Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I am not saying I am right.  I'm just saying that a theory with no evidence is just as likely as any other theory without evidence - vanishing small.  Heck, it's equally likely that there's an Anti-God who would send you to heaven when the Christian God would send you to hell and vice versa.  Legolord, however, is demanding that I see his ideas as equally valid, or a sortof 50-50 split between atheism and theism.  It just isn't like that.

[Pjoo]

I am not saying I am right.  I'm just saying that a theory with no evidence is just as likely as any other theory without evidence - vanishing small.  Heck, it's equally likely that there's an Anti-God who would send you to heaven when the Christian God would send you to hell and vice versa.  Legolord, however, is demanding that I see his ideas as equally valid, or a sortof 50-50 split between atheism and theism.  It just isn't like that.

"To claim as a fact that there is no truth behind these myths, however small, and tell everyone else to say the same or else they are unrealistic and sheltered is rather arrogant.  You don't have to believe there might be something to it, but you can't say for fact that there is nothing, because you can't prove a negative.  It is the assumption of fact that offends me."

Other point, I think you have problem with binary. God either exist or it doesn't. Opinion does not have effect on it. Likewise, Anti-God either exists or doesn't, again, independent on your opinion. Now, you see both to be as likely to exist, but that has no effect on the truth value of existence of God. And I think it's pretty clear that theist thinks existence of God is more likely than existence of Russel's teacup. And yes, there are reasons to think something without evidence is more likely to exist than somehting else without evidence, even though those might not convince you.

[Andir]

What?  "It's kinda old" and "Somebody wrote it"?  Why?  Why do people 5000 years ago, living in massive ignorance compared to ourselves, have more valuable insights than we do?

If you believe that, you must believe the Greek God theory as well... because for all accounts it's much older than the Christian belief.  Gods have been around for thousands upon thousands of years.  Some people even claim that the "God" we know of today could be based on the Egyptian Ra.  So how do you sift through all the stories tacked onto religion and filter out what it truly is that "God" wants?  Do you include the Inca/Myan beliefs in this as well?  human sacrifice and all that?  Just because it's old, doesn't make it any more true.  (also referring to: Harry Potter world debunk stated earlier)

Regarding insight... I'd love to compare the history of religious uprising with this.  I'm willing to bet that people were more insightful when they were thinking about possibilities rather than following a religion.  (ie:  I'll bet that Plato, Socrates, and the rest of the well known "insightfuls" were near the end or during a tumult of religious ideology.)

[Pjoo]

Regarding insight... I'd love to compare the history of religious uprising with this.  I'm willing to bet that people were more insightful when they were thinking about possibilities rather than following a religion.  (ie:  I'll bet that Plato, Socrates, and the rest of the well known "insightfuls" were near the end or during a tumult of religious ideology.)

Or like Pythagoras who considered mathemathics to be religion, and how telling people about irrational value for square's diameter was punishable by death?

[redacted123]

You mean the square route of two? Didn't he kill some mathematician who pointed that out on some party boat in order to maintain his mathematics superiority?

[EDIT] square route of two, not one.

[Reasonableman]

I firmly believe that religion is a fantastic way of getting people ticked off at one another.

[Leafsnail]

Other point, I think you have problem with binary. God either exist or it doesn't. Opinion does not have effect on it. Likewise, Anti-God either exists or doesn't, again, independent on your opinion. Now, you see both to be as likely to exist, but that has no effect on the truth value of existence of God. And I think it's pretty clear that theist thinks existence of God is more likely than existence of Russel's teacup. And yes, there are reasons to think something without evidence is more likely to exist than somehting else without evidence, even though those might not convince you.

And you neatly side step the question: What makes God more likely to exist than the Teapot, unicorns or Anti-God?

Or like Pythagoras who considered mathemathics to be religion, and how telling people about irrational value for square's diameter was punishable by death?

And thus he stifled a very important area of geometry through ridiculous dogma.  He did do some great things, but his "religious" values stifled a lot of valuable work.

You mean the square route of one? Didn't he kill some mathematician who pointed that out on some party boat in order to maintain his mathematics superiority?

Square route of 1 is 1.  He wouldn't have minded.  The square in question had a diagonal length of route 2.  This number cannot be written as a fraction, and thus he denied its existance.  The story about him drowning the other mathematician may or may not be true, but he did take his numbers pretty seriously.

[Fishersalwaysdie]

I firmly believe that religion is a fantastic way of getting people ticked off at one another.

Belonging to group of any kind will provoke a conflict with members of some other group, if there are no other groups, people will create new groups for sake of conflict.
Conflict is simply a key part of reality, you cannot remove it or ignore it. Embrace it.

[redacted123]

You mean the square route of one? Didn't he kill some mathematician who pointed that out on some party boat in order to maintain his mathematics superiority?

Square route of 1 is 1.  He wouldn't have minded.  The square in question had a diagonal length of route 2.  This number cannot be written as a fraction, and thus he denied its existance.  The story about him drowning the other mathematician may or may not be true, but he did take his numbers pretty seriously.

Sorry, that was stupid of me, edited.

[Pjoo]

Other point, I think you have problem with binary. God either exist or it doesn't. Opinion does not have effect on it. Likewise, Anti-God either exists or doesn't, again, independent on your opinion. Now, you see both to be as likely to exist, but that has no effect on the truth value of existence of God. And I think it's pretty clear that theist thinks existence of God is more likely than existence of Russel's teacup. And yes, there are reasons to think something without evidence is more likely to exist than somehting else without evidence, even though those might not convince you.

And you neatly side step the question: What makes God more likely to exist than the Teapot, unicorns or Anti-God?

What makes me think God is more likely to exist than the Teapot, unicorns or Anti-God? Well, I don't think it really is, but euhm... giving likelihood for something to existing is subjective thing, while it actually existing is independent of opinion. A measurement of a state of knowledge for personal belief doesn't require evidence. It's subjective, but how you feel and what you believe in, is a fact.
And yeah, we can debate few months on what contributes as justifications for belief, but I don't think we will reach an agreement. For example, it doesn't matter if you do not believe authority argument(3 billion christians thingy), if someone else feels it makes things more believeable.

[Leafsnail]

Um, it does matter, actually.  I suppose you could move the linguistic goalposts and say that "It's likely to me because is it" but that's not really answering the question.

[Pjoo]

Um, it does matter, actually.  I suppose you could move the linguistic goalposts and say that "It's likely to me because is it" but that's not really answering the question.

Ok, lets assume stuff.

I feel that it is impossible matter has always existed or that big bang would've just happened, thus I feel almost completely sure there has to be God.
Or I believe in immortal spirit because there is no way explaining with materialistic view the free will.

Or something. And it really doesn't matter if you do not agree with my premises. If I feel that way, it makes God more likely to exist in my opinion than pink duck in Mars, thus justifying me believing in God instead of mentioned pink duck. It doesn't even have to be consciouss. I can just feel God is more likely than pink duck due to some subconsciouss reason.

Arguing from this point feels kinda dumb.

[Leafsnail]

But under that logic any action/ thought is rational and correct, since you must've wanted to do that action/ have that thought.

[Ampersand]

Free will can be explained materialistically by the quantum behavior of individual subatomic particles in every neuron in your brain.

If you declare that the universe requires a cause because everything requires a cause, all you're doing is creating an entity that requires no cause to cause everything. But if everything requires a cause, so does the entity that caused everything, right?

[Pjoo]

But under that logic any action/ thought is rational and correct, since you must've wanted to do that action/ have that thought.

No, but every belief you actually believe is most of the time rational and correct, if you define it as something maybe existing(and I don't think there has been that many absolutes on God existing) It's rational to assume God can exist, unless God is logically impossible, which hasn't and cannot be proven, depending on definition.
And umm... It's still a reason to believe in God instead of Anti-God, if argument for God just feels more credible, due to like... say, 3 billion worshippers. And then you can just choose to believe in it, if you like believing in stuff without evidence. And I just have hard time imagining how can you know which one is God and which one is Anti-God

Free will can be explained materialistically by the quantum behavior of individual subatomic particles in every neuron in your brain.

Doesn't still explain how you can affect the quantum behaviour with something that isn't caused by those neurons, if your consciousness and mind is created by those neurons n stuff.

But if everything requires a cause, so does the entity that caused everything, right?

Maybe my God can violate laws of causality? I don't know, don't ask me, it was just an example.