Author Topic: Percentage of atheists in prison (Read 2284 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #90 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:05:12 AM »

Any objective evidence that god is different from the Spaghetti Monster or Easter Bunny would be welcome. That wasn't the reason I started this thread, but y'all keep poking me with a stick, so I guess I'll play.

indy007 · « **Reply #91 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:18:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
An agnostic finds neither .1 nor .9 but a null value. Neither absence nor presence of God is provable nor disprovable, THEREFORE accepting either as true or false to any degree is a leap of faith.

Depends what dictionary you look in. Look at Dictionary.com or American Heritage, and it tells you an Agnostic accepts that there is definately a God, but that it is impossible for us to know anything about it, or creation in general.

And there's a difference between accepting a provisional truth based on probability than making an unsupported leap of faith. Massive difference.

moot · « **Reply #92 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:20:07 AM »

You're trying to tag a finite form of some fancy of the human mind on an infinite notion like God. Maybe you've got the wrong definition of God?
It's not some imaginary friend, not a spaghetti monster, it can't be reduced to any of those or all of them together. It's the infinite. How do you not get it? I'm not poking at you nor intent on derailing your thread, but this has been going on almost every single time religion comes around and it sticks them in the mud because of that semantic disagreement.
Why not get to the bottom of it once and for all?

Indy, like I said, in the agnostic definition that I understand (let's call it moot's agnosticism if it's so important that it have a name dictionaries don't contradict), by principle there can be no proving or disproving God to any degree, which includes probabilities of any proportion.
Otherwise said: unless we reach an infinite rate of learning, we will never know everything, never be infinite, and thus never be in a position to posit god's existence. It will never be known. Zero probability of accurately predicting God's existence or inexistence.

indy007 · « **Reply #93 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:34:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
You're trying to tag a finite form of some fancy of the human mind on an infinite notion like God. Maybe you've got the wrong definition of God?
It's not some imaginary friend, not a spaghetti monster, it can't be reduced to any of those or all of them together. It's the infinite.

Okay. Prove it.

moot · « **Reply #94 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:39:47 AM »

Already have.. by principle we finite minds can't posit on an infinite entity or property of it (one and the same I think), it's a divide by zero. I am saying the human mind has limits (or go ahead and prove it doesn't) and that God is beyond them.
That includes all religions.. Taking the thought further to flesh out what this implies, I think it's a waste of time speculating anything about it beyond the recognition that it's beyond our reach. The reality within our reach is all that's worth our attention, at least until we've exhausted its possibilities.

indy007 · « **Reply #95 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:45:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Already have.. by principle we finite minds can't posit on an infinite entity or property of it (one and the same I think), it's a divide by zero. I am saying the human mind has limits (or go ahead and prove it doesn't) and that God is beyond them.
That includes all religions.. Taking the thought further to flesh out what this implies, I think it's a waste of time speculating anything about it beyond the recognition that it's beyond our reach. The reality within our reach is all that's worth our attention, at least until we've exhausted its possibilities.

Comes back down to tangible proof. It's your opinion that God is infinate and we can't understand anything about it. That makes you an agnostic even by the definitions I pulled up. You believe humans are inherrently stupid and can't figure things out. I disagree. In the last 2000 years alone we've made phenomenal progress. We used to be the center of the universe.

moot · « **Reply #96 on:** September 06, 2007, 10:53:51 AM »

That's like saying one day we will prove that proof disproves proof. God is not a rational idea because even if it is, man is in fact too stupid to understand it until he reaches omniscience.
By principle, no wisdom will suffice to conclude anything about God unless we reach infinity. It's not just my word for it ("my opinion"), it's principle.
2+2 doesn't equal 5. God is not a provable or disprovable notion beyond its being outside the reach of our understanding. No understanding, no prediction.
The last 2000 years of progress is chump change compared to what we could've accomplished if we'd been around since planet earth solidified. That's a drop of water in the ocean compared to the age of the observed universe. Beyond that? It's still just a finite scalar that you're comparing to an infinite.
Sure, we're "smart", but that too is just a pebble of sand on not just a big beach but an infinite one.

"Finite" can never be anything but smaller than "infinite". There's no comparing their respective scales.
I don't know how else to put it.

Tachus · « **Reply #97 on:** September 06, 2007, 12:16:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Already have.. by principle we finite minds can't posit on an infinite entity or property of it (one and the same I think), it's a divide by zero. I am saying the human mind has limits (or go ahead and prove it doesn't) and that God is beyond them.
That includes all religions.. Taking the thought further to flesh out what this implies, I think it's a waste of time speculating anything about it beyond the recognition that it's beyond our reach. The reality within our reach is all that's worth our attention, at least until we've exhausted its possibilities.

Actually you state a premise that is faulty. You state that if there was an infinite god, then our finite minds would not be able to comprehend, said god. However, this premise requires a couple of assumptions that may or may not be true.

First you assume an infinite god would be beyond our comprehension, maybe, and maybe not. Defining something as infinite does not automatically place it beyond the comprehension of a finite mind. Many believe the universe to be infinite, but it's real and we comprehend its existence. In fact, if a person denies some sort of creator, then they must accept that matter and space are eternal and infinite.

Second, you assume it is beyond the ability or desire for an infinite god, to reveal himself in a way that can be comprehended by our finite minds. If we assume god is infinite, is it unreasonable to also assume that god is omnipotent as well? If so, then it must be within that god's power to reveal himself. So in this regard, you deny an infinite god the ability to be infinite. If one is infinite and without bounds or limits, then we cannot restrict the limit or else they are not infinite.

The point is, if your premise is true, your argument would be true. However, I don't believe your premise is reasonable (meaning, not supported by other reasonable premises) , thus your conclusion is based on a faulty premise.

Best regards,
--Tachus

moot · « **Reply #98 on:** September 06, 2007, 12:51:25 PM »

Well, you can just go check with anyone that teaches philosophy 101. It's part of the basics in that sort of class.
I'd like you to show any clues that an infinite god is within our comprehension right now, as we are, not as we could or should be. Concrete evidence or a proof of principle that it's a possibility.

Calling it a "creator" is already beyond what you can predict with any certainty (speculation).

Quote

Many believe the universe to be infinite, but it's real and we comprehend its existence.

Something that may or may not be infinite, that we don't know nearly enough to be able to make reliable predictions about, is a benchmark for how predictible and understandable "infinite things" are?
Whether god reveals himself to you or you're just fancying it is beyond your ability to ascertain. Or go ahead and prove it isn't. Like you said, he may or may not reveal himself, and I never said I thought he did or did not; I'm not deying an infinite god anything "in that regard".

It's sort of like a singularity. You can probe the topology next to it, but nothing beyond. There can be nothing said about something such as God with certainty.

lazs2 · « **Reply #99 on:** September 06, 2007, 02:24:38 PM »

well... moot is doing a good job of ripping indies faulty logic a new one sooo...

I will concentrate on my disapointment with chairs dishonesty.

Every single thread we have you ask me about the easter bunny and.... you claim that I have never answered you. yet... every single time I do answer you and I say... in brief.. that I am agnostic on the possibility of some bunny or something resembling a bunny hiding eggs at some time somewhere.

a better question would be... are you an atheist on bunnies that might hide chicken eggs? Do you think it is impossible for an bunny to hide chicken eggs some time in the past or present?

I admit... I have no idea.. I am agnostic on the whole thing. I will also say that I don't give a crap. If someone believes it then it is very easy for me to just say.... "Hmmmmm....interesting"

I certainly won't start dozens of threads on how bunny hiding egg believers are destroying the planet and that egg hiding bunny believers have a higher incidence of convicts in the prison system than those who disavow any such possibility.

simply put... for someone to get all upset about the habits of rabbits or ghosts or bigfoot or god or the big bang theory... that is to admit an agenda.

lazs

indy007 · « **Reply #100 on:** September 06, 2007, 02:37:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
well... moot is doing a good job of ripping indies faulty logic a new one sooo...

Occam's Razor. He makes an automatic assumption about the existence of an omnipotent being. An unprovable assumption is the basis for his entire arguement. Therefore, his theory is inherrently flawed.

That's without even dipping into the rubbish the religious books pass off as their version omnipotent being.

Stick to your feelings Lazs. I'll stick to reason.

Chairboy · « **Reply #101 on:** September 06, 2007, 02:39:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Every single thread we have you ask me about the easter bunny and.... you claim that I have never answered you. yet... every single time I do answer you and I say... in brief.. that I am agnostic on the possibility of some bunny or something resembling a bunny hiding eggs at some time somewhere.

I made no such claim in this thread, I merely inquired as to the name of the faith you describe above. You feel that my beliefs in this matter must be labeled as a faith, I ask for the indulgence of a reciprocation.

lazs2 · « **Reply #102 on:** September 06, 2007, 02:43:29 PM »

reason is fine until it comes to something that one can have no knowledge of.

At that point you need to take either a scientific or a faith based position.

The scientific would be.... agnostic. you can neither prove nor disprove...

the faith based would be the polars of this... one... you believe based on faith or, the other pole.. that you do not believe based on... yep...faith.

interest in the matter also plays a part since... most likely... the agnostic is the most objective and disinterested of the three... the believer and the atheist both are faith based and thus have strong feelings...agenda if you will... on the subject.

Why declare yourself an atheist for instance? what scientific method would not scoff at such a thing as being illogical? Just as they would scoff at the illogical belief of the theist.

lazs

Tachus · « **Reply #103 on:** September 06, 2007, 03:34:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moot
Well, you can just go check with anyone that teaches philosophy 101. It's part of the basics in that sort of class.
I'd like you to show any clues that an infinite god is within our comprehension right now, as we are, not as we could or should be. Concrete evidence or a proof of principle that it's a possibility.

Calling it a "creator" is already beyond what you can predict with any certainty (speculation).

Something that may or may not be infinite, that we don't know nearly enough to be able to make reliable predictions about, is a benchmark for how predictible and understandable "infinite things" are?
Whether god reveals himself to you or you're just fancying it is beyond your ability to ascertain. Or go ahead and prove it isn't. Like you said, he may or may not reveal himself, and I never said I thought he did or did not; I'm not deying an infinite god anything "in that regard".

It's sort of like a singularity. You can probe the topology next to it, but nothing beyond. There can be nothing said about something such as God with certainty.

Actually I'm a philosophy major. So I can certainty address some of the things that are taught. Here are some.

Ad Ignrantiam (Appeal to Ignorance): Stating something has not been demonstrated to be false, thus the claim is true.

Because I cannot disprove your point does not mean it's true. The burden of proof lies on you, not me. Thus if you wish to support your premise that a infinite god is beyond comprehension, you must provide the evidence. Otherwise, Ad Ignorantiam. (BTW, this works both ways, a person cannot say, you can't disprove God, so He is.)

Begging the Question: When some reason is offered in support of a conclusion, that is not really different from the conclusion itself.

We can't know god, because if there is a god he is infinite, and because he's infinite we cannot know him.

Law of non contradiction. Nothing can posses both a property and it's negation. (No round squares or crossing parallel lines)

Thus a god that is infinite (if you include omniscience and omnipotent, to omnipresent, when defining infinite) that cannot be known by a finite mind cannot exist. (For if it wanted to be known, it could be known) For the very nature of that god, would give it the ability to do whatever it wanted. Thus you cannot attribute a property and it's negation. The issue is not with our minds being finite, there is no change required on our part, if any change is required, it is required on the part of the infinite.

Your finally statement is self refuting. For example, the statement, "There is no objective truth" is self refuting. If there is no objective truth, the statement, "There is no objective truth" cannot be true.

Stating, "There can be nothing said about something such as God with certainty." Cannot be said about God, if the statement is true; because you cannot state with certainty, that nothing can be said about God, if nothing about God can be said with certainty.

I could post a few more examples, but I'm a little pressed for time right now.

If you have some sources to support your premise, (a finite mind cannot know an infinite god) I would be happy to check them out. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I haven't seen them.

Best regards,
--Tachus

Chairboy · « **Reply #104 on:** September 06, 2007, 03:35:29 PM »

To be blunt (and I'm sure we'll see versions of this recycled against me in future conversations) I'm betting that plenty of Christians see an agnostic as "a fellow Christian who just doesn't know it yet".

That's just not me.

I'm as "agnostic" about the Christian god as you are about a justifiable seatbelt law or a good tasting light beer. It's just not an accurate term.