Why do the God-haters persist?

[sealybobo]

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

This has what, exactly, to do with my post?

I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists. What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible. God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed. It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.

So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).

Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.

Science says we made up the idea of god. And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists. The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole. It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers. What are the chances of that? Would it be more or less than .00001%? Exactly!!!!

 

[sealybobo]

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not

I dissagree. People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders. Being right matters.

Belief in god is not ignorance. That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education. You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant. And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.

Symantics

 

[Montrovant]

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not

I dissagree. People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders. Being right matters.

Belief in god is not ignorance. That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education. You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant. And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.

Symantics

Semantics

 

[Montrovant]

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.

Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

This has what, exactly, to do with my post?

I didn't claim that there is an equal chance a god exists as that no god exists. What I've said, multiple times now, is that trying to quantify the probability is impossible. God must first be clearly defined, then some sort of criteria for what makes the existence of a god probable or not addressed. It is further complicated by man's ignorance of much of the universe.

So while you can certainly point out contradictions or fallacies in any particular religious belief, none of that means a thing when trying to determine the probability of the existence of god(s).

Unless you can show how you come to your 99.9999% probability, all you are really doing is pulling the number out of your ass.

Science says we made up the idea of god. And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists. The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole. It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers. What are the chances of that? Would it be more or less than .00001%? Exactly!!!!

You can avoid this all you want. I'm not looking for you to increase your probability numbers. I'm saying that there is no way to come up with an accurate number as to the probability of god(s) existing.

And again, 'science' doesn't say humanity made up the idea of god. There is some research which may point to that being the case, but your continued use of science as some sort of catch-all is silly.

I agree there is little to no evidence of god. However, the whole agnostic part of agnostic atheism is saying that any god, if it exists, is likely unknowable by humans. So I'll be happy to admit that I don't believe in the gods of the human religions I've seen, but not dismiss the possibility that there may be a kernel of truth to them, that some intelligence may have created the universe. And I'm not going to be so arrogant as to think I can assign a number to the probability that such a thing is true. That would require me to believe I know most everything there is to know about the universe.

 

[HUGGY]

You make a lot of statements as though they are fact without backing them up.

You seem to think you can speak for 'most scientists'. That's a fairly bold thing to do, considering both the number of scientists in the world and the various fields they may belong to.

There is no real way for you to assign a percentage to the probability a god exists. How do you do it? What are the variables involved? What criteria or data are you using to come up with your percentage? Throwing your 99.9999% number around is meaningless. Where does it come from? If a believer comes on and says there is a 99.9999% chance there is a god, they have provided just as much reasoning and evidence for their probability number as you have.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not. That has no real bearing on whether there is a way to determine the probability of a god existing.

You don't sound at all like an agnostic atheist. You actually come off more as the kind of militant atheist Boss started this ridiculous thread about in the first place. Yes, you say you 'leave the door open' to the possibility of a god, but when you then quantify that as a 0.0001% chance, you are basically saying there is no chance. Especially when you go on to say the only logical conclusion is that there is no god.

So no, saying there is a 98% chance a god exists wouldn't make me happier. Nor would a 90% chance, or a 50% chance, or a 1% chance. The whole idea of assigning a numeric probability to the possibility a god exists is, IMO, ridiculous. It would be ridiculous enough to do with any particular incarnation of god; it is beyond foolish when talking about the possibility of any kind of god.

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not

I dissagree. People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders. Being right matters.

Belief in god is not ignorance. That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education. You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant. And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.

OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?

Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.

The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.

The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go. We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.

All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.

It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.

We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.

In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.

We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.

 

[Montrovant]

It doesn't matter if a person believes in god or not

I dissagree. People that assist the continuation of the big lie add to human ignorance and diffuse intelligent use of resources and worthy goals.

Evey little bit of ignorance when added up times several billion people amounts to an incredibly stupid population.

I would prefer that human beings were smarter than not as thier opinions sooner or later are transfered into votes or support of our leaders. Being right matters.

Belief in god is not ignorance. That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education. You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant. And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.

OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?

Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.

The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.

The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go. We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.

All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.

It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.

We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.

In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.

We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.

So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth? You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?

Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion. They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO. I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort. On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad. As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.

Religious belief has changed many times in history. So one could say that we have been learning as we go. I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.

 

[HUGGY]

Belief in god is not ignorance. That is, in fact, an ignorant statement; if you were aware of the definition of ignorance, that being an absence of knowledge, you would realize that belief in a god is possible no matter a person's knowledge or education. You also equated ignorance to stupidity, which is also incorrect; ignorance is about knowledge while stupidity is about intelligence.

Beyond which, if you took the statement in context and continued to the very next sentence, you'd see that I was saying that belief or lack of belief isn't important in regards to assigning a percentage to the probability some sort of god exists.

So now we have sealybobo making things up to try and show that something is made up, and now you are using ignorant statements to try and show something is ignorant. And you both seem to be people that I mostly agree with as far as the existence of god is concerned.

OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?

Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.

The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.

The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go. We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.

All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.

It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.

We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.

In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.

We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.

So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth? You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?

Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion. They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO. I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort. On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad. As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.

Religious belief has changed many times in history. So one could say that we have been learning as we go. I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.

I don't have any set timetable.

And... asteroid impact is just one of many possibilities that could be our undoing. Maybe nothing so dramatic is going to threaten earth and/or it's inhabitants. It could be something as simple and insideous as a disease .... a pathogen for which there is no cure. Maybe it is something created by a religious based government from which we in the US have no control over.

The problem with religion is certainly not just christian vs atheist in this country. The problem if human caused is more about right and wrong..truth and lies .. even if the lies are honestly believed.

Do you think the maniacs that flew the planes into the twin towers thought they were doing right or wrong?

One individual will never be much of a threat to mankind. It would take some kind of organization to start a nuclear exchange. It would take a rogue government probably a government run by religious fundamentalists bent on taking down the devils in the West..us.

Maybe your attitude of laughing at the potential for religion to be at the heart of some act precipitating a war or preventing us from saving ourselves is so remote that it makes no difference if religion survives on for another several thousand years or not.

Your sceptism could be right. I for one don't put ANYTHING past man's ability to twist religion into some devastating action on a scale not yet envisioned after seeing those towers collapsing. Maybe it's just me but since 9/11 I look at religion as something a lot
more threatening than the day before that horrible day.

Religion and the mass hypnosis and the believing of the lies on a level of millions or billions of people decieved may amount to nothing. It is possibly the only mechanism within human control that could make us pay for ignoring it's potential for evil and miss use aside from the stockpile of nuclear bombs still waiting for some crazy fuckers wanting to martyr themselves and "serving god" by sending us all to hell. It's not religion that kills people... it's the crazy fuckers that believe in religion that kills people.

 

[Montrovant]

OK... How about WILLFULL IGNORANCE?

Clinging desperately to a position that cannot be supported by fact for well over 3,000 years is evidense of mass stupidity.

The possibility of other alternatives, as time unfolded the science of astronomy, was brutally beat down in favor of the least likely truth.

The only hope for human kind is our ability to learn as we go. We must concede our past ignorance in view of the knowledge we encounter along the way into the future.

All we need to do is look skyward at the moon and it's many craters to see that enemies abound that could spell a very violent end to our existance.

It may very well come down to an extraordinary effort of correct thinking and action on our part and total commitment and co-operation to plan for and execute a survival strategy.

We won't have time to fight off the ignorant viewpoints and still focus on what may even with our best efforts an impossible task.

In the last few thousand years we have lived luckily in a time span of relative safety but that is clearly to any but fools not the way things have happened in the long term.

We have NOT learned from the past but wallowed in willfull ignorance and whether you like it or not that is stupid.

So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth? You make that argument while saying the religious are ignorant and stupid?

Look, as I've said, I don't believe in any religion. They tend to be contradictory and based on very little in the way of evidence IMO. I think they are, in large part, a combination of environment (raised into religious belief, seeing religious belief around you in your formative years, etc.), habit and a search for comfort. On the other hand, I don't think that necessarily is bad. As with most anything, there are good and bad aspects to religious belief.

Religious belief has changed many times in history. So one could say that we have been learning as we go. I'm not sure why you think people must follow your timetable for changing their beliefs.

I don't have any set timetable.

And... asteroid impact is just one of many possibilities that could be our undoing. Maybe nothing so dramatic is going to threaten earth and/or it's inhabitants. It could be something as simple and insideous as a disease .... a pathogen for which there is no cure. Maybe it is something created by a religious based government from which we in the US have no control over.

The problem with religion is certainly not just christian vs atheist in this country. The problem if human caused is more about right and wrong..truth and lies .. even if the lies are honestly believed.

Do you think the maniacs that flew the planes into the twin towers thought they were doing right or wrong?

One individual will never be much of a threat to mankind. It would take some kind of organization to start a nuclear exchange. It would take a rogue government probably a government run by religious fundamentalists bent on taking down the devils in the West..us.

Maybe your attitude of laughing at the potential for religion to be at the heart of some act precipitating a war or preventing us from saving ourselves is so remote that it makes no difference if religion survives on for another several thousand years or not.

Your sceptism could be right. I for one don't put ANYTHING past man's ability to twist religion into some devastating action on a scale not yet envisioned after seeing those towers collapsing. Maybe it's just me but since 9/11 I look at religion as something a lot
more threatening than the day before that horrible day.

Religion and the mass hypnosis and the believing of the lies on a level of millions or billions of people decieved may amount to nothing. It is possibly the only mechanism within human control that could make us pay for ignoring it's potential for evil and miss use aside from the stockpile of nuclear bombs still waiting for some crazy fuckers wanting to martyr themselves and "serving god" by sending us all to hell. It's not religion that kills people... it's the crazy fuckers that believe in religion that kills people.

Sure, people have done some terrible things in the name of religion. Of course, the closest we've probably come to a nuclear exchange was between the secular United States and the communist Soviet Union, certainly nothing close to religious driven conflict.

And yes, the current Islamic fundamentalists are doing some horrible things. I'm not saying that religion cannot be used to justify all manner of atrocity. If you think that without religion, humanity would somehow stop doing the horrible things we do, you are being naive. Nationalism, race, political affiliation.....people will find reasons to try and kill other people.

I'd be happy if religion were to fade away because I've almost always found religious belief perplexing. To me, there's just no good reason to believe. But this idea that religion is holding us back in some way is as without evidence as religions themselves.

 

[Boss]

Science says we made up the idea of god. And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists. The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole. It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers. What are the chances of that? Would it be more or less than .00001%? Exactly!!!!

I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.

In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.

If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!

 

[HUGGY]

Science says we made up the idea of god. And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists. The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole. It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers. What are the chances of that? Would it be more or less than .00001%? Exactly!!!!

I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.

In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.

If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!

Well then... That settles it.

With THAT kind of logic the earth must be no more than 3,000 or so years old. Since there is little to no recorded history more than that in age... certainly no calenders to prove earth is older than that then there must be at least a 50-50 chance the earth MUST be just a few thousand years old. I mean...carbon dating has some flaws... we can certainly throw that "theory" baby out with the bath water.

The great flood of Noah? Hells bells... why not? Never mind all the different types of variations of human beings.. Black skinned...slant eyed... I guess we can just rack that up to evolution..whoops !!! Can't be.. So Noah got a couple of negros..a couple of Chinese..etc...a couple of South American Indians to walk or swim 20,000 miles to catch his boat before it sailed ... and THAT explains where THEY came from...not to mention that they had to walk and swim BACK to where they came from ... No problem..!!! Thank GOD they didn't mind going to that effort to keep THAT story intact..

Sorry.. the rabbit holes are being filled up faster than you crazies can dig them now. If it takes looking under every rock in the universe to find your god then so be it. If that what it takes to rid the place of this insane fairy tale then that is what we need to do to erradicate the scourge of religion and god from ours and all other worlds.

Seems like an impossible job proving that god isn't camped out in some little cubby hole a trillion light years away in some cave not yet discovered before it will be enough "proof" to satisfy some people.

Lots to do...lets get crackin...

 

[Hollie]

Science says we made up the idea of god. And since you have zero evidence of god, I guess I'm just being nice by saying there is a 1% chance god exists. The only reason I give you 1% is because I can't see what is on the other side of the moon or what's inside a black hole. It may be god sitting around playing cards with my grandfathers. What are the chances of that? Would it be more or less than .00001%? Exactly!!!!

I'm sorry, but when did "science" say anything? Science doesn't say that because science doesn't speak with one voice and with definitive conclusion... on anything.

In fact, that would be anathema to science. You vanquished science the instant you drew conclusion. When you believe something without proof it is called Faith, not Science.

If you have no evidence there's not a God and they have no evidence there is a God, then the odds are 50-50. Until you come up with something to disprove God, you can't disprove God. Therefore, we are still at 50-50. The 99-to-1 odds are based on your faith and has no supporting scientific evidence. It's as good as my odds of 99-to-1 in favor of God. In fact, if we're going by the criteria of just throwing out odds with no basis in science, then I'll say 100-to-0 that there is a God!

Ahh. "Bossy logic".

Well, it's not logic at all, it's just a way of pontification abd hoping no one catches the errors and logical contradictions. Sorry, but at at the grown-up table things aren't as likely to exist as not until disproved. You're reciting nonsense right out of the religious extremist playbook.

I'm afraid your "50-50" slight of hand is yet another of your shams. The historical accuracy of any one collection of gods vs. another is only believable to those with a predisposition to one particular set of gods vs. another as a function of familial ties and geographic location. The earlier existence of asserted gods vs. the currently asserted gods vs. no gods is not a majority rules issue. You don't get a vote and supernaturalists attempting to rewrite any meaningful statement of contingent history and objective reality disassembles itself.

In all discussions of "chance", per your "50-50" slight of hand, one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process.

 

[BreezeWood]

Life began on Earth and whatever its cause will someday be answered by a combination of both Religion and Science.

the rigidity and fallacy of Scriptural religions will fall by the wayside when real progress in answering the question of Life will be discovered.

.

 

[GISMYS]

WISE UP!!! What "science" said was truth yesterday science says they have proof today is wrong and now we have "new" truth and fact UNTIL TOMORROW!!!! ROFLMAO!!

 

[Boss]

Ahh. "Bossy logic".

Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God. Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.

 

[Hollie]

Ahh. "Bossy logic".

Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God. Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.

There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.

Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?

Correct. Exactly 0.

Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:

Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?


Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.

 

[Boss]

Ahh. "Bossy logic".

Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God. Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.

There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.

Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?

Correct. Exactly 0.

Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:

Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?


Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.

Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God doesn't exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?

 

[Hollie]

Actually, it's silly boobs logic, I am only borrowing it. If there is no criteria for having to support our predicted odds, then I say it's 100% chance God is real. That's as valid as his prediction of 99:1 for no God. Of course, if we go by the actual evidence to support our suppositions, then the odds are 50/50.

There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.

Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?

Correct. Exactly 0.

Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:

Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?


Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.

Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God doesn't exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?

It does matter. You didn't do your homework assignment. The evidence any one god doesn't exist is overwhelming.

You're back at 0.

 

[Boss]

Moonbat: So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?

I read this and thought... don't underestimate the power of spirituality. How is it you KNOW our collective spiritual energy is not translating some way to what we perceive as 'fortune' of event? In other words... We see on the news, a bridge collapsed and 17 people plunged to their death in the icy waters below... Okay, how do you know this wasn't some sort of cosmic spiritual intervention from some force greater than our own? And say there was this fella who was getting ready to go to work that day and he spilled coffee on his tie, causing him to be just minutes away from being on that bridge at the time it collapsed... How do you KNOW that there wasn't some cosmic intervention?

Several years back, I was traveling across south Georgia with a friend who was driving. Now, anyone who has travelled across south Georgia knows what it's like, there are nothing but pig trails, no interstate or major highways. To make a long story short, the driver came upon what she thought to be one of several 4-way stops along our route, but it was actually where we had to cross a major US Highway traveling north and south. They had no stop sign, only a 55 mph speed limit. But the driver thought she had the right of way after she arrived at the intersection first, so we proceeded across the highway, right in front of a northbound 18-wheeler who wasn't aware of this arrangement. I can remember seeing the front grill of the truck in my peripheral vision to the right, as I braced for certain impact. At best he would strike the rear of our car, there was no way to avoid it... but... he missed us.

To this day, I can not explain that. It's almost as if something froze time for a moment and allowed us to clear the oncoming truck. Science doesn't explain it, I saw the grill of the truck in my right door panel. We should have been dead, right there. She pulled over and said a prayer to God, thanking Him for saving us. And it's not the first such instance in my life, I can think of at least two more. I can tell you about those experiences as well, but same story... it was a miracle that I didn't die.

Was it random luck? I guess you can make yourself believe that, but I can't. I have to think something was looking out for me, and saved me from certain death. WHAT IS THAT? I don't know for certain, but I am obeying it.

 

[Boss]

There actually is a criteria and it's described by science and the human quest for knowledge. Your goofy 50/50 gamble is pointless and irrevelant.

Here's a quick calculation you can do at home. Take a conservative number of 10,000 as the number of gods invented by mankind inclusive of your gods. How many of those gods have been shown to exist?

Correct. Exactly 0.

Here's your homework assignment. Solve this equation:

Zero divided by 10,000 equals what?


Given the history of human endeavor, we have time and again reached barriers of information within the rational (natural) world and we have gone further and found that there are reasons and explanations we had no yet been able to see. Ok, so now we have the knowledge that Newtonian physics breaks down -- but does that preclude the idea there is a unified theory as to completely natural origins? No, it does not. The hyper-religious cranks choose to proceed no further than: "the gods did it", but so far, no matter which direction you go in, there is no evidence that "the gods did it" suffices. And, if this is the answer, then humanity is precluded from truly ever knowing and understanding.

Doesn't matter... We can do the same exact experiment on evidence God doesn't exist and get the exact same results. Back at 50/50 odds. Got anything else?

It does matter. You didn't do your homework assignment. The evidence any one god doesn't exist is overwhelming.

You're back at 0.

And YOU are at zero too. Where is your evidence ANYTHING doesn't exist? What YOU have, is a FAITH that something doesn't exist. You can't support your faith with science.

We're both still at zero. Odds are still 50/50.

Here's a homework assignment for you, toots... Find a coin... one of those shiny things in daddy's pocket... On one side is a 'head' of someone famous, the other side usually has a building or bird or something else... it's the 'tail' side. Flip it in the air... you may need to get help with this... and make a call as it flips in the air... heads or tails... one is "God is real" and the other is "God is not real" and let's see how you come out? No cheating!

 

[Montrovant]

Moonbat: So religion is going to prevent us from finding a way to keep meteors from hitting Earth?

I read this and thought... don't underestimate the power of spirituality. How is it you KNOW our collective spiritual energy is not translating some way to what we perceive as 'fortune' of event? In other words... We see on the news, a bridge collapsed and 17 people plunged to their death in the icy waters below... Okay, how do you know this wasn't some sort of cosmic spiritual intervention from some force greater than our own? And say there was this fella who was getting ready to go to work that day and he spilled coffee on his tie, causing him to be just minutes away from being on that bridge at the time it collapsed... How do you KNOW that there wasn't some cosmic intervention?

Several years back, I was traveling across south Georgia with a friend who was driving. Now, anyone who has travelled across south Georgia knows what it's like, there are nothing but pig trails, no interstate or major highways. To make a long story short, the driver came upon what she thought to be one of several 4-way stops along our route, but it was actually where we had to cross a major US Highway traveling north and south. They had no stop sign, only a 55 mph speed limit. But the driver thought she had the right of way after she arrived at the intersection first, so we proceeded across the highway, right in front of a northbound 18-wheeler who wasn't aware of this arrangement. I can remember seeing the front grill of the truck in my peripheral vision to the right, as I braced for certain impact. At best he would strike the rear of our car, there was no way to avoid it... but... he missed us.

To this day, I can not explain that. It's almost as if something froze time for a moment and allowed us to clear the oncoming truck. Science doesn't explain it, I saw the grill of the truck in my right door panel. We should have been dead, right there. She pulled over and said a prayer to God, thanking Him for saving us. And it's not the first such instance in my life, I can think of at least two more. I can tell you about those experiences as well, but same story... it was a miracle that I didn't die.

Was it random luck? I guess you can make yourself believe that, but I can't. I have to think something was looking out for me, and saved me from certain death. WHAT IS THAT? I don't know for certain, but I am obeying it.

Why would you use my quote to start this post? I was arguing against the idea that religious belief would prevent mankind from stopping a meteor strike. Is this just a horrible, nonsensical segue?