I say I am an Agnostic, but

[Ditocoaf]

I am not theist, and I do not look down on atheists; I respect them more than most theists, because to me theism seems to be a belief in the existence of something which inherently can't be proved. You could say it's infinitely improbable, but to just say "it's all possible and true, period" is doing the same thing as atheists.

heh. you're right, I also pretty much believe that... (the last sentence is a little screwy though)

[Ditocoaf]

You forgot the word "yet" at the end of the second sentence.

There is a good reason why there is no "yet" there. When we start to speculate on what we may be able to observe measure and prove in the future we enter the realm of pure fiction. The idea of going to another star is within the realm of plausable fiction, but what about going to parallel universes? What about leaving the universe all together? Again this is pure speculation. Science deals with the here and now. What we can currently observe and predict. The rest is fiction.

yes, and we don't ACT on the assumption that life exists in Alpha Centauri. We act based on probabilities, not proof, because we can't we can't prove anything with current scientific methods. It's okay that we can't prove it true or false, as long as we don't act as if it has to be true or false. I really like this analogy.

I think that we, as humans, make all decisions based on probability (mostly unconscious).
A meteor might hit my car while I`m driving it tomorrow, but i consider this unlikely, so I`ll drive it anyway.
I`m not saying it`s impossible for me to suffer major injury in the process of driving, but hiding in my basement because i can`t be sure doesn't seem very reasonable.

I view the whole god issue similarly. I`m not saying he doesn't exist, just that in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that he does. Therefore until i see some compelling evidence i will believe he is imaginary and act accordingly.

awesome. my thoughts exactly.

[Juan_Bottom]

You forgot the word "yet" at the end of the second sentence.

There is a good reason why there is no "yet" there. When we start to speculate on what we may be able to observe measure and prove in the future we enter the realm of pure fiction. The idea of going to another star is within the realm of plausable fiction, but what about going to parallel universes? What about leaving the universe all together? Again this is pure speculation. Science deals with the here and now. What we can currently observe and predict. The rest is fiction.

yes, and we don't ACT on the assumption that life exists in Alpha Centauri. We act based on probabilities, not proof, because we can't we can't prove anything with current scientific methods. It's okay that we can't prove it true or false, as long as we don't act as if it has to be true or false. I really like this analogy.

I think that we, as humans, make all decisions based on probability (mostly unconscious).
A meteor might hit my car while I`m driving it tomorrow, but i consider this unlikely, so I`ll drive it anyway.
I`m not saying it`s impossible for me to suffer major injury in the process of driving, but hiding in my basement because i can`t be sure doesn't seem very reasonable.

I view the whole god issue similarly. I`m not saying he doesn't exist, just that in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that he does. Therefore until i see some compelling evidence i will believe he is imaginary and act accordingly.

awesome. my thoughts exactly.

Word.

[tzor]

yes, and we don't ACT on the assumption that life exists in Alpha Centauri.

We don't? Oh my what do we tell all those SETI guys then?

[Ditocoaf]

Thought:

There's a lot of arguments going around about whether such-and-such a thing proves the existance of a Creator, or the existance of a being that defines "good", or the existence of something all-powerful. But whether or not you buy into those arguments, what they do not prove is what form this being takes, what this being has done throughout history, and what this being wants us to do. So too often I hear "God is what I say he is" "God did what I say he did" "God wants what I say he wants". In eight years I went to Catholic school, I heard that Jesus was Born of the Virgin Mary, Died on the Cross which Took Away our Sins, and at church we Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood... but whatever does that have to do with the argument that the universe is too complex to be an accident?

[Ditocoaf]

yes, and we don't ACT on the assumption that life exists in Alpha Centauri.

We don't? Oh my what do we tell all those SETI guys then?

They're "searching", that doesn't mean that they assume it exists. The argument is made the probability that we are the only planet on which life has occurred is small. But nobody's claiming that life exists for sure in alpha centauri, and nobody would send out a space mission to that region of space assuming that they'll be greeted by aliens.

I'm all for searching for god, and as I've said, mysticism and spiritual thought is legitimate and healthy. Believing you've found the certain answers that everyone must follow, however, is not.

[jonesthecurl]

yes, and we don't ACT on the assumption that life exists in Alpha Centauri.

We don't? Oh my what do we tell all those SETI guys then?

Keep on looking. That's called "science".

Sorry, someone else just said much the same thing, I didn't wait to look.

[MeDeFe]

You forgot the word "yet" at the end of the second sentence.

There is a good reason why there is no "yet" there. When we start to speculate on what we may be able to observe measure and prove in the future we enter the realm of pure fiction. The idea of going to another star is within the realm of plausable fiction, but what about going to parallel universes? What about leaving the universe all together? Again this is pure speculation. Science deals with the here and now. What we can currently observe and predict. The rest is fiction.

You sounded as if you were dismissing the possibility of us ever being able to know whether there's some sort of life on AC or not, that's what I was trying to point out.

[tzor]

You sounded as if you were dismissing the possibility of us ever being able to know whether there's some sort of life on AC or not, that's what I was trying to point out.

No I'm not pe se dismissing it, but I'm putting it in its proper context. We can either argue about the here and now or we can speculate on what we might be able to include in the range of future "science." In either case we have to be careful not to judge the goose differently from the gander. In the former case both the observation of God and the observation of parallel universes would be equally impossible under current science. In the latter, the argument that we might be able to trvel to alpha centuri could also be extended to the ability to cross universes or even enter the concept of whatever we want to call that which is between universes. Send a probe to heaven, or hell for that matter. All of that is fantasy really, science fantasy to be exact.

And that's the point. There are things we know and there are things we assume and speculate on. We might know them for certain in the future but we don't know then for certain now. It would be wrong to state them as facts when they are not but it is equally wrong to completely dismiss them outright. Thus we search for signals from space not because we know they are out there but because we are hopeful they might be out there and if they are we don't want to miss them.

[Ditocoaf]

I've got a question for 100% certain believers, and one for 100% certain atheists.

To the first group: When did you first know that there was a god?

To the second: Is there absolutely no chance an omnipotent invisible entity exists, or would you say there's a minute possibility, ignorable because of lack of evidence?

[MeDeFe]

I've got a question for 100% certain believers, and one for 100% certain atheists.

To the first group: When did you first know that there was a god?

To the second: Is there absolutely no chance an omnipotent invisible entity exists, or would you say there's a minute possibility, ignorable because of lack of evidence?

I think you'll get several people responding to the first question, probably not so many responding to the second, probably not even backglass...

[Juan_Bottom]

I've got a question for 100% certain believers, and one for 100% certain atheists.

To the first group: When did you first know that there was a god?

To the second: Is there absolutely no chance an omnipotent invisible entity exists, or would you say there's a minute possibility, ignorable because of lack of evidence?

If ever there was ANY evidence, everyone would believe. That's how I feel.

[tzor]

I've got a question for 100% certain believers, and one for 100% certain atheists.

To the first group: When did you first know that there was a god?

Who can really be 100% certain of anything? Anyone who claims to be is a liar to himself.

[jonesthecurl]

I've got a question for 100% certain believers, and one for 100% certain atheists.

To the first group: When did you first know that there was a god?

Who can really be 100% certain of anything? Anyone who claims to be is a liar to himself.

Are you sure? really sure?

[jonesthecurl]

Can you be absolutely 100% certain that there isn't a giant invisible orange elephant standing behind you, alternately munching on invisible rainbow-coloured caramel popcorn and whistling an inaudible rap version of Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag, named Archibald Grumpmufflin the 32nd?

If not, how can you look down on those who take it as an article of faith that this is true?

[Zaqq]

You CAN be 100% certain. When you die. Unless of course you do just turn into nothingness, in which case why the hell would you care? I must admit my curiousity though. Any takers?

[suggs]

I've got a question for 100% certain believers, and one for 100% certain atheists.

To the first group: When did you first know that there was a god?

Who can really be 100% certain of anything? Anyone who claims to be is a liar to himself.

Are you sure? really sure?

Nah, thats just sixth form bollocks, I'm afraid.
Yes, logically, hyperbolical doubt/cartesian doubt/total scepticism is impossible to refute.
And yet, NO ONE lives like that. You can play Cartesian games (eg The Matrix) and say, "Ah, perhaps this is all a dream" etc.
But its a compleltely unpractical way to live. And no one does.
Thus, it is refuted.

[tzor]

No what I prefer to do is to be reasonably sure that something is more than likely true. Which not the same as being absolutely true. Conider the belief in god. Suppose there isn't a god. Well guess what, I'll never find out. I'll die and that's it, no more thinking about it all.

I can't believe the universe is that nice.

[Juan_Bottom]

We'll I'm 100% certain, and I'm not a liar either.

I just ask myself, who came up with the concept of a god?

Oh yeah, some jackass a baj-illion years ago did so that he could explain where lightning came from...........

[tzor]

We'll I'm 100% certain, and I'm not a liar either.

I just ask myself, who came up with the concept of a god?

I don't know.
He's dead.
I don't think he wrote his reasons.
We will never know.
This is a strawman.
Yes I know everything old sucks.

Who came up with the concept of the wheel?
Who came up with the concept of democracy?

You're not 100% certain ... you are 100% not bothering to think.

[Ditocoaf]

Can you be absolutely 100% certain that there isn't a giant invisible orange elephant standing behind you, alternately munching on invisible rainbow-coloured caramel popcorn and whistling an inaudible rap version of Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag, named Archibald Grumpmufflin the 32nd?

If not, how can you look down on those who take it as an article of faith that this is true?

I'm not 100% certain that that elephant isn't there, which is exactly my point. The chance that it is there is almost infinitesimal, but it exists.

[Neoteny]

Can you be absolutely 100% certain that there isn't a giant invisible orange elephant standing behind you, alternately munching on invisible rainbow-coloured caramel popcorn and whistling an inaudible rap version of Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag, named Archibald Grumpmufflin the 32nd?

If not, how can you look down on those who take it as an article of faith that this is true?

I'm not 100% certain that that elephant isn't there, which is exactly my point. The chance that it is there is almost infinitesimal, but it exists.

And infinitesimal is as much weight you should give religion. It's there, but really doesn't matter. If you think the chance is indeed that small, you are merely mincing words between agnosticism and atheism. When the chances are so small, the assumption is not a big one to make.

[Juan_Bottom]

Can you be absolutely 100% certain that there isn't a giant invisible orange elephant standing behind you, alternately munching on invisible rainbow-coloured caramel popcorn and whistling an inaudible rap version of Pack up your troubles in your old kitbag, named Archibald Grumpmufflin the 32nd?

If not, how can you look down on those who take it as an article of faith that this is true?

I'm not 100% certain that that elephant isn't there, which is exactly my point. The chance that it is there is almost infinitesimal, but it exists.

And infinitesimal is as much weight you should give religion. It's there, but really doesn't matter. If you think the chance is indeed that small, you are merely mincing words between agnosticism and atheism. When the chances are so small, the assumption is not a big one to make.

Word.

[Ditocoaf]

Well, it's infinitesimal chance for the elephant thing. It's completely unknown for "god". In science, you develop a probability for different theories based on the evidence provided-- if a lot of evidence supports one theory, it's more likely, and a more useful theory. When there is no evidence either way, then it's not likely or unlikely, it's just a hypothesis; something you ignore for the time being. There is essentially no evidence for or against most of religion, and therefore it is can be considered a hypothesis -- I consider it useless, not because I believe it isn't true, but because I choose not to believe anything about it. I may just be mincing words, but I like to be precise, as I'm trying to take the scientific perspective on the issue.

The reason I can say that the intangible elephant has an infinitesimal chance of existing: an intangible elephant-shaped humming creature would not be an elephant, as there is a lot of evidence that elephants are visible.

It's interesting... for some reason the vast majority of objections I tend to get are from the atheists. That makes little sense to me.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't understand. How can any religion qualify to be a hypothesis? A Hypothesis is an educated guess,.... But all religions are just guesses......... And I know that that is going to piss some people off, but I am serious. All of the 'evidence' that each religious community has is only accepted within their own community. So then isn't it a leap to call them "hypothesis?"