cool-mist/bbb
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

fix typos

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
surya 2023-08-16 00:46:18 +05:30
parent 806e319ad0
commit 065bf9511b
2 changed files with 51 additions and 29 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
_posts/2023-07-10-whatwasthatipl.markdown
View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
---
layout: post
title: Unfair fixtures!
categories: ["ideas"]
categories: ["ideas", "ipl"]
---
Analyzing the fixtures of recently concluded IPL 2023. Was it set up fairly?

78
_posts/2023-08-15-onatheism.markdown
View File

@ -16,15 +16,23 @@ This definition assumes that we have already defined what God(s) is/are. I will
## Froggists ##
Lets say there are two friends - Ajith and Vijay. Vijay shows a closed box and claims that there are 4 frogs in that box. Ajith is skeptical of that claim. Vijay says he simply believes in it as it provides comfort and happiness to him. If we were to categorize people who behave like Vijay, we could call them *Froggists*.
Lets say there are two friends - Ajith and Vijay. Vijay shows a closed box and claims that there are 4 frogs in that box. Ajith is skeptical of that claim. Vijay says he simply believes in it as it provides comfort and happiness to him, and doesn't require any more empirical evidence to be confinced of its truth.
Now Ajith could say "Hey! that box is too small, and I cannot hear anything. I don't believe you!". At this point he is a *A-Froggist*. This is because he is casting suspicion on Vijay's claim using reasonably good logic. Note that he does not claim the opposite - that there are not 4 frogs in the box. This is similar to the position of an atheist on the subject of God(s).
If we were to categorize people who behave like Vijay, we could call them *Froggists*.
Ajith could also have said "Hey! that box is too small, I canot hear anything, there is on way it can hold 4 frogs". Now, he has become an *Anti-Froggist*. This is *not* the atheist position.
Now Ajith could say "Hey! that box is too small, and I cannot hear anything. I don't believe you!". At this point he is a *A-Froggist*. This is because he is casting suspicion on Vijay's claim using reasonably good logic. Note that he does not claim the opposite - that there are not 4 frogs in the box.
This is similar to the position of an atheist on the subject of God(s). An Athist simply doubts the claims of God(s) and does not believe in the claims until and unless presented with convincing evidence.
Ajith could also have said "Hey! that box is too small, I cannot hear anything, there is no way it can hold 4 frogs".
Now, he has become an *Anti-Froggist*. He now has a new claim to prove - that the frogs do not exist.
This is *not* the atheist position.
## More Definitions ##
Now that I've clarified what I consider to be the most misunderstood or misrepresented concept when it comes to atheism, I will now try to lay down the definitions of some of the other terms surrounding atheism.
Now that I've clarified what I consider to be the most misunderstood or misrepresented concept when it comes to atheism, I will now try to lay down the definitions of some of the other terms surrounding it.
#### God ####
@ -34,13 +42,13 @@ With a capital G, is generally understood as some kind of entity that is ascribe
1. Onmipresent - Is present everywhere.
1. Omniscient - Knows everything.
1. Omnipotent - All powerful with unlimited ability.
1. Supernatural
1. Supernatural - outside the realm of the known / understood space.
1. Punishes you for your wrong-doings.
1. Listens to your prayers, accepts offerings and grants favors.
#### Religion ####
I see this as a logical organization of a set of closely related beliefs. Not every single person in a given organization hold the exact same beliefs. But a majority of beliefs from the religion are held by a majority of people. These principal beliefs that characterize a religion are unique enough that they can be distinguished from another religion.
I see this as a logical organization of a set of closely related beliefs. Not every single person in a given religion hold the exact same beliefs. But a majority of beliefs from the religion are held by a majority of people. These principal beliefs that characterize a religion are unique enough that they can be distinguished from another religion.
#### Holy scriptures ####
@ -52,27 +60,33 @@ The stance that is characterized by a belief in the existence of God(s) and its
#### Deism ####
The stance that is characterized by a belief in supernatural God(s) that played a role in the creation of the universe, but have no effect on the day to day life of human beings. Deists don't belive that prayers work, and that worship is futile.
#### Agnosticism ####
The stance that is characterized by an acceptance of the fact that the knowledge of the existence of God(s) is unknown. Agnosticism is derived from the Greek word [gnostikos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) meaning knowledge. Agnosticism means absence of knowledge. Unless specifically qualified otherwise, all Atheists are Agnostics in the matter of God(s).
The stance that is characterized by a belief in supernatural God(s) that played a role in the creation of the universe, but have no effect on the day to day life of human beings. Deists belive that workship and prayers are futile, and are indistinguishable from the Atheist in what they believe about the day to day life.
#### Anti-Theism ####
The stance that God(s) do not exist as defined in Theism. Similar to theists, they carry the burden of proof on their shoulders.
#### Agnosticism ####
Agnosticism is derived from the Greek word [gnostikos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) meaning knowledge. Agnosticism means absence of knowledge.
A Theist can be gnostic (have knowledge) of the existence of God(s), or can be agnostic (do not have knowledge) of the existence of God(s).
An Atheist does not claim anything, and therefore, the term agnostic doesn't really apply as a prefix to an Atheist.
An Anti-Theist, again, can be gnostic, or agnostic.
## Why be an Atheist? ##
Many reasons, listing some of them below in no particular order. All of them have the expand on the fact that Atheism is simply an absence of belief in God(s) and is therefore the default position.
Listing some of them below in no particular order. Note that Atheism is the default position for any human being by definition. Any other position would require some convicing to take up.
#### Broad and inconsistent definition ####
The definition of God(s) is very broad and does not appear consistent across religions. In such a situation, the default stance of not believing anything makes the most sense. Until all the religions in the world come together to iron out the inconsistencies, a conversation about whether that is true or not would be meaningful.
The definition of God(s) is very broad and does not appear consistent across religions (and sometimes, even within the adherents of the same religion).
In such a situation, the default stance of not believing anything makes the most sense. Until all the religions in the world come together to iron out the inconsistencies and present a coherent narrative, a conversation about whether theism is true or not would not be meaningful. An Atheist believes in one less god compared to a theist. A Hindu does not believe in the myths of Jesus' rebirth, nor do they believe in the messages of the prophet Mohammed. Likewise a Christian does not believe in Vishnu or Krishna, and so on.
#### Burden of proof ####
Going back to the [Froggists](#froggists) analogy, the onus is on Vijay to prove that the box has 4 frogs. That is to say - the burden of proof lies with the theist. Until proven, the default stance is again a rational choice.
Going back to the [Froggists](#froggists) analogy, the onus is on Vijay to prove that the box has 4 frogs. That is to say - the burden of proof lies with the theist. Until proven, the default stance is again a rational stance.
#### God of the gaps ####
@ -100,39 +114,45 @@ Atheists are not arrogant because of Atheism. Atheists are just like any other p
It is not clear if Hitler was an Atheist. Stalin definitely was, but the reason for 'behaving badly' is not derivable from an absence of belief in a diety. On the other hand, there are lot of examples of religiously triggered violence that has killed millions of people throughout human century, whose root causes are directly derivable from the specific beliefs of the religion.
#### What if you are wrong and have hell waiting for you when you die? ####
This is a variation of the [Pascal's wager](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager). As already established, there are a large number of religions and Atheists differ from theists almost always by belief in one less God / Group of Gods. In such a scenario, I would argue that, being wrong would be more problematic for the theist, than the atheist. Imagine a Hindu dying only to find that the Christian myths are real. In such a case, an Atheist is better placed in terms of punishment because not only is the theist no believing in Christ, the theist also believed in a different religion.
## Why be a Theist? ##
I also want to look at some reasons why someone would be a theist inspite of the merits of the default position on this topic.
Inspite of the above merits, I also want to look at some reasons why someone would be a theist.
#### Personal experience ####
I had an experience with a God that felt real, helped me with (such and such..).
This is often the most common reason I hear, and the one that makes the most sense for anyone to be a theist. You cannot argue with personal experience and as long as that experience belongs to this person, and they though it is real, it is really a fine reason to be a theist. No such person is going to ever doubt (realistically) their beliefs, and no Atheist is going to accept personal experience as evidence as they haven't experienced it.
This is often the most common reason I hear, and the one that makes the most sense for anyone to be a theist. You cannot argue with personal experience and as long as that experience belongs to this person, and they think it is real, it is really fine to be a theist.
Practically, no such person is ever going to doubt their beliefs, and no Atheist is ever going to accept personal experience of another person as evidence of the existence of God(s).
To each their own and everyone is happy (theoretically).
#### Everything ought to have a root cause ####
Take any object and you have a creator of that. Who created this can result in an infinite regress, and a way to stop that is to presume the final Creator of all things is God(s). The problem with this is that we still have to explain why the final Creator exists (who created God(s)?). By exaplaining away the unknowns with God(s), we haven't explained anything as there is one additional thing now to explain.
Take any object and you have a creator of that. The question "Who created this" can result in an infinite regress, and a way to stop that would be to presume that the final Creator of all things is God(s). The problem with this is that we still have to explain why the final Creator exists (who created God(s)?). By explaining away the unknowns with God(s), we haven't explained anything at all, as there is one additional thing now to explain.
#### Things are designed so perfectly, this cannot be by chance ####
This is also known as the *Argument From Design* and [Thomas Aquinas](https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/aquinass-five-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/) is famous for using this argument. A response to this is the same as the previous one, we still need to explain God(s).
Another common false dichotomy here is the assumption that absence of design is random chance. Processes of evolution are already well understood and honest biologists have no problems explaining how something as complex as the human eye came to be from simplicity in the first place. Evolution is not random and natural selection is at work pushing a species to its next stable stage. The process of evolution is also not intelligent, as evident from the fact that, for example, humans have a [Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve) that connects the throat and the brain via a detour to the heart!!
#### Other arguments ####
There are other sophisticated arguments in this regard as well, which I acknowledge and hope to cover in the future articles. Adding this disclaimer here so that I do not get accused of only addresses, what a theist might perceive as, weak arguments in their arsenal.
However, there is one that I've never come across, but which I feel is a valid reason
This argument proposes a false dichotomy by assuming that absence of intelligent design is random chance.
Processes of evolution are already well understood and honest biologists have no problems explaining how something as complex as the human eye came to be from simplicity and non-random evolutionary processes of natural selection. The process of evolution is also not intelligent, as evident from the fact that, for example, humans have a [Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve) that connects the throat and the brain only after a detour via the heart!!
#### Argument from Anxiety ####
Without a belief in an all-knowing care taker, I personally believe all of us will drown in anxiety. My mother wouldn't be at peace when I'm travelling on my bike in traffic, if not for the fact that she prayed to her God(s) for my safety. The more I think on these lines, the more I think Religion might well be a necessary thing to evolve in a civilization. This makes no claims to whether it is true that praying helps or not, but this is a claim to the fact that people are probably better off believing.
Like the argument from Personal experience, this is something that cannot be rebuked, and is a harmless reason for belief, as long as people keep their God(s) to themselves.
Ofcourse, Atheists exist and like me, do not feel it necessary to hold this belief. But I would be lying if I do not acknowledge my anxiety right after becoming a theist. Will my parents live another day? Will I survive this journey? Will someone rob me? It is not completely overcome to this day, while I have gotten a lot better at it. It probably takes some maturity to understand and deal with such anxiety from unknowns.
Without a belief in an all-knowing care taker, all of us will drown in anxiety. My mother wouldn't be at peace when I'm travelling on my bike in traffic, if not for the fact that she prayed to her God(s) of choice for my safety. The more I think on these lines, the more I think Religion might well be a necessary thing to evolve in a civilization. I'm making claims on whether praying helps or not, but just that the people are probably better off believing in something.
Ofcourse, Atheists exist and like me, do not feel it necessary to hold this belief. But I would be lying if I do not acknowledge my anxiety right after becoming an atheist. Will my parents live another day? Will I survive this journey? Will someone rob me? It is not completely overcome to this day, while I have gotten a lot better at it. It probably takes some maturity to understand and deal with such anxiety from unknowns.
#### Other arguments ####
There are other sophisticated arguments for the existence of God(s), which I acknowledge exist, and hope to address in the future articles. Right now, I will simply add this disclaimer here so that I do not get accused of only addressing, what a theist might perceive as, weak arguments from their arsenal.
## Why be a Deist? ##
@ -140,7 +160,9 @@ These were the atheists of yesterday, who could observe that prayers do not work
## Why be an Agnostic? ##
Both theists and atheists are Agnostic because the claim of God(s) can neither be proven or disproven (at least that is how it looks so far). Atheists accept their agnosticism. There is also a class of agnostics, who claim they occupy the "middle ground" between atheism and theism. While that doesn't make any sense, I can understand the reason for them saying so, as this acts as a shield under politically charged circumstances - where both parties assume an agnostic is not challenging their stance.
Everyone, generally speaking, are Agnostic, because the claim of God(s) can neither be proven or disproven (at least that is how it looks so far). Most Atheists are agnostic of whether God(s) exist or not.
There is also a class of agnostics, who claim they occupy the "middle ground" between atheism and theism. While that doesn't make any sense, I can understand the reason for them saying so, as this acts as a shield under politically charged circumstances - where both parties assume an agnostic is not challenging their stance. This is just a confusion tactic, and the fact whether someone is an agnostic or not, is perpendicular to the fact that whether someone is an atheist or not.
## Why be an Anti-Theist? ##
@ -148,4 +170,4 @@ Theism is an unfalsifiable claim. Sometimes, it might make sense to directly cha
## In Conclusion... ##
This just serves as a superfluous article outlining my thought process in this matter at best. While writing this, I badly wanted to expound on certain arguments or issues in greater detail. However, I want to budget my time rightly so that I don't spend too much time today on writing this post. Hopefully more follows later!!
This is just a superfluous article outlining my thought process in this matter at best. While writing this, I badly wanted to expound on certain arguments or issues in greater detail. However, I want to budget my time rightly so that I don't spend too much time today on writing this post. Hopefully more will follow later!!