Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I really don't see where an explicitly irrational reaction can somehow be posited as a rational basis for belief.

I mean that just doesn't work.

For the most part I agree. I even said it wasn't evidence or proof for one way or another.

But we are human too, and our feelings weigh heavily in our beliefs whether its rational or not. That goes for both theists and atheists. If it wasn't for feelings, I'm quite sure everybody would be agnostic.

If we're going to go solely on rationality, everybody would be forced to admit they don't know either way.

But anyway, for the most part I was speaking hypothetically (which I also said). Belief in God is slightly deeper than a simple emotion, I was just trying to prove a point that what seem reasonable to Serenity might not seem so reasonable to someone with a different life experience.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Whatever floats your boat. You said 'absolutely no evidence at all'. I just pointed out that there is. Maybe not GOOD evidence, but even bad evidence is more than no evidence.

Not really.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Ah, you see how you've changed, though? You started off saying 'impossible' and now you've advanced to 'a very small probability'. In essence, you just conceded the point.

In essence, I knew what your point was before you stated it. It's just I also knew it was a pointless waste of time and every time someone brings it up it is really annoying. My point is, and always was, that just because something is theoretically possible is no reason to consider it functionally possible.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

At no point did I ever say God was more likely than no God. I just said both were possible given what humanity currently knows.

And now you did too. I win!

Fine, you win, God existing is as likely as me winning the lottery fifty two times in a row with one ticket a week and no cheating.

[Fifthfiend]

But anyway, for the most part I was speaking hypothetically (which I also said). Belief in God is slightly deeper than a simple emotion, I was just trying to prove a point that what seem reasonable to Serenity might not seem so reasonable with a different life experience.

I'm just saying, even by your own hypothetical, it's still unreasonable. Irrational gut feelings aren't reasonable.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

In essence, I knew what your point was before you stated it. It's just I also knew it was a pointless waste of time and every time someone brings it up it is really annoying.

Then why'd you just spend the past few pages arguing with me?

My point is, and always was, that just because something is theoretically possible is no reason to consider it functionally possible.

The same could be said of abiogenesis, could it not? That was MY point.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Lots of stuff I've kinda felt like responding directly to, but fuck it, that's too much effort. This thing sums up most of what I'd like to express.

Originally Posted by me

Dude: I'm going to walk down the street while eating this banana.
D00d: No, don't do that!
Dude: What? How come?
D00d: Don't you know!? There's a special force that kills anybody that walks down that street while eating a banana.
Dude: What? I never heard of anything like that!
D00d: Whatever. You have no proof that there isn't any such force, right?
Dude: Yeah, guess that makes sense.

...my point here is that the lack of refutation for the existence of a thing (indeed, with gods such refutation is impossible) is not sufficient reason to act like such things actually exist. I'd need for something to suggest that it does exist before I consider it.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Then why'd you just spend the past few pages arguing with me?

Because your point is stupid. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

The same could be said of abiogenesis, could it not? That was MY point.

You know there's a difference between "theoretically possible" in terms of science and "theoretically possible" in terms of "I could be a brain bug possessing your mother and casting magic missile on the darkness", and it's about as big a difference as "I trust that gravity will pull me down when I jump" and "I trust that God exists and is looking out for me without evidence."

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Serenity

Because your point is stupid. I thought I made that clear, but I guess not.

As this has now devolved into mudslinging rather than actual debate, I shall bow out after this post. However, whether you think my point was stupid or not, at least my point was correct... which is more than I can say for anything you said in the past three pages.

You know there's a difference between "theoretically possible" in terms of science and "theoretically possible" in terms of "I could be a brain bug possessing your mother and casting magic missile on the darkness", and it's about as big a difference as "I trust that gravity will pull me down when I jump" and "I trust that God exists and is looking out for me without evidence."

Dude. I work in a science lab. I'm completing a PhD in molecular biology. I'm accepted into med school. I'm quite sure I know what 'theoretically possible' in terms of science is... and as I have spent the past three or so pages trying to say, most research is actually trying to figure out whether or not abiogenesis is 'theoretically possible' in terms of science. As of yet, nobody has established that it is. It has an equal amount of evidence as the existence of God. Got that? I realize you're a bit slow catching on to this point, but nobody has proven that abiogenesis is even possible. All we can say is that we don't know if its impossible or not. It might be impossible for all anybody knows. You can take everything we know for sure about abiogenesis and substitute God in there, and it still works.

[Serenity]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

As this has now devolved into mudslinging rather than actual debate, I shall bow out after this post.

Oh, okay, thanks. I'm really glad you are a mature person.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Well, most of us mere mortals can't claim to be 100% certain of anything, seemingly unlike yourself.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

If you were wise, you'd do the same.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

So yeah, its your shortcoming. I'm sure you have more.

Except not.

EDIT: I have to say, though, I'm rather glad you're leaving. Your constant antagonism was making me sick to my stomach.

[Funka Genocide]

I think the term "stupid" is completely useless in this circumstance, just a minor point I'd like to make.

Perhaps the point (which is that the possibility exists for there to be a god, as far as human experience is concerned) is irrelevant from a certain perspective (indeed, it is from my own) but that does not necessarily make it "stupid" especially when someone tries to expalin themself repeatedly in an at least somewhat rational manner.

it's sort of like the Nazi argument, the first person to use it loses.

[Krylo]

Because I feel like sharing, and posting it anywhere else would cause problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4