Myweponsg00d

Perhaps because our existence is the most mysterious question of all, and no matter how it's going to be answered, it's going to sound ridiculous and inconceivable to us. I see no ammount of mystery involved in this question. No more than any other scientific question. It can? Wow, enlighten me. Tell me where gravity comes from. False dichotomy. The choices aren't a.) random chance or b.) God. If those were the only two options, hell, I would believe in god. People make this argument all the time "You think the Earth came just by chance? So much stuff had to go according to plan..." Thats true. We had to be a certain distance from the sun, we need an atmosphere, we need a moon. Theres a huge list of factors that need to be right for our type of life. But that doesn't mean this happened by chance. There are billions of stars in the universe and billions of planets. If the odds of Earth developing were one in a billion, there would be at least one Earth. It's called the anthropic principle.

You seem to misunderstand the requirements for keeping extra fish on land. If we are freezing the extra cod, that takes more energy. Food in a freezer wants to absorb heat from the warm conditions outside of the freezer. To keep the fish frozen, we need to pump this heat out of the freezer. More fish to freeze would mean that you are spending more energy to keep them frozen. More fish arriving at the docks, again, means more energy spent to move them from the docks to the storage facilities, and then to the grocery stores.

There is no magic list of things that are good and bad for the environment. We need to analyze each action individually, observe the results of the action in full, and determine whether or not the sum of all the results is enough to warrant environmental concern. We can't simply say "OMG U SHOT THAT DEER" and jump to the conclusion that the environment as a whole has suffered. Also, there are way more things to consider about this problem. First of all, the government MUST put regulations on how much fish can be brought in by fisherman. If you don't see a need for this regulation, you have no insight into how the fishing business actually works. If fisherman could bring in unlimited boatfulls of fish, this would lead to EVEN MORE fishing, as fishermen get paid not on a time scale, not on a salary, but on how much they catch. Second of all, what will be done with the excess fish? Is this fish going to be kept fresh? Do we need to build larger freezing facilities to store the extra fish? If we want to store more food here, that will require more power from refridgerators. If we are powering more refridgerators to handle this surplus of fish, we are creating a greater demand for energy, which has a whole slew of environmental concerns. Furthermore, who is going to transport this extra fish? If we have more fish, we need more trucks to carry it to the general population. More trucks will cause more pollution and again, more demand for fossil fuels. Theres so many things that influence the decisions we make and the laws we pass. There are treasury and environmental legislative bodies for a reason. People have careers that are devoted to making these decisions, where they get to carefully analyze all of the factors that must be considered when establishing fishing policy. Yet people want to boil it down to some kind of moral question. Sorry, but the world isn't quite that simple. Put some trust in the people whose job it is to make these decisions.

The gulls seem to be enjoying it. ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD DECREASE THE POPULATION OF SEAGULLS?! Maybe those fish aren't going to feed humans but they're going to be eaten by other animals...I would like to see some analysis of populations of carnivorous species around this area. Maybe we are helping to save the sharks, or gulls, or other larger fish. I'm not entirely convinced this is a problem. Everything needs food, not just humans. I'd like to see a more convincing case made between this practice and the detriment of the environment as a whole. Clearly we are killing a lot more of the fish that is being fished...but are there other species thriving in the area? It's not like we are taking the fish and shooting it into outerspace. Even if the fish are sitting there to decay...where do you think micro-organisms living in the ocean get their energy to survive? This practice could lead to increased algea and plankton population. The plankton could help to feed the whales and the algea could help with our carbon emission problem.

None of what I've said has anything to do with appeal to ridicule. What I've done is create a scenario that is exactly like yours. You propose some supernatural cause for the creation of the natural world, and I don't see why this isn't comparable to tiny men causing gravity. The only reason it sounds ridiculous is because the idea of god is ridiculous. If we had any other "theories" that were conceived in the same logic that god is conceived in, they sound INSANE. Yet god is okay to believe in simply because billions of people share the same ludicrous idea. I'm not trying to compare god to anything ridiculous, I'm trying to make theories that use the same logic as the "god hypothesis". "We don't know something, therefore an undetectable intelligent being is responsible for it" It is ridiculously stupid, and anyone can see how stupid it is when we use it to explain ANYTHING ELSE. But when it comes to creation, magically people decide that it is a respectable theory.

Okay then let me concoct another example. Gravity occurs because tiny tiny invisible undetectable men are inside objects, and these men use the power of telekinesis to move objects toward one another. This explanation is conceived to answer a question. Is this theory as legitimate as the god theory? I'm not sure what you are asking me to respond to, since you didn't really ask a question here. I think Santa and God are both equally ridiculous to believe in. Or maybe if we gauge them on a scale of 1-100, I would say that God gets a 99 and Santa might get a 99.5

Every parent can vouch for them being the ones who buy the presents and they can prove it with receipts. If someone else can vouch that they've created the universe and show us proof, well then the god theory has been debunked. I assert that Santa Claus does not exist - at least not the one we're talking about. As for you, you seem to be insinuating that you are open to the possibility of a man in red going through chimneys and giving presents to little boys and girls across the world in one night, since you said that you don't completely reject the possibility of a god and are equating the two. And you'd probably intentionally make them as absurd as you possibly could. I believe you're lumping together theism and Christianity. The only necessary characteristic of a "god" is that he created the universe. All the details like heaven and hell are derived from specific religions. There are plenty of theists who reject the concept of heaven and hell. But I do like the point you're getting at - the entity could exist, but the stories are wrong. There is no evidence against a man who might happen to be named Santa Claus, but there is evidence showing us that a fat man in red called Santa Claus who flies around earth with flying reindeer and a sleigh going through chimneys to drop off presents every Christmas is not real. Every gift given from "Santa" can be traced back to a family member, friend, or a someone that just felt like being charitable. There are receipts proving this. You didn't answer the main concern I had which is: is god more likely to exist than fairies? Unicorns? Dragons? etc. Or is god more likely to exist than a giant flying snake that is circling your head right now but cant be seen or detected?

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence. Whoa there, I've never been arguing that it's more logical to assume a god does exist. Just that it's illogical to assume that he is merely a fairytale, on par with Santa or the Toothfairy. The most logical stance to take would be pure agnosticism (or ignorance) because there is no evidence for or against him. Santa, however, does have evidence against his existence. It could also be argued that there is evidence against Zeus or the Christian god, but those are specific gods and there is nothing to suggest that any god cannot exist. Let's say hypothetically that a god did exist. How would we ever find evidence of him? We can't observe him so we wouldn't be able to find the obligatory physical evidence anyway. This is when a logical problem arises. "Since we have not found any physical evidence of him, it is more logical to hold god to be untrue, even though he would be unobservable if he did exist." You don't have evidence against Santa. Tell me what the evidence is that proves he doesn't actually exist. All you have is evidence that we have failed to see Santa. Is God more believable than fairies? Unicorns? Dragons? How about a giant invisible undetectable snake that is flying around in the air? The snake is invisible and undetectable...so how are you going to disprove it. The case of "If you can't disprove it, you can't comment on how logical it is" is so silly. What if we used this argument for other stuff in our lives? I could come up with hundreds of magical, undisprovable explanations for the things around us. I think it is funny how God's story has been changed to accomodate for scientific advances. God wasn't always some crazy existent yet non existent invisible undetectable thing. We used to think heaven was a place in the sky and hell a place in the ground. But now that we have explored those areas, people change the story to "Oh its not really something you can see and its not really even a place that we can ever understand so...yeah. Take that." Maybe we should change Santa's story. Maybe his workshop is in a place that cant been seen or detected and he rides in a sleigh that can't be seen or detected either.

Wait a second. Is this really how membership works? I thought that it just renewed in 30 day increments or whatever... What happens if you buy membership in the middle of the month? You only get two weeks? You get 6 weeks? And I like your use of unnecessary apostrophes!

So lets start believing that unicorns exist, because there is the same ammount of evidence. Nobody is saying that the absence of evidence firmly proves that god does not exist. But he certainly cannot be considered any more likely to exist than anything else that has no evidence.

I'd hardly call it a riot. More of a peaceful protest. Until I see Hajedy's wagon get flipped upside-down I dont think any actions have taken place that are worthy of being called a riot.

My definition of "belief" is exactly that: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. If you're not holding anything to be true nor untrue, that constitutes as neutrality or indifference - literally nothing more than a lack of belief. Atheism (without god) however, denotes that you hold it to be true that you live in a world without god. (Certainty is irrelevant. I am discussing the conscious psychological incentive behind ascribing a particular status to yourself - "holding something to be true", no matter the level of certainty.) My point all along is that the word atheist itself suggests that there is no god (or almost certainly is no god - you hold true that there is no god), and in practice, many atheists argue off the basis that there is no god. Not many atheists are oblivious or bold enough to actually assert that there is definitely no such thing as god, but it's apparent in the nature of the arguments and debates I've seen how much most of you disbelieve him. For example, you equated the plausibility of a god to a fictional character. Yet somehow atheism still isn't considered a religion... :-w But is holding something to be true the same thing as "believing that something is no less than 100% certain"? From my understanding of religion, most of them require you to have faith that the universe came from god. To my understanding, and from the descriptions I have seen from theists, you are supposed to believe that god 100% certainly is "The Creator" or whatever it is. Atheism is not a religion because, while you certainly have "beliefs" they are not beliefs formed from faith but rather from rational conclusions based on physical evidence. The plausibility of god is equal to the plausibility of a fictional character, or mythical character (such as a dragon or unicorn). It is a character that appears in literature frequently, but has no physical evidence to support the claim. I fail to see what about God would make him any more plausible than unicorns.

Anyone want to take a guess at what game-breaking, silly, or otherwise disappointing glitch/oversight will be part of tomorrow's updates? There's always one awful thing that stands out with every update.

I never claimed that any atheist was neutral on the matter, but instead I wanted to make it clear that they aren't of a firm stubborn conviction that there is no god and cannot be a god. I am sick of debating what a "belief" means, so let me just set the record straight once and for all, as all I care about is having a clear public understanding of what the atheist belief is. If you define belief as being 100% certain of something An atheist certainly then does not believe in a god. An atheist also would not believe there is "no god". An atheist in the modern sense of the word refers to a group of people who value scientific thought. No proper scientist would ever say that they have a firm 100% conviction that nearly anything is true. There might be lots of stuff that we are 99.9999% certain of, but it is not 100% If you define belief as "anything you think could be possible" This section seems to be your understanding of the word "belief", from what I have gathered thus far. If a belief is anything we believe to be possible, most atheists would have some belief in a god. Now, don't get too excited, because they would also have about the same amount of belief in Santa Claus, leprechauns, etc. A scientifically minded atheist would most likely have no justification in deeming most things "impossible". Thus, an atheist would have varrying levels of "belief" in everything. If you define belief as "something you hold to be true" I see this meaning being used a lot also. I hope I can clearly explain what it means. By "hold to be true" I mean that you base decisions off of the assumption that one thing is true, based on evidence that you interpret. So for example, lets say that we are testing two new drugs for diabetes. We run tests, and we see that Drug A helped 98% of a random sample. Drug B helped 5% of a different random sample. A doctor would look at this and say "I believe that Drug A is going to help with your diabetes." Is he absolutely 100% certain that the drug will help the patient? No. But he can't just sit on his hands and say "I am indifferent of opinion on which drug to use." Applying this to religion would yield that an atheists does not believe in god, AND believes that god does not exist. If he says "I believe god does not exist" does this mean that he is 100% certain? Not necessarily (he COULD mean this). All it means is that he thinks god is unlikely enough to make life decisions based on the idea that there is no god. There are many decisions to make in regard to this topic: should I pray at night? before I eat? Should I attend church? etc...If someone is 50/50 on the existence of god, then he might pray before some meals, be atheist the next day, attend Temple on Saturday, go to church on Sunday...etc. Using this 3rd meaning of "belief" an atheist would say "I believe there is no god" but this doesn't mean "I am 100% certain that there is no god." All it means is "I am certain enough that god does not exist that I will make life choices based on the assumption that he doesn't exist." Whichever of these three definitions suits you...pick it. All I care is that your story is straight on the idea that most atheists would not be of the opinion that god has a zero percent chance of existing.

If we're going by definitions, yes. Admitting ignorance when you do not know if something is or isn't is probably the best thing to do. When you think something to be true, you believe it. When you think something to be untrue, you don't believe it. When you think something to be bit over your head at the moment and you wish to reserve judgment until further evidence on either side is presented, you don't know. You haven't decided whether to believe it or not yet. Now can you answer my question: Why say you don't believe him if there is a slight part of you that does? Because when I use the term "belief" I use it interchangably with "something that I am almost entirely certain of." I am not almost entirely convinced of a god's existence, so therefore I say I lack this belief. If we want to define "belief" as "something I am 100% certain of" then I am afraid that I have virtually no beliefs. There is hardly anything in this world that has 100% certainty, especially if we are talking about the physical world.

Not true. Pluto existed long before humans discovered it. That's true, but it's absurd to believe in a god until evidence is presented, just as it would have been absurd to believe there was a ninth planet until any evidence was presented. As another example, even if the world ended in 2012, all those who believed that it would end in 2012 would still be lunatics, as there was no evidence to suggest that any such event would occur. It would still have been an absurd belief to hold. Careful when you talk about beliefs with CGF. If you tell him that you don't believe that the world is going to end in 2012, he is going to interpret that as meaning that you are expressing a 100% firm conviction that the world cannot possibly end in 2012. Whats your take on this whole "not believing" debate I am having with him? Did you post about it somewhere?

So you are saying that if I think there is a 0.001% chance that god exists, I would be more accurate in saying "I don't know" than "I'm an atheist"? Good luck with that. I would say most atheists, at least most of the ones I have talked to, would not say "There IS NO god" but "There almost certainly is no god." Even Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most outspoken and prominent atheist figures describes his belief as a belief that "there almost certainly is no god." This is because most atheists are scientifically minded, and no scientist would ever be so stubborn to think that he certainly 100% has his story correct. If you define "belief" as the assertion that something is 100% certain, I think you would find that I and many like-minded scientists would have to say then that "I have no beliefs"...at least not about things in the physical world. Yeah maybe we just have his story all wrong...

The circle on the map is marking the area of massive devastation. If I lived only slightly outside this circle, I wouldn't be too thrilled about it, since it probably means that instead of being "massivley devastated" I get only "devastated". Basically if this thing blows the whole US will suffer consequences.

I don't know what exactly so say from here except that I completely disagree, and I firmly believe that you are incorrect. If someone says "Hey I'm the worlds strongest man" and I say "I don't believe you" it doesn't mean that I believe he is the worlds weakest man. It also doesn't necessarily mean that you firmly believe that he is not the world's strongest man. All it means is that you are not firmly convinced of his claim. It does not necessarily mean that you are firmly convinced of the opposite. Saying "I don't believe that god exists" merely means that I am not firmly convinced that god exists. You could be 50/50, you could be weakly convinced that he exists, you could be entirely convinced that there is no god, or you could firmly be rejecting the existence of god. It simply doesn't mean the complete opposite...its just not how that sentence works. If someone says "I don't believe _____" all you can tell is what they DONT believe. Where is the evidence of Santa's non-existence? You named a few earlier, but what if Santa is similar to God, with the whole "can't be detected, can't be understood, etc"? If that is the case then your previous evidence doesn't really disprove anything about Santa.

There are so many 1000's of interpretations of christianity, while most christians I talk to whether catholic or baptist all believe in an Omnipotent/Omniscient God. You can write it off as an outdated idea (I agree with you that it is an outdated idea) however it is a near fundamental idea of Christianity not an obscure one that is misleadingly categorizing a whole religion. It is almost a central idea that God is all knowing and all powerful, and I have been pointing out some logical flaws with the belief You aren't going to beat the God hypothesis by trying to question God's logic. If you find any flaws, it doesn't matter, because God is everything. God is flawed and unflawed. He is stupid and smart. You aren't able to debate his existence by examining the stuff that you are examining.

There is a huge difference between a lack of belief in something and a negative belief in something. Saying "I do not believe in god" does not imply "I believe there is no god." If I say that I don't believe in fairies, it means that I am not firmly convinced that fairies exist. I could be 50/50 for existence/nonexistence, I could be 10/90 for existence/nonexistence. Or, I COULD be firmly convinced that they do not exist. "I do not believe in fairies" means only that I am not firmly convinced of fairies. "I believe that fairies do not exist" would mean that I am firmly convinced that there are no fairies. A lack of belief in something doesn't automatically align you with the opposite. Ah yeah...its too bad the people who started telling stories about Santa Claus didn't throw in the "He cant be seen or detected ever" clause that helps to convince people that god is a reasonable theory. There still really isn't disconfirming evidence though. Maybe Santa only comes to homes of those who believe in him. Maybe all of those families keep quiet about the whole thing because they know the rest of the world would probably think they are crazy. Also, perhaps he relocated his headquarters after the North Pole expeditions started. Or maybe, again, his headquarters are only visible and detectable to those who believe in him. Hell it sounds like I'm making a pretty convincing argument. Maybe now we should be telling our kids that we really don't know if Santa exists.

Absence of belief is not the same thing as undoubted rejection of possibility. If someone says "Yeah I was late to class because the world's largest funeral cut in front of me!" I might say "I don't believe you." This doesnt mean that I don't think theres any chance that the person is telling the truth, it means that I've weighed the possibilities, and I am choosing to act on the premise that he is lying. I wasnt really suggesting that, my question was more in regards to whether a person who believes in a god would look at someone who believes in Santa Claus and think that the person is stupid/silly/immature/incompetant. Of course, now that you mention it, both Santa Claus and an intelligent creator have the same amount of physical evidence going for them, so I guess they are equally plausible.

To anyone who lives their life "having faith" that a god exists: how do you feel about adults not having faith in Santa Claus?

Because of what I think will happen. Why do you think what you think? Assumption. Why do I think what I think? Assumption. We both have our predictions by assumption so I don't understand why you think yours is any better. You can test it in a very simple way, and you know that. Again, if you'd like to test it...be my guest. But I'm not really concerned with what happens after we test it, I'm concerned with taking the possible scenarios and making the best decision possible before we decide to shoot or not shoot the gun. Clearly we have two very different predictions so how can we pick one over the other? Also I think you don't really even understand the meaning of trolling. If "trolling" means "disproving your logic" then yeah I'm a huge troll. Waiting for your proof that you getting shot in the head will kill you. If you can't prove it then both our theories are equally respectable.

Because of what I think will happen. Why do you think what you think? Assumption. Why do I think what I think? Assumption. We both have our predictions by assumption so I don't understand why you think yours is any better. You can test it in a very simple way, and you know that. Again, if you'd like to test it...be my guest. But I'm not really concerned with what happens after we test it, I'm concerned with taking the possible scenarios and making the best decision possible before we decide to shoot or not shoot the gun. Clearly we have two very different predictions so how can we pick one over the other? Also I think you don't really even understand the meaning of trolling. If "trolling" means "disproving your logic" then yeah I'm a huge troll.