Tbor

This is a question for the atheists mainly. Even though the thrust of the issue is similar for theists.

When you tell someone that you're an atheist, I'd imagine that you often get asked how you can be sure that there's no god. It's the same question that people ask theists.... How can you prove it. Why not just accept agnosticism.

This is usually where theists invoke faith, but that doesn't seem to be an obvious move for atheists. As I think about it, maybe it's not so odd to say that one, "just has faith in the fact that there's no god." But I'd think that it's exactly theism's reliance on faith that pushes a lot of atheists toward their belief.

Once again, this is not a challenge of atheism. I just wanted to get a survey of ideas from active atheists. How do you answer this very common objection.

yours in science.

__________________
Tbor
Madison, WI

TIO

Tbor, like you say, I take it as a matter of faith that there is no God (or whatever else). I find it easier to believe that there is no God, than to believe that there is.
A lot of atheists (not including myself) say that they are simply applying Ocham's Razor to the issue; to them, a physics-driven creation of the universe is a simpler answer to the question than a supreme being.

Faith is not my objection to Christianity, though. I have many other reasons, some objections to specific faiths and denominations, and some objections to 'religion' in general.

__________________
Strewth

Dragonlich

Okay, let's put it in a completely different setting, to illustrate my problem with this question...

Suppose I, along with a lot of other humans, were to believe in the Easter Bunny. We have holy books, churches, door-to-door-salespeople; the works...

Now, how would you justify your lack of belief in the Easter Bunny? Can you explain *why* you do not belief, and can you prove there isn't an Easter Bunny at all?

To me, the idea that there is some God out there is just so alien, that it's not even worth considering; just like my example of the Easter Bunny.

(No offence to EasterBunnians, by the way.)

Cumhachd

I don't bring it up much, so I haven't had to defend it. But if I had to, I would argue that until someone shows me some hard proof, I'm not going to waste my time with it. It just seems so unlikely that something like God could exist that I'm boggled by the willingness of people to believe in it. Now, the Easter Bunny, on the other hand -- it may be our one true lord and chocolate-dispenser, but that doesn't mean I have to believe in it. It is, to borrow an idea from Terry Pratchett, like believing in the milkman.

__________________
Sorry, I can only exorcise clam spirits.

EbichuMAAN! From the dark end of the dark has been chosen for disipline, from the moon to the stars, no one knows what a justice and earnest shopkeeper then today, the justice maker in tonight by the way, they call it: Ebichuman.

CSflim

Well, yeah, agreed, I don't have any way to prove that God doesn't exist. I also don't have any proof that the invisible purple llama living under my bed doesn't exist, but that doesn't make me believe in it.

Religion is simply a comfort blanket. Some people accept that, and decide to live a life without it. To others, it is too important, and they live with "faith". Faith is just an excuse to justify believing in the completely irational.

Agnostisism is just taking the lazy way out, having your cake and eating it. Like being bisexual

__________________

bermuDa

in my opinion i don't have to prove god doesn't exist, you have to prove he does.

ditto

I think explaining everything as 'god's work' or 'god's will' is just a copout for ppl afraid of seeking the real answers, which are a lot less comforting.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

chavos

It's not about occam's razor or anything like that. TRUE athism means that there is no Right and no Wrong, simply human opinion. That's fine...until you see evil in all it's complexity and pervasiveness. How do you confront the aftermath of people who kill, violate, and abuse? The true athiest's answer is that he or she does not care for such things, but that it is not wrong in an absolute sense beyond offending the sensibilities of others.

bermuDa

sounds more like nihilism than atheism.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

CSflim

In that case I am a "true" atheist. Right and wrong are just social constructions. That said, they are very IMPORTANT social constructions. Without our inherrent sense of right and wrong (or aquired sense, whichever you prefer) our society would be absolute pandemonium.

However, I don't believe in a universal right and wrong. Such things are always subjective. Something may seem wrong to you, or it may seem wrong to the vast majority of people, but a large number of subjective opinions does not equal fact.

To illustrate with an analogy:
I also don't believe in beauty. That doesn't stop me from appreciating art and music, which I find beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This is quite a cliche phrase, but many people don't seem to really undersatnd what it means.
No object has an inherrent property of beauty. The "beauty" of an object is projected on to it by its observers. So nothing is beuautiful, yet I see beauty in many things!

Similarly, nothing is right or wrong, but I consider many things right or wrong. Most importantly, what I consider to be right or wrong is ONLY an opinion, nothing more.

__________________

AppleSauceMcGee

i think that believing in a god is for the people who cannot think for themselves and do not want to think hard about life. I find it easier to beleive in no god, than believe in one. Though i do why people beleive in a god.... i just need proof

__________________
"The Church says the Earth is Flat, But I know that it is Round, For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon. And I Have more faith in a shadow Than in the Church." - Ferdinand Magellan

Marse Bob

We will all DIE! Afrer that big occasion we'll know for sure. But, this could be too late for most people.

I believe humans ARE special. I believe we have a soul (spirit) which is eternal.

I DO believe we were created, not accidental.

I do not believe that all living beings are equal, I believe humans are superior and unique (unlike many Hollywood/animal-rights activists).

Unfortunately, many of us think we are smart, and know it all, when we are actually clueless. The truth is usually simple and straightforward, but we often don't recognize it. We want to make things complicated and "logical."

I DO believe there is an all-powerful God who created everything, and watches, and judges us 24-7.

It doesn't matter how important we are in our own eyes. It doesn't matter how highly we regard our own opinion.

As humans, uniquely created in God's "image," we are but tiny, tiny specks of dust in a huge, vast universe. We physically exist for a brief instant: then we're gone. How long is your life compared to eternity?

It would be good for all of us to use this brief life to search for God, the Creator, and follow His instructions for the long, long, infinite future. Can the future ever end?

Do you think your brief (actually, totally insignificant) experience qualifies YOU to judge the eternal, infinite universe??

The Judeo-Christian philosophy is my choice for sorting out these questions.

Dragonlich

Marse Bob: interesting, but pretty weird. You belief in something that cannot ever be proven, and then try to persuade others to join you. How can you *know* there is a God, or an afterlife? Answer: you cannot, but you belief in it. Well, I do not. To me, that makes your post seem rather silly.

As I said: if everyone were to belief in the Easter Bunny, and would have a whole religion based on that creature, wouldn't you feel equally weird when some guy with bunny ears tries to persuade you to worship eggs, because "they're the one true manifestation of the holy Bunny"? After all, if you do not worship eggs, you won't go to meet the Easter Bunny after you die - you'll spend the rest of eternity on a raft in the ocean. Hey... the books say so, so it must be true!

(sorry if I offended you, by the way)

CSflim

Yes I agree. I'm a bit annoyed about the fact that I won't be able to gloat.

Am I to take it that you are referring to our esteemed theory of evolution by natural selection? hmmmm? I suppose I would be wasting, my breath to mention that natural selection is not accidental and that saying such just proves that you don't have a fundamental grasp of the concepts involved and that...never mind... there really is no point is there? Such has been demonstrated many times in the past.



**Snip, lots of unfounded statements of "fact" **


What it all comes down to, is that you are prepared to accept all these without any proof. Without any shred of evidence. Not only do you not have any emprical evidence, you cannot even form a coherent argument to prove the existence of your god. It always comes down to crap like "I just know", "I can feel him with me", "Its called faith, and I have faith, thats all I need". That's rubbish, unfalsifible subjective statements are not evidence. They don't even add to an argument.


It seems to me that it is you who claim to know it all. Science doesn't claim to know it all, which I assume is what you are attacking. Science doesn't even claim that everything is even knowable. It is simply there to figure out what we can know. So far it has proven indeed very effective.




What about you? I am not "judging" the "eternal" and "infinite" universe. I am simply refusing to accept the existence of something based on hearsay. Have you ever heard of gossip? It has often been shown that gossip can have some pretty awful consequences. Organised religion is probably the worst manifestation of this.

Well, science, logic, rational thinking and common sense are MY way of answering these questions.

__________________

CSflim

Oh and before anyone tries to point out how my reply could be deemed insensitive to a persons beliefs, or condescending, I would like to say this:

On these boards, and everywhere else for that matter, atheists are often accused of "attacking" religions, simply by stating their reasons for realising that religion is nonsense, thus making out atheists to be inconsiderate arogant and egotistical. It always appears that atheists have to JUSTIFY their "beliefs" to everyone else, yet people who believe in God, simply believe, end of story. Because of this an atheist defending his/her "belief" is not trying to put forward an opinion/theory, but is rather dismissing someone elses opinion/theory, a.k.a. "being insensitive to to other people's beliefs".

So, I would just ask of people, to make a point of not getting offended by my, or anyone else's posts on the subject of religion vs atheism. After all, If your views are that strong, why even take into consideration what a worthless heretic like me has to say?

__________________

chavos

I should note that i never meant to state that one can't hold that position, but that it has its challenges, just as there are challenges to the posititon of a theist.

I think that in my years of athiesm, i never really hit that one flat out...and i like to point it out, just so that people can see some of the implications of their thinking. I don't regard it as unprincipled in the least, just a belief that i cannot share.

TIO

No. Do you?

Dragonlich

To add to chavos post...

Suppose one were to divide the humans into two groups:
1) religious folk that go through life honoring the age-old laws of their culture because if they don't, they'll go to hell.
2) non-religious folk that go through life honoring the age-old laws of their culture, because if they don't, they'll go to jail.

Can one honestly say that one of these groups is somehow less moral than the other? Can one even suggest that one of these groups (usually the non-religious one) does not understand the difference between good and evil?

I'd like you to ponder the following: <i>religious people that are living a good life because they fear punishment are *less moral* than non-religious people living a good life because they choose to do so.</i>

Just FYI: I'm an atheist, and am well aware of the cultural, ethical and moral reasons for living a "good" life. I do not need a holy bible or religious leader to tell me how to live - I can make up my own mind. So far, I haven't killed (or even attacked) anyone, stolen anything, or done anything that might be considered even remotely evil, nor do I plan to do anything evil in the future. How can this be if morality comes from religion?

Kabsnow

i use science, there is more evidence that there isn't any god, then that there is.

Quietus

I lost my faith fairly recently actually, and I suppose in my opinion there is evidence that there is not a god. I had some pretty bad experiences recently, and these kind of triggered something. At first, I basically said, "With all the horrible things that have happened to me in my life, how could there ever be a god that would allow these things to happen to me?" But then, I started thinking more about the rest of the world, and realized that there is suffering much worse than mine going on all over the world. I guess I just find it difficult to believe that any divine being would allow such terrible things as the holocaust, ethnic clensings, rapes, murders, etc., to happen every day, all the time, all over the planet.

In the words of John Coffey from "The Green Mile," "Mostly I'm tired of people being ugly to each other. I'm tired of all the pain I feel and hear in the world everyday. There's too much of it. It's like pieces of glass in my head all the time."

duckznutz

i am no philospher but my undertsnding is that an agnostic is 'unsure', whereas an atheist (as I am) refuses to believe in the ridiculous notion that there is a god. This is different to me 'believing' there is no god . . . I simply refuse to beleive that there might be . . which is a different thing entirely and does not require me to prove it any more than I would be required to prove there was no such thing as ghosts.

You cannot prove that something doesnt exist. You can only prove that things DO exist. Its a childish argument.

Consider the following 2 statements : -

1 - I do not believe there are aliens living amongst us here on earth.
2 - I beleive there are no aliens living amongst us here on earth.

These are very different statements! Number 1 is me not believing YOUR theory . . and that would be the view of 'Atheists'.

Number 2 on the other hand would be MY proposition, and you could then legitimately say "but how can you be so certain?".

I respectfully conclude that you cannot legitimately ask an Atheist "but how can you be so certain?".

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Tbor

Very interesting responses, thank you all.

There were only a few deviant ones, so thanks for that.

Two things. Just thought's I have in summary I guess. If you want to respond feel free otherwise thanks for the above.

1. I'm very impressed by the Ockham's Razor response. I think it was restated a number of ways. Essentially, the best evidence points to the non-existence of god. Although I tend to agree with the preponderance of scientific evidence - I have to admit that this brings me no closer to proof. This is why I'm impressed by this first response. It says, "here's the evidence, scientific and biblical (as it would be rather un-empirical to leave out such even biblical evidence) and I just feel more comfortable with the no-god theory." That's a smart move and, at least in a folk psychological way, people generally believe that, that for which there is the easiest explanation is the most "justifiable" (not necessarily true, just most justifiable."

2. My second thought is inspired by Ducknutz very clever approach and a few other posts. I'm not as impressed by the response that atheism is just a denial of theism and nothing else. It is something more - not just a negative belief, but the affirmative assertion that there *is no god.* and Affirmative assertions need support, especially if they fault theism for lacking such support. What I'm saying is that I don't think it's enough to say that atheism just denies belief in theism (certainly agnosticism does that too.) what defines atheism is that it makes such an affirmative claim, and I believe that needs support of some kind. (Consequently, this is why I like the Ockham's point - because that is a form of support).

To sum that very long winded thought up:
Denial of theism is necessary but not sufficient for atheism.

Okay. There we go - just trying to be provocative.

__________________
Tbor
Madison, WI

Stiltzkin

In my experience, theists use the excuse, "Well, you just haven't felt what I've felt, that's why you don't believe."

Hmm... this is very, very strange to me. First off, let us begin with the basics:

1.) Every religion claims to be right
2.) Every religion claims that the other religions are wrong

Astounding. Say I ask a Muslim why he believes in Allah. It is likely that he'll give me the mumbo-jumbo about simply having faith, or if he's more aggressive, he'll say that it isn't a matter of question, but simply a matter of knowing. Let's step back, and instead assume that this devout Muslim isn't an aggressive bastard, but instead tells me something along the lines of, "I have felt Allah inside of me, that is how I know he exists." What it boils down to is that all of these religious zealots all think that their religion is right because they have "felt" their holy god's presence in some form. Ok, if Islam is the right religion, then why in bloody hell do I have Christian friends telling me that they've felt God's presence, and not Allah? Or is Christianity the right religion, and are the Islamic the heathens? If you're Christian, then you'd probably be nodding your head up and down right now. If I was to tell you that Islamic people find other religions blasphemous, then a person of another religion would say that the person of formerly-mentioned religion has been trapped by the devil and fooled into thinking that the person not of their religion has found the right faith, but is infact blind and that the peron of the "right" religion has found the light. When asked "how do you know?", you can always argue for hours on end, but when you do reach the end, they always use the same trumpcard: "I've felt [insert holy figure] inside of me/felt their presence. You haven't felt it, this is why you do not believe." Could it simply be that all these religious people are all wrong, and none of them are right? I didn't lose you, did I? Every religion smugly feels that they are in the light and the rest of the religions are in the dark, and if all else fails, they always resort to the same trumpcard. Honestly, it's kind of sick. What bothers me even more is that it's always the Christians who go partying and committing sin more than my non-religious friends, and I know this doesn't just happen where I live; I've heard horror stories of the same thing happening all over the place

__________________
The most important thing in this world is love.

Slims

I have pasted this before:

http://www.americanatheist.org/win98...silverman.html

I think that athiests simply believe that the simplest answer is usually the correct one. Now that we can explain most of the 'mysterious' phenomena and 'miracles' that we see from day to day, there simply isn't a need to invoke god as an explanation. It makes more sense to decide that there is no god, rather than to try to explain the existence of a god that somehow hides his existence.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

The_Dude

well, i'm really convinced. i see no proof of it at all. if i see a remote chance, then i'll be an agnostic.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

moot1337

Quick sidenote: the Islam religion worships the same god as Christianity, they just gave him a different name and have different practices. Islam also believes that Jesus existed and was a prophet like Mohammed.

I'm an atheist as well... will get back to you on the response a bit later.

Dragonlich

Ah yes, and they both also belief in the Jewish God. Problem is that they cannot all be right: either Jesus was a heretic (and the Christians and Muslims are wrong), or he was the son of God/messiah (and the Jews and Muslims are wrong), or Mohammed was yet another prophet (and the Jews and Christians are wrong).

If the religious guys are right, and the holy books are the words of their respective Gods, then... well, they do not believe in the same God, simply because he said different, mutually exclusive things in his manual.

(Oh, and I do know that Christians fucked up with Jesus being the son of God; he never said that - he was declared son of God hundreds of years after his death.)

nulltype

Hehe, non-issue.

CSFilm: it's the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but damn did you unload a barrel of pwnage on this thread

I don't have much of a problem with religious people, as long as they do not attack me with their religion. That is to say, if they require religion to be decent humans, then I am all for it.

This board sure is crawling with you heathens though.

nulltype

Greg700: That reminds me of one of my highschool classes where my teacher mentioned the "God O' the Gaps" which if I remember was the idea that the belief in a god serves mainly to fill the gaps in human knowledge. As those gaps dissappear, so does the god.

CSflim

Invisible Pink Unicorn? Did someone use "my" argument before? I was under the impression that I made up the invisible purple llama! Damn subconscious! Always screwing with me!

BTW what's pwnage? I'm glad that I dumped a lot of it into this thread (I think?) but I'm interested in knowing what it is!

__________________

nulltype

"Like all religions, the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both Logic and Faith. We have Faith that She is Pink; and we Logically know that She is Invisible, because we can't see Her. For many, faith is a suitable substitute for knowledge, as death is for a difficult life"

I knew a guy that had an IPU page, but I don't know where it is.

I wouldn't worry about the pwnage thing, all will become clear in time.

Argonaut

Atheism isn't a question of faith. Atheism is a question of knowledge. I know that God doesn't exist, I am perfectly sure of it. Even if my personal knowledge can never transcend into the realms of general knowledge, I am firm in my knowledge that God does not exist, not just my belief.

Lebell

Since you've made a concrete declaration, I ask what your proof is.

Since science is silent on the matter, the best you can claim is that you do not know if God exists or not, but that you have no reason to believe She does.

In other words, you don't know one way or another, but you believe God doesn't exist.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

duckznutz

In defence of Argonaut, I respectfully suggest that the burden of proof falls on those who are asserting that god does exist. Argonaut may be wrong to say he 'knows' God doesnt exist . . . . . . but its a bit to easy to swoop on that and demand proof. I remain of the opinion that you CANNOT prove something doesnt exist . . . it doesnt exist and so neither does the 'proof' of its non existance!

I can prove that the bottle of beer in my hand exists . . but I cannot prove that the invisible purple llama sitting beside me does NOT exist.

One always has to remember that the statement "I dont believe God exists" . . is always a response to someone saying that God DOES exist". The cavemen all sat around the camp fire and someone said "that thunder and lightning as actually an omnipotent being on high, who is unhappy with us!", to which the natural response was "I dont beleve that!".

Now the caveman making the original assertion simply cannot say "well you prove I am wrong!". it is up to the person making the assertion to validate their claim, following which, those who disagree can respond and make their case. It is laughable in the extreme to make a wild claim, refuse to offer any evidence, and then challenge those who dont believe you to do all the hard work and try to prove you wrong.

Lebell

I don't think we disagree, as you've stated my main concern,

My real point is that it is intellectually dishonest for atheists to say the "know" God doesn't exist because the put their faith in science, knowledge, yada yada, when in fact, nothing can be proven one way or the other. (Science is not only silent, but simply doesn't care why things are, only how they came to be.)

I concede that burden of proof for the existance of God is on believers, which I've addressed in many other posts.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

chavos

That's easy. Pour some beer out, and watch the puddle carefully. Invisible purple llamas love beer.

dragon2fire

weather or not god exist can neither be proven or disproven that said

i will belive god exist when i see him

duckznutz

I cannot get my head around this word 'why'.

A man drives a car of mass x a distance of y in t seconds. The how is because the combustion engine of z horse-power burns petrol/gas at rate r and generates t torque and through the transmission rotates the tyres against the tarmac of the road. The friction propels the vehicle forwards along a vector. In order to travel at a constant speed in a straight line then the engine must continually supply energy to the tyres to overcome gravitational friction.

But WHY was the man driving the car? Answer = to go meet his girlfriend.

The car doesnt care why. 'Why' is simply a subjective, personal, individual human reason of no relevance to anyone. If a child is knocked down and killed by a motorist, it matters not that the motorist was driving to go buy a pizza or to meet his girlfriend.

I guess my conclusion would be that 'why' is of no relevance.


. . . . in fact, now that I think of it . . . . . . . perhaps people have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that they are wholly responsible for their own personal 'whys' . . . . . . . perhaps this is a responsibilty they can shirk and pass to a third party?

Lebell

shrug.

Perhaps you are constraining the "why" too much.

For example,

-Why is he going to see his girl friend?
-Why does he love her?
-Why does she love him?
-Why is the child in the road?
-Why didn't the child's parents care he/she were out?
-Why is "Why" of no relevance?
-Why do you think that belief in God is "shirking"?

You see, I could go on all night

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

duckznutz

I enjoy your posts Lebell.
Maybe I dont mean 'why' is of no relevance. Maybe I should say that discussion of 'why' is pointless . . . on the basis that it varies wildly from person to person. It is so subjective and hence meaningless to discuss 'why' . . because it wont sit still and be pinned down. I overheard two guys in the pub having a drunken debate as to who was the better actor . . Pinnochio or Mickey Mouse! Discussing 'why' is a bit like that.

'How' behaves itself, and we can make good progress discussing 'how'. 'Why' is a retrospective word in some ways. You ask me why the childs parents didnt care, why the child was in the road etc etc. almost like you are reviewing the events and then asking questions. No use crying over spilt milk . . its always too late to ask why . . it doesnt matter why . . the child is dead . . and no amount of asking why will change that. Forget the why and ask 'how' it can be prevented again.

Shirking implies laziness . . I apologise. I am trying to suggest

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

CSflim

Do you believe in the invisible purple llama?
I assume not.
Do you know that it doesn't exist?
I'm sure you do?
But can you prove it?
No.
So, you must therefore accept that you don't know if the invisible purple llama exists or not.

In a similar way, I don't "know" that God exists or not, but I would rank the possibility of Him/Her existing along side the possibility that there actually IS an invisible purple llama living under my bed.

So now you know what I, and all other atheists, mean when we say that we know God doesn't exist, so please lets not make an issue out of this absolute non-point.

__________________