How do you disprove the unprovable?

Question

The only proof of gods are beliefs and books written based on beliefs. There is no definitive evidence of the supernatural. If there were, then there would be no such thing as an atheist. So how do you help believers understand what you already know?

Does the fact that your knowledge is based only on belief bother you?

I keep getting asked why do I care what other people believe, just let them believe. I'm trying to open some minds to the atheist way of thinking or at least help people to understand where we're coming from. The only thing that would stop me is if my U.S government would honor the complete seperation of church and state including closing the loophole that says that endorsing a god is different than endorsing a religion. Take "In god we trust" off our money, "Under god" out of our pledge for a start. Then end Bush's faith based initiative which uses my tax dollars to fund church social programs.

The burden of proof is on the claimant, believers make the claims

Also I'm sure somone will say that atheism is a religion too. Atheism is organized but it is not recognized as a religion by the U.S. government.

Answer 1

I do work at http://www.iamanatheist.com, and there are some excellent discussions on this subject at that site.

In a nutshell, (and as an atheist) I'd say that you can't prove that there is no God. You can, as you imply, require that believers prove to you that there is a God if they want you to become a believer.

I would also say that you are correct when you say that if there was proof for God's existence that there would be no atheists. There are people who are atheists for emotional reasons, just as there are people who are religious for emotional reasons. These are not rational stances, but they do exist.

Finally, when you ask how you help believers understand what they already know, I would recommend that you take a step back and ask yourself why you are trying to change these people's minds. I find that it is much more effective to not worry about whether people are religious or not, but instead to try and help them understand their own beliefs and make sure that they are acting in a moral, informed, and consistent manner.

There are some people who will never be able to be atheists for one reason or another, but helping them be intelligent religious people is a step in the right direction. I think you'll also find that a certain number of people, once they start examining their own beliefs, will realize that atheism might be a better alternative.

Answer 2

I personally think that on a psychological level, the more adamant and vocal a person is about their beliefs, and the more they try to get other people to agree with them, the less strength they actaully have in their beliefs. It is the quiet ones who sit back and observe and smile about it all that have the greatest amount of faith in my opinion.

I agree that the existence of God is unprovable. But some people have experiences that don't have other explanations, or that are best explained by the existence of God. It's personal and can't be used as proof to other people. Is the existence of God impossible? I am just wondering, and I think I am going to ask that as a question on this forum. But anyway...

I agree that the burden of proof should be on the claimant. But I don't see also why saying there is no God is not a claim. This is just my opinion but I look at it this way. If you can't prove one way or the other, then it must be a belief either way. If you were agnositc and said I don't know there may or may not be that would be one thing. But to say there definitely isn't when it comes to something that can't be disproved any more than it can be proven, why isn't it then considered a belief? You believe (or know which is almost the same thing), without a doubt that there isn't a God. (But if there was a God, it definitely can't be the one described in the Bible. But I don't want to go there anyway, that's just another can of worms all together).

Answer 3

I used to be the same way you were but I realized that religion in human life is a GOOD thing. If people had no faith and no hope of an afterlife then the world would be a chaotic place. Imagine if there were no "sins". Everyone would do whatever they wanted without any guilt or regret. We cannot count on humans to just "do the right thing" all the time. Rather than pointing out all the inaccuracies in religion and spending time to prove believers wrong, it is important to understand that most religion promotes good values for which to live by.

Answer 4

People are entitled to believe what they want to believe. And I do understand where you are coming from, my step-son is atheist. All I can do is to tell you to do what your heart thinks is right and stand up for your beliefs! I'm Pagan, so my knowledge isn't just based on my beliefs but the nature that is around me and inside me. As far as taking 'In god we trust' and 'Under god' off of money and the pledge, well, I doubt that will ever happen. Stand strong in your beliefs, and good luck!

Answer 5

So what? We have literaly mountains of proof that the holocost occured but some people refuse to believe it. Actually there was a russian mathimatician that proved the divinity of the bible by the mathematic eqations he found in the old and new testiment. He won a nobel prize because of his work. He offered a reward to anyone who could disprove his findings. The reward was never collected.

What proof do you have of bush's funding of church social programs? Hard, concrete proof that you ask us to have for our faith? Probably none except what you have seen on the media.

Answer 6

Dear Bob:

You have spoken well on the subject.

I would agree that atheists cannot prove there is no god (except to themselves) and believers cannot prove that there is a god (except to themselves). But, atheists are not asking that "there is no god" be placed on money. They want no statement. Atheists are not asking that the pledge include one nation "not under god". They want no statement as to the existence of god. All atheists want is neutrality. We are not so insecure with our thoughts that we need the government's backing of our position. All we want is neutrality, which is no statement on the subject.

I would much prefer not to spend my time fencing with the believers. As soon as the laws and policies of the United States are neutral on the subject of religion and the supernatural, I will lay down my "pen" and return to rooting for my city's lousy baseball team.

Answer 7

Well first of all, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that says 'separation of church and state.' You are misinterpreting.

Second, atheists get all butt hurt when religion is forced on them (hey, it happens...there's morons out there), but now you're looking to force your religious beliefs on others as well.

Honestly, does it hurt you to see 'In God We Trust' on money? Do you cry yourself to sleep at night because of it? Probably not.

You say there is no proof of a god. You believe that there is no god. So, where is your proof that there isn't? Sorta goes both ways.

Answer 8

That's debatable.

I don't understand why some (not saying all or you are one of them) atheists argue so passionately against the belief in a God of some sort. The very fact that they are so against it or Him, means that they must unconsciously believe that there is something to argue against. When rejecting something, doesn't that mean that the something you are rejecting exists?

As for myself, I'm neutral. I'm not close-minded. Not saying there is, or there isn't. *shrug* doesn't change who I am.

Answer 9

first off what you said in the first paragraph is correct, there is no such thing as an atheist. and my knowledge comes not only from faith but also from the bible neither of which i am ashamed of.

Answer 10

All i have to say is if you prove god, you disprove faith, because faith requires a leap of reasoning.... thats why most intelligible people dont buy into it hardcore.