nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is Atheism a closed minded standpoint ?

dd972

Agnostic in peace here.

I fully understand the basis for people's Atheism being the lack of verifiable evidence of God and having no truck with man made organised religion.

But, don't any of you (particularly militant atheists) feel that you've jumped the gun in deciding there's no god or prime mover? How do you KNOW ?, no one does, which is why I regard agnosticism as the more rational standpoint.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Nervous Wreck

martingriff wrote: »

That great sound bite by atheists. Where is your onus to provide proof.

Atheists don't make radical claims that gods exist. There's nothing for us to prove: the fact of there being no evidence at all for a god kind of just stands to our (lack of) claim.

Mark Hamill

EnterNow wrote: »

How do you know there was no before the big bang, what if the theory of a multiverse is correct, & our universe is but one of many. Just becasue our universe didn't yet exist doesn't necessarily mean other don't/didn't.

"Before" would still be the wrong phrase to use in that context, as time does not exist "inbetween" the existence of universes and may not exist in other universes "during" their expansion (at least in the same way as we perceive it). In terms of space/time in our universe, the best way to describe that might be to say that the mutiverse's universes exist "concurrently".

sephir0th

EnterNow wrote: »

How do you know there was no before the big bang, what if the theory of a multiverse is correct, & our universe is but one of many. Just becasue our universe didn't yet exist doesn't necessarily mean other don't/didn't.

I agree that ignorance shouldn't pave the way for the 'God' answer, but if the topic of this thread is open mindedness, surely just because you don't know what happened before the big bang doesn't mean you can attempt to explain it with 'there was no before it'?

The currently accepted viewpoint in theoretical physics is that there was no 'before'. The issue is that you are applying the everyday notion of cause & effect on a quantum event. If space-time itself began at the Big Bang, then the temporal word 'before' is rendered meaningless.

I don't think anybody is ruling out alternative theories, but 'God' does not count as a credible alternative - it is not a scientific theory - it is a product of our brain's evolved predisposition to the supernatural and hyperactive agency detection.

martingriff

bnt wrote: »

Proof of what, exactly? By now we're all aware of the fallacy of "trying to prove a negative" (or should be), so we don't do that any more (if we ever did).

If you are accused of a crime, is the onus on you to prove your innocence directly? No, but you can show that it was practically impossible for you to have committed the crime by proving a positive claim. For example, if you have a solid alibi, that's considered good proof that you didn't physically commit the crime since magic and other woo-woo isn't considered legitimate under law.

Is that absolute proof that you didn't commit the crime? A thousand movie plots will tell you it's not - but the law has to work on positive claims backed by evidence, or else the concepts of guilt and innocence lose their meaning. Ever read about how they used to unmask witches in the Middle Ages? Hold them under water for a while, and if they didn't drown, they were witches, and were burned at the stake ...

There is no god or afterlife. If i comit a crime as you say yes i have to try and prove my innocence however it is up to the other side also to prove that I did it. That is what they do in a courtroom. You know innocent until proven and all that.

Also why are you "proving a negative" where is your proof it is a negative.

martingriff

Zombrex wrote: »

That doesn't make sense, you clearly don't believe in every religion or supernatural claim, so you must believe some of them are wrong.

Yes that why I say I have my own beliefs did you not read my text.

martingriff

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Atheists don't make radical claims that gods exist. There's nothing for us to prove: the fact of there being no evidence at all for a god kind of just stands to our (lack of) claim.

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Insect Overlord

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

martingriff

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Sorry it is a bit confusing let me put it this way I can't prove I was not somewhere does not prove I was there. You still have to prove i was there

Daftendirekt

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Nobody is required to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that that could possibly exist, it's not reasonable or practical to start from a position of belief and work from there. By default, we assume that a thing doesn't exist until evidence to the contrary is presented (if you're anything like the rest of the human race you do this as well for the multitude of other non-existent things, though many people unjustifiably make an exception for their preferred deity).

Also, "absolute proof" (or even just plain old "proof") doesn't exist outside of mathematics. You don't need to absolutely prove something to believe it, you just need some evidence that points toward its truth.

martingriff

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Nobody is required to prove that something doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that that could possibly exist, it's not reasonable or practical to start from a position of belief and work from there. By default, we assume that a thing doesn't exist until evidence to the contrary is presented (if you're anything like the rest of the human race you do this as well for the multitude of other non-existent things, though many people unjustifiably make an exception for their preferred deity).

Also, "absolute proof" (or even just plain old "proof") doesn't exist outside of mathematics. You don't need to absolutely prove something to believe it, you just need some evidence that points toward its truth.

Did not mean is like that the only reason I did is to get other reason other than well if you can't prove it there is my proof. People set out to do experiments and proofs all the time to prove that something exists or the way it is. Scientists do it all the time. They have a "belief" in something and they set out to prove it. They do not set out in the majority of case not to prove it . Also they do find proofs for stuff they may not be looking for

brandnewaward

haha, this is a class thread , can pick out who's reading dawkins (im halfway thru it) today. class book

zico10

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry it is a bit confusing let me put it this way I Atheits can't prove I God was/is not somewhere does not prove I God was/is there. You still have to prove i God was/is there

FYP

martingriff

zico10 wrote: »

FYP

Ya probably better maybe

Nervous Wreck

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not.

I don't make any claim. That's kinda the point.

martingriff wrote: »

As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Not to bring up what is now an old cliché but let's run with it. There is also no way to disprove that there is a flying monster made of spaghetti orbiting our galaxy and controlling it. But most people would agree there probably isn't. Again, the burden of proof is on people making radical claims that something that can not be seen, heard, felt*, smelled etc exists.

For example, if two people look into an empty box and one says "There is a cat in this box," the burden of proof lies with him.

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Because all we have are unsubstantiated claims.

*Emotionally 'feeling' something doesn't count.

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

You make a claim he does not. As you say there is no proof he exists but there is also no proof he does not exist and no just because there is no proof is not proof.

Sorry I should say absolute proof. Not saying you are wrong but how are you so sure.

Martin, please suggest an entity you do not believe exists, such as fairies or dragons etc, then prove they do not exist.
Show us how we might be able to prove the non-existence of god.

Zombrex

martingriff wrote: »

Yes that why I say I have my own beliefs did you not read my text.

I did, I read the bit where you said you wouldn't say anyone is wrong. So what, every religion is true?

mark renton

You people have ruined Christmas

sephir0th

john47832 wrote: »

You people have ruined Christmas

martingriff

Zombrex wrote: »

I did, I read the bit where you said you wouldn't say anyone is wrong. So what, every religion is true?

No what I meant there is I would not go an tell the person there beliefs are wrong and crazy its there beliefs. I will think they are but i will not call them idiots.

martingriff

King Mob wrote: »

Martin, please suggest an entity you do not believe exists, such as fairies or dragons etc, then prove they do not exist.
Show us how we might be able to prove the non-existence of god.

Well I don't know how to prove it that fairies or dragon exists or don't. That is my point as I have no proof either way either could be true. Just because I can't prove there existence does not mean they do not or have never existed

Mardy Bum

martingriff wrote: »

Well I don't know how to prove it that fairies or dragon exists or don't. That is my point as I have no proof either way either could be true. Just because I can't prove there existence does not mean they do not or have never existed

So you believe fairies and dragons existed?

Replace fairies and dragons with god and you will see the point being made.

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

Well I don't know how to prove it that fairies or dragon exists or don't. That is my point as I have no proof either way either could be true. Just because I can't prove there existence does not mean they do not or have never existed

So then do you believe positively that fairies or dragons or any other fictional entity I can dream up exist? Yes or no?

joseph brand

EnterNow wrote: »

Two 'believers' knocked at my front door this morning, at 11:45am. I opened the door, & seeing their campaign to 'save' me about to begin I stopped them short...I told them its Xmas morning & I've things to be doing so I won't waste their time.

Maybe they had an external HD? Ba-dum-TISH.

Tough crowd.

But seriously, isn't it ironic (maybe irony isn't the correct term) that a cult wants to 'save' someone? I mean, David Koresh and Jim Jones were in the business of 'saving' people. They did the exact opposite. People need to be freed from religion/ cults, not freed into religion/ cults.

Why can't people learn from history? That's what it's there for!! We learn from our mistakes, we don't pursue them.

But, to be honest, I had such a bad hangover today, I thought I was going to die. Really bad. Long story short, I have a beer in front of me. Happy xmas.

joseph brand

King Mob wrote: »

Martin, please suggest an entity you do not believe exists, such as fairies or dragons etc, then prove they do not exist.
Show us how we might be able to prove the non-existence of god.

Could we rename this forum to Russell's Teapot. So that we may save ourselves the monotony of explaining why the onus of proof lies with the theist.

It really seems like theists just stumble in here, ill-informed. Gawwwd.

martingriff

King Mob wrote: »

So then do you believe positively that fairies or dragons or any other fictional entity I can dream up exist? Yes or no?

Do I believe in God? Yes

Myrddin

martingriff wrote: »

Do I believe in God? Yes

Which God, because there's quite a few that are worshipped around the globe?

Ps - did you knock at my door on Xmas morning?

TwoShedsJackson

martingriff wrote: »

Do I believe in God? Yes

Why do you believe?

ShooterSF

martingriff wrote: »

No what I meant there is I would not go an tell the person there beliefs are wrong and crazy its there beliefs. I will think they are but i will not call them idiots.

Why would you call someone an idiot for having crazy beliefs? You might try and persuade the person their beliefs are crazy in the hope of helping them but as far as I can see there are plenty of not idiots out there with crazy beliefs.

And what happens when people start to impose their crazy beliefs on others in society, say making children learn those beliefs to be true or forcing women to cover their whole body in public or forcing black people to work for nothing and have no civil liberties or killing people because of their sexuality?

Of course the 3rd one there stands out because it's not technically based on a religious belief, but that's the point, no one said "Oh well that's just slave owner's beliefs. You shouldn't go around thelling them they can't own slaves."

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

Do I believe in God? Yes

That's not the question I asked you. I asked whether you also believe in things that are clearly fictional simply because you cannot disprove their existence?

Or would you agree that it is reasonable to not believe in a fantastical entity for which their is no evidence until such evidence is presented?
And do you thing there could be any evidence or reasoning that could possibly convince you that your belief in god is unfounded?

mark renton

King Mob wrote: »

So then do you believe positively that fairies or dragons or any other fictional entity I can dream up exist? Yes or no?

Youre taking credit as a seminal source for faries and dragons?