[Closed] Pentecost...........well i never.

I've had atheist views rammed down my throat* WAY WAY more than religious ones, seriously. They just can't shut up. It's as if they are insecure about something Or maybe they miss the point...

...perhaps some of the insecurities stem from the 1000's of years of religous wars and persecution of the innocent?

If so let me try with why did the people who began down the evolutionary track of losing their eyebrows lose out in the race for dominance?

There's not enough evidence to reach that occlusion is there? Or was that the point?

ton, we both know you like to do the "I'd like to see you..." dance often enough. Direct threats? No. Veiled ones? Plenty.

The arguments here are almost at cross purposes.

Molgrips is exploring the relative existence of 'a god' while everyone else is responding to the notion of 'religion' and by extension 'God' and the two are really very different.

I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God,for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
But,' says Man,The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
Oh dear,' says God,I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

You speak of the sciences? Explain where it is scientifically demonstrable to raise the dead or rapture a person into the sky or be born of a virgin? These are claims that I’m less inclined to believe over natural biology as to how are species evolved – which can be explained.

Obviously the born of a virgin bit is easy nowadays.

First you explain how these ideas in anyway relate to the existence or not of a God?

how are species evolved – which can be explained.

By you?

Within the bounds of my own intellect (granted this is small :D) I chose to follow a world view based upon what I find persuasive.
The bottom line is I don’t know and you don’t know either, I accept that, but I feel the ground is firmer where I stand –

That's fine, so yours too is a belief system, even your belief that the ground where you stand is firmer is part of that belief system.

and I’m not saddled by the unfounded constraints, dogmas and strange hang-ups that religions impose.

Instead you are compelled by a different set, some of which lead you to argue the toss about them on an internet forum. Yet, I don't ridicule you or try to undermine your beliefs.

Peace indeed.

I've had atheist views rammed down my throat* WAY WAY more than religious ones, seriously.

You went to a non-religious primary school then? Cos there's not many of them about IIRC.

geetee, you make a good point and i think you are right, but I also think it goes further than that. Those attempting the scientific approach use their own operationalisation of God to show that there is no evidence of him / her /whatever and to demonstrate that scientifically god cannot exist. So, we have arguments against the bible or religion or article of faith. Yet for most people who believe in a god, those aspect are far removed from their conceptualisation of what god is that if the attempts at the scientific approach are shown to be true, within the scientific paradigm, it would be of little consequence to those who believe. There is an argument that science is the basis for knowledge, yet we all believe that happiness exists, there is general consensus on what it is, which is far removed from measures of endorphins and such like. Yet it cannot be operationalised and proven. I'm not saying that the existence of happiness proves the existence of God. Only that not all things can be captured by the scientific method

There is no evidence for any god at all. Science has some evidence behind it. The existence or not of god is not a question where both sides are as likely.

a question or two for the religious.

1) Why is your god(s) the true god(s) and other gods are false gods
2) What evidence for your god(s) existence exists?

The outcome, as always, is tension, upset and prejudice - another religious triumph

These are old and tired questions in the debate
Usual answers?

1) Why is your god(s) the true god(s) and other gods are false gods

2) What evidence for your god(s) existence exists

Can i try a question or the non-religious now?

1) Do you believe in ESP (remote mind reading and so on)?

Love and happiness

1) Do you believe in ESP (remote mind reading and so on)?

I believe in intuition and probability, whether that the same thing?

setting down to watch SoP with a nice cup of tea and a French fancy.

that sounds quite nice n relaxing. I'm in! I have some battenburg cake.

no, not the same thing.

I talking about the 'guess which card/picture i'm looking at' from a separate room kind of ESP

Have you ever read the old testament?

Again with [i]your [/i]operationalisation

'guess which card/picture i'm looking at'

I would say this is probabilistic, a bit like roulette.
I do not believe their is any evidence to say anyone could 100% reliably predict the outcome in the scenario you descibe.

"1) Why is your god(s) the true god(s) and other gods are false gods"

This isn't the case

" 2) What evidence for your god(s) existence exists"

Love and happiness

Not only do I not believe, i positively reject your gods and I enjoy wonderful love and happiness, whereas worship of gods causes horrendous pain and suffering.

EVIDENCE PLEASE for the existance of a god

ESP - no - tested and proven not to exist.

I do not believe without evidence. I am a rational person

Not only do I not believe, i positively reject your gods and I enjoy wonderful love and happiness

But they give it to you anyway, that's just how nice they are. That's more evidence for you.

ESP - no - tested and proven not to exist.
I do not believe without evidence. I am a rational person

That's one half of it, do you then believe when there is evidence

Somehow I knew you were going to say that - honest!

Well, it was so obvious a question I was surprised it wasn't pre-empted and answered initially

God was speaking to me at the time - sorry got distracted

I do not believe their is any evidence to say anyone could 100% reliably predict the outcome in the scenario you descibe

Surely if you believe in probability it wouldn't need to be 100% reliable. It would only need to happen reliably more often than chance alone would allow?

If there was good evidence of ESP I would believe in its existence. As there is no evidence of its existence then I don't .

So Charlie - are you a pantheist or a Christian? If you are a Christian then you must reject other gods as false according to scripture.

I like Ganesh. I think he is my favourite god. unless yo count Budda as a god

If there was good evidence of ESP I would believe in its existence. As there is no evidence of its existence then I don't

http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

So Charlie - are you a pantheist or a Christian? If you are a Christian then you must reject other gods as false according to scripture.

If I believed scripture

Surely if you believe in probability it wouldn't need to be 100% reliable. It would only need to happen reliably more often than chance alone would allow?

The math could determine the likihood of predicting the correct call of say a playing card in a pack of 52. I would say that's a 1 in 52 chance of calling the correct playing card on the first attempt. So if by chance a correct 'guess' was made on the first attempt, this would nether proove or dis-proove ESP.

So what religion are you then Charlie?

The math could determine the likihood of predicting the correct call of say a playing card in a pack of 52. I would say that's a 1 in 52 chance of calling the correct playing card on the first attempt. So if by chance a correct 'guess' was made on the first attempt, this would nether proove or dis-proove ESP

Yes and the maths would also show that the correct guess was within the bounds of statistical chance

but if it was done in a statistically reliable and consistent manner as the link showed?

So what religion are you then Charlie?

Me? I'm a theist

perhaps some of the insecurities stem from the 1000's of years of religous wars and persecution of the innocent?

Don't be ridiculous!

As geetee says, there are several different points here. Existence of God, the merits of organised religion, and biblical inerrancy with regards creation.

The three are really completely separate arguments. However tarring all religious people, Christians or church goers with the same brush is fairly ignorant. I've spoken to many Christians who don't believe the biblical account of creations. I started once (as a very young man) arguing against one such person (also a Physics student) by saying how ridiculous the creation stories were; she replied that they were just parables. Fairly obvious really.

If there was good evidence of ESP I would believe in its existence. As there is no evidence of its existence then I don't

Would not be better to withhold judgement rather than believe it doesn't exist?

Anyway.. what if there was a god but he provided no evidence? Then what? Or his evidence was in a form that we could not understand?

Out of interest, have any of you lot read a book called [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland ]Flatland[/url] by Edwin A Abbott?

It would only need to happen reliably more often than chance alone would allow?

If the number of attepts at 'guessing' is sufficiently high I would anticipate a 1 in 52 chance could be prooven. If the result is higher than chance would allow then I would say the randomisation of the pack was floored.

If the result is higher than chance would allow then I would say the randomisation of the pack was floored

Why would you say that? Surely not trying to explain away the results to get the answer you wanted before you started?

TJ you can't positively reject something you don't believe in. By positively rejecting it you sound like you've got got a grudge against God. Would you say you were bigoted towards religion?

I personally don't believe that there is a god as Christianity would have us believe so I don't need to reject it and nor do I feel animosity towards Christians practising their own belief. Its just something that works for them.

Right, so even if the evidence was provided you would still look for a way to hold on to your pre-conception?

What if the pack wasn't flawed?

Don't be ridiculous!

I recall, when I was about six years old, almost being pursuaded by religion, fearful of burning in unimaginable pain for eternity in hell fire. That does 'grate' slightly with me.

Geetee scores again!

Absolutely. Good shot old chap.

Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.

I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.

Its not biogotry.

I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded

That's a disgrace from a sensitive intelligent bloke such as yourself mate, seriously.

Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.

You think Newton, Boyle, Faraday and Einstein were feeble minded?

don't 90% of the worlds population believe in a God or deity of some sort? So it exists as a human concept. you can't prove a concept. You can't prove or disprove "God" any more than you can prove or disprove "love".

TJ are you being serious? I mean I always thought you were in favour of equality and fairness. Transpose the words religion or religious for gay for exaple and you'd get banned as well as (rightly ) flamed.

Please tell me you were joking. Really I haven't always agreed with you buti never thought you were a biggot.

No molgrips - the attitudes of the god bothereres is an absolute disgrace.

I am not offensive to peoples faces and I behave with sensitivity in a house of worship.

But to be challenged by those professing moral superiority because they believe in fairy stories is offensive in the extreme.

they asked for it on this thread - would you rather I lied and said the belief in god is harmless? Its dangerous and its only for the feeble minded

Right, so even if the evidence was provided you would still look for a way to hold on to your pre-conception?

What if the pack wasn't flawed?

I would predict that the stats would indicate a 1 in 52 chance.

But to be challenged by those professing moral superiority because they believe in fairy stories offensive in the extreme

But that doesn't happen here. In fact the reason we get into these arguments is because of the professed superiority of some of those who don't believe in a god

In respect of religion yes they were feeble minded. Shall we list the other things they believed in their ignorance and hold them dear as well now?
Newton believed in alchemy for example
Einstein is debatable as I am sure you are well aware*.
I genuinely fail to understand why very bright people actually believe in god....bussom of the feeble minded, opium of the masses take your pick.
* debatable he believed in god not that he was a clever fellow obviously.

But to be challenged by those professing moral superiority because they believe in fairy stories offensive in the extreme.

I suspect that the religious people you are talking about are those in your imagination rather than those that I have seen here and elsewhere. Maybe it's time to put down the keyboard down for the evening?

Provide me with the evidence. And I'll check the experimental design.

http://www.stat.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html <

I genuinely fail to understand why very bright people actually believe in god.

TJ you appear to continue to go down the "losing it" route.

As a friend, take a break.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

You can say it is feeble minded but much of our society only seems to function if there is someone to blame.

* debatable he believed in god not that he was a clever fellow obviously

TJ you've lost the plot. My parents are both Christians as is my wife and they've never proselytised to anyone and they aren't feeble minded. I don't they're right but I don't have a patent on the truth and neither do you. Yes lots of people commit horrible crimes and prejudice in the name of god but you seem to be saying that because a few have then they are all guilty.

Honestly TJ you've been really offensive in this thread. You've offended me because you're being so utterly derrogotary towards people I care about and I can't believe you have the temerity to come on here and shout about equality and tolerance in other threads and then here throw stones at one group just because of their beliefs.

TJ you're a hypocrit.

TJ you're a hypocrite.

Amen to that, and I think Ton would agree.

Ok, but I doubt you would treat it with the same academic rigour as those who have already reviewed it

Had a quick read....couldn't find any reference to playing cards?

Belief in supernatural beings without any evidence is not a rational position.

Religion and teh religious cause such huge problems in our society thena they are only a to be pitied and despised for the3 harm they cause.

skim read it not many references for some reason
Are you aware of the james randi educational trust and their $1 million dollar prize- no one has proven anything under empirical conditions.7
My favourite was a woamn who said she could make you wee by the power of her mind and jesus gave her this power 😯
there is a list of challenges and correspondence for all challengers and outcomes somewhere as well

Geetee - theere is no bigotry or hypocrisy in my position.

Had a quick read....couldn't find any reference to playing cards?

Ok, but just try to focus on the evidence and see if you change your mind

Some discussion of Dr Utts [url= http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html ]here[/url].

Hardly credible science. Of course if it was a real effect it would be easy for other researchers to duplicate the results...?

it does soemwhat undermine the argument that people who believe in god / gods are feeble minded doesn't it

there is intolerance though. let people believe whatever they want so long as it don't hurt nobody, so what!. Live and let live.

I genuinely fail to understand why very bright people actually believe in god.

Keep ramming the same message/s to enough people, allow sufficent time and generations and eventually you'll get a few takers - then a critical mass will develop - then it's becomes the norm.

TJ you're making assumptions about all religious people based on the acts of a fraction of all religious people.

That's the very definition of prejudice.

Some discussion of Dr Utts here.

Hardly credible science. Of course if it was a real effect it would be easy for other researchers to duplicate the results...?

Did you read it? I t was a meta-study! The whole point was that lots of researchers have duplicated the results! The worst i saw on a skim of that site was that she was a believer in ESP. Yes, because she used a statistical approach to analysing the evidence and it left no alternative.

I'll accept intolerance - the problem is religions and belief in god causes so much pain and suffering. It is not a harmless delusion.

Geetee - no it is not and that is not what I am doing.

I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god.

she was a believer in ESP. Yes, because she used a statistical approach to analysing the evidence and it left no alternative

Sounds interesting, I'll take time to read it - sometime.

The whole point was that lots of researchers have duplicated the results

It's all research from a single site. Allegedly she was a believer in ESP before conducting the study.

Also proves they believed in stupid things so it depends...the evidence supports both views here I would say

No, they could not have achieved what they achieved if they were feeble minded. Unless of course we have different definitions of 'feeble-minded'

Religion and teh religious cause such huge problems in our society thena they are only a to be pitied and despised for the3 harm they cause.

Well which is it? It cannot be both, especially if there is "theere is no bigotry or hypocrisy in [your] position"

I have friends I care deeply about that believe in god.

Are they feeble minded as well? Do you loathe them?

It seems to me a belief in God centralizes religous thinking whereas the notion of ESP does not.

Now that's a statement I can agree with TJ. It does cause a lot of pain and suffering although so do a lot of thing and many of them are opposites like capitalism and socialism, democracy and dictatorship. The opposite of one wrong or flawed ideology is not inherently correct. Indeed in many cases it is equally as flawed usually because the doctrine is touted with the same fervour and unswerving belief that this is the one true way.

It's all research from a single site. Allegedly she was a believer in ESP before conducting the study.

You have to read it really, if you want to comment on it.

Also, she is a well respected statistics researcher. Keynote speaker at stats conferences, on tis topic amngst others. so the [i]ad hominem[/i] stuff really doesn't wash

the problem is religions and belief in god causes so much pain and suffering

but it also alleviates pain and suffering, yet you never make any mention of that

Also, she is a well respected statistics researcher.

The stats aren't the issue.

The stats aren't the issue.

No, really, they are. You have to read the paper.

Charlie - does anyone else back her? I have never seen another piece of research that shows any evidence for ESP. Was it peer reviewed?