What would it take to disprove atheism?

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Question for the group: If you are an atheist, what would it take to convince you that there truly is "something" rather than "nothing"?

Or is it possible? (I have a feeling that some loathe the concept of God so much, they could watch the seas part & they would STILL find a reason to doubt.....)

You're right. I would have a reason to doubt. If I saw the seas parting, there would be no reason to automatically assume it was a 'supernatural' event, let alone the work of a god, let alone the work of the god of your particular theology.

I have two answers to your question.

In the general sense, it would take a coherent, positive definition of 'god' and a body of critically robust evidence in support of it. In that order.

In the specific sense, if your particular god exists, he knows exactly what would convince me, even if I don't.

 

[durangodawood]

....If you are an atheist, what would it take to convince you that there truly is "something" rather than "nothing"?....

But I already DO believe there is something rather than nothing.

 

[quatona]

But I already DO believe there is something rather than nothing.

Leave it to the theists to tell you what you have to and must not believe in in order to be a TrueAtheist.

 

[bhsmte]

We don't reject god. I wish I didn't have to tell people that so often.

It sounds more powerful, when they can say "reject". Saying; they don't see any evidence to believe in a God, just doesn't sound as sexy.

 

[ranunculus]

What truth claims does atheism make? None.
What's there to disprove? Nothing.
/thread

 

[KCfromNC]

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???

Ignoring the problem of confusing volume of knowledge with certainty about the knowledge we do have, you're missing the point. Who is saying god(s) 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!

Are you consistent in this approach? If a doctor said "well, all the tests show you have a treatable disease but we're only examining a small percentage of the universe so I can't conclude that I should treat it", would you be OK continuing to suffer with that easily treatable disease? If not, then calling out others for behavior you'd also engage in is a more than a bit hypocritical.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

I'll convert based on your personal experience if you agree to convert when I find a Hindu with a personal experience of their gods. You go first and show me how it is done.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's fair. I agree with most of what you said. Thank you.

Although I am open to the idea of Christianity being provable. Why? Because I believe it's true..... and given enough time, I think man will be able to prove truthful things.

I'm not convinced. If you open things up to omnipotent beings being involved in our reality, there's no possible way to know they aren't deceptive omnipotent beings.

This doesn't seem like it's in accordance to the Law of Probability AT ALL. In fact, we've never found another planet in any solar system where this takes place.

So it is one in 8 or so. Doesn't seem that unlikely. Maybe 1 in a hundred if you include all of the moons of various planets. Things that unlikely happen all the time. No big whoop, certainly not something that's going to make me accept Shinto or whatever as the one true path.

Now.... if an infinitely wonderful God wanted to disprove a random universe, wouldn't it be a beautifully poetic way to do it by making the two most obvious symbols in the sky exactly equal????

No, it would be better create a universe where natural laws made life impossible but we still existed through divine fiat. Including things which sometimes happen, sometimes don't according to perfectly natural laws is in no way evidence for a supernatural creator.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What truth claims does atheism make? None.
What's there to disprove? Nothing.
/thread

^This

 

[KCfromNC]

What truth claims does atheism make? None.
What's there to disprove? Nothing.
/thread

It does imply we know our own beliefs - which does seem to cause problems for believers who insist that they know better than us on that subject.

 

[Gottservant]

At least if you reject God, you do something to distinguish what you don't believe from what you do believe.

 

[digitalgoth]

At least if you reject God, you do something to distinguish what you don't believe from what you do believe.

There you go again. Atheists aren't rejecting God. There is no God.

 

[Gottservant]

There you go again. Atheists aren't rejecting God. There is no God.

That's what I'm saying, if you don't reject God you don't even get a contrast. So if I was saying atheists reject God as if you hadn't already said stop, I would at least be giving them the benefit of the doubt. But actually you don't even deserve that: there is a God.

Not that we should think we deserve anything from God, apart from Christ.

 

[digitalgoth]

That's what I'm saying, if you don't reject God you don't even get a contrast.
.

Why does there need to be a contrast? You state that something is true, I state it is false. You have to present facts that support your statement, Atheists don't have to present anything.

So if I was saying atheists reject God as if you hadn't already said stop, I would at least be giving them the benefit of the doubt. But actually you don't even deserve that: there is a God.

Atheists aren't "rejecting God" which is what you want, Atheism is the default state. You need to prove your God exists.

If this seems unclear, let's put it in terms you understand. Jews exist. Christ the hippy Jew stands up and preaches things and is declared the son of God by his followers. Therefore, you need to worship him, cause they said so. It's up to you to prove he's the son of God because unless it is convincing, the belief defaults to Judaism and you're just nonsense if you don't have anything to back it up.

Atheism is like that. You start as an atheist, then someone has to prove religion "X" is true.

 

[Gottservant]

You don't automatically reject something because you believe it is false, that is an action of the conscience (not the mind)

 

[bhsmte]

You don't automatically reject something because you believe it is false, that is an action of the conscience (not the mind)

If one does not accept the concept of a God, because they see no evidence or reason to, how is that not one's mind working to come to a conclusion?

 

[digitalgoth]

You don't automatically reject something because you believe it is false, that is an action of the conscience (not the mind)

Nothing is being rejected, which you're not getting. You're starting from an entire dogma and religion as if it was magically there to begin with. When you were popped out, you didn't know or believe anything. Until you were told what to think (as opposed to those taught how to think) you were a blank slate. You believe what you do because you were told to. Your personal religion is a product of what culture and parentage you were born into. There's a reason there's a lot of Hindus in India, Muslims in Saudi Arabia, and Christians in America.

You were taught, or bought into, Christianity, and its why all major religions pretty much are concerned with pumping out as many babies as possible. You ever wonder about that? It's to create more soldiers for religion "X", it isn't because God cares when he's busy destroying entire worlds on a whim. It's because you have to get children when they're young and biologically lack the ability for reasoning and critical thinking so you can get them to buy into something that is silly.

Anyway, you were an atheist, you just don't remember it.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Not that we should think we deserve anything from God, apart from Christ.

Why do we deserve Christ? I thought humans all deserve to go to hell....

 

[digitalgoth]

Why do we deserve Christ? I thought humans all deserve to go to hell....

By default you go to hell, where all the babies go.

Luckily, you're alive long enough to start sending 10%, so you'll go to heaven.

Weren't indulgences something that the early protestants had a problem with? I guess they didn't realize the cash flow they generate.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

You were taught, or bought into, Christianity, and its why all major religions pretty much are concerned with pumping out as many babies as possible. You ever wonder about that? It's to create more soldiers for religion "X", it isn't because God cares when he's busy destroying entire worlds on a whim. It's because you have to get children when they're young and biologically lack the ability for reasoning and critical thinking so you can get them to buy into something that is silly.

I think this is sig worthy. Do you mind if I borrow it?