Why can't people just be honest about religion?

[orogenicman]

That isn't actually true. A lack of scientific evidence drastically reduces the probability of there being a god. And yes, even a probability of 0.0001 is not 0, but it is close enough in my book.

It is actually true. What is not true is that a lack of evidence reduces the probability of anything.

If you believe that, then you don't understand probability.

You have no idea what it is you are saying does not exist. You have no idea what evidence for its existence would be. You are in a state of absolute ignorance and you think you have arrived at a rational conclusion? That conclusion is utter fantasy and it is no different than the conclusion the thing your know nothing about exists. The only rational application of probability in this issue is 50/50, because there is no evidence of any sort to support higher odds on either side. Anything other than 50/50 is pure, unsupported belief.

Your position isn't rational. It is not scientific. The only word which would come close to describing it is "religious".

Wow, so you are going to make this personal, are you? Careful what you wish for.

When there is no scientific evidence to support the argument for the existence of a god, the notion that the probability for or against are somehow 50/50 is merely wishful thinking.

I do understand probability. I use it all the time in my work and I wouldn't last long making predictions if I did it without any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support any argument for the existence or non-existence of god. To say the odds are in favor of non-existence is merely wishful thinking.

No need to take anything personal. I think what I said was absolutely accurate and you can replace the word "I" for "you" in that as well. I have no idea what it is. But do prove me wrong. Tell me what God is.

You tell me I am ignorant and have no idea what I am talking about (and you say this despite the fact that you don't know me much less know what I do and do not know) and then tell me that it is nothing personal. You should try that joke in Vegas. I'm sure it will get a lot of laughs. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that god exists. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the god of the bible and just about every other religion does not exist. One large bit of evidence is that every religion uses the god of the gaps argument (none more so than Christianity), the argument being that god can be found in the gaps of our knowledge. (i.e., We don't know what causes the rainbow, that must be a gift from god, or god is punishing us for our sins by striking us with that tsunami). The problem with that argument is that science keeps filling in those gaps with sound scientific explanations and principles that don't require the existence of god. And so when we look at the laws of physics, the principles of chemistry, geology, and biology, we see a universe that acts exactly as if no god exists because all these laws and principles tell us that the supernatural is not needed to explain anything. In fact, "god did it" doesn't explain anything at all.

Yes. I said you were ignorant. You are operating without any evidence at all, so ignorant is all you can be. I am saying everyone is ignorant. If you want to take that personally, that is your choice.

I assume you can't tell me what God is. You can just refer to other people's beliefs, which themselves have no basis in evidence. Yet you say you can establish as a high probability that something you can't describe, can't define and know nothing about does not exist. This is fantasy.

Your claim that the laws of physics, et al act as if no god exists assumes more knowledge you do not have. How exactly would a universe where god did exist differ from a universe where it did not? How would you tell the difference?

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

 

[Hollie]

You can say anything you like. I'm not on a message board because I expect people to shut up. But just because your particular belief as to the nature of God doesn't make any sense to you is not evidence regarding the existence of God. It just means your belief doesn't make sense.

I understand all the reasons you believe in god. I get it! You can't see how without a god. That's cool. I'm just telling you that as a scientist we see zero hard evidence of a god(s) existence. But that hasn't stopped humans. For thousands of years we've been having this debate. Well, whenever we've been allowed. There have been plenty of times when you could not even question this. This is another reason I know god is all made up. They forced it onto us for so long that now it might be hard wired into us. We want to believe we are special. We hate not knowing things. And this we truly don't know.

Us Atheists understand all the phylisophical arguments for why people believe in gods. Us skeptics are just letting you know none of your arguments prove a god exists. And we admit we can't prove your invisible imaginary friend is not real.

Then we have the organized religions who say that god visited their ancestors 2000 years ago in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared..

Here is how I see it. Imagine there has been a murder. A man is accused of murdering someone in a stadium during a ball game. The jury is shown all the evidence and asked to weigh that evidence before rendering judgment. The jury comes back and says they are hung on his guilt or innocence. This is so because one person refuses to agree with the rest on his guilt. This juror does this despite the fact that thousands of people at the stadium witnessed the murder, despite the fact that 100 cameras recorded the incident, despite the fact that the accused has admitted to his guilt. The juror refuses to find him guilty based solely on the off chance that out there somewhere there might be some evidence that was missed. We are asked to believe in something despite the utter lack of evidence in favor of it being true.

You are free to promote your belief in god. However, your belief is absent support.

You lead your argument by deferring to "God ", a reference to a unique and partisan supernatural entity. It's just a fact that there has never been any objective evidence for any of the human inventions of gawds, past or present. And with a historical perspective, we can identify your God as merely an invention of a supernatural entity that is an accumulation of hand-me-down attributes of earlier gawds, all rolled up into a three stop shopping gawds of convenience.

It's therefore a rational and legitimate conclusion that the supernatural entities that have been distilled into the God you refer to is merely your partisan belief.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows and total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

How odd that you argue in support of a position you insist has no support.

Anyway, let's use your "standards", such as they are, in connection with the "you can't prove it isn't", argument and apply those standards to your belief systems of Leprechaun'ism, Bigfoot'ism, Nessie'ism, alien abduction'ism, etc.

Per you "standards", belief in those entities and associations is just as viable as not. Are we to accept that your belief system of Leprechaun'ism is a valid belief system because Leprechauns haven't been absolutely proven to not exist?

I do not argue in support of anything. I am simply pointing out that your unsupported belief is no different than any other unsupported belief.

As you acknowledge you're not arguing in support of anything, why not tell me what belief you think I have that you're arguing in support of?

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

 

[PratchettFan]

It is actually true. What is not true is that a lack of evidence reduces the probability of anything.

If you believe that, then you don't understand probability.

You have no idea what it is you are saying does not exist. You have no idea what evidence for its existence would be. You are in a state of absolute ignorance and you think you have arrived at a rational conclusion? That conclusion is utter fantasy and it is no different than the conclusion the thing your know nothing about exists. The only rational application of probability in this issue is 50/50, because there is no evidence of any sort to support higher odds on either side. Anything other than 50/50 is pure, unsupported belief.

Your position isn't rational. It is not scientific. The only word which would come close to describing it is "religious".

Wow, so you are going to make this personal, are you? Careful what you wish for.

When there is no scientific evidence to support the argument for the existence of a god, the notion that the probability for or against are somehow 50/50 is merely wishful thinking.

I do understand probability. I use it all the time in my work and I wouldn't last long making predictions if I did it without any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support any argument for the existence or non-existence of god. To say the odds are in favor of non-existence is merely wishful thinking.

No need to take anything personal. I think what I said was absolutely accurate and you can replace the word "I" for "you" in that as well. I have no idea what it is. But do prove me wrong. Tell me what God is.

You tell me I am ignorant and have no idea what I am talking about (and you say this despite the fact that you don't know me much less know what I do and do not know) and then tell me that it is nothing personal. You should try that joke in Vegas. I'm sure it will get a lot of laughs. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that god exists. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the god of the bible and just about every other religion does not exist. One large bit of evidence is that every religion uses the god of the gaps argument (none more so than Christianity), the argument being that god can be found in the gaps of our knowledge. (i.e., We don't know what causes the rainbow, that must be a gift from god, or god is punishing us for our sins by striking us with that tsunami). The problem with that argument is that science keeps filling in those gaps with sound scientific explanations and principles that don't require the existence of god. And so when we look at the laws of physics, the principles of chemistry, geology, and biology, we see a universe that acts exactly as if no god exists because all these laws and principles tell us that the supernatural is not needed to explain anything. In fact, "god did it" doesn't explain anything at all.

Yes. I said you were ignorant. You are operating without any evidence at all, so ignorant is all you can be. I am saying everyone is ignorant. If you want to take that personally, that is your choice.

I assume you can't tell me what God is. You can just refer to other people's beliefs, which themselves have no basis in evidence. Yet you say you can establish as a high probability that something you can't describe, can't define and know nothing about does not exist. This is fantasy.

Your claim that the laws of physics, et al act as if no god exists assumes more knowledge you do not have. How exactly would a universe where god did exist differ from a universe where it did not? How would you tell the difference?

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

 

[PratchettFan]

I understand all the reasons you believe in god. I get it! You can't see how without a god. That's cool. I'm just telling you that as a scientist we see zero hard evidence of a god(s) existence. But that hasn't stopped humans. For thousands of years we've been having this debate. Well, whenever we've been allowed. There have been plenty of times when you could not even question this. This is another reason I know god is all made up. They forced it onto us for so long that now it might be hard wired into us. We want to believe we are special. We hate not knowing things. And this we truly don't know.

Us Atheists understand all the phylisophical arguments for why people believe in gods. Us skeptics are just letting you know none of your arguments prove a god exists. And we admit we can't prove your invisible imaginary friend is not real.

Then we have the organized religions who say that god visited their ancestors 2000 years ago in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared..

Here is how I see it. Imagine there has been a murder. A man is accused of murdering someone in a stadium during a ball game. The jury is shown all the evidence and asked to weigh that evidence before rendering judgment. The jury comes back and says they are hung on his guilt or innocence. This is so because one person refuses to agree with the rest on his guilt. This juror does this despite the fact that thousands of people at the stadium witnessed the murder, despite the fact that 100 cameras recorded the incident, despite the fact that the accused has admitted to his guilt. The juror refuses to find him guilty based solely on the off chance that out there somewhere there might be some evidence that was missed. We are asked to believe in something despite the utter lack of evidence in favor of it being true.

Of course my belief is absent support. Have you paid no attention to anything I have ever written? Absolutely zero support. I fully acknowledge that. What you don't accept is that your belief also has zero support. The only rational and scientific position one can take in the absolute absence of evidence is neutrality, and you are most definitely not neutral. So claiming your position is rational and scientific shows and total lack of understanding of what those words mean.

How odd that you argue in support of a position you insist has no support.

Anyway, let's use your "standards", such as they are, in connection with the "you can't prove it isn't", argument and apply those standards to your belief systems of Leprechaun'ism, Bigfoot'ism, Nessie'ism, alien abduction'ism, etc.

Per you "standards", belief in those entities and associations is just as viable as not. Are we to accept that your belief system of Leprechaun'ism is a valid belief system because Leprechauns haven't been absolutely proven to not exist?

I do not argue in support of anything. I am simply pointing out that your unsupported belief is no different than any other unsupported belief.

As you acknowledge you're not arguing in support of anything, why not tell me what belief you think I have that you're arguing in support of?

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

 

[Hollie]

Here is how I see it. Imagine there has been a murder. A man is accused of murdering someone in a stadium during a ball game. The jury is shown all the evidence and asked to weigh that evidence before rendering judgment. The jury comes back and says they are hung on his guilt or innocence. This is so because one person refuses to agree with the rest on his guilt. This juror does this despite the fact that thousands of people at the stadium witnessed the murder, despite the fact that 100 cameras recorded the incident, despite the fact that the accused has admitted to his guilt. The juror refuses to find him guilty based solely on the off chance that out there somewhere there might be some evidence that was missed. We are asked to believe in something despite the utter lack of evidence in favor of it being true.

How odd that you argue in support of a position you insist has no support.

Anyway, let's use your "standards", such as they are, in connection with the "you can't prove it isn't", argument and apply those standards to your belief systems of Leprechaun'ism, Bigfoot'ism, Nessie'ism, alien abduction'ism, etc.

Per you "standards", belief in those entities and associations is just as viable as not. Are we to accept that your belief system of Leprechaun'ism is a valid belief system because Leprechauns haven't been absolutely proven to not exist?

I do not argue in support of anything. I am simply pointing out that your unsupported belief is no different than any other unsupported belief.

As you acknowledge you're not arguing in support of anything, why not tell me what belief you think I have that you're arguing in support of?

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

 

[PratchettFan]

I do not argue in support of anything. I am simply pointing out that your unsupported belief is no different than any other unsupported belief.

As you acknowledge you're not arguing in support of anything, why not tell me what belief you think I have that you're arguing in support of?

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

 

[hobelim]

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

 

[Hollie]

As you acknowledge you're not arguing in support of anything, why not tell me what belief you think I have that you're arguing in support of?

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

 

[PratchettFan]

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

 

[Hollie]

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

 

[PratchettFan]

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

 

[Hollie]

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

I can only assume your angst derives from your indefensible position - the one you admit you're unable to defend yet you continue to defend it.

My reference to knowledge and reason is what I'm using to reach conclusions about gawds, spirit realms and other claims to supernatural objects de' art.

You, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that your belief system including gawds, spirit realms and claims to supernaturalism are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that your belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, tell us about your world which is haunted by all manner of spooks and goblins. According to the standards of your belief system, they must exist, right?

 

[PratchettFan]

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

I can only assume your angst derives from your indefensible position - the one you admit you're unable to defend yet you continue to defend it.

My reference to knowledge and reason is what I'm using to reach conclusions about gawds, spirit realms and other claims to supernatural objects de' art.

You, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that your belief system including gawds, spirit realms and claims to supernaturalism are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that your belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, tell us about your world which is haunted by all manner of spooks and goblins. According to the standards of your belief system, they must exist, right?

You are not using knowledge and reason. You are using pure belief which you have convinced yourself is the same thing. Which is entirely irrational.

 

[chikenwing]

Christians just can't admit that their religion makes zero sense. They literally worship a Jewish zombie who was his own father and had to kill himself to forgive us for our furthest ancestors eating a piece of fruit he knew they would eat when he made them. Muslims just can't admit that the Qur'an really does, no shit, teach terrorism and domestic violence. It's not even debatable; just read it for yourself. Jews just can't admit that their religion is more or less the foundation stone of modern Western bigotry. The West didn't really even have ideas like total genocidal war, blood purity, or a master race until the Old Testament was translated into their languages. Neopagans just can't accept that their religions are basically just shallow rip-offs of actual pagan religions combined with Jungian psychoanalysis and capitalism. Btw, Native peoples would really like you people in particular to stop selling their culture. I could go on, but I think this small list suffices for now to prove that, not only is there no true religion, there's not even one worth following. Atheism is the only moral position.

When are going to admit your a bigot?
why can't people like yourself learn to live and let live

 

[chikenwing]

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

I can only assume your angst derives from your indefensible position - the one you admit you're unable to defend yet you continue to defend it.

My reference to knowledge and reason is what I'm using to reach conclusions about gawds, spirit realms and other claims to supernatural objects de' art.

You, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that your belief system including gawds, spirit realms and claims to supernaturalism are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that your belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, tell us about your world which is haunted by all manner of spooks and goblins. According to the standards of your belief system, they must exist, right?

NO

 

[Hollie]

I do find it odd that you insist on arguing a position you admit is indefensible.

As it applies to your gawds or anyone else's gawds, there's not just an absense of information as to their existence, there is a realization that those gawds were entirely a human invention to explain natural phenomenon that mankind didn't understand. Empirically, however, a trust of the consistency of nature is found. I suppose you might see empirical evidence, human experiences, the attainment of knowledge, etc., as an obstacle to reason and I see them necessarily as a support system to reason. We’ve just a ways to go before we can successfully blend them into a unified mode of perception. And this is a pattern of human evolution seems to bear me out.

And yes, I have long ago dropped "belief" as the arbiter of what we define as knowledge. You should try that as it applies to your belief in the supernatural. I've noticed that you make the common error of insisting that your beliefs in the supernatural are true and inerrant until "disproved". Well sorry, but I'm under no obligation to accept your belief system

Perhaps you didn't see the question. Let me repeat it...

What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing?

I think you have forgotten what you wrote regarding your acknowledgement to having no defendable position - the one you keep defending.

As you are the one defending the existence of gawds, where is your evidence for such things?

Ok. So I will presume from your failure to respond that you can't tell me what it is you say does not exist or how you know it. You are just expressing a belief about a belief. You reference to knowledge and reason was pointless, because you are using neither.

I can only assume your angst derives from your indefensible position - the one you admit you're unable to defend yet you continue to defend it.

My reference to knowledge and reason is what I'm using to reach conclusions about gawds, spirit realms and other claims to supernatural objects de' art.

You, making the positive assertion that something exists, bear the burden of proof. You admit you cannot do so but then require that others must disprove what you can't be bothered to make a positive case for. That's ridiculous.

It's a rational and reasonable position to conclude that your belief system including gawds, spirit realms and claims to supernaturalism are no different than other superstitious ramblings that have plagued humanity in the past. It's evident that your belief system provides allowance for the existence of Leprachauns, Bigfoot, Nessie and all manner of takes and fables. So, tell us about your world which is haunted by all manner of spooks and goblins. According to the standards of your belief system, they must exist, right?

You are not using knowledge and reason. You are using pure belief which you have convinced yourself is the same thing. Which is entirely irrational.

Pure belief about what?

Based upon the completion and utter lack of evidence for any of the past and current human configurations of gawds, I conclude gawds don't exist. In the same way, I conclude the boogeyman doesn't exist. There's no requirement for belief.

It's a simple matter for you to provide evidence for your beliefs in supernatural / magical entities: provide some evidence for them.

Consistently, you cannot.

 

[orogenicman]

If you believe that, then you don't understand probability.

Wow, so you are going to make this personal, are you? Careful what you wish for.

When there is no scientific evidence to support the argument for the existence of a god, the notion that the probability for or against are somehow 50/50 is merely wishful thinking.

I do understand probability. I use it all the time in my work and I wouldn't last long making predictions if I did it without any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support any argument for the existence or non-existence of god. To say the odds are in favor of non-existence is merely wishful thinking.

No need to take anything personal. I think what I said was absolutely accurate and you can replace the word "I" for "you" in that as well. I have no idea what it is. But do prove me wrong. Tell me what God is.

You tell me I am ignorant and have no idea what I am talking about (and you say this despite the fact that you don't know me much less know what I do and do not know) and then tell me that it is nothing personal. You should try that joke in Vegas. I'm sure it will get a lot of laughs. There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that god exists. There is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the god of the bible and just about every other religion does not exist. One large bit of evidence is that every religion uses the god of the gaps argument (none more so than Christianity), the argument being that god can be found in the gaps of our knowledge. (i.e., We don't know what causes the rainbow, that must be a gift from god, or god is punishing us for our sins by striking us with that tsunami). The problem with that argument is that science keeps filling in those gaps with sound scientific explanations and principles that don't require the existence of god. And so when we look at the laws of physics, the principles of chemistry, geology, and biology, we see a universe that acts exactly as if no god exists because all these laws and principles tell us that the supernatural is not needed to explain anything. In fact, "god did it" doesn't explain anything at all.

Yes. I said you were ignorant. You are operating without any evidence at all, so ignorant is all you can be. I am saying everyone is ignorant. If you want to take that personally, that is your choice.

I assume you can't tell me what God is. You can just refer to other people's beliefs, which themselves have no basis in evidence. Yet you say you can establish as a high probability that something you can't describe, can't define and know nothing about does not exist. This is fantasy.

Your claim that the laws of physics, et al act as if no god exists assumes more knowledge you do not have. How exactly would a universe where god did exist differ from a universe where it did not? How would you tell the difference?

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

I certainly understand what you are saying. I am saying that, based upon what we know of the world around us, what you are saying is pure belief. Which makes your position no different than someone claiming there is a very high probability that the supernatural exists. Capisce?

Rubbish. Do you believe in tooth fairies, Zeus, goblins, or a flat Earth? No? I suspect that you don't believe in thos things because there is no evidence that they exist. Likewise, there is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. So my position is not a belief, it is a skeptical disbelief based on what we know of the world around us.

 

[orogenicman]

As you acknowledge you're not arguing in support of anything, why not tell me what belief you think I have that you're arguing in support of?

I am not arguing in support of your belief either. But you believe there is no god, which is fine. However, you also believe that just because you believe it it must be true, which is irrational.

I can accept that is your belief system but such a belief is absent support. I no more disbelieve in your gawds than I disbelieve in leprechauns, Nessie or various supernatural agents. You are free to believe in anything you wish and such beliefs in tales, fables and supernaturalism is fine in your orbit but when you bring such irrational beliefs into a public discussion board, you provide an allowance for others to critique those beliefs.

The thing is that I haven't put forth any beliefs in tales, fables or supernaturalism here. All of that is in your head. So what you are actually arguing against is your own belief as to what is meant by "gawds". You are not responding to what I have said, only to what you think I would have said if I shared your view of the world. You are, in fact, arguing with yourself.

It really is fascinating that people will claim that a particular belief is utterly false, and then insist that is the belief upon which to base a position. If it is false, then it should be ignored. If you are, as you seem to think, free of these beliefs then I have to wonder why it appears you can't see beyond them.

I can agree that you haven't put forth much of anything. You acknowledge that your beliefs are absent support yet you insist that those unsupported beliefs are somehow defendable in some sort of alternate reality.

I can only come to conclusions about reality based upon the empirical data. Your beliefs in spirit realms and supernaturalism is absent support, as you admit. We use our reason to perceive existence, and so far no other method is known to be able to adequately replace it. So I don't look as knowledge and reason as goals-- knowledge is all we can attain, and reason is the only means. Anything Mankind attains can be classified as "knowledge" (although there are degrees of certainty, probability, and possibility) and reason fundamentally is the only method we have of attaining it.

Ideally, we modify and adapt our models of reality to accommodate new information, but in practice this can be quite difficult and painful. As a direct result of our irrational attachments to inadequate models, which may have been well intentioned in the past, we have a tendency to alter our perceptions instead of our models. Reason, the great author of our models of reality, then, can interfere with our perceptions, particularly if we fail to recognize our emotional attachment to certain pivotal ideas.

I have never insisted my beliefs are defendable nor have I ever bothered to defend them. Again, that is entirely in your head. I suspect you don't even know what my beliefs are.

You speak of knowledge, and that is what I am speaking of. Specifically as to how it differs from belief. Knowledge requires information, belief does not. Any position taken in the absence of information can not be called knowledge, it can only be called belief. You can apply knowledge to a particular belief to determine its validity, but that only speaks to that belief. For example, I can apply our knowledge of the workings of the solar system to conclude the belief the sun is Apollo in his chariot is invalid. But that knowledge does not mean there never was a being called Apollo, just that that particular belief about Apollo is invalid.

So, drop the insistence on referring to belief and apply reason to what you actually know. You have made it clear that your position is "gawds" do not exist. What exactly is a "gawd" and how do you know there is no such thing. Please don't reference any beliefs, this is about what you know about the thing itself.

Not true. Scientists use null hypotheses all the time. They are vary useful in eliminating 'noise' and redirecting our attention to more useful information. As for your apollo analogy, that is a claim based on superstition and myth. As such, there is no reason at all to suppose that Apollo is anything other than supertition and myth, and can certainly be discounted as invalid. In other words, while there may not be direct physical evidence to discount the existence of apollo based on our understanding of the sun and the solar system, there certainly is plenty of evidence that the mythical accounts of apollo are made up and so, based on our understanding of mythology and supersitition itself, are not real.

 

[orogenicman]

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

WTF! Dude, you've been watching to many zombie movies. My advice to you is to turn your television off every now and then and read a friggin book.

 

[hobelim]

I am saying that there is a very low probability, based on what we know of the world around us, that the supernatural exists. Caphiche?

Then how do you explain the multitude of dead people walking around everywhere out there lurking in the shadows eating flesh and drinking blood with eyes that cannot see, ears that do not hear, and a mind that cannot perceive? Maybe the flying spaghetti monster ate their brains?

Based on what we know about the world around us haven't you noticed the plague of talking serpents and a variety of sub species rampant all over the world always the prowl for the gullible who become paralyzed and die from their poison once bitten?

I'd bet you even have a personal friend or colleague that has risen from a grave and have seen with your own eyes angels ascending and descending Jacobs ladder as surely as you have seen evidence of species evolving and devolving in nature.

There may be no heaven above and no hell below the earth, but do you deny the existence of a realm of higher intelligences where people enjoy the fruits of their thoughts, that are pleasing to the eye and good to eat that lower forms of life cannot grasp as if there was a cherubim with a flaming and flashing sword that turns every direction guarding the way to the tree of life?

If there isn't a living God in existence that either grants or denies comprehension, life itself, why does anyone in this day and age given what is known about the world remain in the tomb of false religious beliefs and degrading religious practices?

If there is no such thing as divine condemnation how do you explain the fact that otherwise good and intelligent people are incapable of reasoning and even someone as sober minded as you cannot get through to them to accept the fact that even if there was a God he couldn't possibly be eaten by humans as if there was a gulf between you as real as the gulf that separates the living from the dead?

Reality is by far more bizarre than anything ever imagined in a fairy tale.

Capisce?

WTF! Dude, you've been watching to many zombie movies. My advice to you is to turn your television off every now and then and read a friggin book.

Zombie movies? LOL... lighten up. Are you really that clueless?

I guess I was wrong to assume that you had the intelligence to make the connection between biblical metaphors and analogies with the exact same type of characters you seem to be at eternal enmity with while insisting that there is no such thing as talking serpents or talking donkeys. You are as blind as the people that you deride for their blindness.

They argue to prove true what the bible is not about and you argue to prove false what the bible is not about. How stupid is that?

Did you never stop to consider that whoever wrote the stories never intended them to be taken literally by intelligent people?

You might as well be arguing with mannequins that the story of the three little pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses.
.
My advice to you is to take your head out of your ass and smoke a friggin joint or something....


Caphiche? LOL....