Why do Athiests require 'proof' that God exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Nope, we don't agree. Your "original point" was and remains garbage. Buh-bye.

[The Heff]

The primary 'reason' you should believe in the possibility that God exists is that there are so many questions unanswered by science. Most people believe in the possibility of Aliens existing on other planets - why not include God, Angels and Demons in this belief?

God is the greatest crack filler in the world, like Ronseal only not evidently real. Each time science takes another step towards understanding the creation of the universe, of matter and of life, the religious lobbyists take another step further back and declare "well, you don't know that bit so that must be God!". I wonder how many more times science will push your so called God back.

The more I see the indoctrinated (I'm sorry, that's what you are) post their arguments on these forums for the existence of a God the more I realise how futile it is to argue with them. They, like you, make grandiose claims about this God yet they, like you, cannot back it up with one shred of evidence. Then they, like you, ask why we require evidence. Why should we not ask for evidence when you speak of God? You want us to believe what you are saying so back it up with something of substance. Personally, I don't give a crap what you believe... If you want to believe in a God then fine, but don't expect me to just because you or some old fool in a robe tells me to.

"Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein

Only a fool believes blindly.

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I therefore dismiss your claims and the claims of those who came before you because never, not once, was evidence provided.

Oh, did I mention I am a member of a Church? Trust me, it's true... It's noodles are above us, below us, inside of us, etc, etc, so on, so fourth. This old guy told me so.

[Minimalist]

There are some things we cannot prove.

This asshole literally couldn't get past one sentence without stepping on his dick.


So, let me get this straight. Because you can't prove it that means it must be true? How old are you? 8?

[FallentoReason]

Secondly I'd like to say that we have digressed and that my original point seems to have been missed. My point was that it was unfair to dismiss the possibility that God/Gods exist due to a lack of evidence. After all I have no 'evidence' that any of you exist yet I still believe that you do. So my argument is in support of agnosticism, that it is unwise to dismiss the possibility that God exists.

I believe the evidence we have for God(s), i.e. holy books, don't lead me from claim A to its proof B.

With Christianity, the evidence for God is obviously God himself i.e. Jesus the Christ. This gives us something tangible to work with except, long story short, the Biblical Jesus can't be found anywhere in history. The Gospels claim to have heard about a Jesus, but no anonymous author ever claims to have met him. Take Matthew 9:9 for example. It clearly shows that Matthew didn't write his Gospel because otherwise he would be speaking in 3rd person, which seems rather strange.

I'm sure most of you agree that 'hard' atheism is just as ridiculous as any religion. To claim you are 100% certain something doesn't exist when you have such limited knowledge of the universe is illogical.

All I can say is I'm certain the Biblical God can't exist based on the history this god supposedly left behind.. Indirectly.. Through word of mouth.. By people 40 years after the alleged events.. Which sounds rather familiar to Hercules, Son of Jupiter, who was given birth by his virgin mother Alcmena.

[Ryft]

I could argue that you are a figment of my imagination, like a person in a dream.

Only on pain of logical contradiction.

Assuming solipsism for the sake of argument, it would follow that the pronoun "I" is a meaningless term that has no distinguishable referent since everything is an aspect of your self. The fact that you think the pronoun "I" is intelligible and has a distinguishable referent (your self) exposes that you believe that others exist. (Otherwise what does "I" mean and what is it distinguished from?)

Therefore, skepticism about or denial of the existence of others while simultaneously using the first-person nominative pronoun as though it has a distinguishable referent produces a logical contradiction—that you at once both believe and do not believe that others exist.

And if others exist then, by virtue of not being aspects of your self, their sentient consciousness is not yours.

"Would it not be better to accept that I can never know if other people are self-aware like me?" No, because logical contradictions are intellectual suicide. They fall apart by themselves. Your every thought and utterance demonstrates that you do know others exist independent of your self; such a-priori knowledge is reason enough to accept that you know others exist, to which you can add a-posteriori knowledge.

My point was that it was unfair to dismiss the possibility that God/Gods exist due to a lack of evidence. ... [It] is unwise to dismiss the possibility that God exists.

Given enough experience with atheists, you should soon come to realize that most of them do accept the possibility that some God or other exists. The only exception would be ‘hard’ atheists, for whom logic is an ever-present terror (and just about anyone can eat them for lunch). What most atheists dismiss is that a God does exist, and anyone who claims that a God does exist shoulders the burden of making that case. Maybe a God does exist; maybe not; either way, that is just what possible means. If you want them to accept that God is not merely possible but actual, then you have to make that case. Until then, they continue to dismiss that a God exists.

To claim [that] you are 100% certain something doesn't exist when you have such limited knowledge of the universe is illogical.

It is only illogical if such a claim is not supported by evidence that is equally as certain.

The primary 'reason' you should believe in the possibility that God exists is that there are so many questions unanswered by science.

The Godidit deity you worship is so tiny, and growing ever smaller as science continues to answer more and more questions.

---

---

Using atheist logic

Atheist what?

I agree, Welsh Cake — teh logic: athiests haz none.

(I know that is not what you meant, but it amuses me to pretend it is.)

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

There are some things we cannot prove.

So far,of course. That includes the existence of god(s) . That the existence of god(s) cannot be proved is not my problem. Without proof, I am unable to believe,period,

It was so-called neo Platonists such as Augustine and Aquinas who tried to insist that truth can be revealed by reason alone. This an evasive and self serving position beloved of theist apologists. Without credible supporting evidence,the very best one can say of ANY claim is "it may be the case,or not"


Polite people refer to beliefs without proof as 'faith based'. I'm not polite and try not be a humbug (with limited success): I call such beliefs 'superstitions'.

The simple answer to the question: My atheism is not now and has never been a matter of choice;I AM UNABLE TO BELIEVE.

Ironically, the dogmatic ignoramuses we get her (Godhelpus, Drip, TeeHee, Welldeceived etc) have done more to reinforce my disbelief than any atheist since I first read Bertrand Russell.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It was so-called neo Platonists such as Augustine and Aquinas who tried to insist that truth can be revealed by reason alone.

Reason informs observation. An informed eye is often able to discern relationships that go unnoticed by the untrained. While the demand for evidence is laudable, one must also be prepared to recognize and receive it as well.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

While the demand for evidence is laudable, one must also be prepared to recognize and receive it as well.

Indeed; I think that's 'scientific method'. A materialist, it is to that I refer when I say "proof" .I do not mean some notion of putative connections which may or may not be present.Metaphysics do not necessarily describe reality, it posits what many be the case.

PS I'd appreciate if you tried not to patronise me, there's a good chap.

[Epimethean]

It was so-called neo Platonists such as Augustine and Aquinas who tried to insist that truth can be revealed by reason alone.

Reason informs observation. An informed eye is often able to discern relationships that go unnoticed by the untrained. While the demand for evidence is laudable, one must also be prepared to recognize and receive it as well.

And a lunatic is able to see and hear the giant talking rabbit in Uncle George's La-Z Boy. So, unreason also informs observation. In the case of gods, there is no reason to believe.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The scientific method doesn’t operate in a philosophical vacuum. Philosophy plays a significant role in both establishing methodologies (Popper) and the interpretation of results. This is particularly true when attempting to apply the scientific method to philosophical issues like ethics (socio-biology) and metaphysics (physics, neurology, etc). One defining feature of the scientific method is the use of controls. By definition, valid scientific results can only occur when all the variables can be accounted for. Generally, if science cannot measure it, it’s not part of science. The accuracy of historical details, textural dating, and such are appropriate tasks for scientific inquiry, but the demand for physical evidence of metaphysical entities, like God, angels or the human soul, is not a valid request. The big questions fall outside the scope of science.

We are always dealing with models and descriptions of reality, a large measure of humility is appropriate, when speculating about how reality actually is, both physically and spiritually. In the end we are left with what works. Just as the validity of science rests on how well it conforms to what can be physical observed, so also the validity of theological ideas ultimately rests on how well they work to inform our values, guide us through life, and cultivate loving and compassionate relationships with others. The difference between subjective beliefs that are delusional and those that are ‘true’ is how they allow us to live well and in harmony with the world. This type of knowledge, or wisdom, can only be acquired by actually applying those ideas to life and making them part of yourself. For example the lessons of Buddha can only be ‘understood’ (and I use that word lightly for Buddhism) after years of practice and meditation. Likewise for Christianity. Evangelicalism and most mainline denominations, stress orthodoxy, or right belief because belief alone is considered by them the only the means of salvation. I think this is backwards. Truth alone when not coupled with the desire to do good and the cultivation of virtue has no practical value. For this reason, the New Church calls for orthopraxy as the means for regeneration and salvation.

BTW I wasn't trying to patronize anyone, my apologies if the tone of my e-mail gave that impression.