Sharpe:
Magnets work based on the scientific principle of magnetism, which has produced testable hypotheses, and repeated experiments have supported the principle of magnetism over centuries of testing. Therefore, magnetism meets its burden of proof, there no substantial evidence refuting, and you should conclude that magnetism is a legitimate principle of physical law.
So, unless you are willing to throw out the basic principles of science, and the amazing technological results that science has achieved, then your comparison is invalid.
Show me a huge quantity of testable, repeatable evidence of the existence of God that can overcome the refuting theories, and I will say belief in God is equivalent to belief in magnetism.
Yeah, both are things you can’t see with your naked eye. But that’s why we have science: to figure out things beyond our direct observation.
Sharpe, you’re no rock 'n roll fun, like a party that’s over before it’s begun.
Sharpe
April 14, 2010, 1:41pm
42
I’m just going to go with plain old 6, even though I’m sympathetic to the people who want to add some extra decimal beyond that. The phrase “I cannot know for certain” is acceptable to me, because I don’t want to get into any philosophical debates that would only spiral inexorably into solipsistic nonsense. And IMHO, “very improbable” can mean just about whatever degree of unlikeliness floats your boat.
It’s not the word “improbable” in the definition of 6 that bothers me, it’s the word “assumption”. I actually believe “logical conclusion” is a better word for me, so I go with the 6+decimal.
Sharpe:
Rainbows after it rains: explained by the science of optics and atmospherics, well established after centuries of experimentation. Thus: well explained, and reasonable to believe.
Ghosts: no credible evidence in favor of, plenty of theories providing alternate explanations for claims of ghost sightings (hallucination, wish fulfillment and on and on). Thus: not reasonable to believe in.
UFOs: again, no credible evidence in favor of, plenty of theories providing alternate explanations of claimed sightings (atmospheric reflection, military jets, ball lightning). Thus: not reasonable to believe in.
Keep in mind I’m not stating anything here with 100% certainty. But there are things it makes sense to believe in, and things that do not support reasonable belief. Just because something cannot be “proven 100%” does not make it false.
Ya’ll motherfuckers lyin’ and gettin’ me pissed.
Kirian
April 14, 2010, 1:44pm
45
Sharpe:
Extarbags, why am I pissing you off? I’m just using basic logic and the principles of science.
Also, I do not mean to challenge anyone’s personal beliefs. Religious belief is just that: it is religious in nature, not based on science or logic. You can believe what you like, as long as your public behavior is based on reality, and as long as you don’t impose your beliefs on others. If you personally hold beliefs that I personally find illogical and unsupported, it is your Constitutional right to do so, so long as you do not use the power of the state to impose it on anyone else.
I’m going to make the dangerous assumption you aren’t messing around and say:
Miracles by Insane Clown Posse:
…I’ve seen miracles all around me, stop and look around its all astounding, water, fire air and dirt, fucking magnets, how do they work? I don’t want to talk to a scientist, ya’ll MF lying and getting me pissed…
Great, now I’ve got Insane Clown Posse in my search history.
Cadence Weapon is a scientist:
…Spitting west while standing south, all in all, success for you is not at all probable
BETTER.
Well, I don’t want to talk to a scientist.
Sharpe
April 14, 2010, 1:50pm
47
Alright, so I’m not up on my Insane Clown Posse knowledge, and do not recognize a lyrics joke when I see one.
Kirian
April 14, 2010, 1:54pm
49
Neither am I. It’s just been bumping around the forum since someone found the video. No harm in not knowing it.
I do want to know what circumstances lead to the finding of that video. I mean, Insane Clown Posse. I am confusion.
Eh, at that point it’s just hashing out semantics. Which I know you probably love to do, being a lawyer and all, but 6 pretty much hits the important points for me: can’t know for certain, but all known data points to “no,” and that is the metric by which I live my life.
Guess I’m a 2. I believe in some form of higher power, but as to what their name or intention is, I have no idea.
That doesn’t sound anything like a six on that scale.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
2 and 6 are the only legitimate options.
You obviously missed Bob’s “agnostics are just atheists with commitment issues” assertion in an earlier thread.
Or maybe you didn’t, because regardless of context it does not, in fact, make any sense.
How is that hard to figure out? The poll says nothing about organized religion - it’s about belief in God. You believe there’s a God, so you’re a 1, 2 or 3 depending on how sure you are that God exists.
bago
April 14, 2010, 2:46pm
60
Fine. I’ll give it another go.
Sharpe:
I am what I am.
Tautological?
