Are you a true ATHEIST?

Question

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge.
So prove there is no god.

Answer 1

While I'm not certain beyond all doubt of the nonexistence of God, I'm REASONABLY certain. Here's why:

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

So to begin with, I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that GOD INTERVENES TO CIRCUMVENT NATURAL LAWS.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it becomes impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "It is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen). Therefore, because the scientific method leads to applicable discoveries, and the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions). A God who is not all-loving, all-powerful or all-knowing is also not sufficient for the definition of God, because any God that fails to meet these criteria becomes bound by rules that are greater than God.

If God is bound by external rules and/or does not intervene in our existence, then God is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic Bertrand Russell argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun between the earth's orbit and Mars. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes enormously more sense to live your life as if there were no God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God (a) to help people deal with the pain and fear associated with death and loss, and (b) to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Humans are always searching for explanations. When none were found, it was the natural inclination to declare that the cause of the unexplained was "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles (coincidences) and laws were ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grew up around it.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well-being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I am reasonably certain that God doesn't exists. And you know what? It's okay if you do believe God does exist.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 2

You made the claim of God - you prove there is a God. WE claim that 2+2=4 and we also prove it in the same sentence.

Answer 3

I don't believe in the concept of God the way most religions put it.

What they call God is I what call the spirit of the universe.This spirit has two wills - one is to create and another is to destroy. In creating, the spirit moves, acts, reacts and mutates to bring about all the natural elements we see in the world ( e.g. atoms and molecules forming earth, water, metal. trees, animals, human beings) as well as manmade things (e.g.your home, PC, food, bridges, cars, etc). In destroying, it usually moves in more sudden way. There seems to be a pace to this evolution that moves (at least for now) in an upward direction. The pace is moderate. When creation happens to fast, there will be a sudden destruction to bring it back to balance. Balance seems to be the law of the universe. That's why we always feel a sense of justice for everything.

I believe that living things have more concentration of this spirit compared to inanimate things and could therefore create and destroy at a faster rate and more visibly. The reason why we are determined to survive, to create good things around us, to fear death and to eliminate threats to our survival is because we are trying to guard this concentration of spirit for as long as we could.

So .. what's the meaning behind all this? I haven't come to a definite conclusion, but while I ponder I shall take comfort in the theory of evolution. That we here to create more wonderful things - more sophistication, more efficiency, more beauty, higher consciousness ... while keeping a line of balance and see how much potential we we could realize before time is up for a whole new universe.

Answer 4

You are using a logical fallacy: false dichotomy.

The agnostic atheist has a very simple position: there is no evidence for the existence of God and there cannot be evidence.

The proof requirement is not applicable, as if it were, there would be no true theists either.

Answer 5

Actually I consider myself an agnostic atheist.

Silly. Don't you know that the burden of proof lies with the believers.

And may I ask you to prove flying polka dotted pigs don't exist

Answer 6

how many times do we have to tell you people that you can't prove a negative? really?


Even so- how is this a good argument in your case? You can't prove that Elton John ISN'T the second coming... he must be!!!
Praise the lord, the new Jesus is the Queen of England... that doesn't help your image very much, you know.


French fry?

Answer 7

Atheist just means to be without faith in a God. Whether aggies admit it or not, they're atheists too.

Theism is a positive claim. Taking a neutral stance on a positive claim is the same as denying it.

Answer 8

Athiests simply lack belief in gods. I lack belief in gods so that makes me an atheist. I am not required to prove anything.

You prove there isn't an Easter Bunny.

Answer 9

Atheism isn't about PROVING that gods don't exist. Theism isn't about PROVING that they *do* exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. A negative position, but a definite one nonetheless.

Answer 10

The onus is on you to prove that God exists. Unless you have proof, by default, we're right.