Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: WeatherOp on January 21, 2008, 06:39:48 pm
-
hmmmmm... silence.....
Yep, boring.
Can we set something on fire now?
-
hey weatherop..
Re: your signature
A: It's a well-known logical argument why you should believe in God, even if there's a strong chance that it might not be true. Simply put, the argument is that you should believe in God just because there's a chance that you might go to heaven and avoid hell.
The argument was first formally put forth by Blaise Pascal, a philosopher and mathematician in the 17th century. A very good mathematician, in fact, to whom we owe several interesting formulas. There's also a programming language named after him.
Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. So let's treat it like a gamble, says Pascal, and look at the odds.
He described the payoff of this gamble like so. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity. Eternal bliss in heaven. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you GAIN nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that's the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity. Eternal suffering in hell.
Now here's the main thrust of the wager. Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.
Okay, that's Pascal's wager, now here are our reasons for not agreeing with it.
Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate 1/10th of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real. That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages.
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
Reason 3: If you can accept Pascal's wager as a realistic reason to believe, that leads you to a point where you have no choice but to believe just about everything on the same grounds. Maybe if you don't own a complete library of Seinfeld episodes, you'll go to hell! Why not? You don't know. Maybe you have to send $10 a week to the Atheist Community of Austin for life. Hey, what's a measly ten bucks if it will save you from eternal hellfire? Or maybe God really likes nude mud wrestling and he will punish those who do not partake of His gift.
Does all this sound utterly silly to you? Good! That's probably because you know that you should only believe things which have some sort of clear evidence favoring them. You don't believe just any old preposterous claim about UFO's, pyramid shaped get-rich-quick schemes, or magic pixies just because somebody tells you they're true and because there's a chance you might be wrong. You have a brain—use it!
Further reading: "Pascal's Sucker Bet" by "Reverend" Jim Huger
Return to top
-
hey weatherop..
Re: your signature
*Snip*
Nice one, mate. Been meaning to set him straight about that part of his sig, but never found an opportunity to bring it up. :yes:
-
Ok, let's look at reason 1: If God isn't real, and you do believe in Him, ok, you get laughed at a little at best, killed for it at worst, and you lose 1/10 of all you earn if you're dutiful enough to tithe. I'd STILL rather place that on the betting table than bet the other way and suffer for eternity because I was too afraid of believing a lie to actually consider the truth.
Reason 2 can be dealt with once atheism is eradicated.
-
Ok, let's look at reason 1: If God isn't real, and you do believe in Him, ok, you get laughed at a little at best, killed for it at worst, and you lose 1/10 of all you earn if you're dutiful enough to tithe. I'd STILL rather place that on the betting table than bet the other way and suffer for eternity because I was too afraid of believing a lie to actually consider the truth.
Reason 2 can be dealt with once atheism is eradicated.
Reason 1 is enough to demonstrate the inaccuracy of the argument. Reason 2 has nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with the fact that humanity has seen a different creation myth or religious doctrine for almost every civilization that has risen and fallen in the past 14,000 year. Therefore, the 'wager' is invalidated as it attempts to create a binary choice in a realm where the choice is infinite.
Honestly, give it up. It was a flawed theory to begin with.
-
Ahh, the classic fire insurance faith.
-
hey weatherop..
Re: your signature
Pascal's wager, in a nutshell, is this. No one knows for certain whether God exists. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. It's a gamble whether you believe in him or not. So let's treat it like a gamble, says Pascal, and look at the odds.
He described the payoff of this gamble like so. If you choose to believe in God, and you happen to be right, then the reward is infinity. Eternal bliss in heaven. However, if you are wrong, then you lose nothing at all. On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you're right, you GAIN nothing (in either of the previous two cases, you just die and that's the end). But if you are wrong, your payoff is negative infinity. Eternal suffering in hell.
Now here's the main thrust of the wager. Since the chance of God existing is unknown, but the payoff/punishment scheme is infinitely in favor of believing in God, just on the small chance that he might exist, you'd better believe. It's the only wager that makes sense.
Okay, that's Pascal's wager, now here are our reasons for not agreeing with it.
Reason 1: In the case where God does not exist, there really is a clear advantage to not believing. In other words, the payoff is not zero. For one thing, if you go through life believing a lie, that is a bad thing in itself. Besides that, there is more to being a believer than just saying "Okay, I believe now" and getting on with your life. Serious believers spend a lot of their time in church, and contribute a lot of money as well. There's a reason why some towns have very affluent looking buildings for churches, and why large and elaborate cathedrals are possible: they're funded by folks who donate 1/10th of their income throughout their lives to tithing. This is surely quite a waste if the object of worship isn't real. That's to say nothing of the persecution of other groups that's been instigated in the name of God throughout the ages.
All the eye of the beholder my friend, or in the other case, ignorance is bliss. ;)
See if I believe in God and he doesn't exist, and we both die, who will ever disprove me? Secondly, since I believe in God, I believe that I should go to church, you feel that you don't need too. Even if God doesn't exist, I am still doing something that I feel I should do, and thus stopping would really put a hamper on my life, so it would be counter-productive. So the advantage is moot.
Advantage: Pascal's Bet
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
Who cares what other fundamentalist think? Lots of republicans believe in man-made global warming, I don't, does that mean I am not a republican? I can say with a fact that not all catholics will go to hell, as I can say that not all Baptists will go to heaven.
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me. Who knows I maybe crazy, but hey no one can ever prove me wrong to my face. ;)
Advantage: Pascal's Bet
Seriously, I expected something quite a bit better from you Kazan, I think your rusty. ;)
-
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me.
So god called you on your telephone?
-
Who cares what other fundamentalist think? Lots of republicans believe in man-made global warming, I don't, does that mean I am not a republican? I can say with a fact that not all catholics will go to hell, as I can say that not all Baptists will go to heaven.
But then you're getting back into blind faith, which completely contradicts Pascal's theory! Pascal was attempting to use logic in demonstrating that to believe in God is the "best bet", and he succeeds. However, he doesn't take the other variables - ie. other religions, sects, etc. - into account, and therefore his logic if flawed. Simple as that. As a logical argument, Pascal's Wager is inherently illogical.
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me. Who knows I maybe crazy, but hey no one can ever prove me wrong to my face. ;)
Okay. So you've been receiving communications from the Almighty. I believe the technical term is 'psychosis', and I suggest you look it up before you try to base a belief system on it. :)
-
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me. Who knows I maybe crazy, but hey no one can ever prove me wrong to my face. ;)
Okay. So you've been receiving communications from the Almighty. I believe the technical term is 'psychosis', and I suggest you look it up before you try to base a belief system on it. :)
If I'm crazy, I'm just crazy, and likely too crazy to try to fix it. :p
And if I'm out of reality, the question is what is reality.
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me.
So god called you on your telephone?
That he did, pretty cool, eh? :D
-
damnit I totally had them cornered on irriducable complexity :(
-
Another god existing, if I am crazy, it's possible, but I haven't got a call from Buddha, Allah or Osiris. So, I'll stick with the one that called me.
So god called you on your telephone?
That he did, pretty cool, eh? :D
*69 him!
-
That he did, pretty cool, eh? Big grin
I want to know two things:
1.) how much did it cost?
2.) Where to get it?
-
1.) It was worth it whatever it was.
2.) Y'know... that rest stop on I-95?
Wait, I'm sorry are we talking about god or a glory hole? Or is god working the glory hole?
-
i'm not rusty - i managed to stimulate discussion without being inflamatory. however Goat's post was simply offensive.
and as for just using a copy+paste instead of formulating my own arguments...
(dammit can't find the image)
"Your well thought out arguments... they have fallen on deaf ears."
-
i've got your proof of evolution right here in my pants...
-
i've got your proof of evolution right here in my pants...
Has it been peer reviewed?
-
i'm not rusty - i managed to stimulate discussion without being inflamatory. however Goat's post was simply offensive
Which one? That was never my intention.
-
so anyone still holding to the irreducible complexity BS?
-
I'm splitting the Pascal's Wager stuff. Congratulations Kazan on doing what you do so well and giving fundamentalist Christians a way out when we had them cornered on something.
-
So, what I want to know is, would you rather pray for a better life, or actually ****ing do something about it?
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day.
Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime.
Teach a man religion, and he'll die praying for fish.
-
*SNIP*
atheist-community...yeah, I see where this is heading. :lol:
1.
The small change that some people give to the church really makes no big difference. Even if I'm devoted to worshiping what doesn't exist, if the consequences of my worship are good and beneficial to others, that's no waste at all.
Persecution happens because there's stupid people on this planet. Organized one - not so much anymore. And if you somehow claim that atheists don't persecute you're living in a dream world.
2. Christian, Jewish, Muslim - they all worship one God, the basics of those faiths are 99,99% the same. Same God, different name, different customs.
3. Point 3 is utter bollocks. I believe in X, therefore I now must believe in anything. :lol:
-
Reason 2: Even if you buy into Pascal's wager and decide you should believe, that doesn't give any basis for choosing which religion to believe in. Fundamentalists often use the wager to prove that you should be a Fundamentalist, but of course, Pascal was Catholic and was using it to prove you should be a Catholic! This just highlights the whole problem of which religion is the right one. Since many Fundamentalists believe that Catholics are going to go to hell, Pascal's not much better off than an unbeliever. We don't know if the Jews are correct, or perhaps the Muslims, or if reincarnation is right... or worse, if there's a perverse God who only lets atheists into heaven! It's not impossible. For all we know, maybe God exists but he doesn't care at all whether people believe in him.
This point has far greater reprecutions than it suggests. It basically means that you have to take into account every religion known and unknown to man which basically skews the wager towards the nonsense it is.
-
Well actually, it's only the religions that offer infinite reward or infinite punishment.
Still, there's another problem: people have a habit of making people with different religious beliefs' lives miserable. So it's not just 'let me believe in god, it doesn't hurt you', because in a democratic society, which we (most of us) live in, you get to boss us atheists and other non-pascalians around. Which isn't really fair, since you're using false pretenses.
-
Well actually, it's only the religions that offer infinite reward or infinite punishment.
Still, there's another problem: people have a habit of making people with different religious beliefs' lives miserable. So it's not just 'let me believe in god, it doesn't hurt you', because in a democratic society, which we (most of us) live in, you get to boss us atheists and other non-pascalians around. Which isn't really fair, since you're using false pretenses.
Religion is not nearly as prevalent in most democratic socities as it is in USA (or Poland lol).
-
Why do people make the assumption that if there is a god, he/she would give a damn about whether or not we believe in him/her, and further more, why would that only make a difference in our hypotetic fate in the afterlife? These are completely unsound assumptions, and apart from theological teachings, I'd like to see the arguments on why he would bother to set hoops for us to jump through.
But anyway - The question should not be "is it worthwhile to believe in God because that way I could possibly get in heaven"; the question should be... if there is a God, and if he's hypocritical enough to demand just the right kind of belief[without really providing any viable pointers to His existence other than some scriptures made by bearded men] as a requirement of getting to afterlife (or, if you assume everyone gets an afterlife, requirement of getting a positive afterlife)... do you really want to spend the eternity with such a sadistic prick?
You could have jolly good time with all the other pagans, heathens, atheists and commies and ALIENS who never heard of God and thus could never believe in him and didn't end up in heaven.
-
Still, there's another problem: people have a habit of making people with different religious beliefs' lives miserable. So it's not just 'let me believe in god, it doesn't hurt you', because in a democratic society, which we (most of us) live in, you get to boss us atheists and other non-pascalians around. Which isn't really fair, since you're using false pretenses.
And Atheism is also a belief.. a belief in not believing in god(s)...and as you said, people have a habit of making people with other beliefs miserable. So atheists are making religious people miserable as much as religious people make them, if not more.
-
The small change that some people give to the church really makes no big difference.
Do I really have to remind everyone that the Vatican is quite possibly the most affluent country on Earth? That ain't small change, my friend, and they sure as hell didn't earn it.
Even if I'm devoted to worshiping what doesn't exist, if the consequences of my worship are good and beneficial to others, that's no waste at all.
Assuming the consequences of religious worship are good. Religion has done far more evil in this world than it has done good, I'm afraid. Some of the bloodiest and most genocidal wars and policies in history are formulated on religious grounds. Religious adherence is far from benign... it has very real negative consequences even when in the hands of ordinary people. The current Middle Eastern situation should more than illustrate that for you.
-
But anyway - The question should not be "is it worthwhile to believe in God because that way I could possibly get in heaven"; the question should be... if there is a God, and if he's hypocritical enough to demand just the right kind of belief[without really providing any viable pointers to His existence other than some scriptures made by bearded men] as a requirement of getting to afterlife (or, if you assume everyone gets an afterlife, requirement of getting a positive afterlife)... do you really want to spend the eternity with such a sadistic prick?
That's the most unchristian part of Christianity if you ask me. It's kinda like saying to god, "if I believe in you what do I get out of it?"
And he'd turn and say "Everlasting life"
Well guess what, I don't want to live forever, and if I did, why would I have to please you to do it! Sounds tyrannical if you ask me.
Yeah live forever in the company of a tyrant, great!! :yes: [/sarcasm]
Excuse me I'm tired........................and full of a cold! :( :sigh:
-
And Atheism is also a belief.. a belief in not believing in god(s)...
No it isn't. We had the entire discussion months ago and you lost back then. It hasn't become a belief in the last few months. Give it up.
-
atheists annoy me so i became a nihilist :D
-
Do I really have to remind everyone that the Vatican is quite possibly the most affluent country on Earth? That ain't small change, my friend, and they sure as hell didn't earn it.
Small change for me. Small change from Joe, small change from Marry. It adds up. The question was how it would affect a single person, and a single person doesn't loose much at all.
Assuming the consequences of religious worship are good. Religion has done far more evil in this world than it has done good, I'm afraid. Some of the bloodiest and most genocidal wars and policies in history are formulated on religious grounds. Religious adherence is far from benign... it has very real negative consequences even when in the hands of ordinary people. The current Middle Eastern situation should more than illustrate that for you.
Religion has done far more good than evil. Running homeless shelters, supplying humanitarian aid and education, providing hope and comfort. Face it, it done more for the poor than all the states in the world combined.
Wars are fought for power and territory, religion was an excuse, not the driving cause. Thinking that the world would be better without religion is sheer folly.
No it isn't. We had the entire discussion months ago and you lost back then. It hasn't become a belief in the last few months. Give it up.
Your discussion doesn't interest me. Name it whatever you wish - belief, movement, sect, opinion, common interest, whatever... doesn't matter if it's members act like the biggest religious nuts. Whatever you call it, whatever you think it to be, it has the same results.
-
Your discussion doesn't interest me. Name it whatever you wish - belief, movement, sect, opinion, common interest, whatever... doesn't matter if it's members act like the biggest religious nuts. Whatever you call it, whatever you think it to be, it has the same results.
You were in the discussion. And you are correct that you acted like a religious nut. :p
You had your chance then, you failed. You don't get to push the reset button and claim that the discussion didn't happen just because you feel like making the same arguments again. If you want to know why you're wrong search for the previous thread and look at the answers to that particular point back then. If you want to come back with something new after that then all well and good.
If you're simply going to make the same arguments you made last time then you might as well give up. The thread is about pascal's wager and if you think you're going to drag it off-topic to make the exact same argument you made months ago you are VERY much mistaken.
-
atheist-community...yeah, I see where this is heading. :lol:
1.
The small change that some people give to the church really makes no big difference. Even if I'm devoted to worshiping what doesn't exist, if the consequences of my worship are good and beneficial to others, that's no waste at all.
Persecution happens because there's stupid people on this planet. Organized one - not so much anymore. And if you somehow claim that atheists don't persecute you're living in a dream world.
Christianity didn't reach it's 300th birthday before it start persecuting other faiths, after all it being persecuted by the romans you think they would be different - nope they just started persecuting others and believing they were the persecuted ones anytime someone stands up to them. And it's not just the money- it's the believing in a lie willingly which is evil, and the consequences it has on your decisions which negatively impact the world around you.
for example: apocalyptic premillennialists tend not to give a rats about pollution, because the apocalypse is coming any day now!
2. Christian, Jewish, Muslim - they all worship one God, the basics of those faiths are 99,99% the same. Same God, different name, different customs.
you're ignoring buddhism, hinduism, confucianism, norse, etc.
3. Point 3 is utter bollocks. I believe in X, therefore I now must believe in anything. :lol:
no, it's not utter bollocks, and you phrased the proposition incorrectly. The proposition is
"I believe in X without evidence, therefore I must also believe in A,B,C,D,E without evidence because they're equally valid to X".
3 is pointing out your hypocracy - out of all kinds of things with no evidence you're cherrypicking one to believe in, and then applying common sense to the others and dismissing them.
[edit]
and it does matter what you call something, because words have meaning - that is why you get so many christians trying to redefine atheism as a religion to attempt to put it on equal validity footing with christianity.
atheism is NOT a religion, it is the lack thereof
-
Back o nthe topic of Pascal's Wager, besides the points already mentioned, it also ignores the fact that believing in god in and of itself is no guarentee of ending up in heaven. There's a lot of things you have to not do (and a lot of them are damn fun things), so if you take the wager and believe, you're giving up on a lot of stuff you could otherwise do if you chose differently.
What's more, it also ignores the possibility that it actually takes belief in something for it to affect you. What if you're immune to hell if you don't believe in hell? Then believing would be a potential disaster. Now that I think about it, perhaps we should take the Discworld approach and shoot priests on sight lest they try to make us believe something that could come back to haunt us - After all, as the wager says, it's better to play it safe, right?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/derailed.png)
The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it pushes the idea that all you have to do to wind up in Heaven is go around and proclaim that you believe in God, which isn't true. You have to actually believe that Christ is your savior, and you must be sorry for all of your past transgressions (sins).
:EDIT:
Gah! Beat me to it while I was looking for a verse.
:/EDIT:
------
P.P.S.
Matthew 5:11, N.I.V.
Matthew 7:1-7:5, N.I.V.
2. Christian, Jewish, Muslim - they all worship one God, the basics of those faiths are 99,99% the same. Same God, different name, different customs.
John 14:6, N.I.V.
-
"Tilt Train". Once again, evidence that reality does indeed have a sense of both irony and humour :p
-
Dangit, that's what I hate about these kind of debates on HLP. I go to sleep like most human beings are required to do, and when I wake up, I can't keep track of the debate because there's a whole page and a half of new posts... AGH!
I'll just start anew from Shade's post
Back on the topic of Pascal's Wager, besides the points already mentioned, it also ignores the fact that believing in god in and of itself is no guarantee of ending up in heaven. There's a lot of things you have to not do (and a lot of them are damn fun things), so if you take the wager and believe, you're giving up on a lot of stuff you could otherwise do if you chose differently.
I'd rather give up the finite, in the hope of the infinite, than vice versa. IDK about you, but I'd rather enjoy an eternity promised to me by God (who has a VERY good credit score, btw. Take a look at Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Jeremiah 4, and so many more), which is promised to be very good, the worst pains of which are incomparable to the greatest pleasures in the finite life, than have a little fun now (most of which is likely rather destructive) and have it amount to nothing when I, or even further-reaching, the human race, dies out.
What's more, it also ignores the possibility that it actually takes belief in something for it to affect you. What if you're immune to hell if you don't believe in hell? Then believing would be a potential disaster. Now that I think about it, perhaps we should take the Discworld approach and shoot priests on sight lest they try to make us believe something that could come back to haunt us - After all, as the wager says, it's better to play it safe, right?
That's not a possibility at all. Truth is objective. Reality is objective. Senses can be tricked, but they exist in a consistent universe. By arguing that this idea is possible, you cut your own throat. You say that you think because you think you think. Well, how did this thought that you think come into being? If you believe that the only reason for human reasoning is random firings of electricity in the brain, then there's no reason you should reason that. A proof that there is no such thing as proof is nonsense.
BloodEagle, you are correct. However, Pascal's Wager is a tool that can be used to cause someone to consider something other than Atheism, which I believe is very much a step in the right direction.
-
I didn't force you to be Christian, you chose, I may think you are wrong, but I would never walk around saying Christians had to be 'removed' from the planet, merely that there beliefs should not be imposed on non-Christians, just as you object to Non-Christians who impose their beliefs on Christians.
The simple fact you talk about 'removing' atheism as though it were some kind of infection, rather than simply a personal choice, is worrying to say the least. There have been lots of suggestions to 'remove' things that weren't convenient to the removers' status-quo. None of them ever ended in a positive result.
As for Atheism being a religion, I always felt that part of a religion is a belief in some higher 'force' that you need to account to, and usually some kind of hope of life beyond Death. I don't think Atheism can really be counted as a religion at all, it doesn't meet any of the criteria for a religion meme.
-
I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? :confused:
-
I'd rather give up the finite, in the hope of the infinite, than vice versa.
You'd rather give up on a sure thing and hope for something for which there's no proof whatsoever? Well, to each their own. And besides, what's to keep you from hoping while still having fun? You don't need to believe in a god to hope for something beyond death. I don't believe there's anything after death but, again, to each their own.
IDK about you, but I'd rather enjoy an eternity promised to me by God (who has a VERY good credit score, btw. Take a look at Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Jeremiah 4, and so many more)
We consider a proven-to-be-wrong-in-many-cases and, in many versions, piss-poorly translated book a credible source now? Any time you choose to quote like that instead of presenting a logical argument, that point is basically lost by default, because those quotes only mean anything if the existence of that particular god is taken for granted.
That's not a possibility at all. Truth is objective. Reality is objective. Senses can be tricked, but they exist in a consistent universe. By arguing that this idea is possible, you cut your own throat.
You'd almost think so, wouldn't you? Except I wasn't arguing, I was proposing it (hence the 'What if') to make a point later. Later being now.
You see, the whole idea of an afterlife is based on the soul leaving our body and going... somewhere. Heaven or hell according to the whim of the christian god, according to you. But noone really knows, do they? Noone has ever come back and told the tale, indeed, those who have come back (being revived after having been dead for a short time) have had no tale to tell. So again, it comes down to belief. And in that realm of thinking, it is just as possible that the person's own beliefs decide the final stop as it is for a god to do so or, if you insist on having a god in the picture, for the god to render judgement based on where that paricular soul thinks it belongs. And if so, wouldn't it be better to not believe in hell?
The point being: It is all down to belief. And while the world may be objective and rational, belief is not constrained by such things. So if this is no possibility at all since the world is rational, then logically neither is religion as they are both simply aspects of belief.
-
I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? :confused:
Atheism is non-belief. It's non-belief in metaphysical deities which cannot be proven. That's all there is. If you do not believe in gods, you are an atheist.
-
I apologize for my tactless word choice. I'm not talking about forcing people to renounce atheism at all. I do believe Atheism is a bad thing, but that's a side effect of believing that there is a sole, objective truth that I know. And I merely want to spread that truth. I'm still left wondering how people could stay sane believing they cease to exist when they die. Even with the whole "we exist in the memory of those left alive" bit. I believe, regardless of whether it's due to our own designs, an apocalypse brought on by God, or some random event of nature, Humanity will die out. And all we call "human progress" will die with it. That leaves me wondering, "Why bother?" That leads me to the answer of God, quite honestly. I believe I would find it much more difficult living as an atheist than I do as a Christian, by that alone.
That's one of the many, many reasons I'm a Christian.
I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? :confused:
What you are talking of, more specifically, is Humanism, which is, in most cases, an atheistic system. Not always, though.
Now to answer Shade.
-
I'd rather give up the finite, in the hope of the infinite, than vice versa.
You'd rather give up on a sure thing and hope for something for which there's no proof whatsoever? Well, to each their own. And besides, what's to keep you from hoping while still having fun? You don't need to believe in a god to hope for something beyond death. I don't believe there's anything after death but, again, to each their own.
and I quote: "How do you know lions exist? You've simply seen a cat, and imagined something greater, and called it a lion. There are no such things as lions. Only cats." Kudos if you get the reference without googling.
IDK about you, but I'd rather enjoy an eternity promised to me by God (who has a VERY good credit score, btw. Take a look at Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Jeremiah 4, and so many more)
We consider a proven-to-be-wrong-in-many-cases and, in many versions, piss-poorly translated book a credible source now? Any time you choose to quote like that instead of presenting a logical argument, that point is basically lost by default, because those quotes only mean anything if the existence of that particular god is taken for granted.
Poorly translated? Proven wrong? Examples and evidence please? What research have you done into the labors of bible scholarship?
That's not a possibility at all. Truth is objective. Reality is objective. Senses can be tricked, but they exist in a consistent universe. By arguing that this idea is possible, you cut your own throat.
You'd almost think so, wouldn't you? Except I wasn't arguing, I was proposing it (hence the 'What if') to make a point later. Later being now.
You see, the whole idea of an afterlife is based on the soul leaving our body and going... somewhere. Heaven or hell according to the whim of the Christian god, according to you. But noone really knows, do they? Noone has ever come back and told the tale, indeed, those who have come back (being revived after having been dead for a short time) have had no tale to tell. So again, it comes down to belief. And in that realm of thinking, it is just as possible that the person's own beliefs decide the final stop as it is for a god to do so or, if you insist on having a god in the picture, for the god to render judgment based on where that particular soul thinks it belongs. And if so, wouldn't it be better to not believe in hell?
There is one. I'm sure you know of the story. He was dead for a few days. Three, to be precise.
The point being: It is all down to belief. And while the world may be objective and rational, belief is not constrained by such things. So if this is no possibility at all since the world is rational, then logically neither is religion as they are both simply aspects of belief.
I'm confused. The world is an aspect of belief?
-
The point of Pascal's Wager is to prove that there is a reason to believe in God without the need to already assume he exists. The second you start quoting scripture to prove the wager is correct you lose.
I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? :confused:
The whole point of atheism is not to believe.
Now back on subject.
-
You had your chance then, you failed. You don't get to push the reset button and claim that the discussion didn't happen just because you feel like making the same arguments again. If you want to know why you're wrong search for the previous thread and look at the answers to that particular point back then. If you want to come back with something new after that then all well and good.
If you're simply going to make the same arguments you made last time then you might as well give up. The thread is about pascal's wager and if you think you're going to drag it off-topic to make the exact same argument you made months ago you are VERY much mistaken.
Apparently, you didn't understand a single thing I said.
the previous discussion is irrelevant, because what you classify atheism as is also irrelevant - it's the behavior that matters.
And as I said - I know more than enough atheists that act worse then the worst religious people I know.
-----------------
And it's not just the money- it's the believing in a lie willingly which is evil, and the consequences it has on your decisions which negatively impact the world around you.
Lie? :wtf:
Negatively impacting the world? What am I doing to negatively impact the world?
Speaking of which, atheists killed more people in the last century that most world religions in their combined history.
you're ignoring buddhism, hinduism, confucianism, norse, etc.
This was about believing in God....what you mention aren't monotheistic religions.
You're wrong on point 3, b.t.w. Wrong by a loooooooooooooongshot.
-
And it's not just the money- it's the believing in a lie willingly which is evil, and the consequences it has on your decisions which negatively impact the world around you.
Lie? :wtf:
Negatively impacting the world? What am I doing to negatively impact the world?
Speaking of which, atheists killed more people in the last century that most world religions in their combined history.
Well, if you are to believe the bible, God killed much more people than Stalin so that point is moot. :lol:
you're ignoring buddhism, hinduism, confucianism, norse, etc.
This was about believing in God....what you mention aren't monotheistic religions.
Norse, roman, greek, etc... religions have gods, therefore they are as liable in the wager as christian, muslin, etc... religions. Not to mention religions that may not exist, because after all, how can you be certain that "the true god" has already been "discovered"?
-
Well, if you are to believe the bible, God killed much more people than Stalin so that point is moot. :lol:
Where did you get that from?
And there were many more from where Stalin came from b.t.w. (you just don't hear much about them)
Norse, roman, greek, etc... religions have gods, therefore they are as liable in the wager as christian, muslin, etc... religions. Not to mention religions that may not exist, because after all, how can you be certain that "the true god" has already been "discovered"?
If multiple "Gods" make sense to you...that aren't even godly (in power or behavior)....then I guess it applies too (for you).
-
the previous discussion is irrelevant, because what you classify atheism as is also irrelevant - it's the behavior that matters.
Your entire point was irrelevant to the subject of Pascal's Wager and in posting a deliberately inflammatory comment designed to derail the thread came very close to trolling. You've then compounded that by now making pointless off-topic inflammatory remarks in reply to me about how bad atheists you know act. Again borderline trolling.
Don't do it again. Last warning.
This was about believing in God....what you mention aren't monotheistic religions.
That's the entire point Trashman. Pascal's Wager completely ignores every single polytheistic religion and assumes that it's a binary choice between God (whatever name he uses) and no god. It doesn't allow for the possibility that there are other Gods other than yours. Thus it is fundamentally flawed as a piece of logic.
And that's before we get to the fact that even Pascal himself didn't mean the wager to be used in the way you think it should be used. It was meant to persuade agnostics to convert.
-
Well, if you are to believe the bible, God killed much more people than Stalin so that point is moot. :lol:
Where did you get that from?
And there were many more from where Stalin came from b.t.w. (you just don't hear much about them)
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html
And what about the theists that also commited mass murder? Say... Hitler? (Godwin's law once again...)
It's pointless saying X killed Y people. People kill people either atheist, theist, male, female, black, white, etc...
-
Pascal's wager, haha!
I recommend also Discworld approach (Terry Pratchett has great understanding of the realities of life!). When the guy proposed this idea died, and met the gods, they each had a heavy club and had nasty thoughts of giving someone a lesson of having seemingly bright ideas...
The only thing which has bothered me for a long time is that if you choose to believe in (especially Christian) god, you have to obey some rules given by the god. But the thing which finally converted me out of any belief systems was that if you follow those rules, you are actually being selfish because then you only follow the rules since you want to get to heaven rather than accept the judgement of your true personality's actions at the end.
Also, it dawned to me that church here never did much good for those in need before modern times, it was actually the relatives. Current system is again that kind that the people already pay taxes to support the homeless, but church has pretty much nothing to do with that! Yeah, this country is really a pagan country, even though the church did its best to override the old traditions. Besides Ukko the Overlord God sounds much better than God.
Somebody already said that if you can improve things today, why do you wait and hope it will be any different in heaven? One of the best examples of this was a priest coming from Holland, (this happened in China) he saw me doing some fighting exercises in Beijing. He came to me and asked my name and if I believe in God, also asked about the reasons for the training. He also had a Chinese girl with him.
I suppose he thought I would answer that I'm from the almighty and believing Europe, I proudly believe in Christian god, and train only for the self-defence. Instead I replied honestly that I'm not in the position to argue for or against the existence of godly beings, and I train to be able to kick someone's ass (yeah, Finns have this special relation with priests). Seemingly shocked he tried to explain about the mercy of God and so there would be no need to train against threats if you believed in God.
He then continued explaining his daughter became a teenage mother, his son became crazy and is currently in asylum, and his wife cheated on him and divorced later - during the trips he has done to Asian contries preaching of the mercy of God. He said he would be happier dead, but God's mercy has kept him going. The only thought I had that where were you mister when all that happened, but this I didn't tell him. I pity for that poor Chinese girl, though. The church could choose their evangelists/priests a little bit better if you ask me. And I have my own suspicions regarding that girl also.
Oh and regarding martial arts, I have actually done only something what most of the people would consider positive with those skills. One suicide attempt (actually a devoted Christian) stopped and one foreign student saved from certain beating which resulted in short fight between me and five drunken yutes. And then there are some interventions in bar fights.
Mika
-
Your entire point was irrelevant to the subject of Pascal's Wager and in posting a deliberately inflammatory comment designed to derail the thread came very close to trolling. You've then compounded that by now making pointless off-topic inflammatory remarks in reply to me about how bad atheists you know act. Again borderline trolling.
Don't do it again. Last warning.
WTF? :wtf: :wtf:
Are you deliberately misinterpreting/misunderstanding everything I say? You're the one that brought the last debate in this topic, not me.
O.k. - one last time..
Atheists believe what they believe(or don't) is right. Religious people too. They both act on the premise that they are right. They both can sometimes act like total retards.
Ergo, since they both act just as stupid, what you classify them doesn't really matter in the end - since we were discussing behaviour of people in the first place.
Comprende?
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html
And what about the theists that also commited mass murder? Say... Hitler? (Godwin's law once again...)
It's pointless saying X killed Y people. People kill people either atheist, theist, male, female, black, white, etc...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
that page is flat out wrong for many ,many reasons. First, the world was never flooded - only a religion is (but the the writer of that time that was all the known world..guy didn't travel much). I don't even think there WERE 30 million people on Earth waaaaay back then.
And on another note, Stalin, Mao-Ce Tsung, Tito and a bunch of others killed untold millions. Hitler is small fry compared to them.
You might argue that back then, during all the "religious killings" there were far fewer people to kill, thus the smaller death toll. But then again, that really doesn't matter.
-
i consider christianity judism 2.0. essentially some of the jewish writings with some books from some crazy people that followed another crazy person, sorta like the manson family. all the books assembled in such a way as to promote a the idea for roman imperialism, which is why christians are so eager to convert the cattle. most of the old testament is more or less based of ancient jewish fokelore which was eventually written down by older prophets. fokelore comes in to being when people without a developed understanding of things try to explain unusual phenomena. this gets passed down from generation to generation an gets added to or inspires some profit to write works about it.
thing is human knoledge tends to expire. better ideas become accepted than something slapped together by cavemen and and revised by people who know slightly more and assume just as much. sometimes an old government comes around and adds its own input. what better way to make people follow your rules than embedding them in their religion. in 1000 years the bible will cover file sharing, no doubt about that.
all the big prophetic religions tend to place people into a subordinate role to their deities. many forms of paganism put the humans on equal footing with the gods. they have their needs and humans have theirs an an if you scratch my back sorta way. greek and roman paganism sorta invented hell (and the word hell comes from hel, of norse paganism). but for them it was mandatory, everyone had to pay for their transgressions before they could proceed with their afterlife. i think this is more of demand for the greek and roman empires, needing a penalty-reward system in the minds of their people at a low level. consider it social engineering. on that note think about how many commandments were anti-egyptian propaganda (being enslaved and all i think moses would hold a grudge and tweak the rules accordingly). i actually find it amusing that schools in the us are allowed to teach paganism but not religion.
my point is simply that religion is social engineering. it doesnt matter what you believe in so long as it suits the needs of those in power.
-
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html
And what about the theists that also commited mass murder? Say... Hitler? (Godwin's law once again...)
It's pointless saying X killed Y people. People kill people either atheist, theist, male, female, black, white, etc...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
that page is flat out wrong for many ,many reasons. First, the world was never flooded - only a religion is (but the the writer of that time that was all the known world..guy didn't travel much). I don't even think there WERE 30 million people on Earth waaaaay back then.
And on another note, Stalin, Mao-Ce Tsung, Tito and a bunch of others killed untold millions. Hitler is small fry compared to them.
You might argue that back then, during all the "religious killings" there were far fewer people to kill, thus the smaller death toll. But then again, that really doesn't matter.
Like I said, according to the bible, that's how many people god killed. The world population at the time is a modern estimate.
And here I thought you considered the bible to hold nothing but the truth. Why then in other debates you hold it so dearly if the writer at the time didn't have any knowledge of the world? :p
I can also site other names of theists who murdered "untold millions". But that won't accomplish anything. Here's an interesting article pointing out the problem. (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/p/AtheismKills.htm)
-
I've got mroe to say, but it will take a long time to write. So for now, I'd just like to point out that according to the Bible, God is responsible for every death in the world. That makes Him infinitely more at fault than Stalin or Hitler or any of the Popes, or Napoleon, or Alexander. Now that that's out of the way, He's also responsible for all life.
And according to the Bible (not that you should just assume that that's true, just take this as insight on what I believe), in that respect, God comes out as a good guy overall, because of all the people to have been made, I think three have not died and will not. Therefore, God has done more life creation than life destruction, and thus, comes out ahead. Just thought I'd point that out. When I have more time I'll actually address the past few posts that have shown up while I was busy living life.
-
because of all the people to have been made, I think three have not died and will not.
lol wut
-
Enoch, Christ and Elijah are never said to have died. I think there are a couple more, but I can't remember for sure.
-
Like I said, according to the bible, that's how many people god killed. The world population at the time is a modern estimate.
And here I thought you considered the bible to hold nothing but the truth. Why then in other debates you hold it so dearly if the writer at the time didn't have any knowledge of the world? :p
It is the truth (The New Testament. I don't have that much faith on the Old one. It's still the truth, but a bit colored.)
And I don't even get where do you think you're going with this point?
Do the words of of ancient Greek philosophers hold any less weight or credence if they only knew a small part of the word?
As for the article you posted - bollocks! They guy is trying to wrestle with semantics there to somehow claim that no one has ever been killed by atheism, since it's isn't a principle or philospohy. Bollcoks. What is it if not a philospohy or principle? Trying to worm ones way out of it. Geez, that writer should face reality - accept the past and move on. Nothing can be done about it anyway.
-
TrashMan, when did any of those people you listed claim they were killing for atheism?
-
TrashMan, when did any of those people you listed claim they were killing for atheism?
This is faulty logic, since we've already described atheism as the lack of belief, as opposed to belief in anything. Apathy doesn't cause massacres on its own. However the charge that more people have been killed in the name of secular power then in the name of religion remains perfectly valid.
-
im quite fond of Vlad Dracul III. hes got do be my favorite christian murder machine. not only did he murder alot of people, he did it in the most cruel way, by stuffing a gargantuan pole up the ass (and other orifaces as well) of anyone he wanted dead, until they died over the course of several days. a lovely form of torture-execution known as impalement. hey-sus's puny little nails pale in comparison. vlad slaughtered every muslim that dared enter christian land, and a few of his own people as well. he had no problem impaling mothers and their infant children. marduk wrote a series of tracks about the whole thing, ****ing brutal.
that said i dont think any religious group prophetic or otherwise is completely innocent of slaughtering people of other faiths. everyone has slaughtered and everyone has been slaughtered, everyone has enslaved and everyone has been enslaved. frankly i think all humans deserve hell. too bad its a construct. :D
-
Wow...thats....morbid.
-
This scorekeeping is meaningless bull****. No one's proven anything by tallying up everyone's historical kill count. Whether or not people believe in god doesn't matter half as much as whether they're able to cultivate a sophisticated understanding of their beliefs, and we won't know how many people are capable of that so long as most of the world's population has no access to proper education-- a situation which is, in turn, a tragedy of economics, which is, in turn, a tragedy of the undying human affinity for exploitation.
Everything that matters about religious experience is profoundly personal. You don't even have to believe in god to have a religious experience. It's a ****ing chemical reaction, and I think anyone who knows what it feels like to be rendered inarticulate by something beautiful knows exactly what god is.
-
TrashMan, when did any of those people you listed claim they were killing for atheism?
This is faulty logic, since we've already described atheism as the lack of belief, as opposed to belief in anything. Apathy doesn't cause massacres on its own. However the charge that more people have been killed in the name of secular power then in the name of religion remains perfectly valid.
I know, I was just trying to prove that you CAN'T kill in the name of atheism by giving him a task he could not fulfill. :p
-
We are all atheists regarding ninety-nine percent of the gods humanity has ever worshipped.
The nonreligious are just atheists about one more.
-
We are all atheists regarding ninety-nine percent of the gods humanity has ever worshipped.
The nonreligious are just atheists about one more.
:yes:
i love that quote.
and the kill count matters - it's a demonstration of the negative attributes that pascal's wager ignores
plus it's one of the facts that leads to my conclusion that religion is undeniably and incorrectably evil.
-
Yeah I'm not having this discussion with you.
-
and the kill count matters - it's a demonstration of the negative attributes that pascal's wager ignores
But remember, if people believed in the God Pascal believed in, those deaths would be insignificant because of the immortality of the human soul.
-
exactly.
-
I know, I was just trying to prove that you CAN'T kill in the name of atheism by giving him a task he could not fulfill. :p
A. You're an atheist
B. You're trying to kill everyone who is religious.
I'd say that qualifies. It doesn't? Well, I can say the same about "religious murders" then too.
Religion didn't kill anyone.
Stupid people did (because of greed, hate, lust)
No one killed anyone. Case closed.
speaking of which I find it interesting people calming they will never believe in God until shown some proof. Interesting, because such undeniable proof that I can show around doesn't exist.
Let's for a second assume God shows himself to you in all His glory...he shows you many a miracle and you feel he's the real thing. You just KNOW it.
Now you come to me saying that you saw God. O.k, I'll ask for proof.
You go on telling me what you saw - I call you crazy, trippin, drunk, stoned.
You filmed a miracle or two on your camera and show it to me.
I say it's a forgery or optical illusion.
You have the recording analyzed, the expert sez it's the real thing.
I say the expert is bribed, he's lying on purpose or that the recording might be real, but the whole thing was staged and acted out.
A miracle happens in front of me.
I say it's a optical illusion.. I'm having halucinations, someone slipped some drugs in my drink..Heck, I'm in the MAtrix for all I know.
REPEAT AD NAUSEUM.
You see, the problem is that us humans are so freaking good at coming up with different explanations and lying to ourselves that if you don't want to believe something, no amount of "evidence" can make you.
-
You see, the problem is that us humans are so freaking good at coming up with different explanations and lying to ourselves that if you don't want to believe something, no amount of "evidence" can make you.
You got it in one, yet you still believe????
You've been lied to! We have been lied to for thousands of years,but the masses were ignorant, now there are a large majority of people who are educated. Now the more people can make their own minds up, the less people believe in dietys, flying spaghetti monsters, pixies, fairies, phantoms, ghouls etc.
-
You making a fallacy here, by equating with being well educated with being an atheist. Bollocks.
You completely missed the point of my post apparently.
-
You making a fallacy here, by equating with being well educated with being an atheist. Bollocks.
To be fair, there is no real logical fallacy there. The more educated an individual is, the more likely that individual is to question dogma and superstition. It's no secret that areas with increased education and affluence tend to be either secular or have a statistically significant population of atheists when compared to less educated, developing areas. Logic dictates that an individual with the education to explain and understand the world around him would be inherently less susceptible to attributing unexplainable phenomena to a supernatural deity or other such nonsense.
-
You making a fallacy here, by equating with being well educated with being an atheist. Bollocks.
You completely missed the point of my post apparently.
No. He got your point, turned it around on you and you misunderstood him.
-
You making a fallacy here, by equating with being well educated with being an atheist. Bollocks.
To be fair, there is no real logical fallacy there. The more educated an individual is, the more likely that individual is to question dogma and superstition. It's no secret that areas with increased education and affluence tend to be either secular or have a statistically significant population of atheists when compared to less educated, developing areas. Logic dictates that an individual with the education to explain and understand the world around him would be inherently less susceptible to attributing unexplainable phenomena to a supernatural deity or other such nonsense.
Oh there is a fallacy, since there are ore than enough well-educated religious people. What education does is makes people be more critical and thoughtful before accepting a religion (which is not a bad thing).
No. He got your point, turned it around on you and you misunderstood him.
That's what you think.
Point being, since we can always find another way to explain something, why should we believe in anything except what we want to believe?
Heck, I can find other ways to explain gravity, but that doesn't mean it's right. In the same sense, just because you think you can find some way to explain some miracles, doesn't mean they didn't happen or weren't miracles.
It's a double-edged bladed since this argument can stab at ANY belief in ANYTHING.
-
but just because I can be denser than a neutron star does not mean I should be.
you have a mind, use it, look at evidence and try to find the best answer.
-
It's a double-edged bladed since this argument can stab at ANY belief in ANYTHING.
Which surely means that the sensible choice is simply not to believe then? :p
-
I was raised Christian. Even as a child, I spent a lot of time arguing with and rejecting the stories because they didn't make sense.
*shrug* Just a personal anecdote.
-
It's a double-edged bladed since this argument can stab at ANY belief in ANYTHING.
Which surely means that the sensible choice is simply not to believe then? :p
Then I shouldn't believe in gravity either? Or quantum mechanics? After all, I'm SURE I can come up with dozens of other explanations.
-
:nervous:
-
ok, go ahead, make a better explanation, keep in mind better means it would have to describe and predict what is observed better than what the current theories.
-
"better" is a very subjective term.
Speaking of which, I don't have to believe in any current theories or results. I can dismiss them as lies just as easily as some people dismiss God.
-
a layman whos raised as christian and chooses to remain as such will most read the bible and accept the whole thing as truth. however an educated christian will read the bible, sort out facts, opinions, will be able to discern what should be taken literally and what is metaphor, and will be capable of reading between the lines and having a higher understanding of the whole thing. such people tend to be shunned by the christian community.
all the books by the apostles or whatever they called themselves were selected to be canonized for the sole reason that the tended to agree with each other. there were many other books by other apostles which were intentionally left out because they tended to make hey-sus out as just another preacher rather than a devine being (and mary was no virgin either). many remaining copies of those books are kept safely hidden in the vatican vault.
-
"better" is a very subjective term.
Speaking of which, I don't have to believe in any current theories or results. I can dismiss them as lies just as easily as some people dismiss God.
Yes, but that means you willfully ignore reality.
-
"better" is a very subjective term.
Speaking of which, I don't have to believe in any current theories or results. I can dismiss them as lies just as easily as some people dismiss God.
yeah, you can, René Descartes tackled this one, and honestly if you want to believe that there is some supremely powerful force of deception, his noodley appendage changing the results on the machines and whatnot, go ahead. but I think it's fairly reasonable to accept that the physical world as we perceive it is more or less as it is. and if you accept this, than you can with your own hands useing machines you forged from iron you dug from the earth yourself, measure the phenomena these theories describe and get numbers, hard numbers, if you can make up an explanation that makes numbers that are reliably closer to the measured ones that the current theories, do it now before me.
-
Then I shouldn't believe in gravity either? Or quantum mechanics? After all, I'm SURE I can come up with dozens of other explanations.
No you shouldn't believe in them. You should simply accept that the best explanations science has come up with are gravity and quantum mechanics. Believing in science is stupidity.
-
Yes, but that means you willfully ignore reality.
I could same the same.
@Nuke - :lol: Conspiracy theory ahoy!!!
-
Yes, but that means you willfully ignore reality.
I could same the same.
Amazing, amazing
-
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b319/Mistah_Kurtz/facepalm.jpg)
-
I think we've reached the point of wilful stupidity.
Not really much point in continuing.