What's your definition of "God"? - Page 8

John Scott · 10-20-2007, 02:51 PM

It should, honey bunches.

(Is that sexual harassment? Nobody's accused me later so I might be losing my touch.

)

chicgeek · 10-20-2007, 02:52 PM

Yes it is, lightly hung.

ryukenden · 10-21-2007, 03:54 AM

I think people create God for their own mind well being. If life is very difficult, they got something to look for. People use to pray trees in the past.

John Scott · 10-21-2007, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryukenden

I think people create God for their own mind well being. If life is very difficult, they got something to look for. People use to pray trees in the past.

Some people still do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

ryukenden · 10-21-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott

Some people still do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

It is interesting to read.

thanks

Rankenstein · 10-22-2007, 07:08 AM

Here's my problem with theism. You have a devout bunch of believers of different types, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and so on right through the list. Now, they all believe devoutly as I've said, and there is no doubting the rigour of their belief. Nonetheless, no matter how strongly they believe, only one of them is the right. The others, no matter how strongly they believe, are wrong. There's no wishy-washy copout here. If the Christian is right, the rest are wrong, etc etc.

This proves, yes, proves that no matter what your religion, without even knowing what your religion is, the likelihood based on solid maths and probability, is that you are wrong.

Note that this doesn't disprove God, and I'm not claiming that it does. But it does prove that if you are religious and firmly believe in your god according to your tenets, you are on balance of probability wrong. It also proves that belief counts for nothing.

**Zap** · 10-22-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Note that this doesn't disprove God.

Who?

Atom · 10-22-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

... Note that this doesn't disprove God, and I'm not claiming that it does. ...

If you're not an atheist, what do you consider yourself to be? Please forgive me if you've already made this known.

Rankenstein · 10-23-2007, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

If you're not an atheist, what do you consider yourself to be? Please forgive me if you've already made this known.

I am an atheist, but I'm able to recognise that I might be wrong. So it's not a question of whether I'm firm in my convictions (I 'know' there is no god) but I realise that history is littered with people who are firm in their convictions but who are entirely wrong. I could be one of those guys.

Atom · 10-23-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Here's my problem with theism. You have a devout bunch of believers of different types, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and so on right through the list. Now, they all believe devoutly as I've said, and there is no doubting the rigour of their belief. Nonetheless, no matter how strongly they believe, only one of them is the right. The others, no matter how strongly they believe, are wrong. There's no wishy-washy copout here. If the Christian is right, the rest are wrong, etc etc.

This proves, yes, proves that no matter what your religion, without even knowing what your religion is, the likelihood based on solid maths and probability, is that you are wrong.

Note that this doesn't disprove God, and I'm not claiming that it does. But it does prove that if you are religious and firmly believe in your god according to your tenets, you are on balance of probability wrong. It also proves that belief counts for nothing.

Interesting post. Very thought provoking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

... It also proves that belief counts for nothing.

In your scenario, you assume that one of the beliefs is right. It's an extremely interesting scenario, however, to assume something that you do not believe is possible, is to err, the key word being "believe". You conclude that "belief counts for nothing", yet it was required to make the assumption.

My logic seems sound to me, but there's always the possibility that I've overlooked something.

Atom · 10-24-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Here's my problem with theism. You have a devout bunch of believers of different types, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and so on right through the list. Now, they all believe devoutly as I've said, and there is no doubting the rigour of their belief. Nonetheless, no matter how strongly they believe, only one of them is the right. ...

It is absurd for an atheist to derive "facts", as you have done in your post #185, from an assumption such as "only one of them is right", when you've stated that you "know" that one of them is not right (in your post #199) because you "know there is no God". The problem lies in the fact that you as an atheist derived "facts" to formulate your argument from an assumption that you've admitted you "know" is wrong.

Make any sense yet? You err to derive any so called "facts" from such a scenario, the key word being "you".

The fact is, the argument (scenario) in itself is perfectly valid, and I'll only explain why if necessary. That should be obvious.

Atom · 10-24-2007, 12:25 PM

In short, your scenario is based on falsehood if you are truly an atheist, because you derived what you've stated as "facts", from it.

ezhel · 10-24-2007, 01:52 PM

oh my Atom seems to be hot this day...

Atom · 10-24-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ezhel

oh my Atom seems to be hot this day...

Interesting avatar.

No, not too bad today. Doing ok so far.

Rankenstein · 10-25-2007, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atom

In short, your scenario is based on falsehood if you are truly an atheist, because you derived what you've stated as "facts", from it.

Sorry Atom, I must disagree. You are plain wrong. I notice you avoided my question, so I'll ask again.

Either there is no god, or one religion is right. These are the only two options,
unless you think two religions can be right at the same time. Do you think two religions can be right at the same time?

I made no error whatsoever, and you have done nothing to show that I have.

Atom · 10-25-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Sorry Atom, I must disagree. You are plain wrong. I notice you avoided my question, so I'll ask again.

Either there is no god, or one religion is right. These are the only two options,
unless you think two religions can be right at the same time. Do you think two religions can be right at the same time?

I made no error whatsoever, and you have done nothing to show that I have.

Yes, I think it's possible.

Well, my logic seems sound to me. Maybe someone can read my posts and see if it seems sound to them. If someone could just pick out an error and show me, then I might see the error in my thinking if there is such.

bytech · 10-26-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Here's my problem with theism. You have a devout bunch of believers of different types, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and so on right through the list. Now, they all believe devoutly as I've said, and there is no doubting the rigour of their belief. Nonetheless, no matter how strongly they believe, only one of them is the right. The others, no matter how strongly they believe, are wrong. There's no wishy-washy copout here. If the Christian is right, the rest are wrong, etc etc.

This proves, yes, proves that no matter what your religion, without even knowing what your religion is, the likelihood based on solid maths and probability, is that you are wrong.

Note that this doesn't disprove God, and I'm not claiming that it does. But it does prove that if you are religious and firmly believe in your god according to your tenets, you are on balance of probability wrong. It also proves that belief counts for nothing.

Nicely said.
'A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.'

Atom · 10-26-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bytech

... faith does not prove anything.'

I agree with this.

John Scott · 10-22-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

This proves, yes, proves that no matter what your religion, without even knowing what your religion is, the likelihood based on solid maths and probability, is that you are wrong.

It depends on the numbers, though. If the world population was 100, and 40% believed the religion that turned out to be correct; 30% didn't believe any; and the remaining 30% believed various other incorrect religions, then it would be false.

Rankenstein · 10-22-2007, 07:22 AM

If 40% turn out to be right, then 60% are wrong. Right? Because atheism is a belief of sorts.

I'd say 90% of the people on Earth are theists, though, at a guess. Maybe a bit more.

If one religion had a clear 60% of the world's population as believers, then my little probability estimate wouldn't work. But right now, what I said holds true. And if you go further and split it down into, e.g. Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, Wesleyans, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, etc. then the odds of a particular theist being right drop dramatically.