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: 12994

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the reply. 

 

I've decided to hold the Oxford dictionary definition of the word God as the only meaning of God. Otherwise games can be played. 

When we see Dawkins or Hitchens in debate stating that the burden of proof is on the claimant, they are simply following the rules of protocol for proper debate and for scientific peer review. In their context, it is a reasonable position.

Correct. All the people involved in scientific peer review have all studied the topic at hand over many years, and have amazing knowledge in regards to the specific topic at hand. They also hope somebody can contribute more to the accumulated knowledge that exists. They all have opinions on the topic and are open to anything new which will enhance the topic at hand. There is knowledge and thinking on all sides. The person putting the proof forward and the people listen to the proof have all thought about the topic at hand in great detail already.

 

To use the 'burden of proof argument' in regards to god, where we are the referees about gods existence, when we have never thought about the subject of god and have no opinions about god would be considered wrong by the peer review process. The peer review process, in regards to god, would require us to be experts about god. But this is of course impossible. If we are going to use such a process, the minimum requirement would be at least having some thought about god's existence or non-existence and some kind of conclusion about god's existence or non-existence.

 

But most people who use the peer review method in their approach towards god have no thoughts about god at all. They are just quoting Dawkins verbatim, just like christians quote the bible.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for my dogma about no god, it is a stance against god and his believers. And I could not find anyone else who had ever used it before, so I took it as my own.

Actually, it's a stance against people who use something that can't be proven as the source of their power. I still need to work on this one.

If you understand fire we can understand why we could never burn in hell ;) So yes, it's an empty threat meant to prey on your fears.. it's purpose it to gain control, to induce a submissive psychological state.. A state they can take advantage of. So you are right, we aren't going to hell :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbrQI0r1B7w&feature=related

I have often said that the only sane action of someone who believes in God would be to try to kill it.

Like!!

 

20,000 thumbs up!

One can not prove the existence of A god or gods. therefore we are left with the fact there is no proof of such a god or gods. DONE
Way too much time is spent on such a question. It has been thousands of years, and we still ask the same question. Why?
Because it's interesting.
Yep. damn sure. But should a nine hundred foot Jesus come pillage Hong kong ,then i would wonder what made such a thing possible. But for now, 99.99.... % sure.

 

Very simply, scott, in my humble opinion, as even Dawkins said in the God Delusion, one can always leave room for the slight statistical chance that we may be wrong. After all, we can't PROVE that Shiva, Zeus or Diana DON'T exist.

What we can be sure of, however,  is that the qualities of deity of every known religion are fabrications of the founders and early proponents of those religions and that the sources of "revelation" are woefully (in our view-happily) inadiquate and easily proven to be inaccurate and humanly flawed.

We can also be confident that the supposed  mysterious and miraculous aspects of life do have plausible natural explanations and that no one can validly demonstrate a channel of communication or living revelation from a supernatural source which can show this to be otherwise.

Quite simply, there is no reason to look beyond what is in front of us and certainly, no reason to suspect or believe that if there is a power which stands apart from nature, that it should play a role in guiding or shaping our lives or that it even wants to or that it gives a damn about whether or not we acknowledge it.

 

Cheers

Wow, this is one long thread.   Oh well, I guess there is as much chance of there being a god as there is of me winning the lottery, which is next to nil, since I haven't bought a ticket since 1985.   At least we do know it's not one of the jokers in the old testament or it's sequels.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service