To hear atheists talk, one would think they have scientifically proven the non-existence of God, much like zealots think they have scientifically proven the existence of God.
Opposite sides of the exact same coin...
2007-06-25 15:34:21 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
My faith is that nobody can know.
2007-06-25 15:39:16 · update #1
from m-w.com:
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
key words here are "belief" and "doctrine."
2007-06-25 15:41:11 · update #2
"To hear atheists talk, one would think they have scientifically proven the non-existence of God, "
I don't think you're listening, let alone hearing.
I don't hear anything remotely like that from atheists. Simon T (above) says it perfectly.
2007-06-25 15:46:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not exactly.
Atheists can't 'prove' that God doesn't exist. But that doesn't say much, because you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist. All one can do in these cases is look to where the evidence points which doesn't result in 'proof' but in a preponderance of evidence.
If there were a God who intervened in the world that would be something that would by definition we would be able to detect scientifically. The problem is that such an event has never been demonstrated to have happened. There has never been any actual evidence of any intervention on God's part that stands up to the normal standards that scientific findings are expected to. Lots of claims. No evidence.
The more we discover in science the more we find that a god just isn't needed to explain any processes. So people retreat to the gaps that science has not yet explained and say, "There, that piece we don't understand, God must be doing that." That is until we discover how it occurs by natural processes. These unknowns have toppled one by one, and everytime we explain something, believers must point to another gap so that God has something to do.
We just don't need a god to understand our world. If it turns out there is evidence to the contrary I'd be the first to honor it. It just looks vastly unlikely at this point.
2007-06-25 15:37:27 · answer #2 · answered by Michael 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Atheists simply find that the reasons in support of the idea that invisible, magical, supernatural sky fairies (gods) exist are not compelling, and are therefore insufficient to initiate or sustain a mental state of 'belief'... for EXACTLY the same reasons that you do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, bridge trolls, garden gnomes, monsters under your bed and invisible pink unicorns prancing around in your back yard.
Atheism can be regarded as a 'faith', or a 'belief', only in the same sense that you might consider NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'.
2007-06-25 15:49:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither.
It is mainly based on a lack of evidence and logic.
While it is never possible to prove the non-existence of anything, including god it is also not possible to prove that dragons, Osiris, mermaids, the celestial teapot or unicorns do not exist.
But there are very few people who would actually believe in any of these things.
Since there is no evidence for god, other than a desperate attempt to use the diminishing gaps in science, which is still not real evidence, why is god treated differently from all the other things that there is no evidence for?
Unless you are going to start believing in dragons, Osiris, mermaids, the celestial teapot and unicorns atheism is the logical choice.
2007-06-25 15:43:06 · answer #4 · answered by Simon T 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If God is METAPHYSICAL, you shouldn't even be concerned with science which is PHYSICAL when pondering his existance. Start with basic laws of logic like cause and effect. For example athiests point to the big bang theory as evidence that god doesn't exist. But I think it actually proves that god exists because what else made the bang? Think about this: where did the timeless, metaphysical, things like the laws of logic come from? Perhaps from a mind that was always there? hmm
2007-06-25 15:55:21 · answer #5 · answered by lonely 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No i do no longer think of atheism is a faith. The definition of an atheist is in simple terms somebody who would not have faith in a god or some bigger unknown power. The absence of a thought in "god" could be no distinctive than the absence of thought in trolls and fairys and unicorns. those that deny that unicorns are actual would not be seen non secular. Religions are ususually linked with a extra robust power and, extra importantly to argue the variation with atheism, are many times an prepared group of human beings with practices and agreed upon recommendations. i could think of very few atheists are a factor of an prepared atheist group. As for the technology component, i do no longer think of maximum could say the theories on the formation of the universe and existence are "data". they're theories that can by no potential be shown, yet so a ways as theories bypass i could say that those theories, of direction no longer a hundred % splendid, are probably slightly closer to way easily transpired than many non secular motives of the origins of existence and the universe. i think of that's a stretch to assert my thought reported above is a non secular thought, or blind faith in technology. i could speculate that maximum atheists have a extra average view like myself.
2016-10-03 03:32:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok I'll say this for about the 10th time. You can't prove a negative. I can't prove God doesn't exist. I also can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. If you are saying he doesn't exist, you are the one with the burden of proof. And you don't have one single scrap of evidence to suggest that there is any reason at all why anyone should believe Gods existence so until you do I'm going to keep believing he doesn't exist.
2007-06-25 15:41:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Anything that requires evidence could hardly be called "faith-based." Atheists simply don't believe in God because there is no credible evidence of any deity's existence. It's not that we have proved the non-existence of God, but that no theists have proved the EXISTENCE of God.
2007-06-25 15:41:44 · answer #8 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well? I can't answer for other than myself, but I don't believe in gods of any sort, shape or description. It's fairly simple and has nothing to do with your criteria. I have no reason and even less interest in proving and/or justifying my disbelief to anyone. Why does this seem difficult for some folks to understand? It's really quite simple, obviously too simple for some.
2007-06-25 15:49:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
At the same time no one has proven that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. The ones who started the "proving game" were religious people wanting to shove it down the throats of the people they burned at the stake.
You have lots of blood and tears on your hands and still are an obstacle to the understanding of human nature.
2007-06-25 15:40:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋