EvilChild
Knight
Re: Okay so I signed up 2 of my chars...
Your problem is with the people and not the religion. I don't like atheists running around telling people that their beliefs are 100% wrong and telling them to die in fires or pissing and moaning any more than you probably like religious fanatics preaching in the streets about why everything you do is sinful and a spite in their gods eyes. I don't think it makes sense to declare a bag of apples bad because the only apple you've had was sour.
I wouldn't make an assumption that the more we learn the less God seems relevant or likely. I personally have found that the more I have learned about science, math, philosophy etc, the more I have found it reasonable that there is probably some sort of God. I think it comes down to your interpretations of evidence that is presented.
As far as the balls in the box. It's impossible to say that having a god is less likely than not having a god. Unless you can give reasons why it would be less likely that there is a god I will stand by the odds being impossible to tell.
Feersum Endjinn;699271 said:
Well, yes. If they didn't go around indoctrinating children, converting lost savages and killing non-believers...
The point is that those who believe in a god in spite of the fact that his/her existence appears less likely with every decade that passes seem to think they deserve some special treatment: a "special" respect for their belief. While I am insulted, ridiculed, attacked or even killed because "Atheism" is a dirty word.
As far as "proving their point of view" is concerned, there is a huge difference between the two sides. Believers know that the existence of god can never be proved (and are told by their superiors that this is the case so as to protect the possibility of "faith"). Non-believers don't know whether they will one day be able to prove their point or not, but they have been accumulating evidence for centuries. This is why your "bat in the box" analogy is not valid: we are not talking about a 50/50 chance. A better analogy would be if you are told the box contains either a baseball bat or a little green man from Mars. How many people would bet on the Martian?
Of course the other difference between believers and non-believers is that if one day god came down to earth and made a star appearance at the Superbowl, every single scientist, Atheist and free thinker would willingly admit that they were wrong all this time. Whereas, if the opposite were proved true, believers would just ignore it...
FE
Your problem is with the people and not the religion. I don't like atheists running around telling people that their beliefs are 100% wrong and telling them to die in fires or pissing and moaning any more than you probably like religious fanatics preaching in the streets about why everything you do is sinful and a spite in their gods eyes. I don't think it makes sense to declare a bag of apples bad because the only apple you've had was sour.
I wouldn't make an assumption that the more we learn the less God seems relevant or likely. I personally have found that the more I have learned about science, math, philosophy etc, the more I have found it reasonable that there is probably some sort of God. I think it comes down to your interpretations of evidence that is presented.
As far as the balls in the box. It's impossible to say that having a god is less likely than not having a god. Unless you can give reasons why it would be less likely that there is a god I will stand by the odds being impossible to tell.
