas an atheist can't choose a side that they find to be way more convincing based on what is more representative of natural truths achieved through better knowledge gathering tools such as science because then they would have to prove it by default?  Is there no room for hypothesis in the natural world? Or is that something else only a "other-worldy" theist can have?

I personally think that the problem with rely too much on logic is that we just don't have the knowledge necessary to back it up yet. It's not a problem with the logical process per se, but this is not a problem of contradiction to me. The author of the site has found a way to make you take on the burden of disproving god, which is impossible since it's unfalsifiable and that's why you've run into a paradox.

It's like asking you ( who probably never saw any reason to think we were in the first place) to disprove the claim that we're all living in a simulation. The burden isn't on you.  

One thing with believers is that the word 'god' may mean many different things to them. No doubt the universe had a cause, and whatever that cause was they call 'god', while attaching their usual theological characteristics to it, which are baseless assumptions. It's one thing to keep in mind here.

[Tank]

Hello herbius

tl;dr ATM busy with assignments  

Welcome to HAF

Regards
Chris

[herbius]

So I guess this all relates to what Socrates said about knowing the extent of your own ignorance? Admittedly we don't know enough about the beginning of the universe to make a sound judgement yet, but is the probability of finding out really so small that it justifies believing in a God as more sensible? I guess it's taking the fact that atheists are objective and making it look like it's a stupid thing to do, when actually it's arguably the most reliable way of building up a view of what's probably right.

There was also a page on that site that supposedly proved that religion accounted for just 3% (or something as low) of pre-20th century killings where, amongst other errors, arguably the biggest one was that they used statistics from democide (which includes genocide, politicide and mass murder but not war-dead) which, by definition, only encompasses killings by governments. Of course, these statistics would hardly concern the Church, or any wars fought in the name of religions, so it conveniently excludes an awful lot of relevant data. Subtle statistical manipulation like this saddens me, but at least it's easy to spot.

[xSilverPhinx]

So I guess this all relates to what Socrates said about knowing the extent of your own ignorance? Admittedly we don't know enough about the beginning of the universe to make a sound judgement yet, but is the probability of finding out really so small that it justifies believing in a God as more sensible? I guess it's taking the fact that atheists are objective and making it look like it's a stupid thing to do, when actually it's arguably the most reliable way of building up a view of what's probably right.

In part, yes. We don't know everything, and atheists don't claim to know everything or have access to all the natural data and full scope of reality as the author wants to suggest we should in order to have a consistent worldview. Granted, ours is more complicated because of our limitations, whereas theists can claim a free pass to believe in whatever they want based on faith. Their standards of proof are not as subject to reality as a naturalist's are. I'm thinking Aristotle versus Galileo here, who had the brilliant idea of actually putting a very long held belief to the test. :raised: There's a lot of perceptual manipulation riddled with cognitive bugs (biases and errors in perception) besides statistical. Written by a true religious salesman. Not to mention plenty of misinformation and omission.

He also makes the mistake of trying to prove the bible to be scientifically accurate. Just shows how far down the rabbit hole he's gone...

[herbius]

I'd agree with that. The closest thing I have to a "Bible" (in the figurative sense), which I can't recommend enough, is Ben Goldacre's wonderfully revealing book Bad Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben ... 049&sr=8-1) which has taught me a tremendous amount about statistical manipulations, reliability and validity, misuse of science, etc. The great thing was that I was able to independently confirm much of what he was saying (since some of it is just plain GCSE science that's misused) and understand the methods and the principles behind them. A lot of what's up on the God & Science site does smell of rather the same fallacies as were demonstrated in that book.

[xSilverPhinx]

Looks like an interesting book, if I ever spot it around, I'll take a closer look at it.

A lot of what's up on the God & Science site does smell of rather the same fallacies as were demonstrated in that book.

Yeah, basically looks like he's saying that the universe had to have had a beginning, and that whatever caused it was an intelligent entity he calls 'god' (again, what is this 'god'? and how does he know what he means by 'god' caused it?)

Also, looks like a false dichotomy: he says that an atheist materialist can't deny that god(s) don't exist, which is true for the intellectually honest and can't prove that it wasn't a god who caused the universe to exist because there's no observational data to properly back up the materialist worldview. So therefore...god?

[xSilverPhinx]

Herbius, I don't know if you're still around, but I'll add this link I came across on one guy's logical view why the anthropic principle does not support supernaturalism