Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad · 23-07-2013 11:18am

Zombrex wrote: »

So your reason for believing is independent to the reason you believe it is true? You don't believe because you think it is true, but for other reasons that are not related to the truth of the claim

I think that sums up the issue right here (I believe I'm going to win the lottery because it would be great for me to win the lottery not because I think I'm going to win the lottery)

Good man Zombrex, your almost their!
I believe winning the lotto would be great, so I buy lotto tickets.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 11:20am

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, he asked me why do I believe, not why do I believe in God, that was ages ago and we had moved on. Or at least I thought we had.
The trouble is we cant agree on what believes means. I have repeatedly stated that I don't use believe as a synonym for know. Either do I use it when I mean best guess or I think.
As I said, no point continuing when that simple distinction is ignored.
The rest of the time I tend to agree with Zombrex, just on this we will have to agree to disagree.

There certainly is no point in continuing if you are going to use a completely nonsense notion of "belief" that you seem happy to change definition of mid way through discussion simply order to avoid having to deal with criticism of said beliefs.

How about you define specifically what you mean by belief Tommy?

Because most people use belief to mean "the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.", but holding a proposition to be true seems to have nothing to do with what you claim to believe.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 11:24am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Good man Zombrex, your almost their!
I believe winning the lotto would be great, so I buy lotto tickets.

Well no actually, I think you are almost there because it is starting to dawn on you how silly your notion of belief in God is, which is why you have changed the proposition from belief in winning the lottery to believe that winning the lottery would be nice.

You agree, I hope, that there is a difference between believing that winning the lottery would be nice and believing you are going to win the lottery.

Equally there is a difference between believing that God's existence would be nice and believing God's existence is true.

You didn't say that you believe God existing would be a good thing. You claimed that you believe God does exist because this is a good thing.

Let the back tracking begin.

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-07-2013 11:32am

tommy2bad wrote: »

The trouble is we cant agree on what believes means. I have repeatedly stated that I don't use believe as a synonym for know. Either do I use it when I mean best guess or I think.

Perhaps some of the confusion lies in the fact that this is a thread about god actually existing or not. If you are just going to come in here and declare you believe it does then a break down of communication is inevitable between you.

I think the open question is not whether you believe it... but whether there is actually any argument, evidence, data or reasoning substantiating that belief. If "I believe it because I believe it" is essentially the conversation we are having here then I can see an interminable circle occurring in the discourse between you.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 11:39am

To avoid further "confusion" can you (Tommy) simply state what proposition or premise in relation to God you are currently in the mental state of considering to be true (ie what do you believe) and why you hold that proposition to be true rather than false or neutral (why you believe rather than not believe).

Remember you came into this discussion claiming that you were perfectly happy with the state "I don't know".

tommy2bad · 23-07-2013 11:43am

Yeah, I know what the thread is about, it's a long one and moves about a lot so some sidetracking happens.

but whether there is actually any argument, evidence, data or reasoning substantiating that belief.

The trouble is their isn't any that will satisfie a non believer. Non believers seem perplexed by the fact that believers can adhere to something that they see no evidence for. I'm attempting to explain that for some of us evidence isn't the only reason to believe.

tommy2bad · 23-07-2013 11:47am

Zombrex wrote: »

To avoid further "confusion" can you (Tommy) simply state what proposition or premise in relation to God you are currently in the mental state of considering to be true (ie what do you believe) and why you hold that proposition to be true rather than false or neutral (why you believe rather than not believe).

Remember you came into this discussion claiming that you were perfectly happy with the state "I don't know".

Ahh Zombrex, sure half the reason I post on this board is to try to figure that out.
Do you think I came to convert ye heathens

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 11:56am

tommy2bad wrote: »

The trouble is their isn't any that will satisfie a non believer. Non believers seem perplexed by the fact that believers can adhere to something that they see no evidence for.

We are not perplexed by it at all, we know exactly why people do it.

The point is that it is not a good thing to do. You know this, its why you keep producing clauses trying to say that belief in God is not like believing you are going to win the lottery or avoid a car accident despite being drunk.

You seem to want the rest of us to accept that belief in God gets a pass from what you yourself consider a bad idea. You have obviously convinced yourself that this is ok, but you are doing a piss poor job convincing anyone else.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do you think I came to convert ye heathens

More ad hominem.

But to answer you question I come here because I believe that rationality and critical think are actually important, and I believe that type of magical thinking that is currently popular in some areas of society is damaging.

Geomy · 23-07-2013 11:59am

Yes because religion figured out how to make planes fly and invented the computer :rolleyes:[/quote]

So Zombrex what you're saying is....

And science enabled those planes to fly into buildings, drop bombs, spray chemicals. ....

I suppose santa clause climbed up the chimney to deliver your presents. ...

I think you should turn your clothes outside in the next time you decide to dress it up :-)

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 12:03pm

Geomy wrote: »

So Zombrex what you're saying is....

And science enabled those planes to fly into buildings, drop bombs, spray chemicals. ....

I suppose santa clause climbed up the chimney to deliver your presents. ...

I think you should turn your clothes outside in the next time you decide to dress it up :-)

What...?

Science has discovered a whole host of things about the world, some good some bad.

What has religion discovered?

nozzferrahhtoo · 23-07-2013 12:17pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

The trouble is their isn't any that will satisfie a non believer.

A sentence that is exactly 6 words too long. There either is evidence or there is not. I do not think we need to append some barely cloaked notion that the non-believer is some how biased against it or is more difficult to please.

It is not that the existing evidence does not personally satisfy me.... it is that the existing evidence.... isn't.... existing that is.

What we DO have is retrospective feeding of facts into a confirmation bias machine but that is not evidence. At all. Not just evidence that fails to satisfy me the unbeliever. It simply is not evidence.

But it is a world view that can be satisfied by anything at all. A word view where answered prayers AND unanswered prayers are both positive evidence of a god is a world view that is the very epitome of "confirmation bias".

tommy2bad wrote: »

Non believers seem perplexed by the fact that believers can adhere to something that they see no evidence for.

I am indeed perplexed by it. If there is no reason to think X is true I honestly am agog to understand how someone can think X is true. I often wonder just how far this ability to exploit the lability of ones own credibility stretches. Can one for instance be given a completely empty box and simply choose to believe it is full of cash?

So yes, although perplexed is probably not the correct word I am genuinely in awe of the ability some people have.... perhaps even the vast majority of our species.... to believe something true in the absence of any reason to believe it true.

What I am aware of are many many reasons why someone might be deluded into thinking it is true. I know the fallacies and the psychological dispositions humans have that lead them down the route of thinking there is a god. There are plenty of them.

Geomy · 23-07-2013 12:21pm

Zombrex wrote: »

What...?

Science has discovered a whole host of things about the world, some good some bad.

What has religion discovered?

You'll have to ask someone religious that question, although Paudi down the road usually goes to mass by the road, but he discovered that by crossing the river during the dry spell he cut the journey by half....

That's a good discovery for Paudi, so Paudi being a good Christian told Josie where there is a short cut to get to mass....

So by having more time to herself Josie managed to pick some wild flowers and use up that half hour to make a wild flower arrangement for the Church....

Was that a discovery by religion or a discovery by a religious person ?

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 12:29pm

Geomy wrote: »

You'll have to ask someone religious that question, although Paudi down the road usually goes to mass by the road, but he discovered that by crossing the river during the dry spell he cut the journey by half....

That's a good discovery for Paudi, so Paudi being a good Christian told Josie where there is a short cut to get to mass....

So by having more time to herself Josie managed to pick some wild flowers and use up that half hour to make a wild flower arrangement for the Church....

Was that a discovery by religion or a discovery by a religious person ?

you claimed science and religion are equally primitive. how are they equally primitive if you can list off scientific discoveries but I have to ask a religious person what religion has discovered?

Geomy · 23-07-2013 12:45pm

Zombrex wrote: »

you claimed science and religion are equally primitive. how are they equally primitive if you can list off scientific discoveries but I have to ask a religious person what religion has discovered?

Answer the question please.

Depending on how you look at it science has more than likely been around much longer than religion, science is a word everything else is open to be discussed scientifically. ..

Analyse that.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 1:02pm

Geomy wrote: »

Answer the question please.

Depending on how you look at it science has more than likely been around much longer than religion, science is a word everything else is open to be discussed scientifically. ..

Analyse that.

it was a duscovery by a religious person, unless something in the religion lead to the discovery which if it did you didn't mention. did god tell him where the river was?

now answer my question please.

Geomy · 23-07-2013 1:26pm

Zombrex wrote: »

it was a duscovery by a religious person, unless something in the religion lead to the discovery which if it did you didn't mention. did god tell him where the river was?

now answer my question please.

No God didn't tell him where the river was, his dad showed him the river when he was a boy, ,that's silly to ask me did god tell him where the river was :-)

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 1:43pm

Geomy wrote: »

No God didn't tell him where the river was, his dad showed him the river when he was a boy, ,that's silly to ask me did god tell him where the river was :-)

So this isn't an example of religion discovering anything?

So again, how are science and religion equally primitive?

Geomy · 23-07-2013 1:56pm

Zombrex wrote: »

So this isn't an example of religion discovering anything?

So again, how are science and religion equally primitive?

I think you're looking too much into all this,and trying to understand the poster rather than the post.

If I could sit down and explain it over a coffee it would be much easier.

We seem to cross wires a lot.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 2:07pm

Geomy wrote: »

We seem to cross wires a lot.

You seem to say silly sound bites and then try and back track out of them when pressed to justify them.

So you know maybe don't do that in future, there will be less "cross wires"

Geomy · 23-07-2013 2:22pm

Zombrex wrote: »

You seem to say silly sound bites and then try and back track out of them when pressed to justify them.

So you know maybe don't do that in future, there will be less "cross wires"

At least I have the awareness of my defects and short coming s, you had yours pointed out on numerous occasions but it all goes over your head. ..

Your posting style is like a computer, all brains but lacking any connection with the subject or poster...

Its all oneway traffic....

Can you ever identify with the opposition ?

What's your opinion on mysticism ?

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 2:34pm

Geomy wrote: »

At least I have the awareness of my defects and short coming s, you had yours pointed out on numerous occasions but it all goes over your head. ..

Your posting style is like a computer, all brains but lacking any connection with the subject or poster...

I post reason, arguments and facts. And I respond to counter-arguments and facts (something this thread is lacking in). I don't spend my posts attempting to shut down posts with ad honimens and other irrelevant aggression.

That might come across as computer like and one sided to you but that is only because there is nothing coming from the other side of the debate other than irrelevant passive aggressiveness.

Geomy wrote: »

What's your opinion on mysticism ?

I have many opinions on mysticism, can you be more specific? Are you asking if I think mysticism is grounded in reality? If so, no I don't.

Geomy · 23-07-2013 2:54pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I post reason, arguments and facts. And I respond to counter-arguments and facts (something this thread is lacking in). I don't spend my posts attempting to shut down posts with ad honimens and other irrelevant aggression.

That might come across as computer like and one sided to you but that is only because there is nothing coming from the other side of the debate other than irrelevant passive aggressiveness.

I have many opinions on mysticism, can you be more specific? Are you asking if I think mysticism is grounded in reality? If so, no I don't.

Ok

Why do you engage with people in this discussion, if they don't comply with your standards maybe you are better off trying to catch butterflies in the bottom of a lake.

Reality...hmmmm give me magic, mythology, and spirituality any day

As I explained to you before I think in a more layman's way rather than intellectually, so am sometimes unfamiliar with words and quotes which come up here now and again.

But I am learning :-)

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 3:34pm

Geomy wrote: »

Ok

Why do you engage with people in this discussion, if they don't comply with your standards maybe you are better off trying to catch butterflies in the bottom of a lake.

I could say the same to you? You clearly have no interest in actually discussing these topics in a serious fashion. You seem to just come on to this thread and others like it to complain about people posting on this thread.

Geomy wrote: »

Reality...hmmmm give me magic, mythology, and spirituality any day

You say that as if merely believing in magic will make it real. Enjoy a life time of disappointment :rolleyes:

Geomy wrote: »

As I explained to you before I think in a more layman's way rather than intellectually, so am sometimes unfamiliar with words and quotes which come up here now and again.

But I am learning :-)

You seem to have zero interest in learning. People interested in learning digest an argument, explore it, poke and prod it, put it up to critical evaluation, and then make a conclusion about it.

You seem to spend your time attacking the posters because they aren't be nice enough for your liking.

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 4:11pm

Geomy wrote: »

Who are the others like me ?

What?

Geomy · 23-07-2013 4:33pm

I think I'll take a leaf out of Tommy s book and take a break from discussing with you Zombrex.

Your ego is writing cheque's your intelligence can't handle. ..

You're Top Gun :-)

nagirrac · 23-07-2013 4:34pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which returns us to square 1. Is there any actual substantiation for the idea there is a god (which is what this thread is about) or your idea that we are in a VR (which the thread is not about). Or is there not.

On the contrary, if our universe is likely to be a digital simulation then this is very related to this thread, and if you don't accept that premise it shows a dreadful lack of curiosity on your part. If hypothetically it is shown in the future that our observed universe is a simulation, would you still stick your head in the sand and refuse to consider where the simulation came from?

I am constantly amazed at how angry and dogmatic strong atheists are when confronted with information that threatens their worldview. To illustrate this point, there was a survey done by MIT recently on the science versus religion debate. The attached article by Max Tegmark outlines how he was warned not to do the survey as it would prompt a backlash of abuse from religious fundamentalists. Lo and behold when the survey was published the backlash came from angry atheists with personal abuse being heaped on one of the most brilliant physicists alive, incidentally an atheist himself, but obviously not enough of an atheist for some.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/angry-atheists_b_2716134.html

It is noteworthy that you are actually not interested in the science although you claim it is your field. So, in a final attempt to engage on the science, are you familiar with the work being done in digital physics? If you were then you would know that of the various hypotheses regarding the ultimate nature of the universe, the hypothesis that the universe is a kind of digital computer is the most likely to be true, given the scientific evidence. The strongest evidence for digital physics is that the quantum world is discrete and not continuous. The universe did not evolve based on a chaotic collection of subatomic particles deciding to become stars, then life sustaining planets, then humans with brains. The universe evolved based on information contained in the fundamental fabric of the universe. The science of theoretical physics has moved on from the billiard ball theories of Newtonian physics, through the field based theories of quantum physics, and is now firmly entering the information based theories of digital physics.

Geomy · 23-07-2013 4:38pm

I think I'll take a leaf out of Tommy s book and take a break from discussing with you Zombrex.

Your ego is writing cheque's your intelligence can't handle. ..

You're Top Gun :-)

Gumbi · 23-07-2013 4:53pm

I think it's just a case of you having a problem with someone disagreeing so vehemently with you. Why would you consider something like that to be such a big deal?

Zombrex · 23-07-2013 5:02pm

Geomy wrote: »

I think I'll take a leaf out of Tommy s book and take a break from discussing with you Zombrex.

Your ego is writing cheque's your intelligence can't handle. ..

You're Top Gun :-)

We were having a "discussion"? I thought I was just dismantling your arguments piece by piece and you were having a hissy fit because I wasn't being nice enough about it for your liking. Did I hurt your fee-fees? Maybe don't come onto a discussion forum making a fool of yourself by throwing around accusations of arrogance and "delusions of grandure" (while simultatiously trying to shut down the discussion) unless you got something to back it up other than your own muddled notions of what constitutes a solid argument. Just an idea :rolleyes:

Morbert · 23-07-2013 5:39pm

nagirrac wrote: »

So, in a final attempt to engage on the science, are you familiar with the work being done in digital physics? If you were then you would know that of the various hypotheses regarding the ultimate nature of the universe, the hypothesis that the universe is a kind of digital computer is the most likely to be true, given the scientific evidence.

Again, that isn't true.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments