Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi

[growse]

I'll take the first part of that as your answer.

If you're saying that you are (the equivalent of) an atheist regarding Santa and the Flying Spaghetti monster, then you've just nullified your previous argument. I don't think you should need evidence for something's non-existence before you're able to say that it doesn't exist.

EDIT: I just removed part of my post, as I realised that I've no idea what you think about the two entities mentioned.

I show you a box. You have no evidence that says anything about the contents of the box. Is the most logical conclusion:

a) The box is empty?
b) The box's contents are unknown?
c) The box contains 78 Mars bars?

The first and third are faith-based statements. The second is the rational conclusion given the available evidence. I think you *do* need evidence of non existence before you can rationally assert that something doesn't exist. Otherwise, you're just guessing.

There are people who's position is that there is no god. That's a perfectly reasonable (atheistic) position, but it's entirely faith based. It's also perfectly possible to be atheistic about Santa and agnostic about the FSM.

 

[Naffa]

snip

Ok, how about this.

There's no evidence for A's existence.

There's no evidence for A's non-existence.

Is the probability that A exists exactly 50/50? I put it to you that strictly in terms of probability, it's very unlikely that A exists, but I would never say outright, that A does not exist.

A = God.

 

[wannabedamned]

Loving the fact some people in this thread are condoning the covering up of paedophile crimes. Big thumbs up, Ever thought of being ordained?

 

[RDM]

Loving the fact some people in this thread are condoning the covering up of paedophile crimes. Big thumbs up, Ever thought of being ordained?

Really? Who? Is it anyone that doesn't agree with Dawkins?

 

[Gilly]

I don't think you should need evidence for something's non-existence before you're able to say that it doesn't exist.

That, however, requires faith

Loving the fact some people in this thread are condoning the covering up of paedophile crimes. Big thumbs up, Ever thought of being ordained?

I must have missed this. Where is there anyone saying anything like this?

 

[Naffa]

That, however, requires faith

If you were to say outright, 'this does not exist', then yes. But I believe I've made it clear that that's not what I think regarding the hypothesis of God.

In all fairness, I should have added additional clarification to the part that you quoted.

 

[wannabedamned]

Post number 8 gives the impression he'd keep quiet. Unless I'm reading it wrong

 

[growse]

Ok, how about this.

There's no evidence for A's existence.

There's no evidence for A's non-existence.

Is the probability that A exists exactly 50/50? I put it to you that strictly in terms of probability, it's very unlikely that A exists, but I would never say outright, that A does not exist.

A = God.

Simple answer: I don't know, and any attempt to make any judgement about A, or the probability of A's existence is pure guesswork and not based in rationality.

 

[Naffa]

Simple answer: I don't know, and any attempt to make any judgement about A is pure guesswork.

You're ignoring the fact you can apply probability to that something's existence though.

Do you really think that my non-belief in Santa Claus is based on faith?

 

[r3loaded]

Ok, how about this.

There's no evidence for A's existence.

There's no evidence for A's non-existence.

Is the probability that A exists exactly 50/50? I put it to you that strictly in terms of probability, it's very unlikely that A exists, but I would never say outright, that A does not exist.

A = God.

From a mathematicians perspective, A is undefined. You cannot draw any conclusions or imply anything from or about A.

 

[The Running Man]

i dont understand how the church can even try to keep something like that as an internal affair...

i mean ANY other organisation and you have huge lawsuit, heads rolling etc.

why does the church think it can sweep something as serious as child abuse under the carpet? the pope is not the police, how can they have the cheek to even think they can get away with keeping something like that out of real world prosecution?

the mind boggles, they need to find those guilty, and expose them regardless of their religious status.

 

[growse]

You're ignoring the fact you can apply probability to that something's existence though.

Do you really think that my non-belief in Santa Claus is based on faith?

How?

You could apply a probability of 0.2, or 0.00000001, or 0.9999. Given that you're just making the probability up, because you've got absolutely nothing to base it on, it's a pointless exercise.

 

[platypus]

i dont understand how the church can even try to keep something like that as an internal affair...

Because for centuries the church has been the law. Look at how long it takes for them to update their methods. It will take them a long while to get used to the fact that we are now a much more secular society.

C.F: Canon Law - their application of canon law would have dealt with this more properly - the priests may not have faced prosecution but they would have been defrocked and removed from the ability to carry on abusing. Rather then this 'therapy' nonsense whilst placing them back with vulnerable children.

Ironically it is, arguably, the churches relaxing of archaic laws and modernisation which has allowed these priests to carry on abusing.

 

[RDM]

You're ignoring the fact you can apply probability to that something's existence though.

How can you apply probability to something which, if it does exist, exists outside of our current understanding of science? Especially as science says little about truth.

Do you really think that my non-belief in Santa Claus is based on faith?

Not really, but then the invention of Santa Claus is very much a modern thing and has many disprovable qualities as he exists in the physical world.

 

[wannabedamned]

God speaks to me. He says all Christians, Catholics, C of E and anyone else who believes in him should now follow me.

God does not speak to you guys so you should automatically fall in line and allow me to tell you what is asked of you.

Number 1: God would like you to make me cheese burger, Relish and real cheese please.

I'll let you know when he has more

 

[growse]

How can you apply probability to something which, if it does exist, exists outside of our current understanding of science? Especially as science says little about truth.



Not really, but then the invention of Santa Claus is very much a modern thing and has many disprovable qualities as he exists in the physical world.

Not only that, but Santa Claus is reasonably well defined in his properties. If we observe Christmas trees on Dec 24th, we can verify that there is no fat man in a red suit who comes down the chimney and puts presents under the tree.

If you define Santa Claus as an entity who is always guaranteed to put presents under every Christmas tree on December 24th, you can then define an experiment which can be done to collect evidence about Santa's existence or not. Try doing that with God.

 

[RDM]

i dont understand how the church can even try to keep something like that as an internal affair...

i mean ANY other organisation and you have huge lawsuit, heads rolling etc.

Not really the case though is it? There have been many incidents of large organisations covering up quite successfuly child abuse for many, many years. Just look at some of the scandals from various care homes in many countries including our own.

 

[Naffa]

How?

You could apply a probability of 0.2, or 0.00000001, or 0.9999. Given that you're just making the probability up, because you've got absolutely nothing to base it on, it's a pointless exercise.

Please forgive me for answering a question with a question, but let me put it this way.

Strictly speaking, following your logic, it would be unreasonable to anything more than agnostic (either way) on anything that one could conjure up in one's mind. For instance, if one of my friends told me about a giant polka dot balloon, made out of steel and that eats lions and that it's floating in a galaxy a few million light years away, would I be basing an assumption that it doesn't exist on anything more than faith? Obviously, I would concede that I can't know it doesn't exist, but I would put a very low probability on it's existence.

I'll reiterate my original question, are you an agnostic regarding Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and fairies?

How can you apply probability to something which, if it does exist, exists outside of our current understanding of science? Especially as science says little about truth.

Talking of faith, would you care to share with me how you've come privy to such knowledge?

Not really, but then the invention of Santa Claus is very much a modern thing and has many disprovable qualities as he exists in the physical world.

I'll pose the same question again. How can you seriously accuse me of having a faith belief and then say something as ridiculous as that... Come on.

 

[Naffa]

Not only that, but Santa Claus is reasonably well defined in his properties. If we observe Christmas trees on Dec 24th, we can verify that there is no fat man in a red suit who comes down the chimney and puts presents under the tree.

If you define Santa Claus as an entity who is always guaranteed to put presents under every Christmas tree on December 24th, you can then define an experiment which can be done to collect evidence about Santa's existence or not. Try doing that with God.

Well, going by that ridiculously hypocritical logic, I could easily follow the religious depictions of God and define his properties from them. Thus, putting him on a similar playing field with Santa.

I'd also love to know how you actually know that's what Santa does, when he does it, and what he looks like. I'd love to know what evidence you've based this conclusion on, other than the pictures and bottles of Coke that circulate with a depiction of him on.

 

[keyser87]

Like the science of climate change you mean? Where science has repeatedly been abused and misused to provide one agenda or another..

any others you got? interesting analysis of climategate. As far as climategate goes, the guy had already publicly published what he had written in those private emails so I don't see how science was abused simply the quote miners had a whack at it.

Not really the case though is it? There have been many incidents of large organisations covering up quite successfuly child abuse for many, many years. Just look at some of the scandals from various care homes in many countries including our own.

who have got away with it and not faced justice? What care homes have got away with anything like the institutionalised rape and abuse of children like the Vatican has?