God


No. It simply means that either no or insufficient evidence for the existence of their deity has been provided by theists. There have been 10000 gods worshipped by humans throughout history and Christians don't believe in 9999 of them so they are virtually atheists themselves.

It's amusing that <religion x> and its representatives on earth generally get very upset when people say it's nonsense and their god or gods don't exist, but are usually happy to say exactly the same thing about every other religion that humanity has ever dreamed up.
 
I think you are a bit off in your definition of atheism. Most people define it as the belief that no god or higher power exists or could exist, not a lack of belief in the gods or higher powers proposed so far.

On that basis I prefer to think of myself as agnostic as I don't feel arrogant enough to postulate that it wouldn't be possible for some form of a higher power to exist.
Going to disagree again there.
Some definitions from random google searches:

"To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

(for clarity, disbelieve means "be unable to believe." rather than being the opposite of belief, i.e. this doesn't mean a certainty of there being no gods)

" someone who does not believe in any god or gods"

Actually, the "a" in a-theist denotes "not". ie not a believer

On that, the term you are looking for is "gnostic". Having actual knowledge on such matters vs agnostic, having no knowledge
 
Last edited:
Well you said "from a theological perspective ". Theologists have already decided there is a god and aren't looking for evidence that contradicts that view.. There can't be scientific evidence that there is no god as that would require evidence of non-existence.

Well they would wouldn’t they 😂

Can you imagine the meeting where they decided the opposite “fuck it lads, we’ve got a load of this ‘holy’ wine left let’s gan mental”
 
It's amusing that <religion x> and its representatives on earth generally get very upset when people say it's nonsense and their god or gods don't exist, but are usually happy to say exactly the same thing about every other religion that humanity has ever dreamed up.

And when you refer to theologians as I did earlier, gods Earthly representative on the SMB says that theologians don't necessarily believe in god. It's like trying to wrestle an eel covered in olive oil.
I think you are a bit off in your definition of atheism. Most people define it as the belief that no god or higher power exists or could exist, not a lack of belief in the gods or higher powers proposed so far.

On that basis I prefer to think of myself as agnostic as I don't feel arrogant enough to postulate that it wouldn't be possible for some form of a higher power to exist.

"Most people" is an unproven and unprovable claim.
 
Last edited:
I’m likely being dense having just finished 12 hrs of reviewing legal docs (I’m not a lawyer) so you’ll have to enlighten me.

You correctly wrote "A probability of 0 can only occur when something is impossible."

You then correctly added "There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of God is impossible. The existence of God is also mutually exclusive, does God exist Yes/No."

Where you are wrong is where you stated "In the absence of any overwhelming scientific data to screw the probability either way, then it remains 50/50 as a starting point."

The fact that something can only be either true or false does not mean the starting point has to be 50/50. Example: I slept with your other half last week. That is either true or it is false. As our starting point, how likely do you think it is?
 
Lost my mam a few weeks ago, she was a practising catholic and lived her life by her catholic faith. I too am catholic but not practising.
My mam never hurt a fly, she put others 1st her entire life, she was a good beautiful human being, she was a well liked lady with good values.
No god would put my mam through what she went through the last 6 months of her life, in particular the last 2 weeks of pain and suffering and fighting for breath.
I did believe that there must be a point to our existence on earth but after watching my poor mam suffer the way she did I now think that if that was meant to be a test of her faith in god then why did god make her suffer so cruelly. We were taught that god loves everyone, I could not love someone and put them through what my mam suffered. I prayed to god, our lady, even family members that had already passed to ease her pain. Nothing happened except my mam suffered more, it would hurt her to hear me say this but I dont believe there is a god, once we are dead we are gone for ever. Kills me to say that because I hate to think that I will never see my mam again.

Deeply, deeply moving and so honest. You have my most sincere commiserations.
 
Social control framed as a story to play on our inherent fear of uncertainty, ignorance and desire to be part of the tribe.

I can understand people falling for it hundreds of years ago, but the fact that so many people still believe in something so ridiculous with all we know now is truly baffling to me.

I'm inclined to think we are the product of entirely natural forces and beneficiaries of being in an extremely fortunate place and time in the history of the universe, or we are in some sort of simulation that only appears real to us because the simulation has been designed that way.

Basically my take on it exactly n’all.
 
I am agnostic.

I have known religious people who were very loud about it and weren't particularly nice people. Also known religious people who were low-key about it, and who were some of the best humans I have encountered.

I suppose you judge folk on their actions, rather than their words or their faith.
Of course we should judge people on their actions, but also on their words too I think.
Are you also agnostic about The Loch Ness Monster?
 
You correctly wrote "A probability of 0 can only occur when something is impossible."

You then correctly added "There is no evidence to suggest that the existence of God is impossible. The existence of God is also mutually exclusive, does God exist Yes/No."

Where you are wrong is where you stated "In the absence of any overwhelming scientific data to screw the probability either way, then it remains 50/50 as a starting point."

The fact that something can only be either true or false does not mean the starting point has to be 50/50. Example: I slept with your other half last week. That is either true or it is false. As our starting point, how likely do you think it is?

Without any substantive evidence then we'd have to presume it was 50/50. If i witnessed it would be 1, if she was with me when you said it happened it would be 0. Anything in between in subjective without evidence.
 
Of course we should judge people on their actions, but also on their words too I think.
Are you also agnostic about The Loch Ness Monster?

Agnosticism relates to the nature of god or what can be known of god.

Judging by your words, it appears the Loch Monster is your idea of god.
 
A creator yes, there surely must be,but not a deity that has folk going singing hymns every Sunday. That makes little sense and a man made extension for whatever reason. Granted the concept did and still does give strength to individuals and communities.
What a load of twaddle.
 
...The fact that something can only be either true or false does not mean the starting point has to be 50/50. Example: I slept with your other half last week. That is either true or it is false. As our starting point, how likely do you think it is?
But you are starting with a tautology which should result in a definite answer, Then you are introducing a grey area and considering a possibility which proves nothing. That is not exactly sound theoretical scientific reasoning, or is it these days?
The authentic letters of Paul which are the first seven (Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians) and dated to the 50s CE.
 
Last edited:
Without any substantive evidence then we'd have to presume it was 50/50. If i witnessed it would be 1, if she was with me when you said it happened it would be 0. Anything in between in subjective without evidence.
If you are presuming then you can take into account other information such as:

  • I have no idea who you and your other half are
  • I don't know where you live
  • I have a partner already
  • I would never cheat on my partner
  • I would never sleep with the partner of a Sunderland fan
  • I have no spare slots in my diary of more than 1 hour for several weeks

...plus loads more.

We know lots about the laws of nature. Granted there is stuff we do not yet know and maybe never will. We know the stuff written in The Bible that God (let's assume we're only talking about one god here) reportedly did would take extraordinary evidence to back it up. It is incredibly unlikely, based on our understanding of the world, that any of that is possible. That is not to say it is impossible, but we would need extraordinary evidence to back it up.

The starting point for both concepts is not 50/50. Based on our understanding of the world we can start at "pretty fecking unlikely" and work towards an answer of 0 or 1.
But you are starting with a tautology which should result in a definite answer, Then you are introducing a grey area and considering a possibility which proves nothing. That is not exactly sound theoretical scientific reasoning, or is it these days?

I worked as a scientist for 7 years and every single experiment I carried out was to answer a question. The answer to that question is binary - e.g. yes/no, works/doesn't work, true/false. That's why I was drawn to Science at school, college and uni. The answers to the exam questions are either correct or wrong. Not like some other subjects where there is a grey area and so long as you build a good argument and use references correctly then two completely different answers can both get good marks.

The question in the experiment has a starting expectation which is not "I don't know" (50/50) but can reasonably be towards the "I expect this to work" or "I expect this won't work". It is perfectly reasonable to start along the scale between 0 and 1 when we have previous understanding around a subject.

If something can only either be true or false it does NOT mean that both are equally as likely.

Nothing unscientific about that.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top