For atheists: How do you distinguish between a seemingly valid proof and an actually valid proof?

Question

adi dinca: Then in what sense is it proof?

Lucky Fokker: In that case, you are an agnostic, rather than an atheist.

salient2: I didn't ask anything about Christianity.

Steven S: I asked atheists is because atheists often claim that the reason they do not believe in God is because they have seen no proof.

Answer 1

They simply believe whatever allows them to continue living their life as they do with no consequences. Proof is irrelevant, they just need an excuse to help tell themselves their is no punishment for their sins

If they really believed that there is no God without any hesitation why do you think they would be wasting their time fighting so hard against him.

Answer 2

Proof only exists in mathematics. Study enough math and you too will learn how to distinguish between a valid proof and a flawed proof.

I don't know why you asked atheists, and not mathematicians, whom I'm sure would give you a much better answer.

Will: In response to your response, I think the word "proof" is misleading. How about "sufficient evidence"? And the way rational people distinguish between valid and invalid evidence is through independent verification. If an experiment can be repeated by anyone, anywhere, at any time, it's a good experiment. If evidence is able to be observed by anyone who wishes, it's good evidence. Religious "evidence" on the other hand tends to be of a personal and highly subjective nature. There's no way to verify it independently, so it's susceptible to self-deception and misinterpretation very easily.

Answer 3

Some guy above me said "They simply believe whatever allows them to continue living their life as they do with no consequences. Proof is irrelevant, they just need an excuse to help tell themselves their is no punishment for their sins." Now I'm agnostic, not atheist, but I think it is the other way around. Religious people are the ones who need to have faith in some magical concept in order to believe there is not punishment for their sins. They have this need to believe that if they ask Jesus for forgiveness, all of their sins will be wiped out, and they'll have a clean slate. I believe that the bad things you do will come back to bite you in the as* somehow, whether or not you ask Jesus for forgiveness. I don't need hell as a threat to stop me from doing things that hurt other people.

To answer the main question, atheist use logic, critical thinking, and reasoning to determine what is true and not true, rather than relying on a book.

Answer 4

A who what from the where then?

My belief is never militant but is fluid based on all current information I have now.

I keep posting this next quote because it is exactly how I feel

"You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."
[Richard P. Feynman, "Genius, the life and science"]

Answer 5

Absent the passage of time, you can't.

If a proof appears valid, then it has all the characteristics of an actually valid proof - by definition. It only becomes a seemingly valid proof when new information/approach appears, which can only occur as time passes.

Thus, I question your assumption that a seemingly valid proof can exist - wouldn't know it at the time.

Answer 6

When it comes to the Christian God, I look to the Bible for proofs. I see actual proof in historical locations, the world was round, etc. The majority of the Bible does not contain any proofs.

As for seemingly valid proofs, I remain skeptical and try to test the proof myself. I read a lot regarding that proof and if I feel after many hours of observation it is a scam (EX: steorn.net) I will place it in the pseudo science bucket :)

Answer 7

Validity is purely a formal matter, with clearly defined rules. I don't think I understand what you are asking, or perhaps you mean something other than what you are saying by "valid".

Answer 8

Proof is valid untill it is proved unvalid.

Answer 9

Fortunately we have evolved a brain which allows us to apply logic and reason. Unfortunately some christians believe ( for a reason I can't comprehend) that their god forbids them to use reason.

Answer 10

Too vague, sorry. These kinds of situations need specifics--case-by-case.