A hypothetical question, especially for the atheists and skeptics in the audience...

Recommended Videos

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,697
0
0
No I will not answer this question by putting myself in the shoes of someone who believes in magic. I find those shoes to be small, uncomfortable, and restrictive to the point that they only allow me to walk in a singular direction rather than explore other directions. How's that for a metaphor?
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,958
0
0
My train of thought is that the Abrahamic religions are founded on various pagan religions and that if one delves further all the pagan religions have pieces of the Abrahamic god, be it an emotion or type of being,ect. I'm not one much for doctrine or religion persay as it tends to be a means of subjection and to suck money out of people.

I believe in god but I do not believe in gods wrath he corrected himself with Jesus and no longer sees the need to damn humans. God is still beyond humans and what we see of it is very flawed. But God should be light, love and forgiveness. Something we can not easily do yourself. Satan is not really the anti thesis to God rather than hes just the worst of us amplified a few times.

I believe in spirits and whatnot but at the same time I think science holds all the more reasonable answers for most things.

With that said its hard to come up with something as so many things could be influenced by the divine.
 

Knife

New member
Mar 20, 2011
180
0
0
balladbird said:
Congratulations on ignoring the original question:
"If you were forced to choose some person, place, thing, or event throughout all of human history as "most likely to have been the result of supernatural or divine influence (christian or otherwise)", what would it be?"

And making up your own question:
"If, hypothetically, rationality were reversed, and you were in a situation where it was reasonable for even yourself to assume that divine intervention or an otherwise illogical situation were responsible, that is, that there was evidence at hand to support such a theory, what kind of situation would it be?"

Then assuming everyone retroactively answered your question instead. Therefore they must be irrational, emotional and angry at the mere possibility of god's existance.

Notice the difference between the 2 questions. The first in no way establishes the hypothetical situation where you should stop being an atheist or a skeptic, simply that you are forced pick something. The first question doesn't have any reasonable answer for an atheist or a skeptic. The second question is probably the one he intended to ask but not the one he wrote down.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Queen Michael said:
kurokotetsu said:
LetalisK said:
BathorysGraveland2 said:
Well, how the fuck can I answer it?! It's all well and good you saying I can't choose nothing, but there is no logical alternative. I do not believe in the divine, I do not believe in spirits or magic, or anything superstitious. So how can I say what is most likely to have happened from those things if I do not believe they exist in any shape or form? How?!
The same way a rail car isn't currently hurtling towards your mother on one track and another towards several fat men on the other but still able to answer that question. Jesus christ dude, it's a hypothetical.

OT: Creation of the universe would be my answer. Seems like something of sufficiently epic proportions for some divine influence to fuck around with.
But in accepting his hypothetical question I feel that I would be renouncing to my skeptical attitude if I thought that any event has a probability that isn't zero with oír any facts it si the same as admiting that there id the possibility that that thing exists, without any proof. At least that si wat I feel. But McMullen said it much better
Or as I like to put it:

Regardless of which event you mention, I as a skeptic feel that there's a 0% chance that the event in question involved anything supernatural or divine. So the question we're basically asked is "Of these events, which all have a 0% chance of being supernatural in any way, which one has the highest chance of involving something supernatural? Which 0% chance is the highest?" and the thing is, if the chance is always 0% then you can't pick a specific one.
Except only an idiot would say there's a completely 0% chance of something being true. Even the most extraordinarily unlikely claim has SOME small likelihood; to say otherwise is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive and nothing else.

For example, I may not believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the US government, but I still consider that more likely than the prospect that it was carried out by unicorns. You see why assigning a value of zero to everything makes no sense?

Vice versa you can't be 100% sure of anything either, for all you know the entire universe as you know it could be an illusion. So everything really has to fall somewhere in the middle.

Of all things I would say either the creation of the universe, or the creation of the first self replicating organic organism. Today with all our advanced technology and extensive knowledge of microorganisms we still can't create anything vaguely self replicating from raw lifeless materials, so the idea that this happened somehow completely on it's own seems incredibly amazing.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,331
0
0
Is it me or are some people taking this waaaaaaaaaay too seriously? Sure you could turn this into a big debate about religion and whatever or you could do what I did and have some fun with it.
 

Diddy_Mao

New member
Jan 14, 2009
1,187
0
0
The day Jerry Falwell died.

Not being all edgy and cool there. I recognize that celebrating the death of a fellow human being is monstrous and I have no sense of pride in my feelings on this matter.

But he was a monstrous man. I've personally known several people who were turned away by their families and loved ones because of Falwell's teachings. The man lived a hateful life and the fact that he died alone and quite likely in pain and terror is literally the only thing in recent memory that has made me feel that there might be a small sense of divine justice to the world.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
Remus said:
No I will not answer this question by putting myself in the shoes of someone who believes in magic. I find those shoes to be small, uncomfortable, and restrictive to the point that they only allow me to walk in a singular direction rather than explore other directions. How's that for a metaphor?
Nobody's asking you to believe in magic, or shoes for that matter. Personally I think shoes are a conspiracy

How about this for a rephrasing of the question: Of all the unexplained things throughout history, what seems like the most compelling evidence that supernatural forces exist?
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
balladbird said:
Not really. that analogue is emotionally charged, because one can assume that, for a christian, their religion is an important part of who they are, and thus asking them to respond to something that proves a part of themselves false is an act designed to irritate them. If someone is a skeptic or an Atheist and claims to be so for the sake of being reasonable, they shouldn't be so emotionally attached to the non-existence of god that OP's question is ANYTHING like the one you described.

Skeptics and Atheists are always saying that their way of thinking is based on reason, and thus not analogous to religious zeal, that would see them hold fast to beliefs even when logic showed that they were wrong.
So for someone to be an atheist or to believe in science over mysticism you have to be unemotional about it? You can't get annoyed or emotional when someone is specifically questioning you in an attempt to get you to contradict yourself? Theoretically believing in god should be just as unemotional because unless you're trying to force a belief, just like science, the belief in question just "IS" unquestionably.

Zeal and passion aren't just qualities of the religious believer, they're also not factor that have anything to do with accuracy or truth, they're more of an issue when it comes to accepting things that contradict a belief. Zeal and passion aren't even bad things unless they blind you to actual evidence and fact. Believers of science can be just as passionate when their belief is questioned. You tell an atheist to imagine a world where gravity doesn't exist and they'll more often then not do it as a thought experiment, but if you try to tell them it doesn't and you'll see someone passionately arguing why it does, or they'll just dismiss you as not worth the effort. Their passion doesn't make their belief in science any less adaptable to change.

balladbird said:
Honestly, the responses in this thread are the reason I can't be bothered to associate with organized atheists or the online atheist community.
I'm going to be difficult here... Given your insistence above that atheism is all about calm and rational belief in science, and that it's only religions, not science, that are important parts of who people are why would you feel inclined to associate with other atheists regardless of the replies in this thread? Also you mention that you don't specifically identify as Atheist so I'm kinda getting the feeling that this comment of yours was really just a dig at atheist for being "zealous and emotional"

balladbird said:
Getting so indignant at being asked a hypothetical question is proof that you're really not so different from the religious people you look down on.

"If, hypothetically, rationality were reversed, and you were in a situation where it was reasonable for even yourself to assume that divine intervention or an otherwise illogical situation were responsible, that is, that there was evidence at hand to support such a theory, what kind of situation would it be?"

this isn't a question it's impossible for any skeptic or atheist to answer, unless they're so emotional about their way of thinking as to make it indistinguishable from religious passion. I advise people who feel this way to do some self reflection. remember that indignation is an emotion, and if you really want to serve the advance of logic and reason, you're better served to do so with as little emotional attachment to facts as possible. After all, the paradigms of rational thought shift frequently.
That also wasn't the question the OP asked. You inserting "assuming that gods/the divine/higher powers did exist..." doesn't actually make it part of the original question... that you think it's implicit also has no bearing on the question. It was pretty much "in the universe as it exists now, pick one event/person/thing that god/the divine/higher powers affected". See the difference? One of the main ones being that in a reality where gods/the divine/higher powers do exist and affect events why would they only affect one thing in the whole history of history? The logic of this theoretical reality doesn't ring true.
 

The Ubermensch

New member
Mar 6, 2012
345
0
0
First of, I'm a pagan (and an aus fag), so I don't quite count, but...

George Washington

(Copy pasted/paraphrased from Cracked.com)

-Bullets feared him

He started out as an Ade-de-camp, holding no real rank. Britain was losing, badly and After the commander, Braddock, bought it, Washington took control of the british forces and allowed the to form a rear guard that let them retreat. After the battle upon checking his coat, it had four bullet holes in it.

So, a Civilian takes control of a british force, saves it from devastation, all while matrixing bullets.

During the battle of Princeton in 1777 he arrived and the Americans were getting their arses handed to them, Really bad. Washington Riled up the troops by leading a charge. He told his men to hold fire until he gave the word... at 30 yards.

Let me clarify, he was at the front of the charge, between his men and the british and dodged every bullet.

The battle wasn't won yet, they were still in a bad place. But Washington had the balls to proclaim "The day is our own"

And he totally won

-He was born in the best location

When selecting a commander in chief there were better options. Washington lost a lot of battles before being selected as the leader of the American Republic and there were better military leaders with better track records. His selection really came down to politics

-His greatest victories should not have happened

In 1775 the revolutionary army has the british army in boston surrounded, but they are at a stalemate because the british forces are too entrenched.

Knox wanted to go to Fort Ticonderoga, recently captured from the British, acquire all of the surrendered weaponry kept within, and bring it to Dorchester Heights to hopefully dislodge the British. The fort was 300 miles away, the plan required a ton of men and money, cannons had to be dismantled, flotillas had to be bought or made to ship everything down a river, stuff had to be moved onto sleds and hauled by enough oxen to handle the combined weight of the cannons and the sleds, and everything depended on the weather being a fickle ***** in their favor -- they needed warmth to keep the river unfrozen and snow for covering ground with the sleds, and George Washington was strongly advised against authorizing the mission. Because it was impossible.

nox ventured out and was able to get to the fort in Ticonderoga within four days, and he immediately began the work of disassembling the artillery. By the ninth day, everything was packed up on the flotillas and heading downriver. The men were rowing against freezing winds, and they only just managed to get the cannons across the lake when it started to freeze over. Within a week, Knox was able to obtain around 40 sleds able to carry the 5,400-pound loads, along with the oxen to pull them. Like clockwork, it started snowing, right when the men needed it to. It seemed like another stroke of that sweetly lotioned George Washington luck was in play.

-He had control of the weather

August of 1776, America had declared itself a nation, and the first major battle of the Revolutionary War was underway. George Washington didn't have nearly as many men as the British, and that's before you take into account how many were ill or unprepared. Washington set up shop at a Manhattan harbor and waited for the British there, knowing that the harbor would be important. When the British did arrive, Washington got his ass spanked, as he was wont to do.

And then British Army Commander in Chief William Howe decided to stop attacking Washington's troops, even though they were basically stranded and Howe had a giant ship with lots of firepower. Just fucking because. Because George Washington was 70 percent leprechaun.

Washington, meanwhile, fed spies bad information to make the British believe that he was asking for reinforcements, when really he sent for every ship and boat in the area to enable the entire army to retreat. Obviously all of the boats coming would most likely clue Howe in to some general happenings, but this is George Washington we're talking about, so he saw no flaw in the plan.

Because Washington was destined to win the war and be president, it began to pour rain so hard that Howe wasn't able to see the boats or the men packing up camp. By dawn, most of the troops had sailed off for Manhattan, and to make sure the rest of the troops joined them, Washington let his pupils go all white and flew up into the sky with lightning shooting out his fingertips. What happened is described as a dense, providential fog settling over the land, allowing the rest of the men to evacuate unseen. By the time the fog lifted and Howe saw the men sailing away, it was too late to try and catch them

-He was magic

Washington's crossing of the Delaware and subsequent Christmas conquering of the Hessian enemies is famous by now, but what a lot of people might not know is just how ass-backwardsly Washington stumbled into victory.

Washington's plan, of course, was to sail across the Delaware on December 24 and attack on Christmas. When Washington's men sailed out, a British sympathizer saw the men and sent a servant to deliver a warning message. The note actually got to Colonel Johann Rall, the leader of the Hessian men, who promptly put the note in his pocket instead of reading it and continued playing cards and drinking. We haven't been in a lot of wars, but we're pretty sure that "reading urgent notes regarding the whereabouts of your enemies" is probably one of the first things they teach you to know (assuming you needed to even be taught that). Maybe Rall skipped that day of army training, or maybe the part of his brain that deals with reason is made of poop, or maybe George Washington is just cosmically, unfairly, inexplicably lucky. Whatever the reason, Rall never read the note.



I'm sorry, but George Washington was clearly the chosen one. He had a monotheistic god or a powerful Syliph or something watching over him.

I don't know what the fuck happened America, but you used to be this cool.
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
Queen Michael said:
Or as I like to put it:

Regardless of which event you mention, I as a skeptic feel that there's a 0% chance that the event in question involved anything supernatural or divine. So the question we're basically asked is "Of these events, which all have a 0% chance of being supernatural in any way, which one has the highest chance of involving something supernatural? Which 0% chance is the highest?" and the thing is, if the chance is always 0% then you can't pick a specific one.
Except only an idiot would say there's a completely 0% chance of something being true. Even the most extraordinarily unlikely claim has SOME small likelihood; to say otherwise is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive and nothing else.

For example, I may not believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the US government, but I still consider that more likely than the prospect that it was carried out by unicorns. You see why assigning a value of zero to everything makes no sense?

Vice versa you can't be 100% sure of anything either, for all you know the entire universe as you know it could be an illusion. So everything really has to fall somewhere in the middle.
I'm only seeing 1 number and no decimal points, so it's more likely that 0% is actually rounding some pretty damn small numbers to the closest whole number, which is the generally accepted convention. Likewise saying that you are 99.9999999999% sure of something can be rounded up to 100% as while you've made allowences for the fact that there is a possibility, slim as it may be, that you aren't right, you're close enough to certain that 100% demonstrates your point.

Based on your example though, given there is literally no evidence supporting the existence of Unicorns, and we know that everyone who boarded the planes involved in the 9/11 tragedy were seen while they were boarding and during the flight but there was not a single report of "omfg there's a fucking unicorn on this plane" it's not unreasonably to assume there was an absolute 0% chance that unicorns were involved. Call me an idiot if you like but there are just somethings that absolutely can not happen.

Also given that the universe is the only reality that you are aware of, and that it's impossible to actually observe "beyond" the possible illusion of it, you can safely say that something is 100% accurate or likely in this universe. Unless you accept the existence of God, in which cause it's always possible he'll fuck with your probabilities I hear he does that for shits and giggles
 

K12

New member
Dec 28, 2012
943
0
0
The main problem with this question is that the concept of "likelihood" is completely rewritten when you accept that there are/ can be supernatural causes.

If you assume that there are some supernatural causes then everything can be equally likely to be caused by them until we have some understanding of how they work.

I am allowed to say "nothing" and refuse to answer the question on your terms until I understand your terms better.
 

THEMILKMAN

New member
Jun 16, 2009
1,370
0
0
As a devout Agnostic, I'll pour over this discussion,absorb any pertinent information and finally formulate a reasonable conclusion about my faith, one way or the other...nope, still nothing.
 

balladbird

Master of Lancer
Legacy
Jan 25, 2012
972
2
13
Country
United States
Gender
male
MagunBFP said:
So for someone to be an atheist or to believe in science over mysticism you have to be unemotional about it? You can't get annoyed or emotional when someone is specifically questioning you in an attempt to get you to contradict yourself? Theoretically believing in god should be just as unemotional because unless you're trying to force a belief, just like science, the belief in question just "IS" unquestionably.

Zeal and passion aren't just qualities of the religious believer, they're also not factor that have anything to do with accuracy or truth, they're more of an issue when it comes to accepting things that contradict a belief. Zeal and passion aren't even bad things unless they blind you to actual evidence and fact. Believers of science can be just as passionate when their belief is questioned. You tell an atheist to imagine a world where gravity doesn't exist and they'll more often then not do it as a thought experiment, but if you try to tell them it doesn't and you'll see someone passionately arguing why it does, or they'll just dismiss you as not worth the effort. Their passion doesn't make their belief in science any less adaptable to change.
A fair point. Honestly, I should have reflected on my opinion more before I posted. Upon re-reading it it comes across as horribly judgmental, which wasn't my intent when I sat down to type. While I do maintain that emotion and reason tend to be caustic to one another, it was high foolishness on my part to imply that one should exist without the other.

I suppose in the end, I was simply frustrated that so many people were taking what seemed to be a harmless question, and reacting to it so militantly.

I'm going to be difficult here... Given your insistence above that atheism is all about calm and rational belief in science, and that it's only religions, not science, that are important parts of who people are why would you feel inclined to associate with other atheists regardless of the replies in this thread? Also you mention that you don't specifically identify as Atheist so I'm kinda getting the feeling that this comment of yours was really just a dig at atheist for being "zealous and emotional"
If that was how I came across, then I truly failed to communicate. I wasn't taking a dig at anyone. Well, given what I said, I can't claim that. It would be more correct to say that such wasn't my intention. I identified as an atheist for most of my adult life, and only abandoned the title when the organization I was a part of seemed to focus more on ridicule of religious persons than what they claimed to hold as objectives. Regardless, it was nothing that anyone here could be accused of, and for me to imply there were was immature of me. the only thing I can say of the persons in this thread would be that they were a little overly rigid, in my opinion, not that I communicated it well.

edited for brevity
Again, fair point. Upon rereading the OP, I was entirely too liberal in my interpretation of the question. it's late, and I've learned a good lesson about posting when tired.

Apologies for any offense.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
MagunBFP said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
Queen Michael said:
Or as I like to put it:

Regardless of which event you mention, I as a skeptic feel that there's a 0% chance that the event in question involved anything supernatural or divine. So the question we're basically asked is "Of these events, which all have a 0% chance of being supernatural in any way, which one has the highest chance of involving something supernatural? Which 0% chance is the highest?" and the thing is, if the chance is always 0% then you can't pick a specific one.
Except only an idiot would say there's a completely 0% chance of something being true. Even the most extraordinarily unlikely claim has SOME small likelihood; to say otherwise is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive and nothing else.

For example, I may not believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the US government, but I still consider that more likely than the prospect that it was carried out by unicorns. You see why assigning a value of zero to everything makes no sense?

Vice versa you can't be 100% sure of anything either, for all you know the entire universe as you know it could be an illusion. So everything really has to fall somewhere in the middle.
I'm only seeing 1 number and no decimal points, so it's more likely that 0% is actually rounding some pretty damn small numbers to the closest whole number, which is the generally accepted convention. Likewise saying that you are 99.9999999999% sure of something can be rounded up to 100% as while you've made allowences for the fact that there is a possibility, slim as it may be, that you aren't right, you're close enough to certain that 100% demonstrates your point.
I don't think he was simply rounding to the nearest whole number, because if he was it would undermine his point that zero is equal to zero and therefore all instances of supernatural events are equally probable. And if he did actually allow a mathematical convention to dictate his beliefs then he's got bigger issues.

MagunBFP said:
[Based on your example though, given there is literally no evidence supporting the existence of Unicorns, and we know that everyone who boarded the planes involved in the 9/11 tragedy were seen while they were boarding and during the flight but there was not a single report of "omfg there's a fucking unicorn on this plane" it's not unreasonably to assume there was an absolute 0% chance that unicorns were involved. Call me an idiot if you like but there are just somethings that absolutely can not happen.
What, like breaking the sound barrier? Or microbes being able to live in boiling water? A lot of people have had to eat their words because they said something was impossible that was really just improbable. I'm not trying to defend the prospect of unicorns, but I positively hate the attitude that we should come to definite conclusions about the universe based on what appears to be the case.

This being said, unicorns being the cause of 9/11 was intended to be an example of extremely unlikely scenario, whereas many strange events and phenomena have much more evidence and therefore should be given more consideration, if not a lot.
Also given that the universe is the only reality that you are aware of, and that it's impossible to actually observe "beyond" the possible illusion of it, you can safely say that something is 100% accurate or likely in this universe. Unless you accept the existence of God, in which cause it's always possible he'll fuck with your probabilities I hear he does that for shits and giggles
Again I simply disagree that even if you accept the universe we live in to be real that certain things are guaranteed to be absolutely 100% likely. We don't have complete knowledge of everything, or even very many things, so the possibility of there being illusions within this illusion is still very much there.

Sure, we have to form beliefs just to survive, but those are still just beliefs, not certainties.
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
balladbird said:
MagunBFP said:
So for someone to be an atheist or to believe in science over mysticism you have to be unemotional about it? You can't get annoyed or emotional when someone is specifically questioning you in an attempt to get you to contradict yourself? Theoretically believing in god should be just as unemotional because unless you're trying to force a belief, just like science, the belief in question just "IS" unquestionably.

Zeal and passion aren't just qualities of the religious believer, they're also not factor that have anything to do with accuracy or truth, they're more of an issue when it comes to accepting things that contradict a belief. Zeal and passion aren't even bad things unless they blind you to actual evidence and fact. Believers of science can be just as passionate when their belief is questioned. You tell an atheist to imagine a world where gravity doesn't exist and they'll more often then not do it as a thought experiment, but if you try to tell them it doesn't and you'll see someone passionately arguing why it does, or they'll just dismiss you as not worth the effort. Their passion doesn't make their belief in science any less adaptable to change.
A fair point. Honestly, I should have reflected on my opinion more before I posted. Upon re-reading it it comes across as horribly judgmental, which wasn't my intent when I sat down to type. While I do maintain that emotion and reason tend to be caustic to one another, it was high foolishness on my part to imply that one should exist without the other.

I suppose in the end, I was simply frustrated that so many people were taking what seemed to be a harmless question, and reacting to it so militantly.

I'm going to be difficult here... Given your insistence above that atheism is all about calm and rational belief in science, and that it's only religions, not science, that are important parts of who people are why would you feel inclined to associate with other atheists regardless of the replies in this thread? Also you mention that you don't specifically identify as Atheist so I'm kinda getting the feeling that this comment of yours was really just a dig at atheist for being "zealous and emotional"
If that was how I came across, then I truly failed to communicate. I wasn't taking a dig at anyone. Well, given what I said, I can't claim that. It would be more correct to say that such wasn't my intention. I identified as an atheist for most of my adult life, and only abandoned the title when the organization I was a part of seemed to focus more on ridicule of religious persons than what they claimed to hold as objectives. Regardless, it was nothing that anyone here could be accused of, and for me to imply there were was immature of me. the only thing I can say of the persons in this thread would be that they were a little overly rigid, in my opinion, not that I communicated it well.

edited for brevity
Again, fair point. Upon rereading the OP, I was entirely too liberal in my interpretation of the question. it's late, and I've learned a good lesson about posting when tired.

Apologies for any offense.
Ahh, the "awesome" eloquence and "impeccable" logic of "goddamn why aren't I in bed" o'clock. Also...

OP... This. This event in this moment right here, God does intervene and we have proof. There was a disagreement on the internet and it was discussion rationally, points were made, counter points were presented and an agreement was reached and that was it.
 
Aug 31, 2012
1,774
0
0
The dreaded sock goblin. That little bastard warps into my bedroom and steals one of each of my socks and then disappears to use them for his own nefarious purposes in the lost sock dimension.
 

God's Clown

New member
Aug 8, 2008
1,321
0
0
I have to assume it was the work of a hypothetical satan that My Name is Earl got canceled. A show that good can only be canceled by a great and mighty evil. The same goes for Firefly.
 

Robot Number V

New member
May 15, 2012
656
0
0
Well, I think of it this way: If every single thing that has ever happened is equally unlikely to have been influenced by the "supernatural" then....Wait a minute, I need to talk about that for a bit. "Supernatural". What the flying hell is that supposed to mean? What EXACTLY qualifies something as supernatural? Is it ghosts? Is it UFOs? Is it anything that we can't currently prove the existence of? Because that makes absolutely no sense. If some scientists managed to bust themselves a few ghosts and showed the evidence to me, and proved that it was indeed a bunch of transparent, float-y dead people, I would fucking believe in ghosts. "Supernatural" is basically a term for shit that doesn't exist, because once we prove that it DOES exist, it STOPS BEING SUPERNATURAL.

But fine. I'll just use the other term to answer your question, "divine influence"....Well....Everything. Right? If I'm saying that one event was influenced by Fucking God, then by definition, I'm implying that everything was influenced by the same God. I can't just say that God popped into existence just to dictate the amazing life of David Tennant, but had absolutely nothing do with the rest of existence.[footnote]For the record, David Tennant is a man who played the 10th incarnation of a character called The Doctor, on the popular show Dr. Who. The Doctor is a single character who has been portrayed by 12 different actors over about 50 years. Tennant's life is amazing because he grew up as a huge Doctor Who fan, and then grew up to be what many people consider to be the best version of the character. Not only that, but he married the daughter of the man who played the 5th Doctor. And the 5th Doctor was his favorite incarnation of the character growing up. And Tennant's wife (his childhood icon's daughter) is super hot. So...Yeah.The man has perfected life.[/footnote]

Actually, you know what? I change my mind. My answer is "David Tennant's entire fucking life".
 

MagunBFP

New member
Sep 7, 2012
169
0
0
OlasDAlmighty said:
MagunBFP said:
OlasDAlmighty said:
Except only an idiot would say there's a completely 0% chance of something being true. Even the most extraordinarily unlikely claim has SOME small likelihood; to say otherwise is just being dismissive for the sake of being dismissive and nothing else.

For example, I may not believe that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the US government, but I still consider that more likely than the prospect that it was carried out by unicorns. You see why assigning a value of zero to everything makes no sense?

Vice versa you can't be 100% sure of anything either, for all you know the entire universe as you know it could be an illusion. So everything really has to fall somewhere in the middle.
I'm only seeing 1 number and no decimal points, so it's more likely that 0% is actually rounding some pretty damn small numbers to the closest whole number, which is the generally accepted convention. Likewise saying that you are 99.9999999999% sure of something can be rounded up to 100% as while you've made allowences for the fact that there is a possibility, slim as it may be, that you aren't right, you're close enough to certain that 100% demonstrates your point.
I don't think he was simply rounding to the nearest whole number, because if he was it would undermine his point that zero is equal to zero and therefore all instances of supernatural events are equally probable. And if he did actually allow a mathematical convention to dictate his beliefs then he's got bigger issues.
That's a fair call, he most likely did intend for his point be have an absolute 0% probablity, my bad.

OlasDAlmighty said:
MagunBFP said:
Based on your example though, given there is literally no evidence supporting the existence of Unicorns, and we know that everyone who boarded the planes involved in the 9/11 tragedy were seen while they were boarding and during the flight but there was not a single report of "omfg there's a fucking unicorn on this plane" it's not unreasonably to assume there was an absolute 0% chance that unicorns were involved. Call me an idiot if you like but there are just somethings that absolutely can not happen.
What, like breaking the sound barrier? Or microbes being able to live in boiling water? A lot of people have had to eat their words because they said something was impossible that was really just improbable. I'm not trying to defend the prospect of unicorns, but I positively hate the attitude that we should come to definite conclusions about the universe based on what appears to be the case.

This being said, unicorns being the cause of 9/11 was intended to be an example of extremely unlikely scenario, whereas many strange events and phenomena have much more evidence and therefore should be given more consideration, if not a lot.
That's the thing though, defend unicorns... present an argument that would rationally allow for even a minute chance that they exist. If there are no reasons then it can logically be said that there is 0% chance of them being involved with 9/11. I'm not saying that we need to have definite conclusion about everything, where it either is or it isn't, and I'll agree with you that there have been more then a few absolute statements that have been made that have later been completely wrong, but your point was that only an idiot uses absolutes, if I can show a single thing that we can agree is an absolute then that allows for the potential for others... or is that an absolute impossibility?

OlasDAlmighty said:
MagunBFP said:
Also given that the universe is the only reality that you are aware of, and that it's impossible to actually observe "beyond" the possible illusion of it, you can safely say that something is 100% accurate or likely in this universe. Unless you accept the existence of God, in which cause it's always possible he'll fuck with your probabilities I hear he does that for shits and giggles
Again I simply disagree that even if you accept the universe we live in to be real that certain things are guaranteed to be absolutely 100% likely. We don't have complete knowledge of everything, or even very many things, so the possibility of there being illusions within this illusion is still very much there.

Sure, we have to form beliefs just to survive, but those are still just beliefs, not certainties.
I can tell you with 100% certainty that to continue living you need to inhale oxygen, you will also need to exhale carbon dioxide. I can also tell you with 100% certainty that if your head is removed from your body for a period of time longer then 10 minutes you will die. That's 3 facts that I am willing to stand behind with 100% certainty, so as above if I can give you examples of absolutes doesn't that mean that some things are actually factual and not just opinions? Or are you 100% certain that there are no 100% certainties?