Does God exist? (your opinion anyways.)

Ok, so you're say that using two inaccurate methods produces an accurate result?

They're not innately inaccurate, that's a false claim based on cherry-picked "data." Dating methods by nature are a matter of statistical data over perceived absolutes. The question as to what you accomplish by "disproving" the science remains unanswered.

What do you mean by "They're not innately inaccurate"? Do you mean that the problems that make the methods inaccurate don't affect the underlying principles efficacy, or that you just prefer to think of them as accurate since it supports your current position?

Statistical data is always an inexact, and can vary from perfect accuracy, to completely opposite of reality.

Go back to page 13... It was in response to the comment by Vapymid stating that "Anatomically modern humans appear from about 200,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago". I was trying to say that the dating methods used to find those ages are so inaccurate as to create highly suspect results.

WE. NEED. REAL. SOURCES. Not this bullshit you keep giving us, REAL data, with real citations and dates, and it must be within the last five years. Or, as an alternative, peer reviewed scientific papers that describe and go into great detail the flaws of dating methods. Try not give us opinions and cherry picked facts this time, okay?

Statistical data is never an exact. You contradicted yourself when you said it's either perfectly accurate or the complete opposite of reality. It is neither of these things. Statistical data is all about examining the data and using inductive reasoning to make sense of it. It is an imprecise view of reality that becomes clearer as more data is collected. Statistics, when done properly, will constantly approach a limit of accuracy as long as proper data is fed into the collection of information. Geologists take all data of every single dating method, and put it all together in, for example, the Archaeological Record.

The "problems" that make particular instances of the methods of geologic dating "inaccurate," are known and factored into account when any sample goes in for study. Statistically, as geologists and archaeologists acquire and test more samples, using the correct methods for those samples, the more and more accurate dating methods become over time. Your claims that dating methods are "inaccurate" is simply false. It's not a matter of "belief," or "current position." It's a scientific process with an ever-growing history (both in its own right and in the history that it reveals).

I've shown, repeatedly (despite your claims that they're simply "biased interpretations" (when in reality it's your interpretations that are biased)), that the methods of dating are a scientific process with an ever-increasing understanding of the history of our planet. Further denial of these facts require no further response.

At what point did I say that the Earth was a young planet? I have no idea how old it is, but I doubt it's less than a few million.

I believe this would be considered an outrageous heresy. In some circles.

On the more serious note - the last 2 - 3 pages in this thread is what happens when you have an infallible point of faith, are confronted with observations which do not fit well with it and feel compelled to defend your position through rational arguments.

Because the believed source is a priori taken as absolute, your only solution is to question the empirical evidence and come up with a kludge, which would apparently reconcile specific observations with the points of faith. Very quickly that leads to these kludges breaking with other observed evidence, whereupon you have to devise kludges for kludges etc, until the picture of reality becomes completely distorted and the only way to resolve it is to forget logic and revert to the original point of faith, based on the premise of its infallibility.

Which is OK, as far as the freedom of conscience is concerned, but why not just short-circuit the whole lengthy process and just say "I believe this is so and so and I will not accept any alternative explanations, no matter how empirically supported they are, and my faith does not require me to prove it in any objective format"?

This way a lot of fruitless arguments and emotions could be avoided (and probably tons of CO2 emissions as well)...

Regards

Statistical data is always an inexact, and can vary from perfect accuracy, to completely opposite of reality.

You contradicted yourself when you said it's either perfectly accurate or the complete opposite of reality.

YOU NEED TO READ WHAT I POSTED AND NOT CHANGE WHAT I SAID!!!

If that's you level of reading comprehension' date=' no wonder you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you.

At what point did I say that the Earth was a young planet? I have no idea how old it is, but I doubt it's less than a few million.

I believe this would be considered an outrageous heresy. In some circles.

And I know a few of them too...

On the more serious note - the last 2 - 3 pages in this thread is what happens when you have an infallible point of faith, are confronted with observations which do not fit well with it and feel compelled to defend your position through rational arguments.

 

Because the believed source is a priori taken as absolute, your only solution is to question the empirical evidence and come up with a kludge, which would apparently reconcile specific observations with the points of faith. Very quickly that leads to these kludges breaking with other observed evidence, whereupon you have to devise kludges for kludges etc, until the picture of reality becomes completely distorted and the only way to resolve it is to forget logic and revert to the original point of faith, based on the premise of its infallibility.

 

Which is OK, as far as the freedom of conscience is concerned, but why not just short-circuit the whole lengthy process and just say "I believe this is so and so and I will not accept any alternative explanations, no matter how empirically supported they are, and my faith does not require me to prove it in any objective format"?

 

This way a lot of fruitless arguments and emotions could be avoided (and probably tons of CO2 emissions as well)...

 

Regards

It applies to both sides, not just the "religious". Right now I'm just trying to show how stupid it sounds when people say that some bone is millions of years old.

I apologize for misreading/misinterpreting/misrepresenting your exact quote. That does, in no way, invalidate the rest of my post. The fact that you're insulting my "reading ability" as your primary response shows that you are not worth any more of my time. Personally, I'm satisfied for the knowledge I've attained as a result of this debate. As you continue to insist on your denial of the science of geology, I'm done discussing it with you.

The fact that you're insulting my "reading ability" as your primary response shows that you are not worth any more of my time..

Right... Well if that's insulting enough to make you go away, you're the thinnest skinned individual I've ever encountered. Maybe if I called you a "jerk" you'd leave every thread I'm commenting in over the entire forum?

As you continue to insist on your denial of the science of geology, I'm done discussing it with you.

And you keep denying that the methods currently used for dating most fossils are not as accurate as you claim they are, but belief systems (AKA: religions, faiths) kinda make people do that sort of thing.

Well that degenerated quickly.

Yes it did.

I think it's a sign you've both done all you can to persuade each other to your own side of the debate, that neither of you can be persuaded, and that it would be futile to continue.

I was reading an article about antitheism, and it made some interesting points. I usually identify as agnostic, but I do have some antitheistic principles as well. Basically I find that religion causes much more issues than it solves (compare "belief in belief"), and that as a whole, people would be better off taking a humanist approach to philosophical issues.

A humanist will generally have a better impact on those around him than a nosey fundamentalist. Usually I don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't bring harm to others, but it seems that some religions as a whole do a lot more harm than good. Remember that mental, emotional, and spiritual harm can be done to a person as well as physical.

I was reading an article about antitheism, and it made some interesting points. I usually identify as agnostic, but I do have some antitheistic principles as well. Basically I find that religion causes much more issues than it solves (compare "belief in belief"), and that as a whole, people would be better off taking a humanist approach to philosophical issues.

 

A humanist will generally have a better impact on those around him than a nosey fundamentalist. Usually I don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't bring harm to others, but it seems that some religions as a whole do a lot more harm than good. Remember that mental, emotional, and spiritual harm can be done to a person as well as physical.

Agreed, 100%.

I was reading an article about antitheism, and it made some interesting points. I usually identify as agnostic, but I do have some antitheistic principles as well. Basically I find that religion causes much more issues than it solves (compare "belief in belief"), and that as a whole, people would be better off taking a humanist approach to philosophical issues.

 

A humanist will generally have a better impact on those around him than a nosey fundamentalist. Usually I don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't bring harm to others, but it seems that some religions as a whole do a lot more harm than good. Remember that mental, emotional, and spiritual harm can be done to a person as well as physical.

It isn't the religions that are the problem though, it's the people that are using the religion as an excuse to be total assholes, or murderers...

It isn't the religions that are the problem though, it's the people that are using the religion as an excuse to be total assholes, or murderers...

It's not even that, it's the fact that if it turned out that God was real and all powerful yadda yadda, what does that mean for us? Do we really have free will, then? For an all-knowing all-powerful being to judge us based on whether or not we worship him seems like a reality I never would want to live in. Yeah we have "free will" but if we exercise it in a way that doesn't satisfy our Oh-So-Benevolent Creator, we get sent to eternal suffering. What kind of choice is that? I don't want to believe in a form of existence where anyone would be set upon eternal suffering.

People would rebel against that. Same as we humans rebel against unjust dictators, many people would not be willing to live under such rule. This is why primarily I don't believe in divine intervention. If God or any sort of divine being exists, they will never involve themselves with our universe. The exact cause of the beginning of the universe is anyone's guess. What happens when we die is an unknowable as well. As a result, all we can do is live the life that we have been given.

This is where humanism comes into play. People will suggest that lack of theistic values make atheists immoral, which is just not necessarily true. Just like how the presence of theistic values doesn't automatically make people moral. On top of that, humanism isn't restricted to atheists. Humanism is a philosophy which holds that people are able to make moral choices in benefit of others. As such, theists are entirely able to be humanist, though they might attribute their kind acts to "the will of God" rather than to their own ability to be good.

This is somewhat frightening in a sense that it implies that such people would perform cruel acts if it wasn't for the fear of punishment / pursuit of an award for after death. If it was possible to prove the non-existence of God (or any divine power) and such a proof did come out, and somehow managed to convince everyone that God isn't real, would Christians automatically become immoral, (more) irrational, and cruel to their fellow humans? I quite imagine that the only ones to turn away from "being good people" would be among the most delusionally fundamental of their faith. As the ones trying so hard to keep people "on the path of good," if it was proved that their path was wrong, the irrationality they already possess will only serve to harm them and potentially cause them to harm others.

Bringing everything around full circle, those fundamentalists are already harmful as they already promote irrational thinking. As a result, (bringing everything back to my previous post) humanists generally have a more positive impact on those around them than nosey fundamentalists. Overall, while some people do need faith to help them through their lives, there are plenty of approaches to humanism to fulfil the need for spiritual well being. Approaches that can even include a belief in the Christian God. At least, a much more open-and-humanistic-in-his-own-right type of God. A version of God I might have considered while contemplating my own spiritual beliefs during the process I took to create the set of beliefs I hold today.

To me the question of belief in God and religions are totally different, even if related, matters.

The former is a philosophical issue and the latter is ideological.

Very little in any religion deals with the question of God, beyond postulating that He is the ultimate authority and the priests are His agents (and therefore the carriers of that authority and their edicts must not be questioned). Beyond that, the religions deal mostly with prescribing or proscribing certain types of behaviour which the priests want to promote or suppress.

Some of those prescriptions deal with the issues of general morality and lay down certain norms and rules which are for the benefit of the society as a whole. However, others are there for the purpose of maintaining the clergy's position of power and so are self-serving to an extent.

It is an apparent fact, though, that humans cannot effectively co-exist without an ideology. It acts like a back-up government, operating more on instinctive than on the rational basis. In times of crises or disasters, when communications fail and the secular government cannot exercise its power, the ideology helps to preserve some social integrity until the government is restored.

The problem is the possibility of abuse (as with any power) - it's tempting to use the power of the Ultimate Boss to slip in a rule or two that would benefit you personally, and that can be seen in any religion (or non-theistic ideology).

The other problem is inflexibility - when you claim that certain things are absolute because they came directly from the Ultimate Boss, it is difficult to explain why they may need to be reinterpreted or modified, when they become obsolete...

Regards

You're suggesting a form of "belief in belief" which suggests that people don't necessarily believe in God, but believe in belief of God. The phrase was coined by Daniel Dennett and he puts forth a good lecture on the concept which has been uploaded in

This doesn't necessarily suggest God doesn't exist, merely the reasons people will believe in the belief, even if they don't actually hold the belief themselves. As you suggest that humans cannot co-exist without an ideology, that is one of the points Dennett makes in outlying the reasons for belief. A fear of the collapse of civility and reason among those who are unsure, will try to convince themselves and others with what they think is a lie in order to maintain that structural order.

@Xalder: yes, something like that, but what I am also trying to say is that you can believe in God and not be part of any religion or, conversely, you can believe there is no God and still be religious (like Dawkins).

Humanism is OK as long as this is synonymous with philanthropy but I don't think that it is a complete ideology by itself. I dislike the notion of humans existing for our own sake without any greater purpose, just like I dislike the Gaianists for whom the planet is a purpose onto itself and humans are a (somewhat undesirable) byproduct. I prefer to think that the self-organisation of matter in the Universe is the logical precursor to evolution of life, which itself then inevitably leads to sentience and further exponential development of universal intelligence until some kind of transcendence will allow the continuation of these beings beyond the life-span of this Universe...

@Doom Shepherd: he is one angry fella

Regards