So Atheism is really just a form of intellectual laziness? (see link)?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060922095800AA2BS6G&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwIbJvEO45SaOhphe_h47WdpZBS3SHpc6H0sba53rxITZLyGb2VlNkRc6JMzkScDGe5Q--&msgr_status=

If you can't prove the existence of a thing, then you must deny its existence?

But, if you argue something does not exist, no proof on your part is required?

None of you are human. Prove me wrong here and now.

Refuse? Okay, I'm right. ;-)

Answer 1

That definition sounds quite right.

Good points.

I am supportive of all beliefs. There is more than one way to think about God.

The Western view is to accept or reject God. Mere presence or absence of God, science clashing with religion. But the religions of the world fall into many theosophies--henotheism, dualism, etc. We need to do a better job understanding what God is actually. That would get to the basis of some of these arguments. Perhaps there is more commonality than difference.

Answer 2

Wow... you're really pretty dense, aren't you. Before, I thought that you were just pretending. Now, I can plainly see that I was wrong.

You wrote: "If you can't prove the existence of a thing, then you must deny its existence?"

No... it is not necessary to deny its existence. It is merely necessary to NOT affirm its existence. This has nothing to do with belief... it has to do with knowledge; you can not claim to have knowledge that you do not possess.

You wrote: "But, if you argue something does not exist, no proof on your part is required?"

If the premise is "I believe that X does NOT exist," then some sort of empirical evidence... facts... would be required to support that premise. However, such a premise is NOT required to refute the assertions that YOU have been making. The statement "I do NOT believe that X exists" is sufficient... and it requires no supporting evidence. All that it requires is for your interlocutor not to find YOUR evidence to be compelling.

I think it is plain, though, that you are incapable of making the necessary qualitative distinctions to discern the differences between those two statements... so this answer is probably pointless.

Answer 3

You are correct: "If you can't prove the existence of a thing, then you must deny its existence."

If you feel something does not exist, then basically, yes, you can sit back and wait until proof comes along that shows you are wrong. There is no way you can "prove" that something does not exist. What else can you do? But if there IS evidence to show you are wrong, you can't just keep trying to say you are right. You can't say, "I don't believe flowers exist" and then ignore the evidence showing you are wrong.

Your proposition is not in the correct form. You are not asking us to prove the existence of anything, but to prove whether one being is human or not. If you are asking for us to prove that there are humans, I think the evidence is pretty abundant there, so you are wrong.

Answer 4

Actually if you were here I could prove that I am human. That's the important difference, it's possible to prove someone is human, but not to prove the non-existence of an omnipotent being. As I keep telling you, sometimes you just have to say that a concept is so ridiculous that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it's safe to assume it isn't true. Do you keep an open mind concerning the existence of the Tooth Fairy? Of course not. But you can not prove she doesn't exist. Are you just being lazy?

What if I were to tell you right now that there's a ghost that lives in doorknobs who will stop them all from turning in ten years' time? Would you go buy a heap of sliding doors?

Answer 5

Its really strange how people see things differently because to be honest this is a thought I have had about fundementalist christians. So many of the biblical stories have very good meanings to them and lessons that are very true but also contain so much fantasy and physically impossible events that I wonder why it is that people would choose to believe the story literally as opposed to just concluding the important part was the message.
I think it probably takes greater individual work and thought to consider one's self an atheist then to blindly accept what is being spoon fed you by the churches as complete and absolute fact when clearly our experience in this world has shown all of us that men can't part the sea, it would be impossible to fill a ship with two of every creature on earth, if your girlfriend tells you she is pregnant immaculatly by god she is lying, it seems likely the disciples of Jesus would have had ever opportunity and motive to steal his body and claim he rose from the dead for political reasons(that worked very well by the way). There are lots of other things in the Bible that are supernatural etc....I'm forty two and to be honest I have never seen anything that couldn't be explained by rational occurences or thought. So what happened? Why did the magic stop? It stopped because a great majority of people got smarter and were able to figure out how these things could have happened and explain them with rational thought that could be proven with experimentation over and over again. These people were not intellectualy lazy they challenge themselves and others.

Answer 6

I think you are completely right. The big bang is the new theory not that God created us so the big bang must be proved. Some believed the Earth was flat, Some believed it was round, those who believed it was round had to prove it because they were challenging the standard. In the previous question someone said energy is not created no it is not, not since God evoked it. If energy is the cause of our existence and energy was always there why isn't the world older? I mean if energy was there since before forever why did it take so long to create the world??? and for that matter what action caused the equal and opposite action of energy?????

Answer 7

No, just the opposite. I read the texts and received no answers to my questions. I cannot prove, and neither can you, the existence or non existence of a supreme being. If you think I am not human, you need to go back to high school biology.

Answer 8

You are again mistaken.
I am not trying to proof the existence of anything. You are confusing things by not understanding some very basic things.
First, in order to believe in the existence of anything you have to have something that can be measured or observed. Be if a rock or sunlight, things generally have some quantifiable characteristic.
Second, I am not trying to disprove the existence of god, I simple do not have any information that would lead me to the conclusion that there is a god, and any information that have been provided is hearsay, and not observable or measurable.
It's not lack of proof, its lack of evidence and observable phenomena.

Answer 9

I am not intellectually lazy, but I am not a scientist. If I was lazy, I would not be making the effort to answer your question.

You are aware, I imagine, that there are scientists are constantly discovering new things. For all we know, science may one day prove that Buddha, God and Mohammad created the Universe as a joint venture. Until science proves this, I am content to do my job and to let the experts do theirs. I will also continue to be a strong atheist; one who does not believe in supernatural beings.

Answer 10

"I mean, if I went round, sayin' I was an emperor, just cuz some moistened bint 'ad lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

The point in proving the existence in something is so people cannot walk around and ludicrously claim something is because you say so without any proof. You NEED evidence to back up your claim or else anyone could claim anything they want and according to you, be right?