There's no downside in believing in GOD -> Pascal's Wager

[MJinZ]

Certainty is not a prerequisite for belief.

Yet, you fail to comprehend that uncertainty can be a belief? Genius.

Hey, what color is the sky outside right now? Do you believe it's white, blue, grey, or black?

LOL, you can't possibly be uncertain right? You MUST believe the sky is a certain color.

LMFAO.

🙄🙄


🙄🙄


🙄🙄

From this point on your arguments are going to be met simply with the derision they deserve.

Haha, yes, that's basically all you have. I've seen a common thread of all your bullshit here, when you have nothing left to argue with, you resort to ad hominem.

:thumbsdown:

 

[JM Aggie08]

Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

 

[Tristicus]

Then sings my soul, my Savior God, to Thee:
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00f7NgzS80

The best.

 

[JM Aggie08]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F00f7NgzS80

The best.

Holy hell. That's awesome lol.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yet, you fail to comprehend that uncertainty can be a belief? Genius.

Uncertainty is not equivalent to belief, no. Certainty or uncertainty are characteristics of beliefs. I am not certain that god does not exist, but I do not believe that he does exist, nor do I believe he does not exist. You cannot deduce that a person does or does not believe a god exists from the simple fact that he states he is uncertain. That is why saying "I don't know" in response to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" is a non-answer.

I'm getting bored having to repeat myself so many times. Please go back and read my posts again. All the information you need is already there.

Hey, what color is the sky outside right now? Do you believe it's white, blue, grey, or black?

The answer depends on lots of things: whether or not I can see the sky, what I know of the current local weather, etc... What do you think this would demonstrate?

LOL, you can't possibly be uncertain right? You MUST believe the sky is a certain color.

Not if I don't have enough evidence to forumlate a belief.

LMFAO.

🙄🙄

Haha, yes, that's basically all you have. I've seen a common thread of all your bullshit here, when you have nothing left to argue with, you resort to ad hominem.

When my arguments remain unrefuted, I need to make no more.

 

[totalnoob]

At this point, I honestly hope Mjin never realizes that he is an atheist. I really don't want anyone quite that stupid associated with me.

 

[MJinZ]

Uncertainty is not equivalent to belief, no. Certainty or uncertainty are characteristics of beliefs. I am not certain that god does not exist, but I do not believe that he does exist, nor do I believe he does not exist. You cannot deduce that a person does or does not believe a god exists from the simple fact that he states he is uncertain. That is why saying "I don't know" in response to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" is a non-answer.

I'm getting bored having to repeat myself so many times. Please go back and read my posts again. All the information you need is already there.

The answer depends on lots of things: whether or not I can see the sky, what I know of the current local weather, etc... What do you think this would demonstrate?


Not if I don't have enough evidence to forumlate a belief.

🙄🙄


When my arguments remain unrefuted, I need to make no more.

Holy shit, you actually think your arguments are unrefuted? When you're such a fucking retard that you can't possibly comprehend that uncertainty can absolutely be a belief, or at the very least, suspension of a belief.

This is how it must feel like attempting to teach someone without the physical capability to actually understand it

Shit, this is the guy who believes in reincarnation with absolutely no rational reason to, what am I expecting?

 

[Tristicus]

Holy hell. That's awesome lol.

:awe:

 

[MJinZ]

At this point, I honestly hope Mjin never realizes that he is an atheist. I really don't want anyone quite that stupid associated with me.

LOL, for matters of heaven and earth, you seem to be stuck beneath both for being incapable of understanding that someone can analyze a question and come up with a non-definitive answer, or even a definitive response for a mixed answer.

Did you also fail basic mathematics? Was algebra involving solutions with more than one answer something unfathomable?

Your puny minds that are incapable of comprehending these simple concepts make for a good frustrated laugh from those of us who do.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Holy shit, you actually think your arguments are unrefuted?

I'm not the only one. Simply asserting a bunch of nonsense in response to my arguments does not a refutation make.

When you're such a fucking retard that you can't possibly comprehend that uncertainty can absolutely be a belief, or at the very least, suspension of a belief.

I already demonstrated that this is false. Reasserting a falsehood does not increase its truth.

Uncertainty is not equivalent to belief. Uncertainty is not equivalent to disbelief. Uncertainty is a characteristic of beliefs or disbeliefs. You may have different beliefs with differing levels of certainty, but to say that you are uncertain about a particular belief does not answer the question of whether or not you believe the belief. That's why it is not an answer to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" (sound familiar?).

This is how it must feel like attempting to teach someone without the physical capability to actually understand it.

🙄🙄

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

LOL, for matters of heaven and earth, you seem to be stuck beneath both for being incapable of understanding that someone can analyze a question and come up with a non-definitive answer, or even a definitive response for a mixed answer.

Did you also fail basic mathematics? Was algebra involving solutions with more than one answer something unfathomable?

Your puny minds that are incapable of comprehending these simple concepts make for a good frustrated laugh from those of us who do.

If it is your claim that your response to the question "Do you believe a god exists?" is both "Yes" and "No" then I think we know all that we need to know about your intellectual wherewithal, or lack thereof, as it were.

Really, it is the same if your answer is "I don't know." What kind of person doesn't know what his own beliefs are?

Then again, like I pointed out earlier, if you don't know that you believe in god, then you don't believe in god. What sense does it make to say that you have a belief that you don't know about?

 

[NinjaTech]

Unless God is Nothing, it doesn't get to be outside of Everything.

This is like saying the sky can't be blue unless it's green or you can't be first unless you are last. How about we correct your statement, "God is everything".

Theories are things You don't understand. I suspect many have tried explaining it to you before, so I won't bother. In short, you're very wrong.

Why do you assume I do not understand a theory because I disagree with it? I think you don't understand God. I suspect I have tried explaining it to you before, so I won't bother. In short, you're very, very wrong. (I added an extra very in there.) 😉

 

[Gibsons]

---snip---
Why do you assume I do not understand a theory because I disagree with it?

I bet one reason would be because of this sentence:

It takes just as much faith to believe in a theory as to believe in the existence of God.

 

[NinjaTech]

Yes, I see. Do continue.

LOL, perfect. Is that professor Fluffykins?

 

[NinjaTech]

I bet one reason would be because of this sentence:

Theory is based on facts but if the theory was able to be proven then it would no longer be a theory. Take E=MC2 for instance and compare it to Hawkins theories in quantum physics. We are finding new evidence every day which adds to our understanding of the world. For me, I think it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than to believe in God.

 

[sandorski]

This is like saying the sky can't be blue unless it's green or you can't be first unless you are last. How about we correct your statement, "God is everything".

Uhh, no.


Why do you assume I do not understand a theory because I disagree with it? I think you don't understand God. I suspect I have tried explaining it to you before, so I won't bother. In short, you're very, very wrong. (I added an extra very in there.) 😉

You don't understand "Everything", clearly.

 

[totalnoob]

Theory is based on facts but if the theory was able to be proven then it would no longer be a theory. Take E=MC2 for instance and compare it to Hawkins theories in quantum physics. We are finding new evidence every day which adds to our understanding of the world. For me, I think it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than to believe in God.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Google "theory vs scientific theory" to learn what the terms mean. A scientific theory INCORPORATES the facts. It is not a guess, a hypothesis, or a single confirmed idea. It is the graduation point that goes beyond these things..something that incorporates many pieces of evidence from many different fields. Everything falls together to reinforce the theory, making it an established framework for describing reality.

 

[sandorski]

Theory is based on facts but if the theory was able to be proven then it would no longer be a theory. Take E=MC2 for instance and compare it to Hawkins theories in quantum physics. We are finding new evidence every day which adds to our understanding of the world. For me, I think it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than to believe in God.

Incorrect. You correctly state that Theories are based upon Facts. Where you go wrong is then equating a Theory with God, something Not based upon Facts.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Theory is based on facts but if the theory was able to be proven then it would no longer be a theory. Take E=MC2 for instance and compare it to Hawkins theories in quantum physics. We are finding new evidence every day which adds to our understanding of the world. For me, I think it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than to believe in God.

A scientific theory is a very strongly supported explanation for observed phenomena. Nothing ever gets any more "proven" than a theory in science. If we somehow become able to travel back in time and watch the big bang occur, it would still be considered a theory. No matter what science decides to call it, the Big Bang theory has much more supporting evidence than God. By definition, it takes less faith to believe in something for which there is more supporting evidence because faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

 

[destrekor]

Man, you should have Googled before you open your mouth. That scale is referenced on every page.

I finally found my copy of the book - I had misplaced it some time ago and finally made a correct guess as to its location.

So, forgive me on that minor error - I discovered the book the year it was released, and hadn't picked it up since (nor had I even approached competition of the text).

I had saved my place, but had apparently jumped ahead and read random pages here and there... as I had discovered some material looked familiar when flipping through the book just a moment ago.

Pages 50-51 demonstrate that list for the first time (and I did not see many pages where this scale is even remotely mentioned, but that was a quick run-through so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there).

Page 51 is a line I remember reading quite clearly:
--------
"I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief with adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
--------

As he made clear with, well, the majority of the book, leaning towards category 7 and actually being in category 7 are two different things. He argues constantly against the existence of any gods, using imho solid logic and reason. He never once makes a statement that ever appears to say "I know, 100%, that no god(s) exist."

The book firmly supports the notion that his conclusion no god(s) exist is a logical and reasonable deduction.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Theory is based on facts but if the theory was able to be proven then it would no longer be a theory.

That is actually quite false. Science doesn't ever supply "proof." Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol, as they say. Theories don't ever "graduate" to become facts or laws once we're certain enough of them. Theories are simply the best unification of facts which science can provide.

Take E=MC2 for instance and compare it to Hawkins theories in quantum physics.

Ok. What would you like to make of that comparison?

We are finding new evidence every day which adds to our understanding of the world. For me, I think it takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than to believe in God.

Do you doubt your own senses? The inflation of the universe is something which is no secret. Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. The Big Bang is simply the logical consequence of regressing the expansion of the observable universe to an origin. How is that epistemologically equivalent to the proposition that a magical and unobservable being exists... "somewhere" and has all kinds of conveniently earth-specific capabilities and interests?

 

[zinfamous]

That is actually quite false. Science doesn't ever supply "proof." Proof is for mathematics and beverage alcohol, as they say. Theories don't ever "graduate" to become facts or laws once we're certain enough of them. Theories are simply the best unification of facts which science can provide.


Ok. What would you like to make of that comparison?


Do you doubt your own senses? The inflation of the universe is something which is no secret. Everything in the universe is moving away from everything else. The Big Bang is simply the logical consequence of regressing the expansion of the observable universe to an origin. How is that epistemologically equivalent to the proposition that a magical and unobservable being exists... "somewhere" and has all kinds of conveniently earth-specific capabilities and interests?

technically, we can observe the big bang.

I find comfort in that.


I have yet to know of anyone capable of observing god.

 

[JM Aggie08]

Ya'll are funny. I like ya'll.

 

[totalnoob]

Ya'll are funny. I like ya'll.

1:40 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-757771289801131975#