It amazes me of the outright prejudice shown by those who do not want to believe in the Tooth Fairy. They tell you its science, or they tell you it is philosophy, but point to science or point to philosophical arguments that support the Tooth Fairy and they will deny it to the bone.

Harv,

I know you're much more capable of objectivity than this!

The statement "I'm convinced that many do not want to believe in God" makes it sound as if God is real, but that those who don't believe in God are simply ignoring him. That is, your definition contradicts itself, as anyone who would purposely ignore a phenomenon would first have to acknowledge the phenomenon's existence.

Let's paraphrase: "I'm convinced that many do not want to believe in the Tooth Fairy." Now, how does this sound? Does it sound like the speaker is being objective, or does it sound like the speaker has predetermined his own righteousness before making this "observation"? (Needless to say, it also sounds a little silly, as the Tooth Fairy-ist has taken himself so seriously.)

It's not that I don't want to believe in the Tooth Fairy, I simply don't. To the atheist, the existence of 'god' is no more a '50-50' choice than the existence of the 'tooth fairy. Oh sure, my internal 'jury' will probably never say 100% yay or nay, but until I see evidence, I'm afraid the God thing is just as imaginary as the Tooth Fairy one.

Besides, what "science" supports the existence of God? I have seen none. Indeed, anything scientific you can offer will surely be the type of 'evidence' that could also support the existence of unicorns, elves, Gondor the Magnanimous, the Easter Rabbit, and anything else to which we might attribute 'creation.'

Nothing that I've seen offered as "proof" can pass Occam's Razor. It's simply anthropic bias (and fear of the unknown).

-LH

• I only the load them when I'm trying to hit something - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 04:46 UTC
  • Science ≠ Ontology - luis_hamburgh - January 25, 2002 - 23:58 UTC
    • Cool title - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 01:20 UTC
      • No switching here. Unnecessary ontology is absurd. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:11 UTC
    • Cool title - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 01:22 UTC
      • Read this one! (nt) - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 01:22 UTC
      • I do that too (mess up HTML). (n/t) - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:15 UTC