What is the probability there is NO higher power?

[Thiebear]

God created all that was and all that will be.

task 1: Send a comet to kill all the dinosaurs so they wont eat my new people.

task 2: After the fires go out create a new climate window people can thrive in.

Task 3: Create Adam, subtask: 3a: opps take rib, create Eve.

Task 4: have first two children fight to the death and populate world with winner.

disclaimer: If you think Adam named all things to include donosaurs we need a new task list.

[JOSH8572]

whats the harm in believing in something, if your wrong your still dead if you right right then you luck out when you die.

[btfoom]

Actually, there are only two acceptable responses - 100% No or 0% No.

This is a binary question in the end - Is there a "Higher Power"? The answer is either 1 - No or 0 - Yes. The rest is just how sure you feel about either answer (ie. the answer can't be 0.6, but your feeling about it can be).

[chipwhich]

Actually, there are only two acceptable responses - 100% No or 0% No.

This is a binary question in the end - Is there a "Higher Power"? The answer is either 1 - No or 0 - Yes. The rest is just how sure you feel about either answer (ie. the answer can't be 0.6, but your feeling about it can be).

Actually no it's not. He asked the probability. It's not a yes or a no or a binary answer.

[PeterMP]

Actually no it's not. He asked the probability. It's not a yes or a no or a binary answer.

Realistically, he's right. There is either a higher power or there isn't (0 or 1). My question more percisely should have been what is your estimate that there is a higher power. However, I think we should be able to make estimates that minimize the subjectivity and the feelings part of it, if we are intellectually honest with ourselves.

Let's consider a normal six sided die. It is rolled in another room and then you ask what is the probability that the roll resulted in a 5. It has happened. It is either a 5 or not a 5. From my perspective though, I can only make an estimate. In this case, my best estimate woud be the same as asking before the die rolled 1/6.

[Koolblue13]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47248389/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/atheists-more-motivated-compassion-faithful/#.UGNxglaDjJO

Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

I know the bull**** line of Churches give more, gets thrown around a lot. This disproves it.

[alexey]

whats the harm in believing in something, if your wrong your still dead if you right right then you luck out when you die.

It sucks to live the only life you have believing in something that is not true.

[PeterMP]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47248389/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/atheists-more-motivated-compassion-faithful/#.UGNxglaDjJO

Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."

I know the bull**** line of Churches give more, gets thrown around a lot. This disproves it.

Without reading the article, I think your wrong.

I think it shows they give for different reasons.

I don't see anything in the part you quoted that talks about absolute more giving.

**EDIT**

Okay, it was lazy of me to comment without reading the article, but now I can say absolutely based on the article you are wrong.

The study doesn't try and address absolute amounts of giving at all. It does address WHY people give.

[greenspandan]

whats the harm in believing in something, if your wrong your still dead if you right right then you luck out when you die.

this is in some ways rational, but only if you assume that:

1. (if God exists) God cares what you think of him (that is, non-belief will be punished and belief will be rewarded) and

2. you can basically fool God into mistaking your pragmatic decision to believe in him "just in case" for true devout belief.

even if i believed in God, it would be hard to imagine a God to whom those two points applied.

from my point of view, though, the existence of a higher power seems pretty unlikely*, so let's use me as an example. if, as Josh suggests, i were to ignore my own analysis and instead take a "safer" position and operate as if there were a god (just in case), i would be making all kinds of decisions and building up a mental framework and value system from a core assumption that i myself doubt. how could one have any faith in their own convictions if the root of those convictions was made simply as insurance against a possible (but not probable, in one's own analysis) post-life punishment? a person is better off being true to themselves and developing their values and beliefs based on as honest an interpretation of their perceived reality as their senses will allow.

* (i'm not sure this thread is the place to get into that argument, but suffice to say that when determining truth, one must take care to recognize the inherent human bias towards what one WISHES were true.)

[Skinz4Life12]

50/50 chance