I am certainly interested in the views and perceptions of others, including athiests. From my understanding, Athiests deny the existance of GOD based on the lack of evidence to show HIS existance. Nonetheless, is it not fare to say there is just as little evidence disproving GOD's existance as their is proving HIS existance?
2006-06-26 08:21:49 · 19 answers · asked by man_id_unknown 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Actually, demanding proof of the "non-existant" for those who believe otherwise is perfectly logical.
2006-06-26 08:28:00 · update #1
Since there is no proof either way (pro or con) an athiest has chosen one of 2 logical positions. He just has chosen one that differs from the "believers". His decision has no more or less merit than those who choose god.
2006-06-26 08:32:43 · answer #1 · answered by nebulasleuth 2 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Yes! But you know what? I am standing next to an invisible, spiritual unicorn right now! Do you believe me? I have no proof, but then you don't have any evidence to disprove me. So your belief that I am not and my belief that I am are equally valid, right? According to your logic, they are.
As you can see, the lack of proof is a very good reason to not believe in something. The more fantastical the claim, the more evidence you need. Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence against the existance of god, for example, the suffering experienced by animals.
Having read and responded to some of your other questions, I would just like to say that if you are in fact out of high school, I would recommend going down to your local community college and enrolling in a critical thinking course as soon as possible.
2006-06-27 00:53:27 · answer #2 · answered by student_of_life 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no proof either for or against there being a god. However, there is no proof either for or against Santa Claus existing in the real world either. There is no proof that The Flying Spaghetti monster exists or doesn't. There is nothing to prove or disprove (Insert any mythology you want here).
In other words, the burden of proof is on you. Present some evidence of god that doesn't come from a man-made bible or phoney balogna 'miracles' and you might have some proof.
2006-06-26 15:29:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I agree with your question. Usually, Athiests rely on the science of evolution, but I am sure you know that already.
Frankly, it amazes me that ANYONE can look around them at the sky, stars, moon, the Grand Canyon, the deserts, the mountains, the essence of the "balance of all nature" and not accept that there is a "God".
I acknowledge the right to be an Athiest, fine but one what possible justification? Man's knowledge of science? Call Him whatever you wish, God, Budda, Jehovha, whatever, but all of this could not have possibly happened from a single cell organism in the pool of "Ooze".
Honestly, I personally don't worry about such things. The facts are simple, you either believe or you don't and frankly, no one will know until death, or ? Right now, it is too damn hard living and trying to be the best person you can be to worry about something there is absolutly no control over.
I have faith in a God, and that is good enough for me. If I am wrong, ok, I still believe in doing the right thing, mistakes or not, and whose gonna suffer if I am wrong, you? Nope, me. So what's the big deal anyway.
One thing is for sure, one of us is right. ( I hedge my bet that I am). Again, look around, bees don't pollenate the flowers that grow the veggies, that feed humans, that the pigs don't eat to feed humans, that we use to make dog food, that allows us to enjoy the company of such wonderful animals, that allow the blind to walk accross the street, that help the deaf to hear the doorbell. I could go on and on...
2006-06-26 15:36:39 · answer #4 · answered by jv1104 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is with the definition of God by believers - as an interfering god.
Atheists would be fine with the notion of a non-interfering god; a god that does not interfere in anything of this world, one who lets physical rules determine the fate of the world, its begining and its end, and everything in between.
If there is an interfering god, then surely, that god's existence can be proven, by observing how he interferes with the world. We should therefore, see evidence of his existence (miracles anyone?)
The existence or non-existence of a non interfering god is not important, becuase such a god does not matter to us. He does not interfere. So, its all the same, if he exists or does not exist.
2006-06-26 15:56:41 · answer #5 · answered by sebekhoteph 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Incorrect. Atheists deny the existence of God based on the evidence given to us by theists. The same way that you would deny the fact that I have $1 billion despite my having written a check for that amount.
2006-06-26 15:24:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i basically think that there is no actual proof that god is real. Only a book that your parents taught you to read. There is also no proof that he doesn't exist. What you believe is depending on what part of the world you grew up. What are we to say that suicide bombing is wrong? They think that Christianity is wrong. Some people believe in Buddha and some in Jesus. It's all up for you to decide. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
2006-06-26 15:30:02 · answer #7 · answered by A&F_17 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Correction on comment regarding agnostics....gnostics believe in a god but there views on what constitutes god do not tie into the conventional beliefs of most organised modern religions. Most gnostic beliefs contain elements of mysticism found in religions like kaballah, zora asterism and other easter religions. God is seen as an infinite power beyond the understanding of man's limited reasoning.
2006-06-26 15:32:34 · answer #8 · answered by boston857 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True. Atheists don't have any concrete evidence on the nonexistence of God.
Chris- Agnostics don't deny the existence of God, only that the existence is unknowable.
2006-06-26 15:30:49 · answer #9 · answered by Human 2.1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We don't need any evidence for disproving God's existance.
If he is not there, he didn't talk to me when I ask him a question, he didn't prove US soldiers all went to heaven, he didn't help me pass all my final, he didn't save all the lives in the hospital or car accident, what is the need to prey and believe in his existance or bother to "ask" for his help.
If it wasn't "G-o-d this" "G-o-d that," would our world be filled with hatred, deadly history and war? Probably not. Would all the trees be cut down so we can print religious reading (of any kind)? Probably not.
Thank you for reading and I hope I didn't offend you or anyone else. I respect all religion/ "G-o-d" and inviduals who believes in them.
2006-06-26 15:33:31 · answer #10 · answered by jockychannel 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Denying God based on lack of evidence is agnostic, actually.
2006-06-26 15:24:53 · answer #11 · answered by Chris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋