A little early with the show today.
Here’s what I rant about:
Apple has double standards when it comes to copyrights
The Separation of Church And State
Sargon I of Akkad, the first Empire builder
IODA PROMONET previews not working
I’ve still only had a couple of people sign up for my $50 Amazon voucher promotion. You know, at this stage, it could be REALLY easy to win.
Check out Miriam’s idea. The old reverse psychology trick. Then go and read her post on her background in self-harm.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed.
- If you use iTunes, click here.
- If you use another aggregator, grab our RSS feed here.
- If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read this description in Wikipedia.
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
Apple don’t care. They want iPhone. They are willing to go to court over it and they are going to get all the press about it. Apple would have staff lawyers and they have to do something. Plus it takes the heat off Apple over the Options scandal.
Molly
Based on the evidence we have at this point of time, there is no evidence there isn’t a god. There is plenty of evidence that what people have written about this god is wrong but, as you admitted, there is no evidence there isn’t a god.
Molly
On the law analogy, you mention a majority decision (if I remember rightly). I believe (don’t have statistics handy) that the majority of the worlds population believes that there is a god of some type. So in your Law example, the majority would vote for god.
Case dismissed!
Molly
Duncan, Richard, Sock pupet, please come back and add some sort of control to the podcast! Please.
Molly
Thanks for the news on the iPhone I asked the same question on the GGp blog regarding this as we covered the Linksys iPhone on the episode 32.
The iodaPromonet previews are on the blink. I have reported it and they are working on it. However, it does work using *cough* IE – I have been using that to preview tracks (don’t tell Knightwise)
So Cam in regards to belief are you saying that one can not have a belief or faith? Using examples like the court is comparing apples and oranges. You can not equate faith with the court system. They are two different things. A belief system is not evidence based; it is a belief. By it’s very nature it has attributes that can not be proven.
For instance you often argue that belief in a God that one can not prove exists in inexplicable to you. Then if that is the case prove that there is not a “god” or God, with 100% certainty… Don’t make it about God. What about the Aboriginal belief that spirits live in nature, prove they don’t. You can not use science to prove that spiritual elements of our reality do not exist other than to say that scientifically there is no evidence for X thing or being to exist. But in the individuals spiritual belief system and faith they do exist. You can not convince that individual that it doesn’t. Just the same as they can not convince you it does.
You feel as strongly about your belief in science and evidence based reality as someone does about their belief in something spiritual like God, heaven, spirits in trees whatever… You have a belief system. All be it a humanist one.
You are as “religious” about spreading your proven reality as a Jehovah’s Witness is about knocking on enough doors to get to heaven. Or a Christian is that God exists, or a Mormon or a Hindi, or a humanist, or an athiest, or… No one should be denied their spiritual existence just as others don’t deny you your humanist evidence based reality that does not include spirituality.
If we don’t have free will, why can’t you use sciences to prove their is no god and therefor end Religion? Isn’t religion the proof of free will?
(note: I haven’t fully thought about this, and as Cam has told me I have no free will, it is really my doing that I am even making this comment)
Molly (or however is controlling my will, perhaps God (although Cam says he doesn’t exist(do I exist(does this comment exist(is anyone reading this))))
Molly and Dave, I’ve said this before, but in any rational perspective, the burden of proof is on the people coming up with theory that there is a God. If your believe systems is based on the fact that there is no proof that it doesn’t exist, and you are just covering your ass, then are you also believing in Zeus, Poseidon, Hera, Apollo, Athena, Jupiter, Mars, Thor, Loki, and A Great Bull Spirit? Because I can’t prove none of them don’t exist either. I just don’t have any evidence to support the theory that they *do* exist.
Dave, why isn’t my legal analogy solid? The legal system is used to determine truth. Isn’t that what a spiritual belief should be about? Truth? How can it possibly be healthy for people to believe in a falsehood?
Dave, you say “in the individuals spiritual belief system and faith they do exist”. No, they don’t. They may believe they exist, but until there is evidence to support that belief, they still don’t exist.
My point is that believing in falsehoods is dangerous – both for the individual involved as well as for society in general.
Belief in mythologies is and always has been holding back the human race from scientific progress. And the pace of scientific progress is critical for the survival – not just of our species – but quite possibly of all life on this planet.
Molly, re the majority – I said in the legal system a panel of independent peers have to review the evidence and come to a decision. If the majority of the human population still believes that supernatural forces are governing human affairs, then they are doing so without the slightest piece of scientific evidence and are, therefore, all in a highly dangerous state of delusion.
And it’s time we helped them to escape it.
Dude on you Law example and your last statement, I have two letters that prove that:
a) Its a really crap (or rather brilliant (but not on the side you are argueing) agument
b) The fact that the majority would still probably pick god
And those two letters?
OJ
Case closed your honor
Molly
Also in a court of law you are inocent until proven guilt therefor In the Case of Cam VS God doesn’t exist, God exists until he is proven not to exist.
I really am loving this Law analogy. I thought you said it was bullet proof.
Molly
Well as I said, the legal system isn’t bulletproof, but it’s the best thing we have to determine the proof. It, like most things involving humans, can still be gamed if you have enough money or power.
As for innocent until proven guilty… so if you believe in God, do you believe in and worship those other gods I mentioned above? Aren’t they equally as valid? And if not, why not?
That’s the point i made in an earlier post about atheism Cam. If you only believe in one God then you are are still an atheist because you deny the existence of other Gods.
You cannot just believe in one God and then deny the existence of other Gods, that’s a total contradiction and also very disrespectful to other religions. it is far easier, and much more realistic to deny existence of all Gods until their existence is proven. Belief isn’t proof, it’s delusional.
“…the burden of proof is on the people coming up with theory that there is a God”
that is just covering your arse Cam.
Case in point: A Christian believes that there is a God and does so based on faith. You do not believe there is a God. You can not prove your belief that there is no God through evidence, nor by your own admission can you prove that there is a God.
“I just don’t have any evidence to support the theory that they *do* exist.”
Therefore, the only conclusion is that your atheist or agnostic belief or “reality” is based on faith. Otherwise you could prove there is NOT a God.
I thought you said that faith and belief don’t or can’t exist?
It is a trick question, I have asked you to do something that can not be done that is; proving that God does not exist just as you have done in asking to prove that God does exist.
It is beyond the scope of science to prove something, using scientific method; that requires faith.
Whats wrong with letting Christians be on the understanding that they keep their religion to themselves. So long as they’re not bothering anyone I can’t see the problem.
Unfortunately at the moment quite a few of them are bothering a lot of people. Christians who stick their noses where they’re not wanted need to grow some respect.
Also it might be healthier for you to develop a smug sense of superiority about your scientific reasoning and simply refuse to argue with Christians unless they’re willing to do it on your level.
Keeps everyone much happier.
Cam I don’t rule out the existence of god. I also don’t rule out the fact that different groups of people have different representations of gods (including that there might be multiple gods).
To me its not really important to my day to day existence as long as you follow (or at least try, no one is perfect (“not even the perfect fool” Huey Lewis)) the most important rule (or second most import if you want to read it out of the bible).
Even after you explain it again and again, I still don’t get the problem with Christianity. You said it yourself, Christians are human and some do bad things and some push it on others. Hey some non-christians push their beliefs on Christians and in fact even claim to be tring to cure them. Maybe you should go after those people.
Since you like to group all people together under a single label. Should we start thinking your shady as your a podcaster? Adam Curry is Shady and hes a podcaster. And what if a Podcaster becomes a mass murder or if one or a group start calling for something else stupid? Do we ban podcasting or do we just say that some podcasters are scumbags as happens in all walks of life, including Christians.
JMTC
Molly
Tony: I agree!
Dave: covering *my* arse? I’m saying that running around making up supernatural entities is completely irrational unless you have some evidence to support the theory. How is that covering *my* arse? The word “faith”, as I said before, is defined as “believing in something without any evidence”. That’s also called “insanity”. If you believe something exists, when all of the evidence points to the contrary, then you have lost the plot.
And Miriam, I used to believe that we could all co-exist as long as we stayed out of each others’ road. But the older I get, the more I realize that having 90% of the human population running around INSANE is actually a VERY VERY BAD THING for the future of the human race. We need it do something about it. Now. Here’s why it is dangerous – we need all hands on deck. We need to accelerate the pace of human progress. We need to push forwards with our scientific research to find ways for life on this planet to continue (and perhaps to launch life into space). And having 90% of the human race wandering around in some kind of hallucination is holding us back.
If someone believes that “God” or “Jesus” is going to come down and save the good people and punish the bad people at some point in our future, where is the motivation to actually WORK on the problems facing us? Where is the responsibility?
And then they get involved interfering at a political level with scientific research (stem cells, cloning, etc).
The main point is this: having 90% of the population wandering around believing in illusory beings is, at best, holding us back as a species. Those of us who are rational need to find ways to bring those that we can with us. It isn’t enough for us to sit back and say “well as long as they don’t do any harm…”. Because they ARE doing harm.
Now I’m not advocating that they shouldn’t have the RIGHT to stay delusional. I’m not suggesting we ban religion (although that would be a very good thing). I’m saying we, the sane ones, need to get more proactive with trying to help our irrational friends let go of bronze age superstitions in imaginary superfriends and join us in the 21st century.
The definition of faith is in fact:
“Belief that is not based on proof”
That is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia states that:
“Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact.”
You are asking people to believe in an absolute – There is no God, for which you have no proof. Therefore, based on faith and not proof. You then have faith in your own beliefs that God does not exist. Then, to apply the exact same logic you have used; is a state of delusion or “insanity”, you believe something you have no evidence for. You are exactly the thing that you claim 90% of the population is!
You are covering your own arse because you cannot respond to the Christian by proving there is no God. That is exactly the same as you are asking the Christian to do. Why can you believe there is no God without proof yet the Christian has to prove the existence of God for you to accept that they are allowed to have faith in that God? Truth of the matter is that if the existence of God could be proven one way or the other it would not be a point of debate.
You also say that:
“all of the evidence points to the contrary”
What is it?
I would also remind you that some of the greatest minds in scientific history claimed to be Christians or have faith that there is a God. Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday and Kelvin (to name a few). It did not seem to stunt their ability to make amazing discoveries and forward the human race.
“And then they get involved interfering at a political level with scientific research (stem cells, cloning, etc).”
Is this not a question of morality? Or simply a moral judgement that an individual makes based on what they think is right wrong or otherwise? Are you saying that these types of decisions should be made by people without morals? Or by those that don’t have any influences. You? But you are influenced by your belief systems as well (I am going to say you have faith and beliefs until you prove me otherwise). You have influence over the moral decisions that our society makes. Or the right to not exercise the right to influence decisions. So why then should not every one have that right?
Should people that believe in God (who or whatever that me be for them) for example be excluded from voting in elections? After all they should not be allowed to have any influence right? Or should the parliament be cleared of “Christians” and any one else that claim to have beliefs or believe in anything they can not prove before legislation is voted on, so as not be able to influence those decisions?
Who then is allowed to have influence. Who then is able to sway opinion. Someone else? Someone that does not believe in God and therefore is totally rational and without delusion. The same individual that can not prove their belief, who is then classified as insane? Those people right!
“… where is the motivation to actually WORK on the problems facing us? Where is the responsibility?”
That is the joint responsibility of humanity, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, Humanist… everyone. To state their opinion, their argument, their “influence” for better or worse. That is just how it works. There is no alternative. Unless your crystal ball is better than mine that is all we can do.
“I’m saying we, the sane ones, need to get more proactive with trying to help our irrational friends let go of bronze age superstitions in imaginary superfriends and join us in the 21st century.”
Why? Because you are right. Or that you think you are right. Because you should be right? Do you believe you are right… Damn, that means you believe something, and until you prove it – it is by faith that you believe there is no God or supreme being or spirituality or whatever. That then makes you a prophet for Agnostic, Atheist Humanists, no problem, if that is what you believe.
I don’t think you have established if you or I are sane yet.
On Dave’s point: “I don’t think you have established if you or I are sane yet.”
Cam you love to use evidence to prove a point. How about do this with the matter of which of Dave or you are the sanist.
Dave do you see any professionals about your mental health or have you done so in the last 2 years? If you answer no, you win and are the sanist as Cam has mentioned that he has.
The test is on, and we are going to use evidence to prove it, hey Cam!!
Cam you got to get Dave on the show to debate it. I want to hear him shoot you down, reading him giving you a flogging is just not enough anymore.
Hey Dave, we should both go on and we can call it “Cure an agnostic!”
Molly
you should read this Cam, http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/
Douglas Adams: Is There and Artificial God
Inspired by Molly’s comments and Sam Harris.
“Letter to a Moderate Culture”
On your convictions of the existence of god and cherry picking style following; aren’t you more scared of god?
One of the most highlighted ideas in the bible (new and old testaments) is the idea of heaven and hell and the fact that YOU ARE EITHER WITH GOD OR AGAINST HIM (and the bar is set pretty high in terms of what you need to do to be with him). Your convictions seem too moderate. Excuse my assumptions but from what i can see, you would not be above the bar if he returned today. Aren’t you afraid of either;
a) wasting your life defending a god that isn’t there, or
b) your life ending and you’re not above the bar?
I went to church in my teens and ended up leaving because I couldn’t commit myself fully because of too many unanswered questions and saw no point do it half-arsed. I only mention this because it is frightening now to see how many people have an airy-fairy view of a cute and cudley god. You say you believe in god but think you are “a good person” on the whole and god will not send you to hell with all the rapists and drug dealers. I see this as a waste of a life. People say “Isn’t it just harmless, purpose giving self-delusion?” Maybe so for these people but take god out of the equation and i think human life is even more amazing and inspirational. Why not believe in the human spirit instead of the holy one?
All of this is important though because as Sam Harris says, it is these moderates who shield the fundamentalists causing the troubles. And is it trouble? Yes it is – on many levels of science and global peace.
These moderates rest assured in the idea that 1 billion people believe the same thing as they do. That is misleading too. There’s well over 1 billion Chinese and Indian people not thinking the same thing. And to say that it’s just different forms of the same god is childishly simplistic if you were as open minded as you so often claim to be.
So I say, stand up and start believing in, and giving credit to, yourself. Don’t waste this one and ONLY life you have because “this is just the entry exam to heaven”! This is not the world of “the never ending story” which will be consumed by nothingness if you don’t believe in it.
End of letter.
See this is the funny thing, as I understand it and I don’t go into in depth (as I say, its not important to day to day living if you follow the main rule (i.e. love one another)), its actually easy to get in heaven as God forgives us (or thats the party line, if you like). But to be honest I not even worried about the after life.
The main reason I defend God here is Cam is so adament about it and it really pisses him off. You should try winding cam up, its really quite fun! He just has to win every argument and gets pissed off when he isn’t winning. Unfortunately in this arguement he thought he had the perfect case and is getting an absolute caining! I guess he knows how the English cricketers feel!
Keep up the good work Cam.
Molly
Fun as it is, it appears i’m collateral damage in your winding up of Cam.
The bible doesn’t say it’s that easy to get into heaven. God just doesn’t forgive at the last minute (would you in his shoes). If you take the whole story on board, would you kill your own son and then forgive people only half committed?
From The American Heritage Dictionary:
(http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67)
faith (fÄth) pronunciation
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
I think definition number two is the one we’re debating. No logical proof.
It gets back to what I’ve said a couple of times Dave. Believing IN something, when there is no evidence to support it, is insanity. NOT BELIEVING in something due to lack of evidence is actually called “reality”.
Saying you can’t prove something DOESN’T exist therefore it DOES exist is just crazy, I’m sorry.
I can’t prove unicorns, goblins, elves, hobbits, dragons and fairies don’t exist either, but I’m pretty sure we would all consider someone who genuinely believed in their existence, PURELY ON THE BASIS THAT YOU CAN’T PROVE THEY DON’T EXIST, to have lost the plot.
This isn’t any different.
The rational approach to evaluating the universe is to look at the evidence. I don’t need “faith” or “belief” because the rational approach to thinking about the universe (as in the legal system) is to look for the evidence. This is why I say all people of faith are dangerous and unstable. They have convinced themselves that a model of the universe based on lack of evidence is acceptable. And it just isn’t.
Galileo was tried for heresy for saying that the Earth orbited the Sun. Yeah, nice work Christians.
I don’t know enough about the rest of those guys to speak knowledgeably, but I can say that it wasn’t until recent times that any scientist could even speak honestly about such matters with fear of recrimination from religious conservatives. Which is just another way that religion has been holding back the human race for thousands of years.
NATURE magazine did a survey a few years ago that involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied. When queried about belief in “personal god,” only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed “personal disbelief,” and 20.8% expressed “doubt or agnosticism.”
People can and do have morals without believing in a supernatural force. I’m saying that those decisions need to be made logically and rationally, and that people who have “faith” have already demonstrated that they lack the ability to think rationally and therefore shouldn’t be involved in important public decisions.
And yes, I am right, because, and I say this again and again…. the evidence-based approach to evaluating the truth is the ONLY rational approach.
Again I bring the legal analogy into the discussion. We should be talking here about the search for truth. How do you determine truth without looking at the evidence?
Molly’s right, we should be having this discussion on the show!
See Cam, that wasn’t so hard agreeing with me, right? Baby steps. First that the conversation should be on the show, then that you arguments against Christians is wrong. Baby steps.
Molly
Hey Dude,
On other matters, you should check in with Michael at Mobatalk (you know the mychingo guy) as they are getting ready to re-release the platform with what looks like all sorts of cool stuff. I sure he would love to talk to you about it!
Molly
All this talk of faith is fairly amusing for me. I’m somewhat ashamed to say that Faith was my confirmation name…
Cam, You dont believe in God, so how do you explain ‘your decision’ to become an atheist as being anything other than an act of free will ?
It is possible to rationalize anything outside of yourself.
John, decisions are thoughts. We don’t yet understand a lot about how thought works, but they appear to be electro-chemical events that occur in the brain. They appear to happen as a result of a highly complex sequence of events involving electro-chemical inputs from the environment which are processed by our neuronal switches.
As I’m not consciously aware of how these processes work I can’t claim to be in control of them, hence I don’t believe in free will. The experiments carried out by Benjamin Libet into the timing of conscious awareness seem to agree (http://www.consciousentities.com/experiments.htm#decisions).
“Unicorns, goblins, elves, hobbits, dragons and fairies” do not exist, there is no evidence to support that the do in fact there is evidence that they don’t. The evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist is the fact that my parents will gladly admit it was them. The absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
To compare a supreme being or deity to a mythical creature that gives you 20 cents for leaving a tooth under your pillow is hardly comparable. Universally, an overwhelming majority of the human race with say without any doubt what so ever that these creatures do not exist. The same can not be said to the question of God’s or gods existence. Therefore, God is just not in the same category as unicorns, goblins, elves, hobbits, dragons and fairies.
To emphasise the point. There are those individuals that have “found God” later in life, not children. If your comparison could be made then the rest of the world would regard their beliefs as infantile and childish. They would also feel that their decision is such, which they do not. Using this logic over simplifies the argument. If it were that simple then there would be no argument.
You keep asking for evidence that there is a God and yet are unable to produce evidence there is not. This is fundamental. No, there is no way to prove scientifically that there is a God just the same as you can not prove there is not. The reason for this is that by the very definition and scope of “faith” or “belief” it is impossible to do so. Because faith is the trust and belief in something that cannot be proven, which is the very definition that I and you have used. So the argument for the existence or non-existence of God etal. can not be solved with the burden of proof one way or the other. Therefore your argument can not be concluded either.
You are saying that there is no God without proof that there is no God. How is that any different. You assume that because there is no evidence for God then people are obligated to believe there is no God. Which is stupidity according to your logic. You have different rules for the “Christian” within your philosophical debate. You manipulate your perceived reality to suit your beliefs, you are rationally and sanely able to believe that there is no God and call yourself sane and yet you say that the “Christian” is stupid and insane for doing the same thing. You can not different rules of “engagement” within a philosophical argument for each side of the debate. If your logic and argument were as sound as you say it is then you would not need to have different expectations and requirements for the Christian as yourself. It is not fair to put Molly in the hot seat on the show and have different rules for him than you.
Even the famous atheist Kai Nielsen wrote:
“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false. …All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.”
– Kai Nielsen, Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.
You have to admit that your own belief that there is no God is based on faith, that is the only alternative to proof and since you have no proof that is the case. Now we are no longer speaking rationally, because according to your logic we are now both mad.
That is because you will not admit or believe that faith exists, or that there is a possibility that a deity or gods exist; because as soon as you do that everything you are saying to support your argument fails. Therefore, your argument is flawed. The Christian by default has a flawed argument as well according to “logic” because he/she can not prove that God exists. Your conclusion that follows is that they are insane and mad. You and the Christian are identical in the position they find themselves. Faith involves the belief in something for which there is no proof! They can not win and neither can you. A Muslim, Jew, JW, Hindi, Agnostic etc… are all the same no one can PROVE their belief. Because it is based on faith. This is the position of any individual that has any type of belief system and that means that is the entire human race. Your belief is based on the same faith but you will not admit that because the admission of faith undermines your whole belief system that you claim to have.
As soon as you admit there is an element of faith in your belief system that also concludes that there has to be some doubt to your claim. Same for the Christian. So therefore rational thinking and proof can not be used to settle the argument as to if God exists or not. In order to debate any further you have to make the admission that it is by faith that people believe what they do, including you. That then means that:
“the evidence-based approach to evaluating the truth is the ONLY rational approach.”
Is not possible.
BUT
Since the question of God can not be proven or disproved with the use of scientific method or provision of proof. What you are asking for is that people conduct themselves differently within the realm of decision making and policy formation. To do it by weighing the argument of all interested parties and opinions of humanity. Your request for rationality to evaluate decisions is possible. To apply it to the existence of God is not. Therefore it is without question that individuals have as an influence for their decisions their faith and their beliefs.
What you want is that people change their behaviour. This is not a question of a belief in God it is a question of people’s behaviour and the way that they do things.
That is a completely different argument.
I like Cam choose not to believe in a God because I have no factual or scientific proof to make me believe otherwise. personally I don’t care if people choose to believe in a God, I just think it is silly to believe that when you die you will go to a “better” place if you believe in God, that is delusional.
What I am concerned about is our Christian leaders in power, like Dubya and Lil Johnny, who make decisions based on their religious beliefs. That is not serving the best interests of the people, it is serving themselves and their own personal “salvation” to their God of choice.
I amsure there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state but when religious fruitcakes keep getting elected my even crazier people then the world really has no chance o advance as fast as it should have by now. How could we have landed a man on the moon almost 40 yrs ago and have done very little since then. maybe we need another Cold War to speed up advances in the scientific areas and have governments support them. I am certain the scientists out there are very frustrated with the way governments have hindered progress in the last 20-30 years.
Tony are you trying to tell me that the “war in Iraq” is a holy war started by the Catholic church? Come on! Bush isn’t in Iraq cause he is a Christian, hes in Iraq cause hes an idiot, war monger. If he really was Christian and followed the Christian belief and let that rule his judgement there would be no war in Iraq! Period.
He does lots of the things that the Church would want him to do because either it suite him political or he personally believes it. The fact that he agrees with things the “Catholic Church” believes in is neither here nor there!
JMTC
Molly
Whether he believes it or not, the whole “in god’s name” argument gives him security against most of the US christians scrutinizing him. It is this general acceptance by the majority of the population which gives him a get out of jail card. It’s just like saying the words “in my own humble opinion” to shield potentially inflammatory remarks from accountability.
This is why it’s important to fight the science vs religion fight. IMHO I’d be more comfortable with religion if it wasn’t so prevalent.
Cam,
Yes, the wheels turned, the juices flowed and ‘you’ made your decision.
While you probably made the decsion after reading whole lot of articles etc about wether or not god existed Im guessing that you made up your OWN mind about it and went with what felt right for you.
In this way i feel a christians decision is no less valid.
If you yourself admit that not a lot is known about the process of thought then perhaps its just a little pre-emptive to say that there is no such thing as free will.
True, some scientists believe that is the case, but I dont think that its as widely accepted as you say.
Mr libets work (thanks for the link) did say that the unconscience brain is quicker to react than conscience thought, but in doing so it did acknowledge the existance of conscience thought. I think this conscience thought is free will
It is said that stress happens when the brain overcomes the bodys inital reaction to choke the shit out of some asshole who deserves it. The fact that you dont is testament to free will.
Still in the end Cameron opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, everyone needs one and you are in big trouble if you dont have one.
Cheers
John
Dave, before I get into the God thing with you… I just tried IODA in IE and the previews *still* didn’t work.
Now… to God… you want to do this on the show tonight? About 9.30pm my time? Or later?
You say “You are saying that there is no God without proof that there is no God. How is that any different. You assume that because there is no evidence for God then people are obligated to believe there is no God.”
I’m saying that believing in a God, without any evidence to suggest one exists, is, in your words, infantile and childish. God is in the exact same category as “Unicorns, goblins, elves, hobbits, dragons and fairiesâ€. You say these things are different because there is evidence that they don’t exist? What is it, apart from an absence of evidence that they do (your tooth fairy example aside)?
You say:
“That is because you will not admit or believe that faith exists, or that there is a possibility that a deity or gods exist; because as soon as you do that everything you are saying to support your argument fails.”
I fully admit faith exists. I’m just saying it is irrational. I also have not denied the possibility that a god or gods *may* exist. I have merely said that until there is evidence to support the theory that they do, it is foolish, irrational and superstitious to believe in them. Just like unicorns.
I don’t have “faith” that there isn’t a god or many gods. I don’t need “faith”. The rational approach, the ONLY rational approach, is to say “there is no evidence to suggest one or many gods exist”.
That’s what this WHOLE debate gets down to. And you can try to obfuscate it as much as you like. But the whole debate comes down to this:
Believing in something that has no evidence to support it’s existence, in fact has overwhelming evidence to deny it’s existence, is irrational.
That isn’t a statement of faith. It is a statement of principal. And I don’t know why otherwise intelligent and educated people continue to choose to be irrational.
John, there is obviously something called “conscious thought”. I am aware of some thoughts, therefore I am conscious of them. But am I in CONTROL of them? That is the key question. I refer you to G’Day World #155
(http://gdayworld.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/09/28/gday-world-155-on-energy-string-theory-and-free-will/).
Molly,
I never mentioned the war in Iraq. I did say that they have made certain political deciosions based on their religious beliefs. They have admitted that so nothing new there. I disagree with it though. They are hindering advancement of the human race through science by not allowing certain things be done or making them unlawful, such as stem cell research for example.
the war on Iraq was just plain and an unjustified invasion of a soverign state. I am no supporter of saddam or what he did to his people, I work with a guy who was born in Iraq while he was power and know it wasn’t a good place to be. You can’t invade a country because you think you know he has WMD, or to quote Rumsfeld “we know where they are” almost 4 years later and they still haven’t wMD even though they know where they are.
But this is a different debate. Maybe i have been brainwashed by Cam.
What i would like Cam to try as an experiment is try something Leo has been doing as part TWIT network and use talkshoe and maybe try some live shows and get a bigger discussion going on than goes on now. Could be fun.
Well Tony I’d *love* to do this as a group thing, but you guys haven’t even been volunteering to come onto the show! But I’ll try anything except snowballing. I’ve just set up a Talkshow account. How about we go for Sunday night Melbourne time?
That is Star Trek night but as I have seen them all before I maybe able to fit that in. Is there any cricket on? Could be an issue there as well…LOL
Who says I haven’t been willing? You never send me a message when your recording to come on and have a chat.
Here’s news on the threat to advancement of the human race from the US. A Washington school board is restricting Gore’s global-warming film because of christian parents.
To quote;
“The information that’s being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is,” Hardison told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18001
Hugo… ARGGHHHH!!!!! That’s all I have to say on the matter atm.
Wow, After all that we *STILL* aren’t any closer to the truth, that and I’m sure that there are many religious people wanting someone’s blood… *cough*
Cam I can not believe that you have moderated the comments!
What are you suggesting Dave? I don’t moderate anything except honest-to-goodness spam. What’s missing?
So is the comp going to be judged using science (i.e. logs or something) or just on Faith (i.e. Aghhh, I will just give it to Miriam)?
This is descrimination against Secular Humanists!
Molly
I saw that story last night also Hugo and emailed it to Cam. The great comment by the father who making most noise was his belief that the erth was only 14,000 yrs old.
How did he get that timeframe?
Cam I did not think you ever had moderated comments that’s all.
You mean moderate them before they go live? Yeah always had that mate. Only for firs time commenters though. People who have previously submitted a comment go straight through. And the spam gets filtered by Akismet.
Hey dude,
Then is the Talkshoe session starting?
Molly
Oh that’s cool, I had no idea. Maybe we should do that with the Geek as I am sick of the spam which seems to be in overload lately…