> Yeah that's right, I said it. A perfectly valid question.
There are The highest figure we have for "Nonreligious" is 20% of the
world population, or about 1.2 billion: "Over 20 percent of the
world's population does not claim any allegiance to a religion. Most
are agnostics. Others are atheists, who deny the existence of
God." (O'Brien, Joanne & Martin Palmer. The State of Religion Atlas.
Simon & Schuster: New York (1993). Pg 41.) But such a high figure is
difficult to support with current country-by-country statistics, and
perhaps reflects Communist-era official government statistics. Most
current estimates of the world number of secular/nonreligious/agnostic/
atheist/etc. are between 800 and 1 billion.
The above serves to exemplify the quantity of rational persons who
reject the religions of the world.
67 percent of the worlds population reject christianity.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
>
> You nuts go on and on how atheism represents a superior worldview.
Observer
All world views (model driven opinions) of actuality, are the produce
of fragmentary and insufficient data, misinterpreted human experience,
selective or less than accurate recall, a general reticence or
inability to apply critical thought, when choosing whether to invest
belief in propositions, and a failure to lend proper weight to
scientific method and the produce thereof.
These combined failures serve to produce overwhelming cognitive
bias , blinding the subject to what might otherwise produce a
reduction of their near infinite ignorance.
Observer
It is incumbent upon the peoples of the world to construct models of
reality conducive to testing,whereby the production of scientifically
verifiable substantiated data can and often does allow for accurate
prognostications and in turn to the manipulation of the physical
universe it's components, it's inhabitants, the interactions
therebetween, and the consequences thereof.
Such as the multiverse is the only verifiable set of actualities
presented to us.
To wit
I quote
The multiverse hypotheses in physics
Artistic impression of a level 2 multiverse.
Tegmark's classification
Cosmologist Max Tegmark has provided a taxonomy of universes beyond
the familiar observable universe. The levels according to Tegmark's
classification are arranged such that subsequent levels can be
understood to encompass and expand upon previous levels, and they are
briefly described below. [2][3]
Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon
A generic prediction of chaotic inflation is an infinite ergodic
universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing
all initial conditions.
Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of
Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical
constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of
matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However,
because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological
horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and
even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical
volume to ours should be about 1010115 meters away from us (a number
larger than a googolplex).[4][5] This estimate implies use of the
cosmological principle, wherein one assumes our Hubble volume is not
special or unique. By extension of the same reasoning, there would, in
fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the
universe.
Level II: Universes with different physical constants
"Bubble universes": every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to
Universe 6 are different bubbles; they have physical constants that
are different from our universe); our universe is just one of the
bubbles.
In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation
theory, the multiverse as a whole is stretching and will continue
doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form
distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. Such
bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses. Linde and Vanchurin
calculated the number of these universes to be on the scale of
101010000000.[6]
Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry
breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical
constants.[4]
This level also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe
theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory.
Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several
mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect
of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted
absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each
with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these
possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a
die is thrown that contains six sides and that the result corresponds
to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can
fall correspond to six different universes. (More correctly, in MWI
there is only a single universe but after the "split" into "many
worlds" these cannot in general interact.)[7]
Tegmark argues that a level III multiverse does not contain more
possibilities in the Hubble volume than a level I-II multiverse. In
effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a level III
multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some
Hubble volume in a level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that "The only
difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers
reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional
space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-
dimensional Hilbert space." Similarly, all level II bubble universes
with different physical constants can in effect be found as "worlds"
created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in
a level III multiverse.[4]
Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple
histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds
interpretation.
Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble
The Ultimate Ensemble hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level
considers equally real all universes that can be described by
different mathematical structures. This does not include different low-
energy physical laws not of our observable universe. Tegmark writes
that "abstract mathematics is so general that any Theory Of Everything
(TOE) that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague
human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a
TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words,
say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is
nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one
can generally find a formal system that it is a model of." He argues
this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be
described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore
brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be
say a Level V."[8]
Jürgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures"
is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations
describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs.
He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-
halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time,
although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a
halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations.[9][10][11] He also
explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly
computable universes.[12]
Cyclic theories
Main articles: Cyclic model and Oscillatory universe
In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining
cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).
M-theory
See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and
String theory landscape
A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within
the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory,
also known as Membrane Theory.[13] In M-theory our universe and others
are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26
dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the
observer);[14][15] each universe takes the form of a D-brane.[14][15]
Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of
their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via
gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.[16] This is
unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts
can operate at the same time.
Anthropic principle
Main article: Anthropic principle
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our
universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience
it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different
physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of
these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life
to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to
conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which
were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the
probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the
universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply
intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.
end quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Multiverse_hypotheses_in_physics
Observer
The uneducated presume the reallocation of eternally existent
resources to be the creation of those same eternally existent
resources.
The omniverse is capable of authoring all phenomena ever having
existed or to in the future exist, eliminating the need for creation
or a creator/maintainer .
From the very simple is manifest the most complex to assume that the
extreme complexity (this fictive god thing) came first is preposterous
in light of recent scientific discoveries.
Learn to learn, please.
Should you wish references to read , I will be happy to supply such.
> But it's probably the biggest lie that has ever been propagated.
Observer
A comment emitted from blind ignorance and cognitive bias of horrific
consequence.
>
> I can only suspect that they think if they keep spouting it - the BIG
> LIE - it'll eventually be believed. Like the wonderful little
> goosesteppers they are.
Observer
The village idiot relishes his mental infirmities , his/her ignorance
and decries all sound and useful education as sophistry.
Your model of the world is non productive of any practical
application as relates to the only set of actualities upon which we
are completely dependent for our very survival as a viable species.
Thus is extremely inferior to others which so do.
.
Were you a meaningfully educated man/woman this superstitious filth
would dissolve.
Such an education being inclusive of but not limited to an
understanding of critical thought the scientific method, and the
produce there-from extracted.
Please I beg you get a meaningful and utilitarian education.
As only the educated can help provide for the survival and well-being
of our species.
Poverty is the greatest of enemies with we must contend and ignorance
the most violence producing condition of all poverty
Please , please attempt to acquire a meaningful education and eschew
the superstitious filth of religious psychoses.
I wish you well but detest the psychotic , filth born of abject
ignorance, that has taken your mind and even our humanity from you.
Regards
Psychonomist.
.