We don’t know that there was a singularity, for example – our best models break down a few femtoseconds after the Big Bang, so (a) we don’t know what happened before that, and so (b) we don’t know what might have caused it, or whether time ‘began’ then or not. “Fine tuning” arguments also have problems (turns out if you vary multiple parameters, you find stars or star-equivalents in ~40% of universes, for example) and we already know that I, er, disagree strongly with your characterization of evolution and abiogenesis.

I understand you have a hypothesis that you really really passionately believe in, but that’s not the same as knowing.

To take one well-known example, “According to one doctrine, there is a great, self-existent deity whose substance is real and who is all-pervading, eternal, and the producer of all phenomena. This doctrine is unreasonable. If something produces something, it is not eternal, the non-eternal is not all-pervading, and what is not all-pervading is not real. If the deity’s substance is all-pervading and eternal, it must contain all powers and be able to produce all phenomena everywhere, at all times, and simultaneously. If he produces phenomena when a desire arises, or according to conditions, this contradicts the doctrine of a single cause. Or else, desires and conditions would arise spontaneously since the cause is eternal. Other doctrines claim that there is a great Brahma, a Time, a Space, a Starting Point, a Nature, an Ether, a Self, etc., that is eternal and really exists, is endowed with all powers, and is able to produce all phenomena. We refute all these in the same way we did the concept of the Great Lord”

Rather it reflects two cardinal teachings, the denial of the substantial self and the principle that things exist only as processes of knowing and have no intrinsic reality.

Until 5 centuries ago, genuine defenders of the heliocentric model were in the minority to, and were for millenia. That proves what? That they were arrogant for not believing as anybody else did?

I will like to point also that the examples cited in the blog post are not very similar to the claims of theism. I mean, ordinary people believe all sort of things in their daily life that can be easely coroborated. Billions of persons that live in cities with electrical power believe that such is constantly suplied to them. They assume it. And they can point that in fact, most of the time they do recieve a suplly of electricity to their homes or buisness. They can show us to us, it is tangible. That doesn´t seem to be the case with theism. Inspite of the large held belief, I haven´t seen the first theist that can show me that their God is real, visible to all of us (including people who disbelieve their God and believe in other or others). There is no direct evidence that, unlike other massively popular held beliefs, God exist. If that was enought, people like Harry wouldn´t end their tirades with other arguments in favor of God existence – like the antropic principle- and against “atheistic materialism” (since apparently it is the only one that he acknowledges to exist…)

1. “Absence of moral justification does not render such privilege immoral. The tax code privileges homeowners over people who rent; no one has ever pretended to give moral justification for this. So, by your reasoning, the tax code ought not privilege homeowners in this manner, the absence of a moral argument means any other argument — socio-demographic or otherwise — is as bad as any other.”

First, I really doubt that such a delicate thing like taxing (and the way people are taxed) lacks of moral justification. But even if that was the case, it is wrong. It should require a moral justification to make some people pay taxes and to make some pay more than others. And certainly to discriminate against other fellow human beings you really should have a very strong moral justification, assuming such thing is possible.

On the issue of “civilization having the obligation to encourage such unions”, I wonder with do you refer with “civilization” and “obligation”. For my part I am more modest. I trust more individuals to make the right choices, whatver if that is forming unions or deciding to procreate (which, I hope you know, are not necesarely the same thing).

Mike:

I think the case is very simple. There is no right to deny people of the same sex to form an union and there is no justification for giving priviledges to heterosexuals couples. It is you who are on the buisness of using the power of the state to discriminate people in such manner, and so, is you that most provide very strong arguments for such attitude.

Because our belief in God and the existence of God are not independent. The conditional probability of God existing given that we believe in him is higher than the probability of God existing. This is not the case for other types of statements.

That is why the abstraction in the OP goes too far on this matter.

So, here is what is comes down to, according to materialistic science: Some “stuff” always was. That stuff took the form of a “singularity.” That singularity, after an eternity of just “sitting there,” inexplicably exploded. That “explosion,” again inexplicably, was luckily and amazingly a very precisely fine tuned explosion: Had the rate of expansion been too fast, then gravity wouldn’t have been able to form planets and stars from cosmic dust; there wouldn’t have been a planet for life to emerge on or a star to provide it with energy. Had it been too slow everything would have collapsed back into a singularity before life could have emerged. Luckily it was just right.

That amazing bit of luck was only the beginning. To get an idea of just how much dumb luck was involved, take a look at
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE. Even with all the amazing luck described there, the luckiest events were yet to come: Mindless, lifeless, dumb matter then accidentally assembled itself into the nanotechnology of life, the functional complexity of which is way beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch. Think about that. It isn’t just that dumb matter accidentally assembled itself into functional complexity way beyond what can be reasonably expected to be arrived at by the combination of the laws of physics and chance, it mindlessly and accidentally assembled itself into nanotechnology the functional complexity of which is light years beyond that which the best minds of science know how to assemble. Now that is luck! That is winning the lottery every day! Now that’s reasonable, right?

Wrong. Atheistic science is asking us to accept notions far, far more far-fetched than believing that nobody is cheating if the same guy wins the lottery every time he plays. It is very likely if that happens that the lottery is rigged, just as atheistic science is “rigged” such that it doesn’t contradict atheism’s “religious” convictions.

It is far, far more likely that God exists than not. It is so likely that God exists that it is truly unreasonable to deny that possibility as though one could be certain that is the case.

It seems to me that you provided an example supporting Jack’s point. But then in your latest, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too by being for two contradicting goals. I know people who follow through and make the choice (they tend to be libertarian). Make your case. Don’t just claim it. You’ll be more believable and may even persuade a few people.

Excuse me, it is jack who actually made the strong claims without providing any evidence for them. And I am the one begging the question?

And yes, I think the goverment should get out of the buisness of giving marriage liscences. But while that happens, I will like to see that heterosexual and homosexual unions are treated exactly in the same way.

A certain self confidence (arrogance?) is required to assume one has a superior understanding of reality that the vast majority of humanity has failed to grasp. Is that a reasonable assumption on the part of atheism? I don’t think so.

It falls to why they think something. The vast majority of humanity, for the vast majority of history, has had a low opinion of women’s intellectual potential, for example. Yet there’s a sizable chunk of people today who think that women have just as much potential as men, and can point to reasons why they think so. Are they ‘arrogant’ to think so?

Also, does one have to believe oneself to be superior if one believes oneself to be correct? Does one have to believe others are inferior if they hold an incorrect position? What if someone felt they had been fortunate in their experiences and teachers to lead them to a particular insight?

And, finally, one can conclude that particular answer is wrong without being certain what else might be right. (Disproving hypotheses, for example?)