Is God real post your thoughts!

[tryto]

Fallacy of the Middle Ground:

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... round.html

 

 

 

That was not a fallacy at all. I'm just saying there is no evidence for or against God, which means for all we know atheists are no more liable than theists in this situation. The 50/50 is not an absolute truth, it's just all we have to work with.

 

 

 

Honestly, I don't even know what you guys are arguing about... Are you saying that atheists are more likely to be correct than theists or vice versa? You're being too anal about how I brought up probabilities. And for some reason this only seems to bother the atheists... Hmmm... :-k

 

 

 

I think that's a terrible assumption, and surely you must realise that? Positing that something exists, without proof, then saying since there isn't proof to the contrary it's therefore just as valid is obviously a logical fallacy. It doesn't matter what you're positing.

 

 

 

I've always thought it was ridiculous that we require proof to prove something that's proven unprovable. I hate trying to talk about any god in specific in my arguments (especially the Christian one), but doesn't the Bible say that God cannot be proven or disproven? Why do atheists insist on seeing proof for it? Now that is what I call a logical fallacy. Asking for something which everyone knows is not there.

 

 

 

By the way, we're talking about something existing. Like Sly said long ago on this thread, something can exist without it being proven.

 

 

 

 

 

No evidence for God? You just have to take it on faith?

 

That's precisely why you don't believe in Zeus or the invisible purple bunny under my sofa, but you're not positing 50/50 chances for those undetectable things with absolutely no evidence for them.

 

Once you realise why you don't believe in the invisible purple bunny, you'll realise why we don't believe in things without proof.

[Lenticular_J]

You believe I believe in God without proof. Perhaps this is all a sham. Maybe you're in the Matrix.

[tryto]

You believe I believe in God without proof. Perhaps this is all a sham. Maybe you're in the Matrix.

 

 

 

 

 

Good 'ol Occams Razor slices that away. It's not falsifiable anyways.

[Zierro]

Why is it wrong to equate God with a box of uncertainty, but it's okay to equate God with invisible purple bunnies? That's just picking and choosing if you ask me.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

No evidence for God? You just have to take it on faith?

 

That's precisely why you don't believe in Zeus or the invisible purple bunny under my sofa, but you're not positing 50/50 chances for those undetectable things with absolutely no evidence for them.

 

Once you realise why you don't believe in the invisible purple bunny, you'll realise why we don't believe in things without proof.

 

 

 

My math stated a 50/50 chance of A god, it would be impossible to calculate the odds of that god being any one certain thing because you cant determine how many options there are in total.

 

 

 

We generally dont debate zeus because polytheism of the greek variety because it has fallen out of mass belief, and we dont debate the nature of purple bunnies because well its a strawman argument. Faith is believing when there is no reason to, if you could somehow prove god was not real id very quickly go from agnostic to atheist but until that point neither atheism or theism has more logical backing.

[warri0r45]

You didn't really respond to what you quoted, either. You don't really seem to know what agnosticism is.

 

 

 

 

My paragraph has no connection with your statement about agnosticism not being a 50/50? Oh and I know very well that agnosticism implies no knowledge of the subject, hence the extremely fair fence-sit.

 

 

 

I don't think you're getting my point. I know that we have no knowledge of God. I know that we can't come up with an exact or even a remotely close percentage. But based off what we know, which is nothing, I think it's fair to assume theists can be just as right as atheists are. Perhaps I was wrong to bring up the term 'probabilities', but my point is that atheism is making an assumption based off of absolutely nothing just like theism is. This is why I brought up the 50/50. It's the most accurate answer, from what we know (nothing).

 

 

 

I foresee someone flinging the burden of proof now... So in advance: God =/= Fairies (God is more of a universal concept. Fairies are something that we know we formulated just out of our own imaginations.)

 

 

 

I'm never going to agree with you so long as you keep using 50/50, because that's a probability. Speaking about this question in terms of probabilities and statistics, even if it's something as informal an "50/50", makes no sense.

 

 

 

Having said that, I think I see what you're saying. With the bold, you say it's fair to assume either can be right, but that's not talking about probabilities, that's a statement of possibility. In other words, you're saying there is a possibility that either is right, and there's nothing to say that one is more right than the other. I'd agree with that.

 

 

 

Just as an aside, atheism doesn't assume anything. It's a lack of belief, not a positive belief or assumption.

[Lenticular_J]

Atheism.

 

Agnosticism.

 

Theism.

 

Deism, for good measure.

 

 

 

Atheism makes the assumption that there is no God. Theism makes the assumption that there is. Agnosticism doesn't know, it just works here.

 

 

 

Us theists like sharing our assumption pedestal.

[warri0r45]

Atheism.

 

Agnosticism.

 

Theism.

 

Deism, for good measure.

 

 

 

Atheism makes the assumption that there is no God. Theism makes the assumption that there is. Agnosticism doesn't know, it just works here.

 

 

 

Us theists like sharing our assumption pedestal.

 

 

 

Haha, always implied but never stated... I had the feeling that you guys like equating atheists and theists in that way. Psychologically, I can understand why - if there is no proof for or against, you want to be seen on equal footing with disbelievers in the rationality stakes.

 

 

 

As for the definition of atheism, notice that it's defined as both the belief that god doesn't exist and the lack of belief in god. Both are valid definitions: the former is sometimes called "strong" atheism, while the latter is called "weak" atheism. The former assumes, the latter doesn't.

[Lenticular_J]

Mmm, I suppose you could call agnosticism weak atheism and deism weak theism.

 

 

 

But I prefer having the three settings, with deism looking on wondering what's going on.

[Zierro]

Having said that, I think I see what you're saying. With the bold, you say it's fair to assume either can be right, but that's not talking about probabilities, that's a statement of possibility. In other words, you're saying there is a possibility that either is right, and there's nothing to say that one is more right than the other. I'd agree with that.

 

 

 

Well, since probability is the likeliness for something to be true, I don't see how there's any difference. There's nothing to say that one is more right than the other, so they are both as likely to be true.

[warri0r45]

Having said that, I think I see what you're saying. With the bold, you say it's fair to assume either can be right, but that's not talking about probabilities, that's a statement of possibility. In other words, you're saying there is a possibility that either is right, and there's nothing to say that one is more right than the other. I'd agree with that.

 

 

 

Well, since probability is the likeliness for something to be true, I don't see how there's any difference. There's nothing to say that one is more right than the other, so they are both as likely to be true.

 

 

 

If something is possible, it tells me nothing of how probable it is. The sun rising tomorrow and me becoming the next Prime Minister of Australia are both possible, but they're on the opposite end of the scale as far as probability goes. It should be pretty simple to see that possibility and probability are fundamentally different concepts.

 

 

 

And again we come back to the same point about 50/50. Ok. Have you ever done any statistics/probability at school?

 

 

 

I'll try this one last time with another example. If there were two possible outcomes to shooting a target (hit or miss), would you say the probability of each is 0.5 before doing a study? No, of course you wouldn't. There are too many unknowns to determine the probability - the skill of the marksman, the size of the target, the range from the target, etc. Similarly, with the existence of god there is far too much we don't know or can't control. Back to the example, even if we knew about all of these variables and gave it our best guess, it would still be just that - a guess. You first need to have some hits and misses, and then you can assess the probability. For example, you might get 750 hits and 250 misses. With a sample size of 1000, we can be reasonably confident that the probability of hits and misses is 0.75 and 0.25, respectively.

 

 

 

Again, there was no possible way to tell this probability before experiencing the events and there is no such thing as a default 50/50. That concept doesn't exist. What makes you think 50/50 is the default for the existence of god? Where do you even get 50/50 from in the first place? Did you look at a number of different realities and find that 50% have god in them? Of course you didn't, so saying there's a 50/50 chance means nothing.

[mmmcannibalism]

one problem is that you can not establish an accurate model of god for mathematical testing.

 

 

 

Its like me asking you if the answer to my question is yes or no and not giving you the question, there is no way of knowing if one answer is more likely.

 

 

 

So probability aside, there is no logic proof or disproof of god due to the nature of god not obeying any physical laws.

[assassin_696]

I've always thought it was ridiculous that we require proof to prove something that's proven unprovable. I hate trying to talk about any god in specific in my arguments (especially the Christian one), but doesn't the Bible say that God cannot be proven or disproven? Why do atheists insist on seeing proof for it? Now that is what I call a logical fallacy. Asking for something which everyone knows is not there.

 

 

 

By the way, we're talking about something existing. Like Sly said long ago on this thread, something can exist without it being proven.

 

 

 

I see no reason why God is proven to be unprovable. I agree it's probable that there will never be a proof of his existence/non-existence, but I certainly wasn't aware of a proof to that effect. I'm not even sure what that would look like. Whether or not the Bible says God is unprovable (which I don't remember, it would seem counter to common experience since Christians have been using different arguments for God's existence for centuries (design etc.)) doesn't matter because the Bible doesn't constitute a proof. Your assumption is a logical fallacy whether you think it should be or not.

 

 

 

How can we say something exists without proof/evidence? I can't think of any examples, but I might be missing something.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Please, accept this from an agnostic. I do not believe the chances of a God existing come down to the toss of a coin.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is quite literally the belief that the logical value of claims like, "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" are uncertain, and thus no logical conclusions can be drawn from such a statement apart from "it is uncertain whether God exists or not".

 

 

 

Uncertain =/= 50%, it means the percentage is unspecified.

[Shinjula]

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers.

 

 

 

But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

[mmmcannibalism]

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers.

 

 

 

But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

 

 

 

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question.

 

 

 

to the post a few above

 

 

 

faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison.

 

 

 

I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that.

[tryto]

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers.

 

 

 

But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

 

 

 

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question.

 

 

 

to the post a few above

 

 

 

faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison.

 

 

 

I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever.

 

 

 

Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory.

 

 

 

 

 

For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them.

[Shinjula]

I have to say I do much prefer to say 'I choose to have faith in mankind, I choose to believe that we will eventually work out our differences and live in peace and I choose to believe in a supreme being who guides our steps towards this goal'

 

 

 

I choose to believe, because it helps me in my life, it helps me cope with the dark times in the middle of the night or when my loved ones are ill and it helps a great deal when they die.

 

 

 

I really don't understand people who say they believe in god and then act as though they know it to be true. I see it all the time in Christians, Muslims and almost anyone who belongs to an organised religion. Belief is not truth, there is a difference (otherwise why call it something else), people who believe obviously are aware of the difference, yet they behave as though belief was somehow the same as truth 'to them'.

 

 

 

I don't get it.

[mmmcannibalism]

[hide=]

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers.

 

 

 

But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

 

 

 

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question.

 

 

 

to the post a few above

 

 

 

faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison.

 

 

 

I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever.

 

 

 

Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory.

 

 

 

 

 

For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I really dont want to start a flame war but your being utterly ridiculous, I am not a member of any religion I merely choose to believe in their being some form of god and some form of afterlife. I follow no organized religion because I dont see the need, any god that would judge someone from their denomination is nothing I am interested in. I dont believe in your sadistic bunnies because there is no rationale or justification for faith in them. Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing? Does not the way you live your life matter in the grand scheme of things far more then which building you want to worship at? In fact, whether or not their is a god, living ones life to help the world grow matters much more then what could be after this life. Im at ease knowing that I may be gone forever when I die. I choose to believe Ill still be around in some form, at the very least I intend my memory to be something positive to look towards, to hell with your bunnies.

[Saru Inc]

[hide=]

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers.

 

 

 

But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

 

 

 

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question.

 

 

 

to the post a few above

 

 

 

faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison.

 

 

 

I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever.

 

 

 

Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory.

 

 

 

 

 

For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I really dont want to start a flame war but your being utterly ridiculous, I am not a member of any religion I merely choose to believe in their being some form of god and some form of afterlife. I follow no organized religion because I dont see the need, any god that would judge someone from their denomination is nothing I am interested in. I dont believe in your sadistic bunnies because there is no rationale or justification for faith in them. Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing? Does not the way you live your life matter in the grand scheme of things far more then which building you want to worship at? In fact, whether or not their is a god, living ones life to help the world grow matters much more then what could be after this life. Im at ease knowing that I may be gone forever when I die. I choose to believe Ill still be around in some form, at the very least I intend my memory to be something positive to look towards, to hell with your bunnies.

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing his point, he's saying, there's as much evidence in God, as there is in Purple Bunnies. And I'm pretty sure any God would care what 'denomination' you're in, if you mean denomination as a religion? Also, this really confuses me, constantly. How do you believe and or not believe in a God because of what you want? "Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing?" Well, technically, if he is the deity, then you must believe in him, whether he is cruel or not. If you're parents punish you for 10 years for skipping school, while in most cases, that is cruel, can you deny they exist? No, you cannot. Just like, if you don't believe in God because you 'don't want someone controlling your life,' well technically, said God, doesn't matter which, would exist whether you wanted him\her to or not. If this God was real, he wouldn't bow to your whims when it comes to him existing, he exists, deal with it.

[tryto]

[hide=]

I may as well put my oar in about the 50/50 argument, you cant assign a random number to an unknown probablilty simply because there are only two options, it simply doesnt produce useful answers.

 

 

 

But I'm also not sure what argument was based on it needing to be 50/50, I suspect theres no different consequences were you to redo your argument with a probablility of x/1-x, and leave x as an unknown, (which I believe would be the only remotely correct way of representing the system).

 

 

 

agreed, so Im just going to ignore the actual odds as they are also impossible to obtain, the 50/50 was just most likely guess for a yes no question.

 

 

 

to the post a few above

 

 

 

faith is believing something without evidence, and is perfectly reasonable when their is no proof against one has faith in. If I roll a die and have "faith" the number it lands on will be even its reasonable even though its not guarenteed, because there is nothing that says it cant be an even number. The chance of it being even are not 100%, but since a die is impartial there is no proof of which way it will land. Now it would be illogical to say if I drink poison I wont be affected because we have evidence that most people dont respond too well to poison.

 

 

 

I have faith in there being a god of some form because there is no proof against it and I dont like the idea that we just stop existing at death. I dont believe in things such as the purple bunnies because while there is no proof against it, there is no reason or gain from it. If someone is fine with the idea of no afterlife or whatever then it is fine by me I just choose my beliefs because its what I hope, and I see nothing wrong with that.

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot to mention; if you don't believe in the purple bunnies, they'll get you when you die. Then they'll cut your "soul" up into little pieces, and put it in a blender. Then, they'll throw it in acid. Then, they'll restore your soul, chain you to a rock, and have an eagle eat your liver, heart, lungs, and eyes every day, restoring them the next day to be eaten again, for infinity and forever.

 

 

 

Now tell me why you don't believe in them. To show you believe in them, you have to pray to them several times daily, or that will happen to you. If you do believe in them, then when you die, you'll live forever in bliss with a beer volcano, a infinity channel television with no commercials, and a stripper factory.

 

 

 

 

 

For that matter, why aren't you a Hinduist? Why aren't you a Muslim? Why aren't you any faith that you are not? They all have benefits in believing in them, and dangers in not believing in them.

[/hide]

 

 

 

I really dont want to start a flame war but your being utterly ridiculous, I am not a member of any religion I merely choose to believe in their being some form of god and some form of afterlife. I follow no organized religion because I dont see the need, any god that would judge someone from their denomination is nothing I am interested in. I dont believe in your sadistic bunnies because there is no rationale or justification for faith in them. Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing? Does not the way you live your life matter in the grand scheme of things far more then which building you want to worship at? In fact, whether or not their is a god, living ones life to help the world grow matters much more then what could be after this life. Im at ease knowing that I may be gone forever when I die. I choose to believe Ill still be around in some form, at the very least I intend my memory to be something positive to look towards, to hell with your bunnies.

 

 

 

 

 

You're missing his point, he's saying, there's as much evidence in God, as there is in Purple Bunnies. And I'm pretty sure any God would care what 'denomination' you're in, if you mean denomination as a religion? Also, this really confuses me, constantly. How do you believe and or not believe in a God because of what you want? "Why believe in a deity that punishes people for ridiculous things such as not believing?" Well, technically, if he is the deity, then you must believe in him, whether he is cruel or not. If you're parents punish you for 10 years for skipping school, while in most cases, that is cruel, can you deny they exist? No, you cannot. Just like, if you don't believe in God because you 'don't want someone controlling your life,' well technically, said God, doesn't matter which, would exist whether you wanted him\her to or not. If this God was real, he wouldn't bow to your whims when it comes to him existing, he exists, deal with it.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks Saruman. I was illustrating that nearly all religions offer rewards for believing in them and punishment for not. You said that you only believe in things if they offer you a reward for it; that's ridiculous, something is either true or it's not. I get no reward for accepting gravity, evolution, electromagnetism, or the lack of a god. Those bunnies are ripped from several religions; the eagle is taken from Zeus's punishment of Prometheus, the main eternal part is Christianity, and some of the rewards are taken from Pastafarianism. No one's calling God or Zeus sadistic, although I agree they are, should they exist.

 

 

 

Just because something offers a reward for believing in it is no reward at all. The point stands; how can yo disprove my bunnies, but by doing so, not disprove your deistic god? You can't, there's no evidence for either, and that's why believeing in things without evidence is laughable.

[mmmcannibalism]

All specifics of what I believe are derived basically from logical reasoning. If god punished anyone that is not of the "correct denomination" at least 66% of the world is in trouble. Christianity as a whole is the largest religion for numbre of people in the world and it only makes up one third of the people. However, since christianity is a broad category of many often very different churches, its reasonable to assume a judgemental god would consider at least some of them wrong. So if god is a harsh being, somewhere around 80% of the world is going straight to hell for not believing.

 

 

 

I have no rationization of faith other then what I already said, in many ways its just hope that life goes on after death. If you find that a bit illogical it doesnt bother me, as I said god judging based on how you live is much more reasonable to me and I find atheists more reasonable then most religious people anyway. Everyone believes in their god or lack there of based off of what they want him to be, you dont believe in a god because you dont want their to be one or find the idea ridiculous etc..;hence, the plague of churches whose god somehow manages to condemn everyone they disagree with :roll: . Atheism is just as rationale as agnosticism, if were on different sides of that line its just a different train of thought, I choose to believe there is a god that is not definable, while you choose their to just not be one. One clear thing to differentiate is Im not following the christian form of god, I have very few charicteristics I actually attribute to god, understanding that I cant define him/her/it

 

 

 

No one's calling God or Zeus sadistic, although I agree they are, should they exist.

 

I quite agree, especially old testament god.

 

 

 

edit--

 

 

 

I never said I could disprove your bunnies, I just said they were utterly ridiculous which =/= nonexistant. Similiar to if you had a fear of the color greeen, utterly ridiculous but that fear would exist. Im also willing to wager the bunnies are extremely unlikely which I think we can agree is true.

[tryto]

The thing is, the universe doesn't change itself to adapt to our wishes. No matter how hard you wish for or believe in a deity, it doesn't affect the existence or nonexistence of such a deity.

 

 

 

Rational people do not wish for things and hope they come true in real life, and they don't believe whatever they hear. They apply skepticism to extraordinary claims, such as "aliens built the pyramids". This could have happened, but they will demand proof for such extraordinary claims; if none is forthcoming, then it is simply not rational to believe in this event.

 

 

 

There is no proof for a deity; therefore it is not rational to believe in one.

 

 

 

I don't choose whether I believe there is a god or not; I would very much like, for example, a set of objective morals and the knowledge that there's something looking after me. Unfortunately, there's no proof for these, just like I would like to have wings, yet I don't, no matter how hard I wish. I could claim that I have undetectable, invisible wings that cannot lift me off the ground; it doesn't make it true.

[Zierro]

If something is possible, it tells me nothing of how probable it is. The sun rising tomorrow and me becoming the next Prime Minister of Australia are both possible, but they're on the opposite end of the scale as far as probability goes. It should be pretty simple to see that possibility and probability are fundamentally different concepts.

 

 

 

Nothing? I'm sure that's not true. If something is possible, then that shows there is a probability of over 0% for it being true. That's saying something about the probability.

 

 

 

I'll try this one last time with another example. If there were two possible outcomes to shooting a target (hit or miss), would you say the probability of each is 0.5 before doing a study? No, of course you wouldn't. There are too many unknowns to determine the probability - the skill of the marksman, the size of the target, the range from the target, etc. Similarly, with the existence of god there is far too much we don't know or can't control. Back to the example, even if we knew about all of these variables and gave it our best guess, it would still be just that - a guess. You first need to have some hits and misses, and then you can assess the probability. For example, you might get 750 hits and 250 misses. With a sample size of 1000, we can be reasonably confident that the probability of hits and misses is 0.75 and 0.25, respectively.

 

 

 

We can't do a study though. Therefore if you ask me, theists and atheists bring up equal points and should be treated as such. Maybe you missed my post where I apologized for bringing up probabilities but I think the point still stands. Instead of nitpicking technicalities, why not look at the main point? We know nothing about this concept. Therefore saying theists can be any more correct than atheists or vice versa is just plain wrong. None of us know! Allow me to reword myself to avoid any further confusion: If you had to make a guess then 50/50 would be the most logical answer.

 

 

 

The thing is, the universe doesn't change itself to adapt to our wishes.

 

 

 

Got any proof?

[Shinjula]

If something is possible, it tells me nothing of how probable it is. The sun rising tomorrow and me becoming the next Prime Minister of Australia are both possible, but they're on the opposite end of the scale as far as probability goes. It should be pretty simple to see that possibility and probability are fundamentally different concepts.

 

 

 

Nothing? I'm sure that's not true. If something is possible, then that shows there is a probability of over 0% for it being true. That's saying something about the probability.

 

Sure, but that is absolutely the only thing it says.