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: 9664

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd just as soon put a pig in my pocket and have done with it.

But there are such things as pigs and pockets. Even small pigs and big pockets. A pig in a pocket is a coherent concept. We know what pigs are and we know what pockets are.

But "God?" Someone still has all their work in front of them. Those who assert that there is a God have yet to offer a coherent definition of the utterance which must be done before they can move on to the business of proof.
Unfortunately, for humanity "god" is very often the "pea" in a shell game. The Theist says he knows god and convinces you to find him/her/it. While the Theist is lifting your purse you are focusing on the "pea". I think that describes almost every major religion in a nutshell. (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Such an interesting discussion!  Still, Vince, don't you think that Xians/Muslims/whatever think that they have done all the work in their 'holey' books?  Our assertions that they have to define god are all very well, but they figure it's all there for the reading.  We'll rarely if ever convince anybody with logic - they have to come to enlightenment the same way the rest of us did, one step at a time.  Meantime, they have all the 'proof' and definitions they need.  It doesn't even seem to matter that they keep shooting themselves in the foot eg. Jim and Tammy Faye etc. 
Actually, I don't think most religious people, whether Christians, Jews, Muslims, or what have you, actually think their holy texts offer a cohesive definition of the Gods in which they profess to believe. They are happy to have a vague word to which they can tape all their mystical connotations and let it go at that. If there were a coherent definition, it would not require their special brand of faith, and they love faith.

But I don't have debates or even conversations based on their terms. I don't allow the premise in the first place. Intelligent conversation must demand logic.

So far, I have led quite a few away from theism.
There's no compelling evidence there are dieties. If there is bring it forward and let's take look. Thousands of diests have never been able to answer this challenge credibly and it isn't an Athiests responsiblity to prove the negative.
While it is certainly proper manners for the person asserting the existence of something to provide proof, this is simply a matter of protocol.

As an atheist who would like to have less theistic interference in government and society, I think it is very much my responsibility to myself and my children at the very least to prove that God does not exist.

Luckily, this is not very difficult.

What is very difficult is finding someone who can posit a coherent definition for "God" so that I can prove it doesn't exist. Usually, most efforts are either incoherent/oxymoronic, or attempt to synonymize God with love, flowers, bees, birds, the universe, blue skies, and butterflies. Refusing to accept the premise that butterflies are a deity is easy enough.

So we see that there is not merely a lack of compelling evidence that there is a God, but there is absolute proof that there is not.
I think we are on the same page. See my reply to Will-I-am above.
I am 100% sure, such just defies the laws of physics, science and any sense.

100% positive there is no God?


Well, no - but, I'm not 100% positive about anything.


I'm fairly certain that all the "deity" and "creation" myths are just really myths - as most of them are simply absurd and have no supporting evidence.


As to "proof" - ultimately, one can only "prove" mathematics and gain evidence for the existence of something. You can't "prove" something doesn't exist, you can only gain evidence for it's contrary.

"You can't 'prove' something doesn't exist..." Why do people keep saying that when it clearly isn't so?

Seriously, if I believed what the majority of the so-called atheists on this site believe, my ass would be in church every week praying.

People play the lotto with less chance of winning than some of you cling to your atheism by.
People that are only 99.99% sure that there is no god are not atheist they are agnostic. Sometimes called cowards, I just call them confused.

I agree that they are agnostic rather than atheist, but I think "coward" is an unnecessary and inappropriate smear in most cases. I don't think most Ivory Soap Atheists (99 44/100 pure) hold back out of fear, but out of a contrived notion of fairness.


Many were reared as theists and recall how certain they were that there was a God and yet appear to have been mistaken. That provides an understandable grain of salt and they fail to discern the difference between being programmed as a child to accept something on faith and falsely but sincerely calling it knowledge, and using logic, that is a system of thought based on non-contradictory data, and arriving at conclusions based on such.


They are further held back by such homespun bits like "you can't prove a negative," which many take as a rule of logic even though it is clearly a fallacy.


Then they tie themselves with the notion that certainty is a magic spell that will prevent them from having later epiphanies should contrary evidence present itself.


I suppose that they imagine some scenario where those of us who are certain are wandering through the rapture with our eyes closed unable to see the risen Christ as he gathers his elect or some such. They pretend that being certain is a vice and never a virtue. They are told that they must be open-minded in order to be scientific, that they must allow the possibility that any random assertion by any nut on the street might be true. Of course, science does not make such a demand anymore than medicine demands that doctors follow the Hippocratic Oath in order to heal. It is a contrivance sold to those who do not think for themselves.


It does not logically follow that being approachable by those claiming new evidence for old assertions demands that one never have been certain.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




Latest Activity

Brent Feeney replied to Brent Feeney's discussion BRUTALLY HONEST: The Dirty Truth About Capitalism and Free Markets
33 minutes ago
Brent Feeney commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
39 minutes ago
Brent Feeney commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
42 minutes ago
Bethany Ransom updated their profile
1 hour ago
booklover commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
EducationIsCool posted a video

The Responsibility of Atheists

This video argues for the necessity of the youtube & broader atheist community and what is, in my mind, the biggest responsibility of atheists on youtube and...
1 hour ago
Michael Penn commented on Hiram's blog post "Against the Charlatans" Philodemus quote
2 hours ago
Trick replied to Anthony Jordan's discussion Free Will [Sam Harris]
2 hours ago
Čenek Sekavec replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The cost of masculine crime
2 hours ago
Michael Penn replied to k.h. ky's discussion Edward Snowden
2 hours ago
Čenek Sekavec replied to Joan Denoo's discussion The cost of masculine crime
2 hours ago
Dr. Allan H. Clark replied to Anthony Jordan's discussion Free Will [Sam Harris]
3 hours ago

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service