What would it take to disprove atheism?

[Feldon]

I am an atheist, have been an atheist for decades and do not see anything that will change that in the forseeable future.

And I still do not explicitly disavow the possibility of a deity.


Fathom that!

I'm trying to, I'm trying to!

Why don't you explicitly disavow the possibility of a deity?

 

[Freodin]

Well.... I believe in Crystal Light. (Because I believe in me!)

Okey Dokey: Does this "something" pertain to the nature of existence/reality? (And really, it would be a lot easier if you would volunteer info, rather than have it extracted with dental equipment. C'mon, open up! I promise, I won't bite.)

I am not stalling. I just don't know what kind of answer you are looking for.

"What do you believe in?".... what the heck does that even mean? I gave you some examples what it could mean... and you discarded them as "red herrings".

I admit that this might be a problem of different languages... but I would have a similar problem with such a unspecific question in my native german.

 

[Freodin]

I'm trying to, I'm trying to!

Why don't you explicitly disavow the possibility of a deity?

Because I admit the possibility of a deity. I just don't believe in (the existence of) one.

It consider it unreasonable and impropable. But I admit that my reasonings might be incorrect or based on faulty premises and that my evaluations might just be off.

But as long as I do not have a reason to consider my reasonings incorrect, or to consider different premises or different evaluations, I have no reason to change my disbelief.

 

[Feldon]

I am not stalling. I just don't know what kind of answer you are looking for.

"What do you believe in?".... what the heck does that even mean? I gave you some examples what it could mean... and you discarded them as "red herrings".

I admit that this might be a problem of different languages... but I would have a similar problem with such a unspecific question in my native german.

Oh, I didn't know you were a native German speaker. My apologies if I came across too strongly. I'm sorry.

 

[BL2KTN]

You've got to be kidding me...

His English is impeccable! He understood you were asking a question, he just wanted you to specify.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Most of the former atheists I've met think that way.... they're not suddenly buying Bibles or going to Church, but SOMETHING happened in their lives, and now they can no longer explicitly disavow the possibility of a Deity.

It's like a door that's a little cracked open....

Works much the same way with theists becoming atheists.

 

[Feldon]

Because I admit the possibility of a deity. I just don't believe in (the existence of) one.

It consider it unreasonable and impropable. But I admit that my reasonings might be incorrect or based on faulty premises and that my evaluations might just be off.

But as long as I do not have a reason to consider my reasonings incorrect, or to consider different premises or different evaluations, I have no reason to change my disbelief.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you admit to the possibility of a Deity? Is it just one of those "well, for all we know the universe could be a Matrix simulation, or something out of Marvel, so sure, a God is possible" things?

Or is there a separate reason why you think God might be possible?

 

[Freodin]

If you don't mind me asking, why do you admit to the possibility of a Deity? Is it just one of those "well, for all we know the universe could be a Matrix simulation, or something out of Marvel, so sure, a God is possible" things?

Basically, yes. The concept of "God" can be removed so far from logic and reasoning that it becomes impossible to disprove it. But "not disproven" does not provide any reasons to accept it.

 

[znr]

But atheism IS actually reasonable "rational intellectual" belief. Faith is not gained by being able to explain God to oneself or vice versa. The bible makes it pretty clear that God requires we suspend our disbelief and enter into the kingdom as a "little child"...this is not rational or easily explained away with thinking. The fact is, the best proof of Gods existence is bearing the fruit of the Holy Spirit; love, patience, etc. the real fruit, however, not the lip service type.

 

[Feldon]

You've got to be kidding me...

His English is impeccable! He understood you were asking a question, he just wanted you to specify.

Uh... he was the one who said that his language might be an issue. Not the other way. But thanks for playing ref, it was really helpful. God bless.

Again: We're talking about what do you believe in. That's ridiculously straightforward: If you claim to be an atheist, but state that you believe in SOMETHING regarding the true nature of existence/reality.... then what is it? What do you believe in?

 

[Golden Yak]

Uh... he was the one who said that his language might be an issue. Not the other way. But thanks for playing ref, it was really helpful. God bless.

Again: We're talking about what do you believe in. That's ridiculously straightforward: If you claim to be an atheist, but state that you believe in SOMETHING regarding the true nature of existence/reality.... then what is it? What do you believe in?

If you're asking an atheist what he thinks the source of reality/existence/the universe etc. is, you will probably get somewhat different answers depending on the atheist. Bear in mind that, with this particular question, "I don't know" is a valid answer (and is not the same as saying "nothing").

 

[Feldon]

But atheism IS actually reasonable "rational intellectual" belief. Faith is not gained by being able to explain God to oneself or vice versa. The bible makes it pretty clear that God requires we suspend our disbelief and enter into the kingdom as a "little child"...this is not rational or easily explained away with thinking.

I've been reading this new book (The Second Coming: A Love Story by Scott Pinsker) that makes the opposite argument. Basically, it says that mankind is only a few generations removed from the hacksaw & leaches. Right? By science's own admission, about 93% of the entire universe is a total mystery (Dark Matter & Dark Energy). We don't even know what it is or how to define it!! So if we've only been examining the 7% of the "known" universe for a few generations, don't have a clue about 93% of it..... then wouldn't it be kinda silly to conclude that God cannot exist???

Just going by science's own data, it seems like -- at best -- a scientist's conclusion should be: Gosh, we need a lot more evidence before we make a conclusion!

 

[Freodin]

Uh... he was the one who said that his language might be an issue. Not the other way. But thanks for playing ref, it was really helpful. God bless.

Again: We're talking about what do you believe in. That's ridiculously straightforward: If you claim to be an atheist, but state that you believe in SOMETHING regarding the true nature of existence/reality.... then what is it? What do you believe in?

Ah, so you do specify: "something regarding the true nature of existence/reality"

Well, I believe that reality is real, and it is the only real thing there is. That excludes most concepts of deities that adhere to a prescriptive morality, which is per definitionem irreal.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hi all,

Just wondering if my proof would convince you. I have a website where I list all my encounters with Jesus see Have you ever asked yourself about the existence of God let me know what you think of these experiences. There are also a few links to external site that list cases of scientifically verifiable cases of divine healing.

Better go have a look
There is some proof there of my book
Not in words written alone
But in what God has show
Seek it with an open heart
And you a relationship with God shall start

 

[Feldon]

If you're asking an atheist what he thinks the source of reality/existence/the universe etc. is, you will probably get somewhat different answers depending on the atheist. Bear in mind that, with this particular question, "I don't know" is a valid answer (and is not the same as saying "nothing").

I agree with that. I'm just hoping people will honestly volunteer what they think.

 

[Freodin]

I've been reading this new book (The Second Coming: A Love Story by Scott Pinsker) that makes the opposite argument. Basically, it says that mankind is only a few generations removed from the hacksaw & leaches. Right? By science's own admission, about 93% of the entire universe is a total mystery (Dark Matter & Dark Energy). We don't even know what it is or how to define it!! So if we've only been examining the 7% of the "known" universe for a few generations, don't have a clue about 93% of it..... then wouldn't it be kinda silly to conclude that God cannot exist???

Just going by science's own data, it seems like -- at best -- a scientist's conclusion should be: Gosh, we need a lot more evidence before we make a conclusion!

Uh oh. Such a conclusion would heavily depend on the precise description of that "God"... and it would be a description that most Christians would disagree with.

 

[Feldon]

Ah, so you do specify: "something regarding the true nature of existence/reality"

Well, I believe that reality is real, and it is the only real thing there is. That excludes most concepts of deities that adhere to a prescriptive morality, which is per definitionem irreal.

But you just said earlier that "God" is just as likely (or in the same vein as likely) as a false, Matrix simulated reality?

How does this jibe with "reality is real"?

 

[Freodin]

But you just said earlier that "God" is just as likely (or in the same vein as likely) as a false, Matrix simulated reality?

How does this jibe with "reality is real"?

Perception and description of reality is not reality itself.

A matrix simulated reality would be just that... a matrix simulated reality. It would be real: we would just describe it incorrectly. Just as we incorrectly describe this reality.

 

[Feldon]

Perception and description of reality is not reality itself.

A matrix simulated reality would be just that... a matrix simulated reality. It would be real: we would just describe it incorrectly. Just as we incorrectly describe this reality.

What, then, is the reality of our reality?

 

[Freodin]

What, then, is the reality of our reality?

This is one of the instances where "I don't know" is a good and valid answer.

But I don't think it is relevant, because while our perception of reality is not reality itself, it is still a part of that reality.