Atheists what is your proof?

[science man]

Atheists of sciforums I've been wanting to do this for a long time so please let me. I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is? Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked. At the same time you cannot prove the opposite. Really, what's the harm in believing in Him? By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists? If not, what made you or your parents convert? Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be? (and actually if you think about it doesn't even explain how we came to be, only how we evolved, therefore by definition creation backtracks further than evolution) e.g. I believe creation happened first and then evolution got us to looking like we do now.

 

[superstring01]

I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is?

You will find none. Nor will you find a sane atheist who can say, 100% for sure, that there is no god. Only that positive assertions require positive proof (i.e. "I'm a Christian. There is a god."). As no such proof exists, we believe that there is no god. If such proof is provided, then things may change. Even the most die-hard atheist, like Dawkins (in his book "The God Delusion") assert this quite openly.

True atheism is rooted in science. An absence of proof is merely the absence of proof. But such an absence does not justify making up stories and selling them as such proof (religion), or believing in such stories just because they are really-really old and have a cultural place in our lives.

~String

 

[phlogistician]

Really, what's the harm in believing in Him?

Oh boy, fallacy upon fallacy.

Atheism is NOT the viewpoint that God does not exist. It's merely a lack of belief that any do.

You ask what made us 'convert'. That's a religious term being applied out of context; when you are a child, you aren't 'converted' from belief in the Tooth Fairy, or Father Xmas, so similarly, we are not 'converted' into atheists.

Myself, I never believed. We were taught about such things at school, and it just never struck me as being feasible. I always had questions, there were always inconsistencies in the answers, things that made no sense, that didn't fit, that begged more questions, or answers that were unsatisfactory, or needed excusing.

You ask 'what is the harm in believing in Him'. Which 'Him'? Which doctrine? That's called 'Pascal's wager' and is a fallacious viewpoint.

You then convolve evolution into cosmology. You call yourself 'Science Man' but fail to see the distinction? Shocking. Evolution is under no doubt. Cosmology is fairly solid. Get this, these things are true it's just that theists are trying to say God drives them. Science simply does not have missing parts of the equations that God needs to fill.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Atheists of sciforums I've been wanting to do this for a long time so please let me. I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is? Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked. At the same time you cannot prove the opposite. Really, what's the harm in believing in Him? By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists? If not, what made you or your parents convert? Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be? (and actually if you think about it doesn't even explain how we came to be, only how we evolved, therefore by definition creation backtracks further than evolution) e.g. I believe creation happened first and then evolution got us to looking like we do now.

Null hypothesis.

God exists and does stuff.

Data gathering: no acts of God found.

Statistical analysis.

Null hypothesis rejected.

God does not exist with probability 0.00000000000000000000000000000001

 

[Jan Ardena]

God either exists, or he doesn't.
Either you believe he exsits or he doesn't.

If the evidence exists, then it always has existed.
This could explain why many people believe.

If God doesn't exist, then there is no evidence.
This could explain why a few (by comparisson) don't believe.

Whether God exists or not, and the evidence is here or not,
we make a decision based on whether or not we believe.

So atheism is nothing more than not believing in God
And theism is nothing more than believing in God.

To say there is no evidence, is of no more value than
saying everything is evidence, as neither party actually
knows everything.

jan.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Not exactly. You see the problem is that for science to disprove God you would have to exactly define god and divine action.

Of course, religious people will not commit to a definition. God is whatever they please it is, and they change their interpretation of God constantly in order to fit with their world.

It would be rather easy to disprove god when someone would define a divine act. Then we would just measure those. Notice they don't exist, or do. Do some statistical calculations to get a probability of god's existence.

So go ahead. if you want science to prove the existence of god, define god and divine actions in accuracy without ambiguity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Mr MacGillivray,

Not exactly. You see the problem is that for science to disprove God you would have to exactly define god and divine action.

Not hard. Simply look at any scripture where God is defined, then look at the claims of God i.e creating the universe, world, people, etc..
If it can be shown that these aren't the creation of God, then you have a case.

Of course, religious people will not commit to a definition. God is whatever they please it is, and they change their interpretation of God constantly in order to fit with their world.

The scriptures don't change, which is why that should be your first port of call.

It would be rather easy to disprove god when someone would define a divine act. Then we would just measure those. Notice they don't exist, or do. Do some statistical calculations to get a probability of god's existence.

The divine act is the origin of everything via his will.
Things that occur in this world may not necessarily be a divine act.
So the best claim to go for would be the one where a natural explanation
could/does not occurr. The universe, and consciousness.

If you are waiting for confirmation of evidence that consciousness is a natural element. Then you have already decided not to believe in God, which
is why you are an atheist.

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Whether God exists or not, and the evidence is here or not,
we make a decision based on whether or not we believe.

That's your problem, right there, Jan.

I believe in things based upon the evidence. I don't reject evidence because of beliefs.

But of course you see it your way, because you have the flawed mindset of a theist.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Mr MacGillivray,



Not hard. Simply look at any scripture where God is defined, then look at the claims of God i.e creating the universe, world, people, etc..
If it can be shown that these aren't the creation of God, then you have a case.

That is already proven to be false.

so end thread.

 

[Kennyc]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. The converse is not true.

No proof is required to show something doesn't exist.

Proof is required if something is claimed to exist.

(no the bible is not proof or even evidence)

 

[answers]

Null hypothesis.

God exists and does stuff.

Data gathering: no acts of God found.

Statistical analysis.

Null hypothesis rejected.

God does not exist with probability 0.00000000000000000000000000000001

That confused me. Null hypothesis should be called the alternative hypothesis here.

At least that's the way I've been taught stats the last 3 years at uni?

As for the question by the OP. It's stupid.

It's like asking "all you people who don't believe in talking chairs, where's your proof?"

Um... there's no fucking talking chairs.

Done.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is?

It is only my belief that there is no God just as it those who believe that there is, they have only their belief to support them as well. Beliefs are not facts and should never be considered facts unless we believe in a concrete thing that we can see, touch, smell or other forms of concrete things that make it real. Buddha was a real man, there those that believe in that religion do have facts to back them up as to their way of believing in someone that was actually alive once and have his own writings to prove it. It is still a belief however but does hold more credibility than many others. You either believe in what he said or you don't, that's your freedom to do so. Everyone has the right to believe in God or not, and both are correct because that's what gets them by in life. Just don't push your religion onto others and force your views onto others because others have a right to their own views just like you do.

 

[gmilam]

Not hard. Simply look at any scripture where God is defined, then look at the claims of God i.e creating the universe, world, people, etc..
If it can be shown that these aren't the creation of God, then you have a case.

Does anyone else find it odd that Christians think they have a monopoly on the word "god"? Are we discussing "god" as a concept or the anthropomorphic "Jehovah/Allah/YHWH"?

Once again it brings up the question of "If there is but one god, and I don't believe in your concept of god... am I an atheist?"

 

[phlogistician]

Once again it brings up the question of "If there is but one god, and I don't believe in your concept of god... am I an atheist?"

Indeed it does, and of course, monotheists disbelieve in the pantheon of other deities for the same reason atheists don't believe in theirs. This makes monotheists uncomfortable, effectively holding atheist, and theist opinions at the same time.

 

[Trooper]

Proof that God does not exist? No problem…:mufc:

Hold on. I know I have it here somewhere. It’s filed alphabetically.

Nope, nope...That’s for genies.
Crap...That one is for ghosts.
Shit...Gnomes.
Hold on...I’m almost there. Goblins.

Here we are… Gods.

Okay, which one?

Spoiler

God is imaginary

 

[spidergoat]

The idea of God as a scientific hypothesis fails on many levels. It's meant to explain various complex events, the existence of a universe, the existence of life, the existence of morality in society, the existence of intelligent life... However, it isn't based on any observation. Why would anyone think there is a God in the first place? This is due to a book that captures the traditions of a certain monotheistic Middle Eastern tribes. This mythology became popular when there were no other alternative explanations. But, we have plausible naturalistic explanations now. The universe looks as it should if it came from nothing. Quantum mechanics shows that events can be uncaused. The Big Bang did not need, nor does it support any kind of direction. Evolution explains the origin of species, mankind, and many of our innate behaviors, and there are plausible naturalistic explanations for the origin of life. Why should a naturalistic explanation supersede a supernatural one? Because nothing supernatural has ever been shown to exist.

Furthermore, it's logical that a loving God that created mankind as his signature creation would guide us through representatives, but those holy people describe attributes for which there is no supporting evidence. Prayer doesn't work, religious people aren't more moral, there is no reliable evidence for miracles, there is no evidence for an afterlife, there is no evidence for non-physical reality at the macro scale. Based on this, it's logical to reject theism as an hypothesis.

It's true there could be other concepts of God that do not have such limitations, but neither would another kind of God that takes no interest in human events and has no interaction with the physical world be worthy of worship or belief. Deism is practically atheism anyway.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That is already proven to be false.

so end thread.

How so?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Does anyone else find it odd that Christians think they have a monopoly on the word "god"? Are we discussing "god" as a concept or the anthropomorphic "Jehovah/Allah/YHWH"?

Once again it brings up the question of "If there is but one god, and I don't believe in your concept of god... am I an atheist?"

Firstly, what makes you think I'm a christian?

Secondly, which scripture do you know that does not define attributes and characteristics of God?

And thirdly, please show where these definition contradict each other?

thanky you.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Kennyc,

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

You're claiming there is no evidence for Gods' existence?
I think the burdon of proof is on you.


You first have to give some explanation of what you think would
constitute evidence of God?
Then please tell us why you chose that particular notion of evidence?

No proof is required to show something doesn't exist.

You say the burdon of proof lies with those making a claim.
By stateing there is no evidenece, then concluding God most probably, or does not exist, you have made a claim.

Proof is required if something is claimed to exist.

Proof is required, if necessary, when a claim is made.

[

(no the bible is not proof or even evidence)

The bible goes some way to define God.
So while it is not evidence, at least we have a little understanding of God.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

That's your problem, right there, Jan.

I believe in things based upon the evidence. I don't reject evidence because of beliefs.

But of course you see it your way, because you have the flawed mindset of a theist.

If you have no evidence that God does not exist, your belief
is NOT based on evidence.

jan.