The IPU is equivalent to ‘God’ in that there is zero objective evidence for either beings existence - and it serves to illustrate the special pleading that people that believe in God exercise in defense of said belief.
If you are agnostic as to the existence of the IPU and God, then atleast you are being consistent in that.
Its not about being ‘unsure’ - even the average atheist agrees that there are things we don’t know or haven’t learned yet - but that until such evidence arrives, there is no reason to believe in a ‘god’ (or IPU, or Santa Clause, etc).
Agnostics are saying they believe but that the existence of said thing is unknown and unknowable - they are sure - they just can’t prove it.
I guess it depends on which side of that you are on - there are agnostic deists and agnostic atheists - I may have misread and assumed you were an agnostic deist.
(you outright refuse the IPU, but still leave room for ‘God’)
[QUOTE=Agnosticism - Wikipedia]
Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown
[/QUOTE]
see other response - I was speaking to him as the assumption he was an Agnostic Deist - and I should have clarified that a bit.
[QUOTE=same wiki article]
According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively; but that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist
[/QUOTE]
Therefore I don’t think, YoungKusher, that you have been arguing as an agnostic.
A true agnostic cannot hold any belief nor argue for any form of God, however diluted.
God hates fags…unknowable…cannot hold that position.
God is omnipotent…unknowable…cannot hold that position.
God has a backside…unknowable…cannot hold that position.
God created the universe, then set evolution in motion…unknowable…cannot hold that position.
God is ’ the universe’…unknowable…cannot hold that position.
Etc…Etc…Etc
[QUOTE=Agnostic theism - Wikipedia]
Agnostic theism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of at least one deity, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable.[1] The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god(s) they believe in.
[/QUOTE]
Not quite sure what is so hard to understand about this…
Forgive me if others have addressed your points, I’m only now catching up with this thread again.
Indeed. I know the placebo effect is a very real thing. And I can’t say I was speaking about “unhealthy” in merely the physical sense, but in how it affects your philosophy/world view on the decisions you make. In that regard it’s unhealthy. But could also be unhealthy in your literal sense if you have an illness you fully expect God to heal you from without seeking modern medicine.
And maybe it is an ancient deity that decided to reveal itself through the internet instead of through a burning bush. Besides the ages of the two concepts and the number of believers in each, can you point out where one concept is any more internally logical than the other?
If we are talking about the existence of god - any god - we need to understand where the understanding of god comes from. If we start with a blank slate, we need to ask how do we know anything about god? Traditional religions include something about God speaking to someone - whether a patriarch or a prophet. Or, we can try to learn something about God from first principles - the common ontological arguments, etc. We can evaluate the evidence for god appearing in the first case, and the logical arguments in the second. The third approach is to posit the existence of some god to meet some lack in us - for instance the need for a purpose in life, meaning, etc. We don’t need evidence for that kind of God to meet these needs - it might help, since each believer can get what they need out of it. But it says nothing about the existence of God. Whether God exists or not is totally irrelevant to the benefits derived from belief.
Logical arguments for god usually don’t say much about what God wants. Revelation does - but the change in belief you mention is evidence against the existence of an unchanging and perfect god, since god should have gotten it right the first time.
Please don’t take my examples as part of the proof. I’m definitely assuming a bi-omni god as timeless and all-encompassing. But while God is timeless he also interacts within time. If your God is not bi-omni then of course my argument is invalid. Could you be more specific about the problems with the argument?
The problem with this is that many people make the jump from some God existing to their specific type of God existing. If everyone was perfectly rational some subset of people would not believe in any god, and some other subset would believe in a spiritual god who is not concerned with our sex lives. And all would be fine. In such a world atheists would not be arguing.
Well, there might be some arguing, but it would be on the level of favorite ice cream flavors. As it stands, I wouldn’t care about religious tradition except to the extent that it decreases the freedom of others.
I believe you’ve been arguing all along that it was not known? Regardless, I think it is safe to say the laws of physic and thermodynamics haven’t gone cuckoo, and that there are natural explanations as opposed to supernatural ones of what is occurring and there is no mysterious force reeking havoc upon our cold and hot water.
I’m not convinced of any extraordinary phenomena actually going on and that the whole Mpemba Effect isn’t just myth. In the brief time I have started looking at all of this again, people are having a difficult time replicating experiments in which hot water actually freezes faster than cold water. For everyone making this claim that it does, I see many problems with what they are presenting including your link which would also need to be peer reviewed. It doesn’t offer any experiments either, only stating some may have an explanation in the form of molecules which may explain the Mpemba effect. Let’s first establish if it even exists.
“Greatly diminished” of which I gathered probably meant the effect was so small once they contained the evaporation, what minute temperature changes that may still be noted could be explained by other natural means as well. Jearl noted a 9% difference in volume of water from the boiling water and the water at 160 degrees, so this best explains the few minutes of difference in freezing, which is what they would expect to find.
If you want to have the last word on this here, I’m fine with it and have no problem with it. If you want a further discussion on it, we will need to get another thread started on just this to prevent getting any hijack warnings to take the discussion elsewhere.
I never got the sense that you were impugning her, so there was no problem with me on that. And I completely agree with the rest of the above quote. In fact, using the example of my friend’s wife was to make that very point.
If a kid feels confusion and guilt, it’s likely that he is more susceptible to it and would have the same reaction to other forms of authority. Of course, the chance of that increases exponentially if he’s bombarded with hellfire and brimstone. I’ve seen a video of a kind of bible boot camp where kids were being pounded with the idea that they’re filthy, dirty sinners. Half of them were crying. Now that’s abuse. I think a lot of negative reaction to religion is based on that extreme, which doesn’t compare in any way to mildly preaching peace and love.
Personally, my brief exposure to religion had no ill effects at all. I had to attend church and Sunday school for a couple of years as a kid, and I never felt guilty or confused, but then it was never presented to me in a way that would make me feel that. I remember basically decent people who had no lasting impact on me. My one and only memory from Sunday school was being inspired by the story of Daniel in the lions den, and then totally deflated by the teacher’s interpretation of it. A year or two later I decided for myself that there was no God anyway and the bible was irrelevant, so being exposed to religion as a kid certainly didn’t prevent me from judging it on my own terms.
