Reading the Bible is Fun

[OTZ]

you going to back that statement up or we still playing the silly statements game

Organized religion has a good gig going for them. Tons of money, tons of followers willing to do their bidding...immunity from things like taxes and the law.

People who follow them may be stupid. May being the key word. Yes, I see that I am drawing a connection between stupidity and believing in a religion - it's an insult I suppose, but not entirely untrue based on my definition of stupid.

What do you call someone who believes in something that doesn't exist? Ignorant? Naive? Stupid? Crazy? What if that person - when confronted with overwhleming evidence running counter to their belief refuses to acknowledge the fact that their belief is not based on any form of measuarable proof (or fact)?

[Helm]

Its good to bear in mind that atheism may possibly be wrong as well, even if it isn't an organised racket.

[OTZ]

Its good to bear in mind that atheism may possibly be wrong as well, even if it isn't an organised racket.

"Possibly" - as in anything's possible? Sure, but bearing in mind that anything is possible . At this point, at least in terms of evidence/proof, "atheism" is the odds on favorite by a very very very wide margin.

[panzer 4]

Organized religion has a good gig going for them. Tons of money, tons of followers willing to do their bidding...immunity from things like taxes and the law.

People who follow them may be stupid. May being the key word. Yes, I see that I am drawing a connection between stupidity and believing in a religion - it's an insult I suppose, but not entirely untrue based on my definition of stupid.

What do you call someone who believes in something that doesn't exist? Ignorant? Naive? Stupid? Crazy? What if that person - when confronted with overwhleming evidence running counter to their belief refuses to acknowledge the fact that their belief is not based on any form of measuarable proof (or fact)?

and what overwhelming proof is there? were we not given overwhelming evidence that Saddam had WMD's? really by your judgement its stupid to believe in anything in the future because it hasnt happened yet.

[Helm]

"Possibly" - as in anything's possible? Sure, but bearing in mind that anything is possible . At this point, at least in terms of evidence/proof, "atheism" is the odds on favorite by a very very very wide margin.

Its the current fully accepted view as far as the scientific world is concerned there's no arguing with that.

[OTZ]

and what overwhelming proof is there?

Overwhelming proof of what? That there is no god - let alone the thousands that are worshipped on a daily basis? Faith is a cop-out. Show me measurable/verfiable proof of any god and I'll retract my point. The fact that everything that happens (generally speaking, as it is accepted that mankind still has a long learning curve to go through with our scientific exploration of the universe) in the world today can be explained by science, suggests that a "higher power" was not, is not, nor ever will be responsible for anything at all.

were we not given overwhelming evidence that Saddam had WMD's?

No. But you bring up an interesting point - if evidence of Iraq's WMD's can be fabricated, can evidence of your god not be fabricated as well? Now we start into a discussion on man's motivation for making stuff up - a completely different issue for another thread.

really by your judgement its stupid to believe in anything in the future because it hasnt happened yet.

No. It's stupid to believe something that is entirely improbable. I believe I will go home from work today, say hi to my kids, and eat supper. That is a probable outcome in my future. I do not believe that I will go home from work, discover a flying rhino that craps money in my garage. That is improbable (bearing in mind - as previously pointed out - that anything is indeed possible) and that would stupid to believe.

Its the current fully accepted view as far as the scientific world is concerned there's no arguing with that.

Until things change, or theories get deconstructed, or scientific laws/practices etc get re-written, then we must err on the side of what appears to rational/logical explanations for our experiences. You may not have meant to infer it, but I agree that we shouldn't be close minded to alternative explanations, however improbably they are. This shouldn't mean that creationism/theism gets as much attention (or even acceptance) as evolution/ahteism - it just means that science should never abandon the principles on which it's based. Theism can effectivelty be ruled out at this time, for the simple fact that there is no evidence to support it.

[panzer 4]

Overwhelming proof of what? That there is no god - let alone the thousands that are worshipped on a daily basis? Faith is a cop-out. Show me measurable/verfiable proof of any god and I'll retract my point. The fact that everything that happens (generally speaking, as it is accepted that mankind still has a long learning curve to go through with our scientific exploration of the wuniverse) in the world today can be explained by science, suggests that a "higher power" was not, is not, nor ever will be responsible for anything at all.

you going to keep throwing Circumstantial Evidence or you actually going to debate this properly?

No. But you bring up an interesting point - if evidence of Iraq's WMD's can be fabricated, can evidence of your god not be fabricated as well? Now we start into a discussion on man's motivation for making stuff up - a completely different issue for another thread.

same can be said about fabricating there is no god

No. It's stupid to believe something that is entirely improbable. I believe I will go home from work today, say hi to my kids, and eat supper. That is a probable outcome in my future. I do not believe that I will go home from work, discover a flying rhino that craps money in my garage. That is improbable (bearing in mind - as previously pointed out - that anything is indeed possible) and that would stupid to believe.

this is really unreasonable...

[Helm]

Until things change, or theories get deconstructed, or scientific laws/practices etc get re-written, then we must err on the side of what appears to rational/logical explanations for our experiences. You may not have meant to infer it, but I agree that we shouldn't be close minded to alternative explanations, however improbably they are. This shouldn't mean that creationism/theism gets as much attention (or even acceptance) as evolution/ahteism - it just means that science should never abandon the principles on which it's based. Theism can effectivelty be ruled out at this time, for the simple fact that there is no evidence to support it.

People were effectively ruling out theism in Socrates time in favour of scientifically based naturalistic and purely material explanations as well. There's nothing particularly new about it. Like any belief it still has put in its "could possibly not be true" place. You shouldn't really do this.

[OTZ]

you going to keep throwing Circumstantial Evidence or you actually going to debate this properly?

What circumstantial evidence? Everything that we experience is not circumstantial. Everything, everywhere, was/is not the result of a god's whim. The burden of proof has always, and will always be on "believers" to provide proof that their particular fantasy overlord exists.

same can be said about fabricating there is no god

No...well...ok, yes, the same can be said - but it doesn't make it true. Science is governed by the very concept of observable proof, while faith is not. The WMD claim did not stand up to reality, so you chose a bad analogy to begin with.

this is really unreasonable...

In what way? Why is someone believing in one sky fairy (with no actual evidence for the existence of the aforementioned sky fairy) more "reasonable" than someone believing in a money-crapping flying rhino (with no actual evidence for the existence of the aforementioned flying rhino)? Both require a certain level of stupidity (or overactive imagination) in order to accept, but the idea is the same.

[OTZ]

People were effectively ruling out theism in Socrates time in favour of scientifically based naturalistic and purely material explanations as well. There's nothing particularly new about it. Like any belief it still has put in its "could possibly not be true" place. You shouldn't really do this.

Sorry, I'm not trying to suggest that it's a new idea. I am sure that the idea of a "god" sounded just as ridiculous 10,000 years ago as it does today (perhaps not to as many people...). I think what I'm trying to say is that the idea of a "god" (or gods, or fairies, or whatever) has gone through an evolution where the concept of a higher power has gone from (possibly?) rational, to entirely irrational.

[Helm]

What most theists are believing in these days in is a bit more sophisitcated than a sky fairy, or Zeus or whatever. You're confusing the axial age religions with earlier primitive religions, the idol worship and blood sacrifice and all that business.

[panzer 4]

What circumstantial evidence? Everything that we experience is not circumstantial. Everything, everywhere, was/is not the result of a god's whim. The burden of proof has always, and will always be on "believers" to provide proof that their particular fantasy overlord exists.

how so? there are many people who believe in god and yet they carry Ph.D's and Master degrees, were they also stupid too?

No...well...ok, yes, the same can be said - but it doesn't make it true. Science is governed by the very concept of observable proof, while faith is not. The WMD claim did not stand up to reality, so you chose a bad analogy to begin with.

Really? i think we were drilled in the head with claims of WMD's. For the Bigbang to be true, there must be time, and we dont know where time comes from...

In what way? Why is someone believing in one sky fairy (with no actual evidence for the existence of the aforementioned sky fairy) more "reasonable" than someone believing in a money-crapping flying rhino (with no actual evidence for the existence of the aforementioned flying rhino)? Both require a certain level of stupidity (or overactive imagination) in order to accept, but the idea is the same.

the difference is God's power has actually been seen with the creation of the world or universe for that matter. a money crapping rhino has never actually had any sightings or any observable evidence that said rhino was here.

[OTZ]

how so? there are many people who believe in god and yet they carry Ph.D's and Master degrees, were they also stupid too?

Having a degree - being a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber etc, doesn't mean anything in terms of whether a person is immune from stupidity or believing stupid things. I believe this is an appeal to authority, no?

Really? i think we were drilled in the head with claims of WMD's.

Sure, we were. But this means nothing other than the fact that people were mislead into believing something that just wasn't true.

For the Bigbang to be true, there must be time, and we dont know where time comes from...

I'm not an expert on the big bang theory, but there have been millions of other things that we have experienced in our past that we were unable to explain, but as "time" went on, we became more aware/intelligent/inquisitive and have been able to explain lots of previously misunderstood natural occurrences. Is there a debate on the creation of the universe - yes, I'm sure there is - but the salient points of the debate revolve around previously understood laws of physics (or whatever field is related to the big bang theory - pardon my ignorance). If a higher power created the universe, then we would be able to see evidence of the creator, no? Are the laws governiong the universe skillfully crafted by this creatr in such a way as to hide it's very existence? That is also a cop-out. The idea that this power is hidden from view is just additional proof in its existence?

the difference is God's power has actually been seen with the creation of the world or universe for that matter. a money crapping rhino has never actually had any sightings or any observable evidence that said rhino was here.

And if I go home and find a nickel on the floor of my garage? What am I to believe?

[panzer 4]

Having a degree - being a doctor, a lawyer, a plumber etc, doesn't mean anything in terms of whether a person is immune from stupidity or believing stupid things. I believe this is an appeal to authority, no?

if you have a degree, i wouldnt exactly be thinking of calling you "stupid"
its called faith... and its free for everyone to either come in, and leave

Sure, we were. But this means nothing other than the fact that people were mislead into believing something that just wasn't true.

People believed in the US govt. anyway, does that also make them stupid for believing in the US where even the CIA said they had sources?

I'm not an expert on the big bang theory, but there have been millions of other things that we have experienced in our past that we were unable to explain, but as "time" went on, we became more aware/intelligent/inquisitive and have been able to explain lots of previously misunderstood natural occurrences. Is there a debate on the creation of the universe - yes, I'm sure there is - but the salient points of the debate revolve around previously understood laws of physics (or whatever field is related to the big bang theory - pardon my ignorance). If a higher power created the universe, then we would be able to see evidence of the creator, no? Are the laws governiong the universe skillfully crafted by this creatr in such a way as to hide it's very existence? That is also a cop-out. The idea that this power is hidden from view is just additional proof in its existence?

sometimes, sometimes not.

And if I go home and find a nickel on the floor of my garage? What am I to believe?

believe w/e you want to believe

[DarthLazy]

Blasphemy. Everyone knows you arent allowed to be religous.

I mean seriously, what is wrong with you people?

[Helm]

Blasphemy. Everyone knows you arent allowed to be religous.

I mean seriously, what is wrong with you people?

Some people haven't read the Dawkins Delusion.

[OTZ]

if you have a degree, i wouldnt exactly be thinking of calling you "stupid"
its called faith... and its free for everyone to either come in, and leave

People are not infalliable. A degree doesn't grant you freedom from stupidity. Some of the most accomplished people in the world are prone to stupid things. some of them actually beleive in stupid things. It is still an appeal to authority - it's not a valid argument.

And yes, it is called faith. When you have no hope of finding evidence of something, you have to have faith. No.

People believed in the US govt. anyway, does that also make them stupid for believing in the US where even the CIA said they had sources?

People believe in stupid things, I thought we covered this. People can be stupid, and be guillible, an dbelieve things that are not true. This happens all the time. Americans were duped into believing something that turned out not to be true. Were they stupid for believing it, or stupid for not doing their own due diligence? I'm not sure - but either way there was a dash of stupidity added to the recipe that allowed the US to go into Iraq.

believe w/e you want to believe

So it would be logical for me to think that a money-crapping flying rhino left me the nickel? Should I pray that it leave more money?

What do you think? If I find a nickel, does that mean the MCFR exists?

I understand that people are free to believe what they want - and I don't want to take that away from anyone - but believing in something that is not real takes a high degree of ignorance (or what I call stupidity) when the only thing that keeps that "thing" around is faith. Again, if there was evidence - i.e. verfiable, measurable, and not circumstantial (which by the way, the nickel example above is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence) - then I would change my mind.

[panzer 4]

So it would be logical for me to think that a money-crapping flying rhino left me the nickel? Should I pray that it leave more money?

What do you think? If I find a nickel, does that mean the MCFR exists?

I understand that people are free to believe what they want - and I don't want to take that away from anyone - but believing in something that is not real takes a high degree of ignorance (or what I call stupidity) when the only thing that keeps that "thing" around is faith. Again, if there was evidence - i.e. verfiable, measurable, and not circumstantial (which by the way, the nickel example above is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence) - then I would change my mind.

i honestly couldn't care less about what you believe, if you want to believe in it, go ahead, no one is going to shoot you for praying to a rhinoceros.

[Helm]

Again, if there was evidence - i.e. verfiable, measurable, and not circumstantial (which by the way, the nickel example above is a perfect example of circumstantial evidence) - then I would change my mind.

They have no evidence to show you.



And so that's the full extent of that line of debate, you won't make much progress with it.

[OTZ]

i honestly couldn't care less about what you believe, if you want to believe in it, go ahead, no one is going to shoot you for praying to a rhinoceros.

They very well might. Some other religions would frown upon my decision (even though I have proof) to believe in MCFR. Religious differences have been cited for the murders/deaths of millions of people throughout history (although I contend that my belief in MCFR embraces all others, even those that don't believe in his nickel-producing anus).

With that being said, do you think MCFR exists, provided I do find a nickel on the floor of my garage when I return home tonight? I assume you know where I'm going with this. It is entirely unreasonable to believe that an MCFR is responsible for that nickel. It would be stupid to draw false conclusions from an event that has otherwise far more plausible explanations.