On Psalm 109 and Faith

[Alex]

The criteria for intermediate values on Dawkin's scale aren't well defined so it is hard to be very precise in placing myself on it. But since it is his scale and I am very close agreement with him on the major points (1. I've had no personal experience that suggests the existence of such an entity; 2. I see no gaps or contradictions in our understanding of the universe that suggest no other possibility than that such an entity exist in order to be reconciled; 3. The existence of such an entity would contradict everything we think we know about the nature of the reality around us; 4. When examined, every real world evidence of such an entity claimed has proven vaporous; 5. The odds of such an entity existing seem vanishingly small.) so I guess I would be near an 8.7 as well.

Perhaps helpful would be to look at how "atheist" I am on other items.

Unicorns: 7 on the existence of the form, 9 on their magical properties. The existence of unicorns would not violate any physical properties of the universe. However, the initial reports of such creatures are known to be the result of faulty observation and it is unlikely that there remain many large mammals to be discovered but it does still happen leaving open the door for discovery of a creature matching the physical description of unicorns.

Homeopathy: 9.2. A theory that exists entirely within the realm of scientifically testable hypotheses and yet fails conclusively. The theory was developed from philosophy rather than evidence based need and its validity would violate everything we know about reality around us.

Sub-atomic structures: 2.0. Theory derives entirely from observation and filling gaps. Allows for predictions about the reality around us to be made that are then demonstrated through testing. However, much of it relies on indirect observation which heightens risk of misinterpretation of root cause or that only a subset is being described and in a way that is technically incorrect (like how Newtonian physics is correct within its realm but missed relativity and quantum mechanics). Also, ultimately I am relying on the expertise of others as the expertise necessary for personal discovery is quickly beyond me.

Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories: 6.5. If forced to choose I still fall on th side of accepting that Oswald was a lone gunman. However, many conspiracy theories do not lie outside the realm of physical possibility though suffer for relying on questionable evidence or simply Argument from Personal Incredulity. However, I would not be at all surprised if I eventually have to accept I'm on the wrong side of this one.

Quality Full House Episodes: I've seen them all so personal experience argues solidly against the evidence of any good episodes of Full House. Bob Saget and David Coulier are involved and so any quality resulting would violate known physical properties of the universe.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex

Quality Full House Episodes: I've seen them all

excuse me?

[flippyshark]

GD brings up another good reason I avoid the agnostic term. A lot of people think of it as meaning someone just isn't sure, or is still "seeking." I'm pretty sure, just not dogmatic.

Also, I hope that by embracing the term atheist, I can make do my little bit to remove the still considerable stigma that gets attached to that word. (certainly here in the South.) There are plenty of decent, compassionate non-believers out there, and the more open they are, the more the world can see that 'atheist' is a perfectly cromulent thing to be, even if it isn't their cup of tea.

[Not Afraid]

I have stopped over-thinking the issue. I dislike organized religion for the "group think" properties it creates. Most religions don't seem to leave room for individual thoughts or beliefs. Beyond that, I have (as I have stated before) decided that there is some sort of power greater than me and that I probably can't comprehend or fully understand what that is, so I just accept my belief and go about my life doing the best I can.

[Morrigoon]

Are you suggesting she's trying to have a 2-year presidency?


(Think Mayans)

[Strangler Lewis]

Further proof of the non-existence of God: the sty.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Further proof of the non-existence of God: the sty.

Whoops. Make that "stye."

That pigs have a proper home is proof of God's benevolence. Though they be unclean.

[Deebs]

Oh, great. I rarely get them, but it seems like every time someone mentions the word stye, I get one. At least people don't talk about them much. If I don't get one this time, I will have to thank you for breaking the stye curse.

[scaeagles]

Coming in a little late to the discussion over the last several days.

GD asked that if it could be proven there is no God (alluding to the logic of not being able to prove something like that) would i continue to believe. I suppose the answer is no, I would not continue to do so, but i would of course be incredibly confused and it would take time to reconcile. I suppose it would something like the 5 stages of grief - denial, anger, depression, bargaining, acceptance (or whatever the 5 are). I suspect that there will come a point in time where someone will claim proof that there is no God, and that proof will be disputed, with some swearing by it and others pointing out flaws. I wonder what the point of absolute proof would be for me, as i can't think of anything that could serve as proof of it (which is, of course, something that was alluded to when the question was asked).

Answering the question that way, though makes me wonder about the nature of faith. Is it really faith if I stop believing should there be some earth shattering development, or does faith endure?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Coming in a little late to the discussion over the last several days.

GD asked that if it could be proven there is no God (alluding to the logic of not being able to prove something like that) would i continue to believe.

That's not really the question I asked.

The question I asked is, if you it were to be proven satisfactorily to you that god does not exist, would your behavior, and your desire to do be what you consider to be a "good" person, change at all?

And what I alluded to was the concept of "burden of proof". But it's a distraction from the question I originally posed and find more interesting, so I don't want to get into it now. The question I'm interested in is if your sense of morality and of right vs. wrong, is contingent on your belief in god, or if it would remain in tact without it.