I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 13599

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Obviously, you cannot make such a statement with 100% certainty.

Are you in doubt as to whether or not there is a stampeding herd of thousands of wildebeests in your ass looking for the ark of the covenant, or at least a Starbucks for a nice mocha latte?

Are you not 100% certain of whether or not that is happening right now? And if you have doubts, don't you reckon that even a mediocre proctologist could clear the matter up for you?

Yes, Steve. People can be 100% certain of some things, even without being religious.

Using the varieties of positions of what god is...

Yes, positive.


However, I must note pantheism due to this not actually fitting in with the rest.

What does pantheism do?

It utilizes our incessant need to label things due to the way we structure thoughts.

Pantheism is intellectually dishonest and still fuels support to the god delusion, so it needs to be trashed with he rest.

So, saying 100% positive there is no god in respect to pantheism or Buddhism doesn't make sense. They are conceptualization tools, with the former lacking proper documentation.


In regards to the whole "even water can only be purified to 99.999999999 %" spiel...

This is not the same thing as 100% positive/certainty.

If one is 100% certain they can hold a dozen grenades as they explode and live,

that is still 100% positive regardless if they die or not.


Research into the neuroscience of belief will assist with understanding.


How could anyone doubt the existence of the ONE TRUE MONOGOD, all THREE (Trinity) of HIM?

(Sarcasm mode off now)


I have to notice that people seem to be backing up their 99.9% positions by saying that we cannot predict the lottery, a coin toss, or other future outcome of an event of chance.


But that does not, in any way, argue the point that we can be certain of some things based on the past and present without relying upon chance.

For example, when someone makes a self-contradictory assertion, we can dismiss it immediately. The example of the invisible pink unicorn springs to mind. One need not bother debating about unicorns to point out that an object cannot simultaneously possess the qualities of "pink" and "invisible." There is no need to consider the assertion further and no need to mete out even .00000onandon00001% of doubt.

The same is true of the assertion that there is an omnipotent, all loving, omniscient being active in the cosmos. Even a toothache proves otherwise, and having seen or experienced any suffering at all, one may be certain that such a creature does not exist.

CERTAIN, in this context, means known or proven to be true. Indisputable. 99.9% is not certainty. It is doubt. There are a lot of words for doubters. Atheist isn't one of them.
No. Like most of us here I'm at 99.999% sure but there is no absolute proof againts god or gods so no. Also anyone here who says they are 100% sure there is no god you are just as bad as the fundamentalist theists we all here have come the abhor.
Well that's an interesting accusation, Gary. In what way am I as bad as the fundamentalist theists you abhor? And how can you be sure?

Are you 100% certain that they are fundamentalist theists? Are you 100% certain that you abhor them? Are you 100% certain that you are who you think you are, let alone that, with all that doubt, you truly want to be on the internet publishing such statements?

Are you 100% sure that the internet is not located entirely in your left ventricle?

Have you considered that when you clicked the sign up box for this site asserting yourself to be a nontheist... you were .0001% lying?
@VINCE WATKINS:you can ask all this am I 100% blah blah blah. The question was are you 100% positive there is no god and unless you are privy to information that the rest of humanity isn't (like what fundamentalist theists think hence my accusation) you can't say your 100% positive. I am 99.999% positive there are no gods and I live my life under the assumption that there are no gods, not .0001 lying but .0001 unsure because I'm not an inter dimensional superbrain. oh and If you are 100% positive of something you better have some proof. so am I 100% sure the internet is not located entirely in my left ventricle? yea because if you cut my heart open all you are going to find is blood.
I have proof that the christian god does not exist.  That makes me 100% certain.  I am not a fundamentalist, just not someone who doles out trivial amounts of doubt to seem politically correct.
Gary, you seem to be insisting on the rather elementary error of not bothering to define the word "god."

What do you mean by those three letters? What coherent thought do they represent?

Because, unless you can define a word coherently, there is no point in arguing for doubt. As I pointed out, the traditional definitions of "God" are easily dismissed with mere logic and linguistic integrity.

It doesn't take and interdimensional superbrain to dismiss incoherent premises. I offered my proof in this thread if you'll take the time to read it.

But I suppose that "shadow of a doubt" is the fashionable way to go, eh?

However, by your own methodology, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the contents of your left ventricle. Perhaps this rumored "trickster god" borrowed from another silly post is at work and only deludes you into thinking that there is blood in your left ventricle rather than the servers that run the internet. Even if you cut it open, you'll only see what the trickster god wants you to see. No doubt, this is the same trickster god that planted fossils so that scientists would think the world was more than 15 minutes old.
I will quit possibly screw this up, but I am going to at least attempt to clear up this "One cannot be 100% sure of anything" assertion. How is this;"Sure enuf there are a few assertions that one can be 100% sure of because they can be shown to be true by definition or that are structural true, however one can't be 100% sure of any assertion based on any observed bit of evidence, as it is always possible to be wrong on our evidence"?

So one can be 100% sure that if a is smaller than b, and b is smaller than c, then a is smaller than c. Because that is structurely true or true by definition.

I do tho largely concur that for us to be 100% sure there is no god makes us like theists in that we would then be guilty of holding assertions which one cannot back up w evidence. Sure our universe spears to behaves in a naturalist manner just as it would if there were no god. This does not tho, rule out some form of trickster god who made it appear that way. If our universe were made by a trickster god to appeared that it doesn't exist or if we were in some form of matrix it may well be entirely indistinguishable from an actual natural running world.

A god of this type in no way deserves or should expect to be worshiped but that is a totaly separate question from weather one could exist or not. For that matter I donot see that Jehova or Allah deserve to be worshiped either, if they are anywhere near as petty as their press releases describe them as.
thank you that was what I was alluding to.
So if one can back up their assertions that there is no god, it wouldn't be unreasonable to be 100% certain?  It also seems as though you are mistaking the distinction between knowledge and reality.  Knowledge can be wrong.  We can be wrong, but that doesn't mean we can't be 100% certain.  To take the path that it seems you are is to start delving into solipsism, and that slippery slope ends in the realization that nothing is true at all, even the concept of ourselves or reality.  While ultimately that may be true, it is a mental exorcise that ends up being completely irrelevant in discussion because it negates all points.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service