1. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214103 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 2:35 pm

"its still invisible"- I know. But it is not incoherent to say that it is light, because the definition of light doesn't mention visibility(in Modern physics that it) only that it should have the properties of an electromagnetic wave, like being bent by a magnetic field and all that.

2. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214101 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Nope I don't think the universe is infinite. I was only referring to your example of a galaxy infinitely far away.

I don't say that using your imagination reders it incoherent, only in those cases where you're not immagining from experience and have a new concept in mind that is in principle undetectable like a God or a third arm. My contention is that all such concepts when imagined involve some cheating that violates the stated traits of the entity.

I hope its clear by now.

3. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214097 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 2:24 pm

at 118

I didn't argue that you can see the whole spectrum, just that there is no incoherence with this idea that they are called light and yet cannot be seen. This is resolved unlike in the case of my unknowables by defining light differently- as electromagnetic waves. So if something behaves like an electromagnetic wave its called light and there is no mention of how it should appear to our naked eyes. So by this process of redefining concepts science avoids being incoherent.

4. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214093 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Well thinking about a galazy so far away that we don't know if its even there is a useless exercise. And would therefore fall under my category of unknowables where cheating would be required. For intance, you do assume it to exist somewhere in space even though any such picture would necessarily contradict your idea that no finite space separates us from this Galaxy. Also you may assume that this undetected galaxy emits some radiation that is like ours, but this would be cheating as a galaxy infinitely far away cannot shine light on any spot a finite/infinite distance away from earth. And therefore it will involve some cheating if you imagined receiving light from this galaxy. You'll have to be near it, meaning you'll have to imagine what zooming into infinite distance would be like(which you would cheat and approximate it to normal zooming).

And so on.

5. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214086 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Mitchell, the visual spectrum is detectable and all that light you don't see is called light only because we have adopted a new more abstract definition of light as electromagnetic waves. In other words the incoherence which would have resulted with thinking of an invisible light is rectified by defining light differently. Under this new definition it passes the "coherence" test.

6. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214084 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 1:52 pm

OK, let me define unknowable once more, 'cause I think its this definition that is responsible for all this confusion.

Unknowable: Something that in principle cannot be detected or observed.

Your thought experiments involving distant galaxies are in principle detectable or testable. In other words your only imagining based on experience. But once you start saying that distant galaxies are powered by "magic goo" that cannot be detected, then my claim or assertion is that any subsequent definition of this "magic goo" will be incoherent in the sense that you'll not have any corresponding concept of what the expression means without having to cheat in order to have it.

7. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214079 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Well I disagree. I do think its relevant to all unknowables(by which I mean all things people claim to exists but can't prove) because although the said unknowable only forms a subset of "what we have not experienced" it is still thought to be "thinkable"(without which we wouldn't bother talking about it). And exposing the fact that it is not thinkable (coherently) should come first before we ponder over its logical inconsistencies.

You see, if I told you to imagine my invisible third arm caressing your cheek(which cannot be felt by the way) you would invariably think of a translucent arm moving in space and touching you ever so slightly and yet the sensation of touch is only just. This is cheating because you're not supposed to think of a translucent arm but an invisible arm, meaning - you should not see anything but free space and you should not be imagining any movement or any sensation of touch.I would invite to share what you actually did imagine when you read the above lines, maybe we can see together, if any "cheating" is involved.

8. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214073 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

"I would think that they already know that, and it doesn't matter. "- Mitchell

This I must concede could be true, but I doubt all of them have thought about it. I used this argument with one of my friends who is kind of semi-religious and he didn't ever realize this fact before. Maybe my point is not so moot, hmmm? No? :)

OK I guess thats enough of taunting you with me thoughts. I release you from the burden of having to reply to me. :) Thanks for playing.

9. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214071 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 1:02 pm

No Mitchell you can think of atoms as anything that you like- blobs,boxes anything. My only assertion was that Modern Physics doesn't depend on such descriptions. The abstract notions of wave or a particle(as something that occupies finite space) is enough to talk sensibly and effectively while doing science. Just because you wish to continue using picture of solid objects as a stand in for the word "particle" doesn't mean that it is necessary or that it is its actual intended definition.
I don't think science faces the same problem of having entities "imagined" one way but "used" in a different way.

And I'll make my stance clear one more time. I'm not claiming that all believers "cheat" with their imagination all the time. Just that some of them might be doing just that and might be quite unaware of it.

My argument is not supposed to weigh negatively on the existence of a God only on the purported "meaning" of such a concept.

10. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214068 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Steve,
The one that comes first gets the naming rights :) Organism A deserves more than just Zombie, don't you think? After all it built the damn thing!

11. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214064 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Let me add that I'm not making an argument about what believers actually think. Just that it serves us better to let them verify their own beliefs before we take them to be a literal assertion.

12. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214062 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

My point is simply this. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that every christian claiming to know God has greater imaginative capacities than us atheist, we may as well ask them to think first if their particular concept of God bares any resemblance to the one they think or imagine. Because it may turn out that they are unaware of the "cheating" by which both ideas get equivocated incorrectly.

13. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214055 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Well Mitchell I don't get how what you said refutes my claim. My claim is trivially true, is that all that you are saying?

14. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214049 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Well that is pretty much what I'm saying.... The unknowable defined in whatever way is fundamentally unthinkable. It cannot be done without cheating and thinking of something else that violates the definition.

At least that's what I'm asserting. You can prove me wrong if you want. :)

15. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214020 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 11:33 am

Let me also add that it doesn't matter much if something is true, if the only way you can think of it is by cheating and thinking of something very different.

16. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #214015 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 11:28 am

I shall answer your criticisms one by one:

1. I concede that not everyone imagines the same way that I do, but I suspect that everyone thinks of God in some way that violates their difinition of God by having him possess some of the traits he shouldn't be possessing-like being suspended in space.

2. Modern physics doesn't describe subatomic particles as round colored balls moving about it space, so in a sense you are not supposed to have any visual picture about what they are. But nonetheless we do get to describe them is more abstact ways that do not depend on you having any way of visualizing it. My point is that, to the extend that Modern Physics explains nature all its descriptions have detectable components- we may not see light actually moving as a wave, nonetheless the interference patterns confirms that it is a wave. Here wave-nature is defined in a way that is independent from the picture of water splashing in a tub. So it is not required that you imagine light as a wave at all. The abstractness of these concepts takes care of that.


3. It is not necessary that we have to assume that reality is fundamentally intelligible. My only assertion is that something unknowable is also unthinkable, I didn't argue that it couldn't be true.

17. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213997 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

I have this notion that an unknowable is unthinkable as well.

I'll use an example to illustrate my point. Suppose I tell you that I have a third arm that starts around the ribs but cannot be touched or smelt or seen or detected in any other way. But you'll notice that the words "invisible arm" evoke images of an arm in your mind, and possibly of a translucent arm. When we think of a invisible "anything", we often think of it as being translucent, not invisible. So you see, we cheat. When we hear someone say "God cannot be seen or touched or felt" we imagine him(more often than a her) to be this translucent light emitting entity that occupies some space nonetheless- WE CHEAT.

Maybe instead of arguing against the existence of such undetectable entities, we should encourage believers to really think(without cheating) about what they claim to beleive in.

18. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213992 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 10:50 am

Mitchell,

My point is why argue that there is a difference but that the difference may e unobservable, when your arguing against something that is in principle(at least according to it most common definition) unobservable. Suppose I tell you that your house is haunted, and that a house that is haunted is fundamentally different from a house that isn't(because obviously one has a ghost and the other doesn't), but then go on to state that there needn't be any detectable change with either scenario, what would I have accomplished?

I repeat, why bother talking about differences that are not quantifiable or describable? You could say one has God and the other doesn't, but then you'll be left with the question "what is God?". And it can only get worse and more obsure as we sart asking for more details about God.

19. Richard Dawkins slaps creationists into the primordial soup

Comment #213978 by the_assayer on July 19, 2008 at 10:20 am

Richard,

I think your argument is rather unconvincing and possibly misdirected. You see, your claim is that "a universe with a god(A)" is different from a "universe without one(B)", meaning there has to be a difference with the universe(which is observable mind you)in the two cases. So, when you argue that there need not be any observable difference between universe A and B you are infact arguing against your initial assertion that there should be a difference. A difference hard to quantify is hardly worth mentioning as well.

Also you didn't really explain how your logic in the analogous situation(event horizon and all that) translates to the God-NoGod case.

Finally, let me explain why I think your argument is misdirected. A God can be defined in any number of ways, including one in God simply creates everything as though no human being would possibly deduce his existence from it. So all one needs to counter your argument is move the goal post, so to speak.

20. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146373 by the_assayer on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 am

I'm afraid this is really bad news for atheism. (assuming the tests can be considered conclusive)

Believerism as a life-style choice still appears to be more attractive than atheism where we have to eschew superstition and rely on our own efforts and understanding to give us actual solutions to problems.

This has parallels with the "nerds are unhappy and uncool" tripe. The general population may always be turned away from such positions which are tougher to hold and practise. Lets face it, skepticism is tough but superstition is easy and gives better results- less worries!

You'd have to be dumb(not) to take that!

21. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145708 by the_assayer on March 18, 2008 at 3:01 am

Aren't these so called rebuttals gettting more paranoid by the day?

Now atheists are not just immoral they can't feel, they can't cry, they can't empathize, they have no reason to smile, they are just burning inside because they didn't think of taking that Damn!! net.

I wouldn't get so depressed over this. Even though its a bit disheartening to see so much prejudice prevalant in the beleiver camp, its a good sign that all arguments for God and religion has now turned into scare-mongering. But as with all social movements, these prejudices will die away as more people get to interact with other religious(different) or non-religious people and get to read on atheism/skepticism outside their claustrophobic-religious circles. It should only be temporary thing- atleast I hope so!

22. Fleabytes

Comment #140253 by the_assayer on March 7, 2008 at 4:34 am

:D.... And still others just sit and do nothing.

23. Fleabytes

Comment #140248 by the_assayer on March 7, 2008 at 4:25 am

I don't know If I should be posting my critique of theistic cosmological fine-tuning on this thread, but since it has been invoked a few times here, I'll use that as my excuse.

As I understand the argument from fine-tuning goes like this:

The values of certain physical constants of our universe have to be extremely fine-tuned to their current values failing which it would be impossible for "intelligent beings" to have come into existance. This fine-tuning can be done only by an Intelligent Desinger.

Doesn't it by now sound self-contradictory?



If Intelligent beings(IBs) are defined using our current understanding of life then God can not be the cause for fine-tuning because the premise of the argument asserts that fine-tuning is necessary for IBs to arise and God is not a product of fine-tuning. If a new definition of IB is used, that which includes even entities like Gods, then it is insofar unclear and impossible to argue that universes tuned differenlty can not have IBs as per this new meaning.


Thoughts?

24. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124349 by the_assayer on February 9, 2008 at 6:38 am

BAEOZ, I agree.

Infact, everytime we think of someone we love and giggle/smile to ourself, we are actively hallucinating. I guess its only that feeble sense of the real world existing in the background that helps us discern between what we saw and what we wanted to see.

25. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124344 by the_assayer on February 9, 2008 at 6:02 am

BAEOZ,

I'm not offended, and I don't intend to offend either you or Kurdashovel.

I'm not trying to dismiss Kardashovel by calling him insane. But then I'm not even sure if hallucinating needs to be treated as a form of insanity. I just thought it important to suggest to him that he see a psychiatrist for good measure.

26. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124338 by the_assayer on February 9, 2008 at 5:36 am

Kurdashovel,

Personal testimonials are not dependable for 3 main very reasonable reasons-
1. No real way of knowing if the person is lying. Often people may end up lying for reasons that are very hard to guess. So statements like "what would he/she gain from lying, therefore he/she should be telling the truth" can turn out to be spectacularly wrong sometimes.

2. No way of knowing if the person has given an accurate account of what happpened to him/her. People who say they witnessed the Loch Ness monster often base their claims on skewy data and show heavy selection bias. Another example is where priming people about ghosts can make them interpret random nioses as being caused by ghosts.

3. In your case schizophrenia or mild auditory hallucinations have not been ruled out. Have you been to a psychiatrist? My grandmother towards the end of her life had frequent auditory hallucinations and once even talked about god speaking to her. Ofcourse hers was a case of age induced dementia.


I don't know what its like to be hearing voices and I can understand why you think it just has to be real. Maybe it is real. Or Maybe you are just hallucinating.

May I suggest a test?

Here are two things you could try out.

1. If God is really speaking to you and it is not you confusing your thoughts for another entity then God should know things that you would not know. And since God is omniscient, he must know everything. So you may ask him what my grandmother's(father's side) name is. If you can give me the correct answer without cheating then I will be impressed.

2. You could also try taking anti-hallucinatory drugs and see if this God-person will continue to talk to you.

Ofcourse there are more tests you could try out, but I think these two should give us a more or less definitive answer.

27. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121662 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:52 pm

Death- tis but a scratch!

28. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121652 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:15 pm

One of my own ways of rationalising about death is to see it as "not an even in my life". If you think about it, the loss of consciousness is not gonna be a consciously percieved event. Just like how we don't recall or recognize the instant we drift on into sleep. We lose consciousness and we can't be conscious to know that we have lost it.

29. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121650 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:10 pm

dlitt, Isn't it ironic that even atheists like us have to come up with some not so rational justifications for death? The Mark Twain quote is cute, but it has its holes. The state of not being alive yet and the state of being dead after having lived is not the same. Sure objectively it is the same. We become cosmic dust, just like how we were before we were conceived. But death is not a problem for the universe, it is so only for us, those who are alive at the moment. Sure, those who love us will mourn our death but that they can forget about with time and move on makes it look less dramatic. Only for the person who is dying does it appear that he has not much time left to live as himself.

30. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121641 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 9:43 pm

hes2@usa you can have a wholesome and peaceful life without God. Look at ME. I'm happy. :D



The problem with pascals wager,as Richard Carrier points out, is that there are infinitely many. A wager is given out only when there is not sufficient evidence to support the proposed claim. So if we can't decide on God's existance, the question of what happens after death is still open to new possibilities.

Maybe we are all living in a dream and after death we wake up in another dream. Maybe thats the real nature of things. Now lets see if we can construct a wager on this notion:- Unless you believe that you are living in a dream and put complete faith in it you will never wake up from your dream into the "real" world, otherwise you will continue to be trapped in this space of different dream-worlds forever.

I hope you get the point. Given nobody can agree on what is the ultimate nature of reality. We can imagine infinitely many (in principle) possibilities for what might happen after death. And, for each of these possibilities we can have atleast one wager to offer.

And it is easy to make mutually exclusive wagers. Like that of religions of the present. If you are a muslim, you have to deny Jesus. You can't opt for both the wagers.

So on the whole wagers don't make life any easier.

31. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121623 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I had posted this yesterday on another thread. Me thinks its relevent to this one now.

Theists often fail to distinguish between the question of "Could God have created the universe?" from "Did God create the universe?"(assuming he exists) and failing to do so can mean you can end up with very different conclusions. COnsider the following-

Could tiny invisible refrigerators floating in the sky(TIRFITS for short) produce hail stones?
The answer to this question is "probably yes". But are TIRFITS the actual reason behind hail storms?

One boring creationist/ID mantra is "Only an intelligent being could have made this". If we didn't already have a good understanding of weather phenomena like that of hail storms, I too could make a similar claim "Only TIRFITS could explain how hail stones are produced."

I can ask- "Given our lack of a solution which is much more likely "TIRFITS" exist or they don't? "

All the while, happily ignoring that TIRFITS are not the only possibilities to be considered and that we don't know what would qualify as TIRFITS if we saw them.

32. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #121616 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 8:26 pm

hes2@usa knows just enough science to know that its all bunk!

Being a creationist is so easy. Talk trash, read nothing, talk some more trash.... on and on...


Let the guy revel in the certainity of his conclusions. Please don't ruin it for him.

33. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121444 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:09 pm

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow,"

I like it how this sounds like they are on the women's side, fighting against an oppressive force. And also note that even a patient is not to bare her arms if she is a practising muslim.

STUPID!

34. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121432 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 11:48 am

KArdashovel are you darwin2 from "Richard Dawkin's Interview" thread? I get that feeling of deja vu, you see.

35. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #121373 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 10:11 am

Pope says some science can make us look silly!

36. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121354 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 9:33 am

Theists often fail to distinguish between the question of "Could God have created the universe?" from "Did God create the universe?" and failing to do so can mean you can end up with very different conclusions. COnsider the following-

Could tiny invisible refrigerators floating in the sky(TIRFITS for short) produce hail stones?
The answer to this question is "probably yes". But are TIRFITS the actual reason behind hail storms?

One boring creationist/ID mantra is "Only an intelligent being could have made this". If we didn't already have a good understanding of weather phenomena like that of hail storms, I too could make a similar claim "Only TIRFITS could explain how hail stones are produced."

I can ask- "Given our lack of a solution which is much more likely "TIRFITS" exist or they don't? "

All the while, they happily ignore that TIRFITS are not the only possibilities to be considered and that we don't know what would qualify as TIRFITS if we saw them.

37. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121308 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 8:04 am

:D ....Frankus thinks what I did was of value.
Yay!

*Blushes* :D THanks! MAN!!! You're the best!

38. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121293 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:42 am

TonyA. Another example would be "Good prayer always works".

First we need to know what would qualify something as "Good prayer". If we agree on certain external signs like facial expressions of deep devotion as a sign of Good Prayer, then we can move on the stage of testing if Good prayer does work. But most believers ratinalise negetive results to mean that they were NOT praying hard enough. Inother words, their claim about prayer stays untested(to us) yet they creatively interpret positve results to be caused by Good prayers and negative results to be caused by bad prayers, all the while ignoring that they have not defined what would qualify as a Good prayer. The judgement that a particular prayer is good or bad is made based on the results.

39. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121289 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:27 am

If "YOU" are reading this, my previous post was addressed to YOU!!! So you may reply YOU.

40. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121287 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:18 am

The other day my mother came back from her weekly shopping and told me about how she had accidently left her hand-bag inside the auto-rickshaw before going to the store(I hope you know what that is)but thanks to God she spotted the same Auto rickshaw some 20 mins later in another spot and got her bag back. Her comment- "Certain things are not meant to be lost. God wants you to have it and it will come back to you no matter what."


I asked her if she would know a that-which-is-not meant-to-be-lost if she saw one. I asked her "Ma! Did you know that you would get it back prior to you getting it back?" To which she replied, "Why do you always pick on me? Leave me alone". :D

On a serious note. Isn't that the problem with all the supernatural nonsense? They don't really provide new knowledge that is of any consequence.

The Claim- "Our universe was created by a godly-act". What would qualify something as a Godly-act? If we can answer that question without merely mirroring what we already know about our universe, then we would be providing/creating new knowledge that is useful.

I realise this is just a different way of stating the principle of falsifiability. All testable hypotheses give us a clue about 'what' in the real world would fit the meaning implied by the words used in framing the hypothesis. That way Homeopathic doctors would know what a vibration is when it bites them on their collective butt and would be adding new and important knowledge to the world.

41. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121247 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 6:00 am

MPhil- I guess thats the best answer we can give, given our limitations both known and unknown.

42. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121242 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:57 am

Steve- Well it shouldn't be tough to think of reasons why it would matter. But then I can see how such a question may be unanswerable as the question of 'Is our reality real?".

43. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121227 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:36 am

MPhil- I wonder what would happen if people in the future started living in virtual worlds more often than our real world. Assuming VR will be so real-life by then, wouldn't it become a serious problem for people then? How would they know which is real?

44. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121216 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:20 am

"I did take a sneaky look at your "other comments", but decided to keep quiet 'cos it was looking like fun!" - Geoff.


Oh! It is Fun I tell you! Its a unique position for a debater to be in. I had intended it orginally for Kordashovel but righton had me thinking "Well a little dishonesty is not so bad, is it?".. :D.. On the whole I proved that I'm terrible at acting.

45. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121205 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:09 am

"People can be honest about what they think, but that does not necessarily make what they think true."- Steve Zara

How can you 'know' that your experience of watching your monitor and reading these words is real? I agree with your point. Just that I think there is a fundamental problem here. We use our senses to inform us about reality and then we conclude that our senses are not trustworthy. Which part of our world of experience is the false one? If I suddenly start seeing spots around the moon which no one else sees, should I conclude "inreality there are no spots, just that my eyes have a problem" or should I conclude "Inreality I've been seeing bad all this while(including others), now I can finally see the spots which were already there"?

46. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121198 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:00 am

Steve in case you didn't notice- I was only fooling around.

But to think that you fell for it is, well, flattering!... THanks.. :D

47. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121195 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 4:56 am

The problem with testimony is that it can be fabricated easily or is subject to all kinds of mis-interpretations. The Loch Ness monster as example of people seeing one thing and coming to the wrong conclusion about what they say. So ultimately people have to just have faith in the testimonial. But that isn't enough, is it?

Which is the more reasonable judgment:

1. You are being honest and there is a God. (based on just faith)

OR

2. You may be telling the truth but I can't decide in your favour unless I'm recieve much more conclusive evidence.

If I had continued on about Krishna and had acted better(sorry that it was poor satire), why should anyone trust your claim over mine? Moreover, even if they trust you to be honest, why should they think what you come to believe is actually true.


The reason for why atheists like us demand more evidence can be understood if you put yourself in our position and imagine someone(maybe your friend) claiming to have seen ghosts. Would you just say, "Oh he's an honest man, therefore ghosts exist", or would you say "Ok, I see that you may be telling the truth, but did you happen to take a photograph of the ghost. Do you have some "evidence"?"

48. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121139 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:46 am

To,

BAEOZ,righton,MPhill, Greyman and Kurdoshovel-

SORRY to have wasted your time. :D


If only I could lie with a straight face! Hmmmm... Must take acting lessons. :(

49. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121126 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:27 am

I'm a former atheist. You can read my earlier comments in RD.net if you want. And yes you have good reason to suspect it is JUST satire. Dumb me! I should have created another ID before I started posting comments again.

50. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121121 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:24 am

MPhill- Maybe my analogy was "textbook" like and probably I should have used a better analogy. What about a blind person with whole body paralysis(except for the part above his neck, lets say)? He can hear his friends speak and talk to them. Would he not have to trust the words of his friends and yet have no way of varifying things for himself?