The God Delusion

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by LordShiva
(He's like Dawkins that way)

(I don't actually know much about Dawkins, except that my brother quotes him a lot, and I don't like my brother, so I'll agree with you.)

[Jon Miller]

Christianity makes 3 claims.. 2 aren't worthwhile as a 'test'.

One is that God will bless you, that He will answer you.

This is what most people 'test', and where they come up with Christianity lacking..

But the Bible says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, and that He answers in His own time/way. So basically, this claim isn't something that can be easily tested against...

Another is that He is preparing a place for His people (basically, the afterlife).

This one is a bit long term, hmm? While it is reasonable to spend your life on a 'test', it isn't what most people are looking for when they say they want to 'test' something.

The third claim of Christianity is that as you follow Christ, as you become closer to him, you become changed. This is real, this current, this is something that can be 'tested' if you are so inclined.

Note that this is why Christians say that people like Phelp's isn't a Christian. Phelps seems to show fruits (or results) that aren't congruent with what we are told Christians will behave.

JM

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Spec
If you beleive in god, then no, I'm not on your side.

Spec.

I might start believing in God just so this conclusion becomes true.

[SlowwHand]

I'm not the one that needs to be advising on this matter.
Whether I make it through the Gates is yet to be seen. My main hope is that God has a sense of humor and grades on a curve.

It's a matter of faith. Good luck.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Christianity makes 3 claims.. 2 aren't worthwhile as a 'test'.

One is that God will bless you, that He will answer you.

Did he ever? Seriously...

But the Bible says that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, and that He answers in His own time/way. So basically, this claim isn't something that can be easily tested against...

So he's eggotistical...

Another is that He is preparing a place for His people (basically, the afterlife).

Why prepare a place if there's reincarnation...doesn't make any sense to me.

The third claim of Christianity is that as you follow Christ, as you become closer to him, you become changed. This is real, this current, this is something that can be 'tested' if you are so inclined.

How do you become closer to him if you dont see or hear him...Imo, that's just crawling in the dark...hoping...with no hope.

Spec.

[ajbera]

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I have to argue against Whaleboy's assertion that agnosticism is only a valid stance if the chances of the existence or non-existence of God(s) is 50/50.

Since this is so close to the Schroedinger's Cat concept, I'm actually gonna use that for a while.

For those who have been locked in a closet for the last two decades, Schroedinger's Cat postulates a cat locked from view in a box with a radioactive material that has an exactly 50% chance of emitting a particle that will kill the cat. When the box is closed, is the cat alive or dead? Since the chance of either is 50/50, the cat is logically both (or neither) alive and dead. The chances of one state are equal to the other, so nobody can reasonably assert one state over the other.

But, if we enclose the cat with a different particle, one that has a 50.001% chance of decaying an emitting the particle, the odds are slightly greater that the cat is dead than alive.

Under these circumstances, by Whaleboy's reasoning, one should state with absolute, unequivocal certitude that the cat is dead.

I can't help but feel this is absurd, since in 49.999% of cases, this statement would be incorrect.

If we pop in a different particle, one with a 99.999% chance of decay, we can say that the cat is probably dead, very very probably dead, in all likelihood dead, if I had to bet my life on it I wouldn't really hesitate to say "Yeah, it's dead." But it would not be an absolute certainty.

My agnosticism (and, I suspect, that of my fellow agnostics) stems from similar reasoning. My indecision is not perfectly grey, not 50/50 for or against the existence of God. Mine is actually almost black, 99.999...% against the existence of God (at least a deity who made the universe, judges us, all that crap.) It's almost enough for me to be an atheist, but I'm humble enough to recognize that there's so much we still don't know that it's pretty arrogant to make such an absolute decision. If I had to make a choice, I would say there's no God. But because I don't have to make a choice, because it's really a philosophical exercise and topic of discussion (and argument) rather than a bedrock principle of my life, I'm fine with remaining uncommitted and leaving room for doubt. And I'm fine with the scorn and disdain I receive from those disgusted with my decision to remain uncommitted. I don't live my life for anyone's approval.

I guess I just recognize that data for assessing a situation will always be coming, so there should always be room for changing one's mind and readily admitting that you've been wrong. I think this is a necessary trait for scientists and reasonable folks to have.

It should also be obvious that I lack faith, that property that makes one completely believe in that which is not testable or provable.

[Lorizael]

Did you know that dinosaurs were actually just a collection of connected bones that laid in the earth and that believing in them is akin to singing a Hoobastank song?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Dinosaur bones are a prank perpetrated on us by the same aliens who do crop circles today.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by ajbera
I'm coming late to this discussion, but I have to argue against Whaleboy's assertion that agnosticism is only a valid stance if the chances of the existence or non-existence of God(s) is 50/50.

Since this is so close to the Schroedinger's Cat concept, I'm actually gonna use that for a while.

For those who have been locked in a closet for the last two decades, Schroedinger's Cat postulates a cat locked from view in a box with a radioactive material that has an exactly 50% chance of emitting a particle that will kill the cat. When the box is closed, is the cat alive or dead? Since the chance of either is 50/50, the cat is logically both (or neither) alive and dead. The chances of one state are equal to the other, so nobody can reasonably assert one state over the other.

But, if we enclose the cat with a different particle, one that has a 50.001% chance of decaying an emitting the particle, the odds are slightly greater that the cat is dead than alive.

Under these circumstances, by Whaleboy's reasoning, one should state with absolute, unequivocal certitude that the cat is dead.

I can't help but feel this is absurd, since in 49.999% of cases, this statement would be incorrect.

If we pop in a different particle, one with a 99.999% chance of decay, we can say that the cat is probably dead, very very probably dead, in all likelihood dead, if I had to bet my life on it I wouldn't really hesitate to say "Yeah, it's dead." But it would not be an absolute certainty.

My agnosticism (and, I suspect, that of my fellow agnostics) stems from similar reasoning. My indecision is not perfectly grey, not 50/50 for or against the existence of God. Mine is actually almost black, 99.999...% against the existence of God (at least a deity who made the universe, judges us, all that crap.) It's almost enough for me to be an atheist, but I'm humble enough to recognize that there's so much we still don't know that it's pretty arrogant to make such an absolute decision. If I had to make a choice, I would say there's no God. But because I don't have to make a choice, because it's really a philosophical exercise and topic of discussion (and argument) rather than a bedrock principle of my life, I'm fine with remaining uncommitted and leaving room for doubt. And I'm fine with the scorn and disdain I receive from those disgusted with my decision to remain uncommitted. I don't live my life for anyone's approval.

I guess I just recognize that data for assessing a situation will always be coming, so there should always be room for changing one's mind and readily admitting that you've been wrong. I think this is a necessary trait for scientists and reasonable folks to have.

It should also be obvious that I lack faith, that property that makes one completely believe in that which is not testable or provable.

Good post.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Did you know that dinosaurs were actually just a collection of connected bones that laid in the earth and that believing in them is akin to singing a Hoobastank song?

That doesn't make any sense.

Try again.

I'm being serious here, try doind the same please and make me understand your point, how you can beleive in something that was created to answer un-answerable question (thus making up answers) and to control an uneducated population to have them do what you want.

Like why Jews dont eat pork...

Spec.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Spec
That doesn't make any sense.

Try again.

I'm being serious here, try doind the same please and make me understand your point, how you can beleive in something that was created to answer un-answerable question (thus making up answers) and to control an uneducated population to have them do what you want.

The point is, many things aren't "provable," including dinosaurs - their existence is merely "suggested" by fossil evidence. Indeed, if I were a strong-form sceptic, I'd ask you how you can "prove" that what you see and hear and touch is really "true?"

For the record, I'm a physicist and philosopher by education, and an atheist as well.

[Lorizael]

I'm just disappointed that no one laughed at my inane Hoobastank reference.

[LordShiva]

I blame cultural differences.

[Lorizael]

Here you go, my innocently ignorant Indian friend.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by ajbera
I'm coming late to this discussion, but I have to argue against Whaleboy's assertion that agnosticism is only a valid stance if the chances of the existence or non-existence of God(s) is 50/50.

Since this is so close to the Schroedinger's Cat concept, I'm actually gonna use that for a while.

For those who have been locked in a closet for the last two decades, Schroedinger's Cat postulates a cat locked from view in a box with a radioactive material that has an exactly 50% chance of emitting a particle that will kill the cat. When the box is closed, is the cat alive or dead? Since the chance of either is 50/50, the cat is logically both (or neither) alive and dead. The chances of one state are equal to the other, so nobody can reasonably assert one state over the other.

But, if we enclose the cat with a different particle, one that has a 50.001% chance of decaying an emitting the particle, the odds are slightly greater that the cat is dead than alive.

Under these circumstances, by Whaleboy's reasoning, one should state with absolute, unequivocal certitude that the cat is dead.

I can't help but feel this is absurd, since in 49.999% of cases, this statement would be incorrect.

If we pop in a different particle, one with a 99.999% chance of decay, we can say that the cat is probably dead, very very probably dead, in all likelihood dead, if I had to bet my life on it I wouldn't really hesitate to say "Yeah, it's dead." But it would not be an absolute certainty.

My agnosticism (and, I suspect, that of my fellow agnostics) stems from similar reasoning. My indecision is not perfectly grey, not 50/50 for or against the existence of God. Mine is actually almost black, 99.999...% against the existence of God (at least a deity who made the universe, judges us, all that crap.) It's almost enough for me to be an atheist, but I'm humble enough to recognize that there's so much we still don't know that it's pretty arrogant to make such an absolute decision. If I had to make a choice, I would say there's no God. But because I don't have to make a choice, because it's really a philosophical exercise and topic of discussion (and argument) rather than a bedrock principle of my life, I'm fine with remaining uncommitted and leaving room for doubt. And I'm fine with the scorn and disdain I receive from those disgusted with my decision to remain uncommitted. I don't live my life for anyone's approval.

I guess I just recognize that data for assessing a situation will always be coming, so there should always be room for changing one's mind and readily admitting that you've been wrong. I think this is a necessary trait for scientists and reasonable folks to have.

It should also be obvious that I lack faith, that property that makes one completely believe in that which is not testable or provable.

But the fact is, what do you think the probability is? Far less than things most people would dismiss in the blink of an eyelid...