See, it's no wonder God denies you evidence of his existence. You wouldn't believe it if he caused a frigg'in falcon to shit on your head and give you the power to turn water into wine.mistermack wrote:Glaring error corrected !!!Seth wrote: But what they will tell you is that if you have faith, the proofs will be given to you that your faith is valid. Knock and the door will be opened. Seek and ye shall find. But you have to seek with an xxxhonestxxxx fucking gullible heart and in faith, not with skepticism and an agenda to disprove the divine.
The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Why would that make anyone believe in a god or gods?
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Pigeons frequently shit on people's heads - Therefore God.Seth wrote:See, it's no wonder God denies you evidence of his existence. You wouldn't believe it if he caused a frigg'in falcon to shit on your head and give you the power to turn water into wine.mistermack wrote:Glaring error corrected !!!Seth wrote: But what they will tell you is that if you have faith, the proofs will be given to you that your faith is valid. Knock and the door will be opened. Seek and ye shall find. But you have to seek with an xxxhonestxxxx fucking gullible heart and in faith, not with skepticism and an agenda to disprove the divine.
Everyone has the god-given power to turn water (in grape juice) into wine - therefore God.
Meh,
It's no worse than rainbows and sunbeams - therefore God, which seems remarkably popular. (more iconography than argument though)
- trdsf
- Posts: 583
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:44 am
- About me: High functioning sociopath. With your number.
- Location: Columbus, Ohio
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
What does that have to do with the price ot tea in China -- or with the assertion that there is or is not a divine authority? This is a completely meaningless statement.Seth wrote:Do you believe in love?trdsf wrote:Actually, if it cannot be demonstrated either by the evidence or by logical/mathematical inference, then there is no reason to accept it in the first place.Seth wrote:The problem is that if God, being a sentient and powerful entity, does not want to be tested by science, he will arrange things so that science finds nothing and will only reveal himself to the faithful.
God is not a natural phenomenon that can be induced to produce predictable results, if he exists, he's a thinking entity that does not have to react predictably.
So, unless God wants science to find him, science won't do so.
Of course this does not mean that God does not exist, because just because science cannot investigate something does not mean that thing does not exist.
Seems science has something of a conundrum on its hands.
In the first place, who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I am and am not advancing? You're not inside my head, you can't claim any knowledge about my position, beliefs and claims.Seth wrote:Quite right, legitimate science does not do so, but pseudo-scientific wannabee Atheist religious zealots misusing science make that claim a thousand times a day, and THEY are the one's I'm refuting. Actual scientists, many of whom are deeply religious, find no conflict between nature and God because they understand that God, if God exists, is part of nature and that their scientific investigations may proceed whether or not God does exist because God has given the world to them to investigate using science...something God did not have to do but decided to do by giving humans free will (or so they tell me).trdsf wrote:Science does not advance the theory "god does not exist"
In the second place, the term 'legitimate science' is one of those red-flag phrases which suggests to me that you may be one of those who cheerily cherry-pick the scientific research you will and will not accept as valid. Science is science and provides its own legitimacy as an inherent part of the fundamental structure of research, to wit: observations and experiments are repeatable.
Wrong again. The main flaw is your assumption that you know the thinking of every atheist on the planet who makes the statement that there is no god. That's rubbish simply on the face of it.Seth wrote:Nope. I'm rebutting the specific claim made by Atheists that "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." That's not, as you note, a claim of science, which reasoning I agree with and which is the whole point of my argument. But Atheists like to think, and claim, that they are being "scientific" in their rejection of the existence of God, so what I'm doing here is subjecting THEIR explicit claim to the same sort of rigorous logical and rational evaluation that they demand of theistic arguments.trdsf wrote:you are advancing the theory that one does, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it, not to just stand it up and say "prove it wrong". You have to prove it right, or the theory can be discarded without further consideration.
And you have the gall to expect to be taken seriously after admitting this.Seth wrote:Indeed.trdsf wrote:Counterproductively, all you're saying here is "I can't prove a thing and that means I'm right!"
I wriggleth not, nor do I groan under the weight of my own standards. I have only and exactly gone as far as the scientific method allows. There is no evidence to accept the god hypothesis, therefore I do not accept it.Seth wrote:But it is not I who is making the claim, you see. I'm not the one who said "there are no gods" or "God does not exist," Atheists are. I'm just applying rigorous logic and reason to that argument, which quite rightly should result in the claimant being dismissed as a crank because whenever I demand, according to their own pseudo-scientific ethos, that they provide critically robust rigorous scientific proofs of the non-existence of God, which is what they demand for claims that God does exist, I'm met with pettifoggery, obfuscation, derails and evasions rather than the simple, logical, rational admission that the claims "there are no gods" and "God does not exist" have exactly as much truth value as any other claim about God: Precisely zero.trdsf wrote:Evidence doesn't work that way, and you're never going to win a convert (much less an argument) if that's your debate style. It's like if I were to say, "All neutrons are orange!" and then deflect all arguments against it by just saying "You've never seen one, so you don't know!" I'd be dismissed as a crank, and properly so.
And I'm not attempting to convert anyone to anything, I'm just holding you and everyone else to your own standards, and I'm observing the wriggling and evasions that are typical of Atheists when this is done.
Which is right back to you claiming that you're right on the basis of being unable to prove a thing. Which is meaningless and brings your whole claim into question. Your point is nonsense -- what you're stating is "god doesn't want to be seen, therefore the inability to see him proves he exists". That's a lovely combination of circular reasoning and special pleading.Seth wrote:Indeed. But that still does not lend one single shred of concrete, repeatable, incontrovertible evidence that there is NOT such a divine power. And THAT is my point.trdsf wrote:So. This, fundamentally, is what you're up against. I put it to you that the idea that the world was created by a god or gods was no more than a primitive attempt to explain the world our ancestors saw around them -- in its way, saying that some god(s) did it was a scientific theory, but only in that it was an attempt to explain events. It wasn't a proper theory in that it did not make testable predictions, and does not conform to physical reality. We have much better observations now, much more comprehensive theories... and not one single shred of concrete, repeatable, incontrovertible evidence that there's any such thing as a divine power of any variety.
Well, I wasn't here a long time ago. And accepting that there's a problem doesn't make the problem go away. You need to address it -- or at least provide a link back to where you did.Seth wrote:Yup, exactly, as I pointed out in detail rather a long time ago.trdsf wrote:And even if there were, such evidence would be utterly indistinguishable from that left by an extremely advanced extraterrestrial intelligence -- that is, we could not distinguish between a god and an alien, and given a choice between the two, Occam's Razor points us inevitably to the alien since that is the simpler explanation. It does not require adding anything undetectable to the universe.
Ridiculous doubletalk. It was perfectly accepted scientific truth that the universe was expanding at a decelerating rate until evidence turned up that it was not. That's the nature of the scientific method. It is therefore also perfectly legitimate to say that there is no god until evidence turns up that that is not the case. To date, there is no such evidence; as such, I am perfectly justified in saying that there is no god, pending further evidence.Seth wrote:I don't have a theory about divine power, which is something you've utterly failed to notice. Don't worry, this is a very typical Atheist misunderstanding. Atheists, you see, cannot conceive of the notion that there might actually be a person who is not a theistic believer who is willing to argue the question of the existence of God with them from a position of philosophical opposition to the classic Atheist claim "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." They typically assume that if someone doesn't agree with them that the notion of God is nonsense and bunkum that the individual must inevitably be a theist trying to convert them to belief in God.trdsf wrote:If you want to have your theory that some sort of divine power exists taken seriously, then you have to find a way to first, demonstrate it, and second, differentiate it from the alien hypothesis. Finding ways to continually excuse the lack of proof is essentially an abandonment of your theory.
It's unremarkable how dense Atheists can be in this regard however, and it's just another proof that Atheism is a religion with it's own belief/practice set and irreducible dogmas that the faithful cling to every bit as much as the most zealous of evangelical theists.
Let me be once again perfectly crystal clear: I do not believe in God or gods. I'm not a closet theist or Catholic. I just choose to challenge the irrationality, unreason and illogic of religiously zealous Atheist believers when they spout nonsense and try to cloak it in the "Scientific Method." That position requires me to have a good deal of knowledge about religion and philosophy, but the sign of a superior intellect is the ability to entertain a thought without believing in it.
I have an expectation that there will be evidence of a god at about the same level that I have an expectation that there will be evidence in favor of the caloric theory of heat: vanishingly possible, but bloody unlikely.
Ad hominem attacks are not evidence, and don't speak well for the alleged strength of your position. You have a lot of nerve talking about arrogance in atheists when you cheerily throw around words like "idiots" and "buffoons". Physician, heal thyself.Seth wrote:Let me know when you prove the positive assertion that "there are no gods" or that "God does not exist." Until then, my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.trdsf wrote:After all, it may well not be possible to prove a negative -- but it is entirely possible to fail to prove a positive.
Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."
That would be a true and unassailable claim, but it's the one claim that is virtually never made. Atheistic religious belief is always couched in the positive assertion "There are no gods" and "God does not exist." We can see it on Atheist billboards these days, and it makes Atheists look like idiots when they do so.
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't." -- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
trdsf wrote: Actually, if it cannot be demonstrated either by the evidence or by logical/mathematical inference, then there is no reason to accept it in the first place.
Seth wrote:Do you believe in love?
Can you "demonstrate either by the evidence or by logical/mathematical inference" that love exists? If not, why does most of the population of the planet accept that love exists?trdsf wrote:What does that have to do with the price ot tea in China -- or with the assertion that there is or is not a divine authority? This is a completely meaningless statement.
Seth wrote:Quite right, legitimate science does not do so, but pseudo-scientific wannabee Atheist religious zealots misusing science make that claim a thousand times a day, and THEY are the one's I'm refuting. Actual scientists, many of whom are deeply religious, find no conflict between nature and God because they understand that God, if God exists, is part of nature and that their scientific investigations may proceed whether or not God does exist because God has given the world to them to investigate using science...something God did not have to do but decided to do by giving humans free will (or so they tell me).trdsf wrote:Science does not advance the theory "god does not exist"
Read my sig.In the first place, who the hell do you think you are to tell me what I am and am not advancing?
Do you see the word "you" or the title "trdsf" anywhere in the quoted paragraph? If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise don't be so sensitive, this is a debate forum. If you're not up to debate, then i suggest this might be the wrong place for you.You're not inside my head, you can't claim any knowledge about my position, beliefs and claims.
Indeed, but not all persons who claim to be providing scientific information are actually doing so, which is the meaning of my statement.In the second place, the term 'legitimate science' is one of those red-flag phrases which suggests to me that you may be one of those who cheerily cherry-pick the scientific research you will and will not accept as valid. Science is science and provides its own legitimacy as an inherent part of the fundamental structure of research, to wit: observations and experiments are repeatable.
Seth wrote:Nope. I'm rebutting the specific claim made by Atheists that "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." That's not, as you note, a claim of science, which reasoning I agree with and which is the whole point of my argument. But Atheists like to think, and claim, that they are being "scientific" in their rejection of the existence of God, so what I'm doing here is subjecting THEIR explicit claim to the same sort of rigorous logical and rational evaluation that they demand of theistic arguments.trdsf wrote:you are advancing the theory that one does, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it, not to just stand it up and say "prove it wrong". You have to prove it right, or the theory can be discarded without further consideration.
Well, I'll give you some latitude here because you're new here and I'll inform you of a minor convention in my argumentation that most of the old-timers are aware of. I distinguish between "atheists" and "Atheists" by using the capital "A" to identify those atheists who I define as "religious Atheists," which is to say a large portion of the "explicit atheist" community, as distinguished from the "implicit atheist" community.Wrong again. The main flaw is your assumption that you know the thinking of every atheist on the planet who makes the statement that there is no god. That's rubbish simply on the face of it.
One of the defining characteristics of the religious big-A Atheist (but just one) is that they make the claim "There are no gods" or "God does not exist" on a fairly regular basis. The Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the American Atheists are, by way of example, sects of religious Atheism and these organizations are comprised of religious Atheist zealots.
So, when I refer to "Atheists" I'm referring to a sub-set of all atheists, not all atheists. So, your argument is non sequitur.
Seth wrote:Indeed.trdsf wrote:Counterproductively, all you're saying here is "I can't prove a thing and that means I'm right!"
Indeed. It's just that you don't actually understand the argument. Keep trying, you'll get it eventually, maybe.And you have the gall to expect to be taken seriously after admitting this.
Seth wrote:But it is not I who is making the claim, you see. I'm not the one who said "there are no gods" or "God does not exist," Atheists are. I'm just applying rigorous logic and reason to that argument, which quite rightly should result in the claimant being dismissed as a crank because whenever I demand, according to their own pseudo-scientific ethos, that they provide critically robust rigorous scientific proofs of the non-existence of God, which is what they demand for claims that God does exist, I'm met with pettifoggery, obfuscation, derails and evasions rather than the simple, logical, rational admission that the claims "there are no gods" and "God does not exist" have exactly as much truth value as any other claim about God: Precisely zero.trdsf wrote:Evidence doesn't work that way, and you're never going to win a convert (much less an argument) if that's your debate style. It's like if I were to say, "All neutrons are orange!" and then deflect all arguments against it by just saying "You've never seen one, so you don't know!" I'd be dismissed as a crank, and properly so.
And I'm not attempting to convert anyone to anything, I'm just holding you and everyone else to your own standards, and I'm observing the wriggling and evasions that are typical of Atheists when this is done.
Fine by me. You may hold any beliefs you want. You may hold to them religiously, with faith, zealously and with ardor and dedication. But they are still just your beliefs and not any sort of scientific truth or knowledge. I'm addressing the irrational and illogical claim made by Atheists (the big-A kind) that God does not exist, which is not a belief, it's a positive assertion of fact that requires those making the claim to prove it according to their own scientific ethos and methodology.I wriggleth not, nor do I groan under the weight of my own standards. I have only and exactly gone as far as the scientific method allows. There is no evidence to accept the god hypothesis, therefore I do not accept it.
Seth wrote:Indeed. But that still does not lend one single shred of concrete, repeatable, incontrovertible evidence that there is NOT such a divine power. And THAT is my point.trdsf wrote:So. This, fundamentally, is what you're up against. I put it to you that the idea that the world was created by a god or gods was no more than a primitive attempt to explain the world our ancestors saw around them -- in its way, saying that some god(s) did it was a scientific theory, but only in that it was an attempt to explain events. It wasn't a proper theory in that it did not make testable predictions, and does not conform to physical reality. We have much better observations now, much more comprehensive theories... and not one single shred of concrete, repeatable, incontrovertible evidence that there's any such thing as a divine power of any variety.
Claiming I'm right about what? The existence of God? Sorry, that's not a claim I'm making, and never have. I'm just saying that the claim that God does NOT exist is exactly as irrational and illogical as the claim that God does exist. I have never said what you are claiming I'm saying, so clearly you're either misunderstanding my arguments or you're just making strawman fallacy arguments on purpose.Which is right back to you claiming that you're right on the basis of being unable to prove a thing. Which is meaningless and brings your whole claim into question. Your point is nonsense -- what you're stating is "god doesn't want to be seen, therefore the inability to see him proves he exists". That's a lovely combination of circular reasoning and special pleading.
Seth wrote:Yup, exactly, as I pointed out in detail rather a long time ago.trdsf wrote:And even if there were, such evidence would be utterly indistinguishable from that left by an extremely advanced extraterrestrial intelligence -- that is, we could not distinguish between a god and an alien, and given a choice between the two, Occam's Razor points us inevitably to the alien since that is the simpler explanation. It does not require adding anything undetectable to the universe.
Do your own homework. By the way, Ockham's Razor is just a maxim, not a law of physics.Well, I wasn't here a long time ago. And accepting that there's a problem doesn't make the problem go away. You need to address it -- or at least provide a link back to where you did.
Seth wrote:I don't have a theory about divine power, which is something you've utterly failed to notice. Don't worry, this is a very typical Atheist misunderstanding. Atheists, you see, cannot conceive of the notion that there might actually be a person who is not a theistic believer who is willing to argue the question of the existence of God with them from a position of philosophical opposition to the classic Atheist claim "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." They typically assume that if someone doesn't agree with them that the notion of God is nonsense and bunkum that the individual must inevitably be a theist trying to convert them to belief in God.trdsf wrote:If you want to have your theory that some sort of divine power exists taken seriously, then you have to find a way to first, demonstrate it, and second, differentiate it from the alien hypothesis. Finding ways to continually excuse the lack of proof is essentially an abandonment of your theory.
It's unremarkable how dense Atheists can be in this regard however, and it's just another proof that Atheism is a religion with it's own belief/practice set and irreducible dogmas that the faithful cling to every bit as much as the most zealous of evangelical theists.
Let me be once again perfectly crystal clear: I do not believe in God or gods. I'm not a closet theist or Catholic. I just choose to challenge the irrationality, unreason and illogic of religiously zealous Atheist believers when they spout nonsense and try to cloak it in the "Scientific Method." That position requires me to have a good deal of knowledge about religion and philosophy, but the sign of a superior intellect is the ability to entertain a thought without believing in it.
It was also perfectly reasonable to believe in a steady-state universe until it was discovered that the universe was expanding, was it not? Your reasoning is incorrect here however. Just because one theory was supplanted by another theory based on observations, it does not follow that (in science) it is "perfectly legitimate" to say that an alternative hypothesis can be rejected merely because sufficient evidence to support it over the original theory has not been discovered. If this sort of fallacious reasoning were actually a part of the scientific method, science would have ground to a halt before Copernicus.Ridiculous doubletalk. It was perfectly accepted scientific truth that the universe was expanding at a decelerating rate until evidence turned up that it was not. That's the nature of the scientific method. It is therefore also perfectly legitimate to say that there is no god until evidence turns up that that is not the case. To date, there is no such evidence; as such, I am perfectly justified in saying that there is no god, pending further evidence.
In point of fact, science rejects NO hypothesis before its time. At the time that the steady-state universe was the prevailing theory, scientists were investigating the universe for evidence of an expanding universe, or a contracting universe. Science did not say that it was perfectly legitimate to reject such hypotheses, it withheld judgment pending submission of evidence.
According to your logic, which is that because there is no evidence of the existence of God it's "perfectly justified" to say "there is no god, pending further evidence," cosmologists would have insisted that the steady state universe was the ultimate answer and, if science did to cosmologists and theoretical physicists what it does to theists, would have ridiculed and derided any hypothesis of an expanding universe and driven any scientist who dared to propound such a hypothesis from the ranks of science for engaging in scientific steady-state heresy.
No, you are not "perfectly justified" in saying that there is no god even when you temporize by saying "pending further evidence" (which is further than most religiously-zealous Atheists go) because you have no scientific evidence that god does NOT exist, and you're rejecting the claims that god DOES exist from theists based on your evidence-free presumption that their claims are "supernatural" in nature (or so I suspect), and you're drawing scientific conclusions based on exactly zero scientific evidence to support your conclusion that god does not exist.
The only evidence we have regarding God's existence, however slight or improbable it might be, points TOWARDS God's existence. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that God does not exist, there is only an utter absence of any scientific evidence pointing either direction. Therefore, while you may BELIEVE that God does not exist, you cannot state as a matter of scientific fact that God does not exist, at least not while remaining true to your own ethos and methodology. You can only say "I don't know whether or not God exists" while remaining true to the scientific method.
Your beliefs about God are irrelevant. We're talking about logic, reason and scientific facts here.I have an expectation that there will be evidence of a god at about the same level that I have an expectation that there will be evidence in favor of the caloric theory of heat: vanishingly possible, but bloody unlikely.
Seth wrote:Let me know when you prove the positive assertion that "there are no gods" or that "God does not exist." Until then, my suggestion is that Atheists quit presenting themselves as illogical and irrational buffoons by making positive assertions that they cannot back up with critically robust scientific evidence according to their own ethos.trdsf wrote:After all, it may well not be possible to prove a negative -- but it is entirely possible to fail to prove a positive.
Let them say the truth, which is "I don't know if God exists, but I have not myself seen sufficient critically robust scientific evidence to lead me to either the belief or certain knowledge that God exists."
That would be a true and unassailable claim, but it's the one claim that is virtually never made. Atheistic religious belief is always couched in the positive assertion "There are no gods" and "God does not exist." We can see it on Atheist billboards these days, and it makes Atheists look like idiots when they do so.
Pot, kettle, black. If religiously-zealous Atheists can bash theists, I can return the favor. Stop looking for motes in my eye while ignoring the plank in your own.Ad hominem attacks are not evidence, and don't speak well for the alleged strength of your position. You have a lot of nerve talking about arrogance in atheists when you cheerily throw around words like "idiots" and "buffoons". Physician, heal thyself.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Santa_Claus
- Your Imaginary Friend
- Posts: 1985
- Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:06 pm
- About me: Ho! Ho! Ho!
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
If you beleive in a God it means you are a Wanker.
My proof is Seth.
My proof is Seth.
I am Leader of all The Atheists in the world - FACT.
Come look inside Santa's Hole
You want to hear the truth about Santa Claus???.....you couldn't handle the truth about Santa Claus!!!
Come look inside Santa's Hole

You want to hear the truth about Santa Claus???.....you couldn't handle the truth about Santa Claus!!!
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
To Seth
In the 50 odd years since I rejected my parent's religious teaching and became a non believer, I have met and socialised with literally hundreds of other non believers. Only one out of all those hundreds was an Atheist (capital A according to your definition). All others were happy to admit they would change their views if the evidence changed. That is also my stance.
Non believers are concentrated among the educated in society. In 1998, there was a survey done of members of the American Academy of Science. 93% were non believers. In the most religious of western countries.
The percentage of non believers in other spheres of academia increases with educational level. Few non believers among high school drop outs. A lot more among those with Bachelor's degrees (or equivalent), and the highest percentage among those with Ph.D. level qualifications. I have a strong suspicion that the contributors to this forum have a very high level of education on average. I have 'only' a bachelor of science degree, myself.
One side effect of this high level of education among non believers is that non believers are generally much more law abiding, more honest, and trustworthy than religious believers, because the converse correlates with low levels of education. Atheists are honest.
In the 50 odd years since I rejected my parent's religious teaching and became a non believer, I have met and socialised with literally hundreds of other non believers. Only one out of all those hundreds was an Atheist (capital A according to your definition). All others were happy to admit they would change their views if the evidence changed. That is also my stance.
Non believers are concentrated among the educated in society. In 1998, there was a survey done of members of the American Academy of Science. 93% were non believers. In the most religious of western countries.
The percentage of non believers in other spheres of academia increases with educational level. Few non believers among high school drop outs. A lot more among those with Bachelor's degrees (or equivalent), and the highest percentage among those with Ph.D. level qualifications. I have a strong suspicion that the contributors to this forum have a very high level of education on average. I have 'only' a bachelor of science degree, myself.
One side effect of this high level of education among non believers is that non believers are generally much more law abiding, more honest, and trustworthy than religious believers, because the converse correlates with low levels of education. Atheists are honest.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Poorly argued, since I don't believe in God and therefore your statement is non sequitur.Santa_Claus wrote:If you beleive in a God it means you are a Wanker.
My proof is Seth.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
That doesn't make them any less religious, although they may be more or less bigoted than the ones I've encountered.Blind groper wrote:To Seth
In the 50 odd years since I rejected my parent's religious teaching and became a non believer, I have met and socialised with literally hundreds of other non believers. Only one out of all those hundreds was an Atheist (capital A according to your definition). All others were happy to admit they would change their views if the evidence changed. That is also my stance.
The rest of your assertions are interesting but not particularly relevant.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41035
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
But we wank all the time and we still don't believe in Dog... how do you explain the dissimetry?Santa_Claus wrote:If you beleive in a God it means you are a Wanker.
My proof is Seth.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
We're inspired by a truly great jerk-off?Svartalf wrote:But we wank all the time and we still don't believe in Dog... how do you explain the dissimetry?Santa_Claus wrote:If you beleive in a God it means you are a Wanker.
My proof is Seth.
- Blind groper
- Posts: 3997
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
- About me: From New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Perhaps.Seth wrote:
The rest of your assertions are interesting but not particularly relevant.
But I think it indicates a high quality person who deserves more respect than you apparently wish to give. Non believers, whether you want to call them agnostic or atheist, are normally good people, who are well educated and intelligent. Therefore I would suggest you might consider communicating with them, and me, in a way that reflects that.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.
- Gawdzilla Sama
- Stabsobermaschinist
- Posts: 151265
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
- About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
- Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Ain't gonna happen, BG, he don't work that way.Blind groper wrote:Perhaps.Seth wrote:
The rest of your assertions are interesting but not particularly relevant.
But I think it indicates a high quality person who deserves more respect than you apparently wish to give. Non believers, whether you want to call them agnostic or atheist, are normally good people, who are well educated and intelligent. Therefore I would suggest you might consider communicating with them, and me, in a way that reflects that.
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
It's my personal experience that every single self-professed "atheist" I've ever met in person has been poisonous, disrespectful, rude, arrogant, annoying, pedantic, opinionated, bigoted and not all that smart. That also applies to a majority of self-professed "atheists" I've debated with on the Internet over the last 20 or so years. It's not universal by any means, but the number of intolerant atheist bigots who can accurately be described as Atheist religious zealots, fundamentalists and loudmouthed intolerant bigots is much larger than the ranks of those who can approach the controversies with serious and rational thought and mutual respect for others, whatever their ideological or religious bent.Blind groper wrote:Perhaps.Seth wrote:
The rest of your assertions are interesting but not particularly relevant.
But I think it indicates a high quality person who deserves more respect than you apparently wish to give. Non believers, whether you want to call them agnostic or atheist, are normally good people, who are well educated and intelligent. Therefore I would suggest you might consider communicating with them, and me, in a way that reflects that.
Now, it may be that I've been encountering only the dregs of Atheism, but somehow I doubt it. I've met quite a few, and to a man or woman they are arrogant asses who never, ever shut the fuck up about their hatred of religion and people of faith.
It's also been my experience that with a very few exceptions, every single deeply religious theist I've ever met has been kinder, more loving, more considerate, more tolerant, more peaceful, less bigoted, and far more reasonable and rational when it comes to debating such subjects than all but a very few Atheists I've had the misfortune to meet. Most of these people keep their religion to themselves and only talk about it if the subject is brought up by someone else, and I've only met a very few religious theist zealots who were as bigoted and hateful towards Atheists as Atheists are towards people of faith.
Perhaps you're an exception, but it's my experience that your generalizations about Atheists is not so near the truth as you would like to believe.
Your mileage may vary of course, but if you show respect to me and avoid bigotry and hateful attacks on people of faith, we'll get along fine and might have some nice debates.
That's not, unfortunately, how things usually go here...sadly.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
- Woodbutcher
- Stray Cat
- Posts: 8302
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:54 pm
- About me: Still crazy after all these years.
- Location: Northern Muskeg, The Great White North
- Contact:
Re: The God Hypothesis according to New Scientist
Seth, the reason why you get no respect here is that you are a troll. You say you want to keep your private life separate from everybody here because you fear that people will come and accost you where you live. That's typical trollish behaviour, you just want to be able to act like a cunt, hiding in your bunker from real life.You are a loser, and always will be, with a hatred towards those who enjoy a feeling of community with like-minded people. You will never belong anywhere. You will always be on the outside looking in. Good news for you though: They want you in Ethiopia! As a source of protein.
If women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.-Red Green
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.
"Yo". Rocky
"Never been worried about what other people see when they look at me". Gawdzilla
"No friends currently defined." Friends & Foes.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests