OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

You like one more than the other. (Think of the choice you would have if you were an early Greek or Roman citizen!)

But, the point is that they are all of the same kind - supernatural, superior to all evidence, irrefutable on all topics.

How can that NOT lead to a world view that rejects evidence (such as science)?

 

Have done so already. Your position is apparently if one believes in the possibility of any of supernatural entities imagined throughout history than one must believe in the possibility of god and therefor be a theist. The only way that logically works is to postulate that all human imagined supernatural entities are by definition god which means of course that the devil is god, unicorns are god, leprachauns are god etc,etc.

That may make sense to some but certainly not to me.

And you have yet to provide any source except yourself that claims " by definition any being not bound by nature is a deity" Now if you can provide any theology or accepted philosophy that supports your position we can continue.

 

You're just trying to postulate different categories of supernatural beings and to then claim that YOUR supernatural beings are different from all the other postulated supernatural beings.

But, there is doubt of the existence of ANY supernatural being you want to postulate. One must question the existence of such beings, and the problem with evidence is the same for all.

 

Atheists and religious people have exactly the same amount of proof for the origin of the universe, and the existence of God or Gods: zero.

The notion that disbelief in God, is based in science, could not be further from the truth. It's just a belief; no different than the belief that God does exist. However, I will never understand why religion and science are presented as opposites.

Science is the search for facts. Religion is the search for meaning. Either is a poor substitute for the other.

 

Amen on your last paragraph.

As for the rest, there is a significant difference.

When science doesn't know, it gives the answer, "I don't know".

When religion doesn't know, it gives the answer, "God did it" as an irrefutable, untestable absolute.

This comes out in your first paragraph, where science doesn't claim an answer for what happened before the "big bang" and has serious and significant evidence for what came after. Religion, on the other hand, claims an unassailable absolute that involves no evidence other than ancient writings by those who also did not have evidence.

 

But, they are not making the same claims, at all. Religion is making the claim that God created everything. They are most certainly NOT making claims about HOW he did it. On the other hand, science IS making a claim about HOW it happened, yet is not offering any explanation for WHO or WHY it happened. These views not aligned in direct opposition. But, isn't that always how it is when humans disagree? (arguing two different points)

Don't get me wrong; I'm in the Atheist camp.

I just find it amusing when people take one belief, that is based in science, and apply to another, that is not based in anything.

 

Yes. Religion is all about why and science is all about how.

The problem arises when someone from one side tries to step on the other side of the line. Nothing about the supernatural can be proven true or false by science. And, the bible has nothing at all to do with explaining how our non-supernatural universe works.

Religion and science have very different foundations and are designed to answer very different questions. The problem comes when the fundamentals and logic of one side is applied to the other.

Religious logic and the fundamental belief in the supernatural fail when applied to how things work in our natural world. There is no way to discern what God did or did not do. The belief that "God did it" is simply an end to all further investigation.

Science fails to prove whether a supernatural world exists, because science is based on evidence - all of which is NOT in the supernatural world.

 

Try if you can to respond to my post.

 

There is zero, repeat zero evidence for the supernatural world. Can science prove it doesn't exist. Of course not. Can't prove unicorns don't exist either. Or Hobbits. Or any of the imaginary creations of the wonderful human imagination.

 

... as several have been saying.

The question is how we proceed from here, given that there are those who accept their religion as an absolute authority, including on things that science CAN address.

What we're seeing today is a large sub population of those who see science as wrong (in fact, likely to be PURPOSEFULLY wrong) due to perceived conflicts with their religion. The result is a negative attitude toward education and ANY result from or use of science - how can one trust a source that has been proven false by disputing various religious "facts"?

How do we discuss climate change when science is seen as no more than an assault on religion by false gods? How do we give the EPA authority to examine our environment when the EPA would use science to do so? How do we call BS on a tax plan that science indicates will explode our national debt when the audience sees science as a problem, not a tool for identifying the truth?

 

Theists like to use the phrase "just a belief". It falls into the same category as "Evolution is just a theory. I suggest you look up the definition of "belief".

Disbelief in god is based on history and logic. Mankind has postulated the existence of thousands of different gods and thousands of different way to worship these gods. Gods are the creation of man's imaginings. There is absolutely no evidence of anything else.

The path of the universe, from shortly after it's beginnings, is based on scientific evidence.

Because they are opposites. The following two statements cannot both be true...

• God created the universe and man around 6000 years ago
• The universe is 14,000,000,000 years old

Religion began as the search for answers to then unanswerable questions:
Where did we come from?
What happens when we die?
Where have the herds gone?
Why did the locusts devour our fields?
Why is this so called Black Plague killing so many people?

Answer: GodDidIt.

GodDidIt has always been a poor substitute for rational thinking and scientific research.

 

I too, am an Atheist, and a believer in the scientific method. Because I do not choose to use science as a de facto religion, I am not willing to ascribe to it proof that does not exist. When you believe in something, with no facts to support the belief, that is not science, in any way. There is no hypothesis that has been presented, that has been further tested, or has been supported by facts, that defines what existed before the big bang. Therefore, science and religion have the same amount of proof regarding the pre Big Bang era. None.

 

That's been stated over and over again on this board - by those who are highly interested in science.

Humans don't know everything.

The difference is that in religion, humans make up an answer - "God did it".

In science, we tell the truth - "I don't know".

 

If you are such a fan of science, why do you resort to the word "proof"? Science is about accumulating evidence. Only in mathematics do we have proofs. I have presented evidence for the non-existence of gods.

What's your point? That science and religion should be placed on the same footing? Perhaps that's why you wrote...

...to which responded...

Some scientists postulate that ours is not the only universe. I agree with that. That still leaves the question of what preceded all universes.

Theists: GodDidIt
Science: We (I) don't know.

If history is any guide, science has always been right, religion has always been wrong.

 

You have presented no evidence.

What you are engaging in is NOT science. Look, I am an Atheist too. I don't believe in gods either. But, I don't claim that is based in science, because there is no science that refutes the existence of gods. I happen to think we are both right about there being no gods, but I'm not willing to make false claims that science has evidence of this, and that it can prove a negative.

 

I could not agree more. That is why it bothers me when some make false claims that science it the basis for Atheism. Atheism is a belief that is no more grounded in science than any other belief. It's one that I happen to believe in, but that doesn't mean I should use science as a whip to get others to agree with me.

 

It's not that science is the basis for atheism.

It is that atheism does not stand in the way of science being the basis of exploration. And, theism definitely CAN stand in the way of that.

The catch is that there is a significant sub population that carries a theistic world view that THEY see as invalidating or at least seriously deprecating science.

They can then see science/evidence as something that can not be trusted, or even as something that must be opposed.

How can they accept supporting university education when universities have a significant science department that teaches elements that this sub population sees as absolutely false - in fact, as an assault on their theism? How can they accept evidence based approaches to social problems when their religion supplies cut and dried absolute "answers" and directives to enforce those absolutes?

And, once they blame science for this dichotomy, why would they trust to accept science on ANY topic? Why would they accept an evidence based approach - let alone go looking for evidence as a reflex when faced with new information?

Thus the major difference is that with atheism there is no similar religious force pitted against science.

It's not that theists couldn't accept science, of course. There are scientists who are Christian, and manage to compartmentalize their religion such that it doesn't invalidate their science. But, theism is a pressure toward accepting authority without serious question, without demanding evidence, without doing the math.

And, in that way it can be an assault on science.

 

No belief can take actions; only humans can do that. I have never seen a single holy man, of any stripe, call for an end to exploration. Not a single one.

Science and religion to NOT occupy the same space. I have no idea how anyone intelligent could think that. People do not spend their Sunday mornings at laboratories. Just because science has refuted some claims in holy books, does not mean that religious leaders are anti-science in the way that Atheists are anti-religion. (Someday someone will have to explain to me why Atheists are against religions that have no deity)

Your notion that the religious people of the world don't believe in science is based in what, exactly? Hell, the Catholic church even has a science division, and has for centuries.

I'm sorry but, it sounds like you are extremely ignorant of this topics details, in such an extreme level that it makes it difficult to converse with you about it.

I am an Atheist. I believe in science. Nothing about science refutes the tenets of religion. The things that conflict, are irrelevant details, that in no way change the focus of the religions. If the world was made in 7 days or 7 billion years, it has nothing to do with what the bible teaches, which are almost entirely morality lessons.

 

It has nothing to do with "proving" anything.
I previously posted...

Scientific knowledge is based on a preponderance of evidence. If gods, and the very concept of gods, are the creation of man's imaginings, why is there any need to ponder the existence of a "real" god?

​

Are you of the opinion that rational people need to disprove that everything was Created LastThursday?
Are you of the opinion that rational people need to disprove the existence of PsychicSnowflakes?

 

That of course is why we really don't let the masses run the country.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/string-theory-predicts-a-time-before-the-big-bang/

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/18/7/316/pdf

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang1.htm

String theory, branes, cyclical universe, multiverse are all in the hypothesis stages right now and some clues as to what happened prior to the Big Bang are turning up in the Cosmic Background Radiation.

That is what is so great about science. They keep on looking for the answers instead of just "believing" that "goddidit".

 

The theist opposition to science comes primarily for a subsect of Christianity who are colloquially called fundamentalists who believe that the bible is to be take LITERALLY! That means that when their bible says that "goddidit" then everything else is blasphemy and that includes all of science because it demonstrates that there is evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately these fundamentalists have a political agenda and demonizing and disparaging science is part of that agenda.

 

I agree that atheism is not synonymous with science however, the scientific method can be used as one of many means to evaluate religious claims and if those claims have no basis in evidence then there is no good reason to accept them and, it is not then the fault of atheists that theists assert what they do.

Atheism is not a belief any more than lacking belief in Leprechauns is a belief.

 

Really? Religions tend to support 'science' right up to the point that it conflicts with their dogma. I'm not sure that there was wholehearted support for the Reformation and Enlightenment among many religions. Sounds very much like holy men calling for the end of exploration to me.

Science and religion do occupy the same temporal space, religions prefer to think they do not because science has been infinitely more successful at describing that space. The key difference is not the space they occupy but, the tools that they use; religions tend to speculate with philosophical and metaphysical meanderings when confronted with the difficult questions whereas science speculates as a means to form a hypothesis that can be tested.

Theistic religions by definition have a deity, what religions without a deity do you think I should be against?

You claim to be an atheist but, you appear to be an apologist for liberal religion and ignore the obvious problems with religion as a whole. For me, it appears that the ignorance or naivety here is yours. I am looking forward to reading more of your posts.

 

Right, science doesn't 'prove' anything and, I cannot recall ever hearing a knowledgeable atheist say that science proves gods don't exist. You appear to be repeating common religious misdirection points but, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Lack of belief in gods is not based in science, who says that it is? Science can provide some evidence as to why certain claims about gods are simply not viable, and you can extrapolate from there that if the infallible claims about gods are not viable then the gods themselves cannot be viable either. The next problem is your use of the word belief as applied to atheists and theists, I have explained before that atheists can only lack belief in the claims made by theists about gods. The problem is that there is justified belief and faith and the two are essentially opposites; justified belief is a belief held based upon the evidence whereas faith is a belief held without evidence of even in spite of the evidence. The two are not the same and the former is what atheists do while the latter is what theists do; again this is a common religious misdirection but, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Theistic religion is a search for the significance of a deity, it is not looking for a 'meaning', it is simply looking for a justification for making a deity the prime mover for everything that is. Theistic religion presupposes an answer and tries to wedge that answer into a universe that, when tested, simply does not match the naive fantasy that arose from a need to explain, 'what is' from a position of ignorance. Science is not perfect but it tends to do the opposite and is part of a set of tools that are the best substitute that we have for religion.