I was anticipated by a Greater Mind.

[Stubby]

Yes well, you just contradicted yourself

Where?

[williatw]

Where?

Well so far Stubby the 21st century seems to be less bloody than the 20th was, and there are probably more atheists around per capita now than during the 1st decade and a half of the 20th. So we shall see. There seems to be a general trend toward democracy and away from the authoritarian/totalitarian model, that's probably the biggest reason for the apparent decline, so let's hope it continues. Of course the worst disasters of the 20th hadn't happened by 1913, you had the Boer war, the Russo Japanese war, the massacre of the Belgian Congo, supposed the later one was pretty bad.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

[Stubby]

what has all to do with 'contradicting' myself?

[Stubby]

Where?

Well so far Stubby the 21st century seems to be less bloody than the 20th was, and there are probably more atheists around per capita now than during the 1st decade and a half of the 20th. So we shall see. There seems to be a general trend toward democracy and away from the authoritarian/totalitarian model, that's probably the biggest reason for the apparent decline, so let's hope it continues. Of course the worst disasters of the 20th hadn't happened by 1913, you had the Boer war, the Russo Japanese war, the massacre of the Belgian Congo, supposed the later one was pretty bad.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

Confused by this post

[Diogenes]

Yes well, you just contradicted yourself. No surprise there.

And seriously, just look in a dictionary of you don't know what the term means. Don't make stuff up. That just leaves you looking childish.

I am thinking that stubby is like a scheisser junior. Not quite as screechy and irrational, but getting there.


He seriously thinks that definitions work along the lines of "it's our turn now?"


Geeze! What a kook.

[Diogenes]

WTF is the only reasonable response to anything scheisser writes. He is simply not rational enough to argue with.

What was your first clue?

I told you weeks ago he was going to ruin this forum just like all the other forums he has entered and trashed. had we all put him on ignore weeks ago, we would not have the trashing of common sense we have. Yet people keep reading his notes and responding to them.

Just put him on ignore and eventually he'll go away. That is the only way to deal with trolls.

I don't read anything he writes. I wish I didn't even have to see his postings listed. He is utterly without merit.

[Teahive]

The default position versus any assertion is non-belief until sufficient evidence is provided.

That's an irrational stance. Skepticism is not a rational default position. The rational default when possible is to suspend judgement. However, in the case of the existence of God, as William James clearly shows, the decision is "living, forced and momentous" the choice to believe is the only rational choice. Clearly it is the only pragmatic choice as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

He makes a good argument for believing something, but it appears the only thing required of that something is being desirable as a truth (as well as being a live hypothesis). That isn't necessarily an argument for belief in a deity.

To me the Abrahamic God is as dead a hypothesis as Zeus and Odin.

[williatw]

Where?

Well so far Stubby the 21st century seems to be less bloody than the 20th was, and there are probably more atheists around per capita now than during the 1st decade and a half of the 20th. So we shall see. There seems to be a general trend toward democracy and away from the authoritarian/totalitarian model, that's probably the biggest reason for the apparent decline, so let's hope it continues. Of course the worst disasters of the 20th hadn't happened by 1913, you had the Boer war, the Russo Japanese war, the massacre of the Belgian Congo, supposed the later one was pretty bad.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DP.CLOCK.HTM

Confused by this post

I meant we shall see whether more atheism in the 21st century will lead to more war...so far the trend because of the outbreak of democracy is toward more peace...but the century is still young.

[JLawson]

I meant we shall see whether more atheism in the 21st century will lead to more war...so far the trend because of the outbreak of democracy is toward more peace...but the century is still young.

Plenty of time for it to go pear-shaped. The trouble's going to be the nation-states that aren't going towards democracy - and decide their neighbors are either prime expansion territories, or shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Conventional war with conventional weapons are pretty limiting, really. It's the big stuff that's been kept in the closet since the mid '40s that I worry about.

[GIThruster]

The default position versus any assertion is non-belief until sufficient evidence is provided.

That's an irrational stance. Skepticism is not a rational default position. The rational default when possible is to suspend judgement. However, in the case of the existence of God, as William James clearly shows, the decision is "living, forced and momentous" the choice to believe is the only rational choice. Clearly it is the only pragmatic choice as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

He makes a good argument for believing something, but it appears the only thing required of that something is being desirable as a truth.

Obviously you didn't read it, so why are you pretending to know what argument he makes? Again caught red-handed with a completely disingenuous post. And I have to say, stubby; if your continuing and utter lack of veracity speaks for atheism, I'm sure we can expect a host of new converts. The main objection to atheism is always that such people cannot be trusted, and you prove the point in every other post.

[Schneibster]

The default position versus any assertion is non-belief until sufficient evidence is provided.

That's an irrational stance. Skepticism is not a rational default position. The rational default when possible is to suspend judgement. However, in the case of the existence of God, as William James clearly shows, the decision is "living, forced and momentous" the choice to believe is the only rational choice. Clearly it is the only pragmatic choice as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

He makes a good argument for believing something, but it appears the only thing required of that something is being desirable as a truth.

Obviously you didn't read it, so why are you pretending to know what argument he makes? Again caught red-handed with a completely disingenuous post. And I have to say, stubby; if your continuing and utter lack of veracity speaks for atheism, I'm sure we can expect a host of new converts. The main objection to atheism is always that such people cannot be trusted, and you prove the point in every other post.

You're demanding proof of a negative, or William James is. Assuming of course that your reporting of him is correct.

As for reading centuries-old philosophy, sorry, I don't waste my time on philosophy much in the first place, much less really old philosophy. At this point the philosophers all think philosophy leads to solipsism, AKA derridaism. My attitude is deconstruct deconstructionism. I stick to physical sciences, which are usually studied by sane people.

[Teahive]

Obviously you didn't read it, so why are you pretending to know what argument he makes?

I certainly did read it (the whole address, not just the Wikipedia entry). But you're right that what I wrote is not a proper representation of his argument. I apologize.

I can't answer for Stubby, by the way.

The very core of his argument is this:

This feeling, forced on us we know not whence, that by obstinately believing that there are gods (although not to do so would be so easy both for our logic and our life) we are doing the universe the deepest service we can, seems part of the living essence of the religious hypothesis. If the hypothesis were true in all its parts, including this one, then pure intellectualism, with its veto on our making willing advances, would be an absurdity; and some participation of our sympathetic nature would be logically required. I, therefore, for one, cannot see my way to accepting the agnostic rules for truth-seeking, or wilfully agree to keep my willing nature out of the game. I cannot do so for this plain reason, that a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule. That for me is the long and short of the formal logic of the situation, no matter what the kinds of truth might materially be.

His argument against scepticism is that it's better to risk being duped but having a shot at the truth. That's fine, actually, and I kind of accept it. But how do you choose which hypothesis to believe?

He then goes on to differentiate religious from naturalistic hypotheses.

The whole defence of religious faith hinges upon action. If the action required or inspired by the religious hypothesis is in no way different from that dictated by the naturalistic hypothesis, then religious faith is a pure superfluity, better pruned away, and controversy about its legitimacy is a piece of idle trifling, unworthy of serious minds. I myself believe, of course, that the religious hypothesis gives to the world an expression which specifically determines our reactions, and makes them in a large part unlike what they might be on a purely naturalistic scheme of belief.

But the action just being different is no reason to prefer religious hypotheses over naturalistic hypotheses. So his claim appears to be that religious hypotheses are not just different but better. I disagree.

[Schneibster]

His argument against scepticism is that it's better to risk being duped but having a shot at the truth.

But see, the whole point is that you'll always dupe yourself, if you want to.

Scientists who study reality can't do that. It's the whole point of science.

[Diogenes]

To sum up my position, believe or disbelieve in whatever you like.


Just don't wake up the population, on whose belief in God, the functionality of society is pinned.


The problem with many atheists is that they think everyone is as rational as them and can mildly accept the idea of a Godless Universe.

That a major portion of humanity is incredibly irrational and is only held in check by this perception of supernatural force, simply doesn't occur to these "too smart by half" atheists.

To these irrational people, a universe without God is a universe without moral constraints. In such a universe, Killing becomes an immediate solution to many problems.

[Schneibster]

To sum up my position, believe or disbelieve in whatever you like.

See, this is where you go wrong. People who don't believe in reality are insane and need help.

Look at Hitler and Napoleon.