Yeah, being able to use any Guitar is really a big plus - I imagine it's something we'll see in Rock Band 4 (albeit Harmonix have stated that RB4 won't be happening for a while - they are just re-releasing Rock Band 3 at the moment, IIRC).
The difference between game an learning tool is an interesting one. Rock Band 3 nails both pretty well, as they have the time to get the gameplay right, and Pro mode is implemented well. I might have to pick up Rocksmith and give it a try, as the Squier will work with it like any other Guitar. It would be cool to have a software amp, as I don't have a physical one - not being a Guitar player except for Rock Band's pro mode. Although the differences in 'notation' might mess with me.
Completely off-topic, but have you tried Rock Band 3's Pro Guitar (the real one, not the mustang), and if so, how does Rocksmith compare?
I have a Rock Band 3 Fender Squier Stratocaster - the actual guitar, and Rock Band 3 really nails it. The software is excellent, and the fretboard sensors really help you learn quickly. Plus it helps I've got like 150 songs availible (out of my 600+ collection for Rock Band). I've heard people saying that Rocksmith performs well, and given the impossibility of getting the Squier at the moment, it may be the only option in a lot of places.
I love the idea, because I would have loved it, however, one has to remember that not everyone loves programming the way we might do.
I think that courses should be offered earlier and in a much more useful form, and definitely some programming and CompSci theory should be put in the curriculum to give an understanding, but for the average person, deep programming knowledge isn't the main thing needed. Definitely giving people the chance to learn if they want to is very important.
I think the more important thing is to teach basic logic and debating skills at a young age. People really lack basic skills like spotting logical fallacies and following an argument. I think teaching some formal logic at a young age would really increase political participation, increace scientific and computing ability, lower people falling for scams like phishing, and increase general learning ability.
Well, yeah. Is your complaint really that they are using data you have given them and told them to make public (or share it with the people they are sharing it with), and doing so?
This is just another interface to that data.
Really? I've literally never had a problem. I run a triple monitor setup with two nVidia 210s, both of which have one DVI and one HDMI port, I use an HDMI to DVI cable to hook up my third monitor. I've also, in the past, when I had two monitors, had an HDMI switch and used lots of HDMI to DVI cables to hook up my monitors and PCs as I didn't have enough inputs, as HDMI switches are cheap, while DVI ones cost a lot. I've used my xbox 360 through HDMI to my monitor, and run my HTPC through HDMI to my TV, all of which work perfectly.
What problems have you experienced?
Also, there is always DisplayPort - which is designed for use with computers, as where HDMI is designed for TVs and media devices.
That's why DisplayPort is the standard designed for PCs. HDMI is designed for TVs. DP cables have a locking mechanism that works well, without the annoyance of screwing in cables.
VGA has been dead for some time - even the cheapest monitors are starting to use DVI, so in 5 years, I can see it totally dying out - I mean, sure, some people will still be using it with older machines and older monitors, but in new ones, yeah.
As to DVI? It's not a big loss to loose the ports. Even they start putting HDMI and DisplayPort everywhere, it takes a simple cable to go from HDMI to DVI or visa-versa. My monitors currently wiegh in at one with 1xDVI, 1xVGA, one with 1xDVI, 1xVGA, 1xS-Video, 1xComposite, 1xComponent, and one with 1xVGA, 2xDVI, 1xDP, 1xHDMI, 1xComponent, 1xComposite.
I think 5 years sounds like a reasonable timespan to see the newer ports become big. That said, I see a lot of HDMI adoptation, but most of the graphics cards are still DVI and HDMI - the only machine I have with DisplayPort out is my laptop. 5 years is a lot of new graphics cards however.
As to the replacements, I'm not going to complain. HDMI and DisplayPort are much nicer to plug/unplug than DVI cables - and no need to worry about dual-link or not. As to VGA - I havn't used it in a long time. Due to the HDMI/DVI compatibility, I don't really see this causing much hurt to anyone either.
But I then went on to explain why I beleived it was 'clearly false' - I can break down that 'axiom' and give you my reason for beleiving in it. If I changed it to clearly true, my own argument would be a counter-example.
It has been used that way, as has secularism. Curiously enough in China they are currently suppressing religions-- all of them-- and pushing raw humanist secularism to control their population. Neither fact is really all that relevant.
People who were already adults would never accept such a belief if there were no inclination. You indicate that it is taught at birth, but that it is used as a control mechanism, which leaves the question of who got the parents to go along with it to begin with, if they had no ingrained inclination to religion and the supernatural.
But really, this isnt my place to argue: People from Dawkins to Lewis would disagree with you; and would say that man does indeed have a predisposition to the supernatural (Dawkins words, actually). I could, if I took the time, pull up a large list of experts who disagree. There is nothing illogical, per say, about you disagreeing, but I personally will err on the side that has the fanatical atheist agreeing with the believer, each experts in their own field.
Of course it's relevant - your argument is that religion is inherant to us - this is simply not true. A want to find out the cause behind things is inherant in us (inquisitiveness), and this is what drives religion - it offers a very 'easy' answer to all of the big questions. It could have easily been invented by a person, as a method of control, or as an answer to something they didn't know, and then passed on through generations. That is far more likely than believing in something that is full of insane stuff like miracles and gods.
The 'clever people believed it' argument, is inherantly rubbish. Someone can be brilliant and still be wrong in other matters. Experts are not always right, and are branded experts by other people, who can be wrong themselves.
Atheism is a belief that there is no God, or hairsplittingly near enough. Let us not argue semantics, any statement that indicates that Christianity is wrong is a statement of belief in its own right-- you believe in the falsity of another proposition.
As to your definition of Atheism, No, this is a pure misconception. The very source you quote goes on to say 'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.'
Religion is the theory that needs to be proven, not believing in an unproven theory is not a stance. By being in an Atheist - I'm not believing in God, but I'm also not believing that a God doesn't exist - I'm just saying there is no evidence to make me want to believe a God exists, so I wouldn't believe that one does. That means there are not any 'odds' of me being correct - because as an Atheist, I'm right either way. If God exists, it was highly unlikely, so believing in it would have been illogical. If a God doesn't exist, I'm still right. It's not a stance, it's just not beleiving in something without proof.
Agnosticism is something else - Agnosticism is say I don't know what to believe, which is different. Atheists don't know, but go with what is logically most plausible. Agnostics don't know, and go around half-beleiving in God, half not, supposedly.
No, all it requires is that someone, at some point, thought it up, which is, as said in the rest of my argument, easy enough. There are a great many reasons someone might think up the idea of a God. It is a primitive way to answer the 'big questions', it's a good way to control other people, etc...
Sorry, you are right, I have not been clear enough.
We have reason to believe those records are valid - they do not contradict our model of the universe. This is not true with the Bible. Hence we must assume the Bible is either lying, or written by people who were tricked or misunderstood what was going on.
Which is why the scientific method is not applicable in every instance.
No, that's why it doesn't give you an answer in every situation - but that is fine. Sometimes the best answer is "I don't know" or "We can't tell with current technology". The scientific method is always applicable.
Not to sound insulting, but that sounds ignorant of what the bible actually says. The Old Testament is largely a narrative, and as I stated before we have very strong external evidence to support big chunks of it. It is generally regarded as an accurate historical document (which parts are accurate are disputed of course). Im not sure what you mean by "make something up to fill the gaps".
It makes up the part where there is a God.
The fact that large parts are right are "evidences" for the credibility of the other parts. One trusts the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society because it has a long history and is regarded as credible; that is not "proof", but you cannot apply the scientific method to "are they likely to tell me lies".
If I write a post saying I have an apple here in front of me, and I also have a magical wand which will create anything I want, does you beleiving that I have an apple make it more likely I have a magical wand?
Ah, but they claimed on pain of death that they saw this, as did many others. So we either have people who of a sudden decided that they wanted to lie more strongly than they wanted to live; or else we have a group hallucination; or else we have many fabricated accounts of the rise of christianity and it has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus; or else they were telling the truth.
As to the first and second points, those both seem EXCEEDINGLY unlikely (you are aware of the torturous death Peter received, and the banishment John received, right?), and the third is even more unlikely-- there is no doubt that Peter and Paul were killed for preaching the rise of Jesus by the Romans. That leaves either the fourth option, or indecision. The question becomes, how clear would the evidence have to be to convince you? Would ANY amount of evidence suffice, if you are determined that the Biblical account cannot be right? And how does that square with a rational thought process?
Or they were tricked, and truly believed that what they were saying was true. And you say these options are unlikely, compared to there being a man in the sky which we can't see, hear, interact with, or find any proof of existing?
Yes, if the Bible didn't claim things that are not possible, or if the things it claims were proven possible, I might believe it, but it doesn't, they are not.
There are several corroborating accounts. That is all you can EVER have in the majority of historical cases; and here it is being brushed off as hearsay. Why believe that there was a Julius Caesar, by your reasoning, since all we have is the words of men?
Because Julius Caesar didn't do impossible things. He was not claiming to be the son of a God, and proof that that God exists. We believe the accounts because they make sense.
You would need to state more clearly which miracles you think were tricks-- walking on water in a tempest, and then silencing the storm? Thats one heck of a gag. Raising a man from the grave? Good luck getting a Jew to go into a tomb and remain there for a day. Faking his own death? Yea, good luck staying alive after a crucifixion, a scourging, and being impaled in the side; anyone attempting such a stunt would die horribly of blood loss or infection within a day.
You offer many alternatives to corroborated historical accounts, and yet each of them is far less likely if only you did not have this unfounded refusal to accept that the accounts could be correct. What you are doing is unfair and unscientific: you are discrediting a pile of evidence with no ca
The idea that because one has an idea of a God means it must be innate to yourself is clearly false - people are taught the idea of a god, not to mention it is an easy thing to imagine - with no answers on 'the big questions' - the simplest answer is to imagine a super-person who did it all. This is transposing an idea you see (people doing things) to a grander scale.
Assume I've been blind from birth. Explain the color red to me. It's inexplicable; there is no referent, no common ground. This may help explain it.
I first explain light, eyes, wavelengths, and create a small device with a camera, which vibrates or makes sounds or whatever in accordance with the colour the camera is seeing - this would allow the blind person to identify that Red exists. This would give a reproducable way for them to tell that it exists. Just as I can't see infra-red light I can still test that exists. Give me your test for God.
No, it's not a matter of religion. If you told me you were at McMurtry Station, I would tend to believe you despite the fact that since so few are there, odds are you aren't either, but since I know of no reason to lie about where you are, I would accept the statement so long as there was no proof to the contrary.
Religion only exists if you believe in it. Why should it be treated differently? Would you believe me if I told you I was on the moon? How about in a magical land where everything was perfect all the time?
Religion doesn't just ask you to accept something without adequate proof, it asks you to accept something which contradicts our reality and makes vast claims, all without any proof.
Of course - but as that relgious person is using logic from a flawed starting point, they believe that gods and hell are as real as that train. I am not saying they are right, just that I can understand why they come to the conclusion they should spread the word.
Axioms are the basic things we hold as obvious - that doesn't mean they are right - if a religious person's axioms don't hold to logic, that means they are wrong.
I get what you are trying to say, but you are trying to argue that logic from an illogical starting point is still valid logic - it's not.
Go read his wager, theres not much point in an argument when you dont understand what he was arguing. Im explaining it badly, and I suspect I have already misrepresented him; its been a while since I read it, so I will not try to do so again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
I will note that the wikipedia summary indicates that the thrust is that you should believe; whereas I note that Pascal assumes there is nothing on either side of the coin that can give you a clue to the right answer, which I dispute. I took from this that at the very least, his wager correctly indicates that you MUST wager, and your wager is utmost importance. I rather suggest you read it yourself, without commentary, and make up your own mind what he is saying.
I have read through and can't see how my point doesn't apply.
A-ha: on what principle do you state this? How are you quantifying the likelyhood of an intrusion by the supernatural into the natural? What principle could you possibly wield in these circumstances to rule out the possibility based on nothing more than the hypothesis ("I have seen a ghost")?
Mind, I am not saying that evidence to the contrary would not be a determining factor; but you seem to think the hypothesis itself is enough to determine it false.
(I would also agree in the normal case, it is quite right to be skeptical given the tendency for people to make such a thing up; but that is an example of "evidence to the contrary")
To prove something exists, you need evidence, and reproducable tests. The other options are more likely because we can reproduce them, and produce an effect like that of someone who has seen a ghost. It is illogical to believe that what you see is a ghost when there is no evidence that a ghost is what it is, there is no reproducable 'ghost'.
It cannot. You have a document, by a man claiming to be called Herod, describing a meal he had. The name appears in other literature, the timing is right, but there is no other supporting or contradictory evidence. It is too recent to apply carbon dating. Quick: use the scientific method on this. Wikipedia notes that key to the scientific method are measurement, experimentation, and observation. What methods do you intend to use?
Or better yet, the existence of multiverses has been hypothesized. How do you intend to go about testing something like that, since you cannot communicate information into or out of our own universe?
We don't - we can only say that if the document is true, then that is what happened. Given that the description seems reasonable, we should trust it as far as we can. The scientific method does not allow us to prove or disprove anything - it tells us what is reasonable, likely, and what we simply don't know. Religion simply makes something up to fill the gap, rather than admitting we don't know for sure.
Evidences:
1) The verifiable parts of the bible (have extra-biblical support) have been verified. They tend to be remarkably accurate.
2) Meticulous geneological records were kept, and these also match up.
3) They accurately depict how real men would behave in those instances with less extra-biblical support: they are believable. They do not depict OT Israel as some utopia, but rather as a theocracy that, on its people's demand, became a monarchy, which within a generation became corrupt. This fits with exactly the kind of pattern we expect-- you can see the patterns in Rome, the Catholic church, and anywhere else a "benevolent dictator" approach was tried.
4) Alternative explanations for the history recorded often require a stretch of imagination. Take the disciples after Jesus' crucifixion. They scattered, and denied him on fear of persecution; but then 3 days later they started preaching his "gospel" and claiming that the man had risen from the grave. This in the end resulted in severe persecutions (by Pa
If you mean that as an absolute statement, it is demonstrably false: Who taught the first person to believe in a deity? And why does belief in a deity exist in every single human culture in existence, both historical and current?
Another person. Come on, if you can't see Religion's potential as a tool for control and keeping order, then you are short-sighted. Creating a religion is something that people would do - it gives them control, it allows them to explain things that they have no explanation for.
That argument only sort of works because you have made a fake classification which excludes YOUR beliefs. Why are your beliefs any more likely to be correct than the other 10,001?
Because Atheism isn't believing anything - it's saying "I don't know". Being an atheist does not mean you are saying that God could not possibly exist. It means you are saying there is no reason to believe it.
Your argument still falls over. Your point is that a logical person takes one of two routes - they take current science and say 'it doesn't answer X, Y, and Z, and either accept that and become and atheist, or reject that, and take up a relgiion?
My point is that atheism is the only logical position, as you have to suspend logic in order to believe otherwise - God and religion have no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories. To believe in such a thing requires a suspension of logic, making it inherantly illogical. I don't disrespect people who believe in something else - I just don't agree with them, and as I've said, one has to debate those points, otherwise there is no chance of being corrected, if I am wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Because then they'd have to actually proove that the sites were doing something wrong! That's just not right!
Yeah, being able to use any Guitar is really a big plus - I imagine it's something we'll see in Rock Band 4 (albeit Harmonix have stated that RB4 won't be happening for a while - they are just re-releasing Rock Band 3 at the moment, IIRC).
The difference between game an learning tool is an interesting one. Rock Band 3 nails both pretty well, as they have the time to get the gameplay right, and Pro mode is implemented well. I might have to pick up Rocksmith and give it a try, as the Squier will work with it like any other Guitar. It would be cool to have a software amp, as I don't have a physical one - not being a Guitar player except for Rock Band's pro mode. Although the differences in 'notation' might mess with me.
Completely off-topic, but have you tried Rock Band 3's Pro Guitar (the real one, not the mustang), and if so, how does Rocksmith compare?
I have a Rock Band 3 Fender Squier Stratocaster - the actual guitar, and Rock Band 3 really nails it. The software is excellent, and the fretboard sensors really help you learn quickly. Plus it helps I've got like 150 songs availible (out of my 600+ collection for Rock Band). I've heard people saying that Rocksmith performs well, and given the impossibility of getting the Squier at the moment, it may be the only option in a lot of places.
I love the idea, because I would have loved it, however, one has to remember that not everyone loves programming the way we might do.
I think that courses should be offered earlier and in a much more useful form, and definitely some programming and CompSci theory should be put in the curriculum to give an understanding, but for the average person, deep programming knowledge isn't the main thing needed. Definitely giving people the chance to learn if they want to is very important.
I think the more important thing is to teach basic logic and debating skills at a young age. People really lack basic skills like spotting logical fallacies and following an argument. I think teaching some formal logic at a young age would really increase political participation, increace scientific and computing ability, lower people falling for scams like phishing, and increase general learning ability.
Well, yeah. Is your complaint really that they are using data you have given them and told them to make public (or share it with the people they are sharing it with), and doing so? This is just another interface to that data.
Ah, well, I have no experience of the mini connectors - so I can't comment on those.
DisplayPort has a self-latching connection. In my experience, you'd be ripping out your graphics card before you disconnected it.
By that logic, DVI sucks too - in fact, it sucked first.
Really? I've literally never had a problem. I run a triple monitor setup with two nVidia 210s, both of which have one DVI and one HDMI port, I use an HDMI to DVI cable to hook up my third monitor. I've also, in the past, when I had two monitors, had an HDMI switch and used lots of HDMI to DVI cables to hook up my monitors and PCs as I didn't have enough inputs, as HDMI switches are cheap, while DVI ones cost a lot. I've used my xbox 360 through HDMI to my monitor, and run my HTPC through HDMI to my TV, all of which work perfectly.
What problems have you experienced?
Also, there is always DisplayPort - which is designed for use with computers, as where HDMI is designed for TVs and media devices.
That's why DisplayPort is the standard designed for PCs. HDMI is designed for TVs. DP cables have a locking mechanism that works well, without the annoyance of screwing in cables.
VGA has been dead for some time - even the cheapest monitors are starting to use DVI, so in 5 years, I can see it totally dying out - I mean, sure, some people will still be using it with older machines and older monitors, but in new ones, yeah.
As to DVI? It's not a big loss to loose the ports. Even they start putting HDMI and DisplayPort everywhere, it takes a simple cable to go from HDMI to DVI or visa-versa. My monitors currently wiegh in at one with 1xDVI, 1xVGA, one with 1xDVI, 1xVGA, 1xS-Video, 1xComposite, 1xComponent, and one with 1xVGA, 2xDVI, 1xDP, 1xHDMI, 1xComponent, 1xComposite.
I think 5 years sounds like a reasonable timespan to see the newer ports become big. That said, I see a lot of HDMI adoptation, but most of the graphics cards are still DVI and HDMI - the only machine I have with DisplayPort out is my laptop. 5 years is a lot of new graphics cards however.
As to the replacements, I'm not going to complain. HDMI and DisplayPort are much nicer to plug/unplug than DVI cables - and no need to worry about dual-link or not. As to VGA - I havn't used it in a long time. Due to the HDMI/DVI compatibility, I don't really see this causing much hurt to anyone either.
I would put money on a large proportion of their searches being 'google'.
But I then went on to explain why I beleived it was 'clearly false' - I can break down that 'axiom' and give you my reason for beleiving in it. If I changed it to clearly true, my own argument would be a counter-example.
It has been used that way, as has secularism. Curiously enough in China they are currently suppressing religions-- all of them-- and pushing raw humanist secularism to control their population. Neither fact is really all that relevant.
People who were already adults would never accept such a belief if there were no inclination. You indicate that it is taught at birth, but that it is used as a control mechanism, which leaves the question of who got the parents to go along with it to begin with, if they had no ingrained inclination to religion and the supernatural.
But really, this isnt my place to argue: People from Dawkins to Lewis would disagree with you; and would say that man does indeed have a predisposition to the supernatural (Dawkins words, actually). I could, if I took the time, pull up a large list of experts who disagree. There is nothing illogical, per say, about you disagreeing, but I personally will err on the side that has the fanatical atheist agreeing with the believer, each experts in their own field.
Of course it's relevant - your argument is that religion is inherant to us - this is simply not true. A want to find out the cause behind things is inherant in us (inquisitiveness), and this is what drives religion - it offers a very 'easy' answer to all of the big questions. It could have easily been invented by a person, as a method of control, or as an answer to something they didn't know, and then passed on through generations. That is far more likely than believing in something that is full of insane stuff like miracles and gods.
The 'clever people believed it' argument, is inherantly rubbish. Someone can be brilliant and still be wrong in other matters. Experts are not always right, and are branded experts by other people, who can be wrong themselves.
Atheism is a belief that there is no God, or hairsplittingly near enough. Let us not argue semantics, any statement that indicates that Christianity is wrong is a statement of belief in its own right-- you believe in the falsity of another proposition.
Wikipedia makes this simple: In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. The term our society uses for the "i dont know" position is "agnosticism", presumably from the greek gnosis, meaning "without knowledge".
As to your definition of Atheism, No, this is a pure misconception. The very source you quote goes on to say 'Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.'
Religion is the theory that needs to be proven, not believing in an unproven theory is not a stance. By being in an Atheist - I'm not believing in God, but I'm also not believing that a God doesn't exist - I'm just saying there is no evidence to make me want to believe a God exists, so I wouldn't believe that one does. That means there are not any 'odds' of me being correct - because as an Atheist, I'm right either way. If God exists, it was highly unlikely, so believing in it would have been illogical. If a God doesn't exist, I'm still right. It's not a stance, it's just not beleiving in something without proof.
Agnosticism is something else - Agnosticism is say I don't know what to believe, which is different. Atheists don't know, but go with what is logically most plausible. Agnostics don't know, and go around half-beleiving in God, half not, supposedly.
No, all it requires is that someone, at some point, thought it up, which is, as said in the rest of my argument, easy enough. There are a great many reasons someone might think up the idea of a God. It is a primitive way to answer the 'big questions', it's a good way to control other people, etc...
Sorry, you are right, I have not been clear enough.
We have reason to believe those records are valid - they do not contradict our model of the universe. This is not true with the Bible. Hence we must assume the Bible is either lying, or written by people who were tricked or misunderstood what was going on.
Which is why the scientific method is not applicable in every instance.
No, that's why it doesn't give you an answer in every situation - but that is fine. Sometimes the best answer is "I don't know" or "We can't tell with current technology". The scientific method is always applicable.
Not to sound insulting, but that sounds ignorant of what the bible actually says. The Old Testament is largely a narrative, and as I stated before we have very strong external evidence to support big chunks of it. It is generally regarded as an accurate historical document (which parts are accurate are disputed of course). Im not sure what you mean by "make something up to fill the gaps".
It makes up the part where there is a God.
The fact that large parts are right are "evidences" for the credibility of the other parts. One trusts the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society because it has a long history and is regarded as credible; that is not "proof", but you cannot apply the scientific method to "are they likely to tell me lies".
If I write a post saying I have an apple here in front of me, and I also have a magical wand which will create anything I want, does you beleiving that I have an apple make it more likely I have a magical wand?
Ah, but they claimed on pain of death that they saw this, as did many others. So we either have people who of a sudden decided that they wanted to lie more strongly than they wanted to live; or else we have a group hallucination; or else we have many fabricated accounts of the rise of christianity and it has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus; or else they were telling the truth.
As to the first and second points, those both seem EXCEEDINGLY unlikely (you are aware of the torturous death Peter received, and the banishment John received, right?), and the third is even more unlikely-- there is no doubt that Peter and Paul were killed for preaching the rise of Jesus by the Romans. That leaves either the fourth option, or indecision. The question becomes, how clear would the evidence have to be to convince you? Would ANY amount of evidence suffice, if you are determined that the Biblical account cannot be right? And how does that square with a rational thought process?
Or they were tricked, and truly believed that what they were saying was true. And you say these options are unlikely, compared to there being a man in the sky which we can't see, hear, interact with, or find any proof of existing?
Yes, if the Bible didn't claim things that are not possible, or if the things it claims were proven possible, I might believe it, but it doesn't, they are not.
There are several corroborating accounts. That is all you can EVER have in the majority of historical cases; and here it is being brushed off as hearsay. Why believe that there was a Julius Caesar, by your reasoning, since all we have is the words of men?
Because Julius Caesar didn't do impossible things. He was not claiming to be the son of a God, and proof that that God exists. We believe the accounts because they make sense.
You would need to state more clearly which miracles you think were tricks-- walking on water in a tempest, and then silencing the storm? Thats one heck of a gag. Raising a man from the grave? Good luck getting a Jew to go into a tomb and remain there for a day. Faking his own death? Yea, good luck staying alive after a crucifixion, a scourging, and being impaled in the side; anyone attempting such a stunt would die horribly of blood loss or infection within a day.
You offer many alternatives to corroborated historical accounts, and yet each of them is far less likely if only you did not have this unfounded refusal to accept that the accounts could be correct. What you are doing is unfair and unscientific: you are discrediting a pile of evidence with no ca
The idea that because one has an idea of a God means it must be innate to yourself is clearly false - people are taught the idea of a god, not to mention it is an easy thing to imagine - with no answers on 'the big questions' - the simplest answer is to imagine a super-person who did it all. This is transposing an idea you see (people doing things) to a grander scale.
I'm not saying they are illogical because they are religious - I'm saying that the religious ones are all illogical - they are not observably true.
Assume I've been blind from birth. Explain the color red to me. It's inexplicable; there is no referent, no common ground. This may help explain it.
I first explain light, eyes, wavelengths, and create a small device with a camera, which vibrates or makes sounds or whatever in accordance with the colour the camera is seeing - this would allow the blind person to identify that Red exists. This would give a reproducable way for them to tell that it exists. Just as I can't see infra-red light I can still test that exists. Give me your test for God.
No, it's not a matter of religion. If you told me you were at McMurtry Station, I would tend to believe you despite the fact that since so few are there, odds are you aren't either, but since I know of no reason to lie about where you are, I would accept the statement so long as there was no proof to the contrary.
Religion only exists if you believe in it. Why should it be treated differently? Would you believe me if I told you I was on the moon? How about in a magical land where everything was perfect all the time?
Religion doesn't just ask you to accept something without adequate proof, it asks you to accept something which contradicts our reality and makes vast claims, all without any proof.
Of course - but as that relgious person is using logic from a flawed starting point, they believe that gods and hell are as real as that train. I am not saying they are right, just that I can understand why they come to the conclusion they should spread the word.
Axioms are the basic things we hold as obvious - that doesn't mean they are right - if a religious person's axioms don't hold to logic, that means they are wrong.
I get what you are trying to say, but you are trying to argue that logic from an illogical starting point is still valid logic - it's not.
Go read his wager, theres not much point in an argument when you dont understand what he was arguing. Im explaining it badly, and I suspect I have already misrepresented him; its been a while since I read it, so I will not try to do so again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager I will note that the wikipedia summary indicates that the thrust is that you should believe; whereas I note that Pascal assumes there is nothing on either side of the coin that can give you a clue to the right answer, which I dispute. I took from this that at the very least, his wager correctly indicates that you MUST wager, and your wager is utmost importance. I rather suggest you read it yourself, without commentary, and make up your own mind what he is saying.
I have read through and can't see how my point doesn't apply.
A-ha: on what principle do you state this? How are you quantifying the likelyhood of an intrusion by the supernatural into the natural? What principle could you possibly wield in these circumstances to rule out the possibility based on nothing more than the hypothesis ("I have seen a ghost")? Mind, I am not saying that evidence to the contrary would not be a determining factor; but you seem to think the hypothesis itself is enough to determine it false. (I would also agree in the normal case, it is quite right to be skeptical given the tendency for people to make such a thing up; but that is an example of "evidence to the contrary")
To prove something exists, you need evidence, and reproducable tests. The other options are more likely because we can reproduce them, and produce an effect like that of someone who has seen a ghost. It is illogical to believe that what you see is a ghost when there is no evidence that a ghost is what it is, there is no reproducable 'ghost'.
It cannot. You have a document, by a man claiming to be called Herod, describing a meal he had. The name appears in other literature, the timing is right, but there is no other supporting or contradictory evidence. It is too recent to apply carbon dating. Quick: use the scientific method on this. Wikipedia notes that key to the scientific method are measurement, experimentation, and observation. What methods do you intend to use?
Or better yet, the existence of multiverses has been hypothesized. How do you intend to go about testing something like that, since you cannot communicate information into or out of our own universe?
We don't - we can only say that if the document is true, then that is what happened. Given that the description seems reasonable, we should trust it as far as we can. The scientific method does not allow us to prove or disprove anything - it tells us what is reasonable, likely, and what we simply don't know. Religion simply makes something up to fill the gap, rather than admitting we don't know for sure.
Evidences: 1) The verifiable parts of the bible (have extra-biblical support) have been verified. They tend to be remarkably accurate. 2) Meticulous geneological records were kept, and these also match up. 3) They accurately depict how real men would behave in those instances with less extra-biblical support: they are believable. They do not depict OT Israel as some utopia, but rather as a theocracy that, on its people's demand, became a monarchy, which within a generation became corrupt. This fits with exactly the kind of pattern we expect-- you can see the patterns in Rome, the Catholic church, and anywhere else a "benevolent dictator" approach was tried. 4) Alternative explanations for the history recorded often require a stretch of imagination. Take the disciples after Jesus' crucifixion. They scattered, and denied him on fear of persecution; but then 3 days later they started preaching his "gospel" and claiming that the man had risen from the grave. This in the end resulted in severe persecutions (by Pa
If you mean that as an absolute statement, it is demonstrably false: Who taught the first person to believe in a deity? And why does belief in a deity exist in every single human culture in existence, both historical and current?
Another person. Come on, if you can't see Religion's potential as a tool for control and keeping order, then you are short-sighted. Creating a religion is something that people would do - it gives them control, it allows them to explain things that they have no explanation for.
That argument only sort of works because you have made a fake classification which excludes YOUR beliefs. Why are your beliefs any more likely to be correct than the other 10,001?
Because Atheism isn't believing anything - it's saying "I don't know". Being an atheist does not mean you are saying that God could not possibly exist. It means you are saying there is no reason to believe it.
Your argument still falls over. Your point is that a logical person takes one of two routes - they take current science and say 'it doesn't answer X, Y, and Z, and either accept that and become and atheist, or reject that, and take up a relgiion?
My point is that atheism is the only logical position, as you have to suspend logic in order to believe otherwise - God and religion have no evidence, reproducable and observable experiments, just old books and stories. To believe in such a thing requires a suspension of logic, making it inherantly illogical. I don't disrespect people who believe in something else - I just don't agree with them, and as I've said, one has to debate those points, otherwise there is no chance of being corrected, if I am wrong.