There is no God.

[fr0d0]

Nice claim. Good luck proving it.

The grand thing is that we don't NEED to prove the non-existence of God. We don't even need to prove that Pickup's belief that God is mythic and that science supports the notion.

Atheism needn't do anything at all but wait for religionists to come up with either 1) evidence or 2) arguments that are not reasonable refutable. Take your time on this - we've been waiting 200 000 years.

Boru

Are you trying to divert attention away from the op?

By the looks of it you were successful. But these idiots don't need a leader

We don't need to prove the non existence of god/s for sure. We don't need to prove existence either.

Science always works on proof though, and if shonuff claims that science claims something, anything, then he better be prepared to support that claim with evidence.

Don't let him off the hook. He made a claim.

Otherwise you will look incredibly hypocritical asking for empirical evidence for anything from now on.

Just trying to help

[Ben Davis]

I believe there is no God. Atheism is usually not stated this way, to avoid the burden of proof, and granted that is a fair point I see no reason to shudder the burden.

I like to be pedantic about this because of the implication of your statement here. What you're defining isn't 'atheism', it's 'antitheism': you're not disbelieving a positive claim in favour of theism, you're making a positive claim in opposition to theism. Antitheism is a subset of atheism but they're not the same thing. Your implication of dishonesty (that atheists are dodging a burden of proof by defining atheism in a particular way) is demonstrably wrong, unjustified and feeds some of the mischaracterisations of atheists which are used by aggressive theists to cause harm to non-believers.

Regarding the Abrahamic gods, I share your antitheism: they're demonstrable nonsense and sharing & popularising that information is a laudable goal. I'd simply ask you, please can you rethink the way you phrase your point so that you avoid giving ammo to theists who would do you harm?

[archangle]

I believe there is no God. Atheism is usually not stated this way, to avoid the burden of proof, and granted that is a fair point I see no reason to shudder the burden. There is evidence against God; every conflicting creed or claim about him, our current knowledge of evolutionary theory as it relates to chemistry, biology, and culture, all points to one direction: there have never been any agents outside physical laws and natural selection shaping the direction of genes or the silly memes our genes and environment have inspired. There is no concept of God hence put forth that is indistinguishable from the very properties we would ascribe to an object that we were trying to literally define out of existence. Timeless, non-physical, limitless in power and knowledge, the list goes on with descriptions that consist of taking concepts we use in the real world, concepts defined by their limitations, and stripping them of all relevant application. What does omnipotence mean? Is this a question for philosophers or theologians? At such a point in the discussion, what's the difference? Why should the existence of something by default imply the existence of something greater? What pay off does God offer that isn't synonymous with "I don't know yet..." As an atheist I would add, "but the hard work getting put in is yielding new information everyday. And as I suggested, all the evidence I've seen is directly counter to the notion of God."

Now if your idea of God is little more than some ineffable force, then of course we know there are forces in nature that are currently ineffable. Fuck, most of physics to me, the mathematical equations, mean nothing. I'll likely never wrap my head around it. Black holes and dark matter are examples that come to mind that bring my intellectualizing to its knees. God doesn't, at least how he seems construed by misguided philosophers and theologians. To me, the concepts used to describe God are boring because as I said, they're all but meaningless adjectives, concepts stripped of the very limitations that make them meaningful as descriptions of existing (and tellingly, distinctly human) properties.

I believe God is a myth and I'm confident that observations from all fields of science support that claim.

well, this is bullshit.
You are making a claim that past the knowledge of science.

hey, but maybe your the smartest stupid fucker in the world.

---

The grand thing is that we don't NEED to prove the non-existence of God. We don't even need to prove that Pickup's belief that God is mythic and that science supports the notion.

Atheism needn't do anything at all but wait for religionists to come up with either 1) evidence or 2) arguments that are not reasonable refutable. Take your time on this - we've been waiting 200 000 years.

Boru

Are you trying to divert attention away from the op?

By the looks of it you were successful. But these idiots don't need a leader

We don't need to prove the non existence of god/s for sure. We don't need to prove existence either.

Science always works on proof though, and if shonuff claims that science claims something, anything, then he better be prepared to support that claim with evidence.

Don't let him off the hook. He made a claim.

Otherwise you will look incredibly hypocritical asking for empirical evidence for anything from now on.

Just trying to help

I have no idea where these cock roaches get this idea they dont have to support a claim. he must be trained by fuk jam teeknow..

you make a claim ... you need evidence.

for axample.
"I believe he is an asshole" (no one in particular just an example)

evidence;
based on thes post, he has no more insight about science than your average butt fucked alter boy.

[One Above All]

I don't "believe" there is no god. I know that, by my definition of the term, there is no god.

[Tonus]

I believe there is no God. Atheism is usually not stated this way, to avoid the burden of proof, and granted that is a fair point I see no reason to shudder the burden.

I treat god the same way I treat a lot of things I do not believe in-- I don't go to any lengths to disprove something that I spent decades searching for and never found, so I live my life as if there are no gods. If someone claims to have found god that's fine. If he can show me this god, that'd be great. If he says god can't be demonstrated that way, then I shrug my shoulders and wonder if there's any peanut butter in the fridge. As long as that guy isn't telling me I have to live by his god's rules, we're good.

We will never disprove god in the sense of being able to search everywhere and say "see? Nothing here!" This past week I watched The Inexplicable Universe with Neil deGrasse Tyson and one of the points he makes repeatedly is that there is a great deal about the universe we simply do not know, and there is a lot we know we don't know, and there is a lot we know we won't know for some time and that we may never know. So there will always be spaces for believers to tuck god into and keep him out of the reach of everyone else.

And if one of those gods finally comes out of hiding, I'll become a theist again.

[ThePinsir]

I created a similar thread a little while ago, suggesting that the 6/7 on the Dawkins scale seems weak, and kind of like a cop-out. I'm glad I'm not the only one lol. Nothing wrong with taking up a burden of proof with stuff like Superman not existing, and I don't see why gods have to be different.

[Cato]

When a believer of some unsubstantiated claim rolls out an abused 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' defense I typically reply with the following:

So, you will then concede that there are a quadrillion invisible dinosaurs perched on the Earth's mountain peaks farting the global wind system into existence?

[pocaracas]

So, you will then concede that there are a quadrillion invisible dinosaurs perched on the Earth's mountain peaks farting the global wind system into existence?

You see?... the problem with this claim is that it can be demonstrated to be false.
You specify a very precise location (or several locations) where to find these beings, these dinosaurs.
With a god, the location is always diffuse, undefined... that makes it very difficult to disprove.
That's why the typical counter is the invisible pink unicorn, or Russel's teapot (even this one has somewhat of a specific location, but it's undetectable, so it works).

[fr0d0]

There's a million dollars on the floor around the corner. If you want it, just walk around the corner and take it. No catch.

No thanks. Until you hand it to me I won't believe that it's there.

[Bob Kelso]

Regarding the Abrahamic gods, I share your antitheism: they're demonstrable nonsense and sharing & popularising that information is a laudable goal. I'd simply ask you, please can you rethink the way you phrase your point so that you avoid giving ammo to theists who would do you harm?

I agree with Ben, with emphasis on the point I quoted.