A View on Atheist

[Darth]

It works like this, It's 10! (3.6 mill) If I have 10 things, an A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I and a J and then arrange them in an order. There are 10! (3.6 million) different combinations, However, this assumes that I can't use the same x twice, once it's down, its down and cannot be used again (10! is the same as 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, When i start I have a choice of 10 things, however once I've put the first one down and am ready to put the 2nd one down, there are only 9 to chose from, when I go to put the 3rd one down there are only 8...). Randomly picking 10 digits however allows for me to use the same digit twice, or three times... it doesn't matter if its already been used, allowing for 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10 (10^10). Each time there are 10 choices, as the number of choices doesn't diminish at each step. The person randomly chose a 10 digit sequence, its 10^10.

Many more than "one, and likely two" people on the planet would* guess it if it were 10! btw =P

back to the point, agnosticism isn't a middle ground between theism and atheism, agnosticism concerns knowledge, atheism talks about belief.

Gnostic theism
Agnostic theism
Agnostic atheism
Gnostic theism

If you say that you think the chances of X are small, then that means you don't believe it to be true (though you concede that you don't know, you may be wrong). There might be gorgeous models right outside my door sure, but I don't believe it to be true (not that it hasn't happened before), I might be about to inherit a large sum of money, but I don't believe it to be true. When you say that the chances of something are slight, it means you don't believe it. You're confusing knowledge and belief, sure you don't know it (agnosticism) but you also don't believe it (atheism).

On that point, the deistic gods, sure I'm an agnostic atheist in regards to them. But the theistic god concepts I've been presented with, Load of baloney, internally inconsistent, logically impossible.

*statistically, none of course might, or everyone might =P

[Faith No More]

It works like this, It's 10! (3.6 mill) If I have 10 things, an A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I and a J and then arrange them in an order. There are 10! (3.6 million) different combinations, However, this assumes that I can't use the same x twice, once it's down, its down and cannot be used again (10! is the same as 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1, When i start I have a choice of 10 things, however once I've put the first one down and am ready to put the 2nd one down, there are only 9 to chose from, when I go to put the 3rd one down there are only 8...). Randomly picking 10 digits however allows for me to use the same digit twice, or three times... it doesn't matter if its already been used, allowing for 10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10x10 (10^10). Each time there are 10 choices, as the number of choices doesn't diminish at each step. The person randomly chose a 10 digit sequence, its 10^10.

Thanks for clearing that up. I knew factorials were used in calculating probability somehow but I couldn't get any other answer than 10^10.

[diffidus]

Firstly, on a technical point, the probability of guessing 10 numbers in sequence is not 10^10. It is in fact 10!, which is equal to ~ 1 in 3.6 million. Following the rest of your argument this would mean at least one and likely two people on the planet would guess the correct sequence.

How did you come to 10! as the answer? For some reason, my memory seems to tell me you're correct, but in trying to look up the answer it I could only verify my calculation. The probability of you guessing one digit is 1/10. The probability of you guessing 2 digits is 1/10 * 1/10 both numbers is 1 in 100 or 1/10^2. The probability of you guessing 3 digits in a row is 1/10*1/10*1/10 or 1/10^3. Therefore the probability guessing a sequence of of digits is 1/10^n, where n is the number digits you have to guess in a row. So in trying to guess 10 digits correctly the probability is 1/10^10.

Regardless if the probability is 1 in 3.6 million or 1 in 10 billion, would you let someone accused of a crime go based on either of those odds, or would you say with certainty he/she is guilty?

On the second point, it is true that I have said holding an open mind reflects the facts as they are, but I have never said that this means you are unenlightened if you don't. In fact, it is in the nature of an open mind to respect all peoples beliefs where that facts are not fully known.

I never meant to say that you were doing it intentionally, but you have started two threads of a similar manner. In both of those you have inadvertently come off condescending towards anyone who believes differently.

Diffidus:

It seems I owe you an apology on the mathematical question. I was assuming that you meant that each person would draw a different set of ten numbers i.e the second person would not draw the same numbers as the first and so on. However, with your extra explanation, I now see that you are allowing people to draw the same set of 10 numbers which would in fact be 10^10.

[Violet]

Thank you for these considered answers. If I require any more information on subjects that have baffled the greatest minds that have existed throughout history, I now know who to ask!

I wouldn't be the one to call the the greatest minds. You want genius, you look to my favorite student, Niccolo Machiavelli. Hell, he even started teaching me before he died

[Faith No More]

It seems I owe you an apology on the mathematical question. I was assuming that you meant that each person would draw a different set of ten numbers i.e the second person would not draw the same numbers as the first and so on. However, with your extra explanation, I now see that you are allowing people to draw the same set of 10 numbers which would in fact be 10^10.

It's okay, I wasn't even 100% sure I was correct. My question still stands, however, which is would you vote to convict someone accused of a crime based on odds even at 1 in a million they might be innocent?

[bozo]

FaithNoMore,
I am reluctant to interpose, but a trial verdict is arrived at by the evidence presented.

[Faith No More]

FaithNoMore,
I am reluctant to interpose, but a trial verdict is arrived at by the evidence presented.

Yes, but the question isn't really directed at interpretations of evidence. The discussion is about the odds of God existing and my point is that astronomically small odds can be dismissed with certainty. In a court of law a DNA sample is considered a match at the odds that there is a one in a million chance that it came from someone else. Considering I feel the odds of God's existence are less than that, I want to know if he thinks people should still keep an open mind at those kinds of odds.

[bozo]

FaithNoMore,
I am reluctant to interpose, but a trial verdict is arrived at by the evidence presented.

Yes, but the question isn't really directed at interpretations of evidence. The discussion is about the odds of God existing and my point is that astronomically small odds can be dismissed with certainty. In a court of law a DNA sample is considered a match at the odds that there is a one in a million chance that it came from someone else. Considering I feel the odds of God's existence are less than that, I want to know if he thinks people should still keep an open mind at those kinds of odds.

Gotcha, I repeat my mantra that god's existence is unlikely in the extreme.

[Napoléon]

He's trying to redefine atheism. Failed he has.

He thinks that for someone to lack belief in a god or gods, it requires faith?
Simply put, an atheist is one who does not believe in a god, and putting agnostic in front of that is simply stating that not only do you lack belief in god but admit that god's existence is unknown/unknowable. He thinks this requires faith.
Yet it doesn't take faith to lack belief in anything else, this is where he engages special pleading and has even jumped to argument ad populum, which is a fallacious argument.

I think that about covers it.
Anyone want to add to this?

Yeah, My Sig

I don't quite understand what doofidus is hoping to achieve with these posts. All he seems to be trying to do is label certain types of athiests under his own definitions and is coming across as a condescending ass wipe. I think this guy is a POE in all honesty. Sounds like he's trying to act better than everyone else and pat himself on the back because he's supposedly more 'open minded' than all of us dumb 'FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEISTS'. Lmfao seriously doofidus? Making out that there are fundamentalist atheists? Really? Lol this is comedy right here...

Oh and do forgive me for being a bit, how shall we say, 'tough' with you. I sure hope you don't label me as one of those fundamentalist atheists.

[diffidus]

It seems I owe you an apology on the mathematical question. I was assuming that you meant that each person would draw a different set of ten numbers i.e the second person would not draw the same numbers as the first and so on. However, with your extra explanation, I now see that you are allowing people to draw the same set of 10 numbers which would in fact be 10^10.

It's okay, I wasn't even 100% sure I was correct. My question still stands, however, which is would you vote to convict someone accused of a crime based on odds even at 1 in a million they might be innocent?

Diffidus:

In a court of law the question of 'reasonable doubt' arises. I think if I was certain that the probability of innocence was 1 in a million, then I would convict.

However, on the question of God's existence, I don't have any certainty in the uncertainty. In other words, we don't know how much we don't know. This is why I use a more general term such as 'unlikely' with regard to God's existence. This is about as close as I can get to the status quo in terms of human knowledge.