Atheists smite online God poll

[aidanjt]

Are you suggesting everything in the universe is entirely random and causality does not exist?

I thought he was implying the exact opposite.

[Perfectionist]

http://degroof.blogspot.com/2007/09/...ve-vortex.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4&fmt=18

[MadduckUK]

people die all the time, but only those left alive can talk about the miracle of their existence.

you are all just a cheap Derren Brown illusion

[JPreston]

I thought he was implying the exact opposite.

Yes, what a red herring.

Never mind seeing 'higher purpose' agency in observed occurrences, we don't even know whether there is such a thing as randomness or free will, or whether the universe is completely deterministic in nature - ticking along the path that was inevitably set in motion from its initial conditions. Dan Dennett puts forth the theory that even if the universe is completely deterministic, this will never be provable and the illusion of free will that we have will always be sufficient for all of our purposes. That's the kind of thing some people are thinking about anyway.

Other people are still wondering whether picking your nose on the sabbath makes god angry*.

I think I know which group of people are more illuminating to listen to.




PS:

The deterministic/random universe question gives a reductio ad absurdum proof that god could not be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. If god's omniscient, then the universe must be deterministic and all of time and space sits within his vision - so in particular he can see what he is going to do next Tuesday afternoon, for example.

So does omniscient god have the power to change his mind about what he does next Tuesday afternoon? Obviously not, he can already see everything that will happen everywhere next Tuesday so he cannot affect the universe in any other way and so he can't be omnipotent as well (in fact, he can be nothing more than an automaton)....so suppose instead that he was omnipotent, if god has free will then he cannot see the future because he hasn't decided how he will affect it, and is no longer omniscient. If god existed, and was omnipotent but could not see the consequences of his actions, then he'd really need to stop messing around breaking every principle of physics with his magic shenanigans before someone loses an eye.

Fortunately god, if he exists, has apparently never been able to affect anything anywhere (old stories of burning bushes aside) and we pretty much know today that the whole concept of god was created by cave-dwelling proto-humans with less mental sophistication than a modern day child, so no need to lose any sleep over it....unless you really want it to be true, in which you case you rapidly run into difficulties. The only way to remain religious is not to think too much.



*This is absolutely true. Orthodox jewish rabbis have outlawed picking your nose on the sabbath, because you might also pull out some nose-hair and it's scripture that cutting your hair on the sabbath clearly makes god angry, which it does, obviously.

[Salazaar]

I thought he was implying the exact opposite.

It's a bit of both really, in an infinite universe, even the infinitely improbable become an absolute. So, even that which seems so unlikely as to be impossible without a divine agent, is merely an unlikely event who's time has, inevitably, come.

[GheeTsar]

Yes, what a red herring.

Never mind seeing 'higher purpose' agency in observed occurrences, we don't even know whether there is such a thing as randomness or free will, or whether the universe is completely deterministic in nature - ticking along the path that was inevitably set in motion from its initial conditions. Dan Dennett puts forth the theory that even if the universe is completely deterministic, this will never be provable and the illusion of free will that we have will always be sufficient for all of our purposes. That's the kind of thing some people are thinking about anyway.

Other people are still wondering whether picking your nose on the sabbath makes god angry*.

I think I know which group of people are more illuminating to listen to.




PS:

The deterministic/random universe question gives a reductio ad absurdum proof that god could not be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. If god's omniscient, then the universe must be deterministic and all of time and space sits within his vision - so in particular he can see what he is going to do next Tuesday afternoon, for example.

So does omniscient god have the power to change his mind about what he does next Tuesday afternoon? Obviously not, he can already see everything that will happen everywhere next Tuesday so he cannot affect the universe in any other way and so he can't be omnipotent as well (in fact, he can be nothing more than an automaton)....so suppose instead that he was omnipotent, if god has free will then he cannot see the future because he hasn't decided how he will affect it, and is no longer omniscient. If god existed, and was omnipotent but could not see the consequences of his actions, then he'd really need to stop messing around breaking every principle of physics with his magic shenanigans before someone loses an eye.

Fortunately god, if he exists, has apparently never been able to affect anything anywhere (old stories of burning bushes aside) and we pretty much know today that the whole concept of god was created by cave-dwelling proto-humans with less mental sophistication than a modern day child, so no need to lose any sleep over it....unless you really want it to be true, in which you case you rapidly run into difficulties. The only way to remain religious is not to think too much.



*This is absolutely true. Orthodox jewish rabbis have outlawed picking your nose on the sabbath, because you might also pull out some nose-hair and it's scripture that cutting your hair on the sabbath clearly makes god angry, which it does, obviously.

There are a lot of variations in what those with faith believe in and the rules by which they operate to. You make some pretty large generalisations about what having faith means to people and what they believe in. I personally think there are many aspects of religion that are very hard to be sympathetic to and disagree with so please don’t assume anything about what an individual believes and please don’t insult me by implying that I don’t think too much.

For what it’s worth, I also have considerable doubts that a god could have much impact in physical terms. Instead, and of course this is only speculation which you will no doubt scoff at (maybe rightly), perhaps a god could act through conscious entities, perhaps making them think something at a certain time. This would of course links back to the free will point.

[MadduckUK]

and of course this is only speculation which you will no doubt scoff at (maybe rightly), perhaps a god could act through conscious entities, perhaps making them think something at a certain time. This would of course links back to the free will point.

i think your right, god is stopping us having free will - we must purge him from our minds!! perhaps we can rent a building for the sole purpose thereof and get some tax breaks?

[schmunk]

Are you suggesting a course that sets out to help people answer a question that they're unsure of is somehow unsavoury? Or was that a comment about the people who voluntarily went to such a course? Perhaps they should have picked the courses run at places like Cambridge Uni, where the attendants are very sure of themselves, strong minded and some of the top student minds in the country.

Ah, well I have first hand experience here.

The Cambridge University Christian society operated like terrorist cells.

More than once the members organised dinners for their friends, just a small gathering in their rooms. The catch being that pudding would be served en masse at the Corn Exchange, along with a talk by an evangelical Christian speaker...

Also, whilst Cambridge University is of course full of intelligent people, it does not follow that those people are strong minded or self confident, often quite the reverse - we've all seen (or been?) the shy and reclusive 'swot' type.

[peterb]

There is of course the story of the devoutly religious man trapped on the roof of his house in a flood.

He prays to God to save him. After a while a neiighbour in a boat arrives and offers to take home to safety. "No" he replies, "God will save me". He gets down on his knees and continues to pray as the water rises higher.

A lifeboat appears and is about to send a line over to rescue him, but again he cries out, "No, No, the Almighty will save me", and they leave him on his knees, praying.

An hour later a helicopter arrives, and lowers a line. He cries out "No, No, I am waiting for the Lord to save me, I trust in Him" and the helicopter leaves.

The waters rise... he is swept away and is drowned.

Arriving in heaven, he angrily confronts God. " I trusted you, I prayed to you, and you did nothing!" "Nothing?" replies God, "I sent you your neighbours, a lifeboat, and finally a helicopter! What more did you expect me to do?"

Draw your own conclusions.

However there is (or has been) a sociological benefit to religion. In days where law and order was - to say the least - hardly enforced, the threat of hell and the promise of heaven was a pretty good way of keeping a largely illiterate and ignorant populace under control. Organised religion was also a way of preserving knowledge - prior to the invention of the printing press book were the preserve of the elite, and hand copied. There was some truth in the saying that the eldest born of the aristocracy inherited the estate, the second joined the army, and the third entered the Church - largely preserving a status quo. The Church was as much a political organisation (and (cynic mode on) was as much about preserving its power as passing on the word of God.

Law and order is largely undertaken by the state,and those (some might say draconian) purposes of the Church have been usurped. However, the major religions do offer a moral and ethical code which perhaps is lacking in a secular society. Sadly though, even the high ideals of a religion can be debased by humans, and I'm sure I don't have to point out the many atrocities that have been (and still are) carried out in the name of religion.

That said, religion has been responsible for sociological advances. William Wilberforce, who campaigned against slavery, was a Quaker, as were the Lever brothers and the Cadburys who introduced significantly better working conditions for their workers. (Port Sunlight and Bourneville village in Birmingham - although a cynic might say that it was still exerting a form of control).

But of course, none of thios proves (or disproves) the existance of a supreme being!

[usxhe190]

It's a bit of both really, in an infinite universe, even the infinitely improbable become an absolute. So, even that which seems so unlikely as to be impossible without a divine agent, is merely an unlikely event who's time has, inevitably, come.

the more you look at stuff at the extremes, the more weird this universe is.

[usxhe190]

i think your right, god is stopping us having free will - we must purge him from our minds!! perhaps we can rent a building for the sole purpose thereof and get some tax breaks?

wtf.

[usxhe190]

Also, whilst Cambridge University is of course full of intelligent people, it does not follow that those people are strong minded or self confident, often quite the reverse - we've all seen (or been?) the shy and reclusive 'swot' type.

And that's why there can't be generalisations.

[MadduckUK]

wtf.

I KNOW

[Zhaoman]

I KNOW

Lol I'm with you on that one, we'd be getting donations left right and centre too, and maybe some from behind but we'll not speak of those...

[Zhaoman]

Also, whilst Cambridge University is of course full of intelligent people, it does not follow that those people are strong minded or self confident, often quite the reverse - we've all seen (or been?) the shy and reclusive 'swot' type.

Yeah I don't class them as particualrly smart either, in fact a lot of very very dumb people that I know managed to get into Cambridge simply because they can do well in exams (while lacking any sort of skills or ambition outside of that). Honestly there were some genuinely genius guys who didn't get in (and they can do very well in exams too) and some absolute morons who did so I have lost a lot of respect for Cambridge and Oxford.

As for the god debate, JPreston you are officially my hero. <thumbs up> U DA MAN!

[MadduckUK]

and maybe some from behind but we'll not speak of those...

i think we should only accept reacharounds in those situations if i needed to be serious for a moment...