Athiests...Please read and consider this. Respond if you have a genuine arguement. Im truely interested.?

Question

Before anyone starts insulting me or argueing, let me state that I AM NOT SAYING THAT GOD OR ANY OTHER POWER DOES EXIST. I dont have the knowledge or evidence to prove his/its existence.

I am just making a point that I read in a book once. In order to prove that something DOES exist, you only need one solid piece of proof. But to prove that something DOESNT exist, you have to erase every single possibility that it could possibly exist somewhere. Since its impossible to do that, you have to have faith in the idea that it doesnt exist. But since Athiesm (from what I have read) is a lack of faith, then...well...that doesnt quite work out.

If you have a GENUINE arguement, please make it. Im not a hard-core believer. Im just repeating what I have read, and looking for a response to it. If you plan on making meaningless comments with nothing to back them up, please dont bother. Im not your point pimp.

I am getting angry...Of those of you who answered, most of you seem to be too stuck on what you believe to understand what was said.

I specifically said that I was not trying to prove God's existance. I have no idea whether he exists or not. I was simply providing you with an arguement that I had read, and asking you to respond. It is not MY logic which is flawed. If anything, it would be the author of the book. As previously stated, I genuinely wanted to read a real response to this from someone with the opposite viewpoint, not angry comments from people. If you think that Athiesm is correct, then please enlighten me. I didnt ask for a fight. I asked for your input.

Thank you, thank you! Finally, some answers I can think about. =)

I am starting to really wish that I could pick more than one best answer, because several of you have made some terrific points. I thank you.

Answer 1

Your logic is flawed. You cannot "prove" a nonexistent thing. You cannot "prove" something does not exist.

If there were a god like one described in the bible, "he" would not be a matter of faith; such a god would be in clear, indisputable, direct communication with the world.

Edit: I am not angry, why are you?

Answer 2

I don't need to prove that god does NOT exist.
I'm perfectly happy making an objective evaluation of the so-called "evidence" that god *does* exist, and reaching the only rational conclusion that evidence allows: that there is no god.
Do I allow for the slight possibility that there is a god? Sure, why not. But allowing for that slight possibility is meaningless -- there is no evidence of any kind that "god" (however you want to define that term) has anything to do with anyone's life here on earth. There's no evidence of any kind that "god" had anything to do with creating the universe, this earth, or humans. There's no evidence of any kind that there is an afterlife. So even if "god" does indeed exist, so what? It makes no difference, so there's no need to waste time worrying about the existence of something that doesn't impact my life, the evolution of the universe, or anything else.

Look at the facts: the christian god makes all sorts of promises in "his" book for those who worship and follow him. He promises heath, prosperity, wealth, that they can "move mountains" if they have enough faith, and so on. He also promises that those who do not follow him will suffer disease, hardship, poverty, early death, etc.
However...the facts don't bear those promises out. Christians get sick just as often as atheists. They die just as much as atheists, and at the same average ages. They aren't any wealthier, healthier, or even happier. There are in fact more christians in prison in the US than people from any other religion, so being christian certainly doesn't mean you're a better person. Meanwhile, atheists, muslims, buddhists, and all other non-believers in christianity are just as healthy, wealthy, happy, and "good" as christians. So: what's the point? There are obviously NO practical benefits of any kind to being christian (despite their god's numerous promises that there ARE benefits, and in THIS life!). So should I believe in this god that does absolutely nothing on this earth just for the miniscule chance that there might be a heaven and I can go to it? Nope. Besides, even if there is a god and a heaven (no evidence of either one, but technically possible), they're run by a god that doesn't keep his promises...so I want no part of it.

:)

Answer 3

As monkey says, but I would be interested even if somebody found even a shred of evidence. It would make life so interesting in this area.
I am not interested in writing out an explanation of the logic or critical thinking. I will provide links to where smarter people have already posted it. I will start with two spoof religions that us the same arguments as the religious do.
http://www.venganza.org/flash/guidetopastafarianismpreloaded.swf
http://www.venganza.org/

http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm
http://ca.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9FJqF.I65ZFBV8AqtDrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB2OWM1MXQ5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=127j31uvc/EXP=1167605000/**http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
http://ipu.secularlife.org/

Next is about thinking:
8. Burden of Proof

Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one that they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

16. Ad Ignorantiam ( Also referred to sometimes as a negative proof, you can not prove a negative. The thing is like you say, you can not prove there is not a purple skinned unless you examine every purple skinned person. But does the lack of proof prove that something exists. This is exactly what the believers turn upside down with the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.)


This is an appeal to ignorance of lack of knowledge and is related to the burden of proof and unexplained is not inexplicable fallacies, where someone argues that if you cannot disprove a claim it must be true. For example, if you cannot prove that there isn't any psychic power, then there must be. The absurdity of this argument comes into focus if one argues that if you cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist, then he must exist. You can argue the opposite in a similar manner. If you cannot prove Santa Claus exists, then he must not exist. In science, belief should come from positive evidence in support of a claim, not lack of evidence for or against a claim

http://www.nobeliefs.com/index.htm
http://robertdfeinman.com/society/belief_standards.html
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/www.geocities.com/athens/olympus/7695/fallacys.htm#212
more specific:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Answer 4

You seem to have a rather good way of thinking, but you got things a little too complicated.

In science, nothing is believed, whoever said it, unless it is supported by factual evidence (experimental results, measurements, etc). A set of beliefs supported by good evidence, is called a theory and scientists are always trying to replace a current theory by a better one. Those who succeed in introducing better theories far from vilified, are actually rewarded and honoured. It is a never ending process.

On the other hand, religion believes, not in data, evidence and proof , but in the sayings of some respected men from our primitive past, who claimed to have known God. In contrast with science, attempts to change religious beliefs are resisted with vilification and utmost violence.

Just consider this. All the present progress and the things we have in medicine, technology, aeroplanes, television, computers, etc have been obtained by science in the last 150 year or so, in the face of great religious opposition. Soon it will be taking us to the planets. In the previous 150,000 years of man's existence, the religious approach of believing in supernatural gods, praying and miracles, only gave us superstition, diseases, wars and voodoo magic.

It is up to you which road you take.

Answer 5

You are correct that it takes a small measure of faith to believe in the non-existence of something, since one cannot definitively prove something like that.

However, one can also argue that God by nature is inherently contradictory, since true omnipotence is at odds with itself. The classic example revolves around the question "Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?". Whether He can or not makes no difference. In both cases, it would effectively make him non-omnipotent.

My personal opinion is we spend too much time contemplating whether an omnipotent God can exist, and not enough time contemplating whether beings exist that beat us to the evolutionary punch who would come across as "god-like" to us.
(If a being were capable of obliterating me with a snap of his fingers, I probably wouldn't get into an argument with him over whether he was omnipotent or not. Would you?)

Answer 6

What you read is based on a false premise all around.

The burden of proof is on the believer; the one who says one thing IS true.
You can not prove a negative in science.
So in fact. You do indeed need far more than ONE scrap of evidence to prove something is the truth, you need all directions all pointing to that one thing and everything to make sense every time: you need to state something, predict it will happen, and when it does, that is how you gain credibility for your theory.

You can command Jesus to appear, but predictably, he wont. Or pray for something to come true with all your heart, predictably, it's 50/50 odds of it happening depending on how outlandish the request...meaning, it's the same, God or no God.


Faith is just that, faith. Blind faith. Blind, meaning, you have to believe it even though there is 0 evidence, zero prediction, zero ability to test it or prove it.

I'm trying to explain to you this scientifically, but since believers run on faith, trust and emotion, it's futile.

Answer 7

Most Atheists don't bother trying to disprove God. Since there can be no solid proof either way, a lot of people just don't like bothering with the idea of God since it can interfere with life. Some people, like me do not agree with the ethics of Christianity enough to accept the religion or the god. It's not about proof, it's about making the most of your life. Many feel they can not do that in a religion.
Good question by the way.

Answer 8

I'm not sure I understand the question in so far as you refer to "one solid peice of proof" ( no such thing as a piece of proof) so I will assume you mean a peice of evidence.
One peice of evidence is only useful to prove simple concepts. For example a red crayon proves the existance of red and of crayons. It doesn't prove much else.
Since you are discussing god the concept to be proved is not only much more complex, it is also extraordinary and extaordinary claims require extraordinary proof. ( For example if Mary were to tell you her sons name was jesus, her word is good enough, if she were to tell you he was god her word is not enough - every jewish mother thinks their son is god).
To establish facts worthy of considering something "proven" the evidence should be credible, complete, and unbiased, uncontradicted, and admit no other logical conclusion.
Looking at only a few of these issues using the bible as an example.
Bias - it attempts to prove the truth of it's subject matter and only includes on side of the story. ( this is not in itself a problem, but it does indicate that one must look furthur to get the whole picutre, you wouldn't want a trial where only one side got to present evidence). ( Note that the bible itself says it is true, a worthless statement as if it was an attempt to decieve you it would claim the same thing.)
Internal consistancy - the bible is filled with direct self contradictions in detail ( all off which the fundies claim to be able to explaine), but also in theme - the vengfull god of the old testement, the loving christ, the asskicking second comeing - the huge differences in what christ taught and what Paul said christ taught - the prophocies unfullfilled ( that he be named emmanual, the he extablish a kingdom in jerusalem.)
Uncontradicted - there is no space here to go into all the contradictory evidence, the other religions, science, logic, etc. In general none of these necessarily contradict the possibility of a god, but they do contradict the bible. In the face of such contradictory evidence, the bible must over come those contradictions to be "proof".
Credibility - is the evidence as a whole credible? This analysis include all these things, bias, consistancy, etc, but also includes the extraordinary nature of the claims. If I told you martians had replaced the president with doppleganger made of rat droppings, even if I directed you to a web site on it, you would probably want more evidence that that.
Even if there was proof of an extraordinary occurance, there is also the possiblity of a more mundane explanation ( for example, heat in the desert or on roads, etc, can create the optical illusion of water, perhpas this was why jesus was thougt to walk on water, or perhaps he walked through the shallows. or perhaps he set up a board under the water to fake it, each is more likely than someone actually walking on unfrozen water. - to overcome this, you would need to be certain of the varacity of your witness and that is not the case here)
As in any complex case, the evidence will be inrepretted differently by different judges. I may find christ more credible than you do, but you might find paul more credible than I do, so our total anlysis is different.
The biggest problem christianity faces today in terms of being "proof" is the christians who make bad arguments in its favor. On this web site I have seen people argue against evolution based on the continueing existance of monkeys and on the second law of thermo dynamics both arguments without any merit whatsoever, I have seen people argue that Carl Sagan supported evolution and that Einstien believe in god but blatantly untrue and useless anyway as the falicy of argument from authority. When a witness lies or attempts to decive you into believeing them, then all their evidence must be taken with a grain of salt. Much better to say " I havent figured out that one either yet, but on the whole I still find the evidence compelling."
I hope this helps.

Answer 9

Good point, well made. As my college lecturers said to me on more than one occasion "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

It is almost impossible to prove that something does not exist, so we take your other route. Don't try to prove it doesn't exist, try to prove it does. Hence the pointlessness of a christian saying "So prove god doesn't exist"

By looking at the amount of evidence FOR existence, you can then come up with not a POSSIBILITY, but a PROBABILITY. A very different word, because with a probability you can come up with a percentage. Therefore, there is no "faith" required in being an atheist. I may have made this mistake on occasions, but what I try to say is "I have found no evidence for the existence of god (or gods), therefore, I view the probability as close enough to zero that I can consider it as zero."

Answer 10

You are correct--it is not possible to prove a negative. The reason that atheist believe what they do (among other things) is that there is no compelling reason to believe in God. The weight of evidence shows that the concept of God is entirely man-made, and any argument in favor of God can easily be shot down. I'm reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. If you read it, you'll see what I mean.

Answer 11

you really have to tip-toe around these religious questions somethimes. i really like that saying though. it makes perfect sense. i'm an athiest without faith. i don't believe in god because i think in terms of science and what i can see and touch. to prove that there is no god, well, how many versions of the bible are there? we would have to comb over every single detail, find a way to go back in time to do scientific tests on jesus and find a way to kill someone so they go to heaven then brink them back to earth. in my opinion things that happen like miracles from god can be explained using science and probability so to me its just a hoax or mental disorder or really just a mistake. i find it hard to trust what people say without evidence, therefore i will only believe what i think is necessary to believe. i'm sorry i got kinda long winded and off topic but there really is no way to properly answer this question. i still need a few pages to clarify what the heck it was that i was trying to say. anyway, happy new year!