So..why aren't language, cultural heritage, and etiquette--things all determined by the family we come from or the culture we grew up in--big things?You are missing the point. The point of this topic is that creation of the universe, meaning of life, existence of God.. these are big things that most religious people do not form an opinion on based on evidence collected over the years, but based on where they happened to be born. It's basically creating a God and explaining the universe based on geographic location.
I was born and raised a Christian. Very likely, had I been born in a different part of the world or at a different time in history, I would have been raised differently. However, I am not a Christian solely because I was raised to be one. Many times, I have evaluated multiple religions and world views. While I can't guarantee that I've evaluated them all (who can?), I can confidently say I have found the truth. I'm not a big fan of the word "religion" when it comes to my personal beliefs (this probably isn't the place to discuss that, though), but I absolutely believe in the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ - and not because I was raised to.Well, one could argue that after years of religious indoctrination, it would be very unlikely that you can be objective when comparing religions. If Christianity is part of what defines you as a person, it's going to be nearly impossible to suddenly convert you to some other religion. You might see the teachings of Christianity as the best choice for you, but had you been raised as a Muslim or Hindu, you would probably feel very differently.
Yes to the first question, no to the second.How can you confidently say "No" to the second question? If you had been living in India all your life and had been taught Hinduism all your life, are you seriously suggesting that you would ignore your culture, your parents and your friends, and would convert to Christianity? Isn't it possible that you feel strongly about Christianity because that's what you have been taught? Isn't it also possible that you would feel the same way about Hinduism if you have been taught that?
So, if people that are born into religion are illogical, does that mean that the people that chose it later in life, without influence, are logical?Being born into a religion does not make you illogical because babies cannot make decisions like that.
Well, one could argue that after years of religious indoctrination, it would be very unlikely that you can be objective when comparing religions.1) It's quite presumptuous to say that someone else isn't able to be objective due to one factor, when you don't know any of the other factors involved. Obviously, being raised a Christian had an impact on my decision to accept it as truth, as well as to stick with it for this long. But it isn't the only reason, nor is it the main reason.
I have 2 questions to all religious people:Define "religious people".
Yes, without a doubt. As you said, if I were born somewhere in that small jungle village, I would believe in the great monkey god. And since there would be nothing that could change my belief or give me a nudge off of the great monkey god, I'd be happy with it.
- Do you think that if you were born somewhere else, your religion (like your language) could be something totally different?
Depends on where and how I would be raised. If all the "think by yourself" part was overwritten by some fancy fantasy story, I wouldn't possibly question my religion and call it the only true religion.
- If you answered "Yes" to the first question, do you think that you would see that other religion as the one true religion?
I believe that there is no God as in something that can think by itself and does stuff that sounds way OP.Sig'd, since I laughed for about a minute after reading that.
The point of this topic is that creation of the universe, meaning of life, existence of God.. these are big things that most religious people do not form an opinion on based on evidence collected over the years, but based on where they happened to be born. It's basically creating a God and explaining the universe based on geographic location.It´s the same for atheists. You have no evidence that God doesn´t exist, and your opinion that God doesn´t exist isn´t based on evidence collected over years, but based on where you happened to be born. See here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Atheists_Agnostics_Zuckerman_en.svg). If you´d be born in Africa, you´d probably not be an atheist / agnostic .
If you were born in the US, you are most likely a Christian. If you were born in India, you are most likely a Hindu. If you were born in Iraq, you are most likely a Muslim. If you were born in some small jungle village in Africa you might worship "The Great Monkey".If you were born in South Korea, you probably had no confession. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Korea)
Born and raised an atheist. I suppose if I was born and raised in a religious household, I might've been that religion.Theism AND atheism are a result of location, education (and also personal decisions, of course).
It's a probability thing.I totally agree.
*stuff*
A person doesn't need to see all religions to know the one they were raised as isn't right for them. Same thing applies to when they have found a religion they enjoy. They don't need to see every religion to know that this new on they found is right for them. Could they find a better one? It is possible.
How can you confidently say "No" to the second question?Because I believe something you dont.
If you had been living in India all your life and had been taught Hinduism all your life, are you seriously suggesting that you would ignore your culture, your parents and your friends, and would convert to Christianity?Yes.
Isn't it possible that you feel strongly about Christianity because that's what you have been taught? Isn't it also possible that you would feel the same way about Hinduism if you have been taught that?It is possible to be raised one way, and still choose the path on your own. The reason I am so firm in what I believe is because of God, not because of my parents/society/anything else.
I was raised in a Catholic family, and as such was Catholic unt several years ago it all seemed ridiculous to me. I'm now a weak atheist, however this thread has raised a concern for me:Find an appropriate time to stress your potential fallibility to your kids.
If I become a parent, will my children blindly follow me into atheism and merely accept my lack of beliefs as true due to their 'logical' nature? I certainly hope not.
Well, my apologies but I don't see how it would be presumptuous. First of all, I didn't state it as a fact, I only questioned your objectivity. Secondly, it's almost impossible for humans to be 100% objective about anything because we are not robots. Our past experiences affect how we make decisions no matter how objective we think we might be. I'm guessing that religion is important to you, and if you are a devoted member of one religion, it's is highly unlikely that you could compare different religions objectively.Well, one could argue that after years of religious indoctrination, it would be very unlikely that you can be objective when comparing religions.1) It's quite presumptuous to say that someone else isn't able to be objective due to one factor, when you don't know any of the other factors involved. Obviously, being raised a Christian had an impact on my decision to accept it as truth, as well as to stick with it for this long. But it isn't the only reason, nor is it the main reason.
2) Your argument could be extended to say that nobody is able to be objective about anything they are taught as children, which means your choice to reject Christianity was just as biased as my choice to accept it. Interestingly, between 50-90% of teens leave Christianity after high school (http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/how-many-youth-are-leaving-the-church). To say that the 10-50% who don't just stay because they've been indoctrinated is silly. Moving out of your parents' house gives you the opportunity to experience life in a new way, along with evaluating what you truly believe versus what you were raised to believe. The end result will be either rejecting what you were raised to believe, or accepting it. The decision you make does not affect whether you are being objective in your analysis.
I think your responses show a very closed mind to this subject. If you thought about it logically and with and open mind, you would accept the strong possibility that the culture you were raised in would affect what you are as a person.Quote from: ScaredGirlHow can you confidently say "No" to the second question?Because I believe something you dont.Quote from: ScaredGirlIf you had been living in India all your life and had been taught Hinduism all your life, are you seriously suggesting that you would ignore your culture, your parents and your friends, and would convert to Christianity?Yes.Quote from: ScaredGirlIsn't it possible that you feel strongly about Christianity because that's what you have been taught? Isn't it also possible that you would feel the same way about Hinduism if you have been taught that?It is possible to be raised one way, and still choose the path on your own. The reason I am so firm in what I believe is because of God, not because of my parents/society/anything else.
Like it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture. Main reason how people choose their religion is not God speaking to them, years of studying different religions, or some religious quest. Main reason is simply geographic location, or more specifically the culture, you were born in.All the statistics point to is that most people adopt the religion that is already prevalent in their culture. I doubt anyone is arguing that everyone, or even the majority of people, really thinks through these things as much as they should. But that does not mean some of us didn't think it through, or study other options. It's good food for thought of course, but it shouldn't be treated as an actual logical argument against someone choosing the same religion they grew up with.
To everyone who thinks they have a "free will" and would choose their current religion no matter how they were raised, consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?I think this is closer to the heart of our differences on this subject. Most of us arguing with you believe in some kind of free will, and you don't. (correct?) As long as we are starting from such different basic assumptions, we aren't likely to come to an agreement on this.
consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?Because people tend to choose to only discard a belief when they are exposed to a more favorable (usually more probable) belief. Some people choose to require a disproof to justify changing positions. If we assume that this accurately describes the majority of people and if we accept the premise that the default belief is influenced by the culture, then we would predict the map.
Like it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture.Actually statistics do lie, and they lie very good.
Let me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.Say there are 100 people.
Im not sure thats the point.Quote from: ScaredGirlLet me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.Say there are 100 people.
All of them were raised Christian.
50 of them changed beliefs in there lifetime to another religion.
If you look at this as only 50% of people chose their own beliefs, then you are looking at it wrong. For all we know, only 1 person blindly followed, and the remaining 49 were not brainwashed and actually made a mental decision to follow it.
You can assume I'm being blind, but I believe your the one who is blind here.
I think you are kind of missing the point here. I'm not saying that people who were raised with certain religion are somehow incapable of switching religions. That happens all the time. But it is much more likely that they will stay with the religion they were brought up with. After all, it's part of their culture.Quote from: ScaredgirlLike it or not but statistics do not lie. It's all there in that picture. Main reason how people choose their religion is not God speaking to them, years of studying different religions, or some religious quest. Main reason is simply geographic location, or more specifically the culture, you were born in.All the statistics point to is that most people adopt the religion that is already prevalent in their culture. I doubt anyone is arguing that everyone, or even the majority of people, really thinks through these things as much as they should. But that does not mean some of us didn't think it through, or study other options. It's good food for thought of course, but it shouldn't be treated as an actual logical argument against someone choosing the same religion they grew up with.To everyone who thinks they have a "free will" and would choose their current religion no matter how they were raised, consider this. If people are truly free and capable of choosing their own religions, how do you explain that map? Why do people in certain parts of the world prefer certain religions? Are those religions in their genes?I think this is closer to the heart of our differences on this subject. Most of us arguing with you believe in some kind of free will, and you don't. (correct?) As long as we are starting from such different basic assumptions, we aren't likely to come to an agreement on this.
Actually statistics do lie, and they lie very good.It is true that there are many different biases in statistics, but the margin of error is not even close to explain the clear distribution of religions. The fact that some people lie in statistical studies, does not make all statistics flawed. There are ways to weed out those answers, and even if it happens, all it does is slightly increase the margin of error. I would bet that most people do not lie about their religious beliefs because I don't see why they would do that. This is not the Dark Ages anymore, and usually when people have
Think about it this way: Being questioned about your religion in a by Religion X dominated society, quite some folks might vote for Religion X even though they don't actually care about that Religion or even worse are just too scared to say what they actually believe in. *booOOo he's a pastafari! burn him! burn him with lemonade!*
That little cultural influence might be stronger than you thought yourself ^^
Also, do you always answer truthfully on those question thingies going around? Do you think many folks will answer my last question the same way you did? A~nd last but not least: did you REALLY answer that question truthfully? :3
Even I am still officially registered as a christian and I somehow just lack the motivation to actually go to change that.
Well, anyway, I strongly agree with what you said SG.
The upbringing, cultural influence and even a feeling you had while you were still in the mothers womb influences your psyche and can change you into a totally different person. While you are able to think yourself and change your oppinions in many ways, you can't easily uproot your whole psyche (and you probably want to do that only if you had a really miserable upbringing anyway) to make you the I-am-me-person no matter where and how you are born/brought up.
The stuff that comes from the genes can influence your way of thinking, but not what you actually think. - So it may support your inner rebel who goes against the religion you were born in, or it makes you just go with the flow. But I really doubt that there is that "I believe in ..."-gene that makes you want to join that religion, just as i doubt there is a "I speak english"-gene that makes you speak english.
Yep, darkrobe understood what I meant. :)Im not sure thats the point.Quote from: ScaredGirlLet me ask you one thing. If you are unwilling to admit even the obvious possibility that your religion might be something different had the circumstances been different, why should I even debate with you about religion? I mean what's the point, because you clearly are not interested in hearing about other theories or possibilities, you only want to strengthen your current belief. This topic is not a discussion about arbitrary things like "what is God?" where anyone can say anything and nobody can prove otherwise. This discussion is about facts and numbers, so you can't just say "yes" and expect everyone to take your word for it.Say there are 100 people.
All of them were raised Christian.
50 of them changed beliefs in there lifetime to another religion.
If you look at this as only 50% of people chose their own beliefs, then you are looking at it wrong. For all we know, only 1 person blindly followed, and the remaining 49 were not brainwashed and actually made a mental decision to follow it.
You can assume I'm being blind, but I believe your the one who is blind here.
I think the point is to imagine what you might be like had you been raised in a group of a different religion.
So in your example. Say you were born with 99 other people who were all raised cristian. and you are part of the 50% that stayed christian.
I think your supposed to think about whether had you been part of 100 people raised hindu. whether you would have been 1 of the 50% that stayed hindu, or whether you would have been part of the 50% that changed and perhaps ended up christian. If youve never considered other religions and whether they would fit you, i think maybe you should give this more thought than just throw out an answer.
I think it is harder to compare agnostics and atheists here. because most people who are agnostic or atheist werent raised agnostic or atheist. so im not sure we would have a good sample group.
* If you somehow managed to use your brain and like questioning stuff, you become an atheist or for the better a pastafarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastafarian)like me.yay I am not alone :D
"Religion is like football. Everyone wants to believe their home team is special, but the fact is they only think so because they were born there."That's actually more true for religion than football :P .
Unfortunately I was born in the buckle of the bible belt in the United States. Both of my parents are adherents of the protestant Christian faith. I grew up believing and practicing this faith. However, I gave up these delusions in favor of reason and logic. I am anti-religious. I would like to stamp out religion and any other the erroneous beliefs. I studied History in college and the best I can tell is that religion in the most evil thing that humans have ever created. Good people will do the best they can, evil people will do evil, however to make a good person do evil you need religion.Reason and Logic are not answers they are tools. Beings cannot lack an answer to "What ought one do?". For even indecision is an answer to the question. One does not replace Christian morality with Reason and Logic. One replaces Christian morals with other moral theories.
god bless ; )
I admire your semantics, however I think anti theism is a reasonable stance when it comes to these issues. Religion is a dangerous, fraudulent and servile world view. It is used to justify mad men, extort resources and enslave the minds of its adherents. I would argue that it is the greatest threat to civilization. Take a quick look at the all the evil that religion has brought into the world i.e. genocide, human sacrifice, genital mutilation etc. A rational person would not participate in this, were it not justified by religion.Have you ever read the Watchmen by chance? The characters of that graphic novel do a good job of displaying how moral theories can be the source of evil. If you feel sympathies with utilitarians then the Kantian willingness to be honest with murderers is appalling. If you feel sympathies with Kantians then you would be appalled at sacrificing others for the Greater Good. When has someone done something for a God that they were not simultaneously doing for the Good(or at least what they mistook as the good)? The majority of moral theories at this time are Religion. However the majority of Religions are monotheistic. If it is reasonable to limit our sight to only the majority of moral theories (Religion) then it is reasonable to limit our sight to the majority of religions (monotheism). Obviously this focusing leads to a ridiculous conclusion where the final target would be an insignificant fraction of the problem.
The argument about religion is the only thing that will make a good person do evil is still valid. Just because you redefine the process that alters the state this rational person’s mind does in no way eliminate religion as the prime mechanism. In fact name another mechanism. Better yet find me a good deed that a moral non believer would do that religious adherents participate in. Then name me an evil deed that a moral person would do without religion.
There is more no way to prove that there is a god, none. Even further there is even less evidence to support the attributes of said god. If you choose to believe in some irrational construct, by all means go ahead. However keep that garbage to yourself. Do not ask the state to support it, pressure others to believe it, and lastly don’t go suicide bombing buildings to place yourself on the fast track to the “afterlife”.Don't be so quick to assume I am a theist. I happen to be an agnostic atheist. Also this section has a drastically different attitude than the section I was replying to.
I would like to stamp out religion and any other the erroneous beliefs. I studied History in college and the best I can tell is that religion in the most evil thing that humans have ever created. Good people will do the best they can, evil people will do evil, however to make a good person do evil you need religion.It is one thing to desire religious freedom including the freedom not to have a religion. It is another thing to use language that is mistaken for persecution of religious beliefs. This is the distinction between A-theism (not theism) and Anti-theism (against theism). Provocative language tends to be destructive to reasonable conversation. If you do not mean your exaggeration, then perhaps you should not use that one.
Evidence for pluto can exist | Evidence against pluto can exist | |
Pluto exists | T | F |
Pluto does not exists | F | F |
Evidence for god can exist | Evidence against god can exist | |
God exists | F | F |
God does not exists | F | F |
...and lastly don’t go suicide bombing buildings to place yourself on the fast track to the “afterlife”.I usually avoid commenting in this section completely, but as an apatheist, I see what I quoted here to be downright screwed up. I can't express it more simply, it is the one of the most disgusting things I have ever read or heard pertaining to religion, here or elsewhere, theist or nontheist. Shame on you.
In response to ddevans96 I would like to say shame on you. I think Kamikaze pilots in World War II to present day jihadist illustrate beautifully the dangers of religion. These along with Crusaders, genocide, witch trials, genital mutilation, and pedophile priests illustrate this danger well. I do not think that these are acts that rational people would come up with on their own. When one mentions religion people have desire to be politically correct. I find this disgusting. This need for congeniality only allows these beliefs to persist unchecked. It gives them the luxury to hide in the shadows behind your world view.furball's comic, while inaccurate and meant more for amusement and truth, has one very valid point: Theists are not the only people in the world who have done terrible things. Stalin was an example of a violent and 'dangerous' atheist, but there are countless others.
My dear ddevans96 I understand completely your world view. I think you view is fairly selfish and immoral. To criticize a critique of religion is utterly shameful. The fact that you have no views on god is secondary. I insist to not see religion as a threat to rational thought and civilization in an error.I'd be interested to hear why you think apatheism is selfish and immoral, especially compared side-by-side to your own, and agnosticism. I think an interesting topic can come of that. I also didn't see the original suicide bombing comment as a critique, though I understand if that's what you meant. As for finding religion as a threat, I don't think that's how I've ever seen it, but more as a viewpoint, somewhat opposite that of those that aren't centered around a god.
Also Stalin is a poor choice of an atheistic villain; his regime is much more closely related to the Russian Orthodoxy than anything. Just because he used secular language does in no way remove him as the head of his church. What self-respecting dictator would not take advantage of this vacuum of power? Please don’t use Hitler either, he was catholic and supported by the pope until the end of the war. You should look to the French revolution. There you will find bad behavior by secular peasants.I do agree that Stalin's regime was not truly atheist, but I wanted to use one from the comic to set the point off, and as you said, it definitely couldn't be Hitler. Hitler wasn't even close to an atheist. I did consider bringing up in that paragraph other dictators and rulers, such as Bonaparte, Mussolini, and some of those in communist regimes, but I am yet unsure about the specifics of their atheism. I will also take the advice on checking out the religious aspects of the French Revolution, as I haven't done much study there.
In the case of Pluto, evidence can differentiate between its existence and non existence. In the case of God, there is no evidence useful in differentiate which reality exists.Saying "not having evidence to existence" and "not having evidence to non existence" are equal is an absurd and inverted way of thinking. In science, you don't have to show evidence that something does not exist, but the opposite. You care about measuring the non-existence of materials only if there is a scientific reason that it could exist in the first place which is not the case of god.
.....
So:
Evidence is not applicable to the question.
Neither is probability since the truth has 100% probability and nobody has knowledge of that detail.
This leaves a question that has no rational bias towards any of the possible answers.
Having two possible options (god existing vs not existing) does not mean each share the pie chart of possibilities equally. You can't apply logic and statistics on the things that has no evidence: you just scientifically ignore it and apply palm to the face. The possibility that the god exist only challenges the possibility that rainbow pooping unicorns exist. It does NOT challenge atheismI support what is said here, and the underlined made me literally Lol at it's truthfulness.
Even the embodiment of insanity: the inquisition needed some tiny bit of an evidence to witch hunt and burn people alive. You can't act on "not having evidence to non existence". That is plain insanity and sounds funny.
And there is this "believing in a religion" issue which is an even more absurd thing than believing in god. Religious people tend to demand evidence that god does not exist and then proceed to conclude that their religion is the correct choice. This is another blood boiling level of insanity. I'm yet to see any believer who cares about showing evidence that their religion is the one that god intended if it existed.
Fact: Only believers need to prove their point by evidence. or just admit that it is "blind belief" and stop harrassing science and logic, really. at all.
I don’t see how the examination of ideas and beliefs that have no evidence to support them could possibly be called extreme. Especially when these ideas or premises can and often do harm others. These beliefs need to be called into question. I am not talking about culture never once mentioned it. However while on the topic if your culture has a tendency to harm, oppress or threaten other members of humanity, it should be viewed with the same skepticism with out apology. I am pretty sure it is quite fine to look at religion and culture thru this lens.My point is that the society that we live in can determine as much of what you denounce as religion does. And yet you attack religion more than society. Why?
My aids example was not to illustrate causation. The fact remains there is a lot of people that are infected by this virus in certain African countries. That is the fact, not how it happened which does not matter to this argument. The ridiculous thing is that still to this day Catholicism preaches against the use of condoms. I would like to think that using condoms would help curb some of this human suffering. Apparently the pope and many of his loyal followers see it different.
The example of the health care is an example that is happening in modern day United States. The cultural argument makes no sense these people live in a country that has multi-billion dollar per year pharmaceutical industry. I would assess the only thing that differentiates this group is their belief system not culture. I would access that to sit idly by and watch a child die of strep throat is indeed sinister. What ridiculous cultural value is this beneficial? Religion be the cause, and I cannot see how it is in any way helpful to humanity. Why not question it?
Aves that is about as plain as I can make.
I have to disagree about the burden of proof. They make these extravagant claims that they believe give them authority over others. If someone says they are King of the world, I think they need some evidence to accept the throne. This is dangerous, as I have stated before.Demanding submission is not the same as religion:
On your Kantian and Utilitarian examples I must apologize. I over looked them. They are idealistic extremes however I think you can be a little more pragmatic. I think do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a good place to start. I do not think this would be objected to by the majority of civilization. This simple rule that is evident even in other primates I think would serve humanity well. I don’t know if you could advance morals any further, nor should you have to.
You missed my point. The key difference between science and theology is:In the case of Pluto, evidence can differentiate between its existence and non existence. In the case of God, there is no evidence useful in differentiate which reality exists.Saying "not having evidence to existence" and "not having evidence to non existence" are equal is an absurd and inverted way of thinking. In science, you don't have to show evidence that something does not exist, but the opposite. You care about measuring the non-existence of materials only if there is a scientific reason that it could exist in the first place which is not the case of god.
.....
So:
Evidence is not applicable to the question.
Neither is probability since the truth has 100% probability and nobody has knowledge of that detail.
This leaves a question that has no rational bias towards any of the possible answers.
Having two possible options (god existing vs not existing) does not mean each share the pie chart of possibilities equally. You can't apply logic and statistics on the things that has no evidence: you just scientifically ignore it and apply palm to the face. The possibility that the god exist only challenges the possibility that rainbow pooping unicorns exist. It does NOT challenge atheism at all.Again you missed my point:
People very rarely realize that oldtrees is really good at leaving his own belief out of a discussion. Many times, when you see him debating something, he is simply pointing out flaws of logic, and challenging the person he is debating to think critically of their own belief, and the belief of others.
Burden of proof is very simple. The burden is not, as commonly misunderstood, on the person proving a positive. It is on the person making an assertion. If someone is making a positive assertion (aka there is a God) then it is their job to prove it. If the person is making a negative assertion (aka there is no God) then it is their job to prove it.
If someone walks up to me and says "there is no God" without having any knowledge of my background, it is THEIR job to prove it. If I walk up to someone and say "there is a God" it is MY job to prove it.
I am a Pastafarian and it was chosen for me!
Look into moral philosophy. It addresses the important topics that Religion covers but does not require the existence/non existence of gods and it is based on inquiry and reasoning.
Baptized Catholic, later renounced. Currently, I'm spiritually lost. I have no desire to be an atheist, but no religion seems to fit me properly.
no religion seems to fit me properly.I did believe in gravity, but it doesnt suit me properly so I decided it didnt exist.
I have 2 questions to all religious people:
- Do you think that if you were born somewhere else, your religion (like your language) could be something totally different?
- If you answered "Yes" to the first question, do you think that you would see that other religion as the one true religion?
I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.Neither Atheism nor Theism is a Scientific belief. If a belief must be scientific to hold, then neither can be held. Beware your cognitive biases.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
The null hypothesis is part of the scientific method.I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.Neither Atheism nor Theism is a Scientific belief. If a belief must be scientific to hold, then neither can be held. Beware your cognitive biases.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
I was born into Roman Catholicism. My mother is a Eucharistic Minister, and there are four deacons in my close family. I'm an atheist, but my family doesn't know that I am.
A few years ago, my uncle and his family explained to my grandfather that they are atheists, and my family harassed them to the point that they got unlisted phone numbers and moved to Oregon (we live in New Orleans) without a trace.
The null hypothesis is useful when evidence against the null hypothesis is possible. Aka when the null hypothesis is falsifiable.The null hypothesis is part of the scientific method.I choose my own religion , i believe their is no such thing as a god.Neither Atheism nor Theism is a Scientific belief. If a belief must be scientific to hold, then neither can be held. Beware your cognitive biases.
As a scientist i cannot believe such rubbish
I was born as a Roman Catholic, grew as one, and decided to be a Protestant at the age of 14, for reasons that I don't want to argue about with a Roman Catholic.But, you are willing to argue about the reasons with anyone else? :P
I was born as a Roman Catholic, grew as one, and decided to be a Protestant at the age of 14, for reasons that I don't want to argue about with a Roman Catholic.But, you are willing to argue about the reasons with anyone else? :P
i do not believe religion is irrational, nor do i believe atheism is irratiional. rationality itself must be determined from those beliefs.
if you are christian, and devote your life to helping others and being a good person, you are rational.
if you are christian, and yet do things the bible says you will go to hell for, you are irrational.
if you believe that what goes around comes around, and you do good deeds, you are rational.
on the other hand if you believe in a disconnect between action and consequence, and doing good deeds cannot help you, than the rational thing to do is to only do things to help yourself.
with this information, it can be determined that whether or not religion is real, it is a good thing assuming poeple will act rationally. however there is evidence that people dont.
yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.
exactly. you probably just mistyped but Jesus was Jewish.yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.
Like Hitler was christian, but he was a horrible man who did horrible things, and Jesus was a christian and was a rational person who did rational things.
Whether or not you believe Jesuswas the Son of God, he still lived and did good things.
exactly. you probably just mistyped but Jesus was Jewish.yes, that pretty much sums up what i said. no belief can be irrational or rational. rationality is determined by how you act in accordance with your belief.
Like Hitler was christian, but he was a horrible man who did horrible things, and Jesus was a christian and was a rational person who did rational things.
Whether or not you believe Jesuswas the Son of God, he still lived and did good things.
but its not just what you do, its what you do in accordance with your beliefs. doign good deeds doesnt neccecarily mean you are rational.
if my belief is that kicking puppies means i go to heaven, and i spend all day kicking puppies, i would be acting rational in accordance with my belief.
until someone figures out a way to disprove the fact that theoretically any belief could be true, rationality must be determined by its coexistence with belief.
and thus any bad deed can be considered rational for a given belief set.
Sorry for the thread necromancy, but this has been an interesting read, and there was one point in particular I wanted to comment on.
OldTrees, surely if God did actually exist, it would be possible for there to be evidence that he did? Therefore the null hypothesis is a perfectly valid tool in assessing the likelihood of his existence.
Furthermore, I'd have to ask what the difference is between a God who exists and makes no detectable impact on the universe whatsoever, and a God who simply doesn't exist.
If God did actually exist, it would be possible but not necessary for there to be evidence that he did. Therefore the null hypothesis is not a valid tool in assessing the likelihood of its existence.
If this possible but not necessary evidence was discovered then it would impact our assessment. However since it does not necessarily exist if god exists, its absence does not impact our assessment.
Analogy: There may or may not be glass in that window a mile away. If there were glass the glass might be stained glass. If it were stained glass we could see it from a mile away. Not seeing the colors of stained glass is evidence of it not being stained glass not evidence of it not being glass.
Key: god = glass, possible but not necessary evidence = possible but not necessary staining
The difference between undetectable impact (afterlife, souls, ...) and no impact. [Not a difference I care about, but some would care about it.]
The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason. The valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.If God did actually exist, it would be possible but not necessary for there to be evidence that he did. Therefore the null hypothesis is not a valid tool in assessing the likelihood of its existence.
Perhaps not in the strict scientific/statistical sense, however the general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a good one. Otherwise you end up with an infinite number of things which you can say there is no evidence for which do nonetheless exist. And I mean "infinite" literally.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster may be an over-used parody, but I think that the one really clever thing about it is that the doctrine explicitly states that there is no evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because he specifically changes the results of any experiments which might indicate his existence by hand. Which means that it actually becomes a more credible explanation than the Judeo-Christian God, as he is reported to show himself to humans and interact with the world all the time.
Uh, when did I mention presentation/proposition? If someone wanted to convince you to change your position then they would need to provide evidence. Someone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position. The quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.QuoteIf this possible but not necessary evidence was discovered then it would impact our assessment. However since it does not necessarily exist if god exists, its absence does not impact our assessment.
Again, I disagree. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I see no reason to give credence to any proposition which has no evidence whatsoever to support it. And, if I did, I would have to give equal credence to every proposition which was presented without evidence.
The analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.QuoteAnalogy: There may or may not be glass in that window a mile away. If there were glass the glass might be stained glass. If it were stained glass we could see it from a mile away. Not seeing the colors of stained glass is evidence of it not being stained glass not evidence of it not being glass.
Key: god = glass, possible but not necessary evidence = possible but not necessary staining
Sorry, but that's a poor analogy. We can see light reflected off the glass. We can buy a telescope to see the glass. We can walk the mile to see in person whether there is glass. We can use a gun to shoot it to see if it shatters. There are any number of ways in which we can check whether there is glass there or not.
There is no analogy for this proposition, unless it's essentially the same proposition. In this case, for your analogy to be accurate the glass would have to be said to be in the frame yet it was utterly invisible to any form of perception, it didn't hinder the passage of matter through it...unless, basically, this glass was utterly indistinguishable from there being no glass whatsoever, no matter how you tried to test it. And, in that analogy, I think it's entirely reasonable (not to mention logical) to work under the premise that there is, in fact, no glass in the window, unless you're presented with evidence that there is.
The difference was between undetectable impact and no impact. Those were possible not necessary examples listed.QuoteThe difference between undetectable impact (afterlife, souls, ...) and no impact. [Not a difference I care about, but some would care about it.]
The existence of these things doesn't necessarily imply the existence of God, and the existence of God doesn't necessarily imply the existence of these things.
The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason.
The valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.
Uh, when did I mention presentation/proposition?
Someone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position.
The quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.
The analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.
It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.The general idea that things don't exist unless there is evidence to suggest they do is a fallacious idea that has been used to attack theists without reason.Why is it fallacious? That it has been used to attack theists certainly doesn't imply that it is therefore wrong.
Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.QuoteThe valid version would be to either believe or disbelieve things that have no possibility for evidence either way. This version solves the infinite things problem and does not claim more than it can support.
How does it solve the problem?
The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism. This is a very important detail. I have never supported an assertion that god does or does not exist. Therefore unless you are supporting one of those assertions then neither of those assertions is being defended as part of this discussion.QuoteUh, when did I mention presentation/proposition?The proposition is that God exists. In fact, more, it's that the specific God of the believer exists, as opposed to the infinite number of other Gods which must be deemed equally possible, as there is no evidence for any of them.
1) The hypothetical individual is not arguing/proposing/asserting. (I use individual because the next necro might be a theist and I want to cover both sides)QuoteSomeone does not need to provide evidence to defend their position if you do not provide evidence for why they should change their position.There may not be direct evidence that God does not exist. As has been noted often, it's not possible to prove the negative. However, there is certainly plenty of evidence that God is not necessary in order for the universe to exist as it does. In fact, were this not true, then our hypothetical theist wouldn't be arguing for a God for which there is no evidence. There is also evidence that God is an invention of mankind. There is also evidence of the cognitive biases and superstitious modes of thought which can cause animals such as ourselves to fool ourselves into attaching meaning to things which do not have the meaning that we attach to them.
There's quite a lot of evidence which make God both unlikely and unnecessary. Weighed against that is no evidence whatsoever that he exists.
So, yes, I can provide evidence for why our hypothetical theist (for the sake of my not typing that out over and over again, I'm going to call him Theo from now on) should consider changing his position.
1) Theo is not presenting the idea of a deity. The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.QuoteThe quote "That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." is part of the evidence I am using to convince you of my claim that the attacker has the burden of proof and that the attacker has an impossible task.
No, again, I don't accept this premise. The logical position is to assume that something doesn't exist unless there is cause to believe that it does. Theo is presenting the idea of a deity, and therefore has the burden of proof for establishing this to be the case.
I'm also curious as to how you've determined which side is "the attacker" in this instance. Surely, if you take the two statements "God exists" and "God does not exist", then the only thing being "attacked" is the null hypothesis? By defining the atheist as "the attacker" you're implying that "God exists" is, in fact, the null hypothesis. I would contend that Theo is the person attacking the null hypothesis by stating that an entity for which there is no evidence exists.
How does it rely on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained? The analogy is merely being used to demonstrate the absence of staining is not evidence of the absence of glass. No analogy is perfect. However an analogy is deemed valid if there is no difference that reflects on how the analogy is being used. Since I was using the analogy to give a concrete example of "possible but not necessary" AND none of the differences were related to this, the analogy is valid for its usage.QuoteThe analogy was used to demonstrate the relation between existance/nonexistance and the observation of/absence of related possible but not necessary evidence. Since none of the differences you observed related to the relationship, it was a good analogy.
No, I'm sorry. I don't want to get into one of those "arguing about arguing" exchanges, but your analogy relies on there being no way to tell if glass a mile away exists unless it's stained. This is absolutely false, and so the analogy falls down at the first hurdle.
It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.
Either belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.
The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.
1) The hypothetical individual is not arguing/proposing/asserting. (I use individual because the next necro might be a theist and I want to cover both sides)
2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.
5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.
*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.
1) Theo is not presenting the idea of a deity. The existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.
2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.
3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?
Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.It is biased towards an answer without reason for the bias. Since its bias is unsupported it is fallacious to accept that bias without further evidence.
I don't agree that there is no reason for the bias.
I tell you that I have an invisible, intangible, inaudible dancing pink unicorn which lives in my flat and brings me ice cream sandwiches in bed. Are you seriously contending that there's no reason whatsoever to start from the premise that I'm lying, mistaken or deluded? Or would you accept that starting from the premise that such a being doesn't exist unless there's evidence that he does is a good idea?
If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.QuoteEither belief or disbelief is valid when there is no possibility for evidence either way. Thus the starting position is acceptable. Thus there is no need to evaluate the existance/nonexistance of each of the infinite things that have no possibility for evidence either way.
I still don't understand how your final sentence follows logically from your first two.
A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.QuoteThe existence of a theist is not an assertion of theism.
Yes it is. A theist, by definition, asserts that a deity or deities exist.
It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?Quote2) God not being necessary is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
It's not a disproof of anything. But it is indirect evidence that God does not exist.
Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.Quote3) Religion possibly being an invention of humanity is a disproof of a fallacious argument. If the fallacious argument were true then my argument would be false. The disproof of the fallacious argument does not harm my argument.
Again, it's not a disproof of anything. But it is evidence that God does not exist.
The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.Quote4) You have provided no evidence to the likelihood of a deity other than it is less than 100%*. You did not provide any support for your conclusion that a deity is unlikely.
I have. And I'm afraid that just stating that I haven't isn't a counter-argument.
Misuse of Occam's_razorQuote5) Something being unnecessary has no impact on whether it exists or not.All other things being equal, the explanation with the fewest entities is to be preferred.
Binary means:Quote*Actually you merely provided evidence that the likelihood was not necessarily 100%. Existence is binary and thus likelihood for existence is also binary.
Something being binary does not mean that the probability of either hypothesis being true is 50%.
Assertions result from someone trying to persuade another person not from merely silently believing something. We are discussing the rationality of assertions and silent beliefs. (You have been reading what I wrote and my replies correct? This should not be a surprise.)Quote2)If John, a theist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then John would be the attacker.
If Jill, an atheist, walked up to an atheist (Thelma) and tried to convince them that a god existed, then Jill would be the attacker.
If Jane, a theist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jane would be the attacker.
If Jonny, an atheist, walked up to a theist (Theo) and tried to convince them to disbelieve god exists, then Jonny would be the attacker.
Since John, Jill, Jane and Jonny all attempted to persuade without using evidence, they can be rejected without evidence by Thelma and Theo.
3) Usually there are 2 attackers in an argument and only 1 during proselytizing.
You seem to be talking as if we're discussing a hypothetical argument between two people, rather than what the actual nature of reality is.
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?
You're right that it's not proof. Nobody is claiming proof of anything. But it is evidence.
A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?
You're right that it's not proof. Nobody is claiming proof of anything. But it is evidence.
You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.
This version of god would fall into the "If evidence necessarily would exist if it exists, then lack of evidence is evidence of lack" scenario. Atoms had the same situation until evidence was discovered about their structure and later were able to be seen.A lack of evidence does not prove alack . European people thought that was are only white because all te swans they see are white. But who knew that in Oceania there are black swans?
You're right that it's not proof. Nobody is claiming proof of anything. But it is evidence.
You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.
To further expand, and try and stop a rebuttal I see coming, you can see an atom with a telescope, but we previously didnt have any way to see them. Perhaps there is a way to see some type of god that isnt normally visible with the standard human perception. Who knows, we may develop god seeing goggles since we have night and heat seeing goggles. People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.
Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.
If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.
A theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?
It is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?
Since the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.
The obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.
Misuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.
If X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.
You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.
People arguing that atoms didnt exist because they couldnt be seen probably felt like fools once a way to detect them was created.
You can't say that because that something isn't perceptible that makes it evidence. An atom is not perceptible but I believe that 99.99% of the educated people in the world believe it exists.
Atoms are perceptible.
This is not convincing at all...........
My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult. My upbringing did not mention intangible unicorns so my starting position on the topic of intangible unicorns is one of disbelief.Prior to your assertion I would have defaulted to the starting position on the topic.
After your assertion I would evaluate your argument to see if it convinced me to abandon my starting position or whether it was insufficient.
The particular subject matter renders your task of making a convincing argument impossible so I would remain at my starting position.
And what is your starting position on the existence or otherwise of my unicorn? And can you please explain your reasoning.
When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational. Therefore there is no reason to waste time considering your starting position on each of the infinite topics that have no possible evidence.QuoteI see no rational reason to hold either starting position is an inferior starting position.Your initial position not being logical or rational is a reason to change your position.
If there is no reason to change ones position without evidence on topics without the possibility for evidence either way, then there is no reason to waste time and effort considering if one should change ones position on those topics.
You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.QuoteA theist, by definition, believes that a deity or deities exist.
Do you mean "holds a belief" when you say "assert" or are you using the common definition of "trying to persuade others this is the case"?
"Assert" does not necessarily mean trying to persuade anybody of anything.
False. God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.QuoteIt is not necessary for you to be human in order to breathe air. Is this indirect evidence that you are not human?
False equivalence. God, in this instance, is being posited as an explanation for the existence of the world as we currently understand it to exist. God not being necessary for the world as we currently understand it to exist is evidence against the existence of God.
Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)QuoteSince the invention of religion could happen even if god existed, then religion being an invention is not evidence that god does not exist.
No, it is not proof, but it is evidence. That, say, the God of the Church of Jesus Christ And The Latter Day Saints exists yet mankind only came to know this through the circuitous route of developing the Sumerian and Canaanite religions, from there venerating Yahweh the God of War above the others, this becoming a monotheistic religion known as Judaism, which then became Christianity, from which emerged Joseph Smith's Mormonism, which became the Church of Jesus Christ and the Later Day Saints is less probable than that God doesn't exist and that these stories are just stories. Especially as we're talking about a God who has no influence on the world whatsoever, which would necessarily mean that he didn't influence these religions whatsoever, which would mean that Thomas S. Monson has ended up landing on the truth by pure chance.
Surely you don't disagree that the probability of someone alighting on the exact truth by chance in amongst a literally infinite number of possible alternatives is infinitely small?
I have found that people tend to notice when they misread something if they are merely notified. Usually in depth correction of a misreading is insulting.QuoteThe obvious counter arguments are now included. I had expected you to see them upon reflection previously.
You had expected to say "no you're wrong" and for me to simply agree with you? Not to be rude, but that's a little ironic, given that you're arguing that one should not change one's position unless given cause to do so.
I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?QuoteMisuse of Occam's_razor
It deals with parsimony not probability.
And the parsimonious explanation is to be preferred.
In science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.
Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)QuoteIf X then the probability of X is 100%. If !X then the probability of X is 0%. Binary is 0s and 1s corresponding to 0% and 100%.
This is a strange argument to be making. Obviously something either exists or it doesn't. But we're talking about assessing the probability of something existing. If I draw a card from a deck and hold it face down and ask you what colour it is, then the probability of the card being red is 100% if I drew a red card or 0% if I drew a black card, but all you can tell is that the probability of drawing a red card is 50%. In that situation, were I to draw a card and ask you what you thought the probability of it being red was, would you honestly say "either 100% or 0%"? Because that's the least useful application of probability I've ever heard of.
Now, leaving aside the cards, what we're assessing is not whether or not God exists, but what the probability is that someone who states that God exists is correct. This probability is not 50%. There being 2 possible outcomes does not make those two possibilities equally probable. If I roll a fair 6-sided die then I can either roll a 1 or I can not roll a 1. Despite this, the probability of me rolling a 1 is 16.66%, not 50%.
I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.
My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult.
When there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational.
You need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.
Especially address the phrases: "I think X" and "I claim X".
Sidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.
God not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.
Since the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)
You believe you are arguing against an ignorant theist[...]
I do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?QuoteIn science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.
Theoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)
The existence of such a point is all I need for my point. I will leave it to Psychologists to define the criteria and find the average moment.My starting position is what I believed when I developed from a child into a fully rational pre adult.
How do you determine exactly when you developed from a child into a "fully rational pre adult"? What are your criteria for this?
So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions. Since you have not supported this positive assertion (which is different than a positive starting position) then I see no reason to be convinced to abandon my starting position that their is no superior position when evidence cannot exist.QuoteWhen there is no possible evidence, neither position is irrational.
I disagree. The rational position is not to believe in something unless there is reason to believe in it.
You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.QuoteYou need to define your terms. Then you need to defend your claim that your terms have the same relation to burden of proof the normal usage of the terms do.
An assertion in the sense I'm using it is no different to any other statement. If someone is making a positive assertion about something, the burden of proof is upon them.QuoteSidenote: I may be misinterpreting your claim. However your claim that people need to defend silent beliefs is rather enraging.
I've not said that anybody needs to defend anything. I also find it extremely curious that you've found anything in this conversation "enraging". Rage is an extremely strong emotion to have and perhaps, if this is the reaction you're having to what I've thus far considered to be a friendly discussion of differing viewpoints, then we should simply leave it here.
See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence. Since the analogy was describing how "not being necessary is not evidence of not being", the parsimony difference is not relevant to this analogy.QuoteGod not being necessary for the world to exist is merely evidence that god is not necessary for the world to exist. The melting of ice is not necessary to the formation of liquid water (vapor can condense). Is this evidence against ice melting? No. It is the listing of other possibilities.
Vapour condensing is not a more parsimonious explanation for the formation of water than ice melting, and vice versa.
As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.QuoteSince the probability of someone inventing Christianity and the probability of Christianity being correct. are independant, the probability of someone inventing Christianity is irrelevant to the probability of Christianity being correct. (Replace Christianity with any religion that has a deity)
There is no "probability" of someone inventing Christianity. The history of Christianity is a matter of historical record. The history of Christianity as developed from Yahwism is taught in seminary. It's as much fact as anything from 4,000 years ago can be said to be.
So, given this, the probability of any one of them being correct is relevant. And the probability of any of them being correct by pure chance in amongst the infinite alternatives is infinitely small.
Wikipedia is usually maintained by people interested in the fields the pages are on. It is much better to have a scientist talking about science as a source than either a theist or an atheist talking about god as a source. You can read the links if you find Wikipedia to be below your standard. Until you link a better source, I will go with this citation.QuoteI do not see a preference outside of model building. There is no preference when comparing scientific models. Why would there be a preference when comparing topics science can't touch due to lack of possibility of evidence?QuoteIn science, Occam's razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule or an observation) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result.
I don't think Wikipedia is exactly the best source.
If so then only because you were not addressing my sidenote. The above quote is my sidenote. Whether a religion is correct or mistaken is an unknown determined state. Aka a Binary (100% or 0%) probability.QuoteTheoretical past events have determined states. Theoretical future events have probabilistic outcomes. This detail is often used to explain how "unlikely" things like evolution are not unlikely to have occurred. (related to the Anthropic Principle)
Correct., but this doesn't address anything I've said.
I do believe in atoms. However, if this statement was to argue to someone who is completely against atoms, it would be totally useless.
I have no need to convince anybody of the existence of atoms, as atoms are perceptible and therefore there is evidence of their existence.
The existence of such a point is all I need for my point.
So far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions.
You claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.
If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.
See wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence.
As discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.
You can't touch it, you can't smell it, you can't hear it. The limitation of the senses causes atoms to not be perceptible. That was why Democritus was being ridiculed by Aristotle because atoms aren't perceptible objects.
Children undergo mental development.The existence of such a point is all I need for my point.
No, not really. You can't just say that there is a cut off point for something being someone's starting position and then say that how this starting point is defined is unimportant. This is a premise that your entire argument is built upon. As it is you haven't even established that such a point exists.
I did not intend to create a strawman. Where did I misunderstand your point?QuoteSo far you have not supported your claim that people with positive starting positions should take the time to evaluate a lack of evidence against their position and be convinced to change positions.
You keep presenting straw men as if they were my arguments. Please don't do this. I had hoped for a rational discussion of the issues, but that will be impossible to do if you keep making up viewpoints for me and then arguing against those, rather than what I've actually said.
A) There is a theist standing on a corner. This theist exists.QuoteYou claimed that the existence of a theist is an assertion of theism. This is a very inflammatory claim because it equates all theists as the type that go around asserting theism. This prejudice was enraging.
The expansion you have above seems to indicate that you do not believe the existence of a theist is the same as the existence of a theist asserting theism. If you do believe these are the same thing then I see no reason to discuss with you.
If however you agree that someone needs to assert a claim to be asserting a claim and merely believing a claim is not the same as asserting a claim, then we can discuss the nuance of the burden of proof if any that exists for those that believe but are not asserting claims.
This is starting to become a little bizarre. I've explained how I'm defining the word "assert" in this conversation, yet you seem to have ignored that. Perhaps for clarity's sake you should define how you are using the term in the above sentences.
QuoteSee wikipedia link (or further links) as a source describing parsimony as not being evidence.
I wonder if you've actually read all of that Wikipedia page? Perhaps you should read the section where it talks about Occam's own application of his Razor to the question of God's existence or otherwise. Are you claiming the Occam did not understand the Razor correctly?
In the philosophy of religion, Occam's razor is sometimes applied to the existence of God; if the concept of a God does not help to explain the universe better, then the idea is that atheism should be preferred (Schmitt 2005).1) There is no claim that Occam used it this way.
How is this a strawman?QuoteAs discussed in binary probability. The probability of an existing religion being correct is 100% or 0%. Not infinitesimal.
This is another straw man. Please read and respond to what I've actually posted.
While this is true, but can you explain the mass population in Christianity then?(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/World-religions.PNG/800px-World-religions.PNG)
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.
That reason might be: They were raised to see purpose in the world. Pattern matching is one of the skills humans have. It was evolutionary beneficial to be developed to the point to find patterns that do not exist in order to find more patterns that did exist (hidden predators).My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.
My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.
Personal Evidence of God for me.
1)Feeling his presence, not just while in church but during prayer
2)Hearing footsteps by like the classic footsteps poem during a very dark time in my life when I wanted nothing to do with God and jumped out of a moving car. I heard footsteps by me which comforted me.
3)Having the chronic knee pain that the doctors said I was going to have for the rest of my life healed during a service at church
While, there is no evidence, but the fact that I can feel his presence indicates makes me, at least, know that God exists. He has worked on me miracles too by sending me a wonderful guardian angel while I was depressed and cured me of it :).
That which would be if god exists but would not be if god did not exist. (Or vice versa)My point through that is not saying that God exists. I'm explaining why so many people believe in a God even though there is no evidence to support that he exists.So many modern day people believe in god the same reason medieval people believed the world was flat and why Greeks believed in Zeus.
What do you define as evidence?
Subjective accounts that could very well be influenced by the subject could be caused by the subject rather than the outside force they ascribe to the account. Therefore it does not fulfill the second half (would not be if god did not exist).
QuotePersonal Evidence of God for me.
1)Feeling his presence, not just while in church but during prayer
2)Hearing footsteps by like the classic footsteps poem during a very dark time in my life when I wanted nothing to do with God and jumped out of a moving car. I heard footsteps by me which comforted me.
3)Having the chronic knee pain that the doctors said I was going to have for the rest of my life healed during a service at church