God’s connected. He’d shoot you an e-mail.
Yeah, he got really hammered.
First, if the default hypothesis that god does not exist is incorrect, what should it be. As John mentioned, there are many gods. Is it reasonable to say that Zeus may exist, and Jehovah may exist, and that Krishna may exist etc., etc.? The null hypothesis is not that we don’t know for sure, it is that the hypothesis being tested is incorrect, and that we have confidence that it is correct only by getting evidence that the null hypothesis is wrong. Even then, there is a probability assigned that the positive results are due to chance only.
Doing lots of experiments with negative results still doesn’t prove the null hypothesis about anything, but it certainly gives you evidence that it is correct - enough in fact for a provisional belief. If there is a drug that you really want to see work, but many clinical trials find no effect above that of a placebo, does it make sense to have faith in the drug or to believe that the null hypothesis of the drug not having an effect is correct?
This religion needs proselytizing.
God ordered the Code Red on Jesus ?!
Ain’t that the truth! 
This thread reminds me of this timely article about how human beings crave certainty.
Text message, maybe.
wch 4 crz kthx
ilu
l8r, G
Of course there is. Such as the fact that the believers don’t agree about anything. Scientists all over the world eventually converge on the same answer to a question, because they are studying something that is real; believers don’t, because they are not. And then there’s the fact that the same faction of people who claim there are a god or gods have historically been almost relentlessly wrong about claims they made that could be checked; that terrible track record is also evidence against God. And then there’s the fact that the universe and life both look natural, not designed.
You are, as those who defend religion almost always do insisting on using a special standard for religion that is seldom used on anything else. It is, in fact used only used to defend baseless beliefs.
g2g, S8an up 2 no gud
This is nothing more than sophistry, the kind of pseudo-intellectual “conclusions” about things that amateur philosophers come up with and then enshrine as some sort of deep thought without ever realizing they are just being an idiot.
I can think of something that you can’t see, touch, or feel, and that makes no difference if it exists or not, and can’t be proven to exist or not, that is still pretty important.
Morality.
It’s obviously important. You can’t prove or disprove it. It doesn’t matter if there is some natural morality inherent in the universe or if it’s inherent in a society or whatever unless people subscribe to it.
Of course, you’ll claim that religion is different. But it affects people’s behaviors, and their religion is based on the principle that there is a god and that it does matter.
And you know what else? There’s this little thing called the scientific method that I am sure you pull out at every opportunity to browbeat the stupid god nuts, as you assert your certainty that there is nothing to their beliefs. I guess since I can’t touch the scientific method, or prove it exists, so let’s toss that out too (and before you pound that quote button to post a frothy sophmoric sputtering comeback, you better read up on the philosophy of science, because there is still a lot of debate going on about how valid it is, and what it does).
But hey, now that reality has lost all meaning, I’m off to the jellybean palace in the clouds with my buddy Cthulu Jesus so we can go fishing for cakes.
P.S.: I am agnostic, but you pompous athiest jackasses seem a little overinvested in proving how rational and correct you are. Those chips must get awful heavy, but then again, I’m not religious like you are.
You changed something there. It makes a **huge **difference if morality exists or not, which is **completely **distinct from saying it doesn’t matter if morality is inherent or socially created.
No. Assume arguendo there is an objective morality in the universe. Actions are good or bad based on this natural law.
If no one acts as if this natural law were real, this objective morality is meaningless. Morality only has the meaning a society assigns to it. The actual existence or not of morality is almost a completely distinct question from if it is important or not.
Do you need a diagram, here? 'Cause I left my colored pencils at home.
Go read back up the chain. The post that prompted the sentence you objected to said: “But there’s a difference between ‘There might be a god who doesn’t do anything of significance and is therefore irrelevant’ and ‘There is no god, you yokels!’”
What’s **actually **being discussed is a situation where the existence or the nonexistence of the thing results in two identical situations: it is not **important **if all the objects in my apartment have been replaced with identical objects, because everything will continue to function in exactly the same way.
Morality is not something “that makes no difference if it exists or not,” because you’re using a completely different meaning of “exists or not” from what the original poster intended or implied. For morality to fit as a counter example, the world would have to function the same if people adhered to a moral code as it would if they did not.
Did someone say “pseudo-intellectual”?
Dude, I have a fucking awesome scrying glass.
I disagree.
I think if God were to reveal itself to everyone in the world tomorrow, there would still be a good sized number of people who were atheists and passed what they saw off as nothing but wide-spread, momentary insanity or hallucinations.
Some people are going to be dead set in their thoughts no matter what happens. This is why I don’t think the existence of God can ever be proved…no matter what someone shows as proof, there will be naysayers. Even if, by your example, God himself came down and showed himself to everyone and said, in a booming voice “I exist!” that some will find a way to discount it and not believe what they just saw/heard.
Yeah, it’d take more than a booming voice to convince me that’s for sure. It’s just so ridiculously improbable, I doubt I’d settle for less than a personal miracle.
I’m definitely an atheist, albeit more along the lines of “see no evidence for this claim so assume it is false” than “I know with 100% certainty”. This topic has come up before, and here’s what I posted:
If God appeared tomorrow and provided incontrovertible proof that he existed then I believe atheists would say that their previous course was indeed rational.
They’d be correct.
Morality clearly exists. It is a set of beliefs that guide action. We can determine both what people think their moral code is by asking them as well as see how their morality affects their actions. Scientists are also looking at whether animal have some sort of innate “morality” that guides their behavior. Religion exists and religious beliefs exist. We can see their effect: people go to church, they pray, and they modify their behavior based on their beliefs.
Now imagine I said to you that people have a thing called xytgy, but I can not describe it, and I don’t know how it affects their behavior, or their appearance, or anything else. Is the burden on you to show that xytgy does not exist? Are you an agxtgyist?
And for the record, I think agnosticism is the dumbest of all positions on God.
I believe in the tooth fairy. When I was a kid and lost a tooth, I put it under my pillow. Next day it was gone and money was there. That is absolute proof. I don’t have as good a proof for god.