Seriously, Dawkins?

[Cramulus]

Quick notes:

1. Dawkins loses any shadow of a moral high ground by saying that he's compelled to participate in the same barbaric religious wars he CONSTANTLY speaks against.

2. A few thoughts on the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and my refutation to the idea that there are basically "atheist agnostics" and "theistic agnostics": http://23ae.com/2011/05/spagnosticism/

3.

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.

[Luna]

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.

Does it?  Whether or not something exists (my own opinion on whether or not there is a supreme being aside for the course of the discussion), if it doesn't cause any effects, then it's meaningless.  I don't have TV (I own one, but all it is here is someplace to play my DVDs), so whether or not there is an American Idol, it has no effect on my life, and I can cheerfully ignore that it exists.  Except, of course, for the fact that every other idiot walking around has an opinion about it...  pretty much the same as a divine being.  Regardless of whether or not there IS one, there are a lot of people who believe there is, and will act as if there is... and getting a grasp on how they're going to react based on that belief is, IMHO, not a waste of time (particularly if it looks like they're gonna be bringing out the torches and pitchforks).  Act as if there isn't one, by all means... but remember that some people are gonna be pretty darned offended by your refusal to accept that (a) there is a divine being, or (b) that whatever nitwit is winning on American Idol isn't the greatest thing since Ella Fitzgerald.

[LMNO]

I understand what you're saying, but it's different from what I'm saying.

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

Television, reality show singing contests, and human brains are all tangible, observed phenomenon.  The fact that you have opinions on the aesthetic or inherent value of the phenomenon should not matter.  Additionally, the behavior of God believers would also not change whether or not God exists.  So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.

[LMNO]

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.

Surely another sign of a malevolent god, for I have never been to that state.  Who other than a Mad Bastard of a god would smite a state that has nothing to do with me?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.

Surely another sign of a malevolent god, for I have never been to that state.  Who other than a Mad Bastard of a god would smite a state that has nothing to do with me?

Well, it wasn't me.  Tornados aren't my responsibility.

[LMNO]

Ah.  Jerry Lewis, then.

[Pope Lecherous]

I understand what you're saying, but it's different from what I'm saying.

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

Television, reality show singing contests, and human brains are all tangible, observed phenomenon.  The fact that you have opinions on the aesthetic or inherent value of the phenomenon should not matter.  Additionally, the behavior of God believers would also not change whether or not God exists.  

That's why i like you LMNO. To sum up what i was getting at.  Belief or disbelief doesnt change whether God exists or not, because belief is a fantasy or a guess (no matter how educated) and His existence is or is not, a reality.

So Kai, you can have the most accurate Bayesian probability model ever conceived but all it does is crank out a probability... a possibility and those are not reality. Those are odds to indicate what could be, what might be, but not what is.  You dont know if the cat is alive until you open the box.  The chances dont mean shit to reality unless they are 0% or 100%

So a Man of Science can have opinions on what is probable but he only knows what is known.

Atheism is to make a "fact" of God's non-existence. (Which is currently unknowable)

So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.

As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position.  God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I see PL is back to tell Kai how science is done.   

[LMNO]

So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.

As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position.  God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.

Considering that other thread that shows that adherence to a computer's OS lights up the same part of the brain as religion, I wouldn't say it's "God" so much as "Monkeys Being Monkeys".

[Luna]

So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.

As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position.  God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.

Considering that other thread that shows that adherence to a computer's OS lights up the same part of the brain as religion, I wouldn't say it's "God" so much as "Monkeys Being Monkeys".

Truth, there...

[Pope Lecherous]

I see PL is back to tell Kai how science is done.   

Naa, not really.  Just to let PD know what my problem with "Atheist Scientists" is.

[Pope Lecherous]

So the point stands that God is Functionally Meaningless in a Universe where God is not observed.

As for this, i'm going to have to lean towards Luna's position.  God may have zero effect on the "workings" of Things even if he does exist, but his force is definitely a factor in the affairs of men.

Considering that other thread that shows that adherence to a computer's OS lights up the same part of the brain as religion, I wouldn't say it's "God" so much as "Monkeys Being Monkeys".

Sad but true, unfortunately.  I'd like to see Man rise above that, but i'd have to lean more tgrr's position on this one.  It's never gonna happen and it's so damn entertaining it shouldnt stop  

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

And then accidentally Missouri, sinner.

Surely another sign of a malevolent god, for I have never been to that state.  Who other than a Mad Bastard of a god would smite a state that has nothing to do with me?

This is the same Mad Bastard that saw to it that a universe that started expanding 13.7 billion years ago is more than 28 billion light years across. He seems to have some problems with distance calculation.

[Slyph]

I understand what you're saying, but it's different from what I'm saying.

If f=ma regardless of God's existence, then you can remove God from the equation without any effect to the observed phenomenon.

There are a lot of positions one could take on the idea of an imminent God that are completely fucked if physical laws hold absent God. It kills some Gods dead.

That's why i like you LMNO. To sum up what i was getting at.  Belief or disbelief doesnt change whether God exists or not, because belief is a fantasy or a guess (no matter how educated) and His existence is or is not, a reality.

Still, "If the box contains a diamond, I desire to believe that the box contains a diamond." Yes, things exist or do not exist, or are true or not-true irrespective of our believing otherwise, but I still desire to have mental states resembling the reality.

So Kai, you can have the most accurate Bayesian probability model ever conceived but all it does is crank out a probability... a possibility and those are not reality. Those are odds to indicate what could be, what might be, but not what is.  You dont know if the cat is alive until you open the box.  The chances dont mean shit to reality unless they are 0% or 100%

Yes but, the more likely result is the more likely, and therefore the most rational position. If you've got a roulette wheel in front of you, and the house is paying 1:3 on Red, and 1:3 on 00, you bet on Red.

So a Man of Science can have opinions on what is probable but he only knows what is known.

Sure, but when yous tate your beliefs, it is situationally obvious that that is what "you believe" and "you think to be true" by virtue of being said by you. It's redundant saying it all the time, it makes sense to just call yourself an "Atheist".

Atheism is to make a "fact" of God's non-existence. (Which is currently unknowable)

To have a Theory of Mind is to make a "fact" of the existence of other human beings, (Which is technically unknowable)