b3ta.com links
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » links » Link 561422 | Random (Thread)

This is a normal post Your post is your opinion, not logic.
In fact there is considerably more evidence that there is a deity than that there is not one, but I think that we can discredit a metric fuckload of that.

To say that there is a deity is logically precisely as flawed as to say that there is not one for anyone who claims to be an imiricalist.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 15:52, , Reply)
This is a normal post *What* evidence??
What evidence are you talking about that supports the existence of a deity? I genuinely can't think of a single example.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:05, , Reply)
This is a normal post Evidence being observable events,
there is a shitload of recorded evidence of there being a God.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:18, , Reply)
This is a normal post ORLY?
Suggestions?

EDIT: Actually, I'm about to go home. But I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that there's nothing in the cupboard.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:23, , Reply)
This is a normal post The fucking Bible?

(I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:30, , Reply)
This is a normal post The Bible is evidence for the existence of god?
Only in the same way that The Complete Works of Shakespeare is evidence of the existence of Prospero.

The Bible provides ample evidence that people can talk meaningfully about a deity; but it doesn't give us a reason to beleive that that deity exists. People can talk meaningfully about Prospero as well.

Nor does the fact that people take the Bible to be true reliable evidence that it is; again, we could imagine someone who thinks that Shakespeare provides accurate historical commentaries, though that person would be wrong, and the accuracy or otherwise of Shakespeare has nothing to do with whether or not he's believed.

Seriously: if you think that the Bible is a reliable guide to actual events or existing entities, you...

Gah. I can't even think of a suitable way to finish that sentence.
 (I helped save b3ta! Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:42, , Reply)
This is a normal post Well I do not. not even a little bit
but if you feel that documented accounts are not evidence then you are a mong.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 18:08, , Reply)
This is a normal post Documented accounts
need to be judged for reliability, not all evidence is equally valuable.

How reliable is a 2,000 year old document that has been translated, edited, redacted etc?

I'm going to go with "not very". Even if it was hot off the fucking press though, I'd still probably want more than a boring collection of anecdotes to convince me of the one true story of creation. I'm terribly cynical like that.
 (I helped save b3ta! chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:43, , Reply)
This is a normal post Are you referring to biblical miracles?
That's not evidence. Humans are notoriously poor at recalling even fairly ordinary events, and can easily be fooled by conjuring tricks, not to mention the game of Chinese Whispers that goes on after the events are first reported. What evidence is there of God's existence *now*? Jesus' face in a peanut butter jar?
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:31, , Reply)
This is a normal post What evidence is there of Australia *now*
for me, in my living room at home?
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:33, , Reply)
This is a normal post Blimey.

(Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:37, , Reply)
This is a normal post That's a great analogy
There is evidence for Australia now because you know people who have gone there, and you have seen pictures from there, you may even have visited there yourself. All the evidence points towards its existence. To believe that Australia *doesn't* exist, you'd have to state that all the evidence you have seen was made up. The TV broadcasts were faked, your trip was an elaborate simulation, the people were abducted. Sure it's *possible*, but it's ridiculously unlikely, and I would be quite within my rights to say 'I think you're wrong' and explain the reason. And if you wrote a book stating your belief, I would be entitled to say *that* was wrong too!
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:51, , Reply)
This is a normal post Indeed.
Yet I have seen more evidence of a God than of Australia (And again, let me stress that I am not a religious nutter and add that I do believe in Australia).

Many more people I know have witnessed the existence of God, spoken with him and met him than have been to Australia.

I would question that to believe that Australia does not exist I would have to state the evidence. Indeed, the only situation where I would have to do so is if I were to be trying to convince others.

As Dawkins is.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 18:16, , Reply)
This is a normal post Okay, I have to finish up here
Someone that wanted to deny the existence of Australia could be refuted by taking them to Australia and pointing to it. There is no such option for God. The fact that you cite the miracles of the Bible as evidence demonstrates this: you're right, only a miracle - that is to say, a verifiable violation of the laws of physics - could constitute evidence for God. But all such miracles seem to occur hundreds or thousands of years in the past, leaving only hearsay evidence - as I said before, notoriously unreliable.

What examples of modern-day miracles have been attested? People surviving accidents, and blatantly made-up morality tales.

Even if God existed, what evidence do we have that he wants our worship, or will punish gay people, or answers prayers, or in any way cares about our existence? It seems to me that he might just as easily punish us for refusing to accept the evidence in front of us. People can keep their faith, of course, maybe it is even a good thing (that's a separate question, independent of the existence question - and an interesting one, I think), but if it's such a weak thing that they feel offended by someone challenging it or asking them why they believe it, then they can fuck right off.

And with that, see you next time Dawkins pops up - we seem to do this a lot.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 19:16, , Reply)
This is a normal post Evidence for Australia
Earlier today I finished a call to a friend in Australia. I am 99.999%confident that I could call him tomorrow for example. But I can not prove 100% that anything exists beyond what I can see or hear. You could take me to Australia, you could show me it, make me smell, hear, see and touch and taste it. I am 99.999% confident I could return to England, but not 100%.

But I could stay there, or here and maybe feel 100% certain that Australia does exist, and try to convince everyone that it does, but not be able to do it until they too come and stay in Australia and touch, see, hear, smell and taste it.

But what is the quality of 100%? Is my trust, (do I have trust?) 'Yes', or 'No', more important? Is that '100%'? Effectively, am I either 'in' or 'out'?

Could I prove that writing this isn't part of some big Truman Show type game? That Like in The Others one day I'm going to realise I am a ghost, or living some weird existence where people are robots and interact with me, the sole human being? Am I effectively the sole human being, or sole soul? Is time a circular or spherical concept? What if I have no senses? What then of my world? What if I can't think and can't sense? What is my reality?

All I can do, now, is react or be inert to my senses and react or be inert to my thoughts. I can't speak for anyone else.

However, in my world, I believe that the people I interact with have recounted so many common things, and the people that have preceeded us have recounted so many common things, that I agree with the concept, definition and etymology of the word 'trust', and trust these commonalities. I agree with many (most? all?) scientific concepts that I can see or understand and trust. I even agree and trust many of our flawed application of scientific concepts - I believe that the theory behind the flight I am going to take works, and I believe in the human beings that also believe in it and am willing to accept that they built the aircraft to a certain standard and I'm happy with that standard, and that is my reality.

Is what we are talking about a question of how we think? I believe in God. I have evidence enough to satisfy myself that God exists, in what I feel and think and what I have seen. But I'm certain that I could not put this into words, certain that I couldn't satisfy and present evidence to other people who demand something (that I believe they would describe as) more 'tangible'. I understand that demand. I can see that my beliefs are maybe 'unsound' in that respect. And I'm not talking about differing standards of proof either, or 'values' versus 'beliefs'. And I can see how I would fail a test to say: 'there's God, he feels like X, he smells like Y, he looks like Z. If you throw him in the air, he comes down to earth'. And I can see how someone would say, 'well, if you can see the science and logic, and agree with testing and evidence (because I take testing of aircraft over belief, and I don't subscribe to excusing flight 'well, after all the testing is done, you are in God's hands') then how can you believe something we can't all sense, or 'prove'? I would say this:

I feel, and think that God exists. I don't use God to excuse the hitherto inexplicable, but believe that God explains both the inexplicable and the explicable. I don't believe in fairies, or horoscopes or anything like that. But I have felt God, think God and therefore believe in God. But I don't expect you to.

I doubt God will ever reveal himself as we expect.
 (The Lithe Panther, Sat 27 Nov 2010, 18:56, , Reply)
This is a normal post It's back to the old invisible pink unicorn arguement,
it's a perfectly valid scientific viewpoint to seriously doubt the existence of something for which there is no reliable evidence, it's a foundation of scientific thinking. Of course, if evidence does come to light, that doubt must then be re-examined.
 (I helped save b3ta! chenobble rocking his explorer beard on, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:06, , Reply)
This is a normal post Indeed.
As I state, I have no problem at all with believing that most or all deity based beliefs are entirely wrong.

I do have a problem with those who go out of their way to state that this is logically the case when the logic they are applying also dismisses their own stated belief that there is no deity.

Essentially, there almost certainly is no deity, but that is not enough for me to be able to empirically state that there is no deity to the extreme of making it my entire career to go out of my way to publish that fact.

The man is a smug little stirrer and nothing more.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:09, , Reply)
This is a normal post There's no doubt that Dawkins enjoys baiting his opponents
And he seems to get a kick out of arguing his case. Why on earth would he keep going if he didn't? - it must be pretty horrible to get mail like that every day! Is that 'smug'? Maybe. 'Stirrer', no doubt. Good. There are enough stirrers on the god-bothering side that I think the world needed Dawkins and the others (Hitchens, now, *there's* a genuine smug wanker).

Seriously, read him again, objectively. Is he really that offensive? Or does he just break our taboo against questioning religious faith?

And I'm going to push you again about your statement that there is lots of evidence for a deity. Seriously - I want to hear about it.
 (I helped save b3ta! flatfrog Staring vacantly into space, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:17, , Reply)
This is a normal post I answered it above.
The thing is that I don't mind him baiting the religious nuts, I have a massive problem with him saying that they are wrong (which I personally believe) for trying to convert others without evidence, before immediately doing the same.

It is not his opinion, but his hypocrisy which ires.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:20, , Reply)
This is a normal post Dawkins is not a hypocrite
nor is he making assertions in defiance of any logical code.

In order to know your position, you must first have an absolute baseline relative to it. To a scientist, knowing your position is crucial to following the scientific method. It's called the Null Hypothesis.

The theist's baseline is a rich history of religion that reinforces belief through faith. This neatly avoids the need for evidence/scrutiny of any kind and is, by definition, impossible to measure or disprove. A scientist's baseline is an absence of effect that can be easily disproved by (repeatedly) observing and measuring the effect. If the effects of a deity ever occur repeatedly under laboratory conditions, scientists will modify their Null Hypotheses accordingly.

Scientific theories require a Null Hypothesis to be falsifiable and therefore credible. I think you are asking Dawkins to describe a scientific theory without invoking it (in this case, the Null Hypothesis states that a creator god does not exist), which is impossible. It's a bit like asking a theist to state his beliefs without invoking dogma, scripture or any religious references.

Long story short: Dawkins is a scientist, make sure you consider that when you analyse what he says. He ultimately just wants to understand life in a testable way.
 (I helped save b3ta! chart cat has an itch, Sun 28 Nov 2010, 16:03, , Reply)
This is a normal post But it IS logic.
All we have as a basis for evidence is the observable laws of the universe.

We can't say for certain that there isn't a gigantic ant in the depths of the ocean twice the size of the blue whale...but based on observable and measurable evidence elsewhere - our understanding of species, the structure of organisms, we can be certain beyond all reasonable doubt that there isn't.

We can't prove that there is no god, but based on our understanding of the universe, an omnipresent and omnipotent being doesn't make sense.
There is a great deal of evidence to support the notion that the idea of a deity is a human construct. It makes far more rational sense.

That's not an opinion - it's a fact.

Pretty much every organised culture has come up with the idea of a deity. They have common elements, but pretty much all clash in details.

So why doesn't this mean that it's equally likely that a deity DOES exist?

Because the notion that it's an inate human need to create a god figure fits perfectly with our understanding of the universe.

The notion that this deity actually exists requires a massive leap of logic that counters the laws of the universe and has to invent new ones that can't be observed elsewhere.

So it's a conclusion based on logic and whilst no conclusion can be absolute, it can be said to be beyond all reasonable doubt.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:12, , Reply)
This is a normal post Your post is a nonsense.
You have stated opinion as fact.
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:18, , Reply)
This is a normal post Let's agree to disagree on that one.
And there I was starting to think that we were finally going to sort out the whole god thing once and for all.

Ah well.
 (Jimbotfu Bummed in the gob again, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:22, , Reply)
This is a normal post Agreeing to disagree is fine.
If Dawkins would do that then he'd be less of a hypocrite ;)
 (I helped save b3ta! LordManley twitter.com/LordManley, Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:31, , Reply)