(October 5, 2008 at 9:23 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:(October 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm)bozo Wrote: Thanks to all who have responded to my Orwellian quote.
To those who struggle with the concept of not liking what you are convinced doesn't exist, I refer you to RD's " God Delusion ", specifically his spectrum of probabilities concerning the existence of God. The spectrum has milestones from 1 to 7.
Milestone 1 represents 100% probability that God exists. At the other end milestone 7 represents 100% probability that God doesn't exist.
As rational people, I suspect very few ateists would put themselves in 7,
rather milestone 6 which represents a very low probability of God's existence albeit short of zero. Hope this helps.
TGD is my favourite book and I am well aware of the 7 milestones I am a 6 but very close to a seven like Dawkins since to ME..that seems the only reasonable position....
However since I believe it is so INCREDIBLY unlikely that god exists...I don't see how I can hate a being that I am almost entirely certain does not exist....for example; I don't hate vampires or count dracula because IF he exists he might have bitten a lot of people's necks that we don't know of....there are many many supernatural ideas besides the idea of god that just because you believe they're remotely possible that they not only could exist but they could be evil and therefore should be hated just as much as god....
God isn't any more likely than a vampire...
Futhermore IF god exists... IF he exists....just because we are in a bad world that doesn't mean its god's fault....they're no more reasons to believe that god is evil than to believe that vampires are evil....just because god exists (in this example) that doesn't mean he influences anything anymore than a vampire does.....and if he does influence stuff a lot....maybe this is the best he can do? How can you hate someone who is trying their best? that wouldn't be fair.....
Despite the fact that god is remotely possible....to me that still doesn't give enough reason to hate him.... despite the fact that there IS a small possibility... IF he exists that doesn't mean that the world is bad; because it might not be god's fault.....you wouldn't hate vampires because there's a remote possibility they killed a lot of people so why hate god if his possibility is so remote and he might just be incompetent rather than evil? etc etc etc.
Doesn't make any sense to me.
Most importantly and to conclude: My belief in god is SO remote that my hate is SO small that you might aswell say I don't hate him at all...don't even dislike him at all...aren't even disappointed at him...my hate of him is so remote that it's trillions of times milder than all three of these emotions of dislike. It's so close to non-existent hate...I don't conciciousley feel any hate of god at all and you might aswell say I don't hate him at all. It's the same as with vampires for example: my hate of the bad things that it is REMOTELY POSSIBLE that vampires have DELIBERATELY DONE is SO small I'm not aware of it at all and you might aswell say: I 'hate' god and vampires to such a tiny tiny tiny recurring extent that you might aswell say I don't hate or dislike them at all. That I don't even feel the remotest bit of disappointment in their actions...AT ALL...you might as well say that - because it's so close to being true...but if you want to know the real degree of my hatred towards god (or vampires for example) I've explained it here for you.
My hatred towards god is so small that it's as small as my hatred towards science because there's the incredibly incredibly incredibly (reccuring) small possibility that science is going to ultimately do more harm than faith.
I'd say my hatred towards the possibility of an evil god is as small as my hatred towards the possibility science ultimately being worse off in everyway than faith. Both these possibilites are almost infinitely small and therefore my hatred towards both of these possibilites are almost infinitely small.
(October 3, 2008 at 11:50 am)chatpilot Wrote: I guess I am a zealout I need no further convincing that God does not exist and consider myself at milestone 7.I am 100 percent convinced that God is a myth.
So am I right in thinking that your arguments against god cannot be entirely based on recieved evidence then?
Whether you've recieved the evidence from a book or wherever.
There is no evidence to suggest that any evidence is gospel(confusing?)....there IS evidence to suggest that almost infintely certainly nothing can be proved 100% so how can you leave out ANY possibilites ENTIRELY?
Unless I misunderstand Dawkins' milestones, he is not " close to a 7 " as you say, rather resolutely a 6.
Next, definitions. I am hoping Orwell was using " despise " not as another word for " hate " but rather " look down on with contempt " ( Chambers dictionary ).
The point is that if such a thing as the christian God exists, I would not be rushing to fall to the ground worshipping or praying for some miracle or other to happen! Rather I would be questionning him/she/it along the lines of how the poet Shelley described God in his epic poem " Queen Mab"
quote- God,Hell and Heaven.
A vengeful, pitiless, and almighty fiend,
Whose mercy is a nickname for the rage
of tameless tigers hungering for blood.
Hell, a red gulf of everlasting fire,
Where poisonous and undying worms prolong
Eternal misery to those hapless slaves
Whose life has been a penance for its crimes.
And Heaven, a meed for those who dare belie
Their human nature,quake,believe, and cringe
Before the mockeries of earthly power.
Couldn't put better myself!
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
