I wanted to put this question out there to see how strongly everyone feels on this subject. Being that most of us trust in scientific fact and reasoning, I was wondering if everyone is absolutely, undeniably, 100% sure that a god doesn't exist.  I personally take into account that there is no proof of any cosmic creator so therefore I am about 99.9999% sure that there is no god. However we all agree that science is an ever evolving field and I don't think that there will ever be any proof to support the existence of a supreme being, but I can't be 100% sure until there is concrete proof against one. I would like to know what all of your thoughts on this.  

Views: 14336

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hey Leveni…

I’m good…and you?

I don’t have any of the horror stories that some American atheists have to tell. I’m not a convert I’ve never had a belief in God. I come from an open minded family who would rather I believed in God, but it’s never been an issue. I also come from a small town, where religion was a big part of most people’s lives, but don’t think my non-belief was ever held against me (not that I was all that vocal about it when I was younger).

I thought I was with you on your analogy, but to be honest you lost me. I have no idea where you’re going with that…

Maybe you were talking about studying religion. I do enjoy religion as a view on human society, culture or sometimes just a good laugh. A while back I was teasing a couple of believers about the levels of hell and they both astounded me by staring at me blankly and then asking what I was talking about. I realize Dante isn’t required reading for believers, but I thought the idea was at least well known. I’d say I know as much, if not more about religion than the average believer. Knowing more about it makes it easier to disbelieve…lol…

I'm fine.


The 'burden of proof' thing in relation to god, is a kind of problem for me. And every time somebody mentions it, I try and explain it in a different way.


In the example above I'm trying to show you, and myself, that knowledge is necessary on both sides in order for 'burden of proof' to work. For example:

I'm using this as an example because I don't understand it, and I'm hoping you don't understand it also.  

But this is proof that Kinetic energy is equal to the integral of the dot product of velocity of a body and the change of the bodies momentum at a point in time. 


My point in regards to 'burden of proof' is: unless the person explaining the above equations and the person listening to the explanation understand every line of each equation, 'burden of proof' is meaningless. Both sides have to have knowledge of the specific subject before 'burden of proof' can be used. 


Therefore when we say 'the burden of proof' lies with another person, this is true, but, in order for us to understand their explanation, we also need some prior knowledge of the subject at hand.


Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no god. No knowledge of god exists. So the 'burden of proof' thing can never be applied to god. And this is my problem.


But you kind of answered my question anyway. When you talked to the Christians about hell. Except the knowledge about hell should have been the other way around. Oh well. You gotta love them Merican Christians. 

Right~ but one person in that example does understand that equation.  (Might I say I appreciate the subtle humor of involving a mathematical equation when discussing "proof" of god.)  I think the real issue here, however, is that the discussion is getting more to the "atheist" bend of things, where when it comes to gawd it needs to reference a more "theistic" type of discussion~ put simply, we are over thinking this.  The simple fact is that theistic people have put forth a truly astonishing claim (even to the point where it contradicts itself), and have provided NO coherent evidence for it~ in fact, viewing the world as it is suggests that their claim is NOT the case.  In light of their radical assertions, rambling explanations, and complete lack of evidence (bordering on sociopathic dishonesty, or at the least a blithering ignorance) their claims can be rejected and dismissed 100% until some evidence comes along that supports them.  They deserve no reservation or fraction of doubt, for they have provided nothing to substantiate such a thing.

The person who originally wrote it understands it, yes. Plus, if we know nothing about maths, we can learn how to count, and after studying a bit more, we can all learn to understand the equation. And that is why 'burden of proof' works for things that exist.


I just have a continuous problem with the burden of proof argument for things that don't exist. I feel a need to research for myself the other side of the story. I consider it lazy if no research is done by the listener. But when it comes to things that don't exist. How can I research it? The best I could do with god was the Oxford dictionary. But that just defines the word not the man/spirit or what ever.


Some threads never die.
Is everybody 100% positive there are no mermaids?
Apparently, many people are still too confused or too scared to yet see their way clear to gnostic atheism.
did you mean clear 'of' Gnostic atheism or clear 'to' Gnostic atheism?
Well, which one does it say?

it says 'to'

How can somebody be a Gnostic Atheist? It doesn't make sense. 


That link refers to Gnostic Theists. Gnostic/Agnostic refers to whether or not the subject believes that knowledge of a thing is possible. A gnostic theist says he knows that God exists and therefore believes it. An agnostic theist (which really doesn't make sense) believes not one cannot know if there is a God, but believes there is one anyway. A gnostic atheist says he knows that God cannot exist and therefore believes there is no God. And an agnostic atheist is someone who says that knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of a god is not able to be known, but they believe there is no God.

ok, thanks.


To all the agnostic atheists out there:

If you are an agnostic atheist, you don't believe in Gods existence because there is no evidence of gods existence. You are making a decision based on no evidence. How is it possible to make a decision, about something that exists, based on no evidence? Surely decision making, in regards to things that exist, require evidence.


The agnostic atheist point of view doesn't make sense.


On the other hand, if you are making a philosophical decision, then no evidence of the existence of anything is required, only philosophical logic is required.


The agnostic atheist point of view is a lazy point of view, because no thought process has been applied to the decision made, and this is by your own admission. 


As for the pure-Atheist or the Gnostic-atheist. All you have to do is read this thread and you will see the effort and thought that has been put into the subject of gods non-existence.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service