A Million to One Chance

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2017

blü 2 said:
That as with the unicorn, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

That we have even less reason to think gods exist than unicorns exist; since if we encountered a unicorn and had a virgin to hand, we could ascertain whether it was a unicorn or not; whereas we're not even told what we're looking for when looking for gods.

That the world behaves exactly as if the only place gods existed was in the imagination of particular individuals.

That all in all we would err were we to give gods the benefit of the doubt unless we gave unicorns, Dumbledore, Santa and the Flying Dutchman the same benefit.

(All of which observations I'll gladly lay aside if someone comes up with a useful definition of a god, and follows it with a satisfactory demonstration of a real one.)

Yes, I can see what you're saying, although it's different when it comes to claims regarding actual phenomena which can be investigated here on Earth. We have the means to investigate.

I can't really say much about unicorns, since I'm a bit fuzzy on legends and myths involving unicorns. I don't think anyone has found any evidence that unicorns ever existed, but if they ever did once walk the Earth, wouldn't there be some bones or fossil record (just as we have with the dinosaurs)?

As for Santa, again, that's another phenomenon which is said to be on this Earth, specifically at the North Pole. Humans have been to the North Pole and explored the Arctic region extensively, and no reports or sightings of Santa or his workshop.

But with claims about God, it is said that God is somewhere up in the sky - in outer space. We haven't gotten to the point where we have the means to do extensive space exploration. If someone said that "God" is on some planet in the Andromeda galaxy, then someone would have to go up there and check it out to verify the claim. We can't do that yet, so we're left with an open question that can't be resolved.

blü 2 · Sep 8, 2017

Stevicus said:
We have the means to investigate.

So you're saying the way to gain credibility while wholly evading scrutiny is to have no real qualities? Doesn't sound like cred to me ─ sound like the speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about.

Stevicus said:
But with claims about God, it is said that God is somewhere up in the sky - in outer space.

And Dumbledore's at Hogwarts. And Santa's house is hard to spot because of all the snow, although I hear he's getting water in the basement these days. And the ocean is big, which must be why the Flying Dutchman isn't spotted all that often. And as for God being in some other Galaxy, that would certainly explain a lot.

Stevicus said:
we're left with an open question that can't be resolved.

Start by considering whether God sounds vastly more like a work of fiction than something real, perhaps?

QuestioningMind · Sep 8, 2017

Lyndon said:
Atheists don't impress me with being logical at all, they think they are, but I'm not buying it. Atheism is not scientific, Agnosticism is scientific, theism is scientific if you personally have evidence, but your perceived lack of evidence of God's existence, does not constitute evidence that God does not exist, just that you haven't seen the evidence.

'your perceived lack of evidence of God's existence, does not constitute evidence that God does not exist'

I don't know a single atheist who makes such a claim. I am an atheist simply because I have yet to be presented with sufficient evidence to believe that a god(s) exist. Should someone at some point offer me genuine evidence I am more than willing to change my stance on the matter. Being an atheist doesn't mean that you absolutely 100% reject even the POSSIBILITY of a god(s), it simply means that as of yet you have not seen any evidence that would persuades you that their actually is.

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2017

Enoch07 said:
Not really sure what you mean. Religon has been contested since the very second a religous person first spoke of religion. You could even say before time began, but thats another topic.

Athiesm can be a useful tool in keeping zealotry in check. Athiest tend to be skeptics. This skepticism can be very useful in not only suppressing religous zealotry, but also other idealogical zealotry. SJW's are a good example of ideological zealotry. Athiesm misused is called miltant athiesm. This is the zealout athiest who like to blame religion for all of the worlds problems instead of just accepting the fact that it is crappy people and not the religon that is responsible. These zealots literally can't see the forest for the trees.

Zealots of any kind should bother everyone . They are irrational and tend to be hateful, bigoted, and narrow minded. We should always stand against zealotry in any form it takes.

The point is, zealotry begets zealotry. It depends on how you define it, though. Militant atheists seem to come out more often when they perceive religion as attempting to stand in the way of human progress.

Also, when you say that it is crappy people who are responsible for the world's problems, I agree with you. But where did these crappy people come from, and who influenced them to the point where they ended up so crappy in the first place? I think back to earlier times when religion ostensibly controlled everything - education, politics, whatever media existed at the time. They had the hearts and minds of entire countries, and yet they still managed to churn out hordes of these "crappy people." How does this happen? Either religion was an incredibly bad influence, or their teaching methods were a failure of epic proportions.

The only reason things got any better at all was because during the Enlightenment, people started to think in more secular terms. People began to realize that the best way to turn "crappy people" into "non-crappy people" was to treat them better. Give them human rights, more freedom, better living conditions, more fairness, justice and equity based in rational thought, not religious superstition - and then they will be better people. As a result, we've progressed much more in the past 200 years than can be said about the previous 2000 years. Religion stood in the way of progress, but once we started to question and reject religion, humans made progress. That's how we become less crappy.

Enoch07 · Sep 8, 2017

Stevicus said:
Also, when you say that it is crappy people who are responsible for the world's problems, I agree with you. But where did these crappy people come from, and who influenced them to the point where they ended up so crappy in the first place? I think back to earlier times when religion ostensibly controlled everything - education, politics, whatever media existed at the time. They had the hearts and minds of entire countries, and yet they still managed to churn out hordes of these "crappy people." How does this happen? Either religion was an incredibly bad influence, or their teaching methods were a failure of epic proportions.

Some people just want to see the world burn. They don't need an ideolgy to teach them that.

Stevicus said:
The only reason things got any better at all was because during the Enlightenment, people started to think in more secular terms. People began to realize that the best way to turn "crappy people" into "non-crappy people" was to treat them better. Give them human rights, more freedom, better living conditions, more fairness, justice and equity based in rational thought, not religious superstition - and then they will be better people. As a result, we've progressed much more in the past 200 years than can be said about the previous 2000 years. Religion stood in the way of progress, but once we started to question and reject religion, humans made progress. That's how we become less crappy.

We would not have got where we are without Christianity. Christianity while not perfect by any means is incredibly stable. We might have never gained the stability need for progress. We would probably still be small tribes of pagans fighting over small areas and resources. Like the 30,000+ years before that.

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2017

blü 2 said:
So you're saying the way to gain credibility while wholly evading scrutiny is to have no real qualities? Doesn't sound like cred to me ─ sound like the speaker has no idea what he or she is talking about.

No that's not what I'm saying at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.

And Dumbledore's at Hogwarts.

I wouldn't know. I never read those stories.

And Santa's house is hard to spot because of all the snow, although I hear he's getting water in the basement these days.

At the very least, they should have spotted Rudolph by now. It's hard to miss that red shiny nose.

And the ocean is big, which must be why the Flying Dutchman isn't spotted all that often.

I remember quite a few Flying Dutchmen around here when some Dutch Air Force pilots were training at the local AFB.

And as for God being in some other Galaxy, that would certainly explain a lot.
Start by considering whether God sounds vastly more like a work of fiction than something real, perhaps?

My actual belief is that the very concept of "God" is too vast and indefinable to be of any use in a practical discussion about whether or not "it" exists. The universe itself is so incredibly vast - and we puny humans know very little about it. We're only just barely beginning to discover things, but we are curious, and we investigate as much as we can. That's the only way to learn.

And yes, I do consider that human conceptions of "God" are made up works of fiction. But even that might bear investigation. Going back to the example of Santa, it is said that the legends of Santa Claus might have originated with the veneration of a person who once actually existed. He didn't live at the North Pole or have a sleigh with reindeer, but one can still investigate and say "Yes, this must be how that crazy story about Santa came about."

Stevicus · Sep 8, 2017

Enoch07 said:
Some people just want to see the world burn. They don't need an ideolgy to teach them that.

And the best way to reduce the number of people who want to see the world burn is to give them a stake in its continuation.

We would not have got where we are without Christianity. Christianity while not perfect by any means is incredibly stable. We might have never gained the stability need for progress. We would probably still be small tribes of pagans fighting over small areas and resources. Like the 30,000+ years before that.

That's not entirely true. The Roman Empire flourished without Christianity, not to mention the Chinese and Indian civilizations which existed without Christianity. It's all speculation, but we may have progressed faster if we continued worshiping Jupiter or Apollo.

Enoch07 · Sep 8, 2017

Stevicus said:
That's not entirely true. The Roman Empire flourished without Christianity, not to mention the Chinese and Indian civilizations which existed without Christianity. It's all speculation, but we may have progressed faster if we continued worshiping Jupiter or Apollo.

Aye they did, but they fell faster than they rose. It is hard to say how much we would have flourished under the pagans, persians, or even the mongolians. Because as you say its all speculation. So I respond with some speculation of my own. I would wager butterfly effect is way more powerful than people think it is. Who knows what the world would be like. But I think that the world is better off the way it is. But then again maybe that is just my bias talking.

Skwim · Sep 8, 2017

Enoch07 said:
Some people just want to see the world burn. They don't need an ideolgy to teach them that.

Hogwash. The VAST majority of those who steamroll their way over others need ideologies to organize and affirm their pursuit for domination

We would not have got where we are without Christianity.

Correct, but that certainly doesn't mean we wouldn't be better off with out it.

Christianity while not perfect by any means is incredibly stable.

As are Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.etc.

We might have never gained the stability need for progress. We would probably still be small tribes of pagans fighting over small areas and resources. Like the 30,000+ years before that.

Quite a fantasy you've got going for yourself.

Who do you think was responsible for the early development of mathematics? It was the Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians, Chinese, and Indians.

Who do you think was responsible for the early development of science? It was the Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, and early Greco-Roman thinking.

And considering the present states of the world's population and its limited resources I wouldn't be touting the progress we currently have as necessarily desirable.
.

.

Enoch07 · Sep 8, 2017

Skwim said:
Hogwash. The VAST majority of those who steamroll their way over others need ideologies to organize and affirm their pursuit for domination

They use ideolgies to organize and hide within. Yes but hatred is something even athiest are guilty of so where do you think it comes from? It comes from the heart. Some people are just evil, greedy, and power hungry.

Skwim said:
Correct, but that certainly doesn't mean we wouldn't be better off with out it.

Does not mean we would be better off without either. You would just be speculating or in your case wishful thinking.

Skwim said:
As are Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, etc.etc

Yes and they was all around before Christianity. And yet none of them organized as well or provided the stability to progress for various reasons. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Skwim said:
Who do you think was responsible for the early development of science? It was the Babylonians, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, and early Greco-Roman thinking.

And considering the present states of the world's population and its limited resources I wouldn't be touting the progress we currently have as necessarily desirable.

I never said Christianity was solely responsible for progress. I merely said Christianity provided the stablilty needed for a productive society, and it did, as we stand here today! Many other cultures and philosophies contributed.

The resources are a problem. Mostly because WE messed up and did not use them or manage them properly. Deforestation did not happen because we cut down too many trees per say, its that we did not bother planting enough seeds to regrow them for the longest time. But we are working on that and innovations are being made almost on a daily basis. So there is hope.

QuestioningMind · Sep 8, 2017

RedDragon94 said:
I was just reading a book by Armin Navabi (you know, the Atheist Republic guy).

He says in his book Why There is No God on page 91,

"Religious Claims Are Not Proof
There's a common thread running throughout many of the claims of this book: believing in something does not make it true. Similarly, wanting something to be true does not affect its likelihood of actually being true. I might want to be a billionaire, but wanting it does not cause my bank account to swell. If I say that I'm a billionaire without anything to support the claim, no one has any reason to believe me. And if it turns out that I am not, in fact, a billionaire, then I am either a liar or delusional."

My response: Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either. Our opinions are subjective. There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true? What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue. And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

"Wanting something not to be true doesn't do **** either."

Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that atheist want god(s) NOT to be true? Does your lack of belief in magical unicorns mean that you WANT there to NOT be magical unicorns? Or does it simply mean that you have yet to be presented with sufficient evidence to believe that there really ARE magical unicorns?

Skwim · Sep 8, 2017

Enoch07 said:
They use ideolgies to organize and hide within. Yes but hatred is something even athiest are guilty of so where do you think it comes from? It comes from the heart.

Fine, but you specified seeing the world burn, which far exceeds simple hatred, of which even atheists are guilty of. (Curious: how did atheists make their way into the discussion?)

Some people are just evil, greedy, and power hungry.

Yup.

Does not mean we would be better off without either.

Errr, is there some reason you feel the need to repeat yourself?

Yes and they was all around before Christianity. And yet none of them organized as well or provided the stability to progress for various reasons. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

There's no doubt that progress developed during the rule of Christianity, but not necessarily because of it---its few supporting roles aside.

I never said Christianity was solely responsible for progress. I merely said Christianity provided the stablilty needed for a productive society, and it did, as we stand here today!

Don't start playing coy.

We both know what you were implying.

The resources are a problem. Mostly because WE messed up and did not use them or manage them properly. Deforestation did not happen because we cut down too many trees per say, its that we did not bother planting enough seeds to regrow them for the longest time. But we are working on that and innovations are being made almost on a daily basis. So there is hope.

But is more than just poor mismanagement of resources, it's also a matter of explosive population growth.

.

Enoch07 · Sep 8, 2017

Skwim said:
Fine, but you specified seeing the world burn, which far exceeds simple hatred, of which even atheists are guilty of. (Curious: how did atheists make their way into the discussion?)

Its called hyperbole!

(I used athiesm as an example to prove that religion is not responsible for hate. Because it was insinuated that religion is responsible for hate.)

Skwim said:
Errr, is there some reason you feel the need to repeat yourself?

Just countering your point. Dont get all nitpicky now.

Skwim said:
There's no doubt that progress developed during the rule of Christianity, but not necessarily because of it---its few supporting roles aside.

Yes it was. Without the stablilty provided we probably would still be small tribes of people scattered throughout the world. 30,000+ years before Christianity was a savage world of small tribes scattered about ruthlessly killing each other for resources. 2,000 after Christianity we are here in this modern age where we can argue about "what if"! If anything it worked too well!

Skwim said:
Don't start playing coy. We both know what you were implying.

You are projecting my friend. I stand by what i wrote on my post. I clearly implied nothing.

Skwim said:
But is more than just poor mismanagement of resources, it's also a matter of explosive population growth.

True but I did say:

Enoch07 said:
Mostly because WE messed up and did not use them or manage them properly.

And had we been able to properly predict the population explosion and managed our resources better, we might not have been in such a pickle. This is speculation, but it would not have hurt us to manage our resources better anyways.

ChristineM · Sep 8, 2017

Laika said:
20 pages of defining atheism later...

12 words with the advantage of being accurate

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

9Westy9 · Sep 8, 2017

RedDragon94 said:
There are thousands upon thousands of religions out there. That's what, 100,000 to 1 chance that one of them is true?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like your saying that a deity existing is 100,000 times more likely, simply because of the vast number of religions in the world? That's a pretty absurd statement. It's like saying that there's an infinity to 1 chance that 1+1 doesn't equal 2 just because there are an infinite number of integers.

I could also argue that there's a 50% chance that atheism is true because god(s) either does or doesn't exist. Of course, both of these are meaningless as they don't account for any other factors than "either one or the other is correct" and they assume that all possible answers are just as likely as the other. That's not how reality works.

RedDragon94 said:
What's to say one of our "imaginary friends" doesn't actually exist? Look at how many there are. If this were a scientific theory you'd say it was likely.

Except "this" isn't testable. So it isn't and cannot be a scientific theory.

RedDragon94 said:
Atheism is a weak answer to reality because it does not make a decision on this issue.

Which issue? I've read your post a few times and I'm not sure what issue you're referring to.

RedDragon94 said:
And I'm not saying believe in a certain God or religion, just think about it. You may give me the argument "I'm good enough without God!" Well that's a dangerous place to be because your definition of good enough may not be shared by a higher power. If you approach the wrong deity in the wrong way what's to say they don't annihilate you? See, when you really give this some thought then it becomes a total nightmare for some people. Because they just aren't playing the game.

Thoughts?

Sounds a lot like Pascal's Wager. The reality is that there are an infinite number of possible deities. There could be a deity who only lets atheists enter heaven, or a deity that only lets people who have the favourite colour blue into heaven. There are so many possibilities that I don't see the point in just choosing one god over the others because I might go to hell. If you want to convince me to believe in a god, then you have to give me a convincing argument to do so.

RedDragon94 · Sep 8, 2017

Okay, I'm not gonna be able to get to all of you... I have a life.

ChristineM · Sep 8, 2017

Enoch07 said:
Its called hyperbole!

(I used athiesm as an example to prove that religion is not responsible for hate. Because it was insinuated that religion is responsible for hate.)

Just countering your point. Dont get all nitpicky now.

Yes it was. Without the stablilty provided we probably would still be small tribes of people scattered throughout the world. 30,000+ years before Christianity was a savage world of small tribes scattered about ruthlessly killing each other for resources. 2,000 after Christianity we are here in this modern age where we can argue about "what if"! If anything it worked too well!

You are projecting my friend. I stand by what i wrote on my post. I clearly implied nothing.

True but I did say:

And had we been able to properly predict the population explosion and managed our resources better, we might not have been in such a pickle. This is speculation, but it would not have hurt us to manage our resources better anyways.

You appear to be omitting the rise of civilisation began with farming community's some 10,000+ years before Christianity

And that much of the progress of the last 2000 years is the result of war and conquest, of innovation across the globe, not just the christian part of it. On the contrary, Christianity has actively discouraged progress.

Valjean · Sep 8, 2017

shunyadragon said:
All beliefs require philosophical and theological assumptions not falsifiable, including atheism and agnosticism. Nonetheless atheism and agnosticism are well grounded in science, but yes require philosophical assumptions not grounded in science.

But atheism -- basic, essential atheism -- is not a belief. It's a lack of belief. It can't be "grounded in science" because it's not evidence based. There's nothing to test; no evidence for peer review.

Lack of belief is the default position. It's the only logical position for claims devoid of evidence.

Enoch07 · Sep 8, 2017

ChristineM said:
And that much of the progress of the last 2000 years is the result of war and conquest, of innovation across the globe, not just the christian part of it. On the contrary, Christianity has actively discouraged progress.

Without Christianity and the stability it brought to civiliation. We would not have gotten as far as we have. You can deny it all day, but that is the truth.

ChristineM · Sep 8, 2017

Enoch07 said:
Without Christianity and the stability it brought to civiliation. We would not have gotten as far as we have. You can deny it all day, but that is the truth.

Your evidence please.

Or do you mean "Truth" note the quotes and capital's to identity it as a word of faith and not one of truth in the definition of the word.

Without the stability that civilisation brought, (fact) Christianity would probably not have prospered if it had been born at all

A Million to One Chance

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian

Love everyone, meditate often

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Veteran Member

It's all a sick freaking joke.

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.