Should Atheism proper include scepticism?

[TruthWorthy]

How do you know this is false, what evidence do you have of that?

Let's take the example often spouted by those who say "god" has not been disproven, therefore . . .

I can say "god's an invisible man who follows you around and talks to you, but you can't hear him". It doesn't matter how long that statement goes for or what it was that I made up, just as long as that thing isn't tangible.
So how can we talk about the truth of the matter, considering that neither of us can have physical basis?

Easy, we talk about the argument that supports it, because without being critical of that we waste time arguing about nonsense.

---

I'd like to know, what evidence was present to suggest the existence of "god"?

[Purple Rabbit]

I echo Leo's objection. How do you know we don't have a central importance?

One possibility might be that no meaningful definition is given of "central importance". Without that the sentence "we have a central importance" cannot be assessed because the term “central importance” does not refer to an actual concept. And therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration.

[leo-rcc]

How do you know this is false, what evidence do you have of that?

Let's take the example often spouted by those who say "god" has not been disproven, therefore . . .

I can say "god's an invisible man who follows you around and talks to you, but you can't hear him". It doesn't matter how long that statement goes for or what it was that I made up, just as long as that thing isn't tangible.
So how can we talk about the truth of the matter, considering that neither of us can have physical basis?

That's the point, so how do you get from not known, to proven not to exist?

Easy, we talk about the argument that supports it, because without being critical of that we waste time arguing about nonsense.

---

I'd like to know, what evidence was present to suggest the existence of "god"?

But that was not the issue was it? You want to present the evidence against a god, and all you do now is bury yourself in semantics.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

-and yet again. (this comes up with montonous regularity,although most often from theists)
@TruthWorthy.

'Atheism' is a disbelief in god(s) NOTHING ELSE IS IMPLIED OR MAY BE INFERRED.

There is no 'we' or "as an atheist X Y Z". Most atheists here also seem to be skeptics,but a skeptic is not necessarily an atheist.A skeptic is only a person who questions. It was said of the Greek skeptics that they asserted nothing,but merely opined.

Science is skeptical by definition:EVERYTHING always remains open to question.All theories remain open to revision and change as new evidence is found. In my opinion THE key word to understanding the concept of skepticism is 'evidence'. The skeptic always says " show me"


Disclaimer :The above is merely my opinion. I'm happy to consider changing it if some one has a better one..

[TruthWorthy]

I'd like to address the basis of the argument which assumes there is a "god".
Otherwise:
How can you expect a reasonable discussion about something which is unreasonable?

[Tiberius]

You keep moving the goalposts. Have you got evidence of a method that proves the non-existence of God or not?

[TruthWorthy]

Ok, goal posts are something tangible and I can see how you could misconstrue my argument's development-in-progress. The entire point so far has been to get to the core issue at hand, the assumption of "god" and (presumably) the clues that lead to that assumption.

Simple things like "god's" location being in an imaginary place?
These issues are imaginary and hold no evidence for its own arguments point, they are just as imaginary.

Also, what is "god's" purpose, reason for being, all but inventions. For all practical reasons are easily available: Ultimately its nurturing purposes regarding death and an explanation of the beginning of time. But can you name me one argument which supports that actual existance which doesn't involve another lie's intervention? I think not.

That's why I want to address the argument for the existance of "god" while disregarding any heresay.

[Tiberius]

They are perhaps imaginary to you, but how do you know they are imaginary in reality? Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean it isn't real.

As for your point about purposes, this is you simply making assumptions. Assumptions aren't an argument.

Even if there was no evidence to suggest that a God exists (and I don't think there is), how do you know that one doesn't exist? As I said before, just because there is no evidence doesn't mean something isn't real.

What about a God that doesn't interfere with the universe, or interferes in such a way that it cannot be discovered by us, or that interferes and then covers its tracks to prevent us from finding it. How do you know these Gods don't exist?

You are going about this in an entirely confusing way. Firstly you accuse atheists of somehow being too open to possibilities by embracing skepticism, then you say you can prove that Gods don't exist by showing a mechanism by which you can prove the non-existence of things. Then, when asked to give the evidence for your position, you ask us to give evidence for the existence of God. It seems a very funny thing to do to ask atheists to give evidence for the existence of God, given that we don't believe there is any (or at least all evidence claimed to be is invalid).

So please, take a few steps back and start again. Present your case in a single post, taking your time to explain yourself and your ideas. Don't make this a dialog about random topics when it would be best a discussion of the ideas you present about the ability to disprove gods.

[TruthWorthy]

Come on Adrian, are we talking properly?
My opening question asks how you can be skeptical about the existance of "god".
All I hear is "HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT DOESNT".
When all I want to do is get to the basis of what it is that I'm disproving.

[Tiberius]

You asked how we can be skeptical about the existence of god. Being skeptical involves suspending judgement because the evidence isn't enough to make a conclusion and consider something "proof" or "knowledge".

We suspend judgement on the existence of God precisely because such beings cannot be disproved. If it were shown that gods could be disproved, I would gladly change my mind. However, so far, nobody has been able to show that.

As for what you are disproving, here is a general definition I use:

"An intelligent force / being that created the universe, and may have a certain degree of control over it."

This definition covers most of your general gods, as well as that of the deist. Go ahead and disprove that.