Seriously, Dawkins?

[LMNO]

Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers.  But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).  

The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers.  But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).  

The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.

If there's no God, how did I get my tongue jammed in an Epson tractor-feed printer in 1996?

That sort of shit just doesn't happen in a random universe.

[BabylonHoruv]

The difference is that thinking of the Earth as a single organism allows for interacting with her in certain ways that would not make sense otherwise and may be effective (not along the lines of sacrificing goats mind you, but treating the whole system as a unified being)

meanwhile treating your watch the way you would a prison guard would not make sense or be effective.

[LMNO]

Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers.  But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is). 

The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.

If there's no God, how did I get my tongue jammed in an Epson tractor-feed printer in 1996?

That sort of shit just doesn't happen in a random universe.

As a Beysean, I have to take into account the Malevolent God Theory, due to the staggering number of priors evidenced.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The difference is that thinking of the Earth as a single organism allows for interacting with her in certain ways that would not make sense otherwise and may be effective (not along the lines of sacrificing goats mind you, but treating the whole system as a unified being)

meanwhile treating your watch the way you would a prison guard would not make sense or be effective.

I am NOT worshiping a big rock covered in biological contamination.  EOS.

That's just fucking silly.

[Slyph]

meanwhile treating your watch the way you would a prison guard would not make sense or be effective.

"Time to get out of bed, you say? FUCK YOU SCREW!"

[Faust]

Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.

I am a god.

[Slyph]

Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.

I am a god.

Undistributed middle. Mu.

[Faust]

Ok, sure, there are probably plenty of people who say something along the lines of, "I know for a fact that there is no God," and it's true that those people are working on the same kind of faith-based belief system as the worshippers.  But as Kai pointed out, there is also the Beysean position that the probability of a God is so astronomically low that it's quite possible to say that functionally, you can reasonably say and behave as if there is no god (leaving open the possibility to update your priors, as astronomically improbable as that is).  

The only noticable difference between the two is that the former has the monkey's habit of evangelizing, and the latter doesn't see the need to.

What I was saying before but I'm not sure slyph got was that the Beysean logic works on on reasonable issues. I was saying the term god is unreasonable because it has no definition or meaning, just a bunch of not necessarily inclusive characteristics based on hearsay. Applying most logical systems to "is there a god" wont give you any kind of proper result.

Humans need to figure out what they are looking and make sure they are all talking about the same thing before they start discussing the question of its existence.

[LMNO]

True, Faust, but I'm usually the one running for the refuge of semantic right off the bat, and I felt like a change of pace.



But yeah, if you can't define it, you can't offer evidence for it.

[Faust]

Alright, for succinctness, let's shift the burden. You name a God, I'll tell you whether or whether not I believe in it.

I am a god.

Undistributed middle. Mu.

On the contrary, I am giving you a single data point. I am god. One variable. No distribution. Fact. Do you believe it?

[Luna]

Okay, here's a concept for you to chew over...

For the sake of discussion, accept, for the moment, that there is a Supreme Being.  Accept (again, for the sake of argument) that the nature of said Being is such that we poor humans can't really get a grip on the whole concept.

What's going to happen?

The piece that YOU get ahold of and grasp may be massively different than the piece that I grasp.  Your mom and dad hand you the pieces THEY get... which you may very well accept, or you may decide to flip it around and grab ahold of the other side.

Picture a faceted gem...  You see one face.  The guy sitting next to you may see a slightly different facet, while the woman across the way from you sees something completely different.  Hell, maybe she sees a dozen different facets, and tacks a different name on to each one of 'em.

Atheists?  Either can't be bothered to get hold of something that big, can't see any of it at all, or possibly has the right idea and the whole concept was yanked out of the asses of the shamen who made it all up so they could spend all day in the cave with the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.

[LMNO]

Okay, here's a concept for you to chew over...

For the sake of discussion, accept, for the moment, that there is a Supreme Being.  Accept (again, for the sake of argument) that the nature of said Being is such that we poor humans can't really get a grip on the whole concept.

What's going to happen?

The piece that YOU get ahold of and grasp may be massively different than the piece that I grasp.  Your mom and dad hand you the pieces THEY get... which you may very well accept, or you may decide to flip it around and grab ahold of the other side.

Picture a faceted gem...  You see one face.  The guy sitting next to you may see a slightly different facet, while the woman across the way from you sees something completely different.  Hell, maybe she sees a dozen different facets, and tacks a different name on to each one of 'em.

Atheists?  Either can't be bothered to get hold of something that big, can't see any of it at all, or possibly has the right idea and the whole concept was yanked out of the asses of the shamen who made it all up so they could spend all day in the cave with the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.

I counter with this:  Functionally, this (accepted) Supreme Being isn't interfering in the operations of the Universe, and can therefore be considered meaningless.  If f=ma is observed both with and without a SB, then we can ignore the SB as meaningless.  Therefore, behaving as if there is no SB is still the more rational choice.




[edit: I tend to use "f=ma" as shorthand for the entire body of physics.]

[Luna]

Okay, here's a concept for you to chew over...

For the sake of discussion, accept, for the moment, that there is a Supreme Being.  Accept (again, for the sake of argument) that the nature of said Being is such that we poor humans can't really get a grip on the whole concept.

What's going to happen?

The piece that YOU get ahold of and grasp may be massively different than the piece that I grasp.  Your mom and dad hand you the pieces THEY get... which you may very well accept, or you may decide to flip it around and grab ahold of the other side.

Picture a faceted gem...  You see one face.  The guy sitting next to you may see a slightly different facet, while the woman across the way from you sees something completely different.  Hell, maybe she sees a dozen different facets, and tacks a different name on to each one of 'em.

Atheists?  Either can't be bothered to get hold of something that big, can't see any of it at all, or possibly has the right idea and the whole concept was yanked out of the asses of the shamen who made it all up so they could spend all day in the cave with the women while the rest of the tribe was out hunting.

I counter with this:  Functionally, this (accepted) Supreme Being isn't interfering in the operations of the Universe, and can therefore be considered meaningless.  If f=ma is observed both with and without a SB, then we can ignore the SB as meaningless.  Therefore, behaving as if there is no SB is still the more rational choice.




[edit: I tend to use "f=ma" as shorthand for the entire body of physics.]

Certainly works.  However, let's face it, we spend a lot of time fucking around with meaningless shit.  Some people actually WATCHED American Idol...

[LMNO]

Careful, your terms are slipping.  When I use the word "meaningless" in the above, it has a specific usage.  Your use of it in implying that American Idol is meaningless has a different usage.