[extropy-chat] Atheists launch inquisition...

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Hal Finney <hal at finney.org> wrote:

> Mike Lorrey writes:
> > I am asserting that in order to be an atheist, you must believe
> > in the non-existence of god. To simply not have faith in or
> knowledge
> > knowledge of god's existence is agnosticism.
> 
> Isn't it more reasonable to ascribe a probability to the existence of
> the Jewish God, as well as to the Christian God, the Moslem God, and
> all the other Gods who have been proposed to exist?  And of course,
we
> would ascribe a probability to the existence of any other
hypothetical
> entity?

It might be more reasonable, but the arguments made by pseudo-atheists
as to their preferred probabilities are demolished by the Simulation
Argument. A person who ascribed any probabilities they regarded to be
within the realm of possibility (say, in the range of winning a
lottery, being hit by lightning or an asteroid/comet/meteorite, seeing
the Sun go nova, meeting intelligent alien life forms) must be an
agnostic.

Atheist odds for the existence of any hypothetical supernatural entity
would be in the range of being beyond the odds of one unique event
occuring the the entire lifespan of the universe. Like a terrorist, a
theist only has to get it right once for all atheists who ever existed
or ever will exist to be wrong.

> How would you classify someone who thought it was extremely
> improbable that any of these Gods existed?  Atheist or agnostic?

I'd classify them as a Poor Gambler.



=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com