Atheists...?

Question

I saw this answer several times: There is no God because there is no indisputable proof God exists.

My question is if an atheist relies on science, and the rules of science dictate that absence of proof is not proof something doesn't exist, how can you be an atheist?

If you rely on the lack of evidence but science dictates that it takes proof in the negative to determine a theory doesn't exist, shouldn't all atheists who believe in science over religion be agnostics?

I am not confusing science and philosophy or asking whether you as a person believe in God. My question was based on the scientific process for proving or disproving a theory and atheists reliance on science.

Think of it this way, under this theory Christians could also be termed agnostics if using science as a basis for their reasoning. Read the question more carefully before answering people.

Also not saying this is what all atheists believe, I am talking about atheists who use the absence of proof as proof God does not exist.

Answer 1

You're kinda' right.
We cannot prove that god doesn't exist. Therefore, we cannot say for certain that god doesn't exist. But, to be an atheist, we are not saying that we believe that there is no god (that takes faith). We are saying that we don't believe that there IS a god.

The evidence is exceptionally overwhelming that nearly all of the magical powers attributed to the deity of your choice are highly unlikely.

But- I always defer to the Rev below me. He's my YA R&S hero.

Answer 2

I think you are misunderstanding what the atheists are saying. There's no reason to even bother thinking about God because there's no evidence that such a being exists. It's not about a scientific argument. There's no reason to believe in 50 foot high kangaroos, because there's no evidence of such a creature. In fact, there are billions of things one could think up for which there is no evidence. This is an entirely different matter from the scientific approach which doesn't really work with proof but with things fitting an hypothesis (a theory) - as long as all observed facts are congruent with the hypothesis, the theory stands. It might ALSO predict the existence of something which hasn't yet been discovered - take, for instance, the quark, an elementary particle which was theorised about as it explained a lot, but for ages was not observed. It has been now, I think.

I am disturbed that you see science and religion as opposed. They are in two totally different realms and most adherents of most religions have no problem with science of any sort - it doesn't threaten their faith. There are plenty of atheists who aren't especially interested in science, beyond what any thinking person would be. There are quite a number of scientists who are religious, too.

Answer 3

You first have to define the term "GOD" . If you define it as what is dog spelled backwards ... then you have god .
If you use Sagan's definition as "All that exists inside of and outside of the known universe" you have another acceptable definition of god for most atheists .
You can easily disprove the god defined as all good and all powerful . There is Much unnecessary pain and suffering on Earth . Animals eat other animals alive . Hurricanes cause death and injury . Diseases kill innocent lives as do terrorists . And so on .
Could there be other definitions of a god ? Sure ! But Atheists are very hesitant to accept a term for god that would include concepts such as sadistic , uncaring , limited in power , and limited in knowledge .

Richard M.
1. We don't know .( It is a very secure person that can admit that they don't know and are trying to find the proof of what happened . Insecure people grasp at the nearest superstition , like "lets avoid black cats" , so they can feel safe .)
2. Possibly matter contracts to such a compacted form that gravity can no longer contain it it and the internal pressure causes an explosion . There are other theories that you can google ( Under SCIENTIFIC cause of the Big Bang .)
3 . I like to ask Religious people "What was there before god ?" lol

Answer 4

Question has been asked before. In essence you are comparing apples and oranges. God or "no god" is a basis assumption people make in life, and since this basis assumption is not provable by observation--it is at it's heart a philosophical axiom. From this basis axiom either atheism or religion flows. For myself, to accept the God axiom requires me to accept the negation of causality, requires the use of magic (for lack of a better word), and in essence if a deity created the universe then it simply adds one more level of complexity. The no god simply requires a universe guided by the fundamental interactions of mass and energy.
The question could also be couched as a Christians belief in the Big Bang question since it is the flip side of that question. This would force a christian for example from the label christian to the label agnostic since like the God hypothesis it would take proof in the negative to disprove the big bang.
Your question was reasoned but fallacious I think by the fact you are confusing science and philosophy--the rules are different.

Answer 5

I am an agnostic... an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is a philosophical position concerning *knowledge*. It says that the existence of a god cannot be known and/or is inherently unknowable.

Atheism is a position on the spectrum of *belief*.

You are confusing knowledge and belief. I don't say that I *know* or can prove that there is no god. I say that I have no evidence for any such being, and no good reason to *believe* in one.

Answer 6

Most atheists, if pressed, will freely admit that they could technically be called agnostics -- to the extent that they are agnostics about the Tooth Fairy or leprechauns.

We may never be able to prove the negative 100%; but extraordinary claims require extraordinary levels of evidence before being accepted as fact -- or at least, they SHOULD, among reasonable, thoughtful people.

And the burden of proof still lies with the person making the positive claim...

Answer 7

You're not quite getting the average atheist standpoint correct.

It would be more correct to say "We do not believe there is a God because there is no indisputable proof that God exists."

What would you say about the existence of leprechauns?
You have no proof that they don't exist, and yet my bet is that you would claim that you don't believe they exist. In fact, I would go so far as to bet you would say that you KNOW they don't exist. It's the same thing for us.

Answer 8

NO, and here is why. In order for something to be proved in the negative it has to be what scientists call 'falsifyable' - that is there must be some way to test the theory to verify its failure. Since there is no way god can be falsified (there is no test you can perform because god is not physical) then this theory or belief in god cannot be proven in the negative, therefore it can be just ignored or tossed out. See how simple that was. And you thought you had the scientists fooled.

Answer 9

Its a good argument, but cannot be realistically applied to belief.

For instance, the same can be said about Leprechauns and trouser snakes.

That argument opens the door to all existence and if applied as rational thought leads to a loss of meaning in life.

If all things might exist, and I rely on that logic for belief, then I must be open to unicorns, shrek, FSM etc... finding meaning in life through all of these 'possibilities' would ultimately be a waste of time.

Answer 10

I use logic, reason and common sense and they all point to the fact that god does NOT exist.
What you have to realize is that most of us WERE religious at one time in our lives.
I was catholic and the things that I heard about god did not make sense and the answers I was given made less sense.
I'd give more of a detailed explanation but I am sure it will fall on deaf ears.