Charles Darwin

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:17)

Right.  Well there are no special privileges, are there?  So the question is a bit irrelevant. Eternal life would be a punishment in itself, an existence that did not have a final death to bring it meaning. Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Why to you answer with preconceived bias?
Can't you just answer the simple question…

Is not receiving a reward the same as punishment?

Ed J

[Stu]

I'll answer you with a number:

=42

You should understand that alright.

Stuart

[TimothyVI]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:49)

I'll answer you with a number: =42 You should understand that alright. Stuart

Stu,
Is that a clustering 42 or an actual 42?

Tim

[Stu]

Yes, it was.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,21:26)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:17) Right.  Well there are no special privileges, are there?  So the question is a bit irrelevant. Eternal life would be a punishment in itself, an existence that did not have a final death to bring it meaning. Stuart Hi Stuart, Why to you answer with preconceived bias? Can't you just answer the simple question… Is not receiving a reward the same as punishment? Ed J

Hi Stuart,

Why are you refusing to answer this question…

Is the lack of a reward: “a Punishment”?

Ed J

[princess of the king]

Dawkins' formulation (courtesy of wiki)

Dawkins post it is that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” He goes on to propose a continuous “spectrum of probabilities” between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven “milestones”. Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These “milestones” are:[2]

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether

6. God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.'

Dawkins notes that he would be “surprised to meet many people in category 7.” Dawkins calls himself “about a 6, but leaning towards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden

try these numbers stuart, they tend to suit you better.

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,22:01)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,21:26) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:17) Right.  Well there are no special privileges, are there?  So the question is a bit irrelevant. Eternal life would be a punishment in itself, an existence that did not have a final death to bring it meaning. Stuart Hi Stuart, Why to you answer with preconceived bias? Can't you just answer the simple question… Is not receiving a reward the same as punishment? Ed J Hi Stuart, Why are you refusing to answer this question… Is the lack of a reward: “a Punishment”? Ed J

Actually I did give you an answer. What was wrong with it?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (princess of the king @ Feb. 28 2010,11:21)

Dawkins' formulation (courtesy of wiki) Dawkins post it is that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” He goes on to propose a continuous “spectrum of probabilities” between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven “milestones”. Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These “milestones” are:[2] 1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.' 3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' 4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' 5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether 6. God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.' Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.' Dawkins notes that he would be “surprised to meet many people in category 7.” Dawkins calls himself “about a 6, but leaning towards 7 — I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden try these numbers stuart, they tend to suit you better.

Corrections for 5 and 6:

5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

I am a 6. Which are you?

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2010,13:25)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,22:01) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,21:26) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:17) Right.  Well there are no special privileges, are there?  So the question is a bit irrelevant. Eternal life would be a punishment in itself, an existence that did not have a final death to bring it meaning. Stuart Hi Stuart, Why to you answer with preconceived bias? Can't you just answer the simple question… Is not receiving a reward the same as punishment? Ed J Hi Stuart, Why are you refusing to answer this question… Is the lack of a reward: “a Punishment”? Ed J Actually I did give you an answer.  What was wrong with it? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Whats wrong with it is you believe God doesn't exist so why do you bring God into my question.

My question is simply…

Is a lack of a reward 'a punishment'?

Why can't you just answer it for what it is?
Since you don't believe in God, why bring him into my question?

Ed J

[princess of the king]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2010,13:34)

I am a 6.  Which are you? Stuart

Stuart,

Thank you for the corrections, they tend to run together. I would tend to lean towards one, with addendum of course.

See we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

Thank you for asking.

Take care of yourself Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 01 2010,00:32)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2010,13:34) I am a 6.  Which are you? Stuart Stuart, Thank you for the corrections, they tend to run together. I would tend to lean towards one, with addendum of course. See we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Thank you for asking. Take care of yourself Stuart

I think 1 and 7 are positions that are unreasonable.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 28 2010,23:22)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2010,13:25) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,22:01) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,21:26) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:17) Right.  Well there are no special privileges, are there?  So the question is a bit irrelevant. Eternal life would be a punishment in itself, an existence that did not have a final death to bring it meaning. Stuart Hi Stuart, Why to you answer with preconceived bias? Can't you just answer the simple question… Is not receiving a reward the same as punishment? Ed J Hi Stuart, Why are you refusing to answer this question… Is the lack of a reward: “a Punishment”? Ed J Actually I did give you an answer.  What was wrong with it? Stuart Hi Stuart, Whats wrong with it is you believe God doesn't exist so why do you bring God into my question. My question is simply… Is a lack of a reward 'a punishment'? Why can't you just answer it for what it is? Since you don't believe in God, why bring him into my question? Ed J

You have my answer.

=42

Why are you second guessing me?

Stuart

[princess of the king]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 01 2010,02:43)

Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 01 2010,00:32) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2010,13:34) I am a 6.  Which are you? Stuart Stuart, Thank you for the corrections, they tend to run together. I would tend to lean towards one, with addendum of course. See we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Thank you for asking. Take care of yourself Stuart I think 1 and 7 are positions that are unreasonable. Stuart

We all think some things unreasonable, perception of the matter.

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 01 2010,02:44)

Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 28 2010,23:22) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 28 2010,13:25) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,22:01) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 27 2010,21:26) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 27 2010,21:17) Right.  Well there are no special privileges, are there?  So the question is a bit irrelevant. Eternal life would be a punishment in itself, an existence that did not have a final death to bring it meaning. Stuart Hi Stuart, Why to you answer with preconceived bias? Can't you just answer the simple question… Is not receiving a reward the same as punishment? Ed J Hi Stuart, Why are you refusing to answer this question… Is the lack of a reward: “a Punishment”? Ed J Actually I did give you an answer.  What was wrong with it? Stuart Hi Stuart, Whats wrong with it is you believe God doesn't exist so why do you bring God into my question. My question is simply… Is a lack of a reward 'a punishment'? Why can't you just answer it for what it is? Since you don't believe in God, why bring him into my question? Ed J You have my answer.   =42 Why are you second guessing me? Stuart

I guess you don't like my question
.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2010,21:18)

You seem to be claiming that there is one set of living things for a certain period of time, then a sudden switch to a new set of species that remain static for the next period of time, and so on.

No Stu, I didn't say that. Your head said that.

Think of chapters in a book. They are not always abrupt, but they are designated as they have their own unique identity or subject so to speak.

[Stu]

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 01 2010,16:13)

I guess you don't like my question .

Is that a round-about way of you saying you don't like my answer?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 01 2010,18:18)

Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2010,21:18) You seem to be claiming that there is one set of living things for a certain period of time, then a sudden switch to a new set of species that remain static for the next period of time, and so on. No Stu, I didn't say that. Your head said that. Think of chapters in a book. They are not always abrupt, but they are designated as they have their own unique identity or subject so to speak.

Your analogy, as usual, is so cloudy that it could mean any old thing. Specifically, what are you claiming if it is not what I suggested?

Stuart

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 01 2010,02:43)

I think 1 and 7 are positions that are unreasonable. Stuart

7 is always unreasonable because you cannot know for sure, even if you are full of doubt.

But 1 is not unreasonable. If God took you up to heaven and gave you a tour, (similar to John's vision in Revelation), then that would remove all doubt.

Look at it this way. If you remove God and put “extra-terrestrial life” in its place, then 1 is reasonable if you have made contact or have seen aliens through telescopes or have received unmistakable communications from another planet.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Mar. 05 2010,09:05)

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 01 2010,02:43) I think 1 and 7 are positions that are unreasonable. Stuart 7 is always unreasonable because you cannot know for sure, even if you are full of doubt. But 1 is not unreasonable. If God took you up to heaven and gave you a tour, (similar to John's vision in Revelation), then that would remove all doubt. Look at it this way. If you remove God and put “extra-terrestrial life” in its place, then 1 is reasonable if you have made contact or have seen aliens through telescopes or have received unmistakable communications from another planet.

Read Dawkins on this subject (after all he did invent the scale). He explains exactly why 1 and 7 are both unreasonable: it is the same reason for both numbers.

Stuart

[Ed J]

Quote (Stu @ Mar. 01 2010,18:39)

Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 01 2010,16:13) I guess you don't like my question . Is that a round-about way of you saying you don't like my answer? Stuart

Hi Stuart,

Which one?

Ed J

[Author]

Posts