Why do/don't you believe in God?

[JemyM]

Exactly: religion is morally neutral. She took it, and used it to give shape and form and structure to what she did. Just like the Crusaders took it and used it to give shape and form and structure to something altogether different.

Religions aren't morally neutral if they are founded on teachings which might by current standard be considered unethical if you follow them. Choosing not to follow the teachings cannot be considered to be part of the religion but rather a sign of humanity.

Of course I have. Just like I've seen "no-religion=good, therefore religion=bad." Which makes exactly as little sense to me.

Which is why I do not follow that road.

My approach to religion as a concept is more complex than you give me credit for. To me, the word religion have no agreed on meaning. It's a word that can be used in many different ways and there seems to be no universal agreement on what the word is supposed to mean. I, like many, often fall into the trap/habit/cultural bias to associate religion to Christianity, or the three Abrahamic religions, or the five world religions. This works well in everyday language as it doesn't complicate things, however, beyond everyday discussions I have spent a great deal of thought on what a religion actually is.

I criticize some religions due to their core teachings, and see not how following or supporting that teachings is beneficial to a healthy democracy. But opposing a specific religion due to it's core teachings doesn't mean I oppose religion in general. Nor does it mean I oppose all who consider themselves part of a religion. The only thing I oppose when it comes to religion as a general concept, is the automatic respect to any movement which have been granted the label religion. I consider that lack of questioning to be dangerous.

Having said that, I have approached religion from an anthropologist perspective and consider some social structures commonly attributed to religion to be necessary for a healthy civilization.

Confusing?

It's what we make of it -- just like nationalism, football, alcohol, food, or any other human activity.

None of these have core central teachings incompatible with democracy. That's why your argument fails.

 

[Rithrandil]

No, there's nothing that makes it unlikely that there is a god. Maybe you're referring to a god as it's been described in a certain religion. I'm talking about ANY kind of god - or ANY kind of power greater than ourselves.

I'm talking about "god" as typically defined by most religions - to which I would say there are many things that make it unlikely one exists. I'm not talking about the pantheistic/Einsteinian version of "god". Not really talking about a deistic god, either.

Imagine a god that created everything, including science, and decided that proof of his existence was irrelevant or even unwanted.

You see? It's pointless trying to use science as proof against such possibilities. I just don't know, and I can't know - it's obvious to me that no one can know unless they've experienced something profound that I haven't.

I agree with you (and even think a reasonable case could be made for a deistic god, I guess) - once again, its why Dawkins says "strictly speaking I am an agnostic, but...". I can't disprove the idea of a god just like I can't disprove Santa or the celestial teapot. I just find it highly unlikely as there is nothing that points to its existence. So I am a "practical" atheist. I don't see the addition of some sort of god solving problems of "How did the universe get here?", etc. It just adds another step before the ultimate question, as eventually you have to ask what created the god that created the Universe?

But I don't interfere with the beliefs of others - that's their business.

I don't interfere with anyone else's belief either.

If you want to use science as some kind of universal guide to truth, then I'll leave you to it.

I use it as a guide to truth in that I view the natural world around me through the prism of science. I'm not expecting the guy walking down the street to suddenly fly or throw fireballs at me or "something crazy" to happen. I don't use science to come up with whatever moral beliefs I may or may not have.

If some guy assumes there isn't a god because he hasn't experienced proof - then so be it. Why would I think that's a faulty assumption? It's simply not an assumption I would make, personally.

And I respect that. I have no quarrels with agnostics. Until someone presents me with evidence of something's existence I tend not to entertain the idea it exists - depending on how unlikely the claim is. "Japan exists" is a claim I can readily accept, even though I have never been there. "There's a spaceship orbitting the moon with a cloaking device turned on so we can't see it" is something that while could be true, is unsupported by any evidence and is pretty unlikely so I discount it.

 

[pibbur]

My youth was very much like Prime Juntas. I was an avid reader, and very interested in dinosaurs (big bang was not the big thing back then), biology, the Hardy boys and whatever. Both my parents were agnostics, so I did not have a particularly religious upbringing, but i did believe in God and Jesus. I too had a grandmother like PJ's, but I fairly early became very opposed to her. She did affect me, but perhaps not as much as she wished.

Enter my teens and I very much lost interest and eventually defined myself as non christian. But sometime after this I started reading the Bible, for some reason I no longer remember. And eventually faith came back to me, although in a more reflected way than before. I've never had any groundbreaking religious experience, in stead faith evolved over time. I've been through periods of severe doubt, but eventually I always returned. If I were to single out what's most important to me, it will probably be a deep sense of belonging. To God.

I've never been a fundanmentalist, never believed that every word in the Bible is the TRUTH. So I've no problem with a 13 billion years old Universe, or evolution, never have. And for what it's worth, I don't see anything in nature that says there must be a God behind it. But I believe there is, and I believe that the Bible tells about the relation between human and God, and Jesus as my redeemer.

In other ways I'm a very rationally minded guy. I firmly stick to evidence based medicine, being a doctor, that's perhaps no surprise (I believe that God can heal, but in most cases I think it's just placebo). I see no reason to believe that we're regularly visited by UFO's, I think crop circles are usually made by men, and if they're not there has to be a lot of explanations more likely than something aliens have done (but I love Science Fiction). So I'm in many ways a skeptic. But I also have this one irrational element, which is very important to me. It sometimes puzzles me, but it's not a problem.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm talking about "god" as typically defined by most religions - to which I would say there are many things that make it unlikely one exists. I'm not talking about the pantheistic/Einsteinian version of "god". Not really talking about a deistic god, either.

Yes, I suspected as much.

But this means you're letting human words and interpretations limit the possibilities. A god could be so many things - and be described in so many ways. Just because you're reading the bible and thinking to yourself how it sounds unlikely according to science - doesn't mean that such a god can't easily exist. Think about it. Maybe there was some guy called Jesus with certain powers, and maybe he was sent from God. The problem is that because the written word is so restricted and so literal, there are too many things that will conflict with the thoughts of someone who adheres to science as you do. It would seem natural that things get distorted and miscommunicated when going through the human mind, complete with selfish motivations and the imperfections of not only the senses, but also our languages.

So, what you're really saying, is that the gods you've read about don't seem to match the rules of science that you've chosen to trust. But in my mind, that might as well be an agnostic point of view - because the possibilities remain endless.

I agree with you (and even think a reasonable case could be made for a deistic god, I guess) - once again, its why Dawkins says "strictly speaking I am an agnostic, but...". I can't disprove the idea of a god just like I can't disprove Santa or the celestial teapot. I just find it highly unlikely as there is nothing that points to its existence. So I am a "practical" atheist. I don't see the addition of some sort of god solving problems of "How did the universe get here?", etc. It just adds another step before the ultimate question, as eventually you have to ask what created the god that created the Universe?

I think there's a huge difference between disproving Santa and then disproving the existence of a possible greater power. It's true that there's a similar lack of difficulty in disproving them, but there's no obvious reason why Santa would represent the possibility itself. It's an illogical case to make - and that's why I would never, myself, assume there is no god because I couldn't prove Santa or whatever limited interpretations of whatever god/power human beings have managed to come up with, existed. I'm fully willing to accept there could be things beyond my understanding, and that science is merely a set of rules that we continue to adjust because we have no other ways of categorizing the world we perceive. But just as the brain will compensate when it encounters an imperfect square (it will appear perfect in your mind when looking at it), the rules of science will serve as solid evidence of whatever we manage to prove using the rules we invent.

I use it as a guide to truth in that I view the natural world around me through the prism of science. I'm not expecting the guy walking down the street to suddenly fly or throw fireballs at me or "something crazy" to happen. I don't use science to come up with whatever moral beliefs I may or may not have.

I'm curious. If you don't use science to come up with moral beliefs - what DO you use, and why?

And I respect that. I have no quarrels with agnostics. Until someone presents me with evidence of something's existence I tend not to entertain the idea it exists - depending on how unlikely the claim is. "Japan exists" is a claim I can readily accept, even though I have never been there. "There's a spaceship orbitting the moon with a cloaking device turned on so we can't see it" is something that while could be true, is unsupported by any evidence and is pretty unlikely so I discount it.

I have no quarrels with anyone - as long as they don't harm others, or willingly let harm come to others.

I find it interesting that you can be so convinced you understand the likelihood of something you've yet to experience, happening. It's as if you were never caught completely off guard in your life - and as if you think you understand the possibilities of such things happening - when everything inside me tells me you have absolutely no clue, just like the rest of us. You're just betting on everything being like it was yesterday - as if that was some kind of indicator of what's plausible.

I'd call that a kind of faith, actually.

 

[JemyM]

I find it worse that the "divine" characters in the Bible have human psychology than the issues the bible have with natural science. "The Lord" commonly act as a human king, tyrant, warlord from the bronze age, and a rather immature one at that. Jesus act as a human sect leader who build up a power through classic power techniques used in modern sects/cults.

The very idea of a creator, the vast power displayed in Genesis 1, by no means compare to the behavior of "The Lord" or "Jesus" in the rest of the bible.

Interestingly, Genesis 1 borrows from another source, Ugarit Mythology, than the rest of the Old Testament, which borrows from another pagan God.

 

[Rithrandil]

Yes, I suspected as much.

But this means you're letting human words and interpretations limit the possibilities. A god could be so many things - and be described in so many ways. Just because you're reading the bible and thinking to yourself how it sounds unlikely according to science - doesn't mean that such a god can't easily exist. Think about it. Maybe there was some guy called Jesus with certain powers, and maybe he was sent from God. The problem is that because the written word is so restricted and so literal, there are too many things that will conflict with the thoughts of someone who adheres to science as you do. It would seem natural that things get distorted and miscommunicated when going through the human mind, complete with selfish motivations and the imperfections of not only the senses, but also our languages.

The limitations of language are always a problem in this sort of thing, I'd agree. I don't have a time machine so I can't 100% disprove Jesus didn't exist and have these powers, but since there's no good proof and it's unlikely (as in, no one can do these sort of things today, etc etc etc) I don't feel that it's logical to entertain that belief. My default position is it doesn't exist until I've seen some evidence for it.

So, what you're really saying, is that the gods you've read about don't seem to match the rules of science that you've chosen to trust. But in my mind, that might as well be an agnostic point of view - because the possibilities remain endless.

Yes - technically agnostic, practically atheist. I can't prove it but for all intents and purposes I am an atheist.

I think there's a huge difference between disproving Santa and then disproving the existence of a possible greater power. It's true that there's a similar lack of difficulty in disproving them, but there's no obvious reason why Santa would represent the possibility itself. It's an illogical case to make - and that's why I would never, myself, assume there is no god because I couldn't prove Santa or whatever limited interpretations of whatever god/power human beings have managed to come up with, existed. I'm fully willing to accept there could be things beyond my understanding, and that science is merely a set of rules that we continue to adjust because we have no other ways of categorizing the world we perceive. But just as the brain will compensate when it encounters an imperfect square (it will appear perfect in your mind when looking at it), the rules of science will serve as solid evidence of whatever we manage to prove using the rules we invent.

I assume there is no god because no evidence is handy for one. I mention Santa because it's the easiest "thing with magic powers" that everyone is conversant with and doesn't believe in. I could say Zeus or Thor instead, I guess. Of course there are things beyond my understanding - the universe is a huge place, after all. I just don't think that a supernatural being, be it a god, vampire, or a werewolf is a belief I should entertain or even be "neutral" on without any proof since it is so far outside the natural world as we understand it.

I'm curious. If you don't use science to come up with moral beliefs - what DO you use, and why?

I should rephrase that. I don't use science in that I don't think you can use it to prove/discover the optimal sets of moral beliefs. I mainly rely upon the golden rule in my day to day life. I do have a strong set of beliefs about what is right or wrong - I can't really explain where they come from, however. I know some biologists and psychologists attempt to, but it's beyond my understanding.

I have no quarrels with anyone - as long as they don't harm others, or willingly let harm come to others.

I find it interesting that you can be so convinced you understand the likelihood of something you've yet to experience, happening. It's as if you were never caught completely off guard in your life - and as if you think you understand the possibilities of such things happening - when everything inside me tells me you have absolutely no clue, just like the rest of us. You're just betting on everything being like it was yesterday - as if that was some kind of indicator of what's plausible.

I'd call that a kind of faith, actually.

I think it's unlikely the moon will explode tomorrow because it hasn't happened yet. You DON'T make assumptions based on the things you have experienced or not experienced? You must live a very terrifying life of uncertainty, then. I don't understand why you don't get this concept- Why should I entertain the possibility of something there is no proof of yet? Like I keep saying, technically speaking I would have to be agnostic since you cannot disprove god, but for all intents and purposes I am an atheist.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

I doubt the existence of god for the same reason I doubt the existence of the teapot. I can't disprove it but it is unlikely.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think it's unlikely the moon will explode tomorrow because it hasn't happened yet. You DON'T make assumptions based on the things you have experienced or not experienced? You must live a very terrifying life of uncertainty, then. I don't understand why you don't get this concept- Why should I entertain the possibility of something there is no proof of yet? Like I keep saying, technically speaking I would have to be agnostic since you cannot disprove god, but for all intents and purposes I am an atheist.

There is a gigantic difference between making an assumption and talking about how likely something is. An atheist is denying the existence of a god - so that's NOT an assumption.

But yeah, I do live with more uncertainty in my heart than most people seem to. I was terrified when I first realised how ambiguous and nuanced reality might be - and I spent many years coming to terms with the possibility that everything I thought I knew was just as likely to be complete fabrication, possibly just being there so we can cope. Science - to me - is just as likely to be true and factual, as it's likely to be an alternate coping mechanism which we can understand, and which we continually modify and adjust to it matches our perception of reality.

I doubt the existence of god for the same reason I doubt the existence of the teapot. I can't disprove it but it is unlikely.

Doubt is not what I'm confused about. I'm confused about how you can say it's unlikely.

 

[Rithrandil]

There is a gigantic difference between making an assumption and talking about how likely something is. An atheist is denying the existence of a god - so that's NOT an assumption.

Alright, I guess

But yeah, I do live with more uncertainty in my heart than most people seem to. I was terrified when I first realised how ambiguous and nuanced reality might be - and I spent many years coming to terms with the possibility that everything I thought I knew was just as likely to be complete fabrication, possibly just being there so we can cope. Science - to me - is just as likely to be true and factual, as it's likely to be an alternate coping mechanism which we can understand, and which we continually modify and adjust to it matches our perception of reality.

Alright, and most people would find that Plato's Cave theory completely crazy. Which is why i guess I am having such a hard time understanding your beliefs.

Doubt is not what I'm confused about. I'm confused about how you can say it's unlikely.

Because there's no scientific evidence for it. If I claimed to have a spaceship in my basement, I'm sure you (well, most people) would say it's unlikely based on a variety of factors. The existence of a god does not answer any questions in science and in fact presents whole new ones. But then again, I don't have any sort of Plato's Cave theory of reality like you do, so I expect this conversation really can't continue since we have such radically different views of reality.

 

[JemyM]

It's pretty funny. If you do read the New Testament and have a look at what Jesus actually does, he's more of an exorcist than anything else, expelling demons and unclean spirits. He talks like they exist, the people around him talk like they exist, even the demons talk to Jesus. In Acts the disciples gains his power to expel even more demons. He's also encountering other mages who have similar powers, or have been granted powers by demons or spirits. People he meet accuse him of being infested with demons, or they awe at his power to command demons.

You do not need to make any great effort to disprove Jesus considering as soon as you begin to rip out the mythology, the story begins to crumble.

 

[DArtagnan]

Alright, and most people would find that Plato's Cave theory completely crazy. Which is why i guess I am having such a hard time understanding your beliefs.

I'm unfamiliar with the theory. But you're saying you have a hard time understanding my beliefs because most people find some other theory completely crazy?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Because there's no scientific evidence for it. If I claimed to have a spaceship in my basement, I'm sure you (well, most people) would say it's unlikely based on a variety of factors. The existence of a god does not answer any questions in science and in fact presents whole new ones. But then again, I don't have any sort of Plato's Cave theory of reality like you do, so I expect this conversation really can't continue since we have such radically different views of reality.

You talked about a cloaked ship and then you think such unfamiliar technology should be detectable by our current science. That must be the case since you said it was unlikely. Otherwise, why would it be unlikely? You think such technology can't exist?

If you told me you had a spaceship in your basement, and seemed serious about it - then I'd deem it just as likely as if you were serious about hiding away numerous female heads because you're a serial killer. As in, the scientific new ground a spaceship would represent is NOT what would make it "unlikely", and I'm probably more inclined to believe people saying something like that, than many others. That's because I'm prepared for new things to happen and unfamiliar ground to be explored. Not that I would ignore my gut feeling that something like that is very possibly a joke or similar - but I certainly wouldn't rule out that it could be true.

Anyway, if you think of your reality as so different from mine, and that prevents you from making sense of this little debate - then by all means let's end it.

 

[Benedict]

I've not had the same trauma from religion that some here have, my sympathies to you all. About the worst I've had to put up with is a condescending and tedious chat from a complete drip of a Religious Education teacher about the fact that I was such an avowed non believer & all round cynic.

I hated him anyway. He'd called his dog Benedict, the bastard (not because of me, he already had the dog). I hate dogs btw.

Edit - sorry, didn't answer the question at all. Basically - why the heck would I? There's no evidence to suggest that the god hypothesis is true and interpreting reality with a god based model yields no useful understanding whatsoever AFAICT. Some people with the god meme do seem to find it comforting, but as someone without the meme it just looks like utter nonsense from the outside.

 

[Rithrandil]

I'm unfamiliar with the theory. But you're saying you have a hard time understanding my beliefs because most people find some other theory completely crazy?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

I'm saying that since we have such radically different starting points and base assumptions that I don't understand your point of view at all. If you've seen the matrix you have a rough understanding of the allegory of the cave, by the way.

You talked about a cloaked ship and then you think such unfamiliar technology should be detectable by our current science. That must be the case since you said it was unlikely. Otherwise, why would it be unlikely? You think such technology can't exist?

Well, cloaking technology can exist - we're pretty close to it now (but it has a myriad of problems). I'm saying that if someone told me that this spaceship existed I would say "bullshit." It's unlikely that there is a spaceship orbiting the moon hidden from our eyes because of a cloaking device, yes.

If you told me you had a spaceship in your basement, and seemed serious about it - then I'd deem it just as likely as if you were serious about hiding away numerous female heads because you're a serial killer. As in, the scientific new ground a spaceship would represent is NOT what would make it "unlikely", and I'm probably more inclined to believe people saying something like that, than many others. That's because I'm prepared for new things to happen and unfamiliar ground to be explored. Not that I would ignore my gut feeling that something like that is very possibly a joke or similar - but I certainly wouldn't rule out that it could be true.

Being a serial killer is far more likely then having a spaceship in my basement. They're not equally statistically probable. Why? We've had a boat load of serial killers, it's relatively easy to kill someone, etc. How would I build a spaceship? Where did I get the parts? How did I assemble it in my basement? How come no one detected it? I'm sorry but the two propositions are not equally likely.

Anyway, if you think of your reality as so different from mine, and that prevents you from making sense of this little debate - then by all means let's end it.

I can't understand why you would think someone being a serial killer and hiding heads in their heads equally as likely as someone owning a spaceship.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'm saying that since we have such radically different starting points and base assumptions that I don't understand your point of view at all. If you've seen the matrix you have a rough understanding of the allegory of the cave, by the way.

The theory is that we're batteries to sustain the power of an artificial intelligence?

Well, cloaking technology can exist - we're pretty close to it now (but it has a myriad of problems). I'm saying that if someone told me that this spaceship existed I would say "bullshit." It's unlikely that there is a spaceship orbiting the moon hidden from our eyes because of a cloaking device, yes.

I don't understand how you can say it's unlikely. You admit the technology can exist - so why couldn't there be a cloaked ship orbiting the moon? Is it any less likely than the possibility of other intelligent life in the universe? If so, why? There could be countless good reasons for remaining undetected.

Being a serial killer is far more likely then having a spaceship in my basement. They're not equally statistically probable. Why? We've had a boat load of serial killers, it's relatively easy to kill someone, etc. How would I build a spaceship? Where did I get the parts? How did I assemble it in my basement? How come no one detected it? I'm sorry but the two propositions are not equally likely.

Who said you built the spaceship - and why would it be detectable when it's already unfamiliar technology?

Just because you're aware of serial killers, doesn't mean that what you're NOT aware of doesn't exist.

I don't follow that logic at all.

I can't understand why you would think someone being a serial killer and hiding heads in their heads equally as likely as someone owning a spaceship.

Hiding heads in their heads?

Well, I put quotation marks on the word "unlikely" because that's not the word I would use. Both eventualities are uncommon in my experience - and I see no reason to exclude either of them.

In fact, if I were to guess the truth of such a statement - I'd probably believe the spaceship story over the serial killer story if it was a person I felt I knew well, and hadn't suspected already.

I would of course have to ask where the spaceship came from, and what it's doing there. So it would depend on the story and its plausibility.

 

[Rithrandil]

The theory is that we're batteries to sustain the power of an artificial intelligence?

That 'reality' is a lie/isn't the whole truth, basically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave is an okay summary, I guess.

I don't understand how you can say it's unlikely. You admit the technology can exist - so why couldn't there be a cloaked ship orbiting the moon? Is it any less likely than the possibility of other intelligent life in the universe? If so, why? There could be countless good reasons for remaining undetected.

There could be a ship orbitting the moon. It's just not very likely. It is less likely than the possibility of other intelligent life, yes - because traveling through the vast distances of space is really really hard and takes a very long time, and what reason would some species with all this stuff have to come here and park a spaceship around our moon? Once again, it's not very likely.

I have trouble understanding you because with the way you think, so many things are possible, do you even have a world view? What do you take as fact? What DON'T you believe?

Who said you built the spaceship - and why would it be detectable when it's already unfamiliar technology?

Fine, then how I acquired said spaceship.

Just because you're aware of serial killers, doesn't mean that what you're NOT aware of doesn't exist.


I don't follow that logic at all.

Yeah, but some claims are extremely fantastic and thus ARE NOT LIKELY. Invisible pink unicorns, the spaceship in my basement, "god".

Hiding heads in their heads?

Typo, meant basement.

Well, I put quotation marks on the word "unlikely" because that's not the word I would use. Both eventualities are uncommon in my experience - and I see no reason to exclude either of them.

In fact, if I were to guess the truth of such a statement - I'd probably believe the spaceship story over the serial killer story if it was a person I felt I knew well, and hadn't suspected already.

I would of course have to ask where the spaceship came from, and what it's doing there. So it would depend on the story and its plausibility.

And if I went out in public and said I've killed a bunch of people and their heads are in my basement, the police would probably be knocking at my door. If I said I had a spaceship in my basement, DARPA and the NSA would not.

Why? Because one is far more realistic then the other. It's called probability. What are the odds that any one specific person is a serial killer? Pretty low. What are the odds that some random guy either built or discovered a spaceship and put it in his basement? Very very very low, approaching impossibility. Not all possibilities are equally probable.

 

[DArtagnan]

It seems to me we're going in circles.

I think it's time to acknowledge we're just too different to agree, and evidently even to understand the point of view held by each other.

 

[Pladio]

To explain both of your point of views:

DArtagnan:

It seems DArtagnan sees himself as very open-minded. He doesn't (she?) seem to exclude something because of probabilities as probabilities are for him just that. Probabilities are for him not certainties and as such do not represent an honest and full picture of reality for him and only a small part of it.

If everything above holds true and I understand what DArtagnan is saying then from his point of view, the existence of God or the non-existence of God are as certain or uncertain in his eyes and he thus believes that is is possible God/Gods... can exist in whatever shape or form attributed or not-attributed by the bible or other religious books.

Rithrandil:

On a completely different level of thought, which is in these days more scientific, Rithrandil' probabilities and odds seem to play a major role in his belief system. A simple example would be that playing the lottery would usually be a bad idea if you know the odds are stacked so heavily against you.
In other words, you have more chance of throwing either a 1, a 2, a 3 and a 4 on a six-sided dice than just throwing one 1 and if you want to win you would probably bet on the first possibility.

Rithrandil describes his belief system in a similar fashion. For him, something that is tangible, can be proven, can be seen, can be touched is much more probably than something that doesn't have any of the above-mentioned characteristics.
As such, believing in the basis of science which has given him most of his luxuries and his knowledge is also more probable than believing in something as intangible as a super-being.

In this sense, Rithrandil describes that he deems it much less probable for a God or Gods to exist and thus does not believe in any at the moment. If the moment came where something could be proven about a super-being, he would then re-evaluate his position.

And that's how I understand Rith is thinking.

If I'm wrong in any way, for any of you, tell me. Then maybe I'll get it

 

[DArtagnan]

If I'm wrong in any way, for any of you, tell me. Then maybe I'll get it

You have the gist of it, to be sure.

But then again, not really.

You talk about probabilities - and I'm saying I see NO way of talking about probabilities when dealing with the unknown - because the unknown might NOT fit our rules or systems for calculating or estimating probabilities. Remember that to calculate a probability - there must be some kind of certainty, for otherwise the probability is based on assumption and is nothing but a guess - however educated it might be.

What mankind has tried to do throughout time - or so it seems to me - has been to invent theories to explain reality that match his perception of reality. Math, physics, and so on are systems that have been refined and are continuously refined as we explore the world around us. What I think some MIGHT tend to forget is that those systems were invented by man - and it's an assumption that our way of thinking and perceiving the world is universal and can lead to any objective truth.

It seems clear that we must be prepared for the possibility that everything we feel we know today - might change at a moments notice, if we were to be introduced to something profoundly foreign - or if some kind of revelation about reality or existence was to appear.

So, when people call themselves atheists - they're not working under any assumption that there is no god - they're claiming they know FOR A FACT that there is no god.

Bending that and saying you're actually agnostic, but still an atheist in practice doesn't change that the atheist part is non-sensical, at least to me. I don't understand it.

I'm not saying it's wrong or bad - I simply don't get it. Either you acknowledge that you don't really know anything, or you don't. If you acknowledge this, then you must also acknowledge that all science is based on assumptions and not facts. To be sure, I see the advantage of accepting things as facts to prove something - and in everyday life I too go around thinking of gravity as being about the force of mass etc. - but I generally never forget that it's just a theory that fits the perception we have of reality.

That's what I've done and that's the only position I can truly understand. To me, being an atheist is exactly as illogical as being the follower of some religion.

 

[JemyM]

I would say that the word "atheist" is meaningless. It's as meaningless as "theist" in that it doesn't define what "God" is supposed to be.

"God" is a word. A word is a cognitive package of information to which many things are associated (expressions, meanings, experiences). However, there's no unified definitions of "God". Ask 10 people and you are likely to have 10 responses. The greatest illusion in our culture is that people believe that there's a natural understanding between people what "God" is. Truth is; there are no such understanding.

At best you might define God by calling some ideas God, one being creation. However, in other cultures, the same ideas that in our local area is labeled "God" is labeled with different words in other cultures, and associated to different attributes (not necessary "one sentient omnipotent male").

Unless you can define "God" as a real concept that isn't just a "make it yourself word" but have real unique attributes assigned to it, you really have nothing to discuss.

 

[Ubereil]

This discussion is... long. This is the reason I stopped visiting this site a year or two ago.

Übereil

 

[JemyM]

This discussion is... long. This is the reason I stopped visiting this site a year or two ago.

Übereil

This is an rpgsite.

This thread is the stuff we do on the side when we are bored.