I must be doing my sums all wrong. I keep not getting the universe.

(July 25, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: Before the Hubble Telescope people could have not imagined what the universe was really like, that in no way limited the universe in being what it really was.

what do telescopes have to do with anything?

Quote: I can not photograph the wind only it's action,

true

Quote: I can not photograph God, however I can see His actions and not just in my life but in others as well.

not true

Quote:Also I can photograph a lake with the water perfectly still, not even a ripple and know the wind is not blowing, but because I have a picture of the wind in action I can also use a picture of no wind to show that the wind is real

true

Quote: , same with God,

not true

Quote: I see His actions in some people and know

not true

Quote:He is real, and when I do not see His action in some people I still see God is real.

not true....... ARE YOU A FUCKING ATHEIST NOW!!!

This boils down to a problem with rating systems. I don't believe a person's belief or non-belief can be accurately represented on a scale. Technically an atheist should be zero on the scale since its the default state, but then where the hell are ignostics and apatheists supposed to feature? Are they a 1/2 position on the scale? Irreligious but not quite atheistic? Or a -1 position on the scale because they consider the entire concept and/or term "god" as meaningless? Do apatheists not feature at all because they don't care? What about the indeterminate group who simply don't know?

Scales are inherently flawed. Take a gander at the lovely colour coded International Nuclear Event Scale for example. At the time of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster no one knew if they should rate the event as a '5', '6' or '7' on the scale. And WTF is the difference between a Major accident and a Serious accident anyway? Also, WTF is the difference between a major impact on people and environment and a significant impact on people and environment?

Its all a pile of bollocks thought up by business studies analysts who have way too much free time on their hands just as they create a fucking flowchart for people to work out how to use a toilet.

Its just like reviewers who hand out 1-10 scores for video games or films when any halfwit should know complex opinions and critic cannot be accurately represented numerically, irrespective of criteria if they label 1 as rubbish and 10 as "perfect" (there's no such thing), inevitably the subject in question maybe scored 5, 6 or 7 out of 10 giving you little to no indication as to whether the content is worth picking up/renting/owning or not.

(July 25, 2012 at 12:29 am)Godschild Wrote: Before the Hubble Telescope people could have not imagined what the universe was really like, that in no way limited the universe in being what it really was.

I don't mean to come across as an arsehole but people managed to figure out a hell of a lot about the Universe before the HST (pictures too; plenty of stunning photos and very accurate pencil sketches going back centuries). Homework for the day: ask yourself why the Space Telescope was named Hubble.

As has already been pointed out, comparing something like your pet god to the wind just because both are invisible to the eye is, I'm sorry to say, something I'd expect even my seven-year-old niece would find childish. Yes, we can only see the effects of wind. However, we know what wind is, what it's made of, how it behaves - at least to all practical extent - and can even make it ourselves (I wish there was more of it around here just at the moment, though, before we all melt). On the other hand, to continue your anal orgy* analogy, what is your god made of? How does it behave and how can we know this?

* Bloody autocorrect...

I'm a 7.

(July 25, 2012 at 11:57 am)Stimbo Wrote: and can even make it ourselves (I wish there was more of it around here just at the moment, though, before we all melt).

i appreciate your humility and i know what you really meant by the bolded text, was "around here at afo to help carry away the smell of dung."

or maybe not too, but i liked the idea.

Actually I just meant it's been as hot as Venus the last couple of days, but that works just as well. Better, probably.

(July 25, 2012 at 2:06 am)apophenia Wrote:

I've been waiting for one of you to admit you all are turkeys.

(July 25, 2012 at 5:36 am)Welsh cake Wrote: This boils down to a problem with rating systems. I don't believe a person's belief or non-belief can be accurately represented on a scale. Technically an atheist should be zero on the scale since its the default state, but then where the hell are ignostics and apatheists supposed to feature? Are they a 1/2 position on the scale? Irreligious but not quite atheistic? Or a -1 position on the scale because they consider the entire concept and/or term "god" as meaningless? Do apatheists not feature at all because they don't care? What about the indeterminate group who simply don't know?

Scales are inherently flawed.

The real problem is we're trying to map all possible positions along a single linear scale when in fact we have at least four considerations which we wish to represent -do you believe, do you know, do you care, and do you know wtf we're talking about. So ideally we would like four axes each with its own scale. My friend Rom at Agnostics International came up with this diagram that attempts to show some of the ways these beliefs cross over.



This doesn't solve all the problems but perhaps it does help you visualize how they relate in a different way.

(July 25, 2012 at 5:00 pm)Godschild Wrote: I've been waiting for one of you to admit you all are turkeys.

Personally, I think you're terrified of being wrong. You have such a strong desire for an afterlife it scares you to even think that you're probably wrong, and that there is no such thing.

I guess it's down to what you'd rather go with.
A comforting lie?
Or the painful truth?