POLL: On average, which ET group is more intellectually dishonest? Atheist or theist?

On average, which ET group is more intellectually dishonest?

  • Atheist

    Votes: 10 26.3%

  • Theist

    Votes: 28 73.7%
  • Total voters
    38
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Translation:

"I am right, U R wrong."
More...


Thank You

After a long hard day of watching missed opportunities, I was grappling for a polite responce...I think you summed the matter up quite well.
 
Quote from Thunderdog:

Really? Is your life so meaningless without the notion of "something else?" Is it so otherwise barren and lacking in value?

Good luck with your chemistry set.
More...

Why I even take the time to address you when you can't understand that I am an agnostic after more than a paragraph of agnostic views is beyond me.
 
Quote from Barth Vader:

Thank You

After a long hard day of watching missed opportunities, I was grappling for a polite responce...I think you summed the matter up quite well.
More...
Translation:

"Just like U Optional777, I realize we both have no real argument "
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Exactly how do you calculate the odds on whether or not God exists?

What exactly is your criteria by which you generate those odds?

1,000 years ago there was no evidence of cosmic rays...

So, according to you, the odds were "pretty good" that cosmic rays did not exist...

Really, is this the type of science you subscribe to?
More...

You look at the available evidence, and make your best judgement.

My criteria is that the more and better quality evidence there is for something, the more I will take it on board as a possibility. Also, the plausibility of the idea must be taken into account. Implausible things with no evidence to back them up are occasionally true or real, but that's not the way to bet - most times they are just BS. E.g. the tooth fairy, the Yeti etc.

1000 years ago, AFAIK there was no evidence for cosmic rays existing, based on human knowledge at the time. If that is true then the odds were against them existing.

Remember that scepticism is a pragmatic technique for trying, under conditions of limited knowledge, to assess which out of countless theories and propositions are most likely to be true. In 1009 AD, there were doubtless many theories with little or no supporting evidence, almost all of which would turn out to be totally wrong. That a few of these unsupported theories turned out to be right simply means that - at the time - they were a lucky guess. Guessing and relying on luck has historically not proven to be a good way of judging whether theories are right or wrong. Favouring theories based on their supporting evidence, on the other hand, has proven to be pretty successful and that is why it is the basis of scientific thinking.

My question in return would be "How do you know God exists?". What criteria are you using to form this belief, how would you know if you are wrong etc.
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

quite a story ... Georgetown pretends it's not religious for the One ....



Here's a question for you Thunderdog ... Just How Amoral Are You?


edit: i must disclose, I absolutely abhore this psuedo-intellectual Canadian Marxist POS>
More...
Evidently, you feel the same way about the English language.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

Why I even take the time to address you...
More...
Why indeed. And yet here you are. So then humor me and tell me what your views are, and what are the facts that "represent" those views.

Quote from NeoRio1:

...I prefer to be on the chemically balanced side where the facts represent my views instead of psychological and emotional irrationality.
More...
 
Exactly how do you calculate the odds on whether or not God exists?

What exactly is your criteria by which you generate those odds?

Quote from Cutten:

You look at the available evidence, and make your best judgement.

My criteria is that the more and better quality evidence there is for something, the more I will take it on board as a possibility. Also, the plausibility of the idea must be taken into account. Implausible things with no evidence to back them up are occasionally true or real, but that's not the way to bet - most times they are just BS. E.g. the tooth fairy, the Yeti etc.

1000 years ago, AFAIK there was no evidence for cosmic rays existing, based on human knowledge at the time. If that is true then the odds were against them existing.

Remember that scepticism is a pragmatic technique for trying, under conditions of limited knowledge, to assess which out of countless theories and propositions are most likely to be true. In 1009 AD, there were doubtless many theories with little or no supporting evidence, almost all of which would turn out to be totally wrong. That a few of these unsupported theories turned out to be right simply means that - at the time - they were a lucky guess. Guessing and relying on luck has historically not proven to be a good way of judging whether theories are right or wrong. Favouring theories based on their supporting evidence, on the other hand, has proven to be pretty successful and that is why it is the basis of scientific thinking.

My question in return would be "How do you know God exists?". What criteria are you using to form this belief, how would you know if you are wrong etc.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Exactly how do you calculate the odds on whether or not God exists?

What exactly is your criteria by which you generate those odds?
More...

How do YOU calculate the odds for his existence @ 100%? :D
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You are not able to answer my question, so what do you do?

Act the fool...
More...

obviously you can't be certain, and you know this now who is the fool :D

the funny thing is and has been all along.. you don't even know what IT is you are certain of! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top