back to article Obama calls out encryption in terror strategy speech

United States President Barack Obama has given just his third Address to the Nation from behind his desk at the Oval Office, to deliver a speech in which he all-but-called-on the technology industry to allow access to encrypted communications. The main purpose of the speech was to offer a response to last week's killings in …

Page:

  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

    The problem, really, is trust. Even if it were possible to build technologies that allow for law enforcement access (and something along the lines of mandatory key escrow might be doable, with a big enough bureaucracy,) there is no way that you'll convince me that our glorious leaders won't abuse that power.

    Having spies spy on us in order to see if we've dark sided and are about to fly some planes into things? Okay, fine. But the instant they start using that capability to detect petty crimes (say, buying marijuana, copyright infringement for personal use, or grey market importation of goods) we're into a completely different world.

    This is all of it - all of it - a question about the very principle of the presumption of innocence.

    Our society only functions because - by and large - we ignore the petty, day-to-day crimes that we all commit. Each and every one of us breaks the law - knowingly or not - several times a day. If we could see every violation of every individual and chose to act on that, our entire way of life would collapse.

    We couldn't reasonably prosecute everyone, several times a day. We couldn't expect people to live in fear all day every day that they might be fined or jailed for something they didn't even know was illegal. We cannot expect any citizen to know the totality of the laws in their own jurisdictions, let alone all jurisdictions they interact with digitally or physically.

    How would we pay for it? Where does the money for those fines come from? The money for the lawyers, the judges, the jails?

    This discussion is what is missing in this debate

    Real world limits on the capabilities of spies. Limits on the sharing of information. Limits on what they will look for, what they will prosecute, how the information uncovered will be used. Real world consequences if those limits are worked around, loopholed or otherwise abused.

    Maybe the ability to scan our communications is necessary in order to stop the Really Bad Things from happening. If this is the case, then before we even have a discussion about what compromises in technology we're willing to put up with in order to enable that, we need to have a VERY public discussion about how we're going to limit law enforcement use of those powers. FOREVER.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Who's this "we"?

      If encryption is outlawed, I'll become and outlaw. There will be no discussion or compromise.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        "We" is "society at large".

        More specifically, "we" is "those of us who can vote, now or in the next election cycle" as this is when this particular topic will be decided for our generation. And probably for the one or two that come after us as well.

        "We" need to talk about this. Amongst ourselves in smaller groups, in larger fora and yes, at the ballot box. "We" will be setting laws about this via our elected representatives here in the next few years. Civil disobedience via using outlawed software will only get individuals thrown in jail.

        To be more blunt about this: the USA - amongst others - has proven via the "war on drugs" taht they have no problem whatsoever throwing a significant percentage of their population in jail for "crimes" (such as possession of personal amoutns of soft drugs like marijuana) that don't have an effect on society at large and don't pose a danger to anyone other than the individual being jailed.

        Disobedience is more than reason enough for the powers that be to spend hundreds of billions of dollars jailing tens of millions of people.

        If you care about this problem, then "you" needs to be part of "we" and "we" have to do something about it. Otherwise the "war on encryption" will replace the "war on drugs" as the new cash cow for the prison industry, and your open source VPN, IM or torrent client will be like a gigantic beacon pointing directly at you screaming "me! Me! Lock me up, I'm guilty of disobedience!"

        And no, you won't be able to hide from them. Law enforcement agencies don't give up budget. With the war on drugs winding down, they need a new target.

        Please help us ensure that those of us who think encryption is important aren't the not that target.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Facepalm

          Quite a few of our intrepid DEA agents are hunting bigger game. Veterans Administration doctors who provide pain medication prescriptions or any prescription, for that matter, that they take a dim view of, say, Lyrica or Tramadol. [Not that Tramadol even works.] Many an Internal Medicine doctor has lost there ability to write these 'scrips at all. That's what pot liberalisation has meant here in California.*

          I've always thought making marijuana illegal while making alcohol legal was idiotic. Accident acturials make clear which is far more dangerous to life and limb, ours not the users. What do you do with drug warriors when their target leaves the scene.

          I've had a nickle bag for a while now. Have to see how good it is. Tried a couple of joints to check on antinausia and pain relief. No joy. After His speech, I need something for relief and a drunk ain't enough.

          * - I used to be on morphine the occasional Norcos to deal with level 10 pain. That's why I used to kill myself regular like. Now? I really need a joint.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            FAIL

            RE: Obama calls out encryption in terror strategy speech

            > [Not that Tramadol even works.]

            It does in fact work, just not on everything. My girl stockpiles it for when she needs it. That said, since moving to Cali, she swears by Skywalker OG as the [temp] cure for her crushing, way-beyond migraine headaches (since the Johns Hopkins provided 2 brain surgeries did nothing but make it worse).

            Back to encryption: Did I read someone state Key Escrow - Not with something like GPG. They might be able to twist the arms of Symantec, GoDaddy, etc .... but not everything comes from them. Some are generated from hosts like my never connected to the Internet crypto systems. I'll generate 10,000 Lorem Ipsum messages that are randomized 100,000 times to 1 valid message. Split them all up into smaller chunks, spray them in various directions and the recipient reassembles them based on a One-Time out-of-band key sequence.

            Now multiply that by a several million people doing the same. Does it sound taxing, sure. But my part is shell scripted over what, a couple of hours, maybe. Let them chase the ghosts. The only people caught are the lazy. You can't backdoor a piece of seemingly random data surrounded by pieces of junk random data.

            This will be the next drug war - an epic failure, except for maybe SSL from the "Trusted" chain providers, where they've escrowed all the keys for the G-Peeps.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: RE: Obama calls out encryption in terror strategy speech

              One of the cute tricks I came up with similar to one of the encryption methods used by the military, frequency agility except I would use port hopping. Without the one right listening patterns, it looks like trash. To add to the fun have a near random destination IP pattern too.

              Of course it should work both ways and you should have reasonable looking destination usages. To give credit where credit is due, port knocking gave me a clue.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          My country doesn't have a prison industrial complex so I'm not too worried about that.

          The encryption war will only escalate in a rapid win for crypto, as it combines with stenography and traffic obfuscation. That's data-in-transit. Data-at-rest will flow towards countries with sane privacy policies, and we're already seeing that.

          Which results in a technological ultimatum: Accept that you can't spy on anything, or unplug the internet.

          And believe me, I would love for America to continue down it's isolationist path and just shoot itself in the head.

          1. g e

            I'll even buy it the gun

            Presumably from Walmart

        3. oneeye

          I signed the White House petition to stop backdoors!

          I'm on Mozilla's list and frequently get request to sign petitions for stronger security of our technology products and to block attempts to weaken them. I just received a request for my personal comments on encryption. The petition was successful in reaching the threshold of 100 thousand signatures which then required a response from the White House,and so, technology leaders will be meeting at the White House later this week. I will likely send a response to comment tomorrow, but want my statement to be as profound as possible. One I'm sure will be reinforced by those attending this meeting. If time allows,I will post about this later.

    2. big_D Silver badge

      Maybe Obama should talk to Germany first. They are pushing for all citizen communications online to be encrypted and even pushed "Email made in Germany", which guarantees that email sent between members (ISPs and businesses) of the initiative are encrypted end-to-end.

    3. Named coward

      While I agree with you, the reality is that the "how do we know the authorities won't abuse their power?" argument is a non-starter since you are pretty much guaranteed that 1) they will 2) they won't admit it 3) you will get the "if you don't have anything to hide..." response.

      The "if you leave a backdoor open then others will be able to use it as well and there is no way to prevent that" argument is probably better at convincing laypeople/politicians that it's not the right path.

    4. NoneSuch Silver badge

      "Maybe the ability to scan our communications is necessary in order to stop the Really Bad Things from happening."

      Yes, like whistleblowing, free speech, dissent, disclosure of corrupt public officials, revealing government abuses of power, etc. Those kinds of things?

      Russia has a mandatory domestic surveillance system with access to all communications. China, North Korea does as well. They still have issues and not just from terrorism. Tyrants want control.

      Sacrifice freedoms and they will NEVER give them back. Politicians give up power? Are you mad?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        "Yes, like whistleblowing, free speech, dissent, disclosure of corrupt public officials, revealing government abuses of power, etc. Those kinds of things?"

        Yes. Those are Bad Things if you happen to be in power.

    5. Ponytailed Opinionator

      I kind of disagree. It's ridiculous to have laws that everyone breaks - all it does is undermine the authority of the system. If you mean a section of road to have a 20mph speed limit: enforce it. If you don't, don't put the sign up. It just makes you look foolish and weak.

      That's not really the concern about mass surveillance. The concern, firstly, is whether we're willing to discard the concept of privacy, and secondly, victimisation. It's not about forcing everyone to comply with stupid laws - as you point out, that's simply not achievable in a democracy. It's about using the threat of enforcement to silence dissent: taking the individuals who openly and legitimately challenge the system, and using information gathered from surveillance to threaten them (with legal action, disclosure or embarrassing secrets, whatever).

      Societies need dissent to stay healthy: any control system that inhibits legitimate dissent is bad for all of us.

      On terrorism, the scary truth is that the terrorists will always win. Once you make the mental step to being willing to hit soft targets - innocent men, women and children - what's to stop you? What's the plan, put microphones into every home and public space so no-one can ever talk without being heard? Ban knives? Ban paper so no-one can write anything down? Eliminate mud, so no-one can scribble in it? What kills more people, Terrorists or cars?

      This isn't about protecting people. This is about control. Terrorism is the government's friend: the more we are scared, the more we turn to the government to protect us. And the more we turn to the government for protection, the more it can use those same tools to silence dissent, reinforce its own power, and act without thought of the consequences.

      There's only one answer to this: Courage. Be willing to be hurt. Better to run the relatively minimal risk of being shot in the street by an extremist gunman, than give up our power to challenge the system when it is wrong. After all, why was the gunman so angry in the first place?

      1. Fluffy Cactus

        I just sort of disagree with what you kind of disagree...

        You say: "On terrorism, the scary truth is that the terrorists will always win."

        I say, well, that's not necessarily so. One can always take defensive steps that are both legal, reasonable and give you, as a human being, some sense of control. For example, if you think about the massacre in Paris, the one where about 80 people were killed by two or three shooters at a rock concert, and you use some imagination here: What if, of the about 1000 people there, a mere 10% had with them a wooden sling shot, with rubber band and leather patch, (like kids used to have 50 years ago) with just 5 golfball sized rocks. What if only 10% of people there were courageous enough to shoot their 5 rocks against these shooters. Out of 1000 people, 10% is 100 people, with 5 rocks each. That is 500 rocks! If only 5% of these 500 rocks hit the shooter in the head, that's 25 rocks in the head. Knocks them out. A simple approach like that could have saved about 50 or 60 people.

        Now, I expect that there will so many 100 other people against that idea, and I understand that, yet I have to emphasize that this would be purely a defensive measure, that involves homemade almost toy-like tools, that are legal, easy to carry. In addition this approach does not involve any guns or ammo, or bombs, and any super-sophisticated, super-expensive, yet complicated and slow government actions.

        Well, when I was a boy, I used a slingshot, with dried chest nuts, and within a few tries I learned to shoot

        a chestnut accurately about 60 yards at a bottle target. That was fun. Meanwhile you can all say oh, this is just a fuddy duddy idea that will never work. But if you got 100 people with 5 rocks and a sling shot against 3 terrorists, the terrorist will bite the dust much, much earlier than you can even imagine.

        Just an idea, not a command. If it doesn't make sense to you, it will to others. Ok, that's that.

        --------

        Now, with regard to encryption: Even if the governments outlaws any and all encryption, which they, rather without foresight, could do, then any terrorist sleeper cell could still communicate by use of a variety of so-called "one-time pads". The most famous "one-time pad" in recent history (i.e. the last 250 years) was George Washington's "One if by land, two if sea" (which related to 1 candle in the window, if the attach was going to be by land, two candles if the it was to be by sea). Only the person in the know

        about what the signal means can understand its meaning, and, in addition, by the time anyone else can discern what the code meant, it is too late to do anything about it. The tricky thing about one-time pads is that the code changes with each and every use of it, which has to be agreed upon beforehand, and if you run out of iterations, you start over, at which point it becomes less safe. Nonetheless, with a bit of imagination, you can see that "secret messages" can be exchanged without any "electronic encryption system" at all. As a result, I figure that all the politicians are more or less talking "uninformed nonsense".

        ----------

        You also say: "This isn't about protecting people. This is about control. Terrorism is the government's friend: the more we are scared, the more we turn to the government to protect us."

        To that I say: Well, not all terrorism is a "false flag operation". It's just difficult to figure out who is behind what. Some terrorists are simply the secret extension of another unfriendly government that wants to

        accomplish something, whatever. It seems odd to me that "radical islamists" want to "take over the world

        by randomly killing people in other countries". What do they expect? That we say: "Oh you now killed 120 of our people, so that makes us really mad!" and "Wait a minute, you now killed 20,000 of our people, so now I really want to join your religion!!" Like, heck, totally absurd, not going to work, altogether

        majorly dumb and dumber. So, back to rocks and slingshots we go.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam

    Not quite sure what he means here.

    The Qu'ran and the Hadith are quite clear that all non-believers are to be either converted or killed.

    The 'moderates' are the perversions.

    For me, I wish the religious would stop filling their heads with 2 millenia-old dogma and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Then we might find fewer reasons to kill each other for reasons other than that some old guy centuries ago told us to.

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      The 'moderates' make up the overwhelming number of believers in Islam. I'm pretty sure that it is the minority who get labeled "perversion" in just about any context. Just sayin'...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > The 'moderates' make up the overwhelming number of believers in Islam.

        I'm sure that you are right.

        But dogma is dogma.

        You either believe it or you don't.

        The reality is that the dawn of the rational age (which incidentally the Islamic nation largely in the East used to embrace then turned its back on it) is impinging on these idiotic beliefs to the extent that it is becoming more and more uncomfortable for the more fundamental to espouse their views in public.

        Many believe that the terrorist outbreaks that we are seeing more and more are, in part, a response to their increasing isolation in the wider world coupled with the very same Internet bringing liberal ideas and ideologies to their communities in contradiction to what they believe.

        Personally, I think more of this is the answer and the violence will play out over the next few years then fizzle out. I think we just have to push against it as best we can.

        In particular, I think I am with the more "militant" atheist stances particularly extolled by Dawkins and the late Hitchens. Society must become less accepting of blind faith and openly question religious belief wherever we find it. We must oppose dogmatism by questioning it. Only in blind faith can people find the excuse to continue in this vein. We cannot do that with laws or intolerance. We have to do it with honest and open dialog. No more pussy-footing around with polite obeisance to "personal beliefs" without evidence. We don't have to be arseholes about it, but we can be less tolerant towards daft-headedness.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          "Rational" is hard to define. There are a bunch of Randians who honestly and earnestly believe that altruism doesn't exist. They believe that everyone is selfism and that altruism is merely selfishness in disguise. I don't believe that. I believe selfishness and altruism to be two points along a spectrum and that human behaviors varies greatly along this spectrum depending on a combination of individual and circumstances.

          Both the Randians and I can point to science that can be interpreted to back up our viewpoints.

          So who is "rational" here? Who gets to determine "rational", especially when you are not even attempting to thinly veil your belief that "rational" equates to "correct"? (Or that "rational" means "what you, personally" believe, which you also seem to think is by default correct*.)

          I can interpret the King James version of the Bible such that it demands extremism. I can also interpret it such that it demands love, caring and respect. I can do the same thing for pretty much every religious text out there.

          I'm no fan of most religions, but what society needs to become less tolerant of is bigotry. Religion versus religion versus atheism versus yet more religion is pointless. why don't we work on "tolerating one another's differences", and work from there towards "celebrating one another's differences"? that makes for a much better world.

          <sarcasm>In the meantime, maybe you can explain to me - rationally - why your form of bigotry is more "rational" than anyone else's. Maybe you can include how it makes the world a better place. This is the internet, after all, and we're all just dying to hear more about why we should hate one or more identifiable groups of people. It really helps build the world I - or most people - want to live in.</sarcasm>

          And as for your "dogma is dogma" crack: you're full of shit. Religious texts aren't binary. They are documents that are interpreted to have personal meaning to each individual who studies them. You have no more right to tell anyone that a religious text must be interpreted in a binary fashion as any so-called religious leader.

          The hypocrisy dripping off your posts is tangible.

          *Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief. Agnosticism is rational. Atheism is the belief that there can not be a deity of any variety. Agnosticism waits on the evidence, one way or another.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            > *Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief. Agnosticism is rational. Atheism is the belief that there can not be a deity of any variety. Agnosticism waits on the evidence, one way or another.

            Atheism is not a belief at all. Strictly it is absence of belief. Some atheists believe in a deistic god, one that set the universe in motion, but does not intervene. In this way, there would be no evidence one way or the other regarding a deistic existence.

            Agnostics generally refuse to take a stand on the issue at all or assert that it is impossible to know.

            The rational position is that without evidence, we don't know anything at all, which is entirely at odds with the pre-suppositionalists which take a different starting point. This is the basis of the atheist standpoint.

            The bible (or the qu'ran etc) could be taken as evidence but it is so flimsy and without more recent corroboration, it is indistinguishable from fairytale. That is my personal position. I am open to the possibility that either a theistic or deistic god exists, but I would need a lot more to go on than an ancient text.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              "Atheism is not a belief at all. Strictly it is absence of belief"

              Wrong. Atheism is the belief that there is no god (or gods) and cannot be. If you accept that there might be then you aren't an athist. You're an agnostic. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent belief in nothing.

              The distinction is fine, but very, very important.

              "The rational position is that without evidence, we don't know anything at all, which is entirely at odds with the pre-suppositionalists which take a different starting point. This is the basis of the atheist standpoint."

              Atheism presupposes knowledge. It presupposes that there is no deity and that there cannot be a deity. Agnosticism waits for the evidence, and doesn't try to say either way which is true.

              Atheism is no more rational and theism.

              1. hplasm

                Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                Sorry, but bollocks.

                If you say that, for instance Santa does not exist, this does not mean that you 'belive' santa does not exist.

                It just means that, as far as you are concerned, there is no Santa.

                Belief does not enter into it. If there are no tomatoes, and, when asked, you say' I believe there are no tomatoes', then there are NO TOMATOES and no amount of coercion will make them appear, just because you used the word 'believe' in the state of tomato existence.

                So with gods. Atheists don't NEED them, so don't care. Agnostics are arse-covering at best.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                  @hplasm

                  Wrong. Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god. They have no evidence. Nor are they open minded enough to allow for the possibility. But they need to believe that there isn't one.

                  And fair enough. That's their shout. I have no problem with that. But it is no more rational than the need to believe that one exists.

                  And yes, you know what, it absolutely is a belief. Short of certain types of mathematical proofs everything in human experience is based on belief. Shit, what you see as the colour "blue" isn't what I see as the colour "blue", but we all believe we know what "blue" looks like.

                  Or, most of us do. Some of us understand the malleability of human perception, but then we not only are talking about a slim minority, but those people also tend to get very meta about their thinking very fast.

                  Humans need belied. Belief is certainty. It doesn't have to be huge. It can be as simple as "I saw Bob at the bagel shop yesterday". Our memory is fallible. It could have been Bob, it could have not been Bob. Unless there's camera footage showing you seeing Bob there's really no reason to be sure you saw Bob...but we can't live every moment of every day with that kind of uncertainty about everything. So we believe we saw Bob. Even those of us who know how flawed human memory is, because these beliefs make life easier.

                  Now, getting on to bigger things - a god, no god, multiple gods - this is one more time all really related to our emotional well being. Some people need to believe in a god for various reasons. Forgiveness, "it's not really my fault", some reason to self-flagellate...who knows? It's different for everyone.

                  Some people need to believe in an afterlife - this is separate from a belief in a god, but usually intertwined. Some people need to believe both aren't possible. Some don't know what do believe and just don't care.

                  But yes, belief is everywhere in the human experience. We need it just to get through our day. Even if someone is agnostic about the existence of a god/gods or not doesn't make them capable of begin agnostic about everything. Similarly, no human has even been found to ardently believe that everything they can't prove doesn't exist.

                  Our sanity is based on our ability to believe. In the small things and sometime in the large.

                  And despite your claims otherwise, coercion can indeed change belief. So true is this that there are multiple sciences dedicated to refining techniques in this regard. All to many of them work shockingly well.

                  So what do you believe? And why? What drives those beliefs? What gave rise to that drive? And what do you require to change your beliefs? When have you changed them in the past?

                  Who are you, and why are you that person? What you strive to be and why? Beliefs are their driving motivations are laced up in all of it. Belief in something. Belief in the absence of something. Belief even in nothing at all.

                  Aren't people interesting?

                  1. hplasm
                    FAIL

                    Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                    "Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god"

                    No- no more than baldness is a belief that hair does not exist. There is no desperation in disinterest.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      "no more than baldness is a belief that hair does not exist. There is no desperation in disinterest"

                      1) Baldness can be empirically proven. The lack of existence of a deity cannot.

                      2) Disinterest in the existence or not of a deity would generally leave open the possibility for either. That's agnosticism. Atheism requires that faith in the non-existence of a deity be employed, as there is no evidence a deity doesn't exist. Mere apathy would be open to any possibility, because there isn't any motivation or requirement to develop a belief one way or another.

                      There may not be desperation in disinterest regarding the existence of a deity, but there absolutely is in asserting the impossibility of same.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                        > 2) Disinterest in the existence or not of a deity would generally leave open the possibility for either. That's agnosticism. Atheism requires that faith in the non-existence of a deity be employed, as there is no evidence a deity doesn't exist. Mere apathy would be open to any possibility, because there isn't any motivation or requirement to develop a belief one way or another.

                        Let's clear up the terminology a bit because I think it is one of the reasons why atheists are held in such poor esteem by many of the religious:

                        1) An atheist has no belief in a theistic god. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, just that the likelihood is low.

                        2) An anti-theist believes that there is no god.

                        3) An agnostic believes that it is impossible to determine one way or the other. So they sit on the fence.

                        --

                        The difference between an anti-theist and an atheist could be seen to be small but belies a fundamentally different perspective. The spectrum of belief of an anti-theist ranges from absolute certainty that something is true to absolute certainty that something is false. The spectrum of belief of an atheist ranges from absolute certainty to absolutely don't know. This is a fundamental distinction and the basis of rationalism. If evidence is the only foundation of positive belief, then absence of any evidence proves absolutely nothing.

                        --

                        The difference between an atheist and an agnostic is more nuanced. Evidence is neither black nor white. We can have tentative beliefs in some things and almost certainty in others based on the quantity and quality of the evidence that we have. We make pronouncements about our beliefs in our daily lives about all sorts of things. The agnostic irrationally makes an entirely different pronouncement about this one issue only. If an agnostic used this position in their daily life they would be constantly falling victim to fraudsters and charlatans left, right and centre.

                        Despite what the agnostic says, there *is* evidence for the existence of a god. For the Christian perspective, there is the bible. For the muslims, there is the Qu'ran. The evidence is very poor through being so old and so contradictory (in the case of the bible at least) and unsupported by anything contemporary. If there was no evidence, then the rational position is "don't know" (and probably don't care). Since there is some evidence, then the rationalist says "I'm very doubtful, but I could be wrong."

                        Either way, without evidence rationalists live their lives as though the position was not true, since this is the reality of living. We must since there is a practical infinity of possibilities for which there is no evidence on any issue.

                    2. Warm Braw

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      no more than baldness is a belief that hair does not exist.

                      I think it depends on whether you shaved your head with Occam's razor...

                  2. Mark 65

                    Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                    @Trevor: Wrong. Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god.

                    There's no desperation at all. There is no magical guiding hand. Religion stems from mankind's inability to explain the world around them in times gone by. Can't explain it? God did it! Most people moved on but some are obviously desperate in their need to believe there is a greater power to explain that which they cannot comprehend. The biggest irony being that the greatest chance you have of ever encountering a magical guiding hand is if you were in the choir or attended a Catholic school - the court records testify to that.

                    1. Bernard M. Orwell

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      "some are obviously desperate in their need to believe there is a greater power to explain that which they cannot comprehend."

                      Or, more often, to excuse what they have done to others.

                      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                        Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                        "Or, more often, to excuse what they have done to others."

                        Well, I've been fortunate in that I have very rarely encountered someone who needed to invoke a deity to excuse their actions. Unfortunately, I've spend a lot of time around Randians who have used their ardent belief in a lack of a deity to excuse their actions.

                        Blaming someone, something or nothing at all for oru own douchebaggery is one human trait that seems to transcend all belief systems.

                        1. Bernard M. Orwell

                          Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                          "I have very rarely encountered someone who needed to invoke a deity to excuse their actions."

                          Not heard of ISIS?

                          One name at the top of a very, very long list.

                  3. Adair Silver badge

                    Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                    @Trevor_Pott - Just want to say you're doing an excellent job here. Good to see someone taking on some of the more thoughtless assumptions about 'rationality' and 'belief', and other aspects of human nature and behaviour, that lead too many folk into at least typing like the the very folk they are raging against - the ignorant fundamentalist bigots, and the greedy power hungry murderers who leave nothing but a trail of destruction and misery in their wake. Yes, we need more of that kind of thing so let's all adopt the same kind of attitudes and behaviours in response; let's be equally prejudiced, ignorant, arrogant, and hate fuelled - you know you want to.

                    'Atheism', in it's popular expression, certainly is a 'belief'.

                    'Rationality', it's an interesting concept, but seldom experienced in the wild as it's not really something human beings are capable of, except in very limited circumstances.

                    A little more loving thoughtfulness and active compassion from all of us when it comes to dealing with our neighbours over life's great questions, mysteries, and realities would save a great deal of grief.

                  4. Joseph Eoff

                    Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                    QUOTE: "Wrong. Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god. They have no evidence. Nor are they open minded enough to allow for the possibility. But they need to believe that there isn't one."

                    Wrong. Atheism is about looking at the evidence for god (or gods or godesses,) and determining that the evidence for them is about as good as the evidence for that invisible pink unicorn you keep in the invisible box in your garage.

                    I don't believe in god ( or gods or goddesses) because the evidence sucks. Since it sucks so bad, I'm don't feel any need to believe it.

                    I don't know if there is a god, but the evidence to date looks like this:

                    1. Lots of people REALLY want to believe in one.

                    2. The evidence that there is one is so poor that belief in anything based on it can only be termed an act of desperation.

                    3. Lots of people believe in lots of different gods ( and goddesses,) and most of these believe that there can only be one true god and/or that people who believe differently are wrong or deluded.

                    With those points taken together, I can only come to the conclusion that all people who believe in god are wrong or deluded.

                    1. Adair Silver badge

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      @ Joseph Eoff - ' I can only come to the conclusion that all people who believe in god are wrong or deluded'.

                      Can you also come to the conclusion that your conclusion, on the basis of the available evidence, is not the only possibility?

                      Drawing conclusions on the basis of sweeping generalisations and assumptions is always a recipe for embarrassing results.

                      1. Joseph Eoff

                        Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                        Certainly I could be wrong. The chances are MUCH higher, though, that all the believers are wrong.

                        Given the number of different belief systems that all claim to be the one and only absolute truth, nearly all of those systems have to be wrong. Given the impossibility of finding the only one that is the absolute truth, the only reasonable thing to do is to reject them all until undeniable, repeatable, irrefutable facts prove one to be correct.

                        I'm not holding my breath while I wait for that proof.

                    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      "With those points taken together, I can only come to the conclusion that all people who believe in god are wrong or deluded."

                      Funny, I think the same thing. There's no evidence for a deity or deities and those who think that one or more exist are very bad at science. That doesn't make me an Atheist, as I also believe that anyone who looks at the evidence and concludes that there must not be a deity is equally as cracked.

                      Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science taught me that. History confirmed it. An open mind is a rare and valuable thing.

                      1. NP-HARD
                        Facepalm

                        Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                        Great that you learned a useful rule of thumb. Here's some others.

                        - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

                        - Hitchen's razor

                        - Falsifiablility principle.

                        Consult these before equating religious belief with scientific theory.

                  5. alex870

                    Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                    Trevor_Pott:

                    >Atheism is about a desperate need to believe there is no god. They have no evidence.

                    Evidence to prove a negative? I trust you see the fallacy of that position.

                    I have a hard time accepting fantastically large claims without a shred of evidence. And further, where a large number of these fantastic claims are now provably false with scientific advancement. Want to bet that more religious claims of divine truth will not be debunked in due time?

                    I presume a minority of people have a pathological need to disbelieve, basically as contrarians. But the test for that is easy: these people would still not believe if shown scientifically rigorous evidence. This does not seem to be the majority position of Atheists, as you seem to think.

                    When you examine believers, there is commonly an emotional hook that compels them to believe. This is why they are impervious to rational discourse. Their decision to believe is not a rational one, but emotional.

                    Note that the reverse cannot be said (without ridicule). It is completely rational not to believe something that has no evidence.

                    Finally, my fraud detector goes off when people are selling an invisible product. No one is going to come back from the dead and say what it's really like. But, if you can remember what it was like before you were born, it'll probably be a lot like that.

                    Hey, do you remember how things changed in the middle ages? Neither do I.

                    1. John G Imrie

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      May I add, at the bottom of this long and winding thread: Russell's teapot

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

                    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                      "Evidence to prove a negative? I trust you see the fallacy of that position."

                      Of course I do. That's why belief that something does not and can not exist is completely idiotic. You cannot prove a negative and thus you must always remain open to the possibility of anything's existence.

                      The only thing I said about probability was that it was perfectly rational to believe that the probability of there being a deity was infinitesimal, but that it is absolutely not rational to believe that the possibility of there being a deity is zero.

                      What I have been attempting to shine a light on is the very binary thinking that the self-aggrandizing "rational thinkers" club of inaccurate "Atheists" is in fact limited and more often than not just plain wrong. Many claim science as their inspiration but are so closed minded that they cannot see they have created a belief system of absolutes every bit as mentally constraining as the faiths they simplify, bulk categorize and deride.

                      "When you examine believers, there is commonly an emotional hook that compels them to believe. This is why they are impervious to rational discourse. Their decision to believe is not a rational one, but emotional."

                      Funnily enough, this very same process describes the majority of "Atheists" I've had the misfortune of interacting with as well. Most self describe as atheists entirely as an emotional reaction to religion. They hate religion, and so they have a strong emotional need to define their belief systems as a lack of belief in a deity. It isn't about science. It is about rejecting religion. The minds of these very emotional Atheists are just as closed as the religious fuzzy wuzzies.

                      Of course, not all Atheists are such, just as not all religious believers are closed minded either. That is the point: the neat little containers and labels we like don't apply. People are variegated.

                      And the ease with which the self-described atheists in this thread rose to the bait I provided proves the very point I sought to make.

                2. lorisarvendu

                  Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                  If you say that, for instance Santa does not exist, this does not mean that you 'belive' santa does not exist.

                  It just means that, as far as you are concerned, there is no Santa.

                  ...

                  So with gods. Atheists don't NEED them, so don't care. Agnostics are arse-covering at best.

                  Thanks for that. You've kind of encapsulated the way I think there. I kind of fell into atheism through Science over a number of years, and it has been difficult (especially recently) to explain when asked what I believe and why I believe it.

                  Up until about age 14 I attended church with my parents (I'm in the UK) but found it increasingly difficult to reconcile what the Church of England said with what Science and my own personal morality was telling me. As I learned more about such subjects as cosmology, palaeontology, evolutionary theory, natural selection, geology, I suppose you could say that the available area inhabited by a "God" got pushed further and further back. Until I realised about 20 years ago that a Creator Deity had become completely irrelevent to me. Since I was keeping up with current scientific theory that extended back as far as the creation of the universe, there simply was no room for a God anymore. So in essence I was now an atheist. Unfortunately in recent years that has become an incredibly emotive label, such that I am often assumed to be some kind of aggressive follower of Richard Dawkins. I much prefer to say that I'm not religious and don't believe in God, rather than use the dreaded "A" word. I have morality, passed onto me from my parents (who of course were religious), but appear to have successfully instilled that morality in my children without the need to refer to any religious doctrine.

                  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                    Re: Re:Atheism is no more rational and theism.

                    "I have morality, passed onto me from my parents (who of course were religious), but appear to have successfully instilled that morality in my children without the need to refer to any religious doctrine."

                    Other than the bleating of the religiously privileged, I don't think most people presume that morality must by nature descend from religion. Plenty of agnostics and atheists out there who develop fine morals without religion. Plenty of religious folks who develop fine morals too.

                    And plenty of really ****ed up people who develop ****ed up morality (or no discernible morality) whilst being religious, agnostic or atheist.

                    I think that's a really important point to bring up. The separation of morality from the belief in a god/gods/lack thereof/waiting-on-evidence-either-way/etc. The questions of faith and morality really don't have anything to do with one another. Which is something that everyone who gets emotionally invested in these sorts of debates seems to forget.

                    Also: worth noting...

                    Belief in a deity or belief that a deity cannot exist is not really related to a need for a deity. I don't really believe in a deity (at least not in any way that any modern religion would recognize.) I believe one could exist, but this has no real world influence on my life.

                    Given the strength that faith (either in a deity existing or in one absolutely for sure not existing) has given some, I feel that i could use some faith, one way or another. I'm just too skeptical to believe in either possibility.

                    Similarly, I know plenty of people who believe in a deity who don't seem to need one. They just accept the existence of a deity like they do the existence of air or gravity. It has no effect or impact on them.

                    There's too much baggage in the theological packaging of deism. Most of us can't unpick one element from another because we, as humans, like to categorize and make everything into these nice neat little packages. If A, then B, C, D, E and F. Not always so. Or even mostly so.

                    But the most predominant portrayals get the mindshare.

              2. r_c_a_d

                Agnostics are atheists who don't want to upset their religious parents.

              3. beep54

                "Atheism is the belief that there is no god (or gods) and cannot be. If you accept that there might be then you aren't an athist. You're an agnostic. Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent belief in nothing."

                Ah, Trevor....you were doing so well up to this point. You seem to have a belief that "[a]theism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent belief in nothing." Sigh. Look at the formation of the words. One is pretty much non-theism and the other non-mystical (gnostic). They really are not mutually exclusive.

                While I am here, (as an atheist/agnostic) I would like to recommend to all two books by Karen Armstrong, a former nun. One is 'A History of God' and the other 'The Battle for God'. The first outlines how humans have perceived the concept of God throughout the ages and lays the foundation for the second book where she tries to understand the rise of fundamentalism. Both books pretty much limit the discussion to the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The books are about 20 and 15 years old now (respectively), but still very timely.

                1. This post has been deleted by its author

            2. Schultz
              Boffin

              skelband: "Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief."

              I disagree: It is completely rational to believe only in things that can be perceived or or measured. To agnostically wait for evidence for God (or the flying spaghetti monster) can be rationalized, but is not more rational than being atheist.

              Upvote me if you agree.

              Leave it to the almighty if you disagree ;).

              1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                Re: skelband: "Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief."

                @Schultz: and I must disagree with you. It is not rational to believe that just because something has not been measured yet that it cannot or will not be. In fact, there's all sorts of evidence in the history of scientific discovery that says exactly this attitude is destructive. (For one thing, it has lead to the "science progresses funeral by funeral" problem.)

                We'll leave perception out of the debate as we would then have to bear in mind how many people perceive some deity or another. And we'd have to examine the validity (or invalidity) of human perception.

                It is far more rational to approach the unknown with an open mind than a closed one. We have no proof that there is a god. We have no proof that there isn't. So the possibility exists of either being true.

                Do not conflate possibility with probability. It is rational to have lots of debates about the probability of the existence of a deity. But "it doesn't exist because it has not yet been measured"? That's faith. No different from any religion.

                1. Bernard M. Orwell

                  Re: skelband: "Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief."

                  "We have no proof that there is a god. We have no proof that there isn't. So the possibility exists of either being true."

                  Schroedingers Deity?

                  If there is a god, then he is guilty of crimes against humanity and is almost certainly in hiding, or at war with all the other ones. Either way, I'd like a word with him....

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "Atheism, BTW, is not a rational belief. Agnosticism is rational. Atheism is the belief that there can not be a deity of any variety. Agnosticism waits on the evidence, one way or another."

            The difference isn't that important. The scientific approach is put everything on the 0.0 list until evidence moves it to the 99.999999 list.

            The 0.5 list is for the frontiers of science, such as dark matter. We have a dark matter shaped hole in our understanding of the university. We don't even have a god shaped hole, so it goes on the 0.0 list with all other paranormal activity.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              "The difference isn't that important. The scientific approach is put everything on the 0.0 list until evidence moves it to the 99.999999 list."

              No, that's not science. That's a religion based around science.

              Science is a process and doesn't contain a judgment - implicit or explicit - about what should or should not be investigated, questioned, considered or believed.

              Individuals make their own choices about what to believe based on some of the results of science. That is belief, not matter which sets of evidence that individual chooses to prioritize. The "scientific approach" doesn't exist. There is no such there. There are merely procedures that can help with gathering evidence.

              Everything else is scientific consensus. You choose to believe in some, all or none of the various scientific consensuses, but your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence on various topics is still a belief.

              And, statistically speaking, your individual collection of choices regarding the scientific evidence available is probably wrong. Now, as to the evidence for your choices in belief likely being wrong, well...let's ask science...

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like