Biblical Giant Ears.

While listening to Christian radio as i often do, i was fascinated by a discussion about the extreme ages of biblical figures like Noah. I don't feel the need to try and refute these claims of extreme longevity in this post (but maybe in future post) because a ridiculous idea has me completely distracted. It is a well documented fact that the human ears and nose never stop growing. When this fact is applied to a biblical figure like Methuselah who was supposed to have lived 969 years, i started to wonder just how large the human ears might grow if given such a life span. Here is a list of a few biblical figures and their ages according to the bible:

Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5)
Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8)
Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27)
And Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29)

I did a bit of Internet research to try and determine if there was a documented growth rate for the human ear, and as i turns out there was not at least in the form that i was looking for. However, i did find a site that posted a documented average of ear sizes for different points in human life. Unfortunately the website i found only dealt with metric but i will do the conversion for the end results. The male ears yielded larger results in all ages of life, and since the bible mostly deals with the ages of males i will post only the male results to illustrate my point.

The average male ear size at birth was 52mm at birth, 65mm at adulthood (20 yrs old) and 78mm at 70 yrs. By taking this information i have created my own formula by assuming that after reaching full physical development at the age of 20, within the next 50 years our ears grow an average of 13mm per fifty years of adult life. I would like to point out that i feel this is at least mildly accurate for this concept and would not even bother trying to defend my formula since it is scientifically irrelevant.

If we take the formula: Age at death minus 20years of pre-adulthood divided by 50 with the result multiplied by the known growth rate of 13mm plus 65mm (average ear size at 20yrs) it should yield a number that we can determine how large these biblical figures ears were. Here is the formula if you don't like story problems.

[(Age-20)/50] x Growth rate} + 65mm = ear size

And here are the results:

Adam's ear size at 930 years old: 301.6mm or 11.87 inches

Seth's ear size at 912 years old: 296.9mm or 11.86 inches

Methuselah's ear size at 969 years old: 311.74mm or 12.27 inches

Noah's ear size at 950 years old: 306.8mm or 12.07 inches

The results of this research are completely circumstantial and irrelevant, yet still totally hilarious! To imagine these biblical figure and their giant ears makes me chuckle every time. Yet still it brings a larger question to mind: Did these giant ears, enable these religious icons to better hear the voice of God? While this is certainly a preposterous notion, it could explain why my prayers were never answered, by suggesting that my ears were simply too tiny to hear Gods voice! If it were true this problem would be of no concern to famous televangelist Pat Robertson and his tremendous ears, and would definitely confirm the means by which he stays in direct communication with God.

Creationism Refuted....Again: Star Distances

As i have mentioned before i am making it my personal mission to combat the pseudo science of creationism. Though creationism is not an excepted theory in the scientific community, it is widely excepted in society amongst the religious. While i would not try to dictate what an individual chooses to believe, i would like to help keep information available to atheist and agnostics who might encounter similar twisted logic in in their daily lives and conversations. I would like to repeat that i do not wish do dictate what one should believe. However when such beliefs as creationism try to "move in" on what my children are taught in school i draw the line.

Christians who employ Christian science to justify their beliefs cross over to a slightly different plain of argument then someone who simply chooses belief based on blind faith. Blind faith, does not need justification to the believer, Christian science on the other hand attempts uses the sciences to prove that events in scripture are true and provable, thus they feel they have justified their belief in Christianity. If your not familiar, with creationism or creation theory, I'll give you a short summary.

Everything in the bible, including genesis is a literal account of history. God created the earth in six days, the great flood, Noah's ark, the Earth and universe are only 6000 years old,etc.. What creation theory really creates is a whole list of inconsistency's with accepted ideas about our world. For example when did the dinosaurs live? must have been with humans if the earth is only 6000 years old, what about the rock dating that goes back billions of years? Christian science attempts to answer these questions by reevaluating the evidence.

My refutation of creationism for this post (there are many others!!) is a concept that occurred to me after watching a show about astronomy. It is an example of evidence for the true age of the universe that cannot be viewed in any other manor than a solid contradiction of the young earth theory (another name for creation theory).

The proof about the age of our universe is found in star distances. The basic concept is that we have identified that certain stars have a known distance of billions of light years away. All light, including light emitted from stars has a fixed speed that it can travel. That speed is 299,792,458 meters per second. For many practical purposes, the speed of light is so great that it can be regarded to travel instantaneously. However, the finite speed of light becomes noticeable when applied to very long distances. Like in the case of distant stars. When a star is said to be a million miles away, that means that light from that star will take one million of our earth years to reach our eye. When you look at the night sky, you are basically looking deep into history. To drive the point home image this: If a star that is known to be a million light years away, burned out at the exact second you read this, it would take one million years for that star to vanish from our perspective on earth.

I will not go into the exact means of how a star distance is determined, but the accuracy of determining star distances is very reliable. It has yet to be discredited and even if the math was slightly wrong it would still put the creation theory out of commission. For creation theory to hold true all stars must be located within 6000 light years from earth, or their light would not have even reached us yet! This dilemma is so damming (pun intended) to creationism that while researching this topic i found it was even addressed in a post at GodAndScience.org of all sites!! The article points out what a debate stopper this concept is for creationist. The article is very well worded so i will not attempt to summarize, and i will end my argument with the words from that very post.

It is extremely evident from astronomy that our Universe is billions of light-years across, and thus that light from distant stars has taken billions of years to reach us. One method of accurately determining star distances uses Cepheid variable stars, which have a known relationship between brightness and pulse rate. This relationship is explained by physics, and verified (calibrated) by measuring all Cepheid variable stars whose distances are close enough to confirm by parallax. Therefore, the actual brightness of a Cepheid variable star can be determined by its pulse rate, regardless of how far away it is. And, of course, if a star's actual brightness and measured (apparent) brightness are known, its distance can be calculated from a simple equation (apparent brightness decreases as one over the distance squared). This and many other methods verify Hubble's law describing the expansion of the Universe, with the beginning between 10 and 20 billion years ago. Attempts by young-Earth proponents to explain these facts have been unavailing. Norman and Setterfield's proposal of decay in the speed of light is easily shown to be invalid (Roberts, Ross, and Stoner all deal with this), as is Humphreys' attempt at a young-Earth cosmology (see Conner and Ross (1999)). Another explanation, that the Universe was created with "appearance of age" is both un-scientific at its core (if all the evidence that we see for age is fabricated, then why even have this debate?), as well as having theological problems with the truthfulness of God, since in that case we are constantly observing events in the cosmos which in fact never occurred (see Brain Teaser: SN1987a for an illustrative example of this point).

The eAtheist

Well, The Revolution is no more. I have changed the name of this blog to represent the new direction in life that i have taken. As i have mentioned before in my post about atheist charities, i feel that we must undergo a bit of a public makeover order to really gain mainstream acceptance. I am committed to doing my part and is reflected in the name change of this blog. I have already begun to encourage atheist bloggers and readers to put word atheist directly in the name of whatever topic they represent, for example: If you have a blog about cooking and you are a passionate atheist, then how about the atheist chef. Whatever your focus, if you consider yourself atheist, then represent your position. The atheist carpenter, The atheist mechanic, etc.

Why is that important you ask? What the hell does cooking have to do with Atheism? Well it is a simple part of our public acceptance. Maybe your not aware, but there is a huge stigma attached to the atheist label. Maybe you've noticed that there aren't a lot of politicians out there who openly state "I am an atheist and I represent and support the idea of an atheist society." That is partly because atheist aren't viewed as moral or normal by mainstream society. (It is getting better though.) The more frequently we identify ourselves as atheist, the more organized we seem and the more we will hear people saying "Hey, atheist are everywhere, they're just regular people like you and me." This is a notion is a small but important step in getting representation by public officials, and acceptance in society. I'm not saying its the best idea ever put forth, but its the best idea i have so far. I just want to do my part.

An opposite effect applies to negativity. If the best thing you can think to do is ridicule the religious for their beliefs, then please disassociate yourself from the atheist who are actually trying to make a positive change. Unwarranted negativity, and insulting behaviour, only fuel our negative public image and force this movement to take steps backward. No one ought to call a religious person a moron for the beliefs they hold. Odds are that if you were indoctrinated and raised in their shoes you would think and believe very similar ideas. Please swallow your pride, and be civil, your not just representing yourself, your representing all of us.

Now, as far as this blog is concerned, all future post will have a focus on topics relating to atheism, religious debate, educating readers about the lies in christian science, and equipping the everyday atheist with facts that will help disprove religious fallacy. That is the new mission and direction of this blog. The primary audience that for my future posts will be the everyday atheist or {e}Atheist.

Atheist Charity

It always make me wonder when i hear an atheist call for total removal of religion in America as if there are no good side effects. Its not that i disagree with the former statement, i agree religion has lost its practical purpose in society (if it ever had one), irrational religious beliefs have formed intellectual barriers for thousands of years and all of science and humanity has to deal with it. Ultimately i feel that religion is not intellectually necessary any more, the mechanics of the world can be explained, morality can be defined without scripture.

So it is not that rally cry of fellow atheist that bothers me, it is simply the lack of a plan for phasing out religion. When i ask and atheist "well how do you propose we do that?" I usually get a reply that shows not much thought has been put into it.

The truth is atheist must organize and provide a substitute for religion on several different levels that aren't intellectual. Its not enough to just say "see i told you religious belief was irrational, here is the proof, now quit going to church".

It will not work that way. What we need to do is organize and help people to find a way to satisfy those human needs without religion. Let me offer an example and i bit of personal insight.

I was raised with a loose Christian background. I grew up, read a little bit and became Agnostic, read a bit more and.....drum roll please....now I'm an atheist. Despite the different opinions about religion that I've embraced in my life, one thing has remained the same: My respect for the overwhelming amount of public service that Christian charities and organizations do. Lets face it, Christians donate billions of dollars to charity each year, that money does a lot of good.

So in order to contribute to society i want to start an atheist charitable organization. The idea is new to me and to be honest I've still got a lot of research to do. The main reason for starting an atheist charity (other than obvious reasons) is to help combat the public view about atheists and to offer an alternative to religion for some of that human desire to contribute to society. If atheist are serious about helping the world ween itself off religion, we need to convince society that the world can continue in every aspect through non-religious avenues. Proving religious beliefs to be false and irrational isn't enough. Atheist must show the religious that they don't need to go to church to contribute to mankind or to feel good about themselves. With enough positive organizations and positive media attention, the general public could embrace atheism with i bit more confidence. I hope you see what I'm getting at here:

I imagine a world where people can boast about being part of an atheist organization with the same pride that church goers flaunt as a badge of morality.

I realize that every charity that is non-religious affiliated is essentially an "atheist" organization. That in itself is not good enough for the atheist movement. I really feel we (atheist) need to build organizations with the word atheist right in the title. Like i said, besides obvious reasons to start a charity, building atheist charities and public service organizations will have a strong psychological benefits toward athiests public image and public acceptance, while providing religious alternatives to feel good about oneself.

My initial thoughts, are to have the organization set up for the purpose of charity, helping underprivileged kids perhaps. Unlike the christian organizations, (here's your bible and here's your donated food) i don't wish to distribute atheist literature. (proofs of gods non-existence, etc..) I would strongly caution anyone who wishes to to start an atheist public service organization to use the same approach. I feel that would only cause objections and public opposition that would distract from the cause. Besides there are a ton of atheist websites, books, and just plain 'Ole science for that purpose. I just want to provide a feel-good public service, under the atheist banner.

If you have any suggestion for a specific cause, or name, please comment :)

Creationism proofs refuted

I have been following the pseudo science of creationism lately. More specifically i have been listening to a Christian talk radio show host by the name of Bob Dutko. Bob is the former Press Secretary for the Christian Coalition of America, who also happens to be the epitome of a fundamental Christian. Another of Bobs claim to fame is his CD collection called Top Ten Proofs. His CD called "Top Ten Proofs of Gods Existence" represent the foundation on which "creation science" is built. In this Series of post i will be refuting each and every one of his proofs. I would like to point out that am not a scientist of any sort, however in the realm of creation science i feel i can hold my ground with just some simple logic and common sense.

Before you read Bobs proof, we need to learn a bit about physics, as it will be referenced in a few paragraphs. If you refer to this link of the 2nd law of thermodynamics you will see something about entropy. If you don't want to link out, here is the just of it. The 2nd law implies simply that the energy in the universe will eventually disperse evenly and be used up. Basically the universe metaphorically is like a spring wound watch. You wind the spring, and it holds energy. When the spring unwinds the energy is used up and the watch eventually comes to a rest. We know the universe is currently full of energy so we obviously haven't reached that point. Also the 2nd law proves that the universe as we know it has could not have always been in existence or it would have run out of energy by now and become dead. This is an excepted theory and proves there was in fact a beginning in which all of the energy in the universe was created. Real scientist would call this: The Big Bang.

Here is Bobs first attempt where he invokes the Laws of Thermodynamics to show proof of God.

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".
In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.
The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.
Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.
Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Here is my refutation of his Proof

Bobs proof seems to me like a bit of a word game, and is not the first time such a word game is been employed to persuade people of a flawed concept. It reminds me of one of Zeno's paradoxes, which states that:

Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, say, 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been, he can never overtake the tortoise.

This is as obvious misrepresentation of basic physics, but though its worded cleverly it is very deceiving. If the same tactic is applied to a concept that is not familiar (like thermodynamics) it is even more effective.

So here is my take on the big bang: We know that our universe is a closed system, no energy in, no energy out. We know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that energy in our universe had an initial starting point when it was at its peak energy and is slowly being dispersed through entropy. Bob states that this starting point is where all of the universes energy began. But was it? The truth is that when the universe was formed a closed system was created, however we know nothing about how that energy was trapped into the system. I say trapped, because we don't know, and have no reason to believe that it was created when our "closed system" was formed. This is the root of Bobs word game.

Bob draws his conclusion from three unknown facts.

One: there was no existence prior to the formation of our universe.

Two: energy was created initially in the formation of our universe.

Three: God is the default answer where science has a gap.

In reality these first two concepts are still unknown, and the third is just a short cut to any thought at all. Again the only conclusion we can draw for certain, based on laws of thermodynamics, is that when the universe was created a "closed system" was formed. We know nothing about where that energy came from. (The default answer is not God or fairies or any supernatural entity.) There are still many theories being worked out that could explain how both a "closed system" universe is formed and where it could get its energy. One of such theories is known unofficially as The Parent Universe Theory. Which states the possibility of a parent universe which could spawn smaller daughter universes through black holes. It is also theorised that there is a megaverse out there which sections off smaller "closed systems" stacked with energy. Like air passing through a giant tub of soapy water, and releasing bubbles of trapped air.

If you look at how much is still unknown about the physics of our universe the possibilities for an event that would lead to natural occurring universe could be endless, however a supernatural explanation will more likely be Option #1,000,000,000 and not Option C

And so, Bob Dutko, the creationist, looks at his tiny bubble and says this is all that there is, and god is the cause. The energy in this bubble could not have been created due to the 1st law of thermodynamics, and so on.....

Science however will continue to look outside our tiny bubble and continue to give logical and natural occurring explanations for our reality.

Morality without Religion

For thousands of years the nature of ethics and morality has been a argued by philosophers, theologists, and everyone in between. Theologists would credit religion and God for laying the guidelines for good and bad behavior, while philosophers would take an alternative road and investigate the fundamental characteristics that define moral behavior. I would not like to be excluded from the enormous list of people who find interest in this topic, so I will take the uncommon road and offer my take on the basic principles of morality.

While moral codes vary throughout the world, they can be divided into two categories:

1.Morals with regard to religion.
2.Morals with regard to society.

It is possible for both types of morality to exist in the same environments, for example: In America the majority of citizens have religious guidelines for their actions and behavior, but they are not necessarily laws or mandatory behavior. Conversely, an example of a single morality would be a Muslim nation, were religious guidelines dictate law and social behavior.

I will not discuss morality in relation to religion, due to its obvious origin in religious text. The concept here is to imagine that there were no religious text to provide moral guidelines and we were left with determining the nature of morality.

The morality of society:
In society, the concept of good morality can be defined as an absence of bad morality. This is due to the fact that one is not obligated to do good, or in other words it is not enforced, demanded, required, in any aspect of society, however a lack of bad behavior is required. Bad behavior in many forms is prohibited.
Also, the principles of good morals are subjective to the individual, and are not as universal as bad morality, and thus harder to define. If you wish to offer your definition, feel free to comment in that regard.

The four basic principles of immoral behavior.
These are the defining principles that an action or behavior must have in order to qualify as immoral.

1. One rational person
2. The action (or not acting with regard to obligation)of the rational person must, in some manner affect another.
3. The rational person must act intentionally
4. The affected must dislike the manner in which it was affected.
These four principles are then, influenced by two variables.

Two moral variables:
1. Consideration for the circumstances surrounding the action.
2. A common agreement on the dislike, like or indifference felt in regard to action and circumstances.

I am sure this sounds vague, lets clarify each principle so that there is no misunderstanding of what i mean.

Principle 1: One rational person.
I recently discussed this topic with a fellow blogger, who pointed out that if a tree falls on a person, the tree is not considered immoral. Therefore the two entities must be rational, able to think and understand their surroundings. Why do i keep saying entities instead of people?
Principle 2: The action of one rational person must, in some manner affect another.
For the most part its redundant to state this as a principle, due to the fact that almost everything you can physically "do" will affect someone. Yet it must be noted for the sake of eliminating exceptions: If your actions do not affect anyone surrounding you in any way, they cannot be immoral. (Religious morals are different, if you are by yourself and no one is affected, a divine entity is still aware of your action.) In the case of society, someone must be affected, this includes when they are affected by not acting when one has an obligation to another.

Principle 3: Did the rational person act intentionally?
An unintentional act needs some definition. It is the obligation of the individual to know or to try and learn how his or her actions will affect his or her surroundings. If such obligations are fulfilled, and the action still affects another in a way unintended, the action cannot be immoral.

Principle 4:Did the affected dislike the manner in which it was affected.
This principle is important. While many would state that morality has a direct or indirect correlation with harm or suffering. I do not agree. I would say that harm is a one factor that determines moral behavior, yet it is not a fundamental requirement. For example lying, nudity, using curse words: these are actions that do not always correlate with harm. I feel that immoral behavior is always disliked, yet the causes for dislike are subjective and hard (if not impossible) to define. Here are some examples of vague immorality: A behavior could be disliked because it might generate, or perpetuate a different immoral act.
A behavior might be disliked because it hinders the development of society.

Now the two variables:
Variable 1. Circumstance is very essential in determining bad behavior. To state that murder is always wrong would be incorrect. It is acceptable for self defense, national security, as well as many other possible scenarios. One must determine the circumstances surrounding the action in order to judge correctly.

Variable 1. This is the key to determining all that is right and wrong. There have been many who would say that an action is only good or bad when you perceive it that way. Its the "glass is half full" philosophy. I say the glass is half full only when the majority of society agrees that it is half full.

Every action must be weighed from the eyes of the doer and receiver. If my actions affect someone and i am pleased, i must ask would i be equally pleased if everyone acted in this manner? The answer to this question will give the action its moral definition.
In a way its a similar concept to the "golden rule". (do on to others as you would have done to yourself.)

I spoke with someone who had an objection this concept and offered this scenario to illustrate the contradictions of the golden rule:

If you walk into a shoe store, the store owner wants you to by a pair of shoes, he will be displeased if you leave empty handed. Yet you don't buy anything because his shoes are too expensive. If you where a store owner you would be displeased if he did not buy your shoes, yet if the owner was shopping he would want a deal too. What the customer wants and what the store owner wants conflict. In this case it is impossible to "do on to others as as you would have done to yourself." So which behavior is immoral not buying shoes or not lowering his prices?

The answer can be found in the second of the four principles.
Suppose the customer never went into the shoe store, financially this is the same for the owner as someone shopping and not buying, in either case he is not affected by the customer. The customer was simply not acting and there was no obligation to buy. Therefore not buying his shoes does not meet all four requirements found in immoral behavior. In fact neither position meets all of the required principles, and therefore cannot even be judged as moral or immoral.

If you apply anything labeled immoral in our society, i think you'll find that it meets my requirements. If you do find some error, please comment accordingly. The goal here is not to prove that I'm right, but to find a formula for determining morality.


For other interesting discussions on morality please visit http://www.wayofthemind.org/

Born again Atheist

I have always considered myself a straight forward, "hard core" (pun intended) Agnostic. I was the epitome of fence sitting. I have thought to myself 'This is the only correct logical position to hold with regard to supernatural entities', due to, what i felt was a lack of evidence on both parts. In fact i have gone out of my way to support this position throughout this blog. I have made it clear that i feel the existence of god(s) is unknowable. However recently I've read a few fantastic books, one of which is "The God Delusion" by famous Atheist, Richard Dawkins. Richard classified Agnostics by two categories:

TAP
Temporary Agnostic in practice

This means: only agnostic about a hypothesis until the verdict is in and the evidence confirms its truth or fallacy.

PAP
Permanent Agnostic in Principle

This means: Permanently Agnostic due to the belief that the hypothesis in question will always remain unanswerable.



Upon recent reflection and "soul searching" i have realized that my position as a PAP is a paradox. I have decided (logically i hope) that claiming that a thing is unknowable is in essence making a claim about the unknown outcome of future knowledge. Summarize in less philosophical mumbo jumbo:

If-

One claims that gods existence or non-existence will forever be a question without an answer.

That sentence in itself is a statement of knowledge.

I cannot know that it will forever be an unanswered question.

Thus to be a Permanent Agnostic in Principle is a paradox.

So....I changed my position to that of the TAP, a wise position to hold if uneducated about matters of religion. For most who are uninformed, this is the only "safe" or logical position to hold. However in light of my recent education via Richard Dawkins, i can use the shading of probability to determine whether or not there is a high, low or neutral probability of god(s) existence. I can safely say that i now share the atheist point of view on matters of the supernatural, due to what i have found is a high probability of god(s) non-existence.

Here is an example of what i mean by the shading of probability and how it changes our perception of what is reality:

One could say that i should not go outside because i might be killed by a satellite falling out of orbit and smashing me to a pulp. I know that the probability of that event happening to me is very, very, slim to none (for the record i feel the existence of god is less probable than this example) though i cannot with 100% certainty say that such an event is impossible, no one would hold the opinion that this as a real danger. Nor should one logically base any bit of their life on this possibility.

If you claim there is a god, i cannot prove that you are wrong with 100% certainty, However with the shading of probability i feel confident that you are almost certainly wrong.

I will be updating The Revolution with many new blogs on the subject of Atheism and the logic behind this position. I will also be updating past posts, where i feel i was holding an incorrect position. Please keep that in mind while reading any post prior to this date. Hopefully readers will continue to add there wonderful comments, and we can continue to debate and discuss the subject.