What logical proof do you have that makes you Atheist?

Question

Is there anything that you know from understanding that makes you believe that the presence of God is impossible? I mean, even the Big Bang is a theory, and the theory of evolution too... doesn't it take faith to believe in a theory without having seen concrete proof? Have you done any research yourself?

What really is the difference between believing in Science from second hand knowledge and believing in God?

Ok.... yes... that's what you believe... but I am asking you to give me this proof and emperical evidence. If you have none, then your beliefs are just as logical as mine.

Answer 1

You are right in a sense, Sweetheart. It does take faith to believe in science when you can't perform the experiments or do the calculations yourself, or even understand them in detail for that matter. (Before going on, though, I suggest you look up the definition of "theory," esp. scientific theory. You have it wrong).

However, unless you are willing to believe that nearly all the scientists in the world are part of a conspiracy to destroy faith in God (one questioner said it was to convert the world to Hinduism), you have to give them some credit.

Also, science has given us nearly everything we use today (including the computer you're using right now), has accurately predicted the presence of subatomic particles and planets and black holes without having seen them, healed millions of people who would otherwise have died, and much more.

God has not done any of these things, and does not and will not do so reliably. If I am dying of cancer, I will put my faith in the science of medicine rather than trusting God, who allowed the cancer to attack me in the first place, to heal me. Wouldn't you?

Answer 2

Firstly, Aetheism is not based on Science. It is a beleif in God without a beleif in religion.

The big difference between faith and science is that science is viewable in the everyday world, where does the computer and the internet where you post this question descend from if not science?

Big bang is a theory. It has never pretended to be anything else, nor has Darwinism or phylogeny - unlike some certain religions which have conducted themselves as an absolute certainty.

Perhaps the ascent of science over religion is down to science being more practically prevalent in a modern age as opposed to a faith based system where there is no real proof or even evidence to suggest which faith is correct.

Answer 3

Most of the answers to this question will attempt to tell you that the scientific evidence of evolution is enough to rule God out. However do note that as more "evidence" emerges then the theory of evolution has to be changed to fit the evidence, or a new story has to be concocted to appease the gullible public so now we have quite a few "theories of evolution" instead, these include:

1838 Darwin Survival of the fittest.
1866 Haeckel Fundamental biogenetic law.
1940 Goldschmidt Hopeful monster theory.
1972 Eldredge/Gould Punctuated equilibrium.
And later Panspermia which states that all life arrived in a spaceship. Well that theory just moves the goalposts back.

More importantly the creation truth has not changed at all. It has always been the same as written in scripture and will never need to change.
Incidently the fossils agree with the creation truth but of course scientists bent on spreading evolution lies are not going to tell us that, are they?

I used to be a self appointed atheist and would vigorously defend the evolution theory against creation, simply because I wanted to live my life my way without Gods interference.
However when I became a christian at the age of 21 all that changed and I could see that creation is what happened by the hand of God and evolution with all its delusions and lies I relegated to the scrap heap.

Answer 4

Aarrgh! "even the Big Bang is a theory" and "doesn't it take faith to believe in a theory without having seen concrete proof?" You do not understand the meaning of the word "theory." In a scientific context, it does not mean a guess! This is what it means: The American Heritage Science Dictionary says: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

Okay, now that we have that straight...people do not need logical proof to not believe in gods. Not believing does not require logical proof. For instance, I do not believe in ghosts or witches or wizards. Do I need logical proof of them NOT existing to not believe?

Answer 5

The lack of logical proof for the existence of God is why I'm an atheist. Evolution and the Big Bang are theories, but in order to be considered a scientific theory, an idea must have a great body of systematically collected data in support of it. Faith and personal anecdotes don't count.

Answer 6

Germ Theory and the Theory of Gravitation are 'just theories,' too. The common usage of "theory" and the scientific term are two different things.
The Big Bang is actually a hypothesis, I believe; evolution has tons of evidence as well as observed instances. (Keep in mind that I refer to evolution as the theory describes, "adaptation and speciation of organisms in response to environmental pressures." I am not talking about the false "monkeys birthing elephants" or "Pokemon-style" ideas of evolution.)

Any scientific experiment can be reproduced and tested with access to a lab. In fact, that is the basis for scientific method, which any hypothesis must undergo before being accepted as theory. If it is unable to be falsified (that is, tested scientifically), it cannot be a scientific theory. Evolution has been evidenced, observed, and verified to such a degree that it is a theory - though it is often revised as new information becomes available, and old notions are proven in error through new data and technology.

Anyone with access to a college laboratory can perform experiments to test others' findings. You can also get grants to do the same. And science literature is freely available everywhere. So yes, some of us have done our own research.

Not all atheists believe God/gods/whatever is impossible. If one could be scientifically proven, they would concede that it exists. However, there is no proof for God that is not equally proof for Krishna, Odin, karma, Mother Nature, or random natural occurances.

Answer 7

It's not tricky really. The only evidence we have of the Abrahamic god is the collective rantings of Bronze Age hooligans that made up their stories while they were also formulating a false history for themselves.

There is no evidence from observation that this god exists either, so that kills that avenue of investigation.

Since we have no historical or currently observable evidence of the existence of your god, we conclude that he doesn't exist.

Good science, on the other hand, is based on research, experimentation, and results which can be verified.

Really, your question isn't even a proper question. It's a lot like asking "Why would you eat a plate of spaghetti when you could be listening to Mozart?" Science and religion are two mutually exclusive ways to explain the universe.

Answer 8

I can never understand why some people cannot see the difference between "second hand knowledge" in a book or journal about provable, testable things (science) and "second hand accounts" in an ancient book about faith (Bible).

There is a difference between faith and knowledge. You can't use both as arguments for religion. It's either one or the other.

As to what proof I have for being an atheist (atheist btw.. not scientist), I have no more than a believer does. What I do have however is the ability to compare "possible" against "probable." I view the existence of a god (any god) to be possible, but not probable. This has brought me to the conclusion that there is no god(s), and if on the off-chance there were, it would be of no importance. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Answer 9

I think you misunderstand the use of the word "theory" in a scientific context. A scientific theory is a testable model that makes accurate predictions. The evidence for scientific theories is widely available to anybody willing to look.

I've seen plenty of concrete proof. I've taken astronomy classes where I've had the opportunity to observe certain astronomical phenomena that entail an expanding universe and lend support to the Big Bang theory. As far as evolution, I've seen enough evidence to convince me that it is true.

The difference between believing in Science from second-hand information is that scientific theories are testable and the evidence supporting them is widely available. Belief in God, on the other hand, is not testable. The evidence for God is also subjective and personal and therefore not available to others.

Answer 10

That's a really good question. (The question is going to upset some people. Be prepared for some pretty nasty feedback.)

Given the vastness of the universe, and the bewildering amount of information in the universe, it's impossible for me to claim to "know" the entire universe, or even a tiny fraction of it. It's impossible for me to "know" that God does not exist.

What I am left with is investigating the universe around me, and evaluating the evidence. An atheist can no more prove that God does not exist than a believer can prove that God "is". It's a stalemate, and neither side can "know", or "prove" to any satisfying degree of certainty, whether or not God "is".

It takes as much faith to believe there is no God as it does to believe God is. Our faith is acted out, based on a reasonable examination of the evidence, both for and against. And in the end, it is an individual, personal decision what to believe.

If God "is", and He were to provide me with incontrovertible evidence as "proof" of Himself, then my decision to not believe would not represent a freewill decision, but would be a deliberate act of rebellion.

So I can not subscribe to the notion that insufficient "proof" of God's existence is equivalent to a proof that God does not exist.