# Calculating The Probability That God Exists

I came across a tweet today that said, “Either God exists or he doesn’t.  I’m happy with my 50%”  That seems true on its face, but there are multiple possibilities, and each time you add a possibility, the odds of any particular God existing get slimmer.

### How to Determine Chances for Existence

If all we have is “God” with no attributes, there is a 50% chance that this God exists.  As soon as we add an attribute though, the chances go lower.  If you have a God that created the universe for instance, you have a 50% chance that God created the universe and you have a 50% chance of God existing.  That means that you actually have a 25% chance.  If that God created man, suddenly it’s a 1/8 chance.  If that God created dogs, it goes to 1/16 and so on.  Let’s say that God created every atom in the universe.  That alone is roughly a 1/10^80 chance that there is a god that created every single atom in the universe.

One may think that creating every single atom in the universe should be the apex of the number of possibilities, but we have a countless number of other options, namely the position in the universe that all of those atoms were created.

Let’s show this in terms of a computer monitor.  If we have a computer monitor that is just monochrome, where the colors are only black or white, we can represent each position on the screen with an x and y position.  If our screen is 100 pixels by 100 pixels, that makes the chances of any single pixel being turned on 1/10000.  If you pick 2 pixels, you need to square that number, which means that the chances of you picking both of those pixels is 1 in 100000000.  3 pixels and we have to multiply that by 10000 again for a 1 in 1000000000000 chance.  4 pixels and we have a 1 in 10^16 chance.  When we extrapolate this out, the chances of having every pixel on the screen white are 1 in 10^40000.  That’s an insane number considering that the chances of you and I picking the same atom in the universe are roughly 1/10^80.

So, when you say that God is omnipotent, omniscient, all good, a creator, placed all the stars in the sky in the positions they are in, has a son named Jesus, etc., you are adding attributes that lower the possibility every single time.

### Possibility That God Doesn’t Exist

Now, even though there are multiple things that people claim God does, the chances still remain 50% that God doesn’t exist.  The reason is, claiming God doesn’t exist doesn’t rely on any proclamations of properties.  God either exists or he doesn’t.  My position is that he does not exist.  Nothing will change that possibility to lower than 50%.

Some might say, “Hey, you have the same odds against any particular thing happening that I have that it does.” and that is true, but I don’t assert that there is a God that lacks the properties you suggest God has.  I say there is no God whatsoever.

Imagine that I were to say there is no screen.  I am making no specific assertions about individual pixels, I am making an assertion about the entire screen.  There is a 50% chance that there is no screen where there is a 1/10^80000 chance of any specific picture being on the screen if it exists.  My chances are way better than yours.

### Conclusion

If believers want to keep the chances that their God is real up, they need to stop giving him attributes.  I’ve had believers try to use the Beyesian inference argument to tell me that God is the best explanation, but when considering the chances, I would have to argue that without evidence that there is a God, the chances don’t look very good.

Comments on this entry are closed.

• http://www.spiritualatheist.co.uk Spiritualatheist

Of course though if we assume that god is omnipotent then he is just as able to create an atom as all the atoms, thus bringing the odds back to 50/50. The believers argument doesn't need to allow for god to break down the world into things god did or didn't create. God created all of it ipso factor. I'm also quite sure they don't believe he gives a shit about probability either.

I think the evidence stacked against there being a god is a more effective way of lowering the odds of god's existence than counting all the things he made and adding the odd's together.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

Of course though if we assume that god is omnipotent then he is just as able to create an atom as all the atoms, thus bringing the odds back to 50/50

I'm not speaking about merely the ability, I'm speaking about the things God is supposed to have done as well as ability. If we are going to specify something, the things that thing does are attributes.

If I want to say that a human being exists, 'human being' is one attribute to the thing that exists. If I want to say a blond haired blue eyed being exists, those are 2 other attributes. If I say a blond haired, blue eyed human being that was born on December 12, 1995 and placed a marble in the middle of main street exists yesterday, those are more attributes.

So, the ability to create one atom is not the exact same as having created an atom, and creating one atom is not the same as creating two.

I'm also quite sure they don't believe he gives a shit about probability either.

Why would it matter what God gives a shit about?

I think the evidence stacked against there being a god is a more effective way of lowering the odds of god's existence than counting all the things he made and adding the odd's together.

That's fine if that's what you want to believe. The odds are so slim this way that it is so much more than statistically impossible it's not even funny.

Now, trying to calculate the odds of something existing really is questionable when there is no way to know that things could be different. I am making an assumption that God could have chosen all the things he is attributed to have done. If, on the other hand, a god exists but had no choice in what it does, the odds go back to 50%. If a god exists that has no choice in what it does though, there is no reason to call it god IMO.

• Patmospete

Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

• Solidworkscontracts

the odds of your god existing are very low… if there are 10,000 religions on earth… only one can be absolutely correct…. which leads one to believe that the other 9,999 were conceived by man……. which leads one to believe that the one that is seemingly correct…. is also most likely conceived by man.

• Solidworkscontracts

even more clearly…. if 20 religions exist….which we all know do…. only 1 could be absolutely correct… 19 are incorrect…. most likely the last follows suit and is incorrect as well.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

There are 36000 different flavors of Christianity alone, not to mention all the other religions and their branches. If Christianity is true, but only one particular denomination has the right answer, that means that you have a 0.0027% chance of picking the right denomination.

• Johnellis_12

I think it’s funny how that you logically came to a conclusion that favors the existence of God when compared to the atheist alternative of the earth’s existence.

However, if you choose not to take a stance on the creation/evolution of the earth, you are an agnostic and have a biased opinion in which your “logical conclusion” is based on a logical fallacy as defined by your own beliefs.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

I think you missed the whole point. The point I was making is that you can’t show the probability of the existence of something. If you accept the ability of being able to calculate the odds of something existing, all on its own, you would have to say that the creator of everything has to be the least likely thing to exist.

• Johnellis_12

I understand that, but you can’t make a logical fallacy, post it on a blog and expect people to believe it. In the same way that you come to the conclusion that evolution is the cause of the world’s beginning (by observing the world around you) I’ve come to realize that God created it (by observing the world around me). There is adequate rational to believe in a creator.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

First of all, it’s not a logical fallacy. I was showing the chances. The chances of a creator God existing are smaller than anything I can think of, merely because it has more properties.As for evolution being the cause of the world’s beginning, I have never said that. Evolution is a biological process, and has nothing to do with the beginning of anything. It says nothing about the beginning of the world or the beginning of the universe.Now, in order to come to the conclusion that God created everything by looking at the world around you, you have to have an idea of what things would look like if they weren’t created by God. What would something look like that isn’t created by God? Without an idea of that, saying that observing the world around you tells you that Goddidit holds no weight.

• A Christian

First of all the odds of God vs No God wouldn’t be 50/50 with the logic you are trying to use. You’re assuming that all explanations of God fit into single category of God. In reality many religions view the concept if God in radically different ways. There are around 10000 religions in the world. Using this logic wouldn’t that mean that there are 1000 religious explanations of the world and a few non-religious and a few agnostic explanation for the world? Yes it would meaning that based on a system without any evidence plugged in at all, the odds for atheism are about 1 in 1000 (Obviously these are general and not exact statistics).

You also cant say that qualities of God statistically reduce the likelihood that he exists without applying it to our universe. In a hypothetical scenario of the universe the odds of God existing would be 50/50 as stated above, but in the fine-tuned, life supporting universe we live in the evidence strongly points in the favor of a Creator. When saying these odds of God we should not focus on hypothetical scenarios but find evidence in the Universe we live in. Probabilities are often influenced by variables in a positive or a negative direction. For example, if the quality of an all-powerful (omnipotent) God fits how our universe is put together better than atheism can then the probability of God increases.

Just for the sake of the arguement lets look at everything needed to create a living cell from the the elements of the earth. First, the proper chemicals are needed to fuel the construction of amino acids (a type of protein that is the building block of a cell) are ammonia, methane, and hydrogen (these were the chemicals that Stanley Miller used in his highly controlled experiment to create amino acids). The problem is that these chemicals don’t react with each other when carbon dioxide and nitrogen are present. The atmosphere of the earth has always been primarily nitrogen, carbon dioxide, oxygen and water vapor. NASA studies have revealed that the atmosphere at the time life was theorized to have developed was primarily nitrogen and carbon dioxide. The actual ability to have a life forming reaction is basically statistically impossible with the composition of earth’s atmosphere. Then even if, impossibly, amino acids did develop they would have to join together in a complex sequence. Not only would this sequence be unlikely to occur, but other compounds react very readily with amino acids which would add variables making the foundation of a cell even more unlikely. Then even if the fundamental pieces of the cell came together in another nearly mathematically impossible event, the specialized parts of the cell would have to develop with full ability to function. Then, after this improbable development of cell parts DNA must be constructed out of only 4 different chemicals on a microscopic scale. This DNA, made of only 4 chemicals, has the ability to store more information than super-computers that have taken thousands of years for humans to develop. The odds of just one cell being created are so infinitesimally small that the odds of life ever being created on earth by chance are 1 in trillions of trillions of trillions, if not impossible.
However, if an all-powerful, all-knowing God exists then the existence of life isn’t just a ludicrous, unbelievable stroke of impossible luck, but a highly likely event orchestrated by a Creator.

Hypothetically the probability of God may be 50/50, but in the universe we live in the odds point very clearly to a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God that has a plan for us.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

You are incorrect. Religions almost always believe in a god. Atheism is not a religion anyway, it is a rejection of gods, and can be considered the opposite of religion.

In that sense, if we are to do the same thing, the chances are equal that magical weirdness happens as they are that it doesn’t. As an atheist, there is just a rejection of all woo claims. It is up to the woo believers to fight over which of their woo is the right woo. That puts things exactly back where they were, and you wasted a ton of typing just to be shown in 2 paragraphs that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

• A Thinker

Christian, I have some ideas i am just “dyin” to share with someone. Can we chat via email sometime?

• anonymous

There are an estimated 1-30 billion planets in our galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the universe (and these numbers are probably conservative).  We can round an appropriately conservative estimate to one billion billion planets that exist in our universe.  If you’d prefer to calculate your own probability, that’s fine, but for argument’s sake, consider the probability of all the developments and chemical processes you just mentioned to be something like one in a billion.  Sound fair?  Now look at our estimated number of planets.  Mathematically, at least a billion planets in this universe have experienced the process leading to the origins of life you just outlined, and Earth is one of them.

It’s the arrogance that irritates me, as it’s always derived from ignorance.  We’re not special in the large scale.  Nothing about our Earth alone suggests the work of a creator’s hand.  He/she/it may very well have created all of these billion planets (along with the rest of the cosmos), but you have to ask yourself what the chances are that this god cares about little old you.

• OnceAnAthiest

Sheer arrogance? His post is 100% correct, based on solid mathematical foundation. There is absolutely no chance that life could have arose from chaos and disorder by random chance. Stop being bias and just look at the facts. Even Anthony Flew, ‘the father of atheism’ admitted this. You cannot put God in a box and say, well what was the point of Him creating billions of galaxies where earth is all that really matters? How do you know what God’s plan is? Maybe God has a reason unknown to us yet why he created the universe the way he did…we are talking about the creator of the universe here. He is a lot smarter than you. I wish atheists would just look at the freakin evidence and stop being so willfully ignorant. Studies of the origin of the universe, the BBT if you will, have proven the universe had a finite beginning. (Background radiation and the fact that the universe is expanding faster and faster, which means it will never contract ) This completely throws out the multiverse theory so many atheists cling onto, which pure speculation in itself.

But how did everything as we know it just appear from nothing, by nothing? It’s scientifically impossible. It’s actually ridiculous that I even have to point that out. But yet, something did come into existence because we are here talking about it. The only explanation is a mind outside of our dimensions of space, time and matter caused it into existence. The universal constants (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) all were all part of the big bang and are non changing fundamental laws of our universe. How is it so that these constants, independent of each other, have just the right attributes, that when imposed on each other on such a astronomically sensitive scale, have allowed complex life such as you and I to perhaps evolve/exist to one day sit here and have an intelligent ‘self conscious’ discussion about it? Those universal constants and many other factors including the size of the earth, the size of the moon, the size of the sun, the distance between the earth, moon and sun, the composition of different elements all three bodies are made up of, the size of the earths crust, the amount of h20 on earth, etc etc etc, the tilt of the earth, are ALL factors that are imposed on each other, yet are balanced so delicatively that life was able to evolve/exist on our planet. Mathematicians actually calculated the odds of that happening by chance, and it turns out the result was undeniably IMPOSSIBLE.

We haven’t even begun to scratch the surface yet. Have a long hard look at DNA, and more specifically the code in it. There is absolutely NO CHANCE that information can come about by random chaos and disorder. Is a machine able to function without code? No. Who wrote the code? Did it write itself? No, an engineer wrote it.

I will end off by saying that atheists refuse to believe for two reasons. I have watched many debates between christian and atheist proponents and every time without fail the foundation of the atheists argument rests on the ‘problem of evil’ 1.) They cannot find a plausible reason based on their own FINITE human understanding as to why God would allow evil and suffering to exist on earth. This is something I struggled with for years, but I realized that in light of all the above scientific evidence, we are dealing with a SUPER, POWERFUL being of IMMENSE INTELLIGENCE and sovereignty. There is no way that we could even begin to comprehend how God thinks. A human mind which only used 2% of its brain VS the creator of the freakin universe. It is outright FOOLISH to even question God when you can at least grasp this concept.

The second reason is that if God exists, people cannot do as they please all the time. There are guidelines He has set, ironically those which most atheists like to borrow and use when it suits them. Another good argument for God’s existence is objective morality. Look it up. But atheists do not want to change their lifestyle. I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS THERE TOO ONCE. Pride and arrogance gets in the way, it blinds people from the truth.

Besides all that philosophical stuff, if people actually sit down and do proper un-bias research, they will find the evidence in our universe points to God. I am one of the most cynical people on this earth, but I went where the evidence led me.

• justthinking

what is the alternative to believing in a god? no god and chance. but the pervasive nature of design in this world and also in humans. evolution by chance cannot have a mind that creates an orderly world, just as a pile of a jumbo jets parts cannot get assembled when a tornado goes through it by chance.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

I’d like to have a word with whoever first started that stupid jumbo jet thing. It’s so mind numbingly ignorant of what evolution is, I can’t even get started. That’s mostly because I have never met anyone that either knew or wanted to know the first thing about what evolution is after they started a conversation that way.

Evolution isn’t an accident. When you can explain why I can say that, whether or not you agree, come back and we can get you to a point where you will never make that kind of a mindless statement again.

• fischer1

The odds have been calculated by the mathematicians – the odds that God exists is 1 in 4.  That may sound low but the odds that evolution occurred has been calculated at 1 to 10 (to the 40th power).   Mathematics doesn’t really favor evolution over God.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

If you want to say things like that, show who is saying it, and where I can see it.

I certainly hope you don’t expect me to eat that bullshit sandwich.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

If you want to say things like that, show who is saying it, and where I can see it.

I certainly hope you don’t expect me to eat that bullshit sandwich.

• notwired

“The odds as calculated by mathematicians”  ????? I am a mathematician amongst other things and you are talking out of your ass. In fact, you just made this up.

• Anonymous

Even as a disbeliever in an omnipotent god, I don’t think you should be trying to educate people on Bayesian probability when your understanding of factorials and combinatorics is so tenuous. The probability of selecting 2 out of 10000 pixels isn’t 1/10000^2. In reality, it would be C(10000,2), or 49,995,000, inasmuch as C(10000,2)=(10000!)/((10000-2)!2!). The reason is fairly simple: when you choose 2 pixels out of a set of 10000, it wouldn’t be possible to choose the same one twice (you would’ve just chosen 1 pixel twice). In case you don’t understand how combinations work: (10000-2)! removes the outcomes of pixels that are left after 2 have “fit,” so to speak, into those two possible selections, while the 2! removes redundant outcomes for results differing only in order by permutation. For someone who’s never studied or has forgotten his or her elementary algebra, I would’ve easily let it slide, but you apparently suggested that you somehow understood how Bayes’ theorem works. I’m not confident you even understand what the purpose of the theorem is (considering the lack of understanding in simple combinations). Don’t write an article against a mathematical theorem (or its erroneous use by monotheists, for that matter) when you clearly have no idea how it’s used.

• Anonymous

Even as a disbeliever in an omnipotent god, I don’t think you should be trying to educate people on Bayesian probability when your understanding of factorials and combinatorics is so tenuous. The probability of selecting 2 out of 10000 pixels isn’t 1/10000^2. In reality, it would be C(10000,2), or 49,995,000, inasmuch as C(10000,2)=(10000!)/((10000-2)!2!). The reason is fairly simple: when you choose 2 pixels out of a set of 10000, it wouldn’t be possible to choose the same one twice (you would’ve just chosen 1 pixel twice). In case you don’t understand how combinations work: (10000-2)! removes the outcomes of pixels that are left after 2 have “fit,” so to speak, into those two possible selections, while the 2! removes redundant outcomes for results differing only in order by permutation. For someone who’s never studied or has forgotten his or her elementary algebra, I would’ve easily let it slide, but you apparently suggested that you somehow understood how Bayes’ theorem works. I’m not confident you even understand what the purpose of the theorem is (considering the lack of understanding in simple combinations). Don’t write an article against a mathematical theorem (or its erroneous use by monotheists, for that matter) when you clearly have no idea how it’s used.

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

I appreciate you pointing this out.  I’m sure there are tons of things on this blog that have errors.  I’ve fixed a few that I have noticed, and have fixed a couple that other people have pointed out.  When I get some time, I will fix this one.

I’m not sure what they are teaching in elementary algebra now, but I certainly never was introduced to these types of probabilities there.  In fact, the level of probability I remember studying in high school was limited to what the chances are of any particular number being rolled with two dice.  It wasn’t until I took a statistics class in college last semester (17 years after high school) that I learned to understand this stuff better.
Anyway, I never said how well versed I was in this stuff.  Truthfully, I felt literally lost going back to college and taking calculus.  It was nothing like I remembered high school calculus being, and I felt like an idiot almost every time the instructor said, “You should remember this from high school algebra, or 1010.”  I tested high enough to go straight to calculus, but I would be willing to bet that half of the things he said that about were never taught to me before.

Anyway, thanks again for pointing this out.

• Mike

Of course God doesn’t exist, the universe with all it’s laws and complexity, and nature with all its complexity just pop’d into existence with the big bang, which is a theory that doesn’t explain anything. How much energy was present 13 billion years ago to create an ever expanding universe? What caused this sudden expansion…using science explain? what did this “singularity” expand into? Atheists like to think they are so smart…when they can’t even see how ridiculous their stance is…..that all this just happen by chance…keep telling yourselves that, makes you look like the fools that you are

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons

Who says the universe has a beginning? Who says that now started at one point and then starts at another? I think the questions you have may be as much nonsense as asking what’s north of the north pole.

• OnceAnAtheist

Read my earlier post. The universe had a definite beginning and has never always existed. This is actually common knowledge that every cosmologist/scientists is well aware of.

• Peter

lets try to prove the 1st theory first as a singularity. i.e does God exist? we do not go into the micro thing and we just measure that if he does or dosent that is 50 50 so there we go. no complications

• Peter

also when you say that God does not exist and then you say that God has not created the universe, your chances are again 25% and then it goes lower and so on. God cannot be proven or dis proven with science.

• Faith

Just stumbled upon this and would like to say that you can tell me as much as you want about how god doesnt exist but what it comes down to is faith in something better than yourself. On a more relevant note the chances of a god is still 50/50 what youre saying is the chances of a christian god is unlikely.

But the odds of God not existing aren’t 50% either. You would then have to factor every single atom in to the non god thought, because every single atom got there, perfectly, with no driving force whatsoever to put them where they are. That man came into being perfectly, without help, that a dog came into being perfectly, without help, that we can’t live without plants and they without us, without help. It just happening has many more variables than just 1 in 2. Also to argue another post I saw, by it’s own arguments, I think atheism is a religion, by it’s own definition. Atheists claim to hate religion because they say that people of a religion are close minded, and think only their God is real, and anyone who disagrees are morons. Yet atheists think there is no God, there is no other explanation, and than anyone who disagrees with them are morons. As hypocritical as the religion they claim to hate, IMO

a little redundant to start my second thought, but you get my point

• Petr Stuchlý

I don’t understand how people can be so amazed that we live in a place in which we can live. that’s in no way extraordinary in my opinion. Imagine if we lived in a place in which we couldn’t live – that would be amazing!

What makes you think any species is “perfect?” I would disagree there, any perfection you see is an illusion, but I have a feeling your and mine definition of perfection might differ, I’ll wait for your feedback, if you decide to respond to this awfully delayed reply.

What makes you think that the atoms themselves or this particular arrangement of atoms in general is “perfect?” – completely ignoring the fact that the universe is not static and the arrangement of atoms constantly changes – what makes you think that any other arrangement of atoms would be any less “perfect” than the one we find ourselves in?

if, for example, our universe were the same, except the andromeda galaxy didn’t exist, it would have absolutely no negative effect on us, it could potentially be a preferable scenario, because there would be no andromeda galaxy for the milky way to collide with. (and yes, the andromeda galaxy is moving in our direction)

there could be billions and billions of scenarios which would allow an intelligent life of our level to exist somewhere in each of these universes.

I see no reason to think the universe was put here for us, that seems quite arrogant considering how unimportant we are in the grand scheme of things. there is, from my perspective, no evidence that would suggest we are more than an unintended byproduct of the universe.

My objection to the fine-tuning argument is that based on what we know, life was “fine-tuned” to the universe, not the other way around – in both scenarios, stars and planets were created before life, so it is at least possible in the theistic view that god chose to fine-tune life to the universe and not the other way around. we have no way of knowing, but if I am to aknowledge god as a possibility in general, then you must aknowledge this as a possibility as well, you have no way of knowing god’s plan.

To give a better example of what I have a problem with – imagine a puddle of water with human intelligence. was the hollow fine-tuned for this specific puddle? or is the shape of the puddle determined by the hollow? liquids are known to “fine-tune” their shape according to the container, same goes for life and environment. some containers are too small to hold big ammounts of liquid, some environments are hostile for complex life or don’t allow any life to exist at all.

My other objection would be that given the size of the universe, the percentage of it that actually supports life is vanishingly small, it would be like claiming that a harddisc the size of the USA capable of holding one bit of information was fine-tuned to store information, there is nothing “fine” about this “tuning” at all.

even if there is a god, there is no reason to think he wanted to make us speciffically. When your parents decided to have a child, they decided to have a child, not knowing if you are going to be a girl or boy, what you are going to look like, what your personality traits are going to be…

look at it this way. you have a bowl of salt, you pour it all on a plate. you intended to make a “hill” of salt on the plate, but did you really intend for every grain of salt to fall in the specific place which they happenned to fall in? you can repeat this 100 times and you are going to get a different result each time, yet all of these results are going to be satisfactory in your perspective, there is no salt “hill” inherently better than any other.

So I would argue that even if god intended to spill a bowl of salt, so to speak, there is no reason to think he would necessarily prefer any particular result in favor of all other possible outcomes – there is no reason to think we are intentional creations even if god indeed exists.

Yes, I am an atheist and i don’t hate religion or god, or religious people. I agree and disagree with atheists and believers alike on various issues, and I am perfectly happy to suppose the existence of god for the sake of argument, and I am perfectly happy to admit I can’t know for a fact that “a god” (undefined, ambiguous, hidden, unrevealed one) exists.

Have some atheists become hypocrites? Yes, hypocricy is definitely not a unique trait of religious people, i give you a point there. The only thing I can do is to try not to be a hypocrite myself. I always say to look at one’s self before criticising someone else.

I would like to point out that there is nothing inherent to atheism which would qualify it as a religion, the apparent “religiosity” of atheists is what they themselves added to atheism.

atheism is not a belief, nor is it a belief system, or, dare i say it, an unbelief system. it is simply an answer to one question – “do you believe in god?” – “no.” nothing more is required to make one an atheist.
If religions were TV channels, “off” would be atheism.
If people who don’t watch TV hated people who do so, it would not be the turning of the tv “off” itself what would be the problem.
to continue with the analogy, I think the problem is that in too many places of the world, people are expected to watch tv mandatorily or even if it isn’t mandatory, so many people watch tv that people who openly state that they don’t are so few in numbers that they look like aliens to the majority and are looked down upon because of that. That’s what I think is the actual problem.

I am not against preaching, if you feel about something strongly, talk about it, it’s the freedom of speech. Censorship never solved anything, I don’t want to censor anybody, I don’t want to shut anyone up.

Yes, I enjoy talking about god with religious people, because i want to understand their perspective, I have strong feelings about the subject and I enjoy the discussion. discussion between parties that agree is pointless, if there is an agreement on an issue, there is no reason to keep bringing that issue up, the only fruitful discussions are between people who disagree with each other if they both have the decency not to jump at each other’s throats.
I think that any civil discussion is beneficial and both parties can take something from it, whether one party changes the other partie’s mind or not. Whatever our conclusions are, the simple fact that we entertained each other’s thoughts on the subject is good.

I know this is an old comment, I am just surfing now, reading, I hope you don’t mind

Even though I have disagreed with you on things, I hope I have disagreed respectfully.

Peace~

• http://godlessons.com Godlessons