Atheists and theists are the same.

[speakers_86]

It is not just 2 billion people but it is also over 1000s of years.

Old ideas prove false
1.Earth is flat
2.Sea monsters are a legitimate threat.
3.Eclipses are sign of an angry God.

This ideas are old. Does not make them right.

In addition, many of those people will believe in a supernatural because they see what they regard as evidence. Too many unexplained things, too many coincidences.

It is more likely that people were simply mistaken as to what they saw than there being some mystical being who is omnipotent.

When it comes to evidence you don't have any.

Neither do you. The simple fact that the scientific method is tried and true lends a little credit to this side of the fence.

You rely entirely on reading written material that is forever changing. Which particular theories do you know/believe are correct and what hard evidence to you have?

We are not omnipotent. Our ideas should be expected to change. As time passes, and our theories get refined, we will move closer to the truth. Think of the value of pi. The ancients could only calculate it out so far. Today, we have calculated it out to more than a trillion digits. Does that mean anyone was wrong? No, but our abilities have grown over time, as should be expected.

 

[Mike375]

However I do think that most atheists have actually thought their position through while there are a largish number of believers who are only paying lipservice to their beliefs and rarely if ever give it much thought.

That is correct if restricted to their views on a fomal religion they might belong to. But their belief in a supernatural is much deeper. In my experience very highly educated people who believe in a supernatural are mostly of the "something must be out there" group.

The highly educated who are "born agains" and there are many, commence with a total belief in God and Jesus. Once that belief is in place then contradictions or "whatever" have no bearing as it is impossible for them to determine a reason for God's actions.

 

[Mike375]

Old ideas prove false
1.Earth is flat
2.Sea monsters are a legitimate threat.
3.Eclipses are sign of an angry God.

This ideas are old. Does not make them right.

But this not an old idea that has been dropped.

It is more likely that people were simply mistaken as to what they saw than there being some mystical being who is omnipotent.

That certainly occurs. But there are many cases where one person "sees" what another does not see. The atheist is in a mode to reject all. In fact one of the reasons that atheist are rare amoung salesmen is they miss the signals the prospect is sending. They need to see it on paper. This results in them getting what are called hidden objections.

Neither do you. The simple fact that the scientific method is tried and true lends a little credit to this side of the fence.

But in this area it always changes and you can get more than one view or theory at the same time.

We are not omnipotent. Our ideas should be expected to change. As time passes, and our theories get refined, we will move closer to the truth. Think of the value of pi. The ancients could only calculate it out so far. Today, we have calculated it out to more than a trillion digits. Does that mean anyone was wrong? No, but our abilities have grown over time, as should be expected.

Do you think the value of pi years ago was closer to the true value than is the case for Big Bang or Big Bounce or Steady State for how the universe started.

 

[Alisa]

It is not just 2 billion people but it is also over 1000s of years.

In addition, many of those people will believe in a supernatural because they see what they regard as evidence. Too many unexplained things, too many coincidences.

When it comes to evidence you don't have any. You rely entirely on reading written material that is forever changing. Which particular theories do you know/believe are correct and what hard evidence to you have?

Fine, so if a couple billion people believed that the purple planet existed for thousands of years, you would too, despite the lack of any news report that the planet actually existed? Do you also believe that sacraficing a goat will fix something mechanical? Many people have believed that for thousands of years too. Do you also believe that dancing affects weather patterns? Many people have believed that for thousands of years too. Do you also believe that god throws lightning strikes down from heaven? Many people have believed that for thousands of years too. Do you also believe that you can heal someone just by putting your hands on them? Many people have believed that for thousands of years too. In short, do you simply believe anything that other people believe, as long as enough people believe it for long enough? If so, exactly how many people have to believe it, and for how long, before you deign to agree with them?

 

[Mike375]

The billions of people is not the cause of the belief. It just something extra.

Belief in the supernatural is a product of what one experiences and in combination with a complete lack of scientific explanation. Other things such as billions of people for 1000s of years coming up with the same thing, just adds to it all.

 

[Alisa]

The billions of people is not the cause of the belief. It just something extra.

Belief in the supernatural is a product of what one experiences and in combination with a complete lack of scientific explanation. Other things such as billions of people for 1000s of years coming up with the same thing, just adds to it all.

Then we are back to the original question, which you have still failed to answer. You said you don't believe my purple planet story because there is no evidence for it. I asked, if this lack of evidence is meaningful to you in the context of the purple planet story, why is the EXACT SAME LACK OF EVIDENCE in the context of the supernatural NOT meaningful to you?

 

[speakers_86]

But this not an old idea that has been dropped.

Because it can not be disproven. That should make it suspect.

That certainly occurs. But there are many cases where one person "sees" what another does not see. The atheist is in a mode to reject all. In fact one of the reasons that atheist are rare amoung salesmen is they miss the signals the prospect is sending. They need to see it on paper. This results in them getting what are called hidden objections.

Atheists don't reject all, we are just skeptical. We need to see evidence before believing something, which religion does not offer. If someone proposes a theory, asking for evidence is not too much to ask. If evidence cannot be produced, there is no other option but to reject that theory. Science holds all thoeries to this standard, regardless of how old the thoery is, or how many people believe it.

But in this area it always changes and you can get more than one view or theory at the same time.

And? Because we are not omnipitent, our theories constantly need refining. By the way, religion changes over time too. Interestingly enough, you have overlooked that.

Do you think the value of pi years ago was closer to the true value than is the case for Big Bang or Big Bounce or Steady State for how the universe started.

What?

 

[Mike375]

Then we are back to the original question, which you have still failed to answer. You said you don't believe my purple planet story because there is no evidence for it. I asked, if this lack of evidence is meaningful to you in the context of the purple planet story, why is the EXACT SAME LACK OF EVIDENCE in the context of the supernatural NOT meaningful to you?

I answered you question but you seem unable to read. Again, I have evidence for God but zero for the purple planet and in addition I am not literal Bible believer.

 

[Mike375]

Because it can not be disproven. That should make it suspect.

So you can't disprove 2 + 2 = 4 therefore the calculation is suspect.

Atheists don't reject all, we are just skeptical. We need to see evidence before believing something, which religion does not offer. If someone proposes a theory, asking for evidence is not too much to ask. If evidence cannot be produced, there is no other option but to reject that theory. Science holds all thoeries to this standard, regardless of how old the thoery is, or how many people believe it.

But God is not a theory.

And the bold....is why they have trouble with the prospect in sales. No decision is made to which direction to go until they see details in writing. In other words they are prepared to act on general observation and/or feeling.

Let me put that back in God terms If you went to someone's house there are things to oberve that would indicate income and if you couple those observations with a few other things such as his personality you can have a good guess at his income, at least in a general area such as very low, low, good, high or very high. But you have no evidence. He might not own the house, he might be renting and sharing the house etc and etc. But a good observed will pick that up.

In fact a good observer will often get a truer figure than someone who needs a form filled in. While it is not an exact analogy it gives the clue as to why some people believe in a supernatural and others do not.

And? Because we are not omnipitent, our theories constantly need refining. By the way, religion changes over time too. Interestingly enough, you have overlooked that.

Religion only changes in the way different formal religions like to do and say things and even then it is only around the fringes.

And it is far more than just refining of theories as to how the universe started.

 

[Mike375]

Quote:
Do you think the value of pi years ago was closer to the true value than is the case for Big Bang or Big Bounce or Steady State for how the universe started.

What?

The value given for pi is almost identical to the value given today. But how close is Big Bang or Big Bounce or Steady State to what actually happened. I guess i should left Steady State out as it is no longer one of the favourites.

 

[speakers_86]

So you can't disprove 2 + 2 = 4 therefore the calculation is suspect.

No, because it is a proven fact.

But God is not a theory.

Yes, it is. Since it is not testable, it is considered philosophy.

I left out your salesman discussion because it does not seem relevant.

Religion only changes in the way different formal religions like to do and say things and even then it is only around the fringes.

The Bible tells people to treat their slaves well. Very thoughtful, but I don't believe the pope would say this today. Speaking of the pope, didn't he renounce the idea of purgatory lately? I don't follow Vatican affairs much, but I do believe that is what I heard. Also, wasn't heliocentrism considered heresy back in the day?

20 more years and I bet the Vatican will be okay with homosexuals.

And it is far more than just refining of theories as to how the universe started.

Go practice throwing darts. You be way off bullseye at first, but over time, you'll get closer. The scientific community did not start 'throwing darts' until Copernicus, and that was not that long ago. An interesting note is that Copernicus did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed, reportedly from fear of prosecution from the church.

 

[Mike375]

No, because it is a proven fact.

That is, you can't disprove it.

Yes, it is. Since it is not testable, it is considered philosophy.

I left out your salesman discussion because it does not seem relevant.

I included that as an illustration as to how either side comes to conclusions, based on what is in front of them. And it is those differences that mean there is no meeting in the middle so to speak.

But you said it is not relevant and I was fairly sure you would say that. This is another difference between both sides. The atheist is in reject mode and then examines what is left in each detail and in isolation. The believer takes in all and bases his decision on an overall concept.

The Bible tells people to treat their slaves well. Very thoughtful, but I don't believe the pope would say this today. Speaking of the pope, didn't he renounce the idea of purgatory lately? I don't follow Vatican affairs much, but I do believe that is what I heard. Also, wasn't heliocentrism considered heresy back in the day?

20 more years and I bet the Vatican will be okay with homosexuals.

What does not change is God and Jesus. Actually the one the Catholic church has always had trouble with is contraception and in fact that was when I first questioned the Catholic church at school. In short, sex is only permitted if it is intended for producing little babies However, the rhythm method was allowed because it was natural. Of course that is bullshit because the couple intentionally choose the time so as to avoid producing little babies.

The Bible is the policy document and the churches are the brochures.









Go practice throwing darts. You be way off bullseye at first, but over time, you'll get closer. The scientific community did not start 'throwing darts' until Copernicus, and that was not that long ago. An interesting note is that Copernicus did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed, reportedly from fear of prosecution from the church.[/quote]

 

[Mike375]

Go practice throwing darts. You be way off bullseye at first, but over time, you'll get closer. The scientific community did not start 'throwing darts' until Copernicus, and that was not that long ago. An interesting note is that Copernicus did not publish his book until he was on his deathbed, reportedly from fear of prosecution from the church.

Miss that one.

One would hardly call the jump from Steady State to Big Bang as getting a bit closer to the bullseye. That change amounts to getting a new dart board and starting again.

 

[speakers_86]

That is, you can't disprove it.

I could counter this, but I don't really see the point. Other than that, I have thoroughly made all my points.

 

[Mike375]

Other than that, I have thoroughly made all my points.

I think everyone has. But we simply see different things from the available evidence.

 

[speakers_86]

Miss that one.

One would hardly call the jump from Steady State to Big Bang as getting a bit closer to the bullseye. That change amounts to getting a new dart board and starting again.

Not quite. Einstein included the constant to remove the universe's expansion because he assumed the universe was static. He hadn't even considered that it might not be static. After it was proposed that the universe was not static, Einstein called that Cosmological constant his greatest blunder.

The simple fact that our accepted theories change over time in no way discredits us.

Ptolemy said the earth was the center.
Copernicus said the sun was the center.
Kepler said the planets orbited in ellipses.
Newton defined gravity.
Einstein defined relativity.

These are all gradual progressions toward the way things actually are. The fact that our best ideas are testable and make accurate predictions lend (dare I say) credence to the scientific view.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

These are all gradual progressions toward the way things actually are. The fact that our best ideas are testable and make accurate predictions lend (dare I say) credence to the scientific view.

Even if they were not gradual progressions toward the truth/facts, I still think the scientific approach is the only viable one - because it's never satisfied with the answer it has in hand at any given moment.

So even if the current theory is wrong, the process expects to challenge it and this process of challenge based on new observations should winnow out the wrong ones and leave us with a theory that is closer to being correct.

The alternative is... what? Observing a phenomenon, not knowing the reason for it, assuming it must be some kind of supernatural thing, and sticking with that. Where would that take us?

 

[JamesLast99]

I didn't miss them. They're just not emphatic answers and I was hoping you'd get off the fence and make a concrete statement.
Number 1
"I can reasonably safely dismiss the gryphon, cos I understand what is puports to be, and I have never heard anyone even claim to have gotten a gryphon to work. And also because I do have good theory of how else you may have gotten to work. As there are millions of other examples each day of how else it could be done. ie - I got the bus, so its quite reasonable that you may have done too.

I really don't have the knowledge to rule anything out, and I have no other proven examples given to me everyday of how it is done elsewhere. Then there are the great minds through history who support a belief of God, not many for the gryphon."

Not an emphatic answer either way.
You're not willing to totally dismiss the notion of my riding a gryphon to work, in spite of the fact that every single reasonable person on earth would do so, and you wonder why people question the fact that you're willing to believe in God?

I asked you to explain why God is diferent to a gryphon.
You, with characteristic vagueness, answered
Number 2
"The definitions make them clearly differant"

Requests for how, exactly, were ignored.

So, in answer to my question "Since the subject is an imaginary being, what qualifications would be pertinent?", your answer is to repeat the question. You get points for consistency, if nothing else.

I have no idea what you're talking about here. You don't know what? A professor of which subject? What do the four question marks at the start of the sentence mean?

I'm intrigued why you think I should get off the fence - I don't know the answer. You want me to guess?
I'm as emphatic as I can be - Is gryphon the name of the bus company? And I am wrong? There is that very real possibility? I got a stagecoach.The subject may or may not be an imaginary being. Maybe you have some qualification that enables you to state emphatically that God is imaginary. We'll start from there?

I just have a grade B at history GCSE - so unsurpisingly - I don't know.
As for differing definitions - I did answer further to that which you seem to have missed.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Mike375 - I've tried to ask this in a previous reply post, but I think it might be better a standalone question...

It seems like you have objected to the scientific method, on the grounds that it doesn't guarantee certainty

As I understand it, the method consists of:

1-Observe something
2-Try to invent an explanation
3-Test your explanation by trying to use it to predict something not in the original observation, attack your explanation with possible objections and exceptions, etc
4-Modify your explanation so that it accommodates the original observation, plus all the new data, or discard it entirely and formulate a new one that fits
5-Keep going back to step 3

This process never expects to get to a point where it stops, satisfied that it has the right answer. It does not provide absolute certainty, nor promise to - it consists of the determined effort to approach the truth as closely as possible.

What do you think of this? Can you suggest a better, more useful alternative?

 

[Alisa]

I answered you question but you seem unable to read. Again, I have evidence for God but zero for the purple planet and in addition I am not literal Bible believer.

You have evidence for god???? Why didn't you say so. What is it?