Atheists, ur respect opinion please?

Question

Hey i would like to see how you would think of this


The argument about religion has been going on for ages
As from what i have heard, Atheist believe that there is no God because Atheists believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove His existence.

However look at this.

As you have said, There is absolutely no way to prove the existence of God with facts. i have no question about that

However, did you not forget the other perspective--
God cannot be disproven because there are no indisputable facts to disprove his existence.

You may say that it is ridiculous to say that something may be true because it is not proven false.

Also, i have heard that Atheism is logical. Why? Is it because There is absolutely no way to prove the existence of God with facts? It may seem logical, however are you all not shortchanging yourselves by looking at only half the picture?

What say you?




yeah btw im Christian, no hard feelings though, keep the peace:)

Zero Cool, you have no concept of what an Atheists is. For you information, theist is a preson who believes that there is a God, in general. But a Atheist, does not believe in any God

For any whatsoever burdern of proof, it does not lie with me, you must look at all perspectives, not follow law~! goodness!

Answer 1

You've heard wrong. Most atheists lack belief in the existence of deities. Absolute atheists lack belief in all gods while most other people are atheistic to varying lesser degrees. You, for example, are an atheist to all god concepts EXCEPT for Yahweh. Therefore I contend that we are both atheists, I just go one god further. *edit* No, an atheist is, if we break down the word into it's various parts, "one without god belief". The prefix "a-" means "without" and the noun "theist" means "one who believes in the existence of a god or gods". So put them together and an atheist is "one who lacks belief in the existence of a god or gods". Therefore if you lack belief in the existence of even ONE god, you are technically an atheist.

I know that a negative cannot be proven. That's the whole point of bringing up satire like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell's Teapot. You can't DISPROVE their existence, so by your logic, wouldn't it be fair to say that you ought to believe in them just in case, or at least be agnostic toward their existence?

Atheism is the only logical CONCLUSION. I *have* looked at the whole picture. I have considered the god concept and have come to the only logical conclusion: that it's a logically impossible concept. That's AFTER considering it as a logical possibility and then dismissing that option as not an option at all.

Answer 2

Atheism is logical because it follows a string of logic. One event lead to another, lead to another, and with each of those events, it's explained scientifically. While it's true that we might not have all the answers right now, I'm a firm believer that we'll have the technology and experience to end the age old question "Does God exist?" someday in the future. As of right now, it's impossible to know everything and anything about the Earth, as we're discovering new things every day! As we progress and gain more knowledge, I'm sure we'll be able to figure it out.

We consider Atheism to be more logical because we have hard proof that what we believe is real. Such as the "Big Bang" can be explained by red and blue shifts in the solar system. Evolution is displayed on the crust of the Earth with a lineup of skeletons that have similarities. Not to put down religion, but Theism continues through faith and a book, a book that was written by the same people who thought the word was flat.

You know what I mean?

Answer 3

I'm agnostic... so maybe you don't care about my view here, but I'll say it anyway.

God is a very meaningless term until it is defined specifically because it has different meanings all over the world. Let us refer to it at first as that which is supernatural - nothing more.

The supernatural, as you say, can neither be proven nor disproven because it need not show itself to us. I do not believe either way; I do not care either way. I cannot spend my life trying to please a supernatural entity that could theoretically be anything, including a being who PUNISHES people who believe in it or people who accept ideas without evidence. Therefore, in thought, agnosticism is most logical; in practice, it is equivalent to atheism.

Some people argue that we can't disprove some things, i.e. FSM, Santa Claus, etc. They are correct about the FSM, but not beings like Santa Claus who, when examined with other evidence in mind (the knowledge that our families give us presents, not a man in red who flies around on a sleigh), can be disproven.

Now, the problem with your argument is that you say your God cannot be disproven. Many of us feel this is not the case. True, the supernatural cannot be disproven on the basis that it is supernatural, but that does not mean it is exempt from logical analysis if it possesses more characteristics. There are many Christian beliefs and verses that contradict what God considers itself to be in the Bible and what God is considered by those who believe in it. A paradox like this cannot exist. Thus, the Christian God does not exist.

I do not care about a lack of evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, when you begin to define the supernatural - like God = the Christian God - you are setting parameters that, unlike the supernatural itself, can be examined. If they do not mix, this particular notion of God cannot be.

It is not that I, or even many atheists, reject the possibility of God; we simply do not believe. There is a difference.

And that is why I believe what I do.

Answer 4

The question of the existence of god is typically phrased in a way that makes a direct disproof difficult. But this is equally true were the claim not of the existence of god but of, say, a small teapot orbiting Jupiter. There is no way to observe the teapot, but you would accept that this does not prove that it exists.

So if you are charged with saying something about the hypothetical existence of something that cannot ever be observed what can you say? Well, it is obvious that you can say something because we do not all go around accepting the existence of anything someone comes up with that cannot be observed.

What you can say is "how likely is it that this unobserved thing exists?". And this is something you can quantify to some extent.

For the teapot you would reason "teapots are man made, no man is know to have been in orbit around Jupiter, therefore the likelihood it exists is very low". In other words you reason from a priori knowledge.

Alternatively you can reason from consequences. This does not work for the teapot, but if we say "god is a personal god who answers prayer" then this is a claim with testable consequences. If it fails that test, it makes the existence of god less likely.

Based on these sorts of arguments we can make an estimate of the probability that god exists. It must lie somewhere in the range of intrinsic uncertainty in the universe, because we have never observed a universal law of physics to be broken.

This range is around 1 in 10^34. In other words, the chance that god exists is of the order 1 part in 10 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000.

Low.

Answer 5

Here are some other things which I can't disprove:
- Thor
- Poseidon
- The Invisible Flying Pink Unicorn
- Russel's Celestial Teapot
- Santa Claus
- My being abducted by aliens every night while I sleep
- etc.

Even though they can't be disproved, it is reasonable not to believe in these things because there is no evidence for them. Ditto for God.

Answer 6

You are correct; I cannot disprove the existence of any God. However, I can make a pretty compelling case that no God worth worshipping exists.

Answer 7

"You may say that it is ridiculous to say that something may be true because it is not proven false."

this is exaclty right.
god is one of an infinite number of imaginary things that can never be proven to exist or not exist, including the tooth fairy etc.

it IS ridiculous to say that something may be true because it is not proven false.

in fact, FALSIFIABILITY is a feature of SCIENCE which gives it credibility. if there is no possible way to prove something wrong, then it isnt scientific.

read into falsifiability

Answer 8

It does make sense. You can't prove or disprove god. Personally, I just don't care :/ It's not my job to prove or disprove to anyone that god is real or not. I like to live on my own accord, not by a set of standards.

No hard feelings, yo.

Answer 9

So according to your logic, because you can't prove that something doesn't exist you may as well believe it does anyway? WOW!

Answer 10

Anyone who says the Christian deity is not disproved by a literal reading of the Bible could not have beyond a high school education.