Summer means no religion or politics?

[Akatosh]

Belief is "holding something true without evidence". I don't do it. It's as simple as that.

There's always gotta be at least some evidence. The difference is how much credibility a person gives to it.

I am a sentient obelisk from Alpha Centauri, which is made of green cheese and also marble. I started travelling in the year 3050, which is why I didn't arrive until 2012. I invented Calculus back in elementary school, shortly before George W. Bush's twin sister came up with the rest of mathematics. 

I'll leave the details to Khris, but lemme just throw this out there... you haven't exactly studied the field of Formal Logic, have you?

[Khris]

Don't you love ad-hominem 

Are you accusing me of making those? I don't see where I told Misj' that he's wrong because he's an idiot.
Why don't you keep your petty snide one-liners to yourself?


Lionmonkey:
See, that's the point. That's simply the nature of axioms. I don't know if A is true, but "A and B implies A", always.
I take it you think of axioms as statements like "earth is round" or "gravity exists". Those aren't axioms.

Crusades:

The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church".
[...]
The result was an awakening of intense Christian piety and public interest in religious affairs, and was further strengthened by religious propaganda, which advocated Just War in order to retake the Holy Land from the Muslims. The Holy Land included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city). Further, the remission of sin was a driving factor and provided any God-fearing man who had committed sins with an irresistible way out of eternal damnation in Hell.
[...]
Most believed that by retaking Jerusalem they would go straight to heaven after death.
[...]
On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through. Jews were often offered sanctuary in churches and other Christian buildings.

So in essence, a god-fearing mob slaughtered unbelievers while taking back the "Holy Land" to get remission for sins. This could be called "territorial", but that really misses the point, doesn't it?

Here's a scenario: An atheist has his wife raped and murdered by a man with high influence, who gets out of this with both hands clean. Would the atheist,if he decided to kill this antagonist, consider his own act unjust?

I don't know, but the situation wouldn't be much different if the husband were a catholic. It depends on his personal view on vigilante justice.
It doesn't matter though; you need to focus on crimes with a religious background, that's were the difference lies.
E.g. Ireland has outlawed public blasphemy. Nevermind the violation of the seperation of church and state, no sane atheist would want somebody thrown in jail because of ridiculing his world-view.
In several countries, homosexuals get death sentences if "caught", based on what's written in some holy book.
There simply aren't any equivalent atheist examples.
The important point is that if, say, a gay guy gets beaten up by somebody religious, chances are the person did it because he's deeply religious and therefore thinks that it's wrong to be gay ("do not lay with another man" or similar). If a gay guy gets beaten up by an atheist, there's no way he did it because he's an atheist. Got it now?

There's always gotta be at least some evidence. The difference is how much credibility a person gives to it.

There are millions of people who believe because they had "an experience". That doesn't count as evidence, yet that's why they do believe (in Jesus or whomever).
It's all the need, so tell that to them.

[SSH]

See, that's why I think you're a pretentious idiot.

Are you accusing me of making those? I don't see where I told Misj' that he's wrong because he's an idiot.
Why don't you keep your petty snide one-liners to yourself?

I don't because your swearing, attacking people personally and general unpleasantness in this are offensive to me. And they ruin your argument that atheists are paragons of virtue.

[Akatosh]

Misinformed posts of the not even wrong variety have a tendency to leave people a little aggravated. It's a human thing.

[SSH]

The kind of ire and venom displayed by some people in this thread not only breaks forum rules but also sniffs faintly of some kind of fear. Perhaps some people are in denial of their true feelings.

[Akatosh]

Perhaps some people just dislike this sort of unfounded pretentiousness. You know, you sometimes can be angry at something without secretly belonging to that group. For example, I vocally dislike rapists.

There is some bad blood in this thread, agreed. But this sort of thing has a tendency to be emotionally charged, and I can totally understand Khris. I suppose if you're up against "arguments" like these, your fuse eventually shortens a little. For example, I'm sounding like a condescending asshole right now!

[Misj']

Point out the differences between my science and your science, preferably in one sentence, so we can finally get over this stupid pile of shit of a sub-discussion that fucked up the entire thread.

I did many times throughout this thread. So if you didn't read them or didn't understand them then apparently it's out of my hands.

You can call me a believer as much as you like, that doesn't make me one.
The reason is simple and I already mentioned it:
Not believing in something doesn't automatically make you a believer of the opposite.
I don't believe there are invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn't make me a believer of "there are no invisible pink unicorns".
If it did, everybody of us were a follower of thousands of "belief systems".
But that's not how belief is defined. Belief is "holding something true without evidence". I don't do it. It's as simple as that.

You did see the following coming now didn't you?

Wikipedia - Belief
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Wikipedia - Proposition
In logic and philosophy, the term proposition refers to either (a) the "content" or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or (b) the pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence. The meaning of a proposition includes that it has the quality or property of being either true or false, and as such propositions are called truthbearers.

Wikipedia - Premise
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.
...
The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.

Wikipedia - Truth
The word truth has a variety of meanings, from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.

So according to - what you call - the general definition (the wikipedia definition or wd) belief is not what you belief it to be; and you belief - and are a believer - according to this general meaning. You were talking about assumptions and not belief (but we'll get to that later on as well):

Wikipedia - Assumption
An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, as if it were true based upon presupposition without preponderance of the facts.

So unless you're now telling me that with the exception of 'science' all definitions that are used should not conform to the general understanding of the word (as described on Wikipedia), while 'science' should...because then I find that a really, really 'logical' and 'rational' (of course that's just my opinion).

And to make this clear once and for all: I don't lie here. Why would I? Fuck you.

Let me get this straight: if someone tells people stuff that contradicts your world view and view of science then you may insult them by calling them liars (directly or by association)

Also, there are many countries in which religious beliefs prevent necessary research (stem cell research), beneficial practices (abortions) or oppose the right to live one's life as one pleases (gay marriage), let alone promote lying to children.

One doesn't need a 1500-years long history of oppression, lying and bloodshed to come up with ideas like "all humans have equal rights".

but when someone wonders whether you are lying or whether your argumentation is based on ignorance then you tell this person to

Fuck you.

Interesting...it does make me wonder about one of my original assessments though.

See, that's why I think you're a pretentious idiot. Instead of taking a step back and looking at the whole picture, you focus on alleged and/or pin-sized holes in my arguments.

Considering that your holes are quite big (even from a distance; because unlike you, I actually DO look the whole picture)...the only other thing to focus on is the at least you try...that counts for something. Of course I had already reacted to mr Matti's correction (two hours prior to your post) and addressed the 'hypothesis' differently based on his corrections; and 'proved' the hypothesis to be invalid and dismissed (using your definition of science).

And hell yes, I'm totally sure my completely wrong concept of science has done massive damage to its reputation in the eyes of every reader of this thread. But thank God, our Lord, for you, Captain Science!

You're welcome. Although I do prefer to be called the enlightened Dr. Misj' or the scientist formally known as Misj'; of course other options like Misj' PhD (Pretty Handsome Dude), or Misj': ScienceMan are also allowed. I used to have a pretty good theme-song that mysteriously started to play from the intercom whenever I entered the room (is it magic? - Nooooom, it's science!). By the way...as we're apparently starting to make up cute little pet-names for each other...can I call you Paschulke?

Concerning axioms:
Yeah right, a Mercedes Benz is a car and a Lexus is car, therefore a Mercedes Benz and a Lexus are the same. But let's not get into that here, right?
It's obvious Lionmonkey doesn't know what an axiom is, did you even read what he wrote?

Of course I do. Let me explain: A and B implies C. But what does imply A and B? C and D. But what does imply them? And so on. When you reach a certain point that way, you learn that there's always at least one implementaition, that has not been implemented by anything. That's the axiom. And it seems to me like a surrogate for a supernatular force for the atheists.

Imagine I said it.
Go, Captain Science, take that apart, will ya?

[/quote]Yes, I've read it. And he's correct, because you have assumptions that you've stated several times throughout this thread. However, I'll give you the change to proof me otherwise. Let's take the following remarks:

Religions invented a whole universe full of various gods who did all kinds of supernatural stuff ...

And are you aware that your story about the unknown mine explains exactly why people invented gods?

So let's put these remarks within context. There are three options:
1. God exists and made himself known -> Men did not invent god.
2. God exists but did not make himself known - > Men did invent god.
3. God does not exist (and thus did not make himself known) -> Men did invent god.

Hypothesis 1 (men did not invent god) is not 'provable' (for exactly the same reason as why 'god does not exist' is not 'provable'). However hypothesis 2 has to be proven to be accepted without it being an assumption (as defined by Wikipedia above). So tell us: what (scientific*) proof do you have that - for the sake of the argument the Jewish god - was invented by men. Bear in mind, this is about proving that this event did take place, not that it could take place! - You claim to have to assumptions, so that means that you have absolute scientific* proof that this event happened.

* for the sake of argument we'll use your definition of scientific here.

If you fail to proof this then you automatically proof that your believes are based on assumptions and are thus no more valid than other people's believes based on another set of assumptions.


Ps. Bear in mind: I'm not attacking atheism. I believe there are a number of very valid arguments to be an atheist. I think Nacho - among others - has pointed out some of them throughout the 'beginning' of this thread.

[LimpingFish]

I'd say we've managed to highlight the untraversable gulf that exists between each extreme view.

Logic vs Faith is so convoluted an argument, that it can't but devolve into perceived slights and sweeping personal attacks.

There is a difference between anti-God and anti-church, but it seems both sides are prone to lumping it all together.

I'm a product of the Catholic church, whether I like to admit it or not, and I am 100% of the opinion that Organized Religion is humanity's greatest handicap. I neither need nor want life guidance or advice from such an organization so out of step with what it is to be a human being; warts and all. I'm also frustrated by some people's willingness to parrot views and rules handed down from the pulpit, simply because they've become indoctrinated to accept them as part of a belief system. Or why the church needs to concern itself with all the piddling little details it likes to put it's thumb on.

To live your life according to God is one thing. To life your life according to the church, is quite another.

[Akatosh]

Not according to the Roman Catholic Church itself. 

But yeah, it's an incredible cesspit of a topic. I suppose we're past the "agree to disagree" stage? 

[Khris]

Akatosh, thanks for backing me up on this.

SSH:
I STILL don't see where I told Misj' that he's wrong because he's an idiot.

Misj':
The map you posted is a joke.
It lists the number of reported crimes and doesn't distinguish between stealing bread and cold blooded murder. You said so yourself, yet you use it to dismiss "my" "hypothesis".
Beneath the map, there's this gem:

Map of countries with the highest reported crime rates clearly indicates that countries of Europe are the least safe countries in the world.

How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
I talk about crime and living standards, and you pull out a map that lists Iceland as the worst country.
For lack of a better word: hilarious. And sad.


You know, this marathon of discussions about definitions is seriously making my head hurt. In a "I'm tired of it"-way.
The problem here is that you know exactly what I mean but you jerk off over definitions and lecturing me instead.
A discussion should be about the exchange of opinions, so when I use an ambiguous word like "belief", I assume that the context is enough to see what I want to say.
You have ignored that several times only to misrepresent my view in order to attack it.
See, you have constantly written "belief" this or "proof" that. I didn't pretend not to understand you, just because the verbs are spelled "believe" and "prove". Now spelling isn't the same as definitions, but until you came into this thread, everybody was fine with the definition of science we all used, apparently.

Concerning belief, I'll quote myself:

[...] that doesn't make me a believer.
If you still think it does, fine, I don't care.
There's plenty of people who can't wrap their head around this simple issue.

See? Could have saved yourself a lot of pointless copy-pasting right there.

Concerning lying, my impression was that you accused me of lying deliberately to get my point across. I don't.

I assume that humans invented religions, correct. I'm basing assumptions like that on the principle of occam's razor. In fact, I'm probably basing all my assumptions on that principle. It's a great tool.
What that has to do with Lionmonkey getting wrong what an axiom is (due to a typo or something it seems), is beyond me.

[miguel]

Khris, you clearly went over the top with your last posts. I mean, I'm not getting involved any more because I'm afraid I'll be told to F... off by you and that's just not the way to debate anything, no matter the subject or if you are 100% sure of an idea you may have.
Your personal debate with Misj who I think deserves more respect from you being a fellow AGS member (and that should mean something, even online games share more of a fellowship than this Forum for Christ sake!) dropped the level on this thread on a way that most people will not dare to participate.
SSH may have a point here, and I told you that at the beginning of this thread, your hate for religious people is not healthy to you and sometimes touches the frontier of some right-wing groups that parasite in society.
You are a brilliant coder and valuable member of AGS, perhaps one of the best around since the very start. You have helped me and thousands of other members with coding and that is just unreconcilable with your attitude on this thread.
You should respect yourself a bit more and acknowledge the responsibility of being KhrisMUC.
I'm sorry this turned out like this.
I hope you think about it.
Miguel.

[Khris]

I didn't say "Fuck you" because Misj's opinions differ from mine. I thought he accused me of deliberate lying, something I detest, especially in a debate.
Apart from that I called him a pretentious idiot, by which I stand. Again, not because he has other views, but because he gave a little speech about political parties in the Netherlands while failing to see the point of a simple, clearly expressed argument.

And I certainly don't hate all religious people. I do think that there are some pretty evil nuts high up in the ranks of every organized religion though.
I respect the average believer, I just think they're misled. (Probably in the same believers think atheists are misled.)
So as long as they keep religion out of schools and politics, they can do whatever they want, fine by me.

[Akatosh]

Alright, I am by no means qualified to speak on Khris' behalf, and he sort of implied some of 'em in his posts, but there are some things worth restating for clarification's sake.

1) Disliking a belief =/= Hating the believers. I'm friends with a very devout Catholic, for example, who is a really nice person when he's not pushing his beliefs (which, thankfully enough, he seldomly does). I disagree with him on pretty much every political and most philosophical points, but we still get along. Yeah, I know, anecdotal evidence, but you hopefully get my point.

2) I think you're over-reacting a bit, miguel. Khris has admittedly been a little unsubtle with his usage of language, but that just sort of happens in emotionally charged debates like this one. Recall when you claimed I hated the church when I posted an example of how Christian beliefs can sometimes go wrong? Calm down a bit, dude. Khris is not arguing for an abolishment of freedom of religion; he's just stating his opinion and poking around the arguments you brought forth. Skepticism, remember?

3) As Khris said, "You are wrong because you are an idiot" =/= "You have said something stupid, then insisted on it to be right when it was pointed out to be stupid, which is rather idiotic". The former is an ad hominem. The latter could be nicer, but it's not a logical fallacy.

4) Bluntness is not hatred.

Akatosh, thanks for backing me up on this.

You're quite welcome.

[miguel]

Akatosh, I am by nature very calm and I just found out that I can't keep my mouth shut even if I said that I wasn't posting any more.
This is how emotionally charged I will get on a forum debate where I can't see the persons I am talking nor their current emotional status. I make sure or try, to speak the best way I can for the sole reason that the posts aren't literature works of art and can be easily misunderstood. More so if I start with F... this or F... that.
To me, and to my personal beliefs and education is just bad manners and clearly not the way such talented members should adress themselves.
If I told you you hated religious people is because you haven't give any reason not to think otherwise.
Have you ever considered that some members of this forums can be Muslims? Have you stop and think "hey! why don't they ever speak about religion?". I believe that if they did they would be put down to misery by some of you. If a Christian still has some credit or will to speak is because the balance is still evened thus this debate.
You talked about your friend who's a Catholic and I can't even bring a friend of mine here because I'd be ashamed to show him the way we have been conducting this debate. His religion is different than mine, by the way.
"F... you" is a lot different than "I think you're wrong" Akatosh, no matter why.
And what's your point when you claim everything in the name of logic? That's just an excuse and you can excuse Khris every time you want but think about the hundreds of members that can be offended by your reckless posts.
4)blunt  (blnt)
adj. blunt·er, blunt·est
1. Having a dull edge or end; not sharp.
2. Abrupt and often disconcertingly frank in speech: "Onscreen, John Wayne was a blunt talker and straight shooter" (Time). See Synonyms at gruff.
3. Slow to understand or perceive; dull.
4. Lacking in feeling; insensitive.   

[Misj']

The map you posted is a joke.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the particular site that I referenced was a parody-site. Could you please direct me to the disclaimer that I might have missed (while I assume that I don't have to indicate that this sentence was sarcastic, I do it anyway: that sentence was sarcastic!)

It lists the number of reported crimes and doesn't distinguish between stealing bread and cold blooded murder. You said so yourself, yet you use it to dismiss "my" "hypothesis".

However, since your hypothesis did not differentiate between types of crimes this did not seem to matter. For completeness I did indicate this omission, but examined different sites that did not indicate a strong difference when 'crime in general' was concerned.

Beneath the map, there's this gem:

Map of countries with the highest reported crime rates clearly indicates that countries of Europe are the least safe countries in the world.

You were talking about crimes not safety. I assumed that your definition of 'crimes' is similar to that of this site.

How about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate

Behind that link there's the following disclaimer:
The reliability of underlying national homicide rate data may vary. A comparative analysis of homicide data must be conducted carefully. This is because the legal definition of ‘homicide’ differs among countries. Homicide may or may not include assault leading to death, infanticide and assisted suicide or euthanasia.
I for one have not yet had the time to carefully conduct such a comparative analysis, so if you did could you please send me your study allowing me to validate and reproduce your findings.

I talk about crime and living standards, and you pull out a map that lists Iceland as the worst country.
For lack of a better word: hilarious. And sad.

Could you please indicate why the statistics presented on this site are incorrect, and could you please provide me with the correct statistics (and explain why these statistics are more correct).

The scientific method dictates that until you provide evidence (other than stating it's hilarious or sad) that these findings are incorrect, that I have to assume that they are not and have to dismiss your hypothesis that is in disagreement with these findings.

That being said, I never claimed nor made any indication that I consider atheists any worse than religious people. However...I also don't consider them better (which would be the logical conclusion from your hypothesis). I simply consider them all human.

You know, this marathon of discussions about definitions is seriously making my head hurt. In a "I'm tired of it"-way.
The problem here is that you know exactly what I mean but you jerk off over definitions and lecturing me instead.

I can assure you, that my or your posts in no way result in any sexual activity on my part. I might even be willing to go as far as to claim that my entire relationship with you (or anyone of this forum) is entirely and strictly non-sexual.

A discussion should be about the exchange of opinions, so when I use an ambiguous word like "belief", I assume that the context is enough to see what I want to say.

I agree that a discussion should be about the exchange of opinions. However, throughout this thread you have claimed several times that your ideas are not opinions but scientific facts [I did rephrase your words, but the intentions was clear]. And as soon as anyone disagreed with you and (sometimes almost violently) challenged your opinion, you dismissed them as 'not comprehending logic', 'attacking science',  etc etc. If you had shown any exchange of opinions then I would now probably be 'fighting' on your side. However, as it is, you've shown little respect for anyone who's opinion disagreed with yours.

You have ignored that several times only to misrepresent my view in order to attack it.

Would you please be so kind and give examples of that claim, because I disagree with me misrepresenting any views (either yours or anyone elses) in order to attack them. First of all, this remark implies that I on purpose misrepresent your ideas with the sole intention of attacking it; and if that is really what you imply than you're also implying that I am lying (since I'm then purposefully saying something that is not true). And I can assure you: I don't (even though I may not always share the entire 'truth' as I know it). Secondly, you've done exactly what you claim that I did when you claimed (several times) that I was attacking science and the scientific method. So please explain why you attacking and misrepresenting my views is different from me attacking and misrepresenting your views (although I disagree with the latter assessment).

See, you have constantly written "belief" this or "proof" that. I didn't pretend not to understand you, just because the verbs are spelled "believe" and "prove". Now spelling isn't the same as definitions, but until you came into this thread, everybody was fine with the definition of science we all used, apparently.

Yes, and you claimed to base your ideas on 'science' while in reality you claimed your ideas of what you believed to be science (believed as in 'thought of'. I've made it perfectly clear from the start that I did not use the word 'believe' in any religious-like sense). If you had stated from the beginning that the discussion that you held was not science vs religion as you claimed, but your view of the universe vs another view of the universe then there would have been no problem at all. If the latter would have been the case then semantics and definitions would have been irrelevant. However, since you claimed that your view represents the scientific view, and start of make claims about what scientists do and believe (again in a non-religious sense), the correct semantics and definitions become more than relevant: they become the entire basis of your argumentation. And as a result your argumentation was flawed due to the use of the wrong definition (basis).

Note, that I've never said that your general view of the universe is correct or not; I strictly addressed your reasoning (although many scientists (including those who are atheists) do not believe in a formula-of-everything...now I know that you didn't literally say that you do believe in this concept, but your belief that the entire universe concerns only mechanisms often (though not by definition) results in some sort of formula-of-everything-idea...also, since Dawkins has said in the past (in some of his documentaries) that he does believe in such a concept, and since you stated that you agree with most - if not all - of what Dawkins says, it is a logical conclusion to assume that you do believe in such a concept that many scientists are opposed to and consider 'the wish for some higher power').

Concerning belief, I'll quote myself:

[...] that doesn't make me a believer.
If you still think it does, fine, I don't care.
There's plenty of people who can't wrap their head around this simple issue.

See? Could have saved yourself a lot of pointless copy-pasting right there.

Yes, it would have saved me a lot of copy-pasting that showed that you using 'general' or 'specialized' definitions was strictly based on - as far as I could see - your own wishes. Just to exemplify what I mean here:
For 'theory' you use the scientific definition rather than the general definition.
For 'believing' you use the religious (so to speak) definition rather than the more general definition (for example: when I say that I believe my wife makes beautiful cakes, the term 'believe' in this general use has of course nothing to do with "holding something true without evidence", but is 'merely' an expression to indicate one's view on the subject).
For 'science' you use the general definition rather than the scientific definition.

And while I understand (and encourage) that in a discussion about science vs religion the term 'theory' should be used within it's scientific context (to ensure that the misconceptions concerning the value of scientific theories do not arise). I could even understand why 'believing' should be used only with their 'religious' definition within this discussion (to reduce similar confusion and misconceptions; although I think confusion would be less if the non-religious concept would be used). However, since the use of 'science' throughout this thread has lead to a number of misconceptions (that are directly clear to a scientist), this word should fall within the same category as 'theory', and hence the scientific use of the term should be used. In addition, several of my colleagues have indicated that the 'definition' of science as used throughout this thread equals that of a religion (albeit with a non-personal deity). While I may not entirely agree with them, their argumentations were quite strong, and my only reasons for not agreeing with them are of personal rather than scientific or rational reasons.

Concerning lying, my impression was that you accused me of lying deliberately to get my point across. I don't.

By no means. While I may disagree with some of your assessments of the universe (and my agree with others), I merely considered the option that you deliberately stretched what you considered to be true. That does not mean that I consider everything you say to be the truth; but I do believe that you consider it to be true (but I did have to check it in order to understand your reasoning). Similarly, however, I believe that religious people who tell their children that god exists also believe that what they say is true...so at that level I do not think they are lying either.

I assume that humans invented religions, correct. I'm basing assumptions like that on the principle of occam's razor. In fact, I'm probably basing all my assumptions on that principle. It's a great tool.

However, according to Occam's razor (and I've been trained in using it quite a lot) the assumptions 'God exists; he was not invented by humans' and 'Humans invented god; he does not exist' contain exactly the same number of assumptions (and (currently) non-testable ideas). In other words: according to Occam's razor both concepts are equally likely and valid (which is also the agnostic view (and the view of most scientists that I've spoken to about this subject)). Yet you clearly claimed several times throughout this thread that the second second assumption is more valid than the first; so that means that either you have to 'convert' to the agnostic view (which I would applaud), or need to have more proof (that you didn't mention) to move the scale towards the second assumption, or that you should stop talking in absolutes and start to accept that - while you consider your view of the universe valid and correct, and that while you see proof of both its validity and its correctness - it is based on a number of assumptions that may lead to a different view of the universe when different assumptions are made (that are equally valid, even though you consider them to be dubious at best).

As mentioned earlier: my 'attacks' - as you called them - towards you are not (and have never been) about whether or not your view of the universe is correct, but about the quality of your arguments and reasoning as I see them (and the only reason why the definition of science is important is because it is part of your arguments and reasoning in the first place). Even when I challenged some of your ideas about the universe, I never stated that any of them were false or true (even though I may have a different opinion about some of them than you); I always focussed on the argumentation rather than the result.

Misj'


Ps. By the way...thank you for pointing out my spelling-errors. I will try to be as careful when writing on the internet as when writing a scientific paper. Of course one might consider it to be a bit immature to start pointing out spelling-errors to 'prove' one's point (hay look, I wrote 'prove' in stead of 'proof'...aren't you proud for learning?). But as you already pointed out yourself, you didn't really prove anything since spelling and definitions aren't the same...so I can only assume that your reasons for pointing them out were slightly less gentleman-like. Anyway, thank you again, and I'll try to enhance my English writing (considering that I'm slightly dyslectic, it's a miracle that only these popped out)

[smiley]

However, according to Occam's razor (and I've been trained in using it quite a lot) the assumptions 'God exists; he was not invented by humans' and 'Humans invented god; he does not exist' contain exactly the same number of assumptions (and (currently) non-testable ideas). In other words: according to Occam's razor both concepts are equally likely and valid (which is also the agnostic view (and the view of most scientists that I've spoken to about this subject)).

I've always thought Occam's razor takes simplicity into account and not the sheer number of assumptions.
And assuming the existence of an unproven omnipotent, omniscient, omniwhatever being really doesn't scream simplicity.

Yet you clearly claimed several times throughout this thread that the second second assumption is more valid than the first; so that means that either you have to 'convert' to the agnostic view (which I would applaud), or need to have more proof (that you didn't mention) to move the scale towards the second assumption

Isn't "God exists" the initial unproven claim, neither verifiable nor falsifiable per definitionem?
Just dismissing something like that, seems completely valid to me.

Futhermore, do you really think both claims are (more or less) equally likely to be true?
Because only in this case being agnostic would be justified.

[Matti]

Beneath the map, there's this gem:

Map of countries with the highest reported crime rates clearly indicates that countries of Europe are the least safe countries in the world.

You were talking about crimes not safety. I assumed that your definition of 'crimes' is similar to that of this site.

Are you again trying NOT to get Khris' point? Of course this map is a joke. Of course the western european countries AREN'T the least safest.

I don't think we have to discuss that. Even if these countries had the highest reported crime rates, that doesn't say shit about actual crime. Please stay in Mexico, Kongo or Brazil for a year, come back and consider that map again.

Edit:

Also, all they say is that they "do not own any responsibility for the correctness or authenticity of the [map]" and just that it's based on the "latest year of which data is available" and don't even where that data comes from...

Edit 2:

Ps. By the way...thank you for pointing out my spelling-errors. I will try to be as careful when writing on the internet as when writing a scientific paper. Of course one might consider it to be a bit immature to start pointing out spelling-errors to 'prove' one's point (hay look, I wrote 'prove' in stead of 'proof'...aren't you proud for learning?). But as you already pointed out yourself, you didn't really prove anything since spelling and definitions aren't the same...so I can only assume that your reasons for pointing them out were slightly less gentleman-like. Anyway, thank you again, and I'll try to enhance my English writing (considering that I'm slightly dyslectic, it's a miracle that only these popped out)

I think Khris' point was that you shouldn't be nitpicky with a definition everyone uses and pretend not to understand what we're talking about just like he shouldn't do the same with your spelling mistakes..

[Misj']

Isn't "God exists" the initial unproven claim, neither verifiable nor falsifiable per definitionem?
Just dismissing something like that, seems completely valid to me.

No, as shown in a previous post the 'god (does not) exist' and 'men did (not) invent god' claims are directly related. Neither claim is (currently) verifiable nor falsifiable (let alone by means of science). As a result, both claims have to be marked as 'unknowns'; thus leading to agnosticism.

Futhermore, do you really think both claims are (more or less) equally likely to be true?
Because only in this case being agnostic would be justified.

Yes, I regard both claims are (more or less) equally likely to be true. That is also why most scientists (at least that I know) consider themselves to be agnostic. And even those who are atheists (and there are very few) or religious (which are less few) agree on this particular point.

Both atheism (including the formula-of-everything idea*) and religion (including the young earth idea*) are accepted by most scientists as personal believes of things unknown; unlike popular belief, most scientists consider neither atheism or religion to be in disagreement with actual science (in other words: the mechanisms don't change depending on your view as to how the universe came into existence). This again proves the point that semantics as used in this thread result in misconceptions (even though all participants use a similar definition) about science and scientists; which in itself is insulting** (big word, but you get the idea) to scientists.

* I use idea in stead of hypothesis here because neither of these ideas is scientific, and the term hypothesis might confuse people.

** or sad, or laughable...anyway: many scientists dislike the misconceptions society has about science and since a few years (at least in the Netherlands) many initiatives have arisen to increase communication between scientists and 'the layman'. The reason for such initiatives vary (some say 'science' has lost it's connection with society which they consider essential for the viability and progression of science, others say that society has lost it's connection with 'science' thus leading to ignorance, misconceptions, and - possibly - eventually fear or worship); but we do essentially all feel that people without the 'proper' background start making claims about what we believe is demeaning.

I don't think we have to discuss that. Even if these countries had the highest reported crime rates, that doesn't say shit about actual crime.

I remember stating that from the beginning. However, you have not shown me any data to indicate that these findings are not true. The only argumentations are "it's a joke", "of course it's not true" (without any argumentation as to why this fact does not need any further evidence).

Now imagine a religious person using these same arguments against you. Would you accept such a reasoning from him, or would you tell him that he's acting typically like someone who wants to ignore all evidence that their view of the world might be false. In my opinion, you are behaving exactly like the religious people you 'attack'.

Please stay in Mexico, Kongo or Brazil for a year, come back and consider that map again.

Have you stayed for a year in any or all of these countries? - If not, then the argument is not an argument at all now it is, because then you have - according to your own argumentation - no validity for considering that the map is wrong.

I think Khris' point was that you shouldn't be nitpicky with a definition everyone uses and pretend not to understand what we're talking about just like he shouldn't do the same with your spelling mistakes..

I never pretended not to understand what you were talking about. I said - and apparently have to say again - that you're not talking about what you think you're talking about. If people in this thread stop claiming to talk about science then I don't have to tell them that they are not. It is exactly the same as why people (usually atheists by the way) bicker about using 'theory' in the scientific sense when talking about scientific things.

Ps. by the way, just for the record, when I misinterpreted KhrisMUC's statement about the Dutch and interpreted it from a government-point-of-view, this was caused by KhrisMUC's own words when he said:

I don't mean communist countries, I'm talking about Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands, for example. Social Democracies, afaik.

Since social democracy is a political ideology (and yes, I do have a wikipedia reference for that) it was logical to assume that KhrisMUC meant it as such. Which makes it a bit weird to me, that both you and KhrisMUC immediately responded on that obvious logic by claiming that politics - even though technically KhrisMUC brought it up (not me) - has nothing to do with the argument. Then there was the same argument about crime...he talked about crime without any distinction, so I looked at 'crime in general', and then suddenly it turns out that this discussion is not about crime in general. Now it turns out that it is not about disregarding the law (which one would assume considering that KhrisMUC himself brought up anarchy; which is an extreme form of the 'not regarding the law'-philosophy), but about something completely different. How could one ever have a discussion based on logic and reason when, as soon as one regards an argument, the argument turns out to be about something else that the person did not address in the first place? - Just ask yourself how you would react if religious people acted in that way towards you.

EDIT: Wow...there was this one sentence that had to many spelling errors that...well, anyway: I removed some spelling errors. (although the irony was that it was completely unintentional in the first line of my reaction concerning my spelling-errors. I blame my sub-consciousness...)

[Dualnames]

Now, tell me, what science do you propose we use to disprove there is no god?

Where's Dualnames to quote Hitchhiker's Guide for us? lol

~Trent
[Edit]: Dang, shouldn't have double posted this one... Sorry mods!!

Took me long way to find this, so respect me there kids!
To come back at a point I made 20 pages ago, to KhrisMUC, even if you find religion an unimportant part of your life, the unimportancy of the religion is an important part of your life, therefore religion is.

Crime rates have nothing to do with science or religion. It has to do with the policy of states to give away guns to people that barely can hold a fork or aren't phycologically well.

Simple has nothing to do with an answer to anything. 42 is the answer to life?! Oh yes its simple and all. The human factor is something at least troubly complex to be defined. For example do you think you'll get a positive answer from all to the answer if there is love? There's not one thing that all humans agree or disagree to! And that's the point here. You can't possibly know the answer to the question if there is God, for you have so little knowledge of what IS GOD(as a creature). Therefore without knowledge you cannot prove the existence of something. You can strongly assume that it does or doesn't exist, but can never decide with 100% certainty based on scientific facts that there is GOD. The 12 gods of Olympia where proven falsed after climbing mount Olympus.

[Matti]

Please stay in Mexico, Kongo or Brazil for a year, come back and consider that map again.

Have you stayed for a year in any or all of these countries? - If not, then the argument is not an argument at all now it is, because then you have - according to your own argumentation - no validity for considering that the map is wrong.

I know people who went there (except the Congo), and as for brazil I now someone who was born there and lived there for ~25 years. Of course it's less safe then, say Denmark. But that's not important, see below.

I think Khris' point was that you shouldn't be nitpicky with a definition everyone uses and pretend not to understand what we're talking about just like he shouldn't do the same with your spelling mistakes..

I never pretended not to understand what you were talking about. I said - and apparently have to say again - that you're not talking about what you think you're talking about. If people in this thread stop claiming to talk about science then I don't have to tell them that they are not. It is exactly the same as why people (usually atheists by the way) bicker about using 'theory' in the scientific sense when talking about scientific things.

Then just pretend we're talking about research, not science. Otherwise we'll never accomplish anything.

Ps. by the way, just for the record, when I misinterpreted KhrisMUC's statement about the Dutch and interpreted it from a government-point-of-view, this was caused by KhrisMUC's own words when he said:

I don't mean communist countries, I'm talking about Scandinavian ones or the Netherlands, for example. Social Democracies, afaik.

Since social democracy is a political ideology (and yes, I do have a wikipedia reference for that) it was logical to assume that KhrisMUC meant it as such.

No, that wasn't logical at all. The ONLY reason Khris mentioned that these countries are social democracies was because Lionmonkey - for whatever reason* - talked about communist countries. And that was clear.

* I guess he didn't get the point either. It doesn't matter if religion is opressed in communist countries and it doesn't matter how many crimes are reported in western europe and canada. Perhaps instead of generally talking about crime rate Khris should have only mentioned the living standard or the kind of crimes in the countries. Of course there are more murders in Congo than in Sweden, also much more rapes. So it's SAFER to live in Sweden.

See, that's why I think you're nitpicky and, yes, that you pretend not to understand what we're talking about. Khris made it clear that his point was, that in western countries (and Japan, New Zealand etc.), where the overall living standards are higher, the percentage of atheism is higher too. The better you live, the lesser you (need to) believe in The One. Got it? Or did you get it before and just tried to attack us with some maps about crime statistics?