The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Why is though, preachers will ramble on about shit that sometimes doesn't even make sense or sometimes just screw up a good message because they couldn't convey it properly.

Woa, hey, somebody needs to go beat-up the dictionary people. They confuse atheist with some pretty ugly other words like apostate and other nasties. I guess I can't use the word atheist anymore until the definition becomes more fitting. I don't see why being an atheist also means you are immoral and not a good person. That's an insulting thing to say to someone. Some of the greatest human beings of history were atheists (as in non-believers in the existence of a god).

TO Erv and all other agnostic friends

Man is innocent until proven otherwise guilty.

Things don't exist until they are found to be existent.

God doesn't exist until somebody gets empirical proof that it exists !
(although i doubt the later will ever happen but let's give the benefit of doubt )

and as everybody knows , there has been no evidence for the favor of god.

that's why Atheism is the Way..


Cheers

Originally Posted by entz TO Erv and all other agnostic friends Man is innocent until proven otherwise guilty. Things don't exist until they are found to be existent.

This is an oversimplification - you just mix up "no" and "unknown" and use them both as "no" - to save you from a lot of extra thinking. You should understand that "man is innocent until proven otherwise guilty" is used because law system is meant to punish people for crimes, it isn't to also find all innocents, so it doesn't have to handle "unknown" and "not guilty" state (for example, totalitarian law would mix "unknown" with "guilty", so "every man is guilty until proven otherwise". Which is simply another simplified version of 3-state logic). That's why it handles only "guilty" part of three possible states. Scientists use "things don't exist until they are found to be existent", because they need to be sure about every part of their theories, and not deal with uncertainity, which will make their life much more complex. That's why here is Occam's razor, which says that "unknown" == "doesn't exist". However, eventually something that was "unknown" and was considered "non-existent" proves to be "existent" and scientists will have to change their ideas accordingly.

You should understand though, that this "yes/no" logic is a simplification of logic to make certain situation easier. It is not "right" logic. It is oversimplified version of it - you simply decide that "unknown" equals to the state you like more. ,

Originally Posted by entz that's why Atheism is the Way..

You haven't convinced me.

--EDIT--
it looks like jiml8 wrote much better/compact version of what I meant.

God doesn't exist until somebody gets empirical proof that it exists ! (although i doubt the later will ever happen but let's give the benefit of doubt )

The existence or non-existence of anything and anyone is independent of any empirical proof of that existence. I exist even if you have never encountered evidence of that fact.

Assertions to the contrary employ faulty logic exactly like the faulty logic used to demonstrate the existence of a god. Thus once again is atheism shown to be a faith, just like any form of theism.

If any gods existed, they would have joined LQ to post in this thread to confirm their existence by now.

If any gods existed, they would have joined LQ to post in this thread to confirm their existence by now.

No way. Apple fanboys will tell you that he is too busy working on the next mac.

I thought, judging by the state the world is in, that he used M$ Windows Me.

Originally Posted by brianL If any gods existed, they would have joined LQ to post in this thread to confirm their existence by now.

HAHAHA

brianL, you've indeed made the most accurate statement in this thread concerning God (compared to those i've read)

and from here i'd like to jump back to the debate about the "3 state logic" that erv/jiml8 has been arguing about and attempting to apply to the question of god.

well , the thing is in a nutshell that the 3 state logic can't be applied here in this argument for the very simple reason:

Practicality.

what that essentially means is that , things that do not have explicit proof to account for them have the very same practical effect of those same things having actual proof against there existence.

now here you have to examine the latter statement carefully!

I'm not saying that having no evidence means having evidence against , but instead i'm saying that having no evidence has the same effect as if they have evidence against.


This is like the analogy of you thinking you've a car but don't know where it's , which means practically that you don't have any car.

because without knowing your car's location (i.e car status = unknown)
you gotta walk home as if you actually know that you don't have any car.

Do You understand what i mean ?

Is not called oversimplification but it's called practicality !

so basically , if any of you didn't reply to my post , or otherwise make yourself visible to me (by let's say changing the contents of your older posts ..etc) , i would consider you as non existent , and i would act after then as such.

and I don't think you would act differently either , would YOu ?

That's how practical reality works.


Cheers

Originally Posted by brianL If any gods existed, they would have joined LQ to post in this thread to confirm their existence by now.

Unless he/she/it doesn't care about people, their thoughts, ideas and problems.

Originally Posted by entz well , the thing is in a nutshell that the 3 state logic can't be applied here in this argument for the very simple reason: Practicality.

Negative.

Originally Posted by entz what that essentially means is that , things that do not have explicit proof to account for them have the very same practical effect of those same things having actual proof against there existence.

Negative. Depends on situation. You'll have same practical effect only if you are lucky. I.e. if you weilded "unknown" state with right condition that turned out to be true. This is gambling.

Originally Posted by entz now here you have to examine the latter statement carefully! I'm not saying that having no evidence means having evidence against , but instead i'm saying that having no evidence has the same effect as if they have evidence against.

Wrong!
Example. Your neighbours have computer. Your never seen it, though, you never saw them purchasing any computer equipment etc (maybe it is an old 60mhz computer in basement). Does computer exist? According to you logic it doesn't. In reality it still exist even if you don't know (don't have evidence) about that. You claim that they don't have computer without evidence. In reality, however, you simply don't know that for sure and make assumptions. And even from practical point of view it might affect you (assume you were trying to get old box like those they have, and went to another side of town to get it, while they could give/sell theirs without so much travel).

Originally Posted by entz This is like the analogy of you thinking you've a car but don't know where it's , which means practically that you don't have any car. because without knowing your car's location (i.e car status = unknown) you gotta walk home as if you actually know that you don't have any car. Do You understand what i mean ?

Wrong example, bad logic.
If you have car, you will drive.
If you don't have car, and want it you'll buy it.
If you had car don't know where your car is, you'll search for it. You don't buy new car if you forgot where you parked your current one, right? You search for your current one do discover if you still have a car, or don't have it any longer.

Consider another scenario. You are rich, and you have car, but you were hit in the head and wake up in the middle of nowhere with amnesia. You think that you don't have anything valuable (assume you were robbed and your clothes were changed or stolen). Given common 2state logic, you use "common sense" and conclude that because that is unlikely for someone to be rich (which is true, according to statistics), then you aren't rich (which is false in this situation). The truth is that you don't know who you are and should uncover truth about yourself first.

Originally Posted by entz Is not called oversimplification but it's called practicality !

It is called gambling and guessing.

Originally Posted by entz so basically , if any of you didn't reply to my post , or otherwise make yourself visible to me (by let's say changing the contents of your older posts ..etc) , i would consider you as non existent , and i would act after then as such. and I don't think you would act differently either , would YOu ?

No offence, if you are trying to prove me wrong, use stronger arguments, please.
Using my logic against me would be fine. Right now you are using yes/no logic to prove that yes/no/unknown model is wrong. If you are trying to continue examples like those, I'll dismiss all of them as oversimplification and guessing, where people weld "unknown" value with "yes" or "no". Advice: change tactic.

Originally Posted by entz That's how practical reality works.

Disagree.

Take stock market for example (back to economical crisis).
Maybe it is a bit of stretch, but it should explaint it. Once again.
Let's assume that there is commodity (market shares, whatever).
Price of commodity was steadily rising within last 5 years, and people trying to earn money on rising price.
In 2state investor makes right decision or wrong decision.
In 3state investor makes right decision, wrong decision, or consequences are unknown at the moment.
Assume that market will collapse tomorrow and anyone that keep commodity, will lose their money.
Are people that keep commodity today (and will lose money tomorrow) doing right thing?
If investor uses 2state logic, he will think he does right thing. Because all previous years prices were rising, and strategy he is using right now worked for a very long time. Since there is no possibility of "unknown", he will assume he does the right thing. And tomorrow he will lose all money.
In reality state of situation is "unknown". Decision to keep/sell commodity might be right or wrong, but right now it is unclear if it is right or wrong. Using crisp 3state logic it is unknown if your decision will be right or wrong tomorrow. Using fuzzy logic you might have likelihood of you being right or wrong, but you won't know it for sure until tomorrow.

Originally Posted by ErV Unless he/she/it doesn't care about people, their thoughts, ideas and problems.

That certainly seems to be his/her/its attitude, if he/she/it exists. But if that was the case, why would he/she/it bother dictating books like the Bible and Koran to tell us how to behave?

Originally Posted by brianL That certainly seems to be his/her/its attitude, if he/she/it exists. But if that was the case, why would he/she/it bother dictating books like the Bible and Koran to tell us how to behave?

As I said before, I have no proof that Bible/Koran was dictated by god. people could be worshipping false deity while real one simply doesn't care about them.

Originally Posted by ErV (a large post that consists of quote reactions)

Wrong + Negative = Fallacy ! (btw this is a pun adapted from yours)

well let me start this by say something about your writing style,
chopping up my post into million quotes , and then saying "negative" , "wrong" ..etc will not make you look smarter or give your arguments more value!

instead it makes you look just like a troll , besides that your post are almost unreadable , don't distract me by trying to explode the point which we are arguing about into endless other sub-points and sub-plots .

However , (returning to the main subject)

the "3 state logic" as you prefer to call it , makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

First of you've to understand that the universe is built upon relative scales , that covers geometry , speed , mass , gravity and even existence!

i mean what is existence is the first place , how do you define it?
existence is basically the state were A is experiencing an effect created by B.

now it doesn't take much thinking to comprehend that this is a relative equation , obviously any equation that involves 2 variables/points is relative.

If for the sake of the argument A was not experiencing anything from B then this means that no effects are being created by B
(be definition an effect is something that affects something else)
so if there is no effect , then there is no B as well.
(by defintion something that affects nothing is nothing )

let's talk about your 'do my neighbors have a computer?' example shall we?

actually , your whole point revolves around an absolutist definition of the concept of existence , and since that concept is wrong as i've displayed ,so is your whole point !

but i'm not stop there , I'll expose your point were you basically contradicted yourself , i quote:

And even from practical point of view it might affect you

how am i supposed to get affected by something that is completely inaccessible to me (or vice versa) in the first?
this is a brutal violation of the initial assumption that the computer is completely isolated from myself.

the computer was simply regarded non existent from my point of view (that's state 2) and those who owned the computer considered it to be existent because they saw there effects (that's state 1).
So were did your "state 3" disappear in your example ?

As i said before , existence is a relative and not absolute value.
as a matter of fact there is no absolute value in this entire universe!

things that appear to be moving from other things are considered to have a 'speed' while things that exert gravity on other things are considered to be 'massive' (the property of having mass)

and in the same logic , things that do exert effect/s are referred to as 'existent' and things that don't are regarded as 'non-existent' .

i don't see why that is so hard to grasp my friend .


Cheers

Originally Posted by brianL That certainly seems to be his/her/its attitude, if he/she/it exists. But if that was the case, why would he/she/it bother dictating books like the Bible and Koran to tell us how to behave?

As ErV said, there's no proof that those books were written/dictated by any god. They might have been created by people.
When you're a kid, you've got your parents who, as you believe, will always protect you. They create a sense of security and they tell you what's right or wrong. When you grow older, you realise that your parents can't protect you from most things and that this was an illusory sense of security. And then they die. You need to fill this gap of someone who will create a sense of security, show you the way, etc. Perhaps, people wrote those books believing that it's this ultimate parent that speaks through them and that's how god was created by man. And as we know if you repeat something to people for thousands of years it'll sooner of later become the prevailing 'truth'. Besides, soon some smart people realised that it's a perfect way of controlling people and making money so some churches came to existence.
I might be totally wrong, but what the heck, everyone has got a perfect right to be wrong.

And now for something completely different: I had no idea that the religion of Jedi Knights is the 4th largest religion in the UK. According to 2001 UK Census:

In England and Wales 390,127 people (almost 0.8 percent) stated their religion as Jedi on their 2001 Census forms, surpassing Sikhism, Judaism, and Buddhism, and making it the fourth largest reported religion in the country.

I'm looking forward to the next census in 2011

Originally Posted by entz well let me start this by say something about your writing style, chopping up my post into million quotes , and then saying "negative" , "wrong" ..etc will not make you look smarter or give your arguments more value!

I recommend you to cool down a bit.

Let me make this clear. I don't care about looking smarter or whatever. I'm perfectly fine with the way I am. If you don't like I reply, well, I wrote the warning in my signature long time ago. You could read it before engaging in conversation.

Originally Posted by entz don't distract me by trying to explode the point which we are arguing about into endless other sub-points and sub-plots .

I see statement, I see problem with statement, I point out that problem.
Read my signature. It wasn't intended to "distract" you it simply breaks down your arguments into components.

Originally Posted by entz the "3 state logic" as you prefer to call it , makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by entz First of you've to understand that the universe is built upon relative scales , that covers geometry , speed , mass , gravity and even existence! i mean what is existence is the first place , how do you define it? existence is basically the state were A is experiencing an effect created by B. now it doesn't take much thinking to comprehend that this is a relative equation , obviously any equation that involves 2 variables/points is relative.

You miss my point.

Originally Posted by entz If for the sake of the argument A was not experiencing anything from B then this means that no effects are being created by B

This means that either there is no effects (unlikely) are being created by B OR that (likely) object A is outside of area of effect created by object B or that object A can't feel influence of object B, while object C can. Imagine locked chest. Inside the chest is something. You don't see that something until you open chest. Does it exist? It creates influence. If you were inside the chest you could see that object.

Originally Posted by entz actually , your whole point revolves around an absolutist definition of the concept of existence , and since that concept is wrong as i've displayed ,so is your whole point !

I pointed out what is wrong with your argument. Computer creates influence. It is visible. But you can't see it because you in another room. To find out what is inside the room, you should at least enter the room. If you never enter the room, you won't uncover existence of computer, and won't find evidence. That is the problem of certain atheists - they believe that there is no god, but they don't attempt to find him/her/it, and assume that evidence will present itself to them automatically.

Originally Posted by entz how am i supposed to get affected by something that is completely inaccessible to me (or vice versa) in the first? this is a brutal violation of the initial assumption that the computer is completely isolated from myself.

It isn't isolated from you, don't misinterpret my words.
You could access it if you went into your neighbour's basement. Or if you asked your neighbours about computer. But to discover computer you'll have to do some effort. And at least get into place where you can see computer. And that is the point you miss.
If you never search for that computer you'll never discover it (or it is VERY unlikely).

Originally Posted by entz the computer was simply regarded non existent from my point of view (that's state 2) and those who owned the computer considered it to be existent because they saw there effects (that's state 1). So were did your "state 3" disappear in your example ?

Damn it, this thing is basic, is it really that hard to get?
Just read carefully.
Computer exists. You don't know it exists. You don't have evidence, although you could access it. Therefore state of existence of computer to you is "unknown". You don't know if it exists or not. In future you might come across evidence that computer exist, if you do certain steps (ask your neighbour or break into their basment). If you don't do those steps, you won't.
The problem is that to uncover computer you should at least be in the room where you can see it.
Think about everyday life. You don't know what is within locked chest until you open it. If you never open it - you'll never know, and according to your logic you might conclude that objects inside don't exist.

Originally Posted by entz As i said before , existence is a relative and not absolute value. as a matter of fact there is no absolute value in this entire universe!

Object either exist or not if you take humans out of picture.
However, there is an observer to whom object exists or not. And that is the part you miss.
Observer might have no knowledge of object, and have no evidence of existence of object. which means that state of the object for the observer is "unknown". Observer don't know if object exists or not.
However, you conclude that in this case object doesn't exist. In reality object might be behind you, but you "don't have evidence" because you never looked in that direction. Got it? Also keep in mind that human senses are very limited. You don't hear infrasounds, ultrasound, you don't see gamma rays, ultra-violet rays, and so on. It is observer that either posess true knowledge that object exists, or possess correct knowledge that object doesn't exist (anywhere), or don't know if object exists or not. Note that by "possess knowledge" I mean "have correct, true information without error that correctly represents true state of things in universe, so no doubt or mistake is possible."

The problem with theism is not existence/non-existence of god, but the knowledge human have. There is no warranty that you have all evidence, your knowledge is correct, and you checked every corner of universe for existence of god. I used third "unknown" state to indicate situation where observer's knowledge about object is incomplete or wrong.

Originally Posted by entz i don't see why that is so hard to grasp my friend .

You missed my point. I explained it thoroughly enough. Just read carefully and think a bit before bashing. I spent enough time typing explanations. If you still don't get it, keep rereading until you understand it.