Religion

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I dont believe that the 2 dice I've just rolled but not yet looked at both display '6', and I also dont believe that you have 4 arms. However, I think the first scenario has a far likelier chance of being true than the second. A simple 'yes' or 'no in response to the question "Do you believe X" is a shallow answer, because it leaves out just how confident you are in that belief (especially when the question deals with something as vague and ambiguous as the 'existence' of 'God').

Ignoring the fundamental difference between probability and belief, I don't see how you can arbitrarily assign chances to events which have no precedent and no prediction from current theory.

[G_frog]

I was interested in why the numbers were so high, not why they were there. (in any case, obviously (1) is more likely than (2), since (2) entails (1), but beyond that I would say they were all negligible).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

I was interested in why the numbers were so high, not why they were there. (in any case, obviously (1) is more likely than (2), since (2) entails (1), but beyond that I would say they were all negligible).

It depends if you're being 'objective' or defining your personal beliefs; it's entirely plausable for P((1)) = P((2))

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It depends if you're being 'objective' or defining your personal beliefs; it's entirely plausable for P((1)) = P((2))

For that to be the case you would have to show (or believe) that (1) entails (2) - a creator deity always intervenes in human life to some extent - or that both have a probability of 0.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Ignoring the fundamental difference between probability and belief, I don't see how you can arbitrarily assign chances to events which have no precedent and no prediction from current theory.

Its not a 'chance', its a degree of belief.

Originally Posted by G_frog

I was interested in why the numbers were so high, not why they were there. (in any case, obviously (1) is more likely than (2), since (2) entails (1), but beyond that I would say they were all negligible).

Oh. My interpretation of some personal experiences, intuition, what 'seems' to make 'sense' to me, possibly leftovers of the way I was brought up, and other things.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

For that to be the case you would have to show (or believe) that (1) entails (2) - a creator deity always intervenes in human life to some extent - or that both have a probability of 0.

As I said, it depends on the level of your objectivity. If you believe the only plausable definition of a deity is one that gets stuck in, then my statement holds

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its not a 'chance', its a degree of belief.

Obviously it stems from personal experience (if you had never seen or heard a die landing on a 1, yet your arms doubled every day only to be reduced at night, then you'd obviously claim that the latter was more probable), but whilst you can enumerate the chance of a die coming up 6, I don't see how you can enumerate the degree you believe in god; anyway, how can you only 'half believe in god' or whatever? Does it represent the chance that you would ascribe to god existing, or what?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

don't see how you can enumerate the degree you believe in god; anyway, how can you only 'half believe in god' or whatever? Does it represent the chance that you would ascribe to god existing, or what?

Again, it just means how confident I am that my belief is correct, and the chance that I ascribe to me being wrong. The exact percentage would only really make sense to someone other than me if I enumerated everything I believed ranked in order of "least confident" to "most confident".


On a sidenote, I dont think it makes sense to talk about the chance of something existing/happening. Leaving out things like certain bizarro metaphysical interpretations of quantum theory, the chance of something existing/happening is either 100% (it exists/happens) or 0% (it doesnt exist/happen). Probability and beliefs relate to epistemology (ie the chance of you 'guessing' correctly), not metaphysics (ie the chance of something 'actually' occurring).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

On a sidenote, I dont think it makes sense to talk about the chance of something existing/happening. Leaving out things like certain bizarro metaphysical interpretations of quantum theory, the chance of something existing/happening is either 100% (it exists/happens) or 0% (it doesnt exist/happen). Probability and beliefs relate to epistemology (ie the chance of you 'guessing' correctly), not metaphysics (ie the chance of something 'actually' occurring).

You appear to be advocating a system of laplacian determinism

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You appear to be advocating a system of laplacian determinism

For all non-conscious subjects, sort of. I dont think I believe that the level of knowledge required is even theoretically attainable though.

[G_frog]

I'm not sure that anyone has established that probabilities in quantum theory are purely epistemological rather than metaphysical.

but ignoring that, epistemological probabilities make perfect sense, being the chance that a statement coincides with reality. even if you can't estimate a single probability accurately, you can talk about comparative probabilities with no trouble (see above).

[1-X]

I believe that many of you who replied "no, no, no, atheist" wouldn't be so dismissive if faced with a crisis over which you had no control. eg your child on a life-support machine.

I bet you'd pray, try to make a deal, just in case.

[Bunga]

I don't think so. In my experience, atheists tend to be more psychologically stable than "believers".

[1-X]

Originally Posted by Bunga

I don't think so. In my experience, atheists tend to be more psychologically stable than "believers".

I'd say the opposite is more likely to be true. People who somehow have true unquestioning faith (God knows where they get it ) draw great strength from it at times of crisis. Even if their beliefs turn out to be false, they still lead an easier life for having had them.

As for not thinking you'd turn to God in a crisis yourself, thats not a claim you can make definitively unless/until you have been through something really bad. Even if you were still secure in your atheism, you'd still pray because it's an extra option and you'd have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Then after the event, assuming a favourable outcome, you'd probably convince yourself it was just a coincidence and return to your atheist ways.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by 1-X

I believe that many of you who replied "no, no, no, atheist" wouldn't be so dismissive if faced with a crisis over which you had no control. eg your child on a life-support machine.

I bet you'd pray, try to make a deal, just in case.

Go go gadget pascal's wager

[MrL_JaKiri]

Oh, and 'I don't believe in an interventionist god', for Giles.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by 1-X

I believe that many of you who replied "no, no, no, atheist" wouldn't be so dismissive if faced with a crisis over which you had no control. eg your child on a life-support machine.

I bet you'd pray, try to make a deal, just in case.

I don't see how you can go from the response 'no, no, no, atheist' to 'dismissive'. anyone who answered with 'atheist' (or answered at all) clearly hasn't dismissed the question. further, the only person who presented their arguments for atheism was me - and arguments they are, not arbitrary dismissal.

i'd also say that i haven't prayed since coming to my conclusions on god etc, although i have not been in a situation as severe as you describe i have lost one grandparent, worried about losing another and had two bouts of severe depression - during which things do not tend to look rosy.

so, you castigate others for dismissing one set of beliefs, then dismiss theirs. You supply no argument. Hypocrite.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

I don't see how you can go from the response 'no, no, no, atheist' to 'dismissive'. anyone who answered with 'atheist' (or answered at all) clearly hasn't dismissed the question. further, the only person who presented their arguments for atheism was me - and arguments they are, not arbitrary dismissal.

Sir, you do me a disservice. Although my statements won't actually add information, because you only know what they mean if you knew what they meant already.

[1-X]

Originally Posted by G_frog

so, you castigate others for dismissing one set of beliefs, then dismiss theirs. You supply no argument. Hypocrite.

My intention was certainly not to castigate, nor do I dismiss anyone's beliefs. Most of the people here are young, in good health, well-educated and have lived lives relatively free of suffering. Given those circumstances (and the current decline in belief) it's obvious they'll say they're atheists. I was using an extreme example (their dying child) to make them consider that they might not be as secure in their atheism as they thought.

I'm an atheist myself. If God exists, he's either powerless to prevent suffering or chooses not to, making prayer pointless. Probably.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by 1-X

My intention was certainly not to castigate, nor do I dismiss anyone's beliefs. Most of the people here are young, in good health, well-educated and have lived lives relatively free of suffering. Given those circumstances (and the current decline in belief) it's obvious they'll say they're atheists. I was using an extreme example (their dying child) to make them consider that they might not be as secure in their atheism as they thought.

I'm an atheist myself. If God exists, he's either powerless to prevent suffering or chooses not to, making prayer pointless. Probably.

If 'God' (big G) exists he won't be powerless.

In addition, you're also being reasonably presumptious about people and how they arrive at decisions. I myself had an immensely christian background (two believing parents, went to a cathedral school), for instance. I won't go into 'free of suffering', but suffice it to say that my attitude of 'Don't worry, be happy' has coped with a lot.

[G_frog]

1-X, that's not what you said, but i'll withdraw my comments on the grounds it was what you intended.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

1-X, that's not what you said, but i'll withdraw my comments on the grounds it was what you intended.

I'd still disagree, though.

[Shr00m]

Originally Posted by Bunga

I don't think so. In my experience, atheists tend to be more psychologically stable than "believers".

Most of the atheists I know are very unstable, although some of the hard-core believers are often pretty screwed up themselves.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Question 1 is incorrect, as you define god as a "divine power who...". The term divine already means you're assuming the existence of deities, and the term who implicates that god is an actual person. There was undoubtedly some power which caused the creation of the universe, and one might call that god..

Sorry I was rather vague. I assumed no-one would care

I meant "A divine power with sentient characteristics" as in the Judeo-Chrstian tradition.

Similarly, for (b) I of course mean conscious/sentient intervention. Anything else would be meaningless, as you've noted.

edit : I realise this is rather Eurocentric of me, since there are polytheistic or pantheistic religious traditions which my questions don't address. If someone wants to say something about them that's cool. I just tend to see religion as a "God" thing.

If your religion is Jedi (or taoist, or whatever) and you channel your chi or the force to do great deeds that's cool. It's just I'd see that as more of an issue of "spirituality" rather than religion (the dictionary probably disagrees). Same with voodoo or withcraft or whatever.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by 1-X

I believe that many of you who replied "no, no, no, atheist" wouldn't be so dismissive if faced with a crisis over which you had no control. eg your child on a life-support machine.

There seems to be quite a lot of "secular prayers" (for want of a better term). Earlier I was playing Poker on-line and when the River card was about to be placed I kept muttering "For ****s sake please be a King" (to complete my straight). I don't think that means I believe in the power of prayer.

Besides, I'm not sure what people would do in desperate times is indicative of any underlying "true belief". I'm rather unemotional and sadly probably wouldn't be crushed if my child was on a life-support machine (obviously I don't know). But if I was a gibbering wreck, I'd probably try anything - agreed. That says nothing about atheism and a lot about my state of mind at the time, nothing more.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

the thread ignores that fact that anyone with sense and beliefs stays away because you just get abuse (and you do, i've seen it happen on here regularly) for having them.

This might be true, but doesn't say much for their debating stamina and or conviction. When I first posted "pro-Communist" ideas on this forum I had to generally argue against 5-6 people in each thread (all of whom disagreed with me vehemently). If you hold an opinion, generally it's worth defending.

But then again maybe I just like arguing.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by 1-X

I bet you'd pray, try to make a deal, just in case.

I think that's a fairly human reaction, as you are expressing the hope that a situation you have no control over will turn out alright. Having faith that someone is watching out over you can indeed be very comforting, which likely is why religion is so popular.

In actuality, do you believe that praying over a sick child will in any way influence the outcome? How many children that were prayed for died anyway? How many children that weren't prayed for lived through it? And why should a divine being base their judgement about whether someone lives or dies on whether or not someone is praying for them? Will a thoroughly evil person that has someone praying for them live, while a paladin of good and justice that has no one looking after them dies? And what is the greater mercy that God can give in such a case? That the child lives his life, or that God takes him/her to be at his side?

It's not quite unlike footballers following a set of "rituals" prior to a match such as always putting on the left sock and shoe before the right sock and shoe for good luck. It doesn't actually do anything (or everyone would always win), but they often do it anyway.

[Deciduous]

Arguing
God

The whole idea of a God that could help everyone out but chooses not to is anathema to me.
A common phrase I hear from Christians is 'God works in mysterious ways', which kind of suggests to me that it is God's intention for you to suffer. This does not make him top of my Christmas card list (ho ho) ((ho ho ho)).

God is forgiving yet will cast down any non-believers to "burn in hell in everlasting torment".
While most of you disagree with our legal system to some extent, you have to admit that it's a touch better than what the man upstairs has in store for us if he does exist. God punishes thought crimes. Harshly.

OK this is a bit of a rant against Christianity and I know that's not exactly the scope of this thread, so sorry for venting here but I just had to say it.

[Bunga]

The kind of God I do not believe in at all is the kind people like Jack Chick believe in. Try reading some of his tracks... www.chick.com.

[Embroglio]

1) no
2) no
3) yes
4) atheist

[Supernova9]

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Christian (Baptist)