Superstition, Luck and Vodoo
- Thread starter rs7
- Start date
- Status
of course we don't know everything, and may never know all that there is to know, but that
fact is not proof/evidence of the existence of some thing. i am not infallible and i do the best
i can with the tools i have in my possession such as logic, perception, science etc.
these tools have been conceived and refined over many many years of painstaking effort
by many many very inteligent human beings. these tools help us discover *reliable* and
*testable* knowledge of the universe we live in. they should not be taken lightly or discarded
with the wave of a hand because we happen to *like" the way a god scenario feels to us.
recall the dark ages when we used to burn witches at the stake without any other justification
besides it "felt good" to do so. do you really wish to return to those days of old and think
and reason as they did? dark & chas do when it comes to god.
"natural" expalanations for observable phenomena have been conceived, are useful and
are far far more reasonable. natural explanations are much more simplistic and therefore
more likely than divine ones. this is "Ockam's Razor." It appeals to us to shun postulating
the existence of anything more than what's needed for the explanation. Complex
explanations of the universe are less likely than simpler ones. Explanations that
invoke a god are more complex than "natualistic" scenarios, therefore scenarios
involving a god are much less likely than those that do not.
in essence why invoke the existence of a "god"? we have never directly experienced a god.
we have never measured his existence personally or with the use of any device. furthermore,
much more reasonable (and therefore more likely) models have been constructed to account
for why many human beings would need and want a god (eg, psychological desires, fear of unknown
peer pressure, childhood "brainwashing" etc) these should not be easily dismissed as they have been
by our resident theists here. finally, why believe in a creator that is claimed to be
omnipotent and ageless and benevolent and anthropocentric etc ...why not
just accept that the "universe" as it is? we don't need to create a creator who, by definition,
must be even MORE complex than the very thing that he allegedly created (this universe).
infinitely complex scenarios such as a creator serve only to make us look infinitely foolish
and to obscure the true (see more likely) issues. we don't need them, they are unnecessary
except for the comfort they provide to the little grey cells of human beings that
subserve pleasurable sensations.
so these are some of my reasons for denying a god creature. and one other thing do you
notice the lack of rational argument from the believers (dark & chas readily come to
mind perpetrators)? there is a good reason for this ...they have NO rational basis for
their views, they simply have "faith". so did the witch burners! they too had complete
faith that they were right. btw, the definition of "faith" by Merriam-Webster is: "firm belief in
something for which there is no proof". that's precisely sums there view. is that
something to be proud of?
i say NO to god.
fact is not proof/evidence of the existence of some thing. i am not infallible and i do the best
i can with the tools i have in my possession such as logic, perception, science etc.
these tools have been conceived and refined over many many years of painstaking effort
by many many very inteligent human beings. these tools help us discover *reliable* and
*testable* knowledge of the universe we live in. they should not be taken lightly or discarded
with the wave of a hand because we happen to *like" the way a god scenario feels to us.
recall the dark ages when we used to burn witches at the stake without any other justification
besides it "felt good" to do so. do you really wish to return to those days of old and think
and reason as they did? dark & chas do when it comes to god.
"natural" expalanations for observable phenomena have been conceived, are useful and
are far far more reasonable. natural explanations are much more simplistic and therefore
more likely than divine ones. this is "Ockam's Razor." It appeals to us to shun postulating
the existence of anything more than what's needed for the explanation. Complex
explanations of the universe are less likely than simpler ones. Explanations that
invoke a god are more complex than "natualistic" scenarios, therefore scenarios
involving a god are much less likely than those that do not.
in essence why invoke the existence of a "god"? we have never directly experienced a god.
we have never measured his existence personally or with the use of any device. furthermore,
much more reasonable (and therefore more likely) models have been constructed to account
for why many human beings would need and want a god (eg, psychological desires, fear of unknown
peer pressure, childhood "brainwashing" etc) these should not be easily dismissed as they have been
by our resident theists here. finally, why believe in a creator that is claimed to be
omnipotent and ageless and benevolent and anthropocentric etc ...why not
just accept that the "universe" as it is? we don't need to create a creator who, by definition,
must be even MORE complex than the very thing that he allegedly created (this universe).
infinitely complex scenarios such as a creator serve only to make us look infinitely foolish
and to obscure the true (see more likely) issues. we don't need them, they are unnecessary
except for the comfort they provide to the little grey cells of human beings that
subserve pleasurable sensations.
so these are some of my reasons for denying a god creature. and one other thing do you
notice the lack of rational argument from the believers (dark & chas readily come to
mind perpetrators)? there is a good reason for this ...they have NO rational basis for
their views, they simply have "faith". so did the witch burners! they too had complete
faith that they were right. btw, the definition of "faith" by Merriam-Webster is: "firm belief in
something for which there is no proof". that's precisely sums there view. is that
something to be proud of?
i say NO to god.
hi thug. "katrina" has been thinking of you
now if there is any one person here who has the "stones" or wherewithal to refute what i've said, let's see what you got.
and i want to see lots of IF/THEN props, and definitely no "you just gotta believe" nonsense.
dark, early on you seemed up to the task but you never quite get there.
chas, you haven't a clue so perhaps you'd better refrain from even replying. :-/
and i want to see lots of IF/THEN props, and definitely no "you just gotta believe" nonsense.
dark, early on you seemed up to the task but you never quite get there.
chas, you haven't a clue so perhaps you'd better refrain from even replying. :-/
oh yes, and so much better to be that than a mindless automaton in your universe chas
>>Not that it's ever that difficult to refute anything you say, but .....
well you've never done it.
>>You base your argument upon the lack of proof that there is a God.
yes, and i don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and little green Martians either.
>>"Proof" of God does not exist. That's why they call it "Faith." Otherwise they would call it "Observation."
precisely my point. faith in a grand fantasy.
well you've never done it.
>>You base your argument upon the lack of proof that there is a God.
yes, and i don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and little green Martians either.
>>"Proof" of God does not exist. That's why they call it "Faith." Otherwise they would call it "Observation."
precisely my point. faith in a grand fantasy.
- Status