If you believe that christians are wrong and God doesn't exist, Please explain why and prove that he doesn't

Question

Because there sure seems to be a lot of people who "know" that god don't exist and I just want to see thier theories since there all "so smart" and were "stupid"

and to liberal...the roots of the bible can be proven. just because you don't believe in the bible, it don't mean that it not accurate because thousands of christians students who have spents hundreds of years can affirm it as fact.

what's your proof

it's my question to you, not my proof to you

Answer 1

belief in god and belief in no god are the same...beliefs, unprovable by observed phenomena.

Answer 2

I don't question the existance of God(s). I just firmly believe the bible was man-made as is religion. We create God(s) in our own image so we can better relate to something that is way beyond our comprehension. My biggest beef with the Christian God (the man-made point of view that is) is that if he really was a God he would not need people to do his every bidding. Nor would he be racist or sexist or even a "He" technically. I also don't think he'd call natural human impulses (that he instilled in us at our very core) sins. I think a real God would be neutral and want his creations to think freely, grow, and learn. So it's not that I question the existance of God, it's just that my perception of God is vastly different from some people's. And my God (the main one who is the source of all) has a different name so that I can better identify with him/her/it. Actually I do refer to Him in the masculine, but that's because I best identify with a masculine deity, likely by social conditioning.

Answer 3

Christians are not the only ones who believe in G-d. Many other religions do. Do you realize this?

I am a very religious person in my feelings about G-d. But, I do not accept that Jesus is G-d. Is this what you mean?This is most illogical. G-d would not come to earth in human form. G-d was and is and always will be One.

Answer 4

It is impossible to (logically) prove a negative (like the none existence of God). Not knowing that, however, gives evidence to those who would call someone "stupid".

Answer 5

Sorry-disbelief requires no proof. I don't have any interest in convincing others that God doesn't exist. Atheism is the logical default so the burden of proof is with you.

Answer 6

Since you brought it up, you prove that God does exist. How do you "know". It is all just stuff written in a book that you have chosen to believe. I chose to not believe it.

Answer 7

There is absolutely no evidence that go exist so it is stupid to say he does. It's also stupid to say there is a 50:50 chance of him existing as there isn't there is no evidence for hobgoblins, pixies, unicorns, dragons etc but no one believe sin them why is this fictional deity any different?
Say no to jesus

Answer 8

We deal in proof. So, you first - give us what we want, proof of God, and on my mother's life I'll believe.

EDIT

"the roots of the bible can be proven" - this sentence is semantically meaningless. Proof of God, please. That's all you owe us.

Answer 9

I'm tired of regurgitating the same answers. So here is one I got off the link below.


Atheists assert various reasons for their position, including a lack of empirical evidence for deities, or the conviction that the non-existence of deities (in general or particular) is better supported rationally.


[edit] Scientific and historical reasons

American Atheists represent atheism with an atom, symbolizing the importance of science to many atheists.Science is based on the observation that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be tested and replicated through experiment. It serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions and engineering (cf. faith and rationality, science and religion). Like scientists, scientific skeptics use critical thinking (cf. the true-believer syndrome) to decide claims. They do not base claims on faith or other unfalsifiable categories.

Most theistic religions teach that mankind and the universe were created by one or more deities and that this deity continues to act in the universe. Many people—theists and atheists alike—feel that this view conflicts with the discoveries of modern science (especially in cosmology, astronomy, biology and quantum physics). Many believers in the validity of science, seeing such a contradiction, do not believe in the existence of a deity or deities actively involved in the universe.

Science presents a vastly different view of humankind's place in the universe from many theistic religions. Scientific progress has, some claim, continually eroded the basis for religion. Historically, many religions have involved supernatural entities and forces linked to unexplained physical phenomena. In ancient Greece, for instance, Helios was the god of the sun, Zeus the god of thunder, and Poseidon the god of earthquakes and the sea. In the absence of a credible scientific theory explaining phenomena, people attributed them to supernatural forces. Science has since eliminated the need for appealing to supernatural explanations. The idea that the role of deities is to fill in the remaining "gaps" in scientific understanding has come to be known as the God of the gaps.[86]

Some believe that religions have been socially constructed (see development of religion) and should be analyzed with an unbiased, historical viewpoint. Atheists often argue that nearly all cultures have their own creation myths and gods, and there is no apparent reason to believe that a certain god (e.g., Yahweh) has a special status above gods that are now accepted as myth (e.g., Zeus), or that one culture's god is more correct than another's (indeed, it is apparent that most cultures 'pick and mix' the parts of their chosen religion they like, conveniently ignoring parts they disagree with). In the same way, all cultures have different, and often incompatible, religious beliefs, none any more likely to be true than another, making the selection of a single specific religion seemingly arbitrary.[87]

However, when theological claims move from the specific and observable to the general and metaphysical, atheistic objections tend to shift from the scientific to the philosophical:

"Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries."[88]


[edit] Philosophical and logical reasons
Many atheists will point out that in philosophy and science, the default position on any matter is a lack of belief. If reliable evidence or sound arguments are not presented in support of a belief, then the "burden of proof" remains upon believers, not nonbelievers, to justify their view[89][90] Consequently, many atheists assert that they are not theists simply because they remain unconvinced by theistic arguments and evidence. As such, many atheists have argued against the most famous proposed proofs of God's existence, including the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments.[91]

Other atheists base their position on a more active logical analysis, and subsequent rejection, of theistic claims. The arguments against the existence of God aim at showing that the traditional Judeo-Christian conception of God either is inherently meaningless, is internally inconsistent, or contradicts known scientific or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described does not exist.

The most common of these arguments is the problem of evil, which Christian apologist William Lane Craig has called "atheism's killer argument". The argument is that the presence of evil in the world disproves the existence of any god that is simultaneously benevolent and omnipotent, because any benevolent god would want to eliminate evil, and any omnipotent god would be able to do so. Theists commonly respond by invoking free will to justify evil (cf. argument from free will), but this leaves unresolved the related argument from nonbelief, also known as the argument from divine hiddenness, which states that if an omnipotent God existed and wanted to be believed in by all, it would prove its existence to all because it would invariably be able to do so. Since there are unbelievers, either there is no omnipotent God or God does not want to be believed in.

Another such argument is theological noncognitivism, which holds that religious language, and specifically words like God, is not cognitively meaningful. This argument was popular in the early 20th century among logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A.J. Ayer, who held that talk of deities is literally nonsense.[92] Such arguments have since fallen into disfavor among philosophers, but continue to see use among ignostics, who view the question of whether deities exist as meaningless or unanswerable, and apatheists, who view it as entirely irrelevant. Similarly, the transcendental argument for the non-existence of God (TANG) is a rebuttal to the transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science and morality can only be justified by appealing to the theistic worldview, that argues that the reverse is true.


[edit] Personal, social, and ethical reasons
Some atheists have found social, psychological, practical, and other personal reasons for their beliefs. Some believe that it is more conducive to living well, or that it is more ethical and has more utility than theism. Such atheists may hold that searching for explanations in natural science is more beneficial than seeking to explain phenomena supernaturally. Some atheists also assert that atheism allows—or perhaps even requires—people to take personal responsiblity for their actions. In contrast, they feel that many religions blame bad deeds on extrinsic factors and require threats of punishment and promises of reward to keep a person moral and socially acceptable.

Some atheists dislike the restrictions religious codes of conduct place on their personal freedoms. From their point of view, such morality is subjective and arbitrary. Some atheists even argue that theism can promote immorality. Much violence—e.g., warfare, executions, murders, and terrorism—has been brought about, condoned, or justified by religious beliefs and practices.

In areas dominated by certain Christian denominations, many atheists find it difficult to accept that faith could be more important than good works: While a murderer can go to heaven simply by accepting Jesus in some Christian sects, a farmer in a remote Asian countryside will go to hell for not hearing the "good news". Furthermore, some find Hell to be the epitome of cruel and unusual punishment, making it impossible that a good God would permit such a place's existence.

Just as some people of faith come to their faith based upon perceived spiritual or religious experiences, some atheists base their view on an absence of such an experience. Although they may not foreclose the possibility of a supernatural world, unless and until they believe through experience that such a world exists, they refuse to accept a metaphysical belief system based upon blind faith.

Additionally, some atheists grow up in environments where atheism is relatively common, just as people who grow up in a predominantly Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Christian cultures tend to adopt the prevalent religion there. However, because of the relative uncommonness of atheism, a majority of atheists were not brought up in atheist households or communities.


[edit] Criticism of atheism
Main article: Criticism of Atheism
Atheism has received much criticism from theists. The most direct arguments against atheism are that it is simply untrue: arguments for the existence of God are thus considered arguments against atheism. However, many theists dismiss or object to atheism on other grounds.

Until recently, most theologians considered the existence of God so self-evident and universally-accepted that whether or not true atheism even existed was frequently disputed. This view is based on theistic innatism, the belief that all people believe in God from birth and that atheists are simply in denial.[93] It is also asserted that atheists are quick to believe in God in times of crisis—that atheists will readily make deathbed conversions or that "there are no atheists in foxholes". This view has fallen into disfavor among most philosophers of religion.[94]

When the existence of atheism is accepted, it is often criticized by agnostics, and some theists, on the grounds that atheism requires just as much faith as religious positions, making it no more likely to be true than theism. This is based on the view that because the existence of deities cannot be proven or disproven with certainty, it requires a leap of faith to conclude that deities do or do not exist. Common atheist responses to this argument include that it is equivocation to conflate religious faith with all unproven propositions; that weak atheism is not a positive claim, and thus requires no more faith than not accepting the existence of Santa Claus;[95] and that the fact that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven with complete certainty does not make it equally likely that God does or doesn't exist.[96]

Lastly, it is commonly argued that the lack of belief in a deity who administers justice may lead to poor morals or ethics (cf. secular ethics).[95][97] It is also argued that atheism makes life meaningless and miserable: Blaise Pascal made this argument in 1670.[98] Atheists generally dismiss these arguments as appeals to consequences with no bearing on whether God actually exists, and many disagree that atheism leads to amorality or misery, or even argue that the opposite is the case.[99][100]

Recently Comedy Central's South Park spoofed the ideas of Atheism in the episode of Go God Go and the continuation in Go God Go XII in which Eric Cartman, in a desperate attempt to play the Nintendo Wii freezes himself but the plan goes awry and he finds himself in an atheist society. Despite the lack of a belied in a higher power, fighting still rages in the debate over the 'Great Question'. Namely, what atheists should call themselves.