Thread: This topic is for Atheists only!(Jesus isn't my saviour,etc.

Originally posted by InTheMoment

There is no reason to believe in an omnipotent/omnibenevolent/omniwhatever being, considering the amount of falsifiable evidence. The burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary evidence.

Could you possibly provide just a few really rough examples? Like, point form if you'd like. It doesn't need to be amazingly clear, I can do the research myself, but just so I can start to put it into some sort of context because I feel like my questions haven't even begun to be answered. I understand what atheism means but I'm still not 100% sure what the roots of those beliefs are. And I'm aware that there is research and math and science and philosophy involved but I'd just like something that I can START to wrap my mind around. Like, what would you say to someone who has no concept of atheism and you wanted to give them a really general idea of a few specific things that lead you to this belief?

And I'd just like to reiterate that I myself have not decided on a particluar belief, so I'm not knocking atheism ( I could very well find that I am truly an atheist at the end of all this), but I need things to make sense in my head before I can truly say, "yes, I agree, there is no POSSIBLE way that a god could exist. All the evidence ABSOLUTELY PROVES this."

So thank you to everyone that is helping me along with this.

Originally posted by kichu


But why not believe in the POSSIBILITY? *Does all the proof/evidence ABSOLUTELY PROVE there is no god? *Or is it just unlikely?

I think if you can 100% PROVE there is no god, then atheism is justifiable. *But if there isn't absolute proof (rather it's just unlikely there is a god), then logic would lead me to agnosticism.

You're right. You can't prove 100% that god does not exist at all. The reason for that is due to how god is defined. I.E. that it is not defined clearly enough to disprove. It would be impossible to disprove the claim that there is an invisible, omnipotent being who apparently doesn't want to be proven. Therefore, if ever you did a test to find out its existence and it turned up negative, those who believe in such a god would simply say that he changed the results. So burden of proof falls on the ones making the claim and thus far have not shown anything substantial.

Atheism can be justified in the fact that there is simply very little reason to believe in a god. Although one cannot say with absolute certainty that god does not exist, one can say that adding a god is not necessary to explain our universe. With each discovery of how our universe works is another reason not to need god to explain how it works. That means that it is becoming more and more statistically improbable that god exists. The statistics are such that, for all practical purposes, one could pretty much ignore god's potential existence.

Originally posted by Mark75

...Atheism can be justified in the fact that there is simply very little reason to believe in a god. Although one cannot say with absolute certainty that god does not exist, one can say that adding a god is not necessary to explain our universe......

But as soon as you concede to the fact that "one cannot say with absolute certainty that god does not exist..." aren't you subscribing to agnosticism? Isn't that what being agnostic means? That you believe there is not enough evidence to neither prove nor disprove the existence of god?

As well, what about "A Brief History of Time." Is it worth the read?

Originally posted by kichu


But as soon as you concede to the fact that \"one cannot say with absolute certainty that god does not exist...\" *aren't you subscribing to agnosticism? *Isn't that what being agnostic means? *That you believe there is not enough evidence to neither prove nor disprove the existence of god?

I would say no. The main difference is that an atheist is working under the assumption that god does not exist, while an agnostic remains neutral.

Originally posted by kichu
As well, what about \"A Brief History of Time.\" *Is it worth the read?

I couldn't say, I've never read it.

Originally posted by kichu
As well, what about \"A Brief History of Time.\" *Is it worth the read?

I haven't read that one, but I read the newer one 'The Universe in a Nutshell'. It was pretty good. Hawking is actually a pretty funny guy.

But if you're looking for a good read, check out The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.

I like kichu's avatar...damn foot fetishes

Originally posted by bradybaker
But if you're looking for a good read, check out The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.

This is better? How so Brady Baker? Just curious.
I too found Hawking enlightening & humorous.

[quote]This is better? How so Brady Baker? Just curious.
I too found Hawking enlightening & humorous.
Umm, Greene's book is just a really great, easy to read summary of Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. It explains how and why they're incompatible and goes into a great explanation of the leading theories that hope to reconcile the two branches of physics. Specifically, string theory.

It really opened my eyes to the amount of knowledge we can gain through mathematics.