[billw55]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-08, 11:17, said:

Yes, so, how are the non-church-members who are not atheists benefitting from the money the state is giving to the church?

Perhaps because it combats poverty, which is bad for society in general.

Does it do so as well as government operated, non church affiliated programs? A hard question to answer, but I have no great faith in the efficiency of government.

[Cyberyeti]

 billw55, on 2013-January-08, 13:14, said:

Perhaps because it combats poverty, which is bad for society in general.

Does it do so as well as government operated, non church affiliated programs? A hard question to answer, but I have no great faith in the efficiency of government.

No, but government giving the money to not for profit anti poverty organizations usually works fairly well. Some of these started out as religious organizations but have become basically humanitarian.

[Scarabin]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-08, 02:00, said:

The nasty answer to this: maybe most of them are even more intelligent than you. SCNR.

On a more serious note, I did indeed consider myself an agnostic for quite a while, but in the end it just seems too silly: I don't know whether "God" exists, I don't know whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, I don't know whether little green men live on Mars, whether the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are good friends - I don't know anything really - but I do have very strong opinions about all this stuff. Why shouldn't I trust my own judgement?

In the strictest sense, of course, I do not endorse the statement "God does not exist". For me this is a nonstatement, the word "God" is undefined, and I don't say that just to win an argument on semantic grounds, I truly do not comprehend what people might possibly mean by it. Oh sure, some might think that it means there is some huge anthropomorphic being hiding out behind the sun laughing his ass off at how stupid we are but others deny this view fervently and yet still claim that "God exists". Well at least for the dude behind the sun I am willing to state definitely that he does not exist, and I still don't know what the other people are talking about.

To answer your first point: maybe most posters are even more intelligent than I am. (Especially as I am not hip enough to know what SCNR means?) I would be happy to accept this, provided their posts show some evidence of thought.

If I have to be labeled I would prefer to call myself a free-thinker. As for the rest of your second paragraph, I think that if you see no difference between debating the existence of God and the trivia you mention, then I would seriously counsel you not to trust your own judgment.

On a more positive note I have tried to give a more general answer to the meaning of balanced in an omnibus post.

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2013-January-08, 02:03, said:

Given the evidence that there is a correlation between education and intelligence, and between education and atheism, I am puzzled that you are puzzled that a majority of the posters here are atheist.

As for people revealing themselves, well, this is the internet, and posts are often written and posted without the reflection that one would ordinarily employ in more traditional exchanges, so I would be reluctant to read too much of a psychiatric diagnosis into what anyone writes here

As for stacking the votes, wouldn't that require multiple log-ins, each with a different name, which seems like cheating and what's the point of that?


Maybe you should allow the evidence to cause you to rethink your prejudices, rather than search for reasons to preserve them by imagining unlikely explanations that explain away the evidence?

First paragraph:
(1) I am not surprised that a majority of the posters are atheist, I am surprised by the intemperance of their views. I expect the answers to form more of a bell-shaped curve.
(2) I would be interested to examine your "evidence that there is a correlation between education and intelligence, and between education and atheism". Can you please point me toward this?

Third paragraph:
Every time I open this thread I am invited to poll my vote. I have not tried to vote a second time so do not know if multiple votes are possible. My comment reflected nothing more sinister than this.

[Scarabin]

Some posters have replied to my complaint, by telling me their usually extreme personal views and then claiming that their views are by definition balanced. I can only say that in my experience life does not work like that. Reality is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself.

squealydan went to the trouble of concocting a rationalisation for my views, just to challenge me with it. Thanks squealydan, my only criticism is that I do not think you are actually a scientist, or familiar with scientific method.

OK. So what am I actually on about?

First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics.

Consider the fanatics credo:
(1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar.

(2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views.

(3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels.

Now turn to the reasonable approach:
(4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God.

(5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence.

(6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs.

I know which approach I consider intelligent.

[mgoetze]

 Scarabin, on 2013-January-08, 20:29, said:

I think that if you see no difference between debating the existence of God and the trivia you mention, then I would seriously counsel you not to trust your own judgment.

Fine. I have no particular reason to take your counsel very seriously though.

(BTW I would counsel you to learn about something called "Google". It's very useful, not only for finding out the meaning of abbreviations.)

[mgoetze]

 Scarabin, on 2013-January-08, 21:24, said:

First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics.

Consider the fanatics credo:
(1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar.

(2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views.

(3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels.

Now turn to the reasonable approach:
(4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God.

(5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence.

(6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs.

I know which approach I consider intelligent.

This is hilarious. You remind me of 32519 (more his bridge-related threads than his contributions here, though).

I suppose by characterizing "strongly disbelieve" as an "extreme position" you are saying it implies at least (1), likely (2) and possibly (3), and is mutually exclusive with all of (4), (5) and (6)? That's so wrong it's just funny. For what it's worth, I voted for "strongly disbelieve" and the only statements on your list which I agree with are (5) and (6).

Anyway, keep it up, you may eventually reach the same status as 32519 (that is, "on my ignore list").

[32519]

 hrothgar, on 2013-January-08, 06:42, said:

As I recall, the Epistle to the Galatians is part of the New Testament. The churchs that Paul established in Galatia where founded by converting pagans, not Jews.
In a similar vein, Corinthians is addressed to the Church in Corinth which was (largely) drawn from the Greek population, though there were some Jewish Christians present. Thessalonians was addressed to a church in Macedonia.

No one can agree who wrote Revelations, however, it is pretty doubtful that the author ever set foot in Palestine.

I readily grant that the transition from Judaism to Christianity was a long and labored process. The apostles and Paul of Tarsus were certainly Jewish. However, I don't think that it is reasonable to classify Greek and Celtic converts to the Church as "Jewish". They're drawn from a completely different cultural context. The whole reason that Paul had to keep sending letters was that the congregations were straying too far from home...

Sorry Richard, but you are only partially correct.

Apart from Philippi (where there was no synagogue), everywhere Paul went he first entered the synagogue and preached to the Jews. Just as in Acts 1 through 6, initially the Jews accepted the message of salvation. Just as in Acts 7 through 9, it was the religious establishment who incited the Jews against the message of salvation. The temple in Jerusalem was controlled by the Sadducees. When it was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 they ceased to exist. The synagogues were controlled by the Pharisees. There were two groups of Pharisees; the School of Hillel (the liberals) and the School of Shammai (the fanatics or the militants). From around AD 30 the Sanhedrin was controlled by the Shammai Pharisees. It is not known at what point Paul crossed over from Hillel to Shammai by he became the number 1 militant against the message of salvation (Acts 7 through 9). It is absolutely impossible for one person single-handedly to sow the havoc that Paul did. The number of believers would easily have beaten him up and chased him away. Paul’s help came from the Sadducees and the Shammai Pharisees.

When Paul became a believer the militants lost their number 1 havoc instigator. When they began witnessing the success he was having amongst both Jews and non-Jews with his message, some of these militants did everything in their power to stop him. In 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 Paul gives us an idea of how much he was persecuted by these people. Amongst the militants was the false apostle and Paul’s thorn in the flesh. Paul actually identifies him in at least 3 places.

The Sadducees had the most to lose by the numbers accepting the message of salvation. The temple coffers were drying up when the people realised that it no longer served any purpose. Do a Google search for yourself to get an idea of the levels of corruption taking place in the temple. Has modern institutionalised religion learnt from these guys?
The Shammai Pharisees on the other hand were still awaiting their Messiah to deliver the Jews from Roman oppression. Amongst other things, they absolutely forbade Jews to make contact with non-Jews fearing defilement. When these non-Jews started accepting Jesus as the Messiah these fanatical Pharisees were hell-bent on stopping Paul. It was the militant Pharisees who led the Jews (more accurately, forced the Jews) into the war against the Romans from AD 66 to AD 70, the war which lead to the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem and the Jews as a nation. It was only in 1948 that they were re-established as a nation.

So now to your post:
The letters you mention are addressed to both the Jews (who initially accepted the message) and the non-Jews. The lengthy arguments and examples Paul inevitably uses all come from the Old Testament writings. These arguments and examples would be completely meaningless to a non-Jew of the time who was not familiar with what was being referred to.

The whole reason that Paul had to continue sending letters to all these new believers was to –
1. Warn them against these militant fanatics who insisted that they uphold circumcision and all the laws of Moses
2. To point out from their own Old Testament writings that these militants had it all wrong

(This post has been edited).

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2013-January-08, 21:24, said:

Some posters have replied to my complaint, by telling me their usually extreme personal views and then claiming that their views are by definition balanced. I can only say that in my experience life does not work like that. Reality is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself.

squealydan went to the trouble of concocting a rationalisation for my views, just to challenge me with it. Thanks squealydan, my only criticism is that I do not think you are actually a scientist, or familiar with scientific method.

OK. So what am I actually on about?

First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics.

Consider the fanatics credo:
(1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar.

(2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views.

(3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels.

Now turn to the reasonable approach:
(4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God.

(5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence.

(6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs.

I know which approach I consider intelligent.

And I know that I consider neither of them to be intelligent.

Did anyone on this forum post that no god exists? Note that I am not getting into what 'God' you refer to, since man has invented a myriad 'gods'. But using just the broadest possible concept, has anyone said: no, god doesn't exist and I am certain of that?

You lower your credibility by suggesting that some 'fanatics' here made that claim. And you engage in a strawman argument to boot.

As for your 'intelligent' position, it is frankly silly.

As others have written, an issue does not become a 50-50 proposition merely because some or indeed most people favour one particular position and a similar number favour the contrary. Thus a very large percentage of the US population seems, according to some surveys, to be of the opinion that the world is about 6,000 years old.

To an intelligent, educated person, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the effect that the world is somewhat older, by a large numbers of orders of magnitude.

But, your argument seems to suggest: there are a LOT of people who think it is young and therefore anyone who INSISTS that it is old, is a fanatic. A balanced view would be that perhaps god created the earth to look like it was old. After all, how can we possibly prove that god didn't do that? Since we can't disprove that 'theory', a balanced view would be to keep an open mind.

Bullsh*t.

And as for the evidence in support of god, I have asked several of the pro-religion posters to set out the evidence and NONE has done so. We get a true fanatic quoting his religious texts as proof that those same religious texts are true. Do you think that that is 'evidence'? Are you that irrational? If not, please point me to the evidence that suggests that a god probably exists. Btw, to do that the evidence has to be more than 'consistent' with the existence of a god, so referring us to the gaps in scientific knowledge doesn't constitute probative evidence of anything other than our incomplete state of knowledge.

It is ironic that you mischaracterize the positions taken by some of us, accuse (I assume) many or all of those same people of being narcissistic, and then insist that your (demonstrably irrational) view is the 'intelligent' view. It must be nice holding such a high opinion of yourself

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2013-January-09, 00:09, said:

Did anyone on this forum post that no god exists? Note that I am not getting into what 'God' you refer to, since man has invented a myriad 'gods'. But using just the broadest possible concept, has anyone said: no, god doesn't exist and I am certain of that? You lower your credibility by suggesting that some 'fanatics' here made that claim. And you engage in a strawman argument to boot.

The Dictionary said:

Atheist: noun: someone who denies the existence of god

 mikeh, on 2013-January-09, 00:09, said:

As for your 'intelligent' position, it is frankly silly [SNIP] Bullsh*t.[SNIP] And as for the evidence in support of god, I have asked several of the pro-religion posters to set out the evidence and NONE has done so. We get a true fanatic quoting his religious texts as proof that those same religious texts are true. Do you think that that is 'evidence'? Are you that irrational?

The Dictionary said:

Evidence: noun: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

IMO

• Occam's razor is no more than a useful heuristic.
• Many have advanced interesting evidence for their views.
• But nobody has yet produced convincing evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.
• And few of us are holding our breath

[Trinidad]

 Codo, on 2013-January-08, 07:51, said:

I honestly did not know that gravity or evolution are still just theories, but if you say so...

I think that you are confusing the word 'theory' with the word 'theory'.

For non-scientists the word 'theory' means: 'an idea' e.g. for the explanation of phenomena.

For scientists the word 'theory' means: 'A methodological explanation of observations that is widely accepted in the scientific community as true', e.g. so true that engineers can use them to predict whether a bridge will be strong enough or that pharmaceutical researchers can calculate whether a certain molecule will be able to attack a virus.

When a scientist makes an observation and comes up with ideas to explain what he saw, he will not call these ideas theories. At the point where he thinks that his explanation is plausible enough to publish it, he will not call it a theory. It will be a 'possible explanation'. Once many of his colleagues start to accept the possible explanation it could get the name 'theory'. Quite often (though not necessarily) this happens after the scientist who came up with the explanation to begin with has already passed away.

In short, in every day use the word 'theory' refers to an 'idea' with little foundation. In science it refers to something that ranges from 'widely accepted' to 'rock solid'. So for a scientist the phrase "it's just a theory" (see your quote) is very odd. After all, 'theory' is about the highest rank for scientific concepts, making the phrase equivalent to "he is just a general" in a military sense, "he is just a pope" in clerical ranks, or "he is merely a CEO" in business.

Rik

[32519]

 nige1, on 2013-January-09, 03:23, said:

IMO

• Occam's razor is no more than a useful heuristic.
  
• Many have advanced interesting evidence for their views.
  
• But nobody has yet produced convincing evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.
  
• And few of us are holding our breath

MikeH (and now Nige1 as well) wants to know why I believe. I will give just 2 reasons –
1. I don’t have the exact number but thus far around 80% of all Bible prophecies have been fulfilled. The remaining 20% all have to do with the future and the second coming of Jesus. Compare that fulfilment % with Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar or any other so-called prophet.
2. Just as Paul had his Damascus road experience when he was confronted head on by God, the same thing happened to me in the early 1990s. Since then God has revealed to me on at least another 3 occasions that he exists and is real. If he did that for me he can do the same for you. It’s not my job to convince you of anything.

Here’s something else for you to consider:
It is very difficult to quantify the damage that institutionalised religion has done regarding the message that first Jesus preached and then Paul. Inadequate translations of the Bible have already been mentioned. Added to that you inevitably get to hear all sorts of misguided sermons preached from the pulpit every Sunday. The people attending don’t know any better and either fall asleep during the sermon or leave more confused than when they entered.

So here is my suggestion:
Do what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. They examined the scriptures for themselves to see if what Paul said was true. Don’t blindly accept what your local preacher (or anyone else) is telling you. Go and examine it for yourself.

Regarding the remaining 20% of prophecies still to be fulfilled: This thread is crammed with posts seeking evidence that God exists. Guess what? God will become visible in you and me and everyone else at the second coming. Yes, you read that correctly. And that my dear friend is the whole purpose of the God of the Jews with creation; an invisible God becoming visible. This amazing story starts in Genesis chapter 1 and ends in Revelation 22. Every single generation from Paul until now has earnestly hoped and desired that their generation would be the one to see it happen. Who knows? Maybe it is ours?

This mind boggling event has not been concocted by a religious fanatic. It has been concocted by God himself. It was too much for the Jews to stomach too whom it was given, and they have now rejected their own God and Messiah. This promise is what is still waiting to be fulfilled.

[Codo]

 mikeh, on 2013-January-08, 10:51, said:

It hasn't happened yet. But we can hope. As I have said many times, and as with just about everything I write this isn't original to me, religious belief made sense in the 99.99% of human experience when we had no effective understanding of the physical world. Give us time.

So basically you say that up to now mankind is nowhere able to live without religion, but in a near future we will be able to give up on it? I won't argue with this hope of yours, I am just sceptical because even the best technichans needs consolation. But maybe you are right, future will show.

Quote

Do you actually read what others have said, and try to understand the arguments, or do you simply look for isolated passages to which you can object, provided you ignore the context? Try re-reading what I have said. Obviously human conflict is multi-factorial and obviously many wars have been fought for purposes other than religion. Does that mean that religion is not sometimes a major factor, or that it is not frequently enlisted by the warring states/nations/tribes to motivate their forces? Didn't most armies historically seek the blessing of religious figures before battle, or consecrate themselves to their god(s)?

Maybe again a beam in the own eye syndrom? I read what you write, thank you. Funnily we agree despite your tone: Conflicts are multi-factorial- and religion had been one of these factors. If my postings sounds different, I apologize.

You quoted some incidents in Pakistan to show how much hate had been there which had been religious motivation. The school killer was an example that you do not need religion for this... I really understood you in a way that most of the bad things in this world are religious motivated. Now I understood that religion is just one factor. We agree on that part.

Quote

As for the death penalty not being part of religion, you must be profoundly ignorant of aspects of religion that many atheists know without the need to even resort to google. I can't quote the verses without research but the OT contains very clear commandments to the effect that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, and that if a man sleeps with a woman and her mother, they all should be burned to death and so on.

Yes, I know: very few would follow Leviticus today, but that's one of my points. Many religious people are hypocrites because they pick and choose which parts of their holy texts to follow. Yes, there are all kinds of mental gymnastics that people like you go through to justify this to yourselves, but I suspect you have no idea how silly it all seems to an objective observer. It even gets people like you to deny that your religion contains any commands to kill!

What I meant is that killing is human, not religiously. So theists and atheists kill, not just atheists- or not just theists. So it has been part of many religions and had been part of the old testamony- and of the history of the church. I never claimed that religions had been free of cruelty durting history.
If you think that we need to take the Bible word for word, you make a mistake a lot of theists seem to make too. I wrote elsewhere that this luckily is not a common view in Germany and that it is not logical to take the Bible literally.
And yes I do not see why this should be silly. I would think it is silly not to use the brain but simply to follow some textes which had been written some centuries ago. Why should I? I can read socrates and decide which of his ideas are still valuable nowadays and which we should not take into our own life nowadays. Why shouldn't this be true for other ancient ideas? The Bible is something to think about, not a list of commands. If it had been the later, it could had been much easier and in a much shorter text- you can basically make the ten commandments a little longer and you are done. So what is the sene in taking the Bible literally?

Quote

Islam has its own commandments, and I have only a tiny knowledge of specifics from the Koran, so the only one I know of with some certainty is the requirement to kill apostates. Of course, we all know about fatwahs these days thanks to Rushdie....the fatwah against him was specifically issued by a very prominent and highly regarded religious figure. I'm sure you'll revert to the no true scotsman argument to say that such pronouncements don't reflect religious teachings either.

I'm sorry that religious mayhem is down recently, so I have only a limited number of current examples. But I have to laugh. You admit that some killers assert they are acting in furtherance of their religious belief, but you deny that religion plays a role in their actions. Clearly you know far more than they do about their motivations! No, the truth is that you have a fixed belief that religion is anti-killing and therefore anyone who claims to have killed for religious reasoning isn't really religious. You're a profound fool if you truly can't see where that logic is flawed.

Hmm, funny that it is impossible for me to write in a way that you understand what I would like to say. So think about this what you want to think. I think you misunderstood.

Quote

Another recourse to straw man? Where did you learn to reason? If 10% of killings are caused by, say, beer ads on television, and 90% by other factors, does that mean that we should allow unrestricted beer ads? If religion is a tool used by leaders to get people to commit awful acts, and you seem to accept that it is, then surely the loss of religion as a force in society is a good thing, at least as far as reducing killings is concerned. Nobody....do I need to repeat this for you?...nobody suggests that religion is the only or even the single biggest factor in human conflict, especially on the personal scale.

So, if we take away one tool for leaders, they will start less cruelties? Just 10%? Do you really believe this? I think this is naive. I mean, if you just look at the last wars of the US f.e., which of them had religious reasons? Noone? I actually cannot recall any religious motivated war in the last decades, but I did not check this. Maybe the middle east conflict counts as such?
We agreed already that every party in a war claims God on their side. This helps leading people, seems to make dying easier- I do not know. But if you take away this tool, their are too many othes to use so that I do not share your hope that the end of religion will lower the rate of curelity.

[Fluffy]

Atheists asking for evidence of god makes me laugh, when they say that this is evidence and this is not its kid of silly.

Please don't take the following paragraphs too seriously, they are intended to be humorous:

Religion String theory is the ultimate truth, the priests scientist have come to realice that when you throw particles one against another, they collide and destroy into pieces that do a lot of multi-dimensional stuff. Now I can barlelly imagine god particles nor see him them anywhere, and can't even begin to understand how what god pieces of particles do can be detected on this level of the world, but the priests scientist say it, and they are men of good truth. What they say is written on the bible books, and everyone (at some time in the human history) believes it. It would be impossible for so many priest scientists to make a secret plot to invent the religion theory for people to believe in it.


People talking/beleving in it, and books. Most people have the same level of evidence that Mars exist than that Noah created an Arch and put all pairs of animals on i to save from the rain. Evidence is subjective.

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2013-January-09, 03:23, said:

The Dictionary said:

Atheist: noun: someone who denies the existence of god

I suggest you get a better dictionary.

FWIW, mine says exactly the same . However, under atheism it says:

Quote

atheism noun 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God. 2. Godlessness.

I consider myself an atheist. I have no desire to deny the existence of God. For me it is more than sufficient that I, personnally, disbelief the existance of God.

Since for this part of the discussion it is crucial whether an atheist denies or merely disbelieves the existance of God, I would forget about what your (and my) silly dictionary says about the word "atheist", since -if you look a little further- it says that both are possible.

Personally, I cannot imagine an atheist who denies the existence of God. It goes against the core values of the atheist way of thinking: away with religious dogma. This means that we don't believe in God, because there is no reason to do so. Neither do we deny the existence of God, because there is no reason to do so. A denial of God would be creating a dogma that we don't need. And I don't feel the need to deny the existence of the FSM, little green men or Ahauthovius either.

Rik

[nige1]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-09, 05:09, said:

<dictionary def> I suggest you get a better dictionary. FWIW, mine says exactly the same . However, under atheism it says: <another def> I consider myself an atheist. I have no desire to deny the existence of God. For me it is more than sufficient that I, personnally, disbelieve the existance of God.
Since for this part of the discussion it is crucial whether an atheist denies or merely disbelieves the existence of God, I would forget about what your (and my) silly dictionary says about the word "atheist", since -if you look a little further- it says that both are possible.
Personally, I cannot imagine an atheist who denies the existence of God. It goes against the core values of the atheist way of thinking: away with religious dogma. This means that we don't believe in God, because there is no reason to do so. Neither do we deny the existence of God, because there is no reason to do so. A denial of God would be creating a dogma that we don't need. And I don't feel the need to deny the existence of the FSM, little green men or Ahauthovius either.

The Dictionary said:

Agnostic: noun someone who believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not

Even Google denies the existence of "Ahauthovius"

There's a subtle difference between

• Not believing that God exists (The doubting Thomas view seems defensible)
• Believing that God does not exist (Arguably a leap of faith)

[Cthulhu D]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-09, 05:01, said:

Atheists asking for evidence of god makes me laugh, when they say that this is evidence and this is not its kid of silly.

Please don't take the following paragraphs too seriously, they are intended to be humorous:

Religion String theory is the ultimate truth, the priests scientist have come to realice that when you throw particles one against another, they collide and destroy into pieces that do a lot of multi-dimensional stuff. Now I can barlelly imagine god particles nor see him them anywhere, and can't even begin to understand how what god pieces of particles do can be detected on this level of the world, but the priests scientist say it, and they are men of good truth. What they say is written on the bible books, and everyone (at some time in the human history) believes it. It would be impossible for so many priest scientists to make a secret plot to invent the religion theory for people to believe in it.


People talking/beleving in it, and books. Most people have the same level of evidence that Mars exist than that Noah created an Arch and put all pairs of animals on i to save from the rain. Evidence is subjective.

Except there is considerable controversy over whether String theory counts, as it's not practically testable and thus doesn't meet standards of scientific rigor. I think you made your point?

[Fluffy]

nah, my main point was at the end, where you have no more evidence that universe is as big as you think than what you have of something written on the bible.

Anyway, I've come to the ocnclusion that everyone just models the world on their brains, and the model works because sun rises each morning as they expect, for atheists it works becuse when someone is gone they don't see him again, while for me it works because I can still feel them around. It works and that's the only thing that matters. But in the end any model is just a theory.

I think most of other one's models wouldn't work for me, as I trust my model doesn't work for anyone but me and maybe a few (in fact I have 4 models not just one, but that is nor important). I also think atheists's model is absurd for many of them, but I haven't get into it deep enough to know for sure.

EDIT: Now I think of it, most religious models are absurd as well.

[Trinidad]

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-09, 05:01, said:

Atheists asking for evidence of god makes me laugh, when they say that this is evidence and this is not its kid of silly.

Please don't take the following paragraphs too seriously, they are intended to be humorous:

Religion String theory is the ultimate truth, the priests scientist have come to realice that when you throw particles one against another, they collide and destroy into pieces that do a lot of multi-dimensional stuff. Now I can barlelly imagine god particles nor see him them anywhere, and can't even begin to understand how what god pieces of particles do can be detected on this level of the world, but the priests scientist say it, and they are men of good truth. What they say is written on the bible books, and everyone (at some time in the human history) believes it. It would be impossible for so many priest scientists to make a secret plot to invent the religion theory for people to believe in it.


People talking/beleving in it, and books. Most people have the same level of evidence that Mars exist than that Noah created an Arch and put all pairs of animals on i to save from the rain. Evidence is subjective.

A little bit of a poor example since from time to time everybody who wants to can see Mars with the naked eye. That is a little hard for Noah's Arc.

To get to the core of your funny comparison: There is a big difference between scientists and priests. You, Gonzalo, can test science for yourself. And every scientist will encourage you to do just that. You and everyone in the world are also actively encouraged to come up with an alternative for string theory. And science will take you very serious as long as your alternative meets two simple conditions: It needs to be consistent with current observations and should assume as little as possible (Occam's razor).

I have never met a priest or minister (I was raises protestant) who encouraged me to come up with an alternative religion. On the contrary: I had to believe. Doubt is a sin and will be punished (if not immediately then in the afterlife). (Yesterday, in a talk show on Dutch TV, there was a priest who wants to put up pictures of people who want to leave the church 'so that fellow church members can warn them for the consequences [i.e. a ruined afterlife]'. Now obviously this guy is slightly extreme for the Netherlands, otherwise he wouldn't get on TV, but still...)

I readily admit that it would be a little difficult for you to privately build a second CERN. But I can tell you about acid-base theory in chemistry and you can buy your own vinegar, ammonia and a red cabbage. I can tell you that the vinegar will turn the cabbage red and the ammonia will make it turn blue. You can try that today, tomorrow, deep in a dark forest where no one sees you or in front of the Prado museum in Madrid.

If you visit universities on "Open days", you will be allowed to do some somewhat more complicated experiments yourself. So, the basis of the science is all there for you to check. You can look at this methodology and extrapolate it to more complicated science. The methodology is the same, but unfortunately, it is beyond your (and my) horizon of capability to understand. But those scientists are working continuously to expand your and my knowledge by teaching us. And the method of teaching is not to tell you what is, but, as much as possible: go and see for yourself.

In high schools all over the world, kids are building electric circuits to test Ohm's law, They are putting their blood under a microscope and write down what they see with their own eyes. In universities, students are doing the experiments, and observe the photoelectric effect (Einstein Noble Prize) for themselves by aiming X-rays or UV light at a sample and measuring the current. They can observe for themselves HOMO-LUMO interactions at work in organic chemical reactions.

And yes, the higher the level of complexity or cost, the fewer people will be able to understand or do these experiments for themselves. But these are practical considerations and it certainly is not the aim of science in itself to exclude anyone from observing with their own eyes and thinking with their own brains, quite the opposite.

This is entirely different from Christian priests and ministers.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 nige1, on 2013-January-09, 05:40, said:

Even Google denies the existence of "Ahauthovius"

If we just keep writing about Him, pretty soon they won't.

Rik