Poll: religon: a 7 point scale

[ChromeAlchemist]

I won't lie, this won't last long. I'm not going to be so nasty as to say report and move on, but I would rather not see this descend into the same state every other religion thread ends up.

Heh--250+ comments and eight pages later, thread is still going...

Haha, yeah, I noticed it as I opened up the front page. I guess we really can have a civil religion thread. However this thread doesn't promote discussion, ergo it doesn't count in my opinion. This seems to be a simple question where you can give a simple answer.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

how can it be turned on itself when it doesnt actually exist in the first place

the argument that there IS a god is the more complex and specific one
since it implys that there IS a god, that he is responsible for the existence of everything, and that he complies with at least ONE of the worlds faiths (cares about sins, answer's prays, etc)
the act of denying this argument is NOT an argument at all
it is simply a DENIAL of an argument

so long as the burden of proof has not been lifted, the benifit of assumption lies with those who say that there ISNT a god
simply because they arent arguing anything, they simply deny a specific argument that the deists make

 

[anNIALLator]

When a rabbit runs through the snow, does it not leave footprints?[/quote]
That's deep...
Sometimes I think about the uncountable amount of life on the planet; it all shares the same atoms and molecules; all those atoms were created in the center of our solar system; and any one of those atoms is billions of years old; and I think there has to be some purpose there has to be a God. This is me at my most certain.[/quote]
Have you ever studied biology? Are you aware of how mind-buggeringly complex even some of the most simple creatures are? It's just impossible that this happened by coincidence.[/quote]

No, the atoms we are made of were not created in the centre of our solar system. They were created by fusion inside stars which blew up, scattering common elements like oxygen and carbon, as well as heavy metals. These atoms then condensed together to form the sun and the planets. I see no where in this process, or anywhere in the following 4.5 billion years where magic is necessary.

(Edit): Whoops, this post wasn't supposed to look like this. Where have the quote boxes gone?

 

[HeartAttackBob]

...I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm not sure what you just said, but I hope it's not that Atheists are smarter than religious?

You are quite correct that I was extremely careful Not to say that.

I will, however, say this:
On average, people who profess atheist and agnostic beliefs score higher on intelligence tests than those who profess devoutly religious beliefs. There are several scientific studies that have reached this conclusions through different methods. Here is one source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
I also linked some in my previous post, there are many more out there.

Keep in mind that the differences are between averages of large samples. Obviously, every single atheist is not more intelligent than every single religious person.

Thank you, Cavouku, for the response. I hope this clarifies what I was saying.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

how can it be turned on itself when it doesnt actually exist in the first place

the argument that there IS a god is the more complex and specific one
since it implys that there IS a god, that he is responsible for the existence of everything, and that he complies with at least ONE of the worlds faiths (cares about sins, answer's prays, etc)
the act of denying this argument is NOT an argument at all
it is simply a DENIAL of an argument

so long as the burden of proof has not been lifted, the benifit of assumption lies with those who say that there ISNT a god
simply because they arent arguing anything, they simply deny a specific argument that the deists make

Denial of an arguement is an arguement in itself, as you're arguing that the arguement isn't true.

Also, people do argue against the existance of God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God], what have you been doing on this thread?

 

[HeartAttackBob]

I said 6, but I don't know there is no God(s) the same way I don't know there is no tooth fairy, santa claus, invisible pink flying unicorn behind me etc. So.... Hell, all I really know is that I think, therefore I am. Outside of that, I cannot know anything for certain, like if the universe really exists.

I like this one. Reminds me of a great line from the old game Alpha Centauri:

"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time? Or even All the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or loose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?" -Project Hero, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity record 2302-22467. Termination of Specimen advised.

Such sweet, sweet irony.

 

[Kriptonite]

I'm like a 5.7 but said 6. Who am I to say weather there is or isn't a god(depending on what 'god' means to you)? I personally don't think there is one, but like I said, I have only a 50% chance of being right.

Actually you have a 50% chance of being right. However if you were a theist you'd have a much smaller chance. Taken all the religions, all the branches of those religions, and the chance that the deity is from a religion we don't yet have....their chance plummets.

Huh, I never really thought about that. You are right. Once you start ruling out possibilities based on what you(not you specifically) DO believe, the chances that you haven't eliminated what there is(assuming there IS a 'god' for this) start severely lacking.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
an so long as such proof does not exist, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

But so does the claim that God doesn't exist.

Whilst there is no requirement to dis-prove the idea of God's existance, it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Whilst your arguement is a valid one, it is also one that can be turned on itself.

how can it be turned on itself when it doesnt actually exist in the first place

the argument that there IS a god is the more complex and specific one
since it implys that there IS a god, that he is responsible for the existence of everything, and that he complies with at least ONE of the worlds faiths (cares about sins, answer's prays, etc)
the act of denying this argument is NOT an argument at all
it is simply a DENIAL of an argument

so long as the burden of proof has not been lifted, the benifit of assumption lies with those who say that there ISNT a god
simply because they arent arguing anything, they simply deny a specific argument that the deists make

Denial of an arguement is an arguement in itself, as you're arguing that the arguement isn't true.

Also, people do argue against the existance of God [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God], what have you been doing on this thread?

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

 

[Zombie_Fish]

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

But the argement against God claims that everything is coincidental.

What are the chances of a universe getting created by coincidence?
Multiply that by the chances of Earth being created by coincidence, and then the chances of evolution occuring and the human species becoming the dominant race by coincidence, and what would be the larger probability?

 

[koichan]

the flaw with the "there is no evidence AGAINST the existence of god" argument is that if you try and apply it to any other fictional creature you'd get laughed out of the room.

just try it
"there is not proof that dragons dont exist, in fact most human civilizations at one point or another believed in the existance of dragons"
"you cant disprove the tooth fairy"
"santa is real until proven otherwise"

try it at home, its fun

How do you know God is a fictional creature though?

how do you know dragons are ?

How do you know they aren't?

does the fact that i dont know if they are or arent means that the chances are 50% for either options ?

In short, yes. There is no proof either side, so either side of the arguement is actually perfectly logical.

I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong and i'm very surprised nobody picked it up.

With no proof either way, the only certainty is the ratio is somewhere between 0% and 100%
Labelling it 50/50 is just lunacy

 

[bladeofdarkness]

a denial is not in itself an argument

but if you would choose to view it as such, then it would still be a stronger argument by the sheer fact that it is a non-specific one
the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

But the argement against God claims that everything is coincidental.

What are the chances of a universe getting created by coincidence?
Multiply that by the chances of Earth being created by coincidence, and then the chances of evolution occuring and the human species becoming the dominant race by coincidence, and what would be the larger probability?

the argument against god claims nothing save that the theist argument is wrong
nothing else

we can spend years trying to argue over how the universe came into being
but that would be a DIFFERENT aregumant and different claims
the basic atheistic position is simply a denial of the theist argument

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

 

[Zombie_Fish]

the argument against god claims nothing save that the theist argument is wrong
nothing else

we can spend years trying to argue over how the universe came into being
but that would be a DIFFERENT aregumant and different claims
the basic atheistic position is simply a denial of the theist argument

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

? Let's backtrack a bit:

the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

You have just claimed that creation of the world/ universe was and wasn't part of the atheist argument.

Please explain.

EDIT: Well, seeing as you haven't responded yet, allow me to go into more detail:

You have claimed that the creation of the world/ universe is part of the theist argument.
And that the atheist argument is that everything about the theist argument is wrong.
So, I ask what does the atheist argument say about creation, and then you say that that's a different argument and that I shouldn't bring that into it.
So why is part of the atheist argument to say that "God created the world" is wrong, yet what actually created the world isn't part of the argument? Why is creation of the world part of the theist argument but not part of the atheist argument?

 

[Zombie_Fish]

We have no idea, because we have no idea what the probability of any of these things happening is.

Questions with two and only two answers do not default to 50% in the absence of any evidence. In a coin flip, you have evidence that the question will be resolved by a known physical object where one side is tails and the other side is heads--big difference in terms of available evidence.

True, but there are so many other possible combinations it would then be physically impossible to get a direct answer. In humanity's need for answers, we can only go with a fair average and base it upon theory, thus we need to generalise to 50/50. This need for answers is why we have philosophy.

Also, let's distinguish between the argument "there is or is not a god" and "I should live my life as if there is or is not a god."

While technically an atheist vs. theist argument is the former, in reality, it's basically the latter that is going on. Basically, no one is really interested in the former except as it impacts on the latter.

This I will agree with though. It is only through the former that we can come to a conclusion for the latter, but that is the sole purpose of this debate, so that we can come to a conclusion on the latter.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

We have no idea, because we have no idea what the probability of any of these things happening is.

Questions with two and only two answers do not default to 50% in the absence of any evidence. In a coin flip, you have evidence that the question will be resolved by a known physical object where one side is tails and the other side is heads--big difference in terms of available evidence.

True, but there are so many other possible combinations it would then be physically impossible to get a direct answer. In humanity's need for answers, we can only go with a fair average and base it upon theory, thus we need to generalise to 50/50. This need for answers is why we have philosophy.

We also have philosophy for the purpose of not allowing us to confuse our need for knowledge with our justification for the knowledge we claim to have.

We may 'need' to generalize to 50/50 but that doesn't mean it's a 'fair average': it's just an emotionally satisfying idea and shouldn't be part of any actually search for philosophical answers.

But if it wasn't part of any actual search for philosophical answers, then that would make some philosophical answers impossible to achieve. How can you come to a decent answer when the probability could be an infinite number of combinations?

Spoiler: EDIT

Well, seeing as this is still alive now...

 

[ChocoFace]

Actually evolution happens every time an organism mates and creates offspring. Everyone is slightly evolved from their parents.

I beg to differ. i know some people who have seriously de-evolved, if you catch my drift.

Anyways, im a 3.

There's no such thing as de-evolution. Nothing de-evolves.

really? i could've sworn that guy was an ape, though. Oh well-

 

[bladeofdarkness]

the argument against god claims nothing save that the theist argument is wrong
nothing else

we can spend years trying to argue over how the universe came into being
but that would be a DIFFERENT aregumant and different claims
the basic atheistic position is simply a denial of the theist argument

you dont have to add any other arguments to it

? Let's backtrack a bit:

the argument that god exists is a specific argument, which includes claims beyond mearly it exists
it claims that its responsibe for the creation of all things, that that it takes an active interest in human affairs
so whatever probability you assign to his existence, you also have to multiply it by the probability of the other facts
for example
1)god exists (50% chance that he exists, and 50% chance that he doesnt)
2)god created the world (50% chance)
3)god takes an interest in humans (50% chance)
but since you need all THREE of thses things to exist (to apply the faith based view) then you have to multiply 1 X 2 X 3 = 12.5% (50% x 50% x 50%)
the meaning that the chance that god (as faith views it)exists is only 12.5%
but the 50% chance that he doesnt exist automaticlly cancels out the other fields (if he doesnt exists, by default the others dont apply)

You have just claimed that creation of the world/ universe was and wasn't part of the atheist argument.

Please explain.

EDIT: Well, seeing as you haven't responded yet, allow me to go into more detail:

You have claimed that the creation of the world/ universe is part of the theist argument.
And that the atheist argument is that everything about the theist argument is wrong.
So, I ask what does the atheist argument say about creation, and then you say that that's a different argument and that I shouldn't bring that into it.
So why is part of the atheist argument to say that "God created the world" is wrong, yet what actually created the world isn't part of the argument? Why is creation of the world part of the theist argument but not part of the atheist argument?

sorry for the delay (was asleep)

the truth is i dont KNOW about how the world was actually created
so i dont have a specific argument to present about it

but i do know that the argument "god made it" is almost cetraintly false by default because it was created thousends of years ago by people who believed alot of other really stupid things about the world (that HAD been disproved)

hence the only argument i make, as an atheist, is that the theist aregument is wrong and that there IS no god
i dont claim to know the exact details of how the world was created, i simply deny the claim that the theist know
neither side KNOWS the answer behind the creation of the universe
but one side claims (falsely) that they do