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: 12035

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I just wanted to edit my reply....edit by adding to it, because I believe I showed poor skill in my argument.

 

I do not believe in God because I've never been shown any form of evidence what so ever and I no more believe in God than I do the tooth fairy, but I have about the same chance of disproving the tooth fairy as I do disproving God... The burden of proof isn’t on me.  My jump to "100% sure" I'm chalking up to an emotional response to arguments from the other side that ignore reason or outright lie, with and without malice, to try to prove that they are correct.

Hey Casey, how are things?

If I may, I'd like to make a small comment about the 'burden of proof' thing. I'm making it to clear my own thoughts about 'burden of proof', which has been prompted by your comment.

 

 

If somebody makes a claim about something to you, for example: an English Mastiff. How can you make judgement on the claim if you know nothing about dogs.

 

If I tell you the English Mastiff is only one foot long and six inches high upon reaching adulthood, that would make me a liar. But, what would it make you if you believed me.

 

If I show you a Chihuahua and say look, here is proof of an English Mastiff. If you have never done any research in regards to these two breeds of dog, how could you make any judgement about the dog, upon me showing you the fake English Mastiff.

 

Sure, there is a 'burden of proof' on me, to prove to you, I have an English Mastiff, but if you have done no research into the matter, the 'burden of proof' thing is meaningless.

 

 

Lately, I've been thinking it must be hard for American Atheists. For me Atheism has always been the norm, I was an Atheist before I even knew what the word meant. What about you?

Hey Leveni…

I’m good…and you?

I don’t have any of the horror stories that some American atheists have to tell. I’m not a convert I’ve never had a belief in God. I come from an open minded family who would rather I believed in God, but it’s never been an issue. I also come from a small town, where religion was a big part of most people’s lives, but don’t think my non-belief was ever held against me (not that I was all that vocal about it when I was younger).

I thought I was with you on your analogy, but to be honest you lost me. I have no idea where you’re going with that…

Maybe you were talking about studying religion. I do enjoy religion as a view on human society, culture or sometimes just a good laugh. A while back I was teasing a couple of believers about the levels of hell and they both astounded me by staring at me blankly and then asking what I was talking about. I realize Dante isn’t required reading for believers, but I thought the idea was at least well known. I’d say I know as much, if not more about religion than the average believer. Knowing more about it makes it easier to disbelieve…lol…

I'm fine.

 

The 'burden of proof' thing in relation to god, is a kind of problem for me. And every time somebody mentions it, I try and explain it in a different way.

 

In the example above I'm trying to show you, and myself, that knowledge is necessary on both sides in order for 'burden of proof' to work. For example:

I'm using this as an example because I don't understand it, and I'm hoping you don't understand it also.  

But this is proof that Kinetic energy is equal to the integral of the dot product of velocity of a body and the change of the bodies momentum at a point in time. 

 

My point in regards to 'burden of proof' is: unless the person explaining the above equations and the person listening to the explanation understand every line of each equation, 'burden of proof' is meaningless. Both sides have to have knowledge of the specific subject before 'burden of proof' can be used. 

 

Therefore when we say 'the burden of proof' lies with another person, this is true, but, in order for us to understand their explanation, we also need some prior knowledge of the subject at hand.

But

Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no god. No knowledge of god exists. So the 'burden of proof' thing can never be applied to god. And this is my problem.

 

But you kind of answered my question anyway. When you talked to the Christians about hell. Except the knowledge about hell should have been the other way around. Oh well. You gotta love them Merican Christians. 

Right~ but one person in that example does understand that equation.  (Might I say I appreciate the subtle humor of involving a mathematical equation when discussing "proof" of god.)  I think the real issue here, however, is that the discussion is getting more to the "atheist" bend of things, where when it comes to gawd it needs to reference a more "theistic" type of discussion~ put simply, we are over thinking this.  The simple fact is that theistic people have put forth a truly astonishing claim (even to the point where it contradicts itself), and have provided NO coherent evidence for it~ in fact, viewing the world as it is suggests that their claim is NOT the case.  In light of their radical assertions, rambling explanations, and complete lack of evidence (bordering on sociopathic dishonesty, or at the least a blithering ignorance) their claims can be rejected and dismissed 100% until some evidence comes along that supports them.  They deserve no reservation or fraction of doubt, for they have provided nothing to substantiate such a thing.

The person who originally wrote it understands it, yes. Plus, if we know nothing about maths, we can learn how to count, and after studying a bit more, we can all learn to understand the equation. And that is why 'burden of proof' works for things that exist.

 

I just have a continuous problem with the burden of proof argument for things that don't exist. I feel a need to research for myself the other side of the story. I consider it lazy if no research is done by the listener. But when it comes to things that don't exist. How can I research it? The best I could do with god was the Oxford dictionary. But that just defines the word not the man/spirit or what ever.

 

Some threads never die.
Is everybody 100% positive there are no mermaids?
Apparently, many people are still too confused or too scared to yet see their way clear to gnostic atheism.
did you mean clear 'of' Gnostic atheism or clear 'to' Gnostic atheism?
Well, which one does it say?

it says 'to'

How can somebody be a Gnostic Atheist? It doesn't make sense. 

Gnosticism

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