The God Delusion

[Arrian]

[BeBMan]

[Dauphin]

I believe in a creator. It's not a question of faith per se, it's like elegance of a beautifully simple theory that has not been proven. The concept of a creator feels right to me, and that's all. It doesn't guide my life. In fact it no more effects my life than my belief in the existance of alien life somewhere else in our universe - I don't see how it can't exist but I certainly can't prove it does.

Organised religion on the other hand. ughhh.

[Last Conformist]

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.

While at it, I'd like Jon Miller to either retract his claim the odds are 50/50, or offer a real argument for it.

[Dis]

I find religious people are happier than athiests. Sure they are believing lies. But so what?

Isn't happiness the most important thing?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Dis
I find religious people are happier than athiests. Sure they are believing lies. But so what?

Isn't happiness the most important thing?

A recent study found that Christians are (in Sweden) fatter than unbelievers.

Isn't looks the important thing?

[Whaleboy]

Yes, and I have showed it numerous times. There has been no evidence (either way) provided by you or anyone else on this subject. So, yes, my scientifically challenged freind, it is 50/50 right now.

Where? Where have you showed it numerous times, or am I missing something here?

No evidence either way? See post #75.

Which would be OK if he actually understood what its logical underpinnings entail, but he doesn't. He paints a very simplistic view of religion, thereby saying that all people of faith are simpletons.

To the point where he doesn't really delve into the beginnings of religion, I would agree. The man is a biologist, so it would not be his home territory to examine the history of the God myth. He's perfectly able to refute it, perhaps not so able to explain it. I do not believe he describes people of faith as simpletons; one could only say that atheism perhaps requires more thought; but that only describes the rigours of the position in this day and age, not necessarily the people who believe in them.

Umm, please think abou tthe context of my post. The statement I was disputing is that Biology is more gounded than Physics (made by yourself).

Sorry, I took "grounded" to mean how "grounded" in scientific method, not how close a particular field was to quantum mechanics and cosmology.

Wait, how the deuce do you determine 50/50 odds for the existence/nonexistence of God? Earlier in this thread you just made some arguments for atheism and seemed to guesstimate based on them that the odds were 50/50 for some reason.

Not at all. My point against agnosticism is that I do not believe the odds to be 50/50. I consider the odds against god's existence to be much greater than the odds against gods non-existence.

Whaleboy maintains that he has evidence against. How any evidence for or against would change the region of probability isn't even relevant yet (although a good question).

Sorry please explain? You're saying that evidence for/against changing the probability is not relevant? Do I read you correctly? Temporary agnosticism relies on the assumption of 50/50 god/no-God, so as soon as you skew those odds, atheism or theism depending on the direction becomes the most rational position.

Hard-core atheists bog themselves down in intellectual arguments against God because it makes them feel superior. The evidence of this is all thoughout this thread. Same goes for hard-core religous types.

Because it makes them feel superior? What?#

Sez who?

God: "I'm infintely powerful, infinitely wise and knowledgeable. I've existed since before the beginning of time and will exist after time ends"

Man: "So, it's fairly safe to say that nothing could possibly have come before you; you couldn't have evolved from anything, is that right?"

God: "Yep."

Adam and Even were first humans created. What about before? Might not that be the "evolution" ?

Not at all, natural selection does not define a purpose or an end objective; it merely allows the most effective gene in a given environment to survive in that environment, so individuals become better adapted.

I would recommend that you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins if you're interested in natural selection and how it works.

I started a thread about atheists vs. agnostics long ago and pointed out that at least atheists had the FAITH to believe as they do, while angostics have no balls, afraid to commit either way.

Can't hedge your bet. Sorry.

Lorizael

You have to have faith. Without faith, you've lost.

What's wrong with faith in your friends, family and self? They've done a hell of a lot more for me than some myth, and I *know* with my heart and mind that I can count on them. Call it love if you will, I'm not going to start worshipping my friends but a life devoid of faith in God does not mean that you're lost.

You aren't very intellectually curious, are you?

If you spend as much time making good points that you're certainly very capable of doing, as opposed to getting defensive and anal about how other people are less scientifically learned or less intellectually curious than you, there would be few who wouldn't consider you a valued contributor to any debate.

Seems if the catholics are willing to enter into that level of debate expecting that the logical arguments will only strengthen one's faith how dangerous can the likes of a Whaleboy book recommendation be?

I don't think that you could say "offering a book" is like evangelising. If I wanted to evangelise, I'd not ask the question and walk my family through the book until they agree with me. If I wanted to evangelise, I wouldn't post to ask if "offering the book" was acceptable.

[Whaleboy]

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

Not at all... but if you know that cat had cancer and an intolerance to enclosed spaces, you'd weigh the odds slightly differently. Atheism, as a scientific position, is not a binary "yes/no". Any scientific position cannot be absolute, and so, you have degrees of atheism. If you reason that the existence of God is 11/3 against, then you might say "well, there might be a God but on the balance of evidence, I would conclude that atheism is more rational". Similarly, if the odds were stacked the other way, you'd choose theism.

So, it boils down to the evidence itself. In my view, the intelligent design hypothesis is sufficient to show that God almost certainly doesn't exist, because if a non-evolved being did create life, then it must be extraordinarily more complex than life itself, and so fantastically improbable that we therefore have the odds against the existence of God. Compare that with the odds of the validity of natural selection.

This assumes the Abrahamic god who created life.

[ajbera]

You seem to be saying "Odds are, God doesn't exist, but I could possibly be wrong" instead of "God definitely doesn't exist."

It depends, I suppose, on your definition of atheism (arguments regarding which this board has seen before.) I consider atheism to be a definite belief in the non-existence of God, and theism is the definite belief in the existence of God. When you say "Probably, but not certainly" you're entering agnostic territory.

Sloww is a theist. He has no doubt. Similarly, an atheist has no doubts about his position, either. An agnostic entertains doubts, even though he may lean strongly one way or another (as I do, towards atheism.)

Others will define atheism simply as "no faith in God", whether that's definite belief in non-existence, or anything less than definite belief in existence.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
So, it boils down to the evidence itself. In my view, the intelligent design hypothesis is sufficient to show that God almost certainly doesn't exist, because if a non-evolved being did create life, then it must be extraordinarily more complex than life itself, and so fantastically improbable that we therefore have the odds against the existence of God. Compare that with the odds of the validity of natural selection.

How do you determine the odds of a being extraordinarily more complex than life existing? I mean, if something like the Abrahamitic god does exist, he presumably didn't arise out of the random combination of discrete parts like some cretinist's strawman of abiogenesis.


As regards ajberra's post, I call myself an "atheist", but I don't claim to know with absolute certainty that gods do not exist anymore than I claim to know with absolute certainty that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I take the word to indicate no more than an absence of belief in gods.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

A recent study found that Christians are (in Sweden) fatter than unbelievers.

Isn't looks the important thing?

fat, dumb, and happy as the expression goes.

fat and dumb people are the happiest. ignorance is bliss.

For us more intellectual types we cannot accept this kind of philosophy. We choose not to believe lies and we attempt to find truth in everything.

But not everyone is like us, and I see no reason to force them to think like us.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Dis


fat, dumb, and happy as the expression goes.

fat and dumb people are the happiest. ignorance is bliss.

For us more intellectual types we cannot accept this kind of philosophy. We choose not to believe lies and we attempt to find truth in everything.

But not everyone is like us, and I see no reason to force them to think like us.

I dare say most fat, dumb people around here a unbelievers.

And fat people are statistically less happy than slim people.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Lorizael

I must say I'm quite flattered that you decided to quote my screenname in the middle of your post, but I'm having some trouble trying to figure out why you did so.

[Elok]

Whaleboy, I'm asking you WTF probability has to do with this in the first place. Perhaps you're using the word in some sense I'm not familiar with, but when I hear probability I generally think of something along the lines of "the chance of any one outcome among the set of all possible outcomes occuring." As in, the probability of a standard die coming up three is 1/6, assuming the die is fair and we rule out freak occurences like the die landing on an edge. There's a set number of possible outcomes, we know the odds of each, therefore we can say that the odds of [X] occuring is [Y].

Now, how on earth do you extend this principle to the existence of deities/lack thereof? Have you taken a survey of several hundred alternate universes, counted how many of them were created by supernatural beings, and so obtained a reasonable guess? Or did you just compile every theory of the origins of the universe, assume one of them must be right, and just compare the number of religious to secular explanations?

Or (as I unhappily suspect) are you just applying your heuristic for prosaic situations to a concept where it would quite obviously be inapplicable, and calling it probability? "In all explorations of the natural world, we have not encountered a omnipresent, time-transcending, omniscient being. So it's safe to say they don't exist on a higher level either." That seems to be your gist.

But that is not probability, dammit. It's not even logical. Cease and desist or I will put you on my "big list o' philosophers deserving a world of pain for their abuse of language," right next to its current sole occupant, Parmenides of Elea.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Elok
" right next to its current sole occupant, Parmenides of Elea.

Looking about him on Google, he seems to be a respectable man? You really talk about Parmenides of Elea from 5thBC.