SoG,

Boy, oh boy. I thought we'd already settled this. Or the fact that you had to dodge and weave before you left at least suggested that.

<<I told you earlier in the thread that dressing up a “guess” in terms likes “high degree of certainty" does not make it so.>>

Um... No, you didn't say anything like that. Your talk of guesses ended when I explained that we can reach varying degrees of certainty (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151430).

I have not dressed anything up. You are simply refusing to see the shades of grey in anything. To you, everything is black and white; guess or absolute certainty. And I had explained this, along with the problems with your way of thinking at... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151430

All you came back with was this... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151.

...asking how my determined probability holds more weight. 

To which I then replied explaining how we (and I, on this topic) can reach various levels of certainty (without physics or mathematical equations) and asking you how you reached your conclusion of a probability of precisely 0.5, but you didn't answer... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151490

As I re-iterated in my second post to Lexi (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5547#151561), all we need is reasoned arguments based on logical absolutes to establish the truth of a claim (or at least approach it), but your black and white view of the world prevents you from understanding this. 

<<All you have to refute a creator is the physical and your own minds penchant for an answer that suits it.>>

Yeah, you didn't pay much attention, did you. 

<<You can only have a “high degree of certainty” if you know what “was” before the big bang tiger.>>

Forget "high" degree of certainty, you claim that no degree of certainty is at all possible and worse still, that it becomes a perfect 50/50 thing if that's the case - or so it seems (I'm still waiting on your reasoning as to how you arrived at a probability of precisely 0.5).

As I've explained before, not knowing for sure what happened before the big does not make the creator scenario any more credible. It just means that we don't know.

Continued...

...Continued

And as i have also explained before, given the vast array of explanations we've found for all sorts of different phenomena that had once been thought to be the acts of gods, it is statistically unlikely that a creator would be responsible for the big bang... Tiger. 

<<Then bang, from nothing to everything....who lit the wick?>>

That's only how it appears. On what actually happened, scientists can only hypothesise for now.

There are various hypotheses about what caused and came before the big bang that, while unprovable one way or the other at this point in time, are at least mathematically consistent.

And besides, why does it have to be a "who"?

<<But we know all matter originated 13 Billion years ago. What created matter?>>

Again, in its *current form*, yes. 

<<About the semantics of your title.You can only be agnostic. Atheist is a psychological term invented for supremists who delude themselves that they absolutely, categorically, unmistakenly,know what what happened 13 Billion years ago.>>

Again, show me your references. I provided you with links supporting my definitions and yet you went silent when I asked for your alleged references.

So anyway, my point to mhaze still stands. 

David wrote:"Why you have to play on the rights of parents to indoctrinate their children when I have specifically stated a case against governments doing so. Are you intentionally attempting to muddy the waters or have you decided that is what I must mean. Which, of course, it isn't.

My personal opinion is that parental control of information given to their offspring should be all encompassing. "

So, am I to take it from that that you'd support a system whereby parents could choose the education that they wanted? That is, they could choose to send their kids to Catholic, Anglican or whatever schools where they could be educated (traumatised?) as regards hell and all the other (what you refer to as) foibles of the faith?

As to the issue of the alleged decline of faith worldwide which you assert based upon, it has to be said, rather dicey evidence, I offer another perspective for consideration. I think its very true that there is a decline in the advanced west which you put down to better education. On the other hand, perhaps its due to life being so much better in the west as compared the rest and as compared to the past. I think it can be demonstrated that religious adherence climbs in tough times and declines in good. and its been good in the west for a very long time. It may take a while to test but I suspect even a well educated Australia would see a rise in religious fervour if/when times turn tough. I wonder whether your applauding science for having defeated religion may be a case of premature congratulations :).

mhaze,
“So, am I to take it from that that you'd support a system whereby parents could choose the education that they wanted? That is, they could choose to send their kids to Catholic, Anglican or whatever schools where they could be educated (traumatised?) as regards hell and all the other (what you refer to as) foibles of the faith?”

I would accept such a system if the government did not financially-back it. Unfortunately it is a parental right to distort the minds of their children. I therefore could never ethically support it.

So, you are saying, that when people become frightened, poor and insecure that they turn to a god. Do you really consider that is a good thing? Does that somehow make the god exist? Would it not be better to cure the problems?

I’m not denying that the existence of a god is important to impoverished people because that is all they have. I would not wish to take that away from them. But it is a very poor argument to say that educated prosperous nations should turn to a god for that reason.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, the belief in a god is not the big factor. It is the distortion of politics resulting from it that is. It is the fear induced to maintain that belief that is wrong. It is the injustice caused to selected groups. It is the financial burden on all. It is the idea that religion cannot be criticised.

Any ideology that self-replicates by indoctrination, even if it contains truth, and this one doesn't, is not acceptable to any kind of ethics I know of.

It is only in your mind that science is applauding itself for defeating religion. Science doesn't even recognise religion. People in Australia and further afield are defeating religion by not be involved in it. They are voting with their feet and that is what is motivating you to be so opposed to atheism and me.

If the religious position is so secure, why bother with this thread? This very large thread!

David

Just an after thought, SoG.

Going back to the burden of proof for a moment... On both a practical level and a philosophical level, disbelief* (i.e. atheism) is not only reasonable when the one(s) making the positive claim have not yet fulfilled their burden of proof, it's the default.

On no philosophical level that I'm aware of, is throwing one's hands in the air and just giving up - claiming that's impossible to attain any degree of certainty one way or the other, so why bother trying - a valid response to anything. It's also completely useless on a practical level.

*I realise you have troubles distinguishing between belief and knowledge but no, "disbelief" does not mean absolute certainty. 

David,

You are right of course, children do parrot their parents. When we were very young, until these changing times, our parents were all we had for guidance. Not sure how working Mums and daycare from 6 months old in some cases will alter the future perceptions of today's children. Only time will tell.

Then came our schooldays, and the input from our teachers had to also be heard, though not always heeded as we went from primary to high school. By then we were beginning to think for ourselves, and questioning - all the time challenging what was being fed to us.

Finally thank goodness, we too became adults and gained freedom to become our own person, and choose our own direction.

Now as we grow even older and more mellow [and hopefully wiser too] we can use our varying experiences to be finally content.

I harbour no ill-will towards my father who believed in corporal punishment, as I realise he was a product of his time, or my mother who cried so bitterly that God wouldn't accept her grandchildren if they weren't baptised. To give her comfort we went through what to us was a meaningless ritual, but gave her peace.

My own children were not given corporal punishment, but oh the tears when my youngest misbehaved and had to sit on the wooden kitchen chair for 15 minutes.

Again, only time will prove us right or wrong.

As I do not have the religious belief in a life after death, I'm determined to enjoy this one to the fullest

That's what keeps life so fascinating - not being able to predict the future, savouring each moment, and always hoping the future will improve for our progeny, despite the many mistakes we've probably made raising them.