God - The Bear and Badger

Vela

cockbeard wrote:

I'm not sure you can assign a probability to something you have no knowledge of. If I am agnostic I am aware that I know nothing, I have accepted the subjects unknowability. Although I guess being as we have two different meanings of atheist then the odds of that being true are halved? Once again I've no idea why you're talking about probability in this manner. At the Grand National there can be 30 horses running, each of them can either win the race or not win the race, however the odds aren't 2-1 on every horse, neither are they 30-1

I figure I have erred in one area: conflating religion with supernatural. I would say the odds of any religion being correct are quantifiable absolutely, because they make specific, measureable claims about the natural world. Any religion making a claim with certainty, upon which the foundation of the religion rests, is entirely disproven once the foundational claim is disproven.

The question of whether a religion is right is different from whether the universe was created by something or by nothing.

Vela

acemuzzy wrote:

I'm not sure equating belief in ghosts with the question of where the universe came from is hugely helpful.

I'm using the term supernatural as shorthand for anything not in this universe or which cannot be explained by natural laws. I'm not trying to diminish belief as through words like "myths" or conflate gods with ghosts or shades etc. I'm using the word supernatural instead of divine because the latter infers a value judgement that is not fit to be made and it assumes a particular flavour exists.

GooberTheHat

acemuzzy wrote:

Dawkins uses probability similarly misleadingly IMO. I suspect somebody has read The God Delusion (which tbf I didn't think was all bad). For me, agnosticism is "we can't possibly know", as opposed to "I don't know" (which is uncertainty/ignorance). I think i'm possibly in both of those camps. I'm not sure equating belief in ghosts with the question of where the universe came from is hugely helpful.

I think of agnosticism as "we can't possibly know" to, but for me with added "I don't really care either".

Vela

apatheism?

djchump

I'm ignostic

cockbeard

I love both those terms

Facewon

FWIW I like the "I don't believe there's sufficient evidence for god" definition of atheism. A small adjustment, but the sufficient evidence bit allows you to not overreach.

For a constant example of how that plays out in arguments, check out a matt dilahunty debate or poddo or YouTube chat.

[Deleted User]

GooberTheHat wrote:

I think of agnosticism as "we can't possibly know" to, but for me with added "I don't really care either".

It's not that we can't possibly know. New information pushes God further back with every new discovery. God isn't getting angry and causing Storms anymore. He's, and this is a biggie, no longer required to create all the plants and animals. He's no longer required to make all the planets and stars. He's (got to be a human type guy apparently) now pushed all the way back to the big bang.

Now, that's a bit of a head scratcher for sure, but no more of a problem than where all the people came from. Evolution was the final nail in the coffin tbh. It's now looking reasonable that if you can combine quantum mechanics and GR successfully you can explain where all the matter came from (literally out of nothing btw), so where does that leave God now?

To still cling on to the idea that there is a God that is interested in human affairs, especially all the wanking, seems a tad insane.

g.man

God is in the details.

[Deleted User]

legaldinho wrote:

Definitely live in a computer simulation. Definitely. But "I'm not sure whether there is a God or not"? Madness! 2+2 = 17!

The thing about the simulation thing is it's just the same shit in a more advanced and presumably less God-fearing Universe.

[Deleted User]

g.man wrote:

God is in the details.

He's telling all the other Gods everything, the shameless gossip.

[Deleted User]

Facewon wrote:

FWIW I like the "I don't believe there's sufficient evidence for god" definition of atheism. A small adjustment, but the sufficient evidence bit allows you to not overreach.

There is no evidence for God. None. I don't think it's an "overreach" to say the whole concept is utter bollocks.

Vela

If gods exist then they should be among the last things science ever discovers, not the first things human civilisations proclaims to exist.

The existence of such things was determined apparently when people were lacking any explanations for how things got here. It's the wrong way round.

bad_hair_day

What about the evidence it makes you feel warm inside, knowing the creator of the universe loves you?
It would creep me out thinking there was actually something judging me every second. Still, if it stops the faithful killing others, it's useful.

[Deleted User]

Vela wrote:

If gods exist then they should be among the last things science ever discovers, not the first things human civilisations proclaims to exist.

The existence of such things was determined apparently when people were lacking any explanations for how things got here. It's the wrong way round.

It's true. I don't know what He was playing at performing miracles so early on. Walking on water was a dead giveaway. If there is a God he's like Trump.

[Deleted User]

Imagine if our God lacked class. A total numpty. I'd be more inclined to believe. Actually it's all starting to make a good deal of sense now I think about it.

Brooks

Oh if gods exist they are hypercunts, doubtless. Why that means they qualify for regard, let alone reverence, isn't apparent. You can't placate those forces.

[Deleted User]

Don't anger the hypercunt. It will end badly.

GooberTheHat

SpaceGazelle wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

I think of agnosticism as "we can't possibly know" to, but for me with added "I don't really care either".

It's not that we can't possibly know. New information pushes God further back with every new discovery. God isn't getting angry and causing Storms anymore. He's, and this is a biggie, no longer required to create all the plants and animals. He's no longer required to make all the planets and stars. He's (got to be a human type guy apparently) now pushed all the way back to the big bang. Now, that's a bit of a head scratcher for sure, but no more of a problem than where all the people came from. Evolution was the final nail in the coffin tbh. It's now looking reasonable that if you can combine quantum mechanics and GR successfully you can explain where all the matter came from (literally out of nothing btw), so where does that leave God now? To still cling on to the idea that there is a God that is interested in human affairs, especially all the wanking, seems a tad insane.

If we are a computer simulation then surely the programmer could be considered a god?

[Deleted User]

Yes.

g.man

More likely than all that big bang nonsense.

[Deleted User]

Although programmer is probably the wrong term. Anyone can use Microsoft Word. It's designed for idiots.

djchump

Idspispopd

GooberTheHat

But you're atheist so don't believe there is a programmer?

[Deleted User]

g.man wrote:

More likely than all that big bang nonsense.

The big bang still happened. You're not following.

g.man

Nah. Absolute nonsense.

[Deleted User]

GooberTheHat wrote:

But you're atheist so don't believe there is a programmer?

There is, but our God is probably doing it as a homework assignment

[Deleted User]

g.man wrote:

Nah. Absolute nonsense.

Why?

GooberTheHat

SpaceGazelle wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

But you're atheist so don't believe there is a programmer?

There is, but our God is probably doing it as a homework assignment

So you are a theist, but think we have an apathetic god?

bad_hair_day

g.man wrote:

More likely than all that big bang nonsense.

This made some sense to me.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories