The major proof of the inexisrence of God

[Jason Jarred]

1) it does not totally disprove the existence of God,it recognizes it's limits and therefore has to recure to pathetic examples as the chamber pot of Bertrand Russell spinning (and dripping)in space

Wait....Russel's *chamber* pot? Somehow I prefer that over his silly old teapot.
Perhaps more fitting to compare religion to this chamber pot?

Does atheism intend to remain a philosophic discussion between academics or does atheism see itself as an ideology meant to be spred between large communities?

Careful Josef, atheism isn't an ideology.

[Tiberius]

Does atheism intend to remain a philosophic discussion between academics or does atheism see itself as an ideology meant to be spred between large communities?

Careful Josef, atheism isn't an ideology.

As people like Shermer, Hitchens, Dennett, etc say: "Atheism isn't anything". When you take it back to definitions, atheism isn't making a claim, nor is it a position you take on something. It's simply a default position when you eliminate belief in a God (which is the claim). Similarly, we don't have words for "not believing in tooth fairies"; the only reason there is a word "atheism" is because theism is so prevalent in society.

[Edwardo Piet]

As people like Shermer, Hitchens, Dennett, etc say: "Atheism isn't anything". When you take it back to definitions, atheism isn't making a claim, nor is it a position you take on something. It's simply a default position when you eliminate belief in a God (which is the claim). Similarly, we don't have words for "not believing in tooth fairies"; the only reason there is a word "atheism" is because theism is so prevalent in society.

Exactly! Good point.

[lukec]

2)it has little influence on the common believer for whom science is an area far away from his understanding.
Does atheism intend to remain a philosophic discussion between academics or does atheism see itself as an ideology meant to be spred between large communities?
The promoters of religion adopt willingly the position of theists and creationists who evolve almost unharmed from the fight with atheism
for their brainwashing activities.
Do you think that atheism should not use the arm of "God created by man" only because it it is not in line with the scientifical disprove?
I have not still mentioned the aspect of irrational thinking related to the belief in God which I leave for a next thread.
You have not taken any position to the problem of Destiny.

I'm a little unsure of what you mean, so correct me if I misunderstood. I think what you're saying here is that atheists can and should use the argument that God was created by man, even though it is not a scientific argument. Now, although it's a good point, and I support it, I highly doubt that it will be of any use in a debate with a theist. Their beliefs are founded on the idea that God has always been, and an argument which assumes that their God was in fact created by them will hold no water, since it completely undermines their belief system.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't deny the importance of the scientific disprove but it has at least two weak points:
1) it does not totally disprove the existence of God,it recognizes it's limits and therefore has to recure to pathetic examples as the chamber pot of Bertrand Russell spinning (and dripping)in space
2)it has little influence on the common believer for whom science is an area far away from his understanding.

My answer to 1: It does not totally disprove the existence of God because to do so would be unscientific. To postulate KNOWING 100% that there is 'no God ' when you DON'T and for the time being at least CAN'T IS weak. Because its unscientific and can even cause problems. Not believing in God for scientific reasons - what we understand to be scientifically true - IS NOT weak.
My answer to 2: Yes, believer's often have trouble understanding science (at least on the fact that belief in the supernatural is a false belief for scientific reasons) but how else would you go about helping them also understand your point of view as well?
Simply telling them? If you can't do it without science, how else can you persuade them while still remaining scientific and undogmatic yourself and staying true to scientific truth? And to probability?
God isn't currently disproved so its false to behave as if he is. It is however scientifically accurate to say he's about as close to being disproved as possible, without actually being 'disproved'. That's not really any weaker than him being absolutely disproved because the difference is so small, and in fact its probably stronger (for the time being at least) because he ISN'T absolutely disproved and we DON'T know he doesn't exist.
As far as we know.

[josef rosenkranz]

2)it has little influence on the common believer for whom science is an area far away from his understanding.
Does atheism intend to remain a philosophic discussion between academics or does atheism see itself as an ideology meant to be spred between large communities?
The promoters of religion adopt willingly the position of theists and creationists who evolve almost unharmed from the fight with atheism
for their brainwashing activities.
Do you think that atheism should not use the arm of "God created by man" only because it it is not in line with the scientifical disprove?
I have not still mentioned the aspect of irrational thinking related to the belief in God which I leave for a next thread.
You have not taken any position to the problem of Destiny.

I'm a little unsure of what you mean, so correct me if I misunderstood. I think what you're saying here is that atheists can and should use the argument that God was created by man, even though it is not a scientific argument. Now, although it's a good point, and I support it, I highly doubt that it will be of any use in a debate with a theist. Their beliefs are founded on the idea that God has always been, and an argument which assumes that their God was in fact created by them will hold no water, since it completely undermines their belief system.

Lukec Hi
You understood me right but not entirely.
Did I say that the proof that God is a creation of man is unscientific?
Quite the contrary ,even RD in the chapter "roots of religions " in the TGD agrees that God is a creation of man but he underlines the unusefullness of it to the human society.So many books were written on this issue but the frame of this forum is too little as to expose them.
No atheist denies the complex historical,political,social,spiritual,psychological ,processes which led to the apearance of the symbol named God.
Now, in my opinion the proof that God is a creation of man is not comparable to no other phylosophic or scientific creations by man due to the very simple fact that no man ever sustained that any creation existed before beginning of time except the believers in God.
The ever preexistence of God is rooted deeply in any religion and that's why I say that the proof of his creation by man ,by Homo Sapiens who's existence on earth lasts for a mere few of ten thousands of years is a deadly blow to religion.
The scientific argument of atheists against theists is about an abstract God which they also affirm his pre existence.Where from do the theists take the very notion of this abstract God if not from the same man -manufactured one.
So this idea of the major importance of disproving God by proving his man-manufacture is the issue where my opinion is diverging from the opinion of other guys of this forum including Mr.Evidence of faith.
What is your opinion?

[lukec]

I don't disagree with you at all- I think that absolutely god is a creation of man. What I meant was that merely saying that god is a creation of man robs him of any divinity. This means that a theist will never take it as a valid point. Yes, it's true in my opinion, but in a debate against a theist they would simply not accept the fact.

If you could prove without a doubt that God was a creation of man, I still don't think they would accept the evidence. Many don't accept the evidence for evolution, and that is pretty representative of religious faith- ignore evidence that goes against your beliefs.

[josef rosenkranz]

I don't disagree with you at all- I think that absolutely god is a creation of man. What I meant was that merely saying that god is a creation of man robs him of any divinity. This means that a theist will never take it as a valid point. Yes, it's true in my opinion, but in a debate against a theist they would simply not accept the fact.

If you could prove without a doubt that God was a creation of man, I still don't think they would accept the evidence. Many don't accept the evidence for evolution, and that is pretty representative of religious faith- ignore evidence that goes against your beliefs.

OK.Now we understand each other except the purpose of debating atheism.
Most of the convincing efforts made by atheists will surely fail to convert theists or religious people.
Should that deterr us to come up with God disproving facts? Surely not.
I'm trying to convince that the proof of the man made God is a strong tool (in my opinion a major tool ) which does not,by any means, deny the darwinistic approach so briliantly presented by RD in his TGD but to supplement it ,mostly because his affirmation that he succeeded only "almost "to disprove the existence of God is weakening the very essence of atheism.

[Edwardo Piet]

,mostly because his affirmation that he succeeded only "almost "to disprove the existence of God is weakening the very essence of atheism.

But he isn't totally certain. Just as I'm not totally certain that you're not a goblin or elf of some kind. Lol. Its that unlikely. He's just being scientific about it. And science is the way to 'fight' religion. Not exaggeration. I'm sure they can often spot exaggerations. Takes one to know one. Since people of 'faith' spend all they're time exaggerating they can probably spot one when they see it!
And even IF the best strategy to deconvert theists IS exaggeration. Its still not true. You could get sniffed our and its unscientific to lie about such an important scientific fact. The scientific fact that God doesn't exist. In other words the fact that there almost certainly is no God.