[Scarabin]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-20, 20:44, said:

I don't know about MikeH, but you can't agree on that with me, that's for sure. "God exists" is not a scientific statement, so you can't reasonably assign a probability to it.

I have ignored the remainder of your post since Blackshoe has already answered this.

As regards your first paragraph: I know probability as a branch of logic, Leibnitz, and as a branch of mathematics, Pascal. I have seen probabilities applied to propositions and to events. I am familiar with probabilities which can be measured and those which cannot but I have never before encountered your proposition that probabilities can only be assigned to "scientific" statements.

Where do you get your information?

What exactly do you mean by "a scientific statement", is it the same as a scientific proposition, and what is the precise difference between a scientific and an ordinary statement?

A last question, have you and mikeh an agreement automatically to upvote each others posts?

This post has been edited by Scarabin: 2013-January-21, 04:31

[gwnn]

mgoetze, you just demonstrated that the probability is 0% (I will not comment on the validity of the proof), isn't 0% less than 50%?

[Fluffy]

JLOGIC, on 2013-January-21, 01:37, said:

Mikeh at some point you gotta ask yourself what is the point.

But why do you direct this at mikeh and not to the others? do you think other's efforst are productive? lol

Now, before someone replies with 10 paragraphs to a single line that wasn't even directed at him, let me clarify that it is a rhetoric question intended as a joke.

[Codo]

jkljkl, on 2013-January-18, 11:13, said:

This behaviour was directly caused by catholic believes, that noone claims it does not make it untrue. And you don't have to be sorry about not caring what an effect our politicians or cardinals have on our lives, standard human behaviour (mine too). But to put out a factor out of an equation while you say that you are talking about it, will lead to nowhere. Maybe you have a more theoretical approach about pure concepts without humans being involved. I do not buy this religion without humans.

The behaviour was cause because of their believes?
So the catholics believe that catholic doctors should not help rape victims?
If this is ture, maybe the catholic church should be better in teaching their followers, because just two out of maybe 30.000 doctors follow this rule. You are just wrong. It was a tragedy but it was a single case.

If you want to critze the catholic church in Germany, you may talk about sex victims to priests, about not allowing women as a priest and maybe other parts.

Or I can follow your logic and rate all Atheists being as evil as Stalin, because one single example is enough to condem... But your logic just works one way....

[nige1]

Argument is more persuasive then invective. Also, rather than subjecting others to gratuitous abuse, It is more amusing to make deliberate fun of your own views e.g. T S Eliot anticipated the Flying Spaghetti Monster by about 85 years.

The Hippopotamus said:

I saw the 'potamus take wing
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.

Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.

He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr'd virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

Mr Eliot's Sunday Morning Service said:

Sweeney shifts from ham to ham
Stirring the water in his bath.
The masters of the subtle schools
Are controversial, polymath.

[mgoetze]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-08, 21:43, said:

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

More prophetic than I thought... welcome to the club, Scarabin! (BTW since you are now being ignored by me and as such posting on the forums would not be worthwhile, I suggest you use your newfound time to read some philosophers more modern than Leibnitz and Pascal. I recommend you start with Frege.)

gwnn, on 2013-January-21, 03:55, said:

mgoetze, you just demonstrated that the probability is 0% (I will not comment on the validity of the proof), isn't 0% less than 50%?

Yes, but you missed the caveat at the beginning.

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-20, 06:06, said:

I though the same at the start, but I have realiced mike and probably michael as well are aready sure of what the truth is and don't consider alternatives, arguing with them about existance of god is not very produtive.

We have all accepted the futility of persuading anyone to change their favorite notrump range, but maybe we could persuade someone to change their views on a few minor issues, such as the existance of god(s) ..... not.

[Codo]

mikeh, on 2013-January-20, 09:53, said:

I suggest you read what we actually said: try to understand it rather than jumpng to false conclusions.

We ask a very simple set of questions about this god: questions neither you nor any other here has answered. Indeed, questions that (to my limited knowledge) no theologian has ever answered with anything other than an appeal to faith and a denial of the power of reason. To me the main one is:

What factual evidence is there that positively points to the existence of a god? The answers are usually in the form of 'the universe exists'. Well, yes, it does. Why does that undeniable fact make YOUR particular creation myth valid? What mathematically, or physically testable explanation does your myth afford us?

So there seems to be no fact or evidence based reason to accept that there is a god of any kind. If there is a god, btw, that only pushes the search for understanding one step deeper: what is a god, what made it, how did it come into existence, etc. And the usual answer that these questions don't apply to god, since it has always existed isn't in fact an answer at all, but a confession that some issues are beyond our understanding. Why not accept that, for now at least, the origin of the universe is the topic beyond our understanding rather than pile on that mystery an unneeded hypothesis about some god?

We say: we don't know! We say we have open minds...we'd like to know, but we don't and maybe we never will. The religious say: we know! We know with absolute certainty.

Gonzalo and me did answer your questions, try to find it.
Gonzalo and me, despite being in different churches do not claim to know. My church does not claim to know, they claim to believe. English is your mother language, not mine, but why is it so hard to accept that believing is not the same as knowing?

I will never dispute that some people are so full of believe that they think that their personal point of view/believe must be right and every other view is wrong. But that they believe this makes it not to an universal truth. Does this happen just to religious people? Of course not. This is true for nationalities, for different political parties, for economy and history professors, for soccer fans, for nearly anybody I know. At least for anybody who wants to influence a big group of people. It is much easier to convince others if you are (or do as if you are) self convinced.

But I am very happy to get to know that at least you (and all other atheists, I overlooked the "we") are open minded. I guess everybody who reads your postings in religious points will underwrite this self description... Maybe nearly everbody. But surely someone. Okay, at least you.

[Vampyr]

Codo, on 2013-January-21, 06:15, said:

Or I can follow your logic and rate all Atheists being as evil as Stalin, because one single example is enough to condem... But your logic just works one way....

It does work just one way, because atheists do not belong to, or identify as, a group of any kind. Members of churches or followers of creeds share something that is important to their lives; Catholics, in particular, are all required to be obedient to the same hierarchy.

Atheists, on the other hand, do not necessarily share anything. You could as easily group together people who don't believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, or that chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream, or that fairies exist and hide things when we are looking for them.

[WellSpyder]

Codo, on 2013-January-21, 06:44, said:

My church does not claim to know, they claim to believe. English is your mother language, not mine, but why is it so hard to accept that believing is not the same as knowing?

I know (or at least I believe I know) the difference between believing and knowing. And I'm willing to accept that this may make mikeh's main unanswered question rather unimportant from your perspective.

But the issue I have most difficulty getting my mind round is what I perceive to be the cultural arrogance of believers. For example, even if one ignores all the schisms within religions, why do believers in one religion think that they have a better handle on the truth than believers in a different religion? Or to put it a different way, what do Christians think they would believe in if they happened to have been brought up in the Middle East, or in India, say? Would they be equally confident in their belief in Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever as they are in their current belief in Christianity? If not, why not? If so, doesn't this make their specific culturally-determined belief rather unlikely to be right? (Mikeh has made a similar point in relation to all the thousands of different religions people have followed in the past, but even in a very simplified form I have never seen a convincing answer to the underlying question.)

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 07:56, said:

It does work just one way, because atheists do not belong to, or identify as, a group of any kind. Members of churches or followers of creeds share something that is important to their lives; Catholics, in particular, are all required to be obedient to the same hierarchy.

Atheists, on the other hand, do not necessarily share anything. You could as easily group together people who don't believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, or that chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream, or that fairies exist and hide things when we are looking for them.

By and large, Vampyr is right but atheists and agnostics are getting organised, for instance,

• Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and
• The (self-professed) Brights and
• Skeptics

[32519]

Justin got it right, neither side will back down.

I’ve already disclosed to you what the purpose is of the God of the Jews with creation, and that is for an invisible God to become visible in you and me and everyone else. The Jews who brought us this incredible story have themselves rejected it. Nearly ALL of the non-Jews who have accepted or believe God’s plan of salvation haven’t understood or recognised this from the writings which the Jews have brought us. Why? I’ve already given you two reasons in this thread, 1) an inadequate translation of the Bible to a large extent has buried the story, and 2) fallen man more interested in his own interests, positions, welfare, recognition etc instead of following God’s agenda, has caused all the infighting in institutionalised religion which has led to, I don’t know how many different denominations, churches, whatever being established who ALL CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE ONLY TRUE GOD. You can extend the previous sentence to include Judaism and Islam. Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism. None of the three have understood God’s ultimate purpose with creation, yet the New Testament discloses this hidden mystery of God in quite a few places. For Paul to undergo the harassment and hardship at the hands of his own people, the Jews, for zero financial gain, to complete the story of creation must have been the toughest assignment that he or anyone could ever face.

When the Jews rejected this mystery, God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. It has never been rebuilt and it never will be rebuilt. Ironically the Muslims have now built a temple of their own on the site. Worldwide institutionalised religion is on the steady decline. Fewer and fewer people are entering the religious building erected by most denominations that you care to name. In my own country, periodically there are discussions on the radio, or an article appears in the newspaper where the leaders of these institutions discuss their concerns etc regarding declining numbers attending and what needs to be done to turn things around. The stuff that sometimes comes out is truly laughable. Declining numbers means declining tithes flowing into their coffers. I doubt whether any are truly concerned about the real truth. It’s all about the money.

You want tangible visible proof that God exists. Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God has already demonstrated to us once what is going to happen to every single person who ever walked planet earth.

John 14:8-9 “Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?

1 Corinthians 15:49-53 “Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

Romans 8:29 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [Greek means “to limit in advance”] to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.”

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

I can go on but choose not to. If you get down into the nuts and bolts of this incredible story that the Jews brought us, the bottom line is this; at the resurrection God will become visible in ALL of us. Our choice is simple, let it happen the easy way or let it happen the hard way. This first life is not the all important one.

[Codo]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-21, 08:32, said:

I know (or at least I believe I know) the difference between believing and knowing. And I'm willing to accept that this may make mikeh's main unanswered question rather unimportant from your perspective.

But the issue I have most difficulty getting my mind round is what I perceive to be the cultural arrogance of believers. For example, even if one ignores all the schisms within religions, why do believers in one religion think that they have a better handle on the truth than believers in a different religion? Or to put it a different way, what do Christians think they would believe in if they happened to have been brought up in the Middle East, or in India, say? Would they be equally confident in their belief in Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever as they are in their current belief in Christianity? If not, why not? If so, doesn't this make their specific culturally-determined belief rather unlikely to be right? (Mikeh has made a similar point in relation to all the thousands of different religions people have followed in the past, but even in a very simplified form I have never seen a convincing answer to the underlying question.)

I have the same problem. And I would call it arrogance too. I am ware aware that this is wide spread- and of course it is explainable- not with religion but with psychology. If you worship a religion it is much easier if you have strong beliefs. If you want to convince others, it is much easier if you claim that you KNOW. Don't be a maybe.
But luckily, the evangelic lutherian churches in northern Europe (where I live) are quite open minded- at least if I compare them to what can be read about the Bible belt and a lot of other places.

[mgoetze]

Codo, on 2013-January-21, 06:15, said:

just two out of maybe 30.000 doctors follow this rule. You are just wrong. It was a tragedy but it was a single case.

Just two... or three...
http://www.ksta.de/e...6,21500026.html
... or maybe four ...
http://www.regensbur...opfer/18012013/

But you are right, the catholic church does much worse things as well. That's hardly an argument for continuing to give them money in order to run hospitals, however.

[Vampyr]

32519, on 2013-January-21, 09:07, said:

You want tangible visible proof that God exists. Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God has already demonstrated to us once what is going to happen to every single person who ever walked planet earth.

Do you still not understand that Bible quotations do not constitute proof for those who regard the Bible as a work of literature? This fact has been explained earlier in this thread; in addition, it should be accessible by means of simple common sense.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 09:51, said:

Do you still not understand that Bible quotations do not constitute proof for those who regard the Bible as a work of literature? This fact has been explained earlier in this thread; in addition, it should be accessible by means of simple common sense.

One cannot argue logic with a believer.

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 07:56, said:

It does work just one way, because atheists do not belong to, or identify as, a group of any kind.

Let me doubt it, I've been subject of rataliation from members of your group to what was perceived as an attack to your group or an individual of it for mor than a month. Even if you don't claim to form groups you act in many ways like one.

[Fluffy]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-21, 10:00, said:

One cannot argue logic with a believer.

False, you cannot argue logic with a closed mind (one who doesn't listen), or an irrational mind, you don't need to believe to achieve that status. The fact you have an eample here doesn't prove anything.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-21, 10:00, said:

Let me doubt it, I've been subject of rataliation from members of your group to what was perceived as an attack to your group or an individual of it for mor than a month. Even if you don't claim to form groups you act in many ways like one.

Say what you like. I do not belong to a group. Your attack on atheists was an attack on all individuals who are atheist. Call them a group if you want to; any combination of people or things can be defined as a group, even if the basic for their being grouped is invalid or nonsensical.

[mikeh]

Codo, on 2013-January-21, 06:44, said:

Gonzalo and me did answer your questions, try to find it.

My question was what evidence you could point to that positively supports the existence of god: evidence beyond the usual: 'the universe exists, we don't understand it, so it must be god' sort of nonsense.

I searched your posts and I quote:

'I have no evidence that [god] ever showed up, no evidence that he is there-I just believe'

So your answer to my question is 'none'.

I know of no other realm of human understanding in which this would be seen as even remotely rational or defensible.

As for the difference between knowledge and belief, I once acted as counsel for a man accused in print of being a corrupt politician. The defamers had convinced themselves that he had taken campaign contributions in exchange for a vote on a development. They convinced themselves that the developer had hidden his contributions.

In fact, the politician had made a public disclosure of the identity of all of his donors, had listed the developer, had listed the amount contributed, and had not been in office when the impugned vote was cast. IOW, he hadn't even had a vote on the development, let alone had he hid the contribution. All of the correct information was publicly available and easily obtained. Indeed, we not only told the defamers the facts, but told them where to confirm these facts and how. We offered them a chance to avoid the lawsuit with a published apology and nothing more.

At trial, I asked one of the defamers whether she understood the difference between believing something and knowing something. Her answer: "I do now".

But it was too late. They were ordered to pay several hundred thousand dollars and ended up in bankruptcy and losing their home.

Now, the consequences of clinging to a belief in a god means only that you spend a lot of your life living in a (probably) delusional state, and unless you are a victim of a pedophile priest protected by his church, or are a pensioner persuaded to support an evangelistic millionaire preacher, the real life consequences are likely trivial and indeed the sense of community and the assurance that you will be 'saved' may well be seen by you as rewards. So my story isn't likely to be relevant to your situation, but I certainly do know the difference between belief and knowledge

Btw, with respect to atheists organizing: the mere idea of identifying as a 'bright' makes me cringe. Dawkins is a very smart guy and his books are generally very well written, but that idea of his was truly awful, and I am happy to say that I have not seen any evidence that it gained traction.

As for his foundation, well he has made a great deal of money from his books and lectures, so I am happy that he has seen fit to put some of his money where his mouth is: to try to promote rational thinking. He is outgunned, financially, by several orders of magnitude by organized religion, but more power to him. That hardly, however, constitutes any kind of grouping of atheists.