Interview with DNA

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Well thats not true. Dragons appear in nearly all western cultures dating back thousands of years. They were important creatures in many western religions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragons#Dragons_in_world_mythology

But thats getting off the point. The point is people don't believe in them now. Why? What changed? When one understands that one will understand how an atheist can stand up and say he is certain there are no gods

I meant to post this earlier, but don't seem to have done so. No, people never believed in dragons the way they believed (and still believe) in God. As I said, if they had done, we would find dragon-proof buildings dotted around the landscape. Dragons were not part of day-to-day experience, they were an accepted popular myth - you're making a very similar assumption to an anthropologist 1000 years hence who looks at our civilisation and says "people then believed in Santa Claus, whose major festival was on December 25th".

If the two (belief in dragons, belief in God) are not similar (and I'm saying they're not), then arguing from one to the other is silly.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Thanks for the link, pH! (even if it is a bit 'philosophical')

the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Sure. Tentative rejection I can do. Here we go - "I tentatively reject God, but am open to future physical data". Mmm, feel the atheism!

Actually, that looks a heck of a lot like....agnosticism!

amused,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

No, people never believed in dragons the way they believed (and still believe) in God

People believed dragons were real. They had no reason not to.

People believed that Zeus was real, that the stories and myths of the Viking gods were real, that titans once walked the earth, that pandora was the first woman, that the sea was greated by the tears of an ice giant.

We think all these things are nonsense now, but they were taken seriously during their time.

As i was trying to explain to Playboy it is rather hypocritical and arrogant of our culture to assume that our modern beliefs are in some way special and should be taken more seriously than the religons of the past. We dismiss them as nonsense, a precursor to the "serious" religions that followed. But how are they any different?

Its like the teenager syndrome, where a teenager cannot believe their parents were ever young, went out, did new stuff (had s.e.x). They believe everything they do is new and being done for the first time.

Same with religion. Everyone things their belief system is some how special. That the others just don't really take theirs as seriouslys, how can they since they are basically all wrong and miss-guided.

Scofflaw wrote:

If the two (belief in dragons, belief in God) are not similar (and I'm saying they're not), then arguing from one to the other is silly.

Scofflaw you're missing the point. Its not the dragons themselves. They are just an example. You could use ghosts, but I don't think that is a very good example because a lot of people believe in ghosts.

The point is the process you come to dismiss dragons are real. Are you agnostic about dragons or atheist about them? Do you think they might be real? Do you think they probably are not real, but you are open to the possibility? Or do you know they are not real? If so, how do you know they are not real without any proof they don't exist?

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, that looks a heck of a lot like....agnosticism!

But its not. You are not rejecting the idea until you are show physical evidence by being an agnostic. You are saying "it might be true". You are accepting the idea as a plausable valid idea, despite no physical evidence.

If God appeared before me and said "I am GOD! and boy are you in so much sh*t now!", I wouldn't be an atheist any more. I wouldn't still go "Well I don't think you are real, so bugger off". I would be a true believer, right up to the point where God/Zeus/Whatever rams his lightning bolt up my ass.

But up until God appears before me (or some other form of evidence) I don't believe it. I don't believe the people who came up with the idea, I don't believe the people who preach the idea. Why would I. I reject the idea because really there is no reason not to, just like I reject the idea of dragons.

The whole point of my dragon analogy (which is not exactly the same as the dragon example others keep referring too, which I had not actually read), is to challange the idea that you have to be agnostic to God. Its to point out that we are not agnostic about lots of things we don't have proof for, so why is it necessary to hold open a special case for God. Why do we do that for God, but not for dragons, fairies, ghosts, gods (plura) etc etc

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

People believed dragons were real. They had no reason not to.

People believed that Zeus was real, that the stories and myths of the Viking gods were real, that titans once walked the earth, that pandora was the first woman, that the sea was greated by the tears of an ice giant.

We think all these things are nonsense now, but they were taken seriously during their time.

As i was trying to explain to Playboy it is rather hypocritical and arrogant of our culture to assume that our modern beliefs are in some way special and should be taken more seriously than the religons of the past. We dismiss them as nonsense, a precursor to the "serious" religions that followed. But how are they any different?

Its like the teenager syndrome, where a teenager cannot believe their parents were ever young, went out, did new stuff (had s.e.x). They believe everything they do is new and being done for the first time.

Same with religion. Everyone things their belief system is some how special. That the others just don't really take theirs as seriouslys, how can they since they are basically all wrong and miss-guided.



Scofflaw you're missing the point. Its not the dragons themselves. They are just an example. You could use ghosts, but I don't think that is a very good example because a lot of people believe in ghosts.

The point is the process you come to dismiss dragons are real. Are you agnostic about dragons or atheist about them? Do you think they might be real? Do you think they probably are not real, but you are open to the possibility? Or do you know they are not real? If so, how do you know they are not real without any proof they don't exist?



But its not. You are not rejecting the idea until you are show physical evidence by being an agnostic. You are saying "it might be true". You are accepting the idea as a plausable valid idea, despite no physical evidence.

If God appeared before me and said "I am GOD! and boy are you in so much sh*t now!", I wouldn't be an atheist any more. I wouldn't still go "Well I don't think you are real, so bugger off". I would be a true believer, right up to the point where God/Zeus/Whatever rams his lightning bolt up my ass.

But up until God appears before me (or some other form of evidence) I don't believe it. I don't believe the people who came up with the idea, I don't believe the people who preach the idea. Why would I. I reject the idea because really there is no reason not to, just like I reject the idea of dragons.

The whole point of my dragon analogy (which is not exactly the same as the dragon example others keep referring too, which I had not actually read), is to challange the idea that you have to be agnostic to God. Its to point out that we are not agnostic about lots of things we don't have proof for, so why is it necessary to hold open a special case for God. Why do we do that for God, but not for dragons, fairies, ghosts, gods (plura) etc etc

We do in fact hold open special cases for a very large number of things, as you've pointed out yourself. For example, ghosts, astrology, the number 13, ESP, gods (most people), spirits (a lot of people), magic (still a lot of people), reincarnated lamas (also a lot of people), JFK conspiracy theories, luck, racism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, sexism....the list goes on and on.

And that's just the really unreasonable ones! We all believe things without any evidentiary support, every day, because there isn't time in one life to examine the evidence for everything we're told. Nor is it always possible to examine the evidence in something we have personally experienced.

If we had infinite time to become sufficently expert in every field, and to study the evidence for everything, we would have no need to believe things without evidence. That isn't the case, though, is it?

Your logic leads pretty straightforwardly to flat-earth beliefs. The earth looks flat, and behaves like it's flat, on an everyday basis. Sure, there are pictures of a round earth, but that's not evidence. Yeah, people say they've been to the Moon, photographed the world from space, but have you seen the evidence? A bunch of tatty black-and-whites that could have been shot anywhere! You actually believe that stuff?

You haven't been into space (a safe assumption, although I have no evidence for it), and neither have I. Nor have I been at a rocket launch. I think I know how rockets work, but I got all that from books. I've never tested it, and if you've actually sent a rocket out of the atmosphere, I'll be surprised. So neither of us should believe any of that stuff - we should believe the world is flat, because that's what it looks like it is.

You want people to operate from first principles when it comes to belief/rejection of God, but that's not a viable strategy for living. It makes a lot more sense to take what people around you say is true as true, unless you have some specific reason to reject it (such as contrary evidence, or a perceived lack of plausibility). And you do that whether you have evidence or not, because you know you won't get time to study all the evidence in one lifetime.

If you want to use "scientists" as the "people around you", go ahead. They're more reliable than most people, I think, but (1) science is not complete, (2) science is not infallible, (3) there are always competing theories, (4) very little science is done from first principles. However, most scientists are theists, so why would you trust your putative eternal life to science, when most scientists don't?

In summary, your argument that we should require evidence for God, and be atheist in the absence of such evidence, is actually the special case, because no-one can apply that standard in their day-to-day life.

At the heart of nearly every atheist's atheism is a personal rejection of theism which is non-evidentiary.

regards,
Scofflaw

samb

Very good debate guys. I am with Wicknight on this one, but Scofflaw certainly makes a good case below.

however Scofflaw you have not addressed the point about ancient believes. Why is the case for God special above all those other beliefs. You are basically saying that we cannot be sure of anything, so we must be uncertain and agnostic about everything. You suggest that going back to first scietific principals is impractical but to me tour universal agnosticsm is just as this impractical.
We cannot trust the individual scientist but we can with a certain degree of certainty trust the scientific method, retesting, peer-review etc........a grand conspiracy is considerably less likely beyond reasonable doubt.
Philosophicaly you are right, we must be agnostic about everything, but in pracitice I think that this view is verging on paranoia. Its the Matrix etc.

You haven't been into space (a safe assumption, although I have no evidence for it), and neither have I.

I have, its a good laugh;) We must accept certain assumptions.

Sorry I'm tired I'll get back when I can think clearer

CodeMonkey

And that's just the really unreasonable ones! We all believe things without any evidentiary support, every day, because there isn't time in one life to examine the evidence for everything we're told. Nor is it always possible to examine the evidence in something we have personally experienced.

So what? People believe a lot of things but they are also selective on what they accept at face value. It usually depends on their existing knowledge and sensibilities.

If we had infinite time to become sufficently expert in every field, and to study the evidence for everything, we would have no need to believe things without evidence. That isn't the case, though, is it?

That's precisely why you're want to be a sceptic and reject any illogical arguments until you see evidence. Otherwise you'll waste your whole life believing in every lies and misconception you come across no matter how ludicrous.

Your logic leads pretty straightforwardly to flat-earth beliefs. The earth looks flat, and behaves like it's flat, on an everyday basis. Sure, there are pictures of a round earth, but that's not evidence. Yeah, people say they've been to the Moon, photographed the world from space, but have you seen the evidence? A bunch of tatty black-and-whites that could have been shot anywhere! You actually believe that stuff?

WTF? Photographic evidence is not evidence? People believe the earth is round because they know it's verified by other scientists and that the evidence and theories laid out in text books that explains why the earth is round are logical and observable.

You want people to operate from first principles when it comes to belief/rejection of God, but that's not a viable strategy for living. It makes a lot more sense to take what people around you say is true as true, unless you have some specific reason to reject it (such as contrary evidence, or a perceived lack of plausibility). And you do that whether you have evidence or not, because you know you won't get time to study all the evidence in one lifetime.

The only evidence there is for god are people claims of communication, enlightenment, experiences etc and we know of many well known psycological and possible medical reasons why people believe or need to believe in a god. Therefore it makes more sense to reject the belief of god unless people making the claims have real evidence.

If you want to use "scientists" as the "people around you", go ahead. They're more reliable than most people, I think, but (1) science is not complete, (2) science is not infallible, (3) there are always competing theories, (4) very little science is done from first principles. However, most scientists are theists, so why would you trust your putative eternal life to science, when most scientists don't?

What's your point? It's better to believe in some crackpot notion of an omnipresent superbeing than to believe in working theories that came from observation and logical deduction?

In summary, your argument that we should require evidence for God, and be atheist in the absence of such evidence, is actually the special case, because no-one can apply that standard in their day-to-day life.

That's nonsense, all theists selective don't believe in stories and ideas that conflicts with their beliefs and world view.

Dont be at yourself

Just to refocus the discussion a little, here's a question aimed at theists, and those agnostics who absolutely discount some Gods:

Forget about dragons. Why don't you believe Zeus exists? Or Oiden? Or Allah? Or the various other dieties that have been or are worshipped by other religions. Because, it seems to me, that every single argument that you've applied to defend your belief in God (or non-discounting of God), can be applied to these other Gods.

We've got "historical evidence" for these Gods just the same as the bible provides "historical evidence" for the Christian God. We've got millions of people who've laid down their lives for these other Gods. We've got people who were or are convinced they have experienced a "connection" with these Gods. We've got shrines in people's homes, we've had wars faught, they tick all the boxes for explaining where we come from, why we're here and where we're going. They fill the exact same hole that the Christian God fills, so why specifically do you discount them and praise the Christian God?

I would say that the honest answer to that is simply that that was the first answer you were provided with as a child and so as you'd grow older you'd have no incentive to change those beliefs for other, equally valid/invalid, beliefs.

Scofflaw

Look, guys, this isn't a complex proposition. It's not a philosophical point about the "limits of knowledge, blah blah". It's simple.

WTF? Photographic evidence is not evidence? People believe the earth is round because they know it's verified by other scientists and that the evidence and theories laid out in text books that explains why the earth is round are logical and observable.

Think about the number of things you accept as being true, such as the above. Now think about how many of those things you've actually got the evidence for. Good evidence, not open to another interpretation (like photographs). Your evidence, not someone else saying they have the evidence (such as scientists and textbooks).

What percentage of what you accept as true do you have the evidence for, after the exercise above? 100%? You either accept a very limited number of things as true, or you're some kind of super-being. So what are you accepting on trust? Anything you find plausible, I suspect.

I've looked at Moon rocks down a microsocope - I know they don't look anything like any terrestrial rock I've seen. I've done Eratosthenes experiment with a stick and shadow, so I know the Earth is round. I'm a trained scientist - I know the scientific method is a good one, and I am inclined to trust the results it produces (when it's done well, and honestly).

None of that makes me an atheist. I'm an atheist because I find the idea of the Judeo-Christian god implausible. Following on from that, I find that there's no evidence, or that all the evidence supports my theory that there is no God. Someone who does not find the notion of the Judeo-Christian god implausible will find that the evidence supports their theory that there is a God.

I also find dragons implausible, and again, the lack of evidence tends to support my theory that they don't exist. This is a comparison that works for me, and for most of us here, because we consider God and dragons equally implausible. It does not work for someone who finds God plausible - they would not consider it a comparable case, because it lacks the starting point of plausibility.

The argument between theists and atheists is not about evidence, it's about plausibility. The atheist considers that God is implausible, and requires evidence, whereas 90% maybe of what the atheist accepts he/she accepts because he/she finds it plausible. That makes the atheist's treatment of God a special, or at least minority, case (in the 10%).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

The argument between theists and atheists is not about evidence, it's about plausibility. The atheist considers that God is implausible, and requires evidence, whereas 90% maybe of what the atheist accepts he/she accepts because he/she finds it plausible. That makes the atheist's treatment of God a special, or at least minority, case (in the 10%).

I'm sure I get this bit. How do you decide if something is plausible? What's the 90/10% relate to?

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Your logic leads pretty straightforwardly to flat-earth beliefs. The earth looks flat, and behaves like it's flat, on an everyday basis. Sure, there are pictures of a round earth, but that's not evidence. Yeah, people say they've been to the Moon, photographed the world from space, but have you seen the evidence? A bunch of tatty black-and-whites that could have been shot anywhere! You actually believe that stuff?

You haven't been into space (a safe assumption, although I have no evidence for it), and neither have I. Nor have I been at a rocket launch. I think I know how rockets work, but I got all that from books. I've never tested it, and if you've actually sent a rocket out of the atmosphere, I'll be surprised. So neither of us should believe any of that stuff - we should believe the world is flat, because that's what it looks like it is.

This is another disingenuous argument in that it equates experimentally verifiable knowledge with religous faith.

You (and anyone) can verify that the earth is in fact round. This is a key point, 'Scientists' didn't figure it out, tell everyone that the earth was round, but keep the means of verifying that fact secret.

If you don't get this, then I'm surprised, maybe you're just having an argument for arguments sake, or deliberately taking bizarre positions, but then again maybe you're serious.

The knowledge and 'facts' generated by 'science' are by definition verifiable by other people. Part of the process is the publication of not only the data your experiment produced, but a full manual of how someone else can recreate the experiment.

So to not accept a round earth is in effect to believe in a massive conspiracy theory, which anyone with a decent education and a little maths could shatter.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

The atheist considers that God is implausible, and requires evidence, whereas 90% maybe of what the atheist accepts he/she accepts because he/she finds it plausible. That makes the atheist's treatment of God a special, or at least minority, case (in the 10%).

Not at all. "God" is just another imaginary concept that the atheist rejects. It is not special in any way.

You say we accept things without seeing the direct evidence, since as the moon the shape of the earth etc, because we find these things plausable and logical and as pH points out because they are discoverd in a scientific fashion. That is all true.

But I'm not sure how you get onto "god" from that.

You seem to be saying we accept other ideas such as the round earth, the big bang, without seeing the evidence, so why do we make a specially case for God and not accept God without evidence not to.

But by doing that you are lumping the concept of "gods" in to the realm of valid scientific theories, which is nonsense.

The concept of "god" is not valid to start with, any more than the concept of "dragons" is. Just because billions of people believe it doesn't change that fact.

Scofflaw wrote:

At the heart of nearly every atheist's atheism is a personal rejection of theism which is non-evidentiary.

Its really the chicken and the egg.

You are starting off with the idea that the concept of "god" is valid to start with and someone chooses to reject it. And then you can say "Well why did you reject it, how can you really know?" And because that person is rejecting the idea with no actual proof that god doesn't exist they are doing it in some kind of faith or belief based decision.

The important bit in your argument is that the concept is still valid, it just isn't true. So you can say well you actually have no way of knowing if it is true or not, so really we shouldn't decide either way, and any decision is going to be an act of faith or belief

But really, in my personal experience, and atheist doesn't decide on the true or falsehood of God. He/She realises that the idea itself is not, and never was, valid to start with. I don't need any evidence that god doesn't exist because I don't accept the idea of gods to begin with.

The answer doesn't have a true or false value because the question is not valid to being with.

I didn't come round the the atheist idea because I was presented evidence for or against "god". I came round to the atheist idea because I realised that humans invented the concept in the first place to explain aspects of the universe in a fashion they could easiliy understand.

I did not reject god by saying "I do not believe in God". I didn't go "The answer to the question 'is there a God' is no, false". As you point out, someone could quite rightly say "How do you know this?"

I rejected the entire concept by saying "Humans made this all up." The question is nonsense to being with.

Take the question "Is the Swiss navy underfunded?"

On the surface a pretty straight forward question. You would assume the answer would be "yes" or "no". But once you realise that the Swiss don't actually have a navy you realise that the question itself is invalid. Neither "yes" or "no" are a satisfactory answer because they both validate the inital assumption that the Swiss have a navy. If I answered "no" to this you could go "How do you know?" I would have to anwer "I don't" but then the reason I answered no isn't because I believe the statement itself is false. It is because I know the question is nonsense to being with.

The answer isn't "yes" or "no". Neither a true or false answer to the question is a valid answer because the Swiss don't have a navy to start with! If I said "no" I am not rejecting the idea put forward in the question. I am rejecting the question itself. The question isn't valid to being with.

To an atheist the concept of gods is nonsense, it is invalid to being with. The question "Does God exist?" is invalid because "gods" are not a valid concept to start with, just like the Swiss navy isn't. You don't need evidence that God does or does not exist because the idea of a god doesn't really exist. We made it up, just like I made up the Swiss navy to propose my question.

Scofflaw

Plausible should ideally mean "does not contradict the available evidence, and contains no inherent contradictions". A lot of the time, on the other hand, it probably means "fits with my prejudices, and doesn't contain flaws that I can't handwave away".

For myself, I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God because I find him implausible. I don't believe that God can be proved or disproved by evidence, because what I would interpret as outright evidence of God's non-existence is a theist's "divine providence", or ineffability.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

This is another disingenuous argument in that it equates experimentally verifiable knowledge with religous faith.

No. They are not the same thing, of course - more like opposites.

pH wrote:

You (and anyone) can verify that the earth is in fact round. This is a key point, 'Scientists' didn't figure it out, tell everyone that the earth was round, but keep the means of verifying that fact secret.

If you don't get this, then I'm surprised, maybe you're just having an argument for arguments sake, or deliberately taking bizarre positions, but then again maybe you're serious.

The knowledge and 'facts' generated by 'science' are by definition verifiable by other people. Part of the process is the publication of not only the data your experiment produced, but a full manual of how someone else can recreate the experiment.

So to not accept a round earth is in effect to believe in a massive conspiracy theory, which anyone with a decent education and a little maths could shatter.

I am not sure why you think I am seriously claiming that the Earth is flat, or that science is a conspiracy - that was a rhetorical device (I have verified that the Earth is round, for myself, using Eratosthene's method, as I said in the same post!). I am trying to point out that the absolute end result of the "properly skeptical" position is exactly that kind of belief only in what one can see for oneself.

Perhaps I should offer an explicit disclaimer before continuing:

"Science, as you say, not only provides a theory, but provides predictions, and shows how those predictions have been, or might be, tested. I am a trained, and competent, scientist, and place a great deal of trust in the results of good science, and the results of competent scientists. From time to time I still like to verify other people's results for myself, or to attempt something from first principles, and thus far, I have seen no reason to decrease my trust in science.

I therefore consider science trustworthy. In fact, I consider it trustworthy beyond all other methods of discovering the world - rationalism has no error-checking, faith I have none, revelation I discount, and hearsay I distrust."

Now, having said all that, can I please be allowed to resume my argument without any further fatuous assumptions that I am some sort of hairy backwoods flat-earther with a Bible in one pocket and my brains in the other?

thanking you in anticipation,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Now, after a brief pause, wicknight:

wicknight wrote:

"God" is just another imaginary concept that the atheist rejects. It is not special in any way.

It is quite easy to read this as simply begging the question. You have decided that god is not a valid concept, you have said so, so what? If you then claim that no special stretch is needed to reject the concept because it is invalid, you are simply arguing around in a circle.

wicknight wrote:

You are starting off with the idea that the concept of "god" is valid to start with and someone chooses to reject it. And then you can say "Well why did you reject it, how can you really know?" And because that person is rejecting the idea with no actual proof that god doesn't exist they are doing it in some kind of faith or belief based decision.

No, this is not what I said. I said atheists actually reject the notion of god because they find that it has inherent contradictions. That's not a faith-based decision, or an empirical finding, it's a logical one.

wicknight wrote:

But really, in my personal experience, and atheist doesn't decide on the true or falsehood of God. He/She realises that the idea itself is not, and never was, valid to start with. I don't need any evidence that god doesn't exist because I don't accept the idea of gods to begin with.

Which is what I said, except that I've made the point that no evidence is actually admissible anyway, because the atheist and the theist interpret the evidence in completely different ways.

wicknight wrote:

I did not reject god by saying "I do not believe in God". I didn't go "The answer to the question 'is there a God' is no, false". As you point out, someone could quite rightly say "How do you know this?"

I rejected the entire concept by saying "Humans made this all up." The question is nonsense to being with.

I think you're putting that very badly, and with excessive force given its lack of clarity. What I think you must mean is that you considered an alternative hypothesis (that humans made all this up), and found that this fitted better with your experiences, or contained fewer contradictions, than an equally hypothetical god. You therefore, completely correctly, rejected the god hypothesis as invalid.

To an atheist the concept of gods is nonsense, it is invalid to begin with. The question "Does God exist?" is invalid because "gods" are not a valid concept to start with, just like the Swiss navy isn't. You don't need evidence that God does or does not exist because the idea of a god doesn't really exist. We made it up, just like I made up the Swiss navy to propose my question.

This, again, is very badly put, and again excessively forceful. What on earth makes the notion of gods "invalid to begin with"? Is there even such a thing? Do you mean that "the notion of gods is inherently implausible because of the contradictions involved"? If you mean that, say it! Don't say something that simpy sounds better and means nothing!

Essentially, your post agrees with everything I said, while mistating my case.

Also, check your facts - this page covers the flags and ensigns of the Swiss Navy, which, I'm sorry to say, does exist.


regards,
Scofflaw

Owen

The obvious answer here is taken a new born child, educate them with evolution (A scientific process), and let them develop their own thoughts and beliefs in a closed environment. If they believe in a God at the end, it merits thought, however I for one believe that won't happen.

I stopped believing in imaginary friends a long time ago (God), and whatever arguments Christianity, or any other religion for that matter want to put forward, they still brainwash their children from an early age to follow their beliefs. Children should not be baptised until 12/14 when they have developed enough to make up their own minds. If God truly exists, then religions should have no issue with this.

Owen.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, your post agrees with everything I said, while mistating my case.

My post agrees with you Scofflaw up to the point where you are suggesting that deciding that gods are nonsense (atheism) is a decision that is based on no evidence and therefore less valid or logical than the the agnostitic one which says we cannot know for sure.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

My post agrees with you Scofflaw up to the point where you are suggesting that deciding that gods are nonsense (atheism) is a decision that is based on no evidence and therefore less valid or logical than the the agnostitic one which says we cannot know for sure.

To be precise, what I am saying is that the initial decision to become an atheist is based on a rejection of the plausibility of the notion of god(s), as compared to other hypotheses (actually, as I think I said, I suspect it is often based on an emotional event of some kind, which causes people to seek alternative explanations of the world).

The hypothesis "humans made it all up" is (a) inherently less self-contradictory than the God hypothesis, (b) explains all circumstantial natural evidence, and more importantly (c) also explains all religious experiences, revelations, etc.

Nevertheless, the evidence available does not allow us to discount the god hypothesis, because there is no evidence that is not susceptible of a dual explanation by theists and atheists. The only thing that allows us to discard the god hypothesis is its own internal contradictions, and even there, each "god story" needs to be considered, and dismissed, on its own merits (and yes, that includes Marduk, Osiris, and the rest who were, after all, contemporaneous with the god of the OT). Until all "god stories" have been examined and dismissed, our "humans made it all up" hypothesis is still one amongst many.

Now personally, I fancy the "humans made it all up" hypothesis, and would happily elevate it to the "Theory of Human Stupidity" or somesuch, since I think it has the greatest explanatory power. For the moment, however, yes, I am saying that the atheistic position is "less valid or logical than the the agnostic one which says we cannot know for sure".

Now, if you have a way of dismissing all the god hypotheses as internally self-contradictory to the point of invalidity, which does not rely on the a priori assumption that all god hypotheses are invalid anyway, or on evidence that can be interpreted two ways, roll it into the spotlight and show us. I'll be both delighted and respectful if you can do it, but I'll also be very surprised.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I am basically waiting for an agnostic or theist to attempt to explain in rational terms why they are sure there are no such thing as dragons but not sure there are no such thing as gods.

Ah, I'd missed this!

Basically, dragons (western) are ruddy great big physically solid fire-breathing flying lizards, and we're talking about their existence in the physical world. There aren't many places you could hide even a small population of such things, and none of those could provide them with enough to eat (Antarctica, middle of the Sahara). So we should have spotted them.

In addition, there are no other flying lizards (a couple of small gliders excepted), no lizards anywhere close in size (the Komodo dragon maxes at 3m, estuarine crocodiles about 6m but water-dwelling), and nothing whatsoever breathes fire.

We can rule out dragons using everyday observations, which tell you that not only are they unlikely, but that we've never even seen anything in the last couple of hundred years that could look like one.

All of that makes dragons a totally different proposition from an immaterial deity who doesn't live on earth, who created everything, and is primarily encountered as a non-physical manifestation (bit like a ghost, say, just for arguments' sake). Most people would accept that science has not yet devised tools that can search for deities.

In short, science has made the possible "existence-space" of dragons impossibly small to contain them, whereas God, like the protean notion he is, continues to squirm quite happily into the gaps science has yet to fill.

cordially,
Scofflaw

samb

Scofflaw wrote:

In short, science has made the possible "existence-space" of dragons impossibly small to contain them, whereas God, like the protean notion he is, continues to squirm quite happily into the gaps science has yet to fill.

Is it not possible that a dragon lives there too.

Scofflaw

samb wrote:

Is it not possible that a dragon lives there too.

Sadly, I don't think so, at least not on Earth. Too big, too obvious. We can fit yetis or bigfoot in, but not, I think, dragons. It's the fundamental reason why we have UFO's, I think - by definition, the aliens have superior technology, so they can't be detected and/or captured.

However, given the virtual impossibility of us being the only life (and, think about it, it's amazing how many people who are quite happy with evolution, or who are atheists, are doubtful that there's other life out there, which is actually a creationist doubt!), and given the mind-bogglingly vast number of planets out there: somewhere out there, Jim, there are dragons!

cordially,
Scofflaw

samb

Sorry, I meant is it not possible that there are dragons in this parallel existance that you claim could be inhabited by a God.

Scofflaw

samb wrote:

Sorry, I meant is it not possible that there are dragons in this parallel existance that you claim could be inhabited by a God.

Hmm. I haven't claimed God exists in a parallel existence. If you mean the term "existence-space", I'm afraid I made that up on the spot as a way of describing the amount of physical space a possible creature would need to have not to be noticed and scientifically recorded, considered in the context of its improbability (not quite the same as living-space or range).

If you were to claim the existence of a giant virus that contained genes for photosynthesis (recently found), the "existence-space" of that virus would be tiny, which is to say there's a lot of places it could hide, and it is in itself not an impossible concept (although unexpected, since according to theory viruses were never free-living). The Loch Ness monster, on the other hand, requires quite a large "existence-space" to have escaped recording, being both improbable and physically large (it is constrained to a small one, and can therefore be dismissed).

It's just a way of expressing the "should-have-come-across-it-by-now-or-at-least-have-found-something-like-it-ness" of something.

cordially,
Scofflaw

samb

I think I get you now. You only rule out physical big dragons living on earth and believe that a God is more likely than this, fair enough.
But God is not special if you extend the possiblility to the entire universe and other 'realms' (ie heaven, hell, pergutory, parallel universes, or whatever). Since scientifically we have no reason to believe that such realms even exist, surely it is impossible and ilogical to suggest we can make judgements on what is more likely to reside there.