Atheists, Professor Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion' asserts that religious are deluded?

Question

because God does not exists, yet he provides no proof except to say He does not exist. How is that different from the stance adopted by persons who say God does exist?
I can respect his right to believe what he wants but I thought as a scientist, he would at least throw us a morsel of proof.
Has anyone found proof in the text or am I blind and dumb?

Answer 1

The absolute proof of the spiritual already exists and is known to many. I am not referring to religion but to the science community. Why should they share such proof with the general public? Professor Dawkins makes a nice living from his books and why bother the simple people of this world with the complexities of reality.

Answer 2

Yes, he does go through the evidence against any god existing. Although people love to say you can't prove a negative (which is true) in the case of the Christian god, there are attributes which god supposedly possesses that we can use the evidence of the physical universe to confirm or refute. In other words, the nature of the world does not support the benevolent, omnipotent god hypothesis.

If you search online, you will find all those same proofs discussed extensively. If you are committed to your "faith" then you can rationalize the answers - many do. If you consider the evidence rationally and impartially, you will most likely become atheist or at least agnostic.

Here's a very good take on why the Christian God almost certainly doesn't exist. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html

Answer 3

Logically, it is the one asserting the positive that needs to provide proof. Until then, the negative is assumed and operated upon.

To say, "prove there ISN'T a God" would be like saying, "prove there AREN'T unicorns." How do you prove that something doesn't exist?

We don't believe unicorns exist because there's no proof. Similarly, Dawkins is probably saying that a logical person would not believe in God because there's no proof.

Answer 4

I have the book, but haven't read it yet, but I would assume he is writing it to atheists who already have no belief in God, gods, religion, supernatural, etc. Where is your proof of your God? If you can't prove he IS, how can we prove he isn't? It's something that we feel makes the most sense with what evidence has been put forth. The Bible doesn't make it's case, therefore doesn't make his case. Since nothing has proven to me that he exists, I'm left with his non-existence. Prof. Dawkins is the same, you can't prove a negative.

Answer 5

I agree with the LOGIC of your argument and often say as much myself. However, deep inside, I just have this feeling that the concept of a supreme being, who was needed to create the universe, is absurd, since the question MUST arise, "Then who created something that was so powerful, it could create a universe?"...and so on.

I wouldn't use the word "Deluded" about ALL theists, just "hopeful" or possibly naive and in need of some explanation (of the universe). Personally, I don't care HOW it came to be, though I've studied the theories. It just doesn't interest me. People's BELIEFS about it do, however.

Answer 6

He does not try to prove God does not exist. This is impossible. He does argue that there is monumentally insufficient evidence that there is a creator god, let alone the God of the Bible/Torrah/Qu'ran.

The onus is not on atheists to prove God doesn't exist, the onus is on believers to provide credible evidence (we're not even asking for proof, just evidence - note the difference) that God does exist and does operate in our universe.

Answer 7

Since it's extremely improbable that any sky bully exists, it's up to those who claim he does to supply proof, or any reason to believe, or any evidence at all (which so far hasn't happened).

Don't you recall the "teapot" analogy of Bertram Russell's?

Just because you can't DISPROVE my claim that there's a teapot orbiting the sun just past Mars, doesn't mean that you're irrational for not believing it.

I've only just started the book, and haven't gotten to where he gives his detailed arguments, though.

But that has been my stance: The burden of proof in this case is on those making the absurd claims.

Just as the burden of proof was on proponents of germ theory to prove their seemingly absurd claim that invisibly small critters could make people sick or die.

He doesn't put himself in the 100% certain group, but more in the 97% certain group.

But, given the teeny tiny probability of any sort of god, it's reasonable to disbelieve, and irrational to believe, in the absence of any shred of evidence or any reason to believe.

Answer 8

Because you can't prove a negative.

Prove Jay Leno is floating around in a 57 T-bird out in the asteroid belt. Ridiculous, right? Well, to an atheist, god is equally ridiculous. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There isn't even a shred of ordinary evidence for the existence of any god.

Answer 9

"Morsels of proof" that God does not exist are plentiful when you study the history of religion. I challenge you to believe in God after you have done so.

I have not read this book but I'm glad I came across your question because now I will :)

Answer 10

could focus on something else than God. like the story of Noah's Ark. suppose it was not just one but a multi-ship program of saving the species of animals. the thing a person might want to point out about that is that there should be various types of humans on the arks as well. there could be a paralell drawn between the situation of the great floods and globalwarming. also end of the world stuff. it seems the religious were not entirely wrong. just on timing.