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: 18218

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Is everybody 100% there is no athena? What about thor?

How about whether or not there is a working dishwasher at my father-in-laws house? What does it matter. The only thing that can possibly even slightly affect any of you is that dishwasher...should it exist. And I doubt you are too worried about that.
I like the reply that was given by someone in an article in American Atheists magazine a few years ago.

There have been many gods proposed, over the centuries, by many assorted religions and "teachers". Some were specific enough to be testable; the classical Greek pantheon were supposed to live in a palace on top of Mount Olympus. We can say with 100% confidence that there is no such palace, and no gods living there. Some religions describe their gods in ways that are self-contradictory; for example, being both omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. On the other hand, many religions describe their god or gods in ways that make them untestable, undetectable by any objective test. The writer in AA magazine proposed that logically we should be "strong atheists" with regard to all testable gods and "agnostic atheists", the 99.999% sure kind, with respect to all untestable gods.
Sure God exists! Or, eh... rather he kind of did...

He came around yesterday doing that burning bush trick while I was watering my roses. Of course I took advantage of the situation and put him out with a well directed splash of water.
He's looking kind of burnt and rather miserable now... But hey, it's God! And I'm planning to sell him to a museum and maybe donate some money to our good cause.

Any idea of how much money I could ask for him?
That reminds me of what George Carlin once said: "I've found him! I have Jesus... in my trunk."
It's simple logic.

There's no evidence of a god, just as there's no evidence of allot of mythological characters.
There isn't even a simple statistical glitch that would suggest something else at play. Nothing.

Hence, logically, there is no god.

There is no such thing as a 100%. The nutjob on the corner yelling irrationally about knowing the future still has a tiny chance he's right... but it's such an infinitesimally small chance, you're wasting your time even devoting a second of further thought to it.

There are millions of little theories of what happens after death.
Almost all of them tell you you'll be punished if you chose the wrong one
So, if you really do believe in an afterlife, you've got ALLOT of other options to eliminate.

And every single one of them has 0 evidence in their favor.
I'm 100% sure that any supernatural God does not exist.

Now if you consider nature itself a type of God, then I might be more inclined to believe but this does not mean that I would worship nature or make a church dedicated to it.

But here is something that I do believe and I would say I'm 90% sure does exist. Life somewhere* other then Earth. Now don't get me wrong I don't think they're martians in ships coming to kill us, but I'm very certain that some form of life must exist in the universe, even if it's just bacteria or simple types of life forms.

*"There are some hundred billion (1011) galaxies, each with, on the average, a hundred billion stars. In all the galaxies, there are perhaps as many planets as stars, 1011 x 1011 = 1022, ten billion trillion. In the face of such overpowering numbers, what is the likelihood that only one ordinary star, the Sun, is accompanied by an inhabited planet? Why should we, tucked away in some forgotten corner of the Cosmos, be so fortunate? To me, it seems far more likely that the universe is brimming over with life. But we humans do not yet know. We are just beginning our explorations. The only planet we are sure is inhabited is a tiny speck of rock and metal, shining feebly by reflected sunlight, and at this distance utterly lost." - Carl Sagan
Yes, it would be totally insane to not accept that life is inevitable where the right conditions exist! And those conditions will be abundant given the number of stars and it is obvious that every star will have several planets around it. Our type of solar system has to be common to our type of star.
I can’t say for certain that there is or isn’t a god. For me, no supernatural thing exists, existed, or ever will come into being. I probably wouldn’t even have to say that if theism never existed. Atheism to me is a way of being anti-religious. “I’ve learned about your god, your gods, your goddesses and superstition, and I have to say to your overwhelming numbers of believers, that I don’t believe you.” Religious and anti religious…I look at is as two halves to a whole. On an issue that can have two possible outcomes, exist, or not exist, I chose one. There is no answer either way, and statistically speaking, my stance is an overwhelmingly unpopular one, but I refuse to look at it as any less true. I choose to look at it as both sides are equal. Which one is true, we may never know. Although religious people will not falter to say that their God is real, and that unnerves me.
This is all my silly opinion though.
I agree and believers should understand that their position is just as unprovable and they are making laws and moral judgements around those unprovables. Your opinion isn't silly at all. In fact I say the person who says there is an invisible man in the room has less than an equal argument.
VERY GOOD RESPONSE!!! But you are far too nice. Your choosing a side is choosing whether an abused child in the heat of the moment should have killed his dad. In real terms about real people, it's a complex argument necessary for a humanistic legal system. And in such scenario I will be there with you agreeing that the child was justified in destroying his father in that moment. But I fear that your "choosing" the equivalence of the "two halves to a whole" is simply the very heartfelt response of a loving person concerning a very harsh notion versus the docile notion of killing an imaginery "father". Your argument may soften the blow by appearing to be "both sides are equal". However it does very little to offer an answer "either way". My greatest concern by your answer is that you appear flippant and apologetic by your statement "This is my silly opinion though."

Yes. I have said such things in the past to try to bridge a gap between those I appear to disagree with and what my opinion truly is. But I'm trying to improve myself. Thank you and you are AWESOME :)
According to many…my opinion is silly. Both atheists and theists alike can look at my argument and care far too much about their own personal interest to give what I said much thought. Yes religion is crazy, yes God probably doesn’t exist, but I’m not going to sit on my haunches acting all high and mighty and say I’m 100% sure God doesn’t exist. That is not an atheist. An atheist ‘believes’ God doesn’t exist just like a theist ‘believes’ God does exist. We both put the same amount of faith in believing and unbelieving. We are both committed in that sense. In trying to rest our faith in something that cannot be proven either way. That’s not to say that we are equal in our craziness about it however. So whenever I come across an atheist that says they are 100% sure there is no God, I know they aren’t the free thinker they claim to be. The anti God must have whispered in their ear that it was so, and they must have given some statistical number like 99.9%. Because as soon as we start introducing fractions, that must mean it’s scientific. I don’t think so. I’ve gotten rather sick and tired of arguing with my own side. I try very hard to take the peaceful approach. But more and more I look at dumb atheists the same way I look at religious folk. I think what angers me about religious people the most, is their utter refusal of looking at something from a different angle or perspective. And when I see atheists that do the same, I consider them no different.

How many of us quote Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin and use their prose to back up our beliefs? Without standing on the shoulders of giants, we wouldn't be able to give religious people the satisfaction of any beef to our unbelieving arguments. Just like us, the religious have their religious text, and quote it like mad. The main difference however is that our 'texts' are comprised through logic and scientific thinking, as well as the scientific method. How many people here believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, but have never read On the Origin of Species? People need to start thinking for themselves. They need to read these books and say, Yes, Darwin's logic and science is sound, and therefore I back it up. But most people sit back and say well since Dawkins puts so much stock in evolution, well then so do I. I want to see people become better thinkers as atheists. It's not convincing to just sit on the shoulders of giants and claim knowledge to a percentage.

So even though I don’t think my way of thinking is silly at all, I say it is to prevent an argument.
Eh, I'll give you an argument anyhow, Stephanie. Obnoxious, I know, but it's just not correct to say that atheists know there is no god in the same way that theists "know" there is a god, ie, on faith. This is simply wrong, and is commonly asserted by theists who want to attack a lack of faith as merely being an unwitting, if misguided, form of faith. Theists don't actually know there is a god, but they are convinced that they do because they mistake self-delusion for knowledge; they think faith is a legitimate support for knowledge, when it is, in fact, the opposite of knowledge.

On the other hand, atheists who positively assert that there is no god are doing so based on the refusal to accept anything on faith, and on the complete lack of credible evidence for such a thing, despite centuries of looking. Atheists do not use faith to support their claim (unless they are simply arguing from authority, but that's not what I'm doing or what Dawkins is doing). Quite the opposite. Their lack of the self-delusion of faith is what allows them to use induction to reach the logical conclusion that there is, in fact, no god. I don't need an anti-god to whisper anything in my ear to positively conclude that there isn't anything whispering in anybody's ear.

So in short, it is a logical mistake to equate the use of faith to support one's beliefs with a complete rejection of faith as a means to belief. As if that weren't enough, no theist (or anybody else) has a firm definition of god, so there's a 0% chance that the thing they are describing actually exists.

Furthermore, it's presumptuous to assume that atheists don't understand the theist perspective. Many atheists started out as theists, as I did. We perfectly well understand theism from the inside. It just stopped working for us as a belief system when we noticed enough logical impossibilities in religion and started to insist on evidence and reason.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service