An Important Question for ALL atheists...

An Important Question for ATHEISTS ("Agnostic" or "Otherwise") AND of course, that VERY SPECIAL hybrid blend, of AGNOSTIC + ATHEIST ATHEISTS: (Kindly, or otherwise, let me know IF I left anyone out. IF I did, kindly, or, of course, otherwise, accept, or not, my most sincerest of apologies.) (Damn, that was a mouthful, believe it, or, of course, not)

IF INDEED, YOU DO SUCCEED, in your quest to prove that GOD DOES NOT EXIST, how do you plan to convince, the unconvinced, that YOU REALLY WERE LOOKING IN THE RIGHT PLACE??? Or, have you thought that far ahead? What if you fail to convince them, WHAT THEN... ???

Reason for "Religious Conspiracies":
Though, hidden in the shadows, and rarely heard, THERE'S a CONSPIRACY a FOOT, to shut theists up (Nope! I reckon, I'm not a poet... Hell... I KNOW IT...), and I fear, for the theists... fair warning... oh dear...

I'm sure glad that you guys like agnostics. If it weren't for that, I might be in trouble...

As always, I'm looking forward to your comments... naughty or nice... your choice...

See ya,
Milt

Ah, reversing the old "What proof would you accept of God's existence?" As a believer, I'd have to say the intellectually honest will be compelled to admit that just as with some there would be no proof of God's existence they would accept, there are some that wouldn't accept any proof of His absence.

But I never try to convert any atheists. I only attempt to explain myself, however poor my efforts are and try to get them to understand that when they look at believers they are really only staring in a sort of mirror.

BenReclused
Reason for "Religious Conspiracies":
Though, hidden in the shadows, and rarely heard, THERE'S a CONSPIRACY a FOOT, to shut theists up

I dont beleive in gods, but I believe that ^^^.

reply to post by BenReclused


One cannot prove there is no god at least epistemologically speaking. Reasonable atheists, “New” and old, would not argue with this. Richard Dawkins, for example, has told audiences that he is nominally an agnostic, since proving that something does not exist is impossible. He claims to be an atheist “only” in the sense that he is an “a-leprechaunist, an a-fairiest, and an a-pink-unicornist.” The evidence for God, fairies and leprechauns, he remarked, “is equally poor.”

I do not know anyone who is actively trying to disprove the existence of a god however we can disprove religion and the constructs which describe their god.

reply to post by BenReclused


Present the case and trust that your peers include honest and rational individuals. What else can you do?

I didn't know we had to prove anything. I thought that in order to prove a negative you had to first be illogical.

I can't prove there are no martians on pluto either. but I can simply not bother with the idea, seeing as it will have no impact on my travels on earth.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Mmm...proving something does not exist is only impossible as long as you don't know what it is. Simulation and observation are excellent methods of testing the hypothetical.

reply to post by Grimpachi

One cannot prove there is no god at least epistemologically speaking. Reasonable atheists, “New” and old, would not argue with this. Richard Dawkins, for example, has told audiences that he is nominally an agnostic, since proving that something does not exist is impossible. He claims to be an atheist “only” in the sense that he is an “a-leprechaunist, an a-fairiest, and an a-pink-unicornist.” The evidence for God, fairies and leprechauns, he remarked, “is equally poor.”

I didn't ask about any of that. Would you, kindy, reread the question...

How about the "conspiracy" angle, do you have any thoughts on that?

I do not know anyone who is actively trying to disprove the existence of a god

I do. Would you like for me to link to a few of those posts?

however we can disprove religion and the constructs which describe their god.

So what?

Some of the best books that I've read, are works of fiction. My all time favorite, is, without a doubt, "Stranger in a Strange Land". Have you read it?

As far as I know, most religious scholars accept the Bible as being a book of parables. Would one really accomplish anything if one proved those scholars right? I wouldn't think so.

Thanks for responding.

See ya buddy,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


As an atheist I see no need to try and convince believers of anything. I'm a live and let live kind of guy. You are free to believe whatever you like....as am I. Just show me the same respect and we're all good.

reply to post by BenReclused

I didn't ask about any of that. Would you, kindy, reread the question...

Actually you inferred it by addressing all atheists stating we have a quest to disprove god. So I replied in kind showing we all do not. You probably will not absorb this but Gnostic Atheists would be the ones most likely do something like that. If they do.

How about the "conspiracy" angle, do you have any thoughts on that?

What conspiracy angle? There are a lot of ways to go with that question. Can you be specific?

I do not know anyone who is actively trying to disprove the existence of a god

I do. Would you like for me to link to a few of those posts?

No. I would suggest that you go back to those threads and ask those posters who make such claims. I am sure if it is a fresh thread they will answer you.

reply to post by BenReclused


I was under the impression that virtually all Christians take the prophecied return of Jesus quite literally. They believe that whether or not we act to save this world, Jesus will finish the job before he even picks up the slack.

reply to post by BenReclused


Um.

You can't prove the nonexistence of something all the more so where that something lies outside the purview of Reason.

We can certainly give evidence that X event purported to have occurred with Y attribution is false based on Z evidence which would in turn dispute any attribution given magical mystery mythologies.

We can certainly dispute the existence of magical mystery mythology people in the sky as well and back that disputation up with independently verifiable evidence.

Proving that any X attribution or agency doesn't exist, however, especially where the explanation equates to "Magic", that's impossible.
No one can argue against "Magic".

Further, the burden of proof isn't on anyone disputing the existence of something.
The burden of proof is always on anyone making claim to existence of any quantity.

I can't prove that unicorns don't exist.
I can say there's no reliable evidence for their existence, but, that's as far as I can go.

Meanwhile, anyone laying claim that Unicorns DO exist, need to produce a Unicorn.

Thus, proving a negative is logical fallacy.
Proving a positive, however, well, produce a god for us. Show us one. Even a small one.
Even so, even if, there are those of us that couldn't care if you or anyone were to produce a thousand gods.
I for one don't want or need any gods, even if they were tinker-belling around sprinkling miracles everywhere.
I'm fairly capable of answering my own prayers by making what I want to happen, happen, through my own hard work.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I would be inclined to do some preliminary investigation if I believed for even one second that anyone would care about my findings. As such, its merely a curiosity for me. Some people go spelunking, I debate theism and philosophy.

I think that when you can finally and totally take responsibility for your own life and all your actions, respect others and yourself totally, realize that there is no one else in this universe that will be responsible for or respect you, then you will realize how alone in this universe you are. Then you will come to the realization that interactions with live personages is what you are left with.

I realize that some people take solace in believing in "something greater" than themselves, especially during deaths, sickness and other situations that seem to be beyond an individual's control and I respect that. I think that religion is a personal depth that only that person can and should experience if they so desire.

But don't pee on my back and tell me its raining.

I don't believe it's proper to lump atheists and agnostics together.

Atheists believe there is no God. Theists believe there is a God. Atheists and theists alike deal in absolutes.

As an agnostic, I feel it's best to live my life the best I can and if God is waiting for me on the other side....I accept him. If not.......it will not matter one bit.

This is a great thread.

A good read, and it's distracting me from the freakin Ukrainian situation.

I believe God exists, all you have to do is immerse yourself in nature and face death doing something bada$$ at the same time. You'll know something is there. Something beyond biological randomness that's for damn sure....

Works for me......

Atheism is a stubborn and deluded view of reality IMO

AfterInfinity
reply to post by BenReclused

 

I was under the impression that virtually all Christians take the prophecied return of Jesus quite literally. They believe that whether or not we act to save this world, Jesus will finish the job before he even picks up the slack.

That's untrue. There are actually several classes of thought in mainstream Christianity - Premillennialism, amillennialism, postmillennialism, preterism and no millennialism. Not all of them believe in Revelation the same way or at all. You may think it's a vast majority because you're likely to run into premillennialist types on a conspiracy site where TEOTWAKI is often discussed along with religious topics.

And none of that addresses the Gnostics who believe that the whole of Revelation is a completely internal struggle and thus not to be taken in any literal sense at all. There are a decent number of them who post here, too.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


None of that changes the fact that even if shown proof, would you believe it?

That's the quandary this is asking you.

If you could absolutely disprove God to a believer and you knew the proof to be ironclad, would you expect them to believe you? And why?

Everyone knows what you wrote. This is a thought exercise on a hypothetical reversal of the usual question: If I could provide you proof of God, would you believe it?

reply to post by ketsuko


Huh. Sounds like an entirely reliable quagmire of idealism. And I thought the stock market was cryptic!

ketsuko
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

None of that changes the fact that even if shown proof, would you believe it?

That's the quandary this is asking you.

If you could absolutely disprove God to a believer and you knew the proof to be ironclad, would you expect them to believe you? And why?

Everyone knows what you wrote. This is a thought exercise on a hypothetical reversal of the usual question: If I could provide you proof of God, would you believe it?

If your proof were truly ironclad, I would. But I would then be atheist in another sense, I.e. "without god" or "in spite of god". Maybe 'contheist'...