But seriously . . . atheism?

[eques]

You believe in luck? How absurd. That's like believing in God.

"Luck" is merely shorthand for "probability taken personally." 

[dalebert]

If you don't know what kind of materials are used to build roofs, how do you know that watermelons are not?

Because I've taken a high school science course. I'm not an astronomer and I don't know the exact composition of moon dust, but I know the moon isn't made of cheese. I'm not an architect, but from common knowledge obtained in modern society, I know a few basic concepts about construction, enough to know that the story about the witch who builds a house of candy to attract kids so she can cook them is just a fictional story that's not actually realistic, though it makes for a cute kid's story. You haven't actually rebutted the point made with that statement. If anything, you've helped him make his point.

[MaineShark]

Oh, come on, Joe.  There are "absurdities," and then there are absurdities.  You're talking about qualitatively different spheres of effect here.  Point being, owning a gun may save my life if I know how to use it, and also if I'm a little lucky.  Can one truly make any definitive claim about belief in God instead of a bunch of amorphous, hand-wavy assertions?  (I am biased here, of course, because my belief in God nearly cost me my life.)

To a hoplophobe, the notion that ?keeping and bearing arms? can save lives is no less ?absurd? than the notion that prayer might cause some good is to you.

Furthermore, I don't know if you're implying that I am intellectually dishonest.  The greater share of intellectual dishonesty has been on the part of the researchers by far.

As I said, I was not supporting that study, but pointing out that you can?t dismiss things, just because you find the notion ?absurd.?  If the study was done with proper controls and the like, intellectual honesty would demand that you accept the results, or demonstrate why they are flawed.  ?Absurdity? has nothing to do with it.

In any case, a truly well-constructed study isn't likely to happen for humans considering that some methods which could truly help to balance the results might not be considered ethical (e.g., praying for a negative result, or praying in lieu of medical treatment, for example).

I'm sure this has been suggested before, somewhere, but perhaps they ought to conduct studies wherein people pray for lab rats.  That would certainly reduce one of the criticisms of most of these studies, wherein there's really very little control over whether the non-intervention group has members that are being prayed for.

But, despite all of the energy I've put into this so far, I've got no desire to conduct such a fundamentally useless study.

If someone conducted that study, and it proved that prayer was helpful, would you accept the results, or just dismiss them because you dislike the conclusion?  If the answer is that you would dismiss it, then yes, you are being intellectually dishonest.

Of course, I?ll note that this study or the one you propose can?t prove the existence of ?God? or any deity.  It can only prove the efficacy of prayer, which might work through some other method (eg, ?positive energy? or somesuch) that has nothing to do with the divine.

If you don't know what kind of materials are used to build roofs, how do you know that watermelons are not?

Because I've taken a high school science course. I'm not an astronomer and I don't know the exact composition of moon dust, but I know the moon isn't made of cheese. I'm not an architect, but from common knowledge obtained in modern society, I know a few basic concepts about construction, enough to know that the story about the witch who builds a house of candy to attract kids so she can cook them is just a fictional story that's not actually realistic, though it makes for a cute kid's story.

So you know something about construction?  Well then you?re not in the same position that Braddog hypothetically described for himself, are you?

You haven't actually rebutted the point made with that statement. If anything, you've helped him make his point.

What point was made?

Joe

[dalebert]

So you know something about construction?  Well then you?re not in the same position that Braddog hypothetically described for himself, are you?

I don't much more than the average person about construction. That was my point. So yes, I'm in the same position.

What point was made?

There are little links at the bottom of the page that let you see previous pages in the thread.

[MaineShark]

So you know something about construction?  Well then you?re not in the same position that Braddog hypothetically described for himself, are you?

I don't much more than the average person about construction. That was my point. So yes, I'm in the same position.

So, like the average person, you know that shingles are used to cover roofs, not watermelon slices, right?

What point was made?

There are little links at the bottom of the page that let you see previous pages in the thread.

Wow!  Really?

Why don't you try actually posting what point you think was made...?

Joe

[dalebert]

In post 272 of this thread, Caleb said

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

In posts 275 and 276, Braddogg and I made a case against that line of thinking. So, in summary, the point was that line of thinking is flawed. You're certainly welcome to continue the discussion, but you've been following the thread. Presumably, you disagree, but you know what the point was. Just say that you disagree and state why. It's tedious when you ask me to repeat myself when everything we've said has been recorded.

[MaineShark]

In post 272 of this thread, Caleb said

There is a certain line of thinking that says that whenever there is an unexplained phenomenon and someone presents an explanation, those who doubt the explanation ought to at least considerthe possibility and temper their criticism until such time as they are able to present an alternative explanation.

In posts 275 and 276, Braddogg and I made a case against that line of thinking. So, in summary, the point was that line of thinking is flawed. You're certainly welcome to continue the discussion, but you've been following the thread. Presumably, you disagree, but you know what the point was. Just say that you disagree and state why. It's tedious when you ask me to repeat myself when everything we've said has been recorded.

Oddly enough, there have been several points discussed in the interim...

Joe

[Braddogg]

That doesn't relate to Caleb's question or my amendment, as a comparison.

Logic is logic, and a statement can be logical even if it is untrue, simply by the GIGO principle.  You don't have to agree with a logical statement, but don't call it illogical.

I agree, logic is logic, and a statement can be logical without being true.  I think I addressed the illogic of a God in our universe yet creating our universe (whether you agree or not is fine for this point).  And logic is only considered a valid way of approaching things because it reflects how things are in this universe (the idea of non-contradiction, for example, is derived because something in this universe cannot be both a red apple and a green moth).  If God exists outside of this universe, and we do not know the properties of this outside-of-the-universe dimension, then we cannot apply logic to it, because we don't know if the law of non-contradiction (for example) exists in that dimension.  That is what I called "alogical" -- not necessarily logical, not necessarily illogical.  Does that make sense?

I still think it's okay to criticize without a solution.  I don't know what kinds of material is used to build a roof.  But if I see my neighbor nailing slices of watermelon to his roof, I think I'd be justified in saying, "Look, I don't know what kind of material you need to do this whole roof-building-thing, but you may want to reconsider your use of watermelons."  I think that conforms with neighborly niceness (and +1 to you for stressing that it's not a question of binding morals, but of politeness!).

If you don't know what kind of materials are used to build roofs, how do you know that watermelons are not?

Joe

I know some of the characteristics of roofing materials, either because I've seen roofs or I understand what roofs are supposed to do -- they don't rot in the sun, for example, because either (a) I've seen roofs and they don't smell bad, or (b) rotting fruit for a roof would not fit the purpose of a roof.

[dalebert]

Oddly enough, there have been several points discussed in the interim...

Fair enough. Sorry for letting my irritation progress to rudeness.

[MaineShark]

I agree, logic is logic, and a statement can be logical without being true.  I think I addressed the illogic of a God in our universe yet creating our universe (whether you agree or not is fine for this point).  And logic is only considered a valid way of approaching things because it reflects how things are in this universe (the idea of non-contradiction, for example, is derived because something in this universe cannot be both a red apple and a green moth).  If God exists outside of this universe, and we do not know the properties of this outside-of-the-universe dimension, then we cannot apply logic to it, because we don't know if the law of non-contradiction (for example) exists in that dimension.  That is what I called "alogical" -- not necessarily logical, not necessarily illogical.  Does that make sense?

I wouldn't be so quick to postulate that logic is a "natural law" of this universe...

In any case, that's an issue with creationistic belief systems, and doesn't apply to all notions of deity/deities.

I know some of the characteristics of roofing materials, either because I've seen roofs or I understand what roofs are supposed to do -- they don't rot in the sun, for example, because either (a) I've seen roofs and they don't smell bad, or (b) rotting fruit for a roof would not fit the purpose of a roof.

So you do know something about roofint materials, don't you?

You might be able to suggest that the roofer use something that doesn't rot in the sun, couldn't you?  Ergo, if you wanted to, you could approach that situation in the manner that Caleb and I described.

Joe

[PinoX7]

God is a Gamble.
Theres people all around the world that dont regularly worship. However, they dont give up belief in their gods altogether.
They still batise, have bar mitzvahs, and religious funerals, and even pray in the time of need. most people belive it is best to maintain at least minimal commitment to god, just in case. It is almost like life, or car insurance, but it doest cost much in time and effort but it might just save your soul.

[Braddogg]

I agree, logic is logic, and a statement can be logical without being true.  I think I addressed the illogic of a God in our universe yet creating our universe (whether you agree or not is fine for this point).  And logic is only considered a valid way of approaching things because it reflects how things are in this universe (the idea of non-contradiction, for example, is derived because something in this universe cannot be both a red apple and a green moth).  If God exists outside of this universe, and we do not know the properties of this outside-of-the-universe dimension, then we cannot apply logic to it, because we don't know if the law of non-contradiction (for example) exists in that dimension.  That is what I called "alogical" -- not necessarily logical, not necessarily illogical.  Does that make sense?

I wouldn't be so quick to postulate that logic is a "natural law" of this universe...

Who said a "natural law"?  I said that logic was derived from observations on reality.  It's not a natural law, but it is a set of standards we have derived from reality.  I honestly don't understand what your objection is, perhaps you could clarify it?

In any case, that's an issue with creationistic belief systems, and doesn't apply to all notions of deity/deities.

It's a problem with any belief system that is theistic (a personal God).  It's a problem for non-theistic belief systems that postulate a supernatural act of creation (Deism).  I cannot think of a faith-based belief system that does not fall under that.  But I may be missing something; can you find one?

[Braddogg]

God is a Gamble.
Theres people all around the world that dont regularly worship. However, they dont give up belief in their gods altogether.
They still batise, have bar mitzvahs, and religious funerals, and even pray in the time of need. most people belive it is best to maintain at least minimal commitment to god, just in case. It is almost like life, or car insurance, but it doest cost much in time and effort but it might just save your soul.

God is a gamble, but the stakes are a lot higher than you make it out to be.  I'm most familiar with the Christian tradition, which requires extreme sacrifice to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Religious bigotry is the worse kind of death.  Faith cannot save your soul.  Fantasy cannot save your soul.  Living in fantasy will KILL YOU, the you that matters, anyway.  There's a famous line in Dune that starts "Fear is the mind-killer.  Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration."  In reality, FAITH is the great mind-killer that brings total obliteration.

To use your insurance metaphor, faith is like taking out a car insurance policy where your monthly payment is the head of someone you love.  And you don't even get to drive the car.

[Raineyrocks]

There's a famous line in Dune that starts "Fear is the mind-killer.

I love that movie!

[MaineShark]

Who said a "natural law"?  I said that logic was derived from observations on reality.  It's not a natural law, but it is a set of standards we have derived from reality.  I honestly don't understand what your objection is, perhaps you could clarify it?

If the rules of logic are specific to this universe than they would be comparable to natural laws, which might not apply in other universes.

On the other hand, the rules of logic might transcend the universe, and even extra-universal entites capable of creating this universe would be bound by them.

In any case, that's an issue with creationistic belief systems, and doesn't apply to all notions of deity/deities.

It's a problem with any belief system that is theistic (a personal God).  It's a problem for non-theistic belief systems that postulate a supernatural act of creation (Deism).  I cannot think of a faith-based belief system that does not fall under that.  But I may be missing something; can you find one?

Some systems don't postulate creation of the universe.  They view the universe as a "framework" that has always existed, and only discuss creation of the planets and such.

Even the Genesis story could be interpreted as stating that God created everything within the universe, but not the universe itself, depending on how one wishes to read certain things that were written using grossly non-scientific language millennia ago.

And one could postulate that whatever deity exists as a function of the universe, not something external to it.  Sort of a "unifying force" that caused order to establish itself within the universe, following the big bang, without being responsible for the initiationg of the universe, itself.  Or one could go further and tag all sorts of properties on that deity, still without blaming creation of the universe on it, and not have any such issues.

Joe