Contact Info / Websites

Even more disproof of god

2009-05-18 21:46:55 by AndrewGlisson13
Updated

Since no gods existence has ever been proven, that means that all religions where made up on the spot. Since they where all in the imagination of their founders, that means they have such a small chance of being true, you can only express that probabillity exponentially. Take Jesus for example. Who is to say he wouldn't have said that there are 2 gods? 3? 4? or, perhaps, NONE AT ALL, and thus formed an Atheistic religion. He even could have said that there are a million gods. He could have said that there are any number of of gods between 0 and Infinity. This alone makes a 1 in Infinity chance of the religion being true, not to mention all of the other unproven things that further decrease the probabillity. Of course, there is no probabillity smaller than 1 in Infinity, other than 0. Therefore, religion is impossible. I'd sooner beleive in ghosts, unicorns, superstitions etc than Religion.That doesn't apply only to Christianity, it applies to all other religions too. Therefore, Religion is nothing more than a fairytale.

For further disproof, check out my former main account.


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


ChdongaChdonga

2009-05-18 21:57:18

You didn't prove anything, you just said they haven't proved it [yet], so it isn't real. And atheism is a religion? But you said religion is impossible. You fail at pretending to be atheist.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

Atheism is not a religion, but there are Atheist religions. Buddism is an Atheist religion. If, after so many thousands of years, it has not been proven, than it most likely never will. plain and simple.

You fail at trying to sound logical.


ChdongaChdonga

2009-05-18 21:58:21

Watch as you delete my comment, block me, insult me for being Christian, or insulting me on your next news post, or some combination of the above.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

Actually no, I will do none of the above, because i'm not some immature little asshole.


romanwromanw

2009-05-18 22:03:39

i think its stupid. go to a christan he says gods real i say then prove it. and there he is saying ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... well droling. and im atheist but less than 1% ofthe people on earth are. that picture would get people pist of. watch out u r new lev 3 so tell you some things get you banned.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

I'm not new at all, I've been here for more than 2 years. look at the sign up date of my previous lvl 15 account which I linked too.


ChdongaChdonga

2009-05-18 22:30:27

Provided you won't edit your posts, you stated that atheism is a religion.
"Who is to say he wouldn't have said that there are 2 gods? 3? 4? or, perhaps, NONE AT ALL, and thus formed an Atheistic religion."
You fail.

(Updated ) AndrewGlisson13 responds:

AN Atheistic religion (such as buddism, confucianism, etc), not THE Atheistic religion.

I'm afraid it is you who fails.


ChdongaChdonga

2009-05-18 22:32:45

Still all you did was insult religions. Where'd you get the insinuation that all religions are real? Of course that's impossible as they'd contradict each other. I'll just end this post with you don't know what you're talking about and you'll reply by calling me an immature asshole. (which is an insult)

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

When the hell did I ever say that all religions are real?


SlashFirestormSlashFirestorm

2009-05-18 23:43:37

You can't disprove God. Which is exactly why religion isn't scientific and not worth anyone's time.

Scientific theories must be falsifiable, and religion is not. If we discovered microscopic Planck-length creatures pulling things together, the theory of gravity would turn upside down; if we found a fossil of a human riding a dinosaur, everything from geology to evolution would have to be re-examined.

But there's no way to disprove that God could be behind everything. That doesn't mean it should be believed, though, since there's also no evidence proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't do it. Religion doesn't improve itself, stubbornly sticking to dogma, whereas science is always moving closer to understanding.

I'll take science and logic over gods of the gaps any day.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

The very fact that it cannot be proven disproves it. If, after all these thousands of years, it still isn't proven, than it is definately false. Sure, many commonly beleived scientific theories went unproven for a while, but they still eventually where. And religion is older than science, much, much older. Even older than philosophy. Yet, it is still not proved. Therefore, religion is fiction.


SlashFirestormSlashFirestorm

2009-05-19 00:25:39

Something not being discovered yet doesn't disprove it, it just doesn't prove it.

You seem to have the idea of scientific theory backwards; theories don't have to be proven (in fact, no theory can be absolutely proven---that's the definition of a theory), they have to be SUPPORTED by all known evidence. A theory (for example, spontaneous generation) is only disproved when conflicting evidence shows that the theory isn't sensible (meat not developing maggots when sealed).

But religion isn't science; thus, it isn't unbelievable because it can be proven wrong since, by their very nature, omnipotent entities can't be disproved, as they can "hide" as well as they damn well please. Rather, it's not sensible to accept because it has no supporting evidence in its favor to build up its own theory. It relies on gaps in OTHER theories to justify itself, which is not how theories work and neither proves their premise (that a god exists) nor disproves the theory they're trying to discredit.

The reason I can't be bothered to waste my time with religious foolishness is because there is no supporting evidence for it (yet to see a "made by God" on a rock, for example) for a hypothesis, and since it's non-falsifiable there's no way to disprove it. It's just a story, and should be regarded as nothing more than that unless evidence should prove otherwise.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

However, in order for theories to become fact, they must be proven, otherwise they remain theories. Religion is nothing more than a failed hyposthesis. As I stated in my post, there is a 1 in Infinity chance of any religion being true. Pretty much zero. It is not scientific proof, but it is logical proof.


SlashFirestormSlashFirestorm

2009-05-19 01:00:54

You also seem to be confused about the difference between theory and fact.

"Facts" refer to observations. For example, that evolution happens IS a fact, as we have everything from genetics to the fossil record showing it happening. But HOW it happens, and WHY it happens...that's theory. Evolution would compose both fact and theory. A theory can be so ridiculously supported by evidence that it was as well be a fact, but by definition, there's no such thing as 100% certainty of it (see my gravity example).

A fact is not merely an upgraded version of theory. They're two separate things. A theory bases itself on facts and tries to explain them and connect those dots. It will never become a fact, though, since, by definition, a theory is falsifiable and evidence to the contrary is always a possibility.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

Ok, I guess I had it wrong.

But I will still regard religion as absolute nonsence.


gamer30hrplusgamer30hrplus

2009-05-19 01:25:38

I am so glad that none of these idiots that you get try religiuos talk with me. because i will tear them a part with proof that you are almost 100% accurate abou religion. nobody not even me knows everthing. i have your back.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

:D

It's true, they know nothing.


RubberTruckyRubberTrucky

2009-05-20 19:39:38

You make an error in mathematical reasoning here. your basic assumption is that the religions are uniformly distributed over all their parameters. But this is not a fact, there is in fact a weighted distribution that approximate a discreet in some delta peaks around known religions.
Second error is that you assume that heteroschedasticity is insignificant also. But amongst different religions there is in fact a lot of heteroschedasticity. So the probability does not equal 1/infinity but is more likely to be a finite value, significantly different from 0.

AndrewGlisson13 responds:

I didn't just assume that it was insignificant, I didn't even know it existed (lol). Can you please define "heteroschedasticity"?

And even if it is finite, the probabillity is still so small that you would need to express it exponentially.

You may want to express that more simply, I still don't see my error. I'm not even in highschool yet.