My apologies,
I saw an “a” where there was only a “gnostic.”
As for the other religions and verified proofs, I doubt that very much.
What does that mean?
“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish”
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
The whole agnostic/athiest split seems ridiculous to me. Most athiests are agnostic in the strictly literal sense, but it ceases to be a meaningful qualifier because it can be applied to anything from the celestial teapot and the pink unicorn to Santa Claus and any other conceivable proposition regardless of evidence.
The reason I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic is not because I can prove a negative but to distance myself from the ‘agnostics’ who think that because both God and its negation cannot be proven, both possibilities are equally plausible and should be respected equally. This is an obviously untenable position when one recognizes that ‘proof’ is not obtainable at the very least via induction and the physical sciences (Hans Albert makes a similar case for logic). To consistently apply the principle used by such agnostics is to conclude that the entire body of science, and its negation, are equally plausible.
Source? Are these experiments reproducible? Was it James Randi just taking these deluded ‘scientists’ out for a spin, as he has done before?
There are physiological explanations for these experiences that do not require the presumption of a supernatural deity. See the work of Thomas Metzinger (or even Penn and Teller or John Stossel)
But scientific proofs can be reproduced. They can be empirically observed. Or at least their effects can be.
I cannot either prove or disprove God, therefore it seems plausible that God exists. But I tend to bet that God doesn’t exist.
Also, I think about the risk of being wrong about God and then facing his wrath. I’d rather be wrong and look like a fool in life than be wrong and have to explain my actions to God.
I would argue that the two possibilities are not equally probable. The boundedness of our experience, consistent with the implications of an external world that we perceive through sensory organs which we can contrast with our dream experiences which are not so bound, would support the ontological realist hypothesis and not the alternative. I would say there is a much higher probability of there being an external reality, and it is supported by our bounded phenomenology.
“For example, there have been numerous experiments in which people have moved objects without touching them.”
Yeah, mental telekinesis without using magnets or wires is scientifically ironclad and definitely not a hoax. Plus, I saw it on “Heroes”, so it must be true.
"There have been thousands of reported out-of-body and near-death experiences. Etc. "
There are also thousands of reported LSD trips, fever-induced deliria, and tumor-induced seizures.
I’m sorry I can’t see visions of God through having medically identifiable neurological failures.
I think about the risk of being wrong about God and then facing his wrath.
But God doesn’t care if you believe in him or not. Like with fractional reserve banking, the quantity of space in the universe seems to keep inflating while the ratio of matter to space becomes ever more diluted. Clearly, God is a Keynesian and will destroy you for supporting the Austrian School.
If you don’t give me your life’s savings you will anger Zefre’Ak who is God the father and he will punish you for eternity.
The probability of the existence of Zefre’Ak is non-zero. Better to be wrong than suffer for eternity, right? I accept PayPal.
Pascal’s Wager is bunk.
Maybe Pascal’s Wager is bunk but I’m not willing to risk being wrong.
Pascal’s Wager got me an A minus in college. Just sayin.
Pascal’s Wager got me an A minus in college. Just sayin.
What about this wager?
Suppose God loves adulterers, and if you commit adultery at least 5 times, you will live for ever in paradise and have infinite gain - but if you don’t commit adultery, then you will be condemned and have infinite loss.
I thought the basis of monotheistic religion was acceptance of god in faith alone. By usurping this fundamental tenant of the religion you are usurping the whole point of belief. Your god will not be pleased with this Pascal’s Wager crap [:P]
I recommend looking up the argument from inconsistent revelations. If you don’t have a reason (other than Pascal’s Wager) for believing a particular religion, you are (more than likely) choosing the wrong religion anyways, assuming one exists.
There is also a positive cost associated with Pascal’s Wager, namely the opportunity cost resulting from worship and prayer, as well as the effect it can have on your happiness in life (unless your desires line up 100% with the obligations of the church).
Then there is the cost to one’s integrity which I think to be substantial.
The existence of such a god is a non-zero probability. Multiplied by infinite gain, you would be irrational to not commit adultery!
Unless of course there are an infinite number of alternative beliefs, each resulting in infinite gain and threatening infinite loss..
Then such a facile use of decision theory would be worthless.
.
Wouldn’t that assume that the god(s) needed to be recognized a certain way, and only one way? What if you did things Greco-roman style and recognized everything. I think that may increase the odds somewhat.
“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” –- Stephen Roberts
It means that I believe in God - I am spiritual - but I do not see any evidence for it nor do I think there are any good a priori arguments for God’s existence (or the existence of anything outside of what can be observed, whether directly or indirectly). Most importantly, I think that religious belief and practice is a healthy, integral component of human society that is a natural outgrowth of the human family/clan/tribe/community that has been twisted and perverted to no end by the machinations of the political class who turn religious energies to their own plunderous uses. Religion is no less fantastical and no less important than dreaming or the arts. I don’t see atheists getting up in arms about the absurd imaginations we each engage in every night after we fall asleep… yet our dreams play some integral role in our brain function (otherwise, we wouldn’t have them).
Clayton -
Damnit, I posted a reply to this, and it didn’t post and I don’t remember exactly what I said, so this isn’t as good as I originally written…
When athiest attack religion they seem to attack the characterics of a religion that they see as having without reason, but they don’t mention spirituality. The attacks are on 1) faith, and 2) belief in a superior god who remains superior, and a life of sacrifice to that god to obtain a utopian paradise in the afterlife that is not obtainable on Earth. I have no problem with those points, and those points are what pushed me towards the Left-Hand Path.
The problem is that athiest (not all) seem to lack spirituality, and I’m sure some believe that spirituality is religious which is a common misconception. They seem to disregard spirituality, and anything esoteric or subjective. They live in a material world, and that’s that. There is no spiritual/material balance.
In their attacks they seem to also stray away from attacking the non-Abrahamic, pagan religions. I’d love to hear an athiest try to refute Buddhism, Odinism, or Setian philosophy.
I’ll let God make that judgment. You could be right though.