+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/22/2018 11:47 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  2.348 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/04/2008 09:44 AM ID: 74524 Permalink   

Does God Exist? It's 4-1 That He Does


Following a resurgence in the debate over whether God exists or not, bookmaker Paddy Power has slashed the odds that he does from 33-1 to 4-1. The recent atheist "there's probably no God" advertising campaign has helped to re-ignite the subject.

Bets may have to be paid if the Large Hadron Collider finds the elusive "God particle", although after its shutdown the odds shifted dramatically from 20-1 to 33-1. The bookies advise any doubters to "hedge their bets for now, just in case."

This line of thought follows French philosopher Blaise Pascal who said that, where God's existence is unprovable, it is sensible to be a believer, since in that way you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

    WebReporter: Flashby Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Believe 'just because'?  
Hmmm... no.

I prefer to worship other vainglorious ideas, thanks. Everyone else can keep their petty gods and mythology to themselves, too.
  by: theironboard     11/04/2008 11:48 AM     
  4-1 odds?  
I'll give you people million to one odds, seriously. You show up with a thousand dollars or more, I will give you 1,000,000-1 odds on that.

Note: In the impossible chance I lose, I'm paying in Zimbabwe dollars
  by: JBish   11/04/2008 12:01 PM     
I'd lay that $1000 bet but I don't think Zimbabwe has a note that small any more.
  by: ixuzus     11/04/2008 01:02 PM     

even if this particle exists it means nothing...

there is no such thing as a "god particle"... IT DOES NOT EXIST...

what they are referring to is a hypothetical Standard partical known as Higgs Boson, which is super-massive set of particles (W-, W+ and Z), which are thought to give mass to other relatively other massless standard particles (the W and Z Bosons would weigh more than an atom of iron, and yet and yet only be particles themselves). furthermore these particles and their potential discovery have nothing to do with "god" other than what "god"-wads attach to it to vainly attempt to prove their mythology... they mediate weak nuclear forces... not the existence of a mythologic being.
  by: HAVOC666     11/04/2008 01:33 PM     
  As the  
Great God/Philosopher Bacchus once said: "I believe I'll have another beer."
I believe we should put all women on a pedistal. Just high up enough so we can see up their skirts.
  by: Allanthar     11/04/2008 02:39 PM     
Dude! It's just a nickname. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Most of those physicists are probably atheists to start with.
  by: VermiciousG     11/04/2008 03:06 PM     
  by: steve2045     11/04/2008 05:27 PM     
  I Disagree With Pascal  
To spend your life in denial of empirical evidence and subservience to the religious hierarchy and dogma is not "everything to gain and nothing to lose".

The price of belief based systems are sometimes very harsh. I am not surprised that "sacrifice" in some form is a common tenet. One faith or another is responsible for some of the worst human atrocities in human history.How many people have suffered and died in the name of a god?
  by: ichi     11/04/2008 06:04 PM     
  Allanthar, You Pig  
What are you drinking?
The next one is on me.
  by: ichi     11/04/2008 06:07 PM     
  34,000-1 odds  
There are over 34,000 distinct religions around the world. Only one can be right, or they can all be wrong.
  by: Mr. Wright     11/04/2008 06:17 PM     
Atheistic, Theistic, & Nihilism have been trying to prove their point forever now & I find that its all in your head. You create your world on the bases of free will consciously or subconsciously, & the proof is in the pudding, or the proof of the pudding is the eating. Its always your choice weather your aware of it or not.
  by: skittlesloli   11/04/2008 07:37 PM     
That's me actually >.<

Not skittles.
  by: Vhan     11/04/2008 07:39 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
Or they all could be right. Take Hinduism for example, it encompass all, even atheists lol.
  by: Vhan     11/04/2008 07:41 PM     
forgive me for saying so, but your explanation of the Higgs Boson is somewhat wikipedia. Though you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm curious, what was your field of study?
  by: zatonado001     11/04/2008 08:17 PM     
The right attitude.
  by: Vhan     11/04/2008 08:30 PM     
Exactly, it neither proves or disproves the theory of God.
  by: Vhan     11/04/2008 08:39 PM     
  If real  
God is a giant douche... or a turd sandwich. One of the two.
  by: Trevelyan   11/04/2008 08:44 PM     
believe or dont i dont care but i am sure the 6hings needed to make a us just didnt appearout of thin air
  by: groomsy     11/04/2008 09:39 PM     
stupid typos
  by: groomsy     11/04/2008 09:39 PM     
"There are over 34,000 distinct religions around the world. Only one can be right, or they can all be wrong."

So either 33,999 religions are wrong, or 34,000 religions are wrong.

So a religion chosen at random has at best a 0.003% chance of being right.

If I wasn't already an atheist, I think that would be enough to swing me...
  by: p_g_chris   11/04/2008 11:42 PM     
  Odd Odds  
That argument of Pascal's really has no logical merit.

The pseudo-truth of the argument remains intact if you substitute Zeus or any ANY god at all. You could use Satan with equal truth.

Pascal's argument translates to: You better believe out of fear - that alone justifies belief.

People believe it because they are living in fear of the unknown and in ignorance. Both too powerful for the weak mind to break free.

I refuse to live in terror of a bronze age tribal god or his psychotic followers whose beliefs outweigh their humanity and whose history invalidates their worth.

If religion were an animal, fear and ignorance would be the skeleton that holds it together.

When we look at a primitive savage, Christians don't take their religions very seriously. This is exactly the same reason intelligent people see no value in their religion either. They see it for what it really is in exactly the same way and refuse to believe accordingly. Common sense. The most uncommon sense of all.

Allah and Jehovah are NOT the same god under different names, and I don't want to make an error and choose the "wrong" religion with so much at stake, so simply give me a reliable test to determine which religion is the REAL one out of them all, and I'll consider.

If terrifying fear of a murderous deity of an ancient, bronze age, nomadic tribal culture destroying us is the best argument in favour of religion, then it proves my long standing point.

Oh, to be free, so blissfully free, of the ravages of intelligence. There is no greater joy!

A religious person is happier than an atheist for the same reason a drunken man is happier than a sober one.


After all is said and done, the odds of god cannot be calculated!
  by: DeepSand   11/04/2008 11:57 PM     
  @Mr. Wright  
I believe you forgot a possibility.

All 34000 are correct.
  by: zatonado001     11/05/2008 12:06 AM     
"So a religion chosen at random has at best a 0.003% chance of being right.

If I wasn't already an atheist, I think that would be enough to swing me..."

actually it would be half that as "no "god"" would be a 50/50 variable (as its either a true or false in nature there no room for variation) rather than another 1 in 34000 which is just a variance of the same thing in all 34000+ instances.


"forgive me for saying so, but your explanation of the Higgs Boson is somewhat wikipedia. Though you seem to know what you are talking about. I'm curious, what was your field of study?"

the explaination is my interpretation of wiki's explaination of the higgs boson model which is what some people have renamed the "god particle" in a vain attempt to link the likely existence of a theoretical particle to the unlikely existence of a mythological being due to the fact that the higgs boson model is supposed to be one way to account for known mass, on a broader scale the theory is call the higgs field which is an alternative theory to dark matter; which thought to account for about 85-90% of the universe. though if you ask me the higgs boson/higgs field is just another name for dark matter.. there is already gravitational evidence of dark matter, just as on the particle level there is evidence of weak nuclear force in the yet unproven higgs boson particles.

and nope i have no "advanced" fields of study, but a broad range of interests in matters of science, politics and economics.
  by: HAVOC666     11/05/2008 12:21 AM     
Right on man. Well explained. I have a B.S. in Astrophysics and I don't think I could have done better without busting out some text books. Your knowledge of particle physics is impressive.

  by: zatonado001     11/05/2008 01:46 AM     
Like you I'm not sure how many have suffered and died in the name of (any) god. But I would bet it's a lot higher than the 80% this study claims still believe.

  by: bbeljefe     11/05/2008 02:44 AM     
Except you're wrong about "no god" being 50/50. Do you think "unicorns exist" has a 50% chance of being true?
  by: p_g_chris   11/05/2008 05:04 AM     
  "recent atheist "there's probably no God" ad..."  
um isnt that more of an agnostic ad, i thought atheist is there is no god; agnostic is there is more than likely no god
  by: invaderalexxx   11/05/2008 09:58 AM     
  You can be both  
An atheist is somebody who doesn't *believe* in a god.
An agnostic is somebody who believes you can't know for sure either way.

I'm an atheist-agnostic. I don't believe in a god, but I'll concede I can't know there isn't one. It's just overwhelmingly unlikely.

I'm an atheist-agnostic about unicorns too. And Santa Claus.

An atheist who says "there's definitely no god" is as bad as a believer who tells you there definitely is.
  by: p_g_chris   11/05/2008 09:10 PM     
"Except you're wrong about "no god" being 50/50. Do you think "unicorns exist" has a 50% chance of being true?"

partially true... 50/50 is a best case scenerio that can be applied to "god"... much like a unicorn they either do or they dont and with no proof either way the odds are basically 50/50 at best; true or false.

although whenever you have somthing with no proof supporting it 50/50 is the best odds it can ever possibly have. and in matter of reality (what is real) 50/50 is horrible odds, as anything that exists has 100% odds of actually existing, simply because it already does exist.

i believe if there was a "god" and this "god" created everything and was all powerful, it would also be all-evident (real; reality) and since its quite oviously not, it doesn't.

i don't believe in ghosts, goblins or unicorns for the same reason... they don't exist within the confines of reality.
  by: HAVOC666     11/05/2008 09:37 PM     
First we need to stop saying "proof". Proof only exists in Maths. We're talking about "evidence".

But yes, if there's NO evidence either way, 50/50 is fair.

But we can do much better than 50/50 on the god question (or any other supernatural question), because the overwhelming *lack* of evidence for a deity in the face of countless tests.

Any attempt to detect a deity has failed. Any scientific attempt to discern a non-random pattern in prayer, or in miracles, has failed. Any attempt to explain natural phenomena does not require a god.

If this was physics, and you replaced "god" with, say "epsilon-xi particles", you'd get "we've never detected epsilon-xi particles, we've never detected a non-random pattern when we think they should be there, and we don't need them to explain anything."

The scientific response would be to throw out the theory as complete rubbish. It would be stupid to continue believing they exist if rational thought was really your driver.
  by: p_g_chris   11/05/2008 11:25 PM     
  But as Carl Sagan says  
A person's belief in a god is not based in logical thought, but in a deep-seated need to believe.

I'm happy when believers accept that, and I leave them alone (as much as I think a godless universe is more beautiful). It just makes me angry to see science and logic misused.
  by: p_g_chris   11/05/2008 11:28 PM     
I believe I was born for a reason, the earth was not created by coincidence, and the soul is the proof of that.

Hence I believe in God :P yay
  by: trynix   11/06/2008 10:28 AM     
Unfortunately you
a) have no reason to think like that
b) can't use "the soul" as proof of anything, because there's no evidence for its existence.

And therefore your statements cannot be taken seriously.
  by: p_g_chris   11/06/2008 08:45 PM     
  Proof is irrelevant,  
for most.

That's why they call it faith.

  by: zatonado001     11/07/2008 06:37 PM     
but I wish they would stop claiming that any of their bullshit was "evidence for", or "proved" anything.

It's indistinguishable from fairy tales. Or something I just made up myself.
  by: p_g_chris   11/08/2008 06:49 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: