RE: Agnostic: a pointless term?
February 9, 2015 at 3:38 am
(This post was last modified: February 9, 2015 at 3:55 am by Creed of Heresy.)
Well, I don't necessarily say that "absence of the evidence for a god is the evidence of its absence." I say "the hypothesis has failed every one of the thousands of times it's been proposed, so I'm calling it disproven."
It's the simple arithmetic of science. Every god-myth ends up being torn to shreds. Just as surely as I can state with certainty that there are no magical fairies and unicorns on Earth, I can state with certainty there is no god, there are no gods, never have been, but who knows, maybe we'll make a quantum-processor-based All-Brain that we used to transcend and become the Machine-God with? That'd be pretty boss...
Despite what every delustionist claims, the bible's been disproven with hearty gusto by science in many, many ways. They can try to square the circle all they want; doesn't change the fact that anyone NOT trying to kid themselves can see the reality of its logical failings. It and the Torah, and the Talmud, and the Quran. All of them. Bunk, baseless, fiction.
In the field of science, a hypothesis is considered null and void and incorrect if it is disproven ONCE.
The god-myth hypotheses have been disproven far more times than that.
Why, therefore, lend any credence or weight to any other possible variations of the exact same fucking hypothesis? The same one that in all its forms comes up invalid over and over and over again?
You can't say you put weight into trusting in science to provide you with the closest thing to truth you can hope for outside of math, and then say you give some credence to another possible future iteration (or iterations) in this endlessly-disproven series of hypotheses. Those two statements are simply not compatible. The scientific method has demonstrated this clearly enough.
Am I actually wrong in saying this? Because I could have sworn that when we talk about creationism and intelligent design, we all agree; the latter is just another attempt at bringing the former hypothesis back around again for another go, despite the former being disproven. Yet somehow, it comes to this subject, where the amount of times it's been disproven numbers in the tens of thousands, and suddenly half the forum is hemming and hawwing and shuffling their feet and shrugging and going "well, MAYBE another version of the hypothesis will be right, we just can't know for certain..."
WHY?
As far as the definition of a god goes by ad populum, one simply does not exist. I know this, because science [aided in many other cases of this ridiculous failure of a hypothesis series by the simple passage of time and geological exploration] has demonstrated it as clearly as it has demonstrated the process of evolution, the progress of climate change, and the secrets of the atom. And just as clearly as it has demonstrated the total failure of creationism and intelligent design to be worthy of any consideration as having any basis in reality and facts.
It's the simple arithmetic of science. Every god-myth ends up being torn to shreds. Just as surely as I can state with certainty that there are no magical fairies and unicorns on Earth, I can state with certainty there is no god, there are no gods, never have been, but who knows, maybe we'll make a quantum-processor-based All-Brain that we used to transcend and become the Machine-God with? That'd be pretty boss...
Despite what every delustionist claims, the bible's been disproven with hearty gusto by science in many, many ways. They can try to square the circle all they want; doesn't change the fact that anyone NOT trying to kid themselves can see the reality of its logical failings. It and the Torah, and the Talmud, and the Quran. All of them. Bunk, baseless, fiction.
In the field of science, a hypothesis is considered null and void and incorrect if it is disproven ONCE.
The god-myth hypotheses have been disproven far more times than that.
Why, therefore, lend any credence or weight to any other possible variations of the exact same fucking hypothesis? The same one that in all its forms comes up invalid over and over and over again?
You can't say you put weight into trusting in science to provide you with the closest thing to truth you can hope for outside of math, and then say you give some credence to another possible future iteration (or iterations) in this endlessly-disproven series of hypotheses. Those two statements are simply not compatible. The scientific method has demonstrated this clearly enough.
Am I actually wrong in saying this? Because I could have sworn that when we talk about creationism and intelligent design, we all agree; the latter is just another attempt at bringing the former hypothesis back around again for another go, despite the former being disproven. Yet somehow, it comes to this subject, where the amount of times it's been disproven numbers in the tens of thousands, and suddenly half the forum is hemming and hawwing and shuffling their feet and shrugging and going "well, MAYBE another version of the hypothesis will be right, we just can't know for certain..."
WHY?
As far as the definition of a god goes by ad populum, one simply does not exist. I know this, because science [aided in many other cases of this ridiculous failure of a hypothesis series by the simple passage of time and geological exploration] has demonstrated it as clearly as it has demonstrated the process of evolution, the progress of climate change, and the secrets of the atom. And just as clearly as it has demonstrated the total failure of creationism and intelligent design to be worthy of any consideration as having any basis in reality and facts.
