Atheism

I am just totally baffled by his perspective. When I think of someone I consider a moral hero, its someone who defied convention, innovated, and followed their own paths. I would be very suspicious of anyone who said they only did the right thing because they were afraid of the consequences. So to hear him basically saying that morality needs to come from a supreme authority sounds completely backwards to me. That would actually be an incredibly immoral system to me because of its extreme authoritarian philosophy.

Just because someone believes morals come from a higher power, doesn't mean they are only being moral to avoid consequences.

Yeah, especially when they don't view atheism as a free pass to murder the guy who cut them off on the freeway.... but get a load of this guy. Lol.

Anyway, I admire Digi's patience.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Just because someone believes morals come from a higher power, doesn't mean they are only being moral to avoid consequences.

Oh really? My mistake. Then yes, I'd disagree with that.

Originally posted by Digi
Nice video, xyz, thanks.

I came across another video that I'll just dump here also.

YouTube video

hmmmmm, can't think of a better place to post this, so a little OT, but I think you guys might be interested.

So, in the field of statistical analysis, there is this new concept known as Bayesian Probability (BP), which can replace Null-Hypothesis significance testing (NHST), as a way of determining whether you have an effect in your data. I don't really understand it at this point (actually, the reason I found these articles was looking for intros to BP on pubmed for my own research), but if you look at statistical science, it is pretty much taken as a given that BP is superior to NHST for a number of reasons (in fact, NHST has massive and fatal problems, but for some reason, psychologists seem to be the last people to abandon it).

Anyways, in my search for such tutorials, I can across a pair of articles that will undoubtedly re-awaken some old debates, but that I feel most people here are going to get a kick out of.

They are both psi studies that reevaluated results found using NHST with BP. In this first, a series of 9 studies with over 1000 participants, which were all positive results using NHST, were found to be completely insignificant using BP:

Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: comment on Bem (2011)

Does psi exist? D. J. Bem (2011) conducted 9 studies with over 1,000 participants in an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people's responses. Here we discuss several limitations of Bem's experiments on psi; in particular, we show that the data analysis was partly exploratory and that one-sided p values may overstate the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis. We reanalyze Bem's data with a default Bayesian t test and show that the evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than liberal. We conclude that Bem's p values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21280965

The second, while still finding 3 out of 6 positive results using BP, overturned a 6 out of 6 positive result using NHST:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: the case of non-local perception, a classical and bayesian review of evidences

Starting from the famous phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," we will present the evidence supporting the concept that human visual perception may have non-local properties, in other words, that it may operate beyond the space and time constraints of sensory organs, in order to discuss which criteria can be used to define evidence as extraordinary. This evidence has been obtained from seven databases which are related to six different protocols used to test the reality and the functioning of non-local perception, analyzed using both a frequentist and a new Bayesian meta-analysis statistical procedure. According to a frequentist meta-analysis, the null hypothesis can be rejected for all six protocols even if the effect sizes range from 0.007 to 0.28. According to Bayesian meta-analysis, the Bayes factors provides strong evidence to support the alternative hypothesis (H1) over the null hypothesis (H0), but only for three out of the six protocols. We will discuss whether quantitative psychology can contribute to defining the criteria for the acceptance of new scientific ideas in order to avoid the inconclusive controversies between supporters and opponents.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21713069

I'm really interested in reading the second, simply to see what evidence there is that still remains, but the take away from this post is that, even in the past where psi phenomena may have been discovered in tests, we see now, that superior statistical methods actually reduce, if not eliminate entirely, the salience of that evidence. This is nothing new, the same is typically found with tighter controls, etc, just something that tickled me in the right way this morning.

Originally posted by inimalist
In this first, a series of 9 studies with over 1000 participants, which were all positive results using NHST, were found to be completely insignificant using BP:

Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: comment on Bem (2011)

Does psi exist? D. J. Bem (2011) conducted 9 studies with over 1,000 participants in an attempt to demonstrate that future events retroactively affect people's responses. Here we discuss several limitations of Bem's experiments on psi; in particular, we show that the data analysis was partly exploratory and that one-sided p values may overstate the statistical evidence against the null hypothesis. We reanalyze Bem's data with a default Bayesian t test and show that the evidence for psi is weak to nonexistent. We argue that in order to convince a skeptical audience of a controversial claim, one needs to conduct strictly confirmatory studies and analyze the results with statistical tests that are conservative rather than liberal. We conclude that Bem's p values do not indicate evidence in favor of precognition; instead, they indicate that experimental psychologists need to change the way they conduct their experiments and analyze their data.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21280965

interesting:

A Bayes factor meta-analysis of Bem's ESP claim

In recent years, statisticians and psychologists have provided the critique that p-values do not capture the evidence afforded by data and are, consequently, ill suited for analysis in scientific endeavors. The issue is particular salient in the assessment of the recent evidence provided for ESP by Bem (2011) in the mainstream Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, and van der Maas (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 426-432, 2011) have provided an alternative Bayes factor assessment of Bem's data, but their assessment was limited to examining each experiment in isolation. We show here that the variant of the Bayes factor employed by Wagenmakers et al. is inappropriate for making assessments across multiple experiments, and cannot be used to gain an accurate assessment of the total evidence in Bem's data. We develop a meta-analytic Bayes factor that describes how researchers should update their prior beliefs about the odds of hypotheses in light of data across several experiments. We find that the evidence that people can feel the future with neutral and erotic stimuli to be slight, with Bayes factors of 3.23 and 1.57, respectively. There is some evidence, however, for the hypothesis that people can feel the future with emotionally valenced nonerotic stimuli, with a Bayes factor of about 40. Although this value is certainly noteworthy, we believe it is orders of magnitude lower than what is required to overcome appropriate skepticism of ESP.

I'm less interested about the psi-stuff. Do you think this Bayes thing will cause studies that actually were accepted, to be shown as false? As opposed to just this fringe stuff.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm less interested about the psi-stuff. Do you think this Bayes thing will cause studies that actually were accepted, to be shown as false? As opposed to just this fringe stuff.

for the field of psychology, adopting bayes will be revolutionary

statisticians say things like the stats used in psychology are up to 50 years out of date.

are we going to see something like cognitive dissonance or the readiness potential overturned, unlikely, are we going to have more reliable and meaningful results, sure. stuff that has decades of support is almost certainly reflective of some phenomenon, but stuff where there is serious debate, sure, bayes might change how we look at it.

the big thing is the use and meaning of a p value in NHST. I can give you a very basic run through if you want.... wait a week though, and hopefully I can explain bayes better

Originally posted by lord xyz
You're welcome. 🙂

I came across another video that I'll just dump here also.

YouTube video

I love this guy. I think it's mostly because he's all about deconstructing things rationally, not personally. It's a logical stance, not an emotional one. A lot of people were confused and/or surprised when I came out as an atheist, because they fully expected an emotional reasoning behind it. Even when I debunked that when speaking with them, most of them would search for an emotional underpinning, as though I had had a "falling out" with God, or didn't feel loved or something similar.

Originally posted by Digi
I love this guy. I think it's mostly because he's all about deconstructing things rationally, not personally. It's a logical stance, not an emotional one. A lot of people were confused and/or surprised when I came out as an atheist, because they fully expected an emotional reasoning behind it. Even when I debunked that when speaking with them, most of them would search for an emotional underpinning, as though I had had a "falling out" with God, or didn't feel loved or something similar.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is this new concept known as Bayesian Probability (BP)

lol

Originally posted by Bardock42
lol

ya, thats how backwards the stats we learn are

😉

Originally posted by Digi
I'd actually argue it's precisely why I should continue to discuss this with him. I'm not in the business of attempted conversions, but enjoy the idea of showing someone a possibility they had not considered or understood beforehand. It's clear he approaches the idea of atheism much differently than atheists do, so it's an interesting challenge to have him switch perspectives (at least for the sake of understanding, not "switch" as in change beliefs).

And yes, it's potentially futile challenge as well, I'm aware. But what about internet debate isn't a touch futile to begin with? We clearly enjoy it for other reasons outside of "winning" or being/seeming/feeling right all the time. So meh.

It has everything to do with what I understand about time. Infinity is the problem. I've heard the suggestion that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. When combined with the idea that the universe is not sentient in its entirity, I am perplexed by why it took the direction that it did. The scientific laws, and quantum physics that we define the universe with don't seem to be infinitely complex as that would almost mean that there are no facts at all(infinitely complex laws equal laws that could be anything,anytime). As a person who tries to be a realist first, I find myself facing these two possibilities. The universe has within it either an infinity with no direction or an infinity with direction. I believe in an infinity with direction and I believe that humans ability to choose their direction lends heavily to that idea.

The choices humans make cause changes that make large impacts in this world. Many times these choices are made for moral reasons, like Martin Luthor Kings choice to challenge racism, and a country full of people that chose to agree with him and move civilization in the right DIRECTION. Mutual respect is the cornerstone of human progress and sincere morality, so I conclude that morality is not a human construct, but a purposefully created ingredient in an infinity that has a director.

Infinity is unnaproachable in this plane of existence, as we are obviously limited. However considering the fact that something infinite/timeless is part of the formula I don't see any reason to conclude that this IS the only plane of existence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
By the same standard you have to be opposed to Theism though.

There are many believes that incorporate Atheism in which that man would be absolutely and most definitely wrong.

Originally posted by The MISTER
The choices humans make cause changes that make large impacts in this world. Many times these choices are made for moral reasons, like Martin Luthor Kings choice to challenge racism, and a country full of people that chose to agree with him and move civilization in the right DIRECTION. Mutual respect is the cornerstone of human progress and sincere morality, so I conclude that morality is not a human construct, but a purposefully created ingredient in an infinity that has a director.

One of my biggest problems with christianity is that it seems completely authoritarianism. Rather than promoting choice, it simply wants you to make a correct choice and if you don't, you are punished. I think "the right thing" should present itself to you based on reasoning and choice, not because its what someone told you to do.

Originally posted by The MISTER
A beautiful post! 😎 I have actually come to understand you guys alot better than I did before. I agree with you that the one of the best things about discussion is that a persons perspective can broaden. I may be closed minded when it comes to atheism but I don't consider atheists to be lost and damned any more than I consider myself to be. I was done here but I at least wanted to share with you that the reason I find it difficult to digest the idea of atheism, is more in connection with science than religion.

It has everything to do with what I understand about time. Infinity is the problem. I've heard the suggestion that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. When combined with the idea that the universe is not sentient in its entirity, I am perplexed by why it took the direction that it did. The scientific laws, and quantum physics that we define the universe with don't seem to be infinitely complex as that would almost mean that there are no facts at all(infinitely complex laws equal laws that could be anything,anytime). As a person who tries to be a realist first, I find myself facing these two possibilities. The universe has within it either an infinity with no direction or an infinity with direction. I believe in an infinity with direction and I believe that humans ability to choose their direction lends heavily to that idea.

The choices humans make cause changes that make large impacts in this world. Many times these choices are made for moral reasons, like Martin Luthor Kings choice to challenge racism, and a country full of people that chose to agree with him and move civilization in the right DIRECTION. Mutual respect is the cornerstone of human progress and sincere morality, so I conclude that morality is not a human construct, but a purposefully created ingredient in an infinity that has a director.

Infinity is unnaproachable in this plane of existence, as we are obviously limited. However considering the fact that something infinite/timeless is part of the formula I don't see any reason to conclude that this IS the only plane of existence.

Well, ok, cool. I don't agree with you, of course. And I think you get off on an odd tangent jumping from the infinite to moral choice, and make some premature assumptions...BUT. But I understand your position. Not agree, but understand.

I'd encourage you to find non-religious justifications in a more formal setting, like novels or videos. I've been adamantly opposed to your view of atheists on several matters, but can at least see the genuine spark of curiosity here. I'm convinced that perspective can't actually be granted or explained but must be experienced...so, for example, to understand how atheists are (easily) moral despite a God figure may seem perplexing to theists, but that perspective can be gained through thorough reading, research, and inquiry.

I will, however, suggest to you one thing as a result of this post: beauty, love, the direction we see instinctively see in our lives and in others...that doesn't need a God. Consider simply that what we experience is the human ability to create greatness, and the human ability to perceive beauty and create meaning for ourselves.

...

Originally posted by King Kandy
One of my biggest problems with christianity is that it seems completely authoritarianism. Rather than promoting choice, it simply wants you to make a correct choice and if you don't, you are punished. I think "the right thing" should present itself to you based on reasoning and choice, not because its what someone told you to do.

Agreed. Religion doesn't approach morality on logical terms. At best, it approaches morality as intuitive, and at worst as prescribed by a deity.

I was always proud of myself in my early Christianity for believing it because it made sense to me, and I would specifically state that if an aspect of my Catholicism didn't make sense, I wouldn't blindly follow it or accept it. But, to that point, I was in agreement with everything I had learned.

I didn't realize that this stance isn't one many people take, at least not so explicitly. I guess I was naturally inquisitive and analytical as a youth, and so it was only natural that as I developed cognitively that I would begin to find flaws with religion and break off from it.

Here's another example. In the bible it says not to wear cloth with linen and wool fibers mixed. And this is an example of a "god-given moral". And I hear Jews (and christians who follow mosaic law) not only admitting that they don't understand this rule, but taking pride in it. As to them, it is a virtue to follow that rule even though they don't understand it. This is backwards to me. I would consider promoting a law you don't understand to be the height of foolishness, and under no circumstances something to be admired.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But if you only do it because you think you'll be punished otherwise, I don't feel like you really understand the inherent power of the teaching. To me, I think change comes from within. I feel like giving an outside force moral authority means you're basically doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. What has real power to me, is when I can realize the logical rightness of an idea, and have an intuitive understanding of it.