Possible. Probable. What?
There is a 100% chance that there is no such person as God.
Too often, activists find themselves confronted by those who desire an advantage. And too often, activists fall into the trap. "Scientists would never admit a 100% chance that there is no god, it's just that the probability is so minute. There is a 99.99999...% chance that there is no god..."
First and foremost, god is a concept. An idea. Not a theory. Following scientific methodology, you follow facts and produce theories. You do not dream up ideas and then attempt to interpret facts to make those concepts more real.
So, I can conceive of cubic-style planets following square lines around their cubic-style suns. Is there a minute possibility that planetary formation could produce such planets and systems? Could there in fact be cubic planets upon which even the atmosphere itself followed a straight line? Not bloody likely. Not a one in a billion chance, not a one in a tenduotrigintillion chance, not ever. It's a nice concept, good for comics and cartoons, but it is not a theory, and such an idea is not even remotely credible according to scientific standards.
The same holds true for the concept of god. The concept is not worthy of scientific inquiry.
So why does it happen? Why are atheists, rationalists, freethinking activists - why are men of reason kowtowing to this sort of ignorance?
It's a form of apologetics. A political play, a social courtesy. You allow your opposition a little wiggle room, tell them they might be right, in order to get them to do the same.
The problem comes with the fact that the religious masses are delusional. They do not understand the rules of the game, nor do they care. They want us to yield to them, and they are willing to exploit every potential opportunity to that goal.
Forget the games, and leave apologetics to those who ought to be apologising for their stupidity and ignorance. Those who are capable of rational thought and are willing to submit to reason need not apologise to them.
The concept of god is mute. It is not a theory, and there is not a probability of a deities existence. To even contemplate such a probability involves moving from conceptual to theoretical. The existence of deities and spirits are ancients concepts derived from our primitive ancestors, not scientific theories based on sound observation and research.
There is, therefore, a concept of god. There is absolutely not, however, a god.
I am become death, destroyer of worlds
- Dissident1's blog
- Login to post comments
This one should get
This one should get interesting! I agree, btw. I just wanna see this malestrom when it reaches full intensity! I'm strapped in, and waiting for the inevitalbe chaos!!! Lol!
The darkness of godlessness lets wisdom shine.
Although I agree that there
Although I agree that there is no valid reason to investigate on scientific grounds, the fact that the masses believe in god warrant the community "investigating" the concept.
God warrants exploration, so we can add another 9 to the 99.999999% certainty that there is no such being.
In the mean time, join me in putting religious nonsence where it belongs Flush a Holy Book
"God Hypothesis"
While I agree that the idea of working scientific method backwards to prove God is one of the most stupid things humanity has ever done, I believe that the ideas of religion can, and have been reformatted from the beginning in order to 'prove' Christianity (more accurately, trying to rationalize religion, which is, in itself, absurd). Richard Dawkins explained this as the "God Hypothesis," which can be worded as a scientific theory (albeit one that is not testable and is circular in nature).
However, I think to say that "God doesn't exist 100%" is almost as much an insult to the work of people like Richard Dawkins, who pride themselves on using careful logic and thinking to show that faith in any belief is absurd. While there is absolutely no evidence for the God hypothesis, and I don't think anyone should assume the existence of any God, believing *with "100% certainty"* that there is no God is almost as much an act of faith as believing with 100% certainty that God exists. I'm just very wary of saying anything at all with *100% certainty.*
I'm one of those people who would just love for there to be a God to make my life very, very easy, and to get a nice afterlife out of all this, but I know that there's absolutely no reason to believe that. So I agree with you all, for all intents and purposes.
Sorry, just thought I'd put in my $.02
I'm with SirKibbleX on
Normal 0 21 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
I'm with SirKibbleX on this one:
I agree religion isn't worthy of even being considered a hypothesis; but it is. And you know people: they won't respect you unless you respect them. And that's one of the arguments against the Blasphemy Challenge, for example, which was so fought with counter arguments - even myself - of "we're disrespecting the idea of religion, not you". Now, this thing of atheists vs. theists is about being convincing, not about being wrong. Otherwise, we'd have won a long time ago.
We can't dismiss apologetics. We can't dismiss politics. We live and breathe politics. If you want your argument to be valid, you cannot use absolutes and you must respectfully refute your opponent's argument. If you don’t, you're being just as fundamentalist as they are.
http://youtube.com/phillipetrindade - Reasonable dialogue about atheism. Please visit, rate it and comment. Thanks!