100% Certainty God Does Not Exist [2] (believe, Christ, translation, experience)

[Continuum]

The Overriding Principle of Rationality
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
Bertrand Russell

I had the original article to the above but cannot find it at present. Here is a nearer reference re Russell's Ten Commandments.
The Best Answer to Fanaticism--Liberalism - Its calm search for truth, viewed as dangerous in many places, remains the hope of humanity. - Article - NYTimes.com
Why I Am A Rationalist* by Bertrand Russell

There are many other Philosophical theories and principles on why there is no Absolute Certainty in the real world, .e.g. Hume's Problem of Induction, Wittgenstein 'On Certainty' Kant's Copernican Revolution, etc.



Why '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist'
If one is a fisherman in the open ocean, optimally one should not fish with a net that is full of [or even with some] holes where the targeted fishes can escape.



Scenario 1
Thus in the preparation stages the fisherman should ensure the net is of the right quality for the right conditions and check to ensure there are no holes in the net for any fish to escape.
In this case, the fisherman can be 100% certain no fish will escape with such conditions.

Scenario 2
In contrast, another fisherman may compromise the quality of the net due to price. When he checked the nets and found some holes he may justify the fishes are not that smart enough to see them within such a large net to get through to escape. He many accept some fishes may escape but at least he will still catch 90% of what is encircled by the net and make a profit.


The above can be applied to atheistic [I prefer not-a-theist] discussions where atheists should adopt Scenario 1, i.e. '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist' within a Critical Philosophy Framework and System to support such a 100% certainty. This Framework and System is then conditioned to the overriding Principle of Rationality as mentioned above.

Atheists should avoid presenting merely unorganized and unsystematic haphazard propositions to argue 'God do not exists' militantly or with some degree of agnosticism [like Dawkins grading scale].
This leave room for theists to eel their way through the slightest cracks to cling to the hope that since you [atheists] are not sure, then God exists from my [theistic] perspective based arguments from Design and other proofs.
SOME Theists: Since God really exists and God's Law sanction I can kill you for not believing in my Supreme God ... Beware! This unfortunately is a reality!


What atheist need is a Critical Philosophy Framework and System to 'checkmate' the theists position that leave no room [100% impossible] at all to argue or hope there is a possibility of God exists in the real world and therefrom for SOME [not all] theists to kill non-believers in the real world which is actually happening.

I am not insisting theists should not believe in a God. Theism is a critical necessity for the majority of humans for this present phase of evolution [not the future] and without it at present there could be anarchy internally [self] and externally. Theists should continue to believe in a God via faith ..

However the only room for theist to discuss is merely based on psychological reasons and without any rational basis nor grounds. This will make room for theists to proceed with self-improvements toward the well being of humanity.



My approach to '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist' is as follows;

1. The Overriding Principle of Rationality - the main set
2. The Principles of '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist'
3. The Critical Philosophical Framework and System to support 2.
4. The threat of extremist theists and the possible extinction of the human species given the current trend.

I have already posted the various points in the following threads;
http://www.city-data.com/forum/philosophy/2432485-100-certainty-god-does-not-exist-26.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/41098391-post251.html

The main gist of the proposition '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist' is analogically to demonstrate that it is almost the same of trying to prove 'A Squared Circle Exist' which is an impossibility.

I have the substance to justify my Critical Philosophical Framework and System to support the proposition '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist'.
However one constraint is the difficulty to explain it in a forum and besides I intend to write a book on it so I am not revealing too much to avoid plagiarism.


The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate and discuss [as far as we can go] there is a possibility to sustain and maintain a Critical Philosophical Framework and System to support the proposition '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist'. Personally I believe this is achievable.

I believe atheists should strive to achieve such a system to support their atheistic views instead of being like fishermen in Scenario 2 above.

Your views?

[Sizzly Friddle]

I think the only thing needed to support my atheistic view is the continued lack of evidence to believe otherwise.

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle

I think the only thing needed to support my atheistic view is the continued lack of evidence to believe otherwise.

Justify that to your executioner if you are ever caught by an ISIS jihadist. So how to prevent the above, not possible in the immediate present but in the future?

The ultimate purpose of '100% Certainty God Does Not Exist' within a Critical Philosophy Framework and System is to defang the various malignant impulses oozing from the brain of the jihadists and other theistic fundamentalists.
It may not be achieved immediately till perhaps another 50 years or more but at least we should start the groundwork from now onwards.

No doubt humans will continue to commit secular-based evils but at least we are getting rid [cutting off] of one source of evils that are inspired by theistic texts on the belief that God exists as really real and sanctioning the killing of non-believers for merely not believing in 'his' particular religion.

Secular evils of all types can be dealt via the Philosophy of Morality/Ethics, politics, judiciary/legislative and other means.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to say that Matt Dillahunty again gave the best answer - our beliefs inform our actions. We do not need 100% proof before we act. We do need better reasons that faith. We need some reliable evidence. Science has the best track record for providing reliable evidence.

This is simple and doesn't require a degree in Ethical philosophy to understand it. But belief is peddled with all sorts of convoluted attempts to brainwash us into it from the pointless Kalam argument to the irrelevant anti- evolution arguments.

"You cannot disprove it/ you cannot be 100% sure" are just one of the trick of the deluded to try to delude as many others as possible so they can put doubts out of their mind by ensuring that everyone around them believes the same thing.

The Big Boss argument doesn't hold water either. Sure, if an invading army, a local gang, ISIS or a peeved god got hands on us, we couldn't stop them doing what they wanted to us. We could try to talk them out of it, but when people get power, they often get the idea this means they don't need to be reasonable.

That is why we have to keep working to see they don't get power or to take it away from them.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I have to say that Matt Dillahunty again gave the best answer - our beliefs inform our actions. We do not need 100% proof before we act. We do need better reasons that faith. We need some reliable evidence. Science has the best track record for providing reliable evidence.

exactly correct.

but what about people that totally ignore any evidence that counters their world view for emotional reasons? On both sides?

I think we need to approach it from an angle that doesn't pit religion against science but rather pits irrational people trying to push irrational conclusions on the rest of us. I mean accountants are the most reliable source for accounting and carpenters are the most reliable for carpentry too.

Pastors can be the most reliable source for learning how to keep oneself in the moment if one needs that. some of us have that person who we can go talk to about sensitive issue and be provided with some real answers and emotional support. Some of us son't. Of course that comes along with the understanding that every occupations has quacks but they do not define the occupation for the most part.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Continuum

Secular evils of all types can be dealt via the Philosophy of Morality/Ethics, politics, judiciary/legislative and other means.

yeah, I want the state to do this. 100% for sure. I think. Plus you need a little thing like a describing what god you are talking about.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Continuum

Justify that to your executioner if you are ever caught by an ISIS jihadist.

Those are irrational people who aren't interested in justifications, airtight or not. They are interested in being "right" by their lights, and telling them they are wrong just makes them angry. In fact having a good argument just makes you more dangerous to them.

Just this past week a National Geographic issue was censored for translation to Arabic and distribution in Saudi Arabia for "cultural reasons" because the cover story was about how Pope Francis was moderating Christianity. They don't want their people to read about modernizing influences in religion, much less the secular world.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

exactly correct.

but what about people that totally ignore any evidence that counters their world view for emotional reasons? On both sides?

I think we need to approach it from an angle that doesn't pit religion against science but rather pits irrational people trying to push irrational conclusions on the rest of us. I mean accountants are the most reliable source for accounting and carpenters are the most reliable for carpentry too.

Pastors can be the most reliable source for learning how to keep oneself in the moment if one needs that. some of us have that person who we can go talk to about sensitive issue and be provided with some real answers and emotional support. Some of us son't. Of course that comes along with the understanding that every occupations has quacks but they do not define the occupation for the most part.

Then they are being irrational - on both sides. Evidence should be given consideration as it deserves. The main disagreement seems to be on the weight one should give to what is apparently considered divinely vouchsafed inspirational knowledge.

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

yeah, I want the state to do this. 100% for sure. I think. Plus you need a little thing like a describing what god you are talking about.

Correct. It is so easy to call reality "God, secure an acceptance that such a "God" exists on that basis and then start to unpack all the baggage associated with the term.

[Cruithne]

I've been arguing since day 1 that you can be 100% certain. As certain as you can be certain about anything.

I've been arguing that the only reason people even have the argument at all is because 'god' notions are so ingrained in our culture.

If someone asked you; "What's the name of your child?" you wouldn't say "his name's John, but I'm not 100% certain".

Nobody applies this argument to anything else in life.


You can be 100% certain until such time as someone comes along and proves you wrong. Then you can change your mind. Simple!


Continuum, you have my vote, I'm with you.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Cruithne

You can be 100% certain until such time as someone comes along and proves you wrong. Then you can change your mind. Simple!

Except that in my experience, those who are 100% certain will never change their mind. After all, they are 100% certain. Those who are truly and literally 100% sure they are right need never reexamine their stance or pay attention to inconvenient truths.

That said, I agree with you at the practical level, just not the epistemological level. And I think epistemological humility is important. If one lacks it, that lack ends up permeating everything and tends to lead to bellicose flogging of pet ideas. Even when those ideas happen coincidentally to be correct, they lose whatever chance they have to be transmitted to others.

I live my everyday mundane existence as if I were 100% sure there were no deities whatsoever, because I see no reason to do otherwise. I don't however argue my position as if I were 100% sure. Because that would speak to knowledge claims I don't hold to. On the other hand, belief is binary; one doesn't half believe something, not really. And I 100% don't believe in any deities at all.

So once again it comes down to knowledge claims vs belief claims.

I think you are saying you 100% don't believe, and with that I heartily agree.

If you are saying you 100% know there are no gods, then to an extent you are playing into the theist trap of the "arrogant atheist who knows it all". And maybe you don't care. I'm not sure I do, or should. But from an argumentation standpoint I like to chip away at their stereotypes rather than feed them.