BBF religious matrix

[Vampyr]

View Postmikeh, on 2013-January-19, 16:01, said:

mikeh:

 

This post of nige's appears to reflect scarabin's error: just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean that both sides possess equally valid arguments. Thus I contend that the non-believers offer rational reasons for their non-belief while the believers vary in the rationality of their arguments, with the mycrofts and codos offering rational arguments for choosing to believe irrational things with the 32 type being on the lunatic fringe.

 

I hope that you have misread one of my posts and that I did not actually say this.

 

If mikeh misread your post, so did I. If the popular choice on an issue among intelligent people is undecided, then the evidence on both sides must be roughly equally compelling.

 

Would you have said the same thing if the poll was about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechauns, unicorns or any other mythical beings for whom no scientific evidence exists? If not, then it is clear that, as other posters have mentioned, when the topic is God, rationality goes out the window.

[mgoetze]

I though the same at the start, but I have realiced mike and probably michael as well are aready sure of what the truth is and don't consider alternatives, arguing with them about existance of god is not very produtive.

I will gladly consider alternatives if you can define them in a way that makes sense to me (i.e. tell me what "God" is without using other words I don't understand). That hasn't happened yet.

[mikeh]

I though the same at the start, but I have realiced mike and probably michael as well are aready sure of what the truth is and don't consider alternatives, arguing with them about existance of god is not very produtive.

I suggest you read what we actually said: try to understand it rather than jumpng to false conclusions.

 

We say: while there are important, fundamental questions about the nature of reality and its origins to which we do not have answers, we decline to fill in those gaps in human knowledge with imaginary, unproven and inherently unprovable god entities. As Vampyr pointed out, the god that you and almost all of the other believers believe to exist is an anthropomorphic entity, a bizarre jealous, vindictive entity which, for Xians and Muslims at least, plays an active and judgemental role in our lives.

 

We ask a very simple set of questions about this god: questions neither you nor any other here has answered. Indeed, questions that (to my limited knowledge) no theologian has ever answered with anything other than an appeal to faith and a denial of the power of reason. To me the main one is:

 

What factual evidence is there that positively points to the existence of a god? The answers are usually in the form of 'the universe exists'. Well, yes, it does. Why does that undeniable fact make YOUR particular creation myth valid? What mathematically, or physically testable explanation does your myth afford us?

 

So there seems to be no fact or evidence based reason to accept that there is a god of any kind. If there is a god, btw, that only pushes the search for understanding one step deeper: what is a god, what made it, how did it come into existence, etc. And the usual answer that these questions don't apply to god, since it has always existed isn't in fact an answer at all, but a confession that some issues are beyond our understanding. Why not accept that, for now at least, the origin of the universe is the topic beyond our understanding rather than pile on that mystery an unneeded hypothesis about some god?

 

We say: we don't know! We say we have open minds...we'd like to know, but we don't and maybe we never will. The religious say: we know! We know with absolute certainty.

 

Of course, there are many, many versions of this god thing in which anywhere from hundreds of thousands, to billions devoutly believe and they believe, with this utter assurance, in different things. And then they have the sheer arrogance or utter lack of insight to accuse atheists of being fanatics.

 

I am a fanatic in asserting my LACK of certainty. Weird, I know, but true. Being uncertain, however, doesn't mean that I see as plausible any ancient or current creation myth that lacks rigour and/or testability and/or explanatory power.

 

At the risk of a very bad bridge analogy: consider 4 hands are dealt face down. Your priest (who played no role in the dealing) tells you that you hold precisely AK32 Q65432 void J72.

 

You believe him. Why?

 

The atheist tells you: I don't know what your cards are: I suggest we do some research and find out. The atheist waits until the evidence is there, which can in this case be gathered by looking at the cards.

 

Now, if this happened, and you held the hand the priest described, that would raise some very interesting questions. if the priest could do this every time, with our being able to prove beyond doubt that he wasn't cheating, then my beliefs about the nature of the universe would be severely challenged and I hope I'd change them to accord with reality.

 

As it is, the odds that the holy books describe reality is on par with the priest guessing the cards.

 

So tell me Gonzalo: where are the flaws in my arguments? If you want to have an argument, you need to make logical points in response. So far your posts are notable mostly for asserting your personal reasons for choosing to believe. Why not try to assert some fact based reasons for the truth of what you believe? There is a difference, you know. You find comfort in the idea of god, but your personal feeling of comfort is not an explanation that suggests god exists. Try thinking about why a non-believer 'should believe'...what evidence is there? If you are rigorous in your thinking, you might become an atheist :P

 

Or actually have an argument, rather than a confession of ignorance.

[Fluffy]

arguing with them about existance of god is not very produtive.

I'm sick or making constructive posts trying to enrich my knowledge and hopefully someone else's while you are just sure that I am wrong and you are right and only reply to mines on a destructive way looking for upvotes of your followers. I will try that this doesn't happen again, on this subject at least.

[nige1]

What is curious to me is that all of the believers who have posted in this thread are believers in specific anthropomorphic gods and specific holy books. I should have thought that these people would be heavily outnumbered by those who think there is "something" out there, that did not necessarily create the world, does not necessarily care what we do, does not necessarily dole out rewards and punishments, etc. But we have not heard from the latter sort of people, or if we have, they have not identified themselves as such.

 

I find this a shame, because, to me at least, the idea of the divine is much more seductive than the tenets of an organised religion or quotes from its scriptures.

The explanation may just be human nature: We seek entities that endow our lives with meaning and purpose and, if possible, bend the forces of nature to our benefit. We want to feel special and we hope for something that makes a difference to us. That is why we crave for the existence of a benign and powerful God rather than a Flying Spaghetti Monster with little interest in the welfare of humanity. Also we are gullible social animals who like to go with the crowd. We are prone to accept the word of others, especially in written form. Finally, our leaders bolster their authority by claiming a special relationship with God -- even presenting themselves as minor Gods.

 

Monotheistic religions seem to have much in common. For example, a Martian might find it hard to separate the beliefs of Christian sects. The main block to ecumenism seems to be the power-struggle among Church leaders. Similar to Bridge regulators fighting to guard their local autonomy :)

[Scarabin]

I hope that you have misread one of my posts and that I did not actually say this. I studied statistics and probability in the 1950's so my attitude to probability and statistical method may appear pedantic to some posters. I suspect that we would both agree that the probability that God exists is less than 50%, and that the probability the bible is inerrant is still less, and the probability that some church has discovered absolute truth is lower still. Where I think we would differ is that I believe there is no such thing as certainty in this world, and you would assume a lower probability of God's existence than I would. J M Keynes's "Treatise on probability",published in 1921 and available for free download, has an interesting discussion of mathematical and immeasurable probabilities.

 

I consider that rational arguments, for whatever premise, are valid. I also believe that when rational people descend to name-calling and invective they become irrational and their arguments lose validity. My plea for good manners in debate is based on two things: I think we should be able to conduct, polite rational debates; after all I hope we are seekers after truth and not bent on winning arguments at all costs. My second reason is more personal: my mother was a devout Christian and a great lady, and some of my relatives and friends are equally devout. It hurts me when someone calls them insulting names or seeks to pour scorn on their beliefs. I am sure they would never be so rude.

When I replied to Mikeh's post I could have predicted what would happen: faced with a direct challenge(implied) he would choose to attack Fluffy to divert attantion from his failure to reply.

 

I consider you(Mikeh) owe me a reply: either seek to justify your canard or apologise.

[Vampyr]

Monotheistic religions seem to have much in common. For example, a Martian might find it hard to separate the beliefs of Christian sects. The main block to ecumenism seems to be the power-struggle among Church leaders.

 

I think that Christianity is monotheistic in name only. It seems to me that they had to claim they were monotheistic in order to keep the Jewish converts on board and to distinguish themselves from the prevailing polytheistic religions; but let's face it, they have three gods. And the only explanation they give for "three persons on one God" is that it's a mystery.

[hrothgar]

When I replied to Mikeh's post I could have predicted what would happen: faced with a direct challenge(implied) he would choose to attack Fluffy to divert attantion from his failure to reply.

 

I fail to see the devastating point that you makes that demands a response

I hope that you have misread one of my posts and that I did not actually say this. I studied statistics and probability in the 1950's so my attitude to probability and statistical method may appear pedantic to some posters. I suspect that we would both agree that the probability that God exists is less than 50%, and that the probability the bible is inerrant is still less, and the probability that some church has discovered absolute truth is lower still. Where I think we would differ is that I believe there is no such thing as certainty in this world, and you would assume a lower probability of God's existence than I would. J M Keynes's "Treatise on probability",published in 1921 and available for free download, has an interesting discussion of mathematical and immeasurable probabilities.

 

 

The only thing that I see here is

 

1. A statement that you believe that the probability that God exists is less than 50%. (Hardly a devastating counter to the non believer)

2. An assertion by you than Mike H believes with certainty that there is no God

 

I'll simply reply with the following quote by Mike earlier in this thread:

 

In science, 'truth' is conditional. It means true as far as we currently know, but we are ready to revise our view should the evidence so require.

[mgoetze]

I suspect that we would both agree that the probability that God exists is less than 50%

I don't know about MikeH, but you can't agree on that with me, that's for sure. "God exists" is not a scientific statement, so you can't reasonably assign a probability to it.

 

Just to humour you, let's assume for a moment that it were otherwise and it were possible to assign a probability to a statement like "[the Christian] God exists". Well then we can also assign probabilities to an infinite amount of similar statements such as "The God of Islam exists", "The Wiccan deities exist", "The FSM exists" etc.

 

Now, there is no evidence that any of these is more probable than the others, so all the probabilities must be equal. Furthermore, these statements contradict each other, so their probabilities must add up to at most one. If the probability of these statements were nonzero they would add up to infinity, therefore they all have a probability of zero. QED.

[mikeh]

When I replied to Mikeh's post I could have predicted what would happen: faced with a direct challenge(implied) he would choose to attack Fluffy to divert attantion from his failure to reply.

 

I consider you(Mikeh) owe me a reply: either seek to justify your canard or apologise.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

I posted a response to Gonzalo, in which I made reference to you. It was not an indirect response to you: it was a direct response to Gonzalo.

 

When I want to respond to you, I assure you that I will make it clear. This is such a response, but it is no apology.

 

You have exhibited a willingness to use insulting language while being careful to maintain deniability: your post about some exhibiting narcissistic traits was a minor masterpiece of the cowardly use of language.

 

Your creating a 'fanatic's credo' and then contrasting that creation of your own mind to your oh-so-reasonable approach was another example of your willingness to resort to cheap, despicable tactics in an effort to present yourself as some paragon.

 

I initially had significant respect for you based on your early posts. You lost that respect. I was once told by a very wise man that it takes a long time to earn respect and only 30 seconds to lose it. You lost it.

 

When I want to insult someone (and my willingness to do so is far less than it used to be), that person will know I mean to insult him or her, and I won't resort to your style. At least, I will do my best to avoid doing so, but I confess to being prone to error :D

 

Put it another way: when I call you out on your 'debating' tactics, it is you I am talking to and about.

 

In terms of those believers with whom I have disagreed, my views are (I trust) clear: I think their reasoning is flawed and that they have failed to think critically but I have never doubted their sincerity or intellectual honesty. You: I doubt your intellectual honesty. Is that sufficiently clear for you?

[blackshoe]

I don't know about MikeH, but you can't agree on that with me, that's for sure. "God exists" is not a scientific statement, so you can't reasonably assign a probability to it.

 

Just to humour you, let's assume for a moment that it were otherwise and it were possible to assign a probability to a statement like "[the Christian] God exists". Well then we can also assign probabilities to an infinite amount of similar statements such as "The God of Islam exists", "The Wiccan deities exist", "The FSM exists" etc.

 

Now, there is no evidence that any of these is more probable than the others, so all the probabilities must be equal. Furthermore, these statements contradict each other, so their probabilities must add up to at most one. If the probability of these statements were nonzero they would add up to infinity, therefore they all have a probability of zero. QED.

Your "logic" isn't logical. First, "god X exists" and "god Y exists" do not contradict each other. It is quite possible that both statements are true. Second, "QED"? Really? I don't think so.

[mikeh]

Your "logic" isn't logical. First, "god X exists" and "god Y exists" do not contradict each other. It is quite possible that both statements are true. Second, "QED"? Really? I don't think so.

Except, of course, that most followers of popular religions, these days, are of the belief that their god is the only true god.

 

And the notion that there are more than one god seems to multiple the improbabilites. It's difficult enough to find any logical reason for believing in one intangible supernatural entity. Heaven help us if we need to come up with reasons for more than one!

[Scarabin]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

I posted a response to Gonzalo, in which I made reference to you. It was not an indirect response to you: it was a direct response to Gonzalo.

 

I dont want you to laugh or cry. I'll be happy if you will just read and remember your own posts and hopefully mine before rushing to reply. Your reply to Fluffy did not refer to me. In a reply to nige1 you said: "This post of nige's appears to reflect scarabin's error: just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean that both sides possess equally valid arguments."

 

Perhaps you can tell me:

-what you mean by valid?

-what error have you identified?

-why is it mine?

 

Now don't try to answer with some intellectually dishonest vague statement as you did to a previous question I asked you. Try to give a specific answer.

 

 

You have exhibited a willingness to use insulting language while being careful to maintain deniability: your post about some exhibiting narcissistic traits was a minor masterpiece of the cowardly use of language.

 

Why was that cowardly, should I have named specific posters? Is that what you would have done?

 

Is it cowardly when you lie about your previous posts, or bully people you feel will not retaliate?

 

 

Your creating a 'fanatic's credo' and then contrasting that creation of your own mind to your oh-so-reasonable approach was another example of your willingness to resort to cheap, despicable tactics in an effort to present yourself as some paragon.

 

 

You completely missed the point I was trying to make, either because I was too obscure or because you are not familiar with sampling technique.

 

 

 

When I want to insult someone (and my willingness to do so is far less than it used to be), that person will know I mean to insult him or her, and I won't resort to your style. At least, I will do my best to avoid doing so, but I confess to being prone to error :D

 

This is the sort of streak of honesty which you occasionally show and which disarms me so that I begin almost to regret finding your debating tactics deplorable. B.t.w. do not worry you will never adopt my debating style, our styles are poles apart.

[JLOGIC]

Mikeh at some point you gotta ask yourself what is the point.

 

This is not even meant as insulting to the people arguing against mikeh, there is just no way the 2 sides of this debate will ever budge.

[mikeh]

Mikeh at some point you gotta ask yourself what is the point.

 

This is not even meant as insulting to the people arguing against mikeh, there is just no way the 2 sides of this debate will ever budge.

How true. I was just posting a farewell to scarabin, since in my mind he has now become tagged as another, tho less obvious, lukewarm...a person whose use of english appears to be fluent but who is either trolling or has a fundamentally different understanding of the words we each use. In any event, there is no more real communication with him than there is with 32 or lukewarm.

[Scarabin]

I don't know about MikeH, but you can't agree on that with me, that's for sure. "God exists" is not a scientific statement, so you can't reasonably assign a probability to it.

 

I have ignored the remainder of your post since Blackshoe has already answered this.

 

As regards your first paragraph: I know probability as a branch of logic, Leibnitz, and as a branch of mathematics, Pascal. I have seen probabilities applied to propositions and to events. I am familiar with probabilities which can be measured and those which cannot but I have never before encountered your proposition that probabilities can only be assigned to "scientific" statements.

 

Where do you get your information?

 

What exactly do you mean by "a scientific statement", is it the same as a scientific proposition, and what is the precise difference between a scientific and an ordinary statement?

 

A last question, have you and mikeh an agreement automatically to upvote each others posts?

Edited January 21, 2013 by Scarabin

[gwnn]

mgoetze, you just demonstrated that the probability is 0% (I will not comment on the validity of the proof), isn't 0% less than 50%? :)

[Fluffy]

Mikeh at some point you gotta ask yourself what is the point.

But why do you direct this at mikeh and not to the others? do you think other's efforst are productive? lol

 

Now, before someone replies with 10 paragraphs to a single line that wasn't even directed at him, let me clarify that it is a rhetoric question intended as a joke.

 

 

 

[Codo]

This behaviour was directly caused by catholic believes, that noone claims it does not make it untrue. And you don't have to be sorry about not caring what an effect our politicians or cardinals have on our lives, standard human behaviour (mine too). But to put out a factor out of an equation while you say that you are talking about it, will lead to nowhere. Maybe you have a more theoretical approach about pure concepts without humans being involved. I do not buy this religion without humans.

 

The behaviour was cause because of their believes?

So the catholics believe that catholic doctors should not help rape victims?

If this is ture, maybe the catholic church should be better in teaching their followers, because just two out of maybe 30.000 doctors follow this rule. You are just wrong. It was a tragedy but it was a single case.

 

If you want to critze the catholic church in Germany, you may talk about sex victims to priests, about not allowing women as a priest and maybe other parts.

 

Or I can follow your logic and rate all Atheists being as evil as Stalin, because one single example is enough to condem... But your logic just works one way....

[nige1]

Argument is more persuasive then invective. Also, rather than subjecting others to gratuitous abuse, It is more amusing to make deliberate fun of your own views e.g. T S Eliot anticipated the Flying Spaghetti Monster by about 85 years.

I saw the 'potamus take wing

Ascending from the damp savannas,

And quiring angels round him sing

The praise of God, in loud hosannas.

 

Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean

And him shall heavenly arms enfold,

Among the saints he shall be seen

Performing on a harp of gold.

 

He shall be washed as white as snow,

By all the martyr'd virgins kist,

While the True Church remains below

Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.

Sweeney shifts from ham to ham

Stirring the water in his bath.

The masters of the subtle schools

Are controversial, polymath.

[mgoetze]

Anyway, keep it up, you may eventually reach the same status as 32519 (that is, "on my ignore list").

More prophetic than I thought... welcome to the club, Scarabin! (BTW since you are now being ignored by me and as such posting on the forums would not be worthwhile, I suggest you use your newfound time to read some philosophers more modern than Leibnitz and Pascal. I recommend you start with Frege.)

 

mgoetze, you just demonstrated that the probability is 0% (I will not comment on the validity of the proof), isn't 0% less than 50%? :)

Yes, but you missed the caveat at the beginning. ;)

[helene_t]

I though the same at the start, but I have realiced mike and probably michael as well are aready sure of what the truth is and don't consider alternatives, arguing with them about existance of god is not very produtive.

We have all accepted the futility of persuading anyone to change their favorite notrump range, but maybe we could persuade someone to change their views on a few minor issues, such as the existance of god(s) ..... not.

[Codo]

I suggest you read what we actually said: try to understand it rather than jumpng to false conclusions.

 

We ask a very simple set of questions about this god: questions neither you nor any other here has answered. Indeed, questions that (to my limited knowledge) no theologian has ever answered with anything other than an appeal to faith and a denial of the power of reason. To me the main one is:

 

What factual evidence is there that positively points to the existence of a god? The answers are usually in the form of 'the universe exists'. Well, yes, it does. Why does that undeniable fact make YOUR particular creation myth valid? What mathematically, or physically testable explanation does your myth afford us?

 

So there seems to be no fact or evidence based reason to accept that there is a god of any kind. If there is a god, btw, that only pushes the search for understanding one step deeper: what is a god, what made it, how did it come into existence, etc. And the usual answer that these questions don't apply to god, since it has always existed isn't in fact an answer at all, but a confession that some issues are beyond our understanding. Why not accept that, for now at least, the origin of the universe is the topic beyond our understanding rather than pile on that mystery an unneeded hypothesis about some god?

 

We say: we don't know! We say we have open minds...we'd like to know, but we don't and maybe we never will. The religious say: we know! We know with absolute certainty.

 

 

Gonzalo and me did answer your questions, try to find it.

Gonzalo and me, despite being in different churches do not claim to know. My church does not claim to know, they claim to believe. English is your mother language, not mine, but why is it so hard to accept that believing is not the same as knowing?

 

I will never dispute that some people are so full of believe that they think that their personal point of view/believe must be right and every other view is wrong. But that they believe this makes it not to an universal truth. Does this happen just to religious people? Of course not. This is true for nationalities, for different political parties, for economy and history professors, for soccer fans, for nearly anybody I know. At least for anybody who wants to influence a big group of people. It is much easier to convince others if you are (or do as if you are) self convinced.

 

But I am very happy to get to know that at least you (and all other atheists, I overlooked the "we") are open minded. I guess everybody who reads your postings in religious points will underwrite this self description... Maybe nearly everbody. But surely someone. Okay, at least you.

[Vampyr]

Or I can follow your logic and rate all Atheists being as evil as Stalin, because one single example is enough to condem... But your logic just works one way....

 

It does work just one way, because atheists do not belong to, or identify as, a group of any kind. Members of churches or followers of creeds share something that is important to their lives; Catholics, in particular, are all required to be obedient to the same hierarchy.

 

Atheists, on the other hand, do not necessarily share anything. You could as easily group together people who don't believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, or that chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream, or that fairies exist and hide things when we are looking for them.

[WellSpyder]

My church does not claim to know, they claim to believe. English is your mother language, not mine, but why is it so hard to accept that believing is not the same as knowing?

I know (or at least I believe I know) the difference between believing and knowing. And I'm willing to accept that this may make mikeh's main unanswered question rather unimportant from your perspective.

 

But the issue I have most difficulty getting my mind round is what I perceive to be the cultural arrogance of believers. For example, even if one ignores all the schisms within religions, why do believers in one religion think that they have a better handle on the truth than believers in a different religion? Or to put it a different way, what do Christians think they would believe in if they happened to have been brought up in the Middle East, or in India, say? Would they be equally confident in their belief in Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever as they are in their current belief in Christianity? If not, why not? If so, doesn't this make their specific culturally-determined belief rather unlikely to be right? (Mikeh has made a similar point in relation to all the thousands of different religions people have followed in the past, but even in a very simplified form I have never seen a convincing answer to the underlying question.)