After spending an entire semester in a course on the philosophy of religion and revieing things like the Scopes Monkey Trial during law school, I see arguments both for an against the existence of God.
I think there is no proof either way. I personally believe in God and am in fact Christian, but that is a personal choice based on faith and I have great respect for people who have chosen other faiths or who believe that there is no God.
This however is different. It can be shown that certain security measures actually are quite useful (sturdy, locked cockpit doors separating pilots and passengers for instance.) It can be shown that others are completely ineffective at their stated goals and seek only to avoid "donothingism" and fall into security theater
For purposes of keeping the discussion on topic, can we just assume dlikhten's comment is specifically about people whose belief in God is based on Pascal's wager, and not about believers in general?
To be fair, it could be said the analogy falls a little flat if Pascal's Wager is almost invariably considered only as an ad hoc rationalisation for things people genuinely believe to be true.
I am in no way claiming the existence or non existence of god. However I am claiming that security measures are exactly like the belief in god (probably a correction is exactly like religions). It makes no difference if it's true.
>No, I think the TSA and religion are quite similar.
that's absolutely right. There is though a difference between a God and Organized Religion. For all we know Q is as God as any other and i do hope what he exists and enjoys the TNG on Netflix as much as i do :)
Remember that time that Q was forced to become human and was hunted down by that cloud entity for the horrors he inflicted on their culture? Yea... All hail Q.
> arguments both for an against the existence of God.
Arguments are one thing, evidence is something else.
> believe there is no God
That isn't what atheism is, or at least that isn't what most English-speaking people who describe themselves as atheist mean by it. Western atheists think the existence of any deities is unproven; it is not supported by the evidence.
That isn't what atheism is, or at least that isn't what most English-speaking people who describe themselves as atheist mean by it. Western atheists think the existence of any deities is unproven; it is not supported by the evidence.
I think there is no proof either way. I personally believe in God and am in fact Christian, but that is a personal choice based on faith and I have great respect for people who have chosen other faiths or who believe that there is no God.
This however is different. It can be shown that certain security measures actually are quite useful (sturdy, locked cockpit doors separating pilots and passengers for instance.) It can be shown that others are completely ineffective at their stated goals and seek only to avoid "donothingism" and fall into security theater