- NEW!
by Hp-Freeze on January 15th, 2007
Is a "spiritual atheist" a contradiction in terms since atheists do not believe in spirits/ souls?
by Marky Mark on April 8th, 2012
| 8 people like this
Atheists, were you brought up in atheistic homes? Or did you experience some epiphany that brought you to atheism?
by anil m on April 14th, 2012
| 4 people like this
Is a "religious atheist" a contradiction in terms?
by Marky Mark on April 8th, 2012
| 2 people like this
Where there are atheists, life is _______________ ?
by anil m on April 1st, 2012
| 7 people like this
In the Atheist non-belief system, is believing in Astrology considered a "sin"?
by Marky Mark on April 8th, 2012
| 2 people like this
You're reading An Atheist friend of mine said she would believe, if I could show her proof. Is there a way to show her?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Interesting answer. There is no way to prove either way, its just what you think is more likely. Although, Adams was a strong atheist and used ideas like the one you quoted to show what he percieved as the foolishness of religion.
by Godfather Part II on January 15th, 2007
What you say about Adams is true and the quote is comical because God obviously exists if he is talking. But aside from the satirical contradiction I still personally value the concept of the statement and the importance of there not being proof only faith to rely on.
by Hp-Freeze on January 15th, 2007
If god cared about his people he would've fixed the obvious lies in the bible and created one religion.
by Anonymous on April 8th, 2007
I gave you points for quoting The Great, Douglas Adams.
by Penny The Wise on April 8th, 2007
"in science the burden is on disproving not proving" ain't quite right. In science, the person making a claim needs to provide evidence for that claim. The more extraordinary the claim, the greater the evidence required. So someone wanting to prove the existence of god needs much evidence indeed! If you ask the friend "prove god does not exist" she could very easily say "prove invisible unicorns do not exist". You can't prove they don't - but that doesn't mean that, by default, they do...
by Friartuck on April 21st, 2007
There is a error in you logic by not proving invisible unicorns exist, doesn't prove they they don't exist either. It just means that at this time they either don't exist OR we aren't able to detect them with our current abilities. (Ok that was a little out there.) But a good scientist would never say they are 100% sure of anything. That is because real science research is generated around disproving a Null Hypothesis not in proving something. When you are doing research you take the opposite of what you believe to be true and structure your study to disprove that fact. Even is the Null is disproven it only means the hypothesis is more likely to be true not 100% true. Thus if our hypothesis is: God exists. (Which we can never fully prove). Then out Null is God does not exist. And if we can prove our null we can support the premise that God exists. But realistically there is no data to prove either. So we can not prove or disprove the existence of God.
by Hp-Freeze on April 22nd, 2007
Thus, the only logical position is Agnosticism- since we have no clue one way or the other if God(s) exist, we definitely have no reason to pray to such a God, or live our lives in accordance with any religious dogma.
by Magenta on June 15th, 2007
MagentaStudios , in science if the hypothesis "There is a God" cannot be proven, which most would agree it can't, then the null hypothesis "There is no God" is accepted. This is the standard practice. Accepting the null hypothesis does not indicate that the scientist believes that this is necessarily true, but it is the logical position given the current evidence. When I say "I don't believe in God" I am adhering to the null hypothesis, but a more accurate statement of belief (which I don't say as it is very long!) is "I believe that given the current evidence it is highly unlikely that a God/Gods exist and the balance of probability strongly favours there being no God." Atheism is not about 'knowing' there is no God it is simply believing it is very unlikely, which is a belief that can be obtained through logic.
by Godfather Part II on June 16th, 2007
quote:
---
This is the standard practice.
---
This is false. In science, unknowns are unknowns, period.
Show me any scientist who would claim there is no life on other planets simply because we lack proof of life on other planets.
If something is unknown, it is unknown. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Quote:
---
Atheism is not about 'knowing' there is no God it is simply believing it is very unlikely, which is a belief that can be obtained through logic.
---
By definition no beliefs are obtained through logic.
Any statement of belief- one way or the other, is a leap of faith.
You are correct that Atheism is not about 'knowing' there is no God. Atheism is about 'believing' there is no God.
Agnosticism is about admitting that we have no knowledge, and not claiming any beliefs one way or the other.
by Magenta on June 16th, 2007
1)Magenta - if you want to use logic see Pascal's Wager and you will find believing is actually the better choice. (for the record I don't believe it nor does it fit with my current point above)
2) Godfather - You can not adhere to a null hypothesis, well I guess you could but a null hypothesis is something that you believe to be untrue. Atheists are actually adhering to a completely different Hypothesis.
3) Magenta - Using a Null Hypothesis is very common place in Science, it just is. Ask a scientific researcher.
by Hp-Freeze on June 19th, 2007
MagentaStudios, I understand your point, however I think I'll avoid the life on other planets example as there is actually some evidence. I never said that the null hypothesis is accepted as being true, simply that it is accepted until more evidence is found. It's like testing to see whether moths are attracted to light, if an experiment is done where half the moths fly towards the light and half away you have not proven that moths are attracted to light, but neither have you proven they are not. However, the correct scientific course of action is still to take the null hypothesis (no attraction)- this means that we must act as though there is no attraction in future experiments until any attraction is conclusively shown, this is not the same as saying that moths are not attracted to light.
Beliefs can be taken through logic, I believe my parents are my biological parents through logic- I look like them, act like them, they have baby pictures of me etc. No proof, but a logical belief.
by Godfather Part II on June 24th, 2007
Hp-Freeze: Trying to argue using Pascal's Wager is the most preposterous thing anyone can do, see: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=16694 about how using probability to prove god is worth it fails and http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/3687 elaborating on how many gods there are and how they each conflict with each other. If you still seem interesting you can view http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/fallacies.shtml about the other fallacies in your arguments.
by Anonymous on July 5th, 2007
Cactusbin: That is why I said "for the record I don't believe it nor does it fit with my current point above". Aside from the ones you listed and many other more famous rebuts of Pascals Wager I have my own. I only brought it up to magenta because she said "The only logical position..." Which I thought was funny so I replied with a somewhat "theological snobbish" remark.
by Hp-Freeze on July 5th, 2007
And this answer is number one? "Ask your friend to prove that a God does not exist.", that is the most lame answer that exists for this question. If what you say is true then I am perfectly fine to ask a Christian why he/she doesnt believe in the sun god Apollo. "Prove that Apollo doesnt exist.", therefore, when no Christian can prove Apollo exists then Apollo must exist, and thus Christians are in error for not believing in Apollo.
by ReverendJeremiah on July 22nd, 2007
RevJeremiah I think you have missed the whole point of this answer. Your statement is the exact question that was asked sub Apollo for God - ""Prove that Apollo doesnt exist.", therefore, when no Christian can prove Apollo exists then Apollo must exist, and thus Christians are in error for not believing in Apollo." - My answer states that there is not sufficient proof in either direction for a person of SCIENCE to make the claim that EITHER "Any God Exists" or "No God Exists" - thus you are left with Douglas Adams claim "proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing" - meaning: There is not proof you must have faith.
by Hp-Freeze on July 28th, 2007
A scientific theory can never be proved 100% only disproved but this does not mean the burden of proof is on the "opposition" so to speak. The burden is on the theory to make a measurable prediction which can be used to show the theory to be false. If the evidence agrees then we keep the theory. We know it is only the best we have and could be ditched at any moment but for short hand we call it true. In theory a theory could be "unproven" for the rest of time but keep passing every test.
As an exercise suppose we do reverse the burden of proof. I could then quite scientifically state I own a unicorn. I have to make no predictions because the burden of proof lies elsewhere. So there is no way to test this assertion. You could ask questions but each time I simply make an ad hoc manoeuvre (it's invisible, it's intangible etc) That's not science. Science would be "I have a unicorn and you can tell because you can see it right here next to me". Burden of proof lies with me.
by Tinkerbell on September 30th, 2007
Tinkerbell I think you agree with me more then you realize.
Your first paragraph sums up my point "In science the burden of proof is on disproving not the proving." In which I did not mention which group was responsible for this proof.
And your second paragraph rephrases the question with you as a believer and your unicorn as god (note: switching the words not stating some Unicorn-God). I, as a disbeliever of your unicorn, take the position of the atheist. You can not prove your unicorn's existence and I can not disprove its existence. Sure I can laugh at you for thinking you have a unicorn and say that there is no evidence for it so I discard the idea (as the atheist would), but I can never be 100% sure you don't from a purely scientific outlook (as I suggest). You are just not helping your case by not providing proof, it doesn't indicate any less correctness. And same with the existence of God, not having proof doesn't hurt you, it just doesn't help either.
by Hp-Freeze on October 23rd, 2007
Burden of Proof: The point is that the claimant must give some way of testing their conjecture. Otherwise you will never have any idea of whether this is true (Permanently Agnostic). Not just in science but in philosophy, law etc etc... Religion is the one place where you can say "I don't have to give a reason I have faith".
Lack of evidence does hurt my position. Since I can offer no evidence for the unicorn and any questions you may ask are studiously ignored (with ad hoc steps) what is the likelihood of it existing? It isn't black and white. I have provided no evidence or methods to test my theory. Suppose you said I have a dog which you then show me. I am in a FAR worse position than you! I am still not 100% wrong but your position is far more convincing. I could argue the dog didn't exist but I would have a hard time if it was right in front of me. SO lack of evidence does hurt your position, not fatally but near as dammit!
by Tinkerbell on October 23rd, 2007
You use the words "Burden of Proof" which is a law term, mostly. And in that case it is the responsibility of the prosecuter (i.e. the accuser) to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the criminal did something. I see strong parallels to the atheist accusing that God does not exist and in this analogy would also have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that He does not exist. Which can't be done.
You also seem to be getting caught up in the semantics of testable verses provable. Gravity is testable because we can drop a pen and watch it fall to the ground. However, it is not provable (just really highly probable) becasue if just one time between the beginning of time and infinity if that pen were to fall up the law of gravity would be disproved.
Finally, you are correct about your last point. Upon reflection it does hurt your point to not have proof. Hence the Douglas Adams quote. Faith despite the lack of proof is what is important to God.
by Hp-Freeze on October 24th, 2007
Burden of proof is used by lawyers but it is not a legal term, it is a philosophical term dating back many years. Lawyers have little imagination!
You claim that the atheist is like the prosecution and has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he doesn't exist. I make no claim at all regarding the existence of god or his non-existence. I claim I do not believe the claim that he does exist however I am not claiming he doesn't. I find it unlikely but I cannot claim to be 100% certain (or thereabouts) he doesn't.
So I am making no claim as an atheist, I am merely not a theist. no belief in God does not imply I believe the other way. Yes there are some atheists who claim to have this certainty but they are few and far between. Most will claim they are pretty sure but not convinced as it is impossible to prove a negative.
So the burden of proof lies on theists, as they are making a claim. I am merely saying I don't believe that claim I am under no obligation to prove them wrong
by Tinkerbell on October 24th, 2007
Also regarding the semantic issue, semantics being one of my favourite subjects...
Provable and testable are different but if something is not testable it is not provable. Like the non-existence of God, it is not a testable hypothesis hence unprovable. Also I would recommend reading up on Richard Feynman as he deals with the evidence / proof issue magnificently. Your example was if the pen fell up it would be the end for the law of gravity. Not really, if it happened only once we would most likely say "fluke". One dodgy result does not a theory destroy. 100 dodgy results... maybe. A repeated dodgy result that won't go away... for sure. Only when we get repeated experimental problems do we start to worry. The nature of reality is not deterministic so... Feynman gives a wonderful example regarding the Northern Lights which I don't have space to detail here but a Google search should do the trick :)
by Tinkerbell on October 24th, 2007
1. I was making no statements about your personal beliefs. Just proposing an analogy to a legal situation.
2. You strike me as the kind of person where I say "I believe" and you say "I don't believe" and when we ask each other "why?" I say "faith" and you say "improbability" and we both go "Ok" and go to another topic. So in your case no proof is needed as it is not argumentative. If a atheist challenges my belief I would want them to give proof [or at least a convincing argument] for me to change my position but(And here is where i concede part of your argument)if a missionary were to challenge an atheist I would want the missionary to give proof [or at least a convincing argument]. So in this case yes the burden does change.
3. I still stand by my initial assertion "In science nothing is really ever proven we are just very very sure about some things. The only time we change theories is when we find contradictory evidence." And I will admit to you (cause you've earned it) ...
by Hp-Freeze on October 25th, 2007
the flaw in my argument. It is not the burden of proof that is the problem, it is the underlying assumption that God exists that I employ. When this assumption is in place then yes the burden of proof is on those who believe God does not exist. However, if an atheistic assumption were held at the beginning like the second part of point 2 then the burden of proof would be on the Theist. It is all a matter of perspective of the situation. And I was just cheating a little with my initial assumptions to prove a point.
4. While I believe you are correct about God as a untestable hypothesis hence unprovable. This is not always the case, in the 1930s there was no test for quarks yet that didn't mean unprovable there was just no one that had the idea or means to look but now they are well proved. And I am sure we will make advancements that will change the way we look at thing we think untestable today.
by Hp-Freeze on October 25th, 2007
And that's why the only logical position is Agnosticism. :)
by Magenta on October 25th, 2007
5. I don't think you are correct about one instance just being a "fluke". If it occurs it should create an exploration of why is happened, if no other extraneous reasons are found (perhaps it happened in a controlled situation) then yes that one situation does mean there is something wrong with the scientific theory. This may be a little hard to get your hear around, but if 2+2 one day really and truly =5 no mistake, no miscalculation. We would have to generate a new set of rules about addition because our current one would not hold true in every situation. Those rules can maybe just be amended but in their current state they are incorrect, wrong, and proven to be untrue. While more examples of this happening would help convince people that the rules need to be changed, that one true incongruent result means we have an incorrect theory. Maybe the correct theory is too complex for our current thought so we continue to use the old one, but it doesn't mean it isn't still incorrect.
by Hp-Freeze on October 25th, 2007
Magenta, Agnosticism seems like a logical position, that is true. However who said it needs to be logical or that all of the pieces needed to create a logical statement were apparent to us in our daily lives. If there is an all powerful God he transcends our existence and our logical constraints and with that there could be many points of logic that exist unbeknown to us that would prove Him in a second. Or maybe He and these points don't exist. Thus it is not that you should live as if there is no way to know. You should live for what you believe in (be it God, societal good, or moral beliefs), as this is the point of religion and non-religion alike.
by Hp-Freeze on October 25th, 2007
What I am trying to say is Agnosticism seems more like a justification then a belief system.
In my mind, you can say their is no way to prove it either way, so...
A. I am going to ignore disbelievers and believe (Agnostic theism)
B. I am going to live my life unconcerned with religion (Agnostic atheism)
But just saying "I am agnostic" is to me like saying "There is no way to prove God, or disprove God so ... yeah" or "I can't know, and neither can you". It seems to be missing a conclusion, what does it mean to you and your life that there is not way to prove or disprove God. That is what I am trying to get at, and for the record, I do assume that most agnostics do look at what this means for their life. But I couldn't just let the statement "the ONLY logical position is Agnosticism" without further classification just go by.
by Hp-Freeze on October 25th, 2007
Sorry for all the tipple posts. I am just having a little trouble getting what I want to say out today.
Agnosticism is the ONLY logical position if you are already agnostic.
Just as ...
Believing is the ONLY logical position if you are already religious.
Just as ...
Not believing is the ONLY logical position if you are already atheist.
It all has to do with your perspective and more importantly your faith and beliefs which can't be computed by logic.
by Hp-Freeze on October 25th, 2007
I wouldn't apologise I am enjoying the debate (please never think otherwise) :)
Whew! A fair amount to respond to there! Firstly I would like to make a point re atheism and agnosticism. I don't think they are exclusive i.e. you have a certain amount of gnosticism and a certain amount of theism which may range in both case from zero to maximum. I would describe myself as a gnostic atheist. I don't believe in god but I do have knowledge (I know all the places he is not residing on Mt. Olympus for example). So I have knowledge not certain knowledge but evidence of where god is not (as best we can given the solipsism argument that could be had). Because of this knowledge I claim not to believe in theism.
1) fine no arguments
by Tinkerbell on October 25th, 2007
2) I broadly agree though I think the point you make gains more credence if the person is not an atheist but an anti-theist i.e. someone that actively believes God does not exist. That is a definite position. But the atheist just asking the theist to justify their belief is different I feel more akin to a person with no football affiliation asking a rabid Man United fan why they support United. The response should be "because of x, y and z" rather than "prove they aren't the best". I would appreciate your thoughts on this! As an aside ultimately my argument for atheism is always that the theist arguments and statements are fundamentally weak.
3) Interesting, as I would argue that an atheist assumes nothing. A theist does (god exists) and an "anti-theist" (god does not exist) does. The atheist however makes no claim either way a tabula rosa if you will, merely to not accept one of the offered positions.
by Tinkerbell on October 25th, 2007
quote:
---
It seems to be missing a conclusion
---
Did you see the final episode of the Sopranos?
In the real world, we don't always have conclusions.
That's the differentiator that makes agnosticism logical- we accept that unknowns are unknowns, period. The only conclusion is to file it away until more information is obtained.
by Magenta on October 25th, 2007
4) Yes sometimes something is non-testable in practical terms. Take General Relativity for example. However the theory still makes predictions we just couldn't practically measure them. String theory is a great example. It makes no predictions that can be measured by experiment. Is it science. Sadly no. Which pains me as I a a big fan of the theory but it is not science until you can test it. With God or Zeus or the FSM the point is that they can be removed from view so easily (Mt Olympus, The Sky, Transcendental etc) that no matter what you propose to test the theory of god the proposer will always have a great reason why the test will not work. An Ad Hoc Manoeuvre.
5) I would be careful using deductive logic (2+2=4) to make points about inductive logic. If you get a dodgy result you must try to replicate it - if you can't do that then you might as well ignore it.
by Tinkerbell on October 25th, 2007
quote:
---
However who said it needs to be logical or that all of the pieces needed to create a logical statement were apparent to us in our daily lives.
---
Well, that opens us up to chaos. Anything can happen at any time- your computer can turn into a bunny. Logic is the core foundation of all knowledge, and without it we have no way of knowing anything.
Without logic, not only do you not know if God exists, you don't know if the world exists, or your computer, or if you exist yourself.
Because of that, we define a framework as to what is "reality": what does it mean to "exist". Those words are defined based on logic, so anything outside of logic does not fit the definition.
by Magenta on October 25th, 2007
If the result happens again then by all means there is an issue because you have replicated it. But we now know that randomness is a part of nature so expect some results that don't fall within your margins of error (another point I could talk about but I am finishing here lol!). One result you would write off as either a badly recorded result or a genuine random fluke. This is a thorny issue however. Philosophers of science would by and large agree with you whereas most scientists who have to deal with the reality of experimental results would be more likely to chalk it up to a fluke for one reason or another. However if the error repeats then yes most definitely there is a problem.
Finally (hooray I hear!) I don't think atheism is the only position I can logically take. Give me definitive evidence that God exists and by all means my opinion will change instantly. I am not dogmatic about it just deeply unconvinced by every argument I have ever heard. :)
by Tinkerbell on October 25th, 2007
"Without faith I am nothing"? You just proved every Atheists point. That faith is a meaningless, uninformed belief system, powerless to actually change anything about reality.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 22nd, 2007
Uberhuman
1) You miss understood the quote. It actually means proof is meaningless when it comes to God. Believing in something that you know exists does not exert the virtues of religion or faith, it is believing in spite of a lack of proof.
2) Faith is only meaningless if you don't believe there is something to believe in. For the billions of people across the world who do believe that there is something to believe in, faith makes a lot of sense. (That could have been more clear)
3) I think you picked a bad time of year to say that faith doesn't change anything about reality. Going into the homes of people celebrating Hanukkah or today or tomorrow for Christmas Eve and Day and the many other religious ceremonies I am not familiar with across the world and I think you would be hard pressed to say that human behavior isn't changed because of faith. And I hate to break it to you but reality is based on human behavior.
by Hp-Freeze on December 24th, 2007
The fact that we need a "holy" day like Christmas or Hanukkah to improve our behaviour and feelings toward one another doesn't lend any credence to the power of faith - it just goes to show how fickle human nature really is. It also gives me "faith" in the power of statistical surveys, which show a negative correlation between higher education and religious belief, and extremely high rates of religious belief in unstable countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, and Isreal.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on December 30th, 2007
It is the faith even though there is no proof which makes religion so BLIND.
There are an infinite number of things that could be true but for which there is no evidence. How can choosing one be great?
by 23Skidoo on May 4th, 2008
I think you will find the burden of proof is in the proving not the disproving. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.(Read the famous flying teapot example)
The evidence is staked massively in favour of the non-existence of a god, but this does not mean it does not exist.
But all because you can not prove that it does not exist does not mean fairies live at the bottom of your garden.
by Retrovampire on July 13th, 2008
Exactly. It's not the disbelievers responsibility to disprove anything.
by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 13th, 2008
Agreed, very muchly
by Retrovampire on July 21st, 2008