Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

GG CNN on becoming Fox

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
Author
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

In a way, true. But the thing is; to us, the probability of a higher power is so low that we decide that we cannot believe in one. Just because we cannot go all the way in disproving god, does not mean we have to give in and believe in it. If the chances are 1.0 x 10^-432 that a higher power exists, then atheists have every right to declare it nonexistant.
But if the chances of earth being naturally formed in space and life starting spontaneously are 1.0*10^-431, then it's perfectly scientific to think it's possible?

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I sleep well at night knowing that what I have done that day won't haunt me later after death.
You may have yourself convinced but you won't know until you die, until it's too late. That's gotta suck.

I would also like to hear Enos' argument again Pascal's Wager.

And I gotta love the tactics in this thread too.
1.) Use big words
2.) Intimidate the other side
3.) Give inadequate arrogant explanations
4.) Wait for response so you can shoot that one down too
5.) ..?
6.) Profit!!

Atheism is practically becoming a bandwagon.


Edited by Jack Carver - 09 February 2007 at 4:47pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 4:39pm

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:


I would also like to hear Enos' argument again Pascal's Wager.

I'll take that one.

1.  It is morally repugnant.

2.  On a utilitarian level, it is useless, because you have no way of knowing which behavior is the "correct" behavior. 

Pascal's wager incorrectly assumes that there is a single wager.  There are in fact an infinite number of alternate wagers.

The behavior that will get you into heaven if the baptists are right will send you to hell if the RC church is correct, and vice versa.  And if Odin/Thor are the real gods, then most christians are going to hell, and if muslims are right, everybody else is going to hell.  And if the pastafarians are right, all pirates are going to hell.

There is no way to comply with all, or even a meaningful number of, the possible "correct" behaviors.

Back to Top
MT. Vigilante View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Captain America

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MT. Vigilante Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 4:40pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Quote Now taking into account that fact, I caim to the conclusion that since there is no evedence that this code of human behavior is genetic, (because there is no animals that seem to express a similar code,) then something must have put that code in us, namely God. 

That's a bit quick, don't you think?  That is the kind of thinking that led to the dark ages.

Curious Person:  Why does [phenomenon X] occur?

Scientist:  I don't know.  I can't explain it.

Curious Person:  Well, in that case it must have been God.

This is horrible, awful, and flat out incorrect logic.  This is the knowledge-killer.
[/qoute]



Well I didn't exactly come to that conclusion that quickly. I just sort of sped things up in the post. If I had went through the whole process with all the info and sub thoeries and counter theories and "counter-counter" theories, then it whould take several pages worth of posts. And I don't enjoy typing as much as some of the other folks on here.

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:


Quote ...in one of your other posts you compaired God to the tooth fairy. I must say I was disapointed in you Clark, usually your post are more well thought out and based in logic. Comaring God to the tooth fairy just doesn't work, there are way too many differences to mention, but in essence, comparing God to the tooth fairy is like comparing a Fighter Pilot to Santa Clause because they both fly somthing.

I will repeat:  To me, god and the tooth fairy (and Santa Clause), and fairies, Zeus, FSM, unicorns, etc - are all the same.  Imaginary entities for whose existence there is ZERO empirical evidence, and against which there is loads of empirical evidence. 



When you throw figures like the tooth fairy and santa clause into the mix then yes, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence to disprove them all. But I have yet to see any concrete evidence that disproves the existence of God. The conclusion of all the evidence I have yet seen is open to interpretation. And that is the only difference between you and me, infact it is the only difference between any of us, we christians see one result in the evidence, and the athiests another.
Join the XP Re-Revolution!
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 4:41pm

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

But if the chances of earth being naturally formed in space and life starting spontaneously are 1.0*10^-431, then it's perfectly scientific to think it's possible?

Incorrect and irrelevant.

Bad application of incorrect mathematics.



Edited by Clark Kent - 09 February 2007 at 4:41pm
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 4:52pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

...in one of your other posts you compaired God to the tooth fairy. I must say I was disapointed in you Clark, usually your post are more well thought out and based in logic. Comaring God to the tooth fairy just doesn't work, there are way too many differences to mention, but in essence, comparing God to the tooth fairy is like comparing a Fighter Pilot to Santa Clause because they both fly somthing.

I will repeat:  To me, god and the tooth fairy (and Santa Clause), and fairies, Zeus, FSM, unicorns, etc - are all the same.  Imaginary entities for whose existence there is ZERO empirical evidence, and against which there is loads of empirical evidence. 



HOW DARE YOU DOUBT THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER?!!!

I see only one difference between god and the tooth fairy. In the end, kids are told there is no tooth fairy by countless amounts of other people. However, there are too many people that believe in a god for a kid to learn that, just like the tooth fairy, he does not exist.

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:

In a way, true. But the thing is; to us, the probability of a higher power is so low that we decide that we cannot believe in one. Just because we cannot go all the way in disproving god, does not mean we have to give in and believe in it. If the chances are 1.0 x 10^-432 that a higher power exists, then atheists have every right to declare it nonexistant.
But if the chances of earth being naturally formed in space and life starting spontaneously are 1.0*10^-431, then it's perfectly scientific to think it's possible?


It is perfectly scientific to think it's possible, because we have the evidence to prove it. And that evidence is the current state of the earth. If something happened against all odds and we have EVIDENCE for it, then it is by all means possible. But for something that has no evidence of it's existence, it's difficult to say that it is possible simply because there is no direct proof.

We once thought it was impossible for life to live at the bottom of the oceans. We found proof and we now know that it is not just possible, but common throughout areas with hydrothermal vents.

In the end, life on other planets will be a belief just like god is. The difference is that we have our planet to prove that it can happen and there are plenty of planets like ours elsewhere in the universe. Even with the extremely low odds of life on other planets (not as low as the number I stated, I think), the enormous number of planets means that there almost has to be life somewhere else.

Higher powers have no proof, and therefore have no need to be compared to life on planets.


Edited by Tolgak - 09 February 2007 at 4:54pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:01pm

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:


When you throw figures like the tooth fairy and santa clause into the mix then yes, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence to disprove them all. But I have yet to see any concrete evidence that disproves the existence of God.

The evidence for and against the existence of god and the tooth fairy is exactly the same:

For:

1.  Authority Figure told me that god/TF exists.

2.  I can't explain phenomenon X, therefore god/TF did it.

Every argument for god/TF I have ever seen falls into one of those two categories.

Against:

1.  The existence of god/TF would contradict rules of science as we understand them.

2.  The existence of a creature "outside" of science is irrelevant to us, since we could never interact with or perceive such a creature, and such a creature would therefore not "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Works just the same for FSM, unicorns, and leprechauns.

Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:10pm
A tooth under your pillow disappearing while you sleep can be explained by many things other than the tooth fairy.
Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:12pm
Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

A tooth under your pillow disappearing while you sleep can be explained by many things other than the tooth fairy.
So can the existance of man.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:18pm
Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

A tooth under your pillow disappearing while you sleep can be explained by many things other than the tooth fairy.


So can:

The appearances of the face of Jesus / Mary on various items.

People that start flipping out at those preaching seminars by people like Benny Hinn.

The answering of prayers.

etc...


Back to Top
MT. Vigilante View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Captain America

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MT. Vigilante Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:32pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:


When you throw figures like the tooth fairy and santa clause into the mix then yes, I'm sure there is plenty of evidence to disprove them all. But I have yet to see any concrete evidence that disproves the existence of God.

The evidence for and against the existence of god and the tooth fairy is exactly the same:

For:

1.  Authority Figure told me that god/TF exists.



Once again you are assuming that all of us just except what we are told without question. Once again I'm telling you that the majority of us beleive that is very stupid and dangerous.

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

 

2.  I can't explain phenomenon X, therefore god/TF did it.

Every argument for god/TF I have ever seen falls into one of those two categories.

Against:

1.  The existence of god/TF would contradict rules of science as we understand them.

2.  The existence of a creature "outside" of science is irrelevant to us, since we could never interact with or perceive such a creature, and such a creature would therefore not "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Works just the same for FSM, unicorns, and leprechauns.



Both those arguements are exactly the same as saying that "because I don't understand it, it must be God." Except you are reversing it, now its; " Because I don't understand it, there can't be a God."
Join the XP Re-Revolution!
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:38pm

Originally posted by Jack Carver Jack Carver wrote:

Originally posted by Tolgak Tolgak wrote:



[QUOTE=Dune]I sleep well at night knowing that what I have done that day won't haunt me later after death.
You may have yourself convinced but you won't know until you die, until it's too late. That's gotta suck.


Atheism is practically becoming a bandwagon.

Wow, that's quite the scare tactic. "Since you don't know, you better do it our way or else you'll be sad in hell." No thanks, I'll take my chances and I'll go with the scientific community on this one.

Bandwagon? Really? Since we are an extremely hated minority? Can we play the helpless victim role against the big bad atheists anymore?

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 5:57pm
Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Against:

1.  The existence of god/TF would contradict rules of science as we understand them.

2.  The existence of a creature "outside" of science is irrelevant to us, since we could never interact with or perceive such a creature, and such a creature would therefore not "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Works just the same for FSM, unicorns, and leprechauns.



Both those arguements are exactly the same as saying that "because I don't understand it, it must be God." Except you are reversing it, now its; " Because I don't understand it, there can't be a God."

Not at all.

Specific examples:

claim for the existence of god:

Science can't explain the origins of life.  Therefore, god created life.

Two fundamental errors in this logic. 

1.  Science might be able to explain it later.  Science changes and grows.  Science has already explained countless numbers of things previously considered unexplainable and attributed to god.

2.  Even if science can't explain it, that does not mean that god did it.  There could be a third explanation - like FSM.

claim against the existence of god:

An ancient book says Jesus was resurrected.

Science says that resurrections, as a rule, don't happen.  We have hundreds of years of scientific experience without a single observed instance of confirmed resurrection. 

The weight of the evidence is therefore that the bible is wrong, and Jesus was in fact not resurrected.  If we learn more about resurrections later, that might cause us to change that view, but based on all available evidence at this time, the conclusion has to be that Jesus was not resurrected.

This does not GUARANTEE that the bible is wrong - science can never reach that certainty.  But the rational conclusion is to go with the hundreds of years of confirmed observation over 2,000-year-old hearsay.

Now, you may not conclude the same things, but the evidence for and against are fundamentally different.  The argument for is based on a logical fallacy, and the argument against is based on empirical evidence.

Back to Top
Jack Carver View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 February 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1653
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jack Carver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 6:03pm
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Bandwagon? Really? Since we are an extremely hated minority? Can we play the helpless victim role against the big bad atheists anymore?
I was talking more about on the forum and the internet really.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 7:05pm

^^^^   Which is because of the anonymity.

I suspect there are millions of people in this country who are effectively atheist, but who are afraid to admit it in public.  What you are seeing on the internet is a better approximation of the real numbers of atheists out there.

Also doesn't hurt that people online are generally better educated than the average.

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 7:27pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:


Also doesn't hurt that people online are generally better educated than the average.

That's gonna strike a nerve with some.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 February 2007 at 9:57pm

For some reason this discussion still interests me...not sure why...

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

I suspect there are millions of people in this country who are effectively atheist, but who are afraid to admit it in public.  What you are seeing on the internet is a better approximation of the real numbers of atheists out there.

Clark, I'd like to clarify what you're saying here before I go off on a rant . I think I halfway agree with you-if you're referring to atheists being persecuted by their own family, or by members of a predominately Christian community, I'll agree with you on that. But if you're referring to persecution, or perhaps disgust would be the better word here, by the general population, I strongly disagree with you.

For one, modern pop culture embraces atheism over Christianity. If you announced that God was closely related to the tooth fairy in terms of existence,  you'd get a ten minute clapping session from most TV audiences.

I think that being atheist is like being prochoice...in the right circles, yeah, you'll get blasted for it. But a large amount of people really just don't care. So this idea that I'm seeing by so many in this thread that they're somehow receiving persecution, or ridiculed, by our culture is, in my opinion, a gross exageration. It's just another way of being special...which is, I suspect, the reason alot of people claim athiesm, when really they just could care less about religion. There's a difference.

In the end, who really cares though? We live in a country that is both religious, and in the same sense probably one of the top examples of a secular society on earth. Anyone who thinks that modern Christianity, or the Christian movement as I like to call it, is anything related to traditional Christianity needs to study it a little more. Most people are agnostic...they refuse to deny a high power's existence, but they make no effort to seek out that higher power. But to try to sum up their beliefs, they call themselves Christians. Where I live in Texas...everybody's a Baptist. I don't care who you are, from hookers to drug dealers, come sunday, you're a Baptist. In reality most are agnostic...they really don't care the least about religion. But to insure that in case God does exist they won't go to hell, they refer themselves as Christians. Think of it as house insurance for one's spiritual existence.

Back to Top
mbro View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Original Forum Gangster

Joined: 11 June 2002
Location: Isle Of Man
Status: Offline
Points: 10743
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mbro Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 February 2007 at 11:01am
Hmm. I know for a fact that had I not got confirmed in the catholic church I would not have received my college money from my parents that they had set aside. I was told I had to be confirmed and my views beyond that were up to me.

I know for a fact if my grandparents (on my mom's side at least) found out I was an athiest they would disown me.

I constantly get engaged by the random crazy preachers on campus asking if I have been saved and if I say I'm an athiest I get yelled at saying i'm going to hell and am the devil. I've engaged them in similar debate as we've had in this thread but we are both so held in our beliefs there's really no changing anyones opinion.

I've had a girl break up with me because she found out I was an athiest. It's a shame too. The reason I liked her was because I thought she was a very good person....guess not.

I see tv clips like the one at the beginning of this thread saying that athiests are stupid and are right up there with muslims.

And let's not forget that most hated minority thing.

The safest place for athiests to represent their views is on the internet and that's why you see it so strongly here. There are millions of athiests in america. I doubt even half of america believes in the god of Abraham. But thanks to poorly worded poll questions written by religious groups they report that 95% of america believes in god when in fact anyone with common sense knows that number is significantly smaller.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
Back to Top
MT. Vigilante View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Captain America

Joined: 01 February 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1454
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MT. Vigilante Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 February 2007 at 11:59am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Against:

1.  The existence of god/TF would contradict rules of science as we understand them.

2.  The existence of a creature "outside" of science is irrelevant to us, since we could never interact with or perceive such a creature, and such a creature would therefore not "exist" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Works just the same for FSM, unicorns, and leprechauns.



Both those arguements are exactly the same as saying that "because I don't understand it, it must be God." Except you are reversing it, now its; " Because I don't understand it, there can't be a God."

Not at all.

Specific examples:

claim for the existence of god:

Science can't explain the origins of life.  Therefore, god created life.

Two fundamental errors in this logic. 

1.  Science might be able to explain it later.  Science changes and grows.  Science has already explained countless numbers of things previously considered unexplainable and attributed to god.

2.  Even if science can't explain it, that does not mean that god did it.  There could be a third explanation - like FSM.

claim against the existence of god:

An ancient book says Jesus was resurrected.

Science says that resurrections, as a rule, don't happen.  We have hundreds of years of scientific experience without a single observed instance of confirmed resurrection. 

The weight of the evidence is therefore that the bible is wrong, and Jesus was in fact not resurrected.  If we learn more about resurrections later, that might cause us to change that view, but based on all available evidence at this time, the conclusion has to be that Jesus was not resurrected.

This does not GUARANTEE that the bible is wrong - science can never reach that certainty.  But the rational conclusion is to go with the hundreds of years of confirmed observation over 2,000-year-old hearsay.

Now, you may not conclude the same things, but the evidence for and against are fundamentally different.  The argument for is based on a logical fallacy, and the argument against is based on empirical evidence.



Sorry to resurrect (No punn intended) a pretty much dead thread, but I've been gone all weekend and I feel I need to say this.

You forget Clark that the whole point of Jesus' resurrection is that it's immpossible according to the laws of physics. That is the whole point, God was demonstrating that he can do anything, even if it is against the Laws of Physics, because he wrote them. So by you saying that it is immpossible for Jesus to be resurected based on what science tells us, you are agreeing with us.
Join the XP Re-Revolution!
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 February 2007 at 1:43pm

Originally posted by MT. Vigilante MT. Vigilante wrote:

You forget Clark that the whole point of Jesus' resurrection is that it's immpossible according to the laws of physics. That is the whole point, God was demonstrating that he can do anything, even if it is against the Laws of Physics, because he wrote them. So by you saying that it is immpossible for Jesus to be resurected based on what science tells us, you are agreeing with us.

That's why I picked resurrection, instead of something more pedestrian, like walking on water, or toast shaped like Mary...   :)

I do believe we are agreeing with each other - sort of.  My point is that all available scientific evidence points towards no god, or at least towards no resurrection, no walking on water, Thor doesn't cause thunder, rain isn't really god's tears, there is no pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow, etc. 

Based purely on obervable, measurable information, there is no contest.  ALL of the evidence for god/leprechauns is subjective, inconsistent, sparse, and as fuzzy as pictures of Nessie.  The evidence against the existence of god/leprechauns is never conclusive (such is the nature of science), but objective, measurable, repeatable, absolutely overwhelming in volume, and crystal clear.

Therefore, the rational conclusion, based on available evidence, HAS to be that there is no god and no leprechauns.

HOWEVER - faith is not based on reason or evidence.  Faith is outside of reason, and evidence is rather irrelevant.

Compare the following analyses of the resurrection:

Reason

p1 - The Bible claims Jesus was resurrected.

p2 - Medical science, and all of recorded human history, says that resurrections do not happen.

Conclusion:  The Bible is incorrect, and the resurrection did not happen.

Faith

p1 - The Bible claims Jesus was resurrected.

p2 - Medical science, and all of recorded human history, says that resurrections do not happen.

p3 - The Bible is true and correct, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion:  The Bible is correct AND medical science is correct, and the resurrection is therefore proof of god's existence.

 

Given the premises, both reason and faith arrive at logical conclusions.  The difference is in the third premise of the faith-based analysis.  Faith exempts the Bible (or other applicable holy text/belief) from critical analysis, and establishes that as the "teacher's edition".  The bible is always correct; anything that contradicts the bible is wrong.  And that premise has ZERO foundation in reason, and is entirely based in irrational faith.

And that's fine - I have no problem with irrational faith.  We all have our little irrational tics.  Being a little irrational isn't necessarily a bad thing.  What bugs me is when people try to pretend that faith is NOT irrational, and that it is somehow not ascientific.

The scientific evidence is clear:  The existence of god is about as likely as the existence of the FSM.  That is to say, not likely at all.  Any belief to the contrary is fundamentally irrational.



Edited by Clark Kent - 12 February 2007 at 1:44pm
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 February 2007 at 1:48pm

Double post warning

Just to press the point - here is the same analysis applied to leprechauns and rainbows:

Reason

p1 - The Wise Old Man claims the leprechauns keep their gold in a pot at the end of the rainbow.

p2 - Science says that there is no gold at the end of the rainbow - in fact, rainbows don't even have "ends".

Conclusion:  The Wise Old Man is incorrect, and there is no pot o' gold at the end of the rainbow.

Faith

p1 - The Wise Old Man claims the leprechauns keep their gold in a pot at the end of the rainbow.

p2 - Science says that there is no gold at the end of the rainbow - in fact, rainbows don't even have "ends".

p3 - The Wise Old Man is true and correct, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Conclusion:  The Wise Old Man is correct AND science is correct, and the pot o' gold is therefore proof of the existence and supernatural nature of leprechauns.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 4567>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.