prove there is no god
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1 May 12, 2012
Now, this is meant to be a nonsense challenge, and to mirror the other nonsense challenge thread called prove there is a god.

First of all, there is no definition of god stated. Secondly there is no standard of proof indicated.

I call myself an agnostic atheist using the most root meanings of the two words:
a means not
gnostic - means knowing, or making a claim to know (my view of it)
and
theist - means being with a god, having a belief in a god, or sometimes claiming to know there is a god (that type is called a "hard" atheist by some, whereas the agnostic atheist is mistakenly labeled a "soft" atheist - it is not "soft" to refuse to make a knowledge claim when one does not know, it is sensible)

I personally come close to being a hard atheist only with regard to one specific definition of a god. I do not believe there could be an all powerful and all good being. I do not think that this world as we know it can be explained if such a being exists. There is too much pain and suffering. I openly state that my proof of this is in my own pain, and in the evidence I see that other living beings feel pain. That is not exactly the sort of proof that some folks would take as proof - but let them hurt enough. Maybe they will cry out to a God to lessen their pain - but I think if they do they are really hoping that there is a very nice God that will help them, while admitting that things are wrong. They may attempt to blame something other than God for things being wrong, but what else could be blamed, if the God is both all good and all powerful? The notion that we have pain because of original sin by eve first and then adam, is nonsense, a blaming the victim in the first place, and a placing of a curse on future generatioins in the second place - certainly not the behaviors of a good being.

Well, this will do for a start. I am constantly arguing with socalled hard atheists, and am constantly trying to get socalled, or self-identifying atheists to tell me whether they consider themselves to be hard atheists or agnostic atheists.

I do not expect anyone to be able to prove there is no god, just as I would never expect anyone to be able to prove there is one - unless someone is resourceful enough to define god in a very clever way that does not resemble most of the god notions we are familiar with.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#2 May 12, 2012
the words in parens (my view of it) was meant to say that my view is that people do not know, they just claim to know (when they don't). I hold that opinion equally with regard to people who claim to know there is some sort of god, and with regard to people who claim to know there is not any sort of god.

if people will reply by making it clear whether they accept these categories, it would help. if they dispute the categories, it would help if they say so. if they accept the categories, it would help if they identify which one they accept membership in - if either one.

I am going to revert to not using caps very much, with apologies. I type as fast as I think only when I can avoid the shift key, except for the I, which may also be an issue someday we can discuss - what is the Self?

I know there are socalled hard atheists out there on topix. Some of them are really nasty to me, and I am amazed at this. My attitude toward them is hostile if they are nasty to me, I admit that. If they are not hostile to me, or to agnostic atheism, but merely proclaim themselves to be hard atheists, I am not hostile to them simply because of that. I would be more pitying, since I think anyone claiming to know there is no god, is assuming the burden of proof unnecessarily.

I see no great need to prove there is no god. I see a need to put the claimants to knowledge that there is a god on the defensive, by asking them to prove there is - and by pointing out that their socalled proofs are not proofs at all.

My belief is that people would get along better if both atheists and believers would be agnostics first, and then atheists or believers second. The abandonment of a claim to know should lead to much more tolerance and civility, I think.

There is still a matter of what the believers believe,and whether their beliefs have consequences in their actions and attitudes that I think are harmful to the interests of other living beings - especially the moreorless innocents (fleas and ticks being less innocent). So while I applaud an agnostic believer for not being a claimant to knowledge, I still want to know what he or she believes, and what actions he or she takes based upon those beliefs. And I claim the right to have an opinion, of approval or disapproval -or even amazement!- when I consider both the content of the beliefs and especially their actual consequences.

An atheist as such has no other beliefs or disbeliefs. A person who is an atheist may have lots of other opinions, or even make knowledge claims about other things, but he or she does so as an individual, not within the definition of atheism, not as part of an organized group of atheists as such. perhaps as a member of a group of civil libertarians - in favor of separation of church and state (but believers in religion can also be civil libertarians who favor separation of church and state). perhaps as a part of a humane society that wants to care for decent treatment of animals (but believers can also have such values).

I always try to make it clear that I prefer - as a person - a human being who is a kind person and a believer, to a person who is an atheist and cruel. It is not enough to be personally kind and to avoid being personally cruel, I insist on judging by the political, social, economic policies that people support as well - since those have kind or cruel consequences, even if the voter - for example - does not rip the health care away from someone or the food out of someone's pantry.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#3 May 12, 2012
" One might be asked "How can you prove that a god does not exist?" One can only reply that it is scarcely necessary to disprove what has never been proven." - David A Spitz

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#4 May 12, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
Now, this is meant to be a nonsense challenge
Here's my stock answer:

Why bother? There exists a logical disproof of the existence of Jehovah-Jesus, but it is irrelevant and superfluous. Rational skeptics don't need disproof to reject an extraordinary claim offered without evidence. And since theists aren't affected by evidence or reason, who would benefit even a little from another proof?

“Fortes Fortuna Juvat, ”

Since: Dec 09

Wichita. Ks.

#5 May 12, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
prove there is a god.
First what is the definition of the proof you ask?

Second what would you consider proof?

Third can an un-known negative be proven?

Forth there should be a frame of reference to known proof that you are trying to disprove.

Fifth can this proof be tested and verified?

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#6 May 12, 2012
Prove nothing is nothing, really?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#7 May 15, 2012
havent forgotten wrote:
the words in parens (my view of it) was meant to say that my view is that people do not know, they just claim to know (when they don't). I hold that opinion equally with regard to people who claim to know there is some sort of god, and with regard to people who claim to know there is not any sort of god.
if people will reply by making it clear whether they accept these categories, it would help. if they dispute the categories, it would help if they say so. if they accept the categories, it would help if they identify which one they accept membership in - if either one.
I am going to revert to not using caps very much, with apologies. I type as fast as I think only when I can avoid the shift key, except for the I, which may also be an issue someday we can discuss - what is the Self?
I know there are socalled hard atheists out there on topix. Some of them are really nasty to me, and I am amazed at this. My attitude toward them is hostile if they are nasty to me, I admit that. If they are not hostile to me, or to agnostic atheism, but merely proclaim themselves to be hard atheists, I am not hostile to them simply because of that. I would be more pitying, since I think anyone claiming to know there is no god, is assuming the burden of proof unnecessarily.
I see no great need to prove there is no god. I see a need to put the claimants to knowledge that there is a god on the defensive, by asking them to prove there is - and by pointing out that their socalled proofs are not proofs at all.
My belief is that people would get along better if both atheists and believers would be agnostics first, and then atheists or believers second. The abandonment of a claim to know should lead to much more tolerance and civility, I think.
There is still a matter of what the believers believe,and whether their beliefs have consequences in their actions and attitudes that I think are harmful to the interests of other living beings - especially the moreorless innocents (fleas and ticks being less innocent). So while I applaud an agnostic believer for not being a claimant to knowledge, I still want to know what he or she believes, and what actions he or she takes based upon those beliefs. And I claim the right to have an opinion, of approval or disapproval -or even amazement!- when I consider both the content of the beliefs and especially their actual consequences.
An atheist as such has no other beliefs or disbeliefs. A person who is an atheist may have lots of other opinions, or even make knowledge claims about other things, but he or she does so as an individual, not within the definition of atheism, not as part of an organized group of atheists as such. perhaps as a member of a group of civil libertarians - in favor of separation of church and state (but believers in religion can also be civil libertarians who favor separation of church and state). perhaps as a part of a humane society that wants to care for decent treatment of animals (but believers can also have such values).
I always try to make it clear that I prefer - as a person - a human being who is a kind person and a believer, to a person who is an atheist and cruel. It is not enough to be personally kind and to avoid being personally cruel, I insist on judging by the political, social, economic policies that people support as well - since those have kind or cruel consequences, even if the voter - for example - does not rip the health care away from someone or the food out of someone's pantry.
You write a lot, but none of it is proof that god is real or that you're not a liar.

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#8 May 15, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You write a lot, but none of it is proof that god is real or that you're not a liar.
I think a fence sitter.
got you worked out

Hull, UK

#9 May 15, 2012
Your making up all these names to describe yourself, b***hit your a godbot trying to get athiests to give credence to your fairytails by messing about with words, I've read this nonsense before. Its not up to me to dig through the books & try & disprove your god. And one is either, a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist. The other names you made up yourself. Good try.
andionly

Monticello, IN

#10 May 24, 2012
can I ask a stupid question of you get cuts a lot does your body get better at healing?? Like wolverine??
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#11 May 24, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's my stock answer:
Why bother? There exists a logical disproof of the existence of Jehovah-Jesus, but it is irrelevant and superfluous. Rational skeptics don't need disproof to reject an extraordinary claim offered without evidence. And since theists aren't affected by evidence or reason, who would benefit even a little from another proof?
could you give a link or a key word for a site where there is a logical disproof of the existence of Jehovah-Jesus? I would be interested to see it. My rejection of the whole thing is on moral grounds, because it is disgusting - the badly made world, the demand for unquestioning uninformed obedience, the punishment of future generations, the general blaming of the victim, the punishment of all other living creatures, the rape of an underage virgin, the blood sacrifice, the cannibalism. With all that, who needs a logical disproof to not believe it? It would be shameful for a decent person to believe it if the person had had a chance to become rational before getting indoctrinated with that story.
I started this thread partly out of annoyance with hard atheists* who claim to know, and who are nasty about agnostic atheism, as if it is not really taking a stand.(*an idiot named Skeptic from London being one of them) and partly out of curiousity about what my rational skeptical agnostic atheist friends would have to say, and about whether any believers would come to comment. the prove their is a god thread has become threadbare.

thanks for your comment. I agree with the notion that it is not necessary to even try to disprove it, for rational persons. Do you think there is anyone in the middle between the totally rational ones who do not need the proof, and the totally irrational ones who would not believe it if it were put in front of them? I always challenge believers more on grounds that the world is badly made and a god could not be allpowerful and allgood, because many of the believers mindlessly think that the Biblical god is both, without any independent ethical evaluation of the alleged statements and actions of the alleged God.
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#12 May 24, 2012
prove there is a god thread I meant - racing fingers -

I also set up a thread called :

we are mediocre gods

in hopes of getting someone to discuss ethics, eventually
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#13 May 24, 2012
Very Cynical Person wrote:
<quoted text>
First what is the definition of the proof you ask?
Second what would you consider proof?
Third can an un-known negative be proven?
Forth there should be a frame of reference to known proof that you are trying to disprove.
Fifth can this proof be tested and verified?
thank you, this is just the sort of comment I was hoping for. it should have been clear that I was making fun of the types who claim to have proof, and also of the types who demand proof - from my earlier comments.
of course I do not think there is a known proof - I even dispute whether a good definition or evaluation of a proof is possible.
do you think there are clearly definitions of what is wanted regarding the question"
prove there is a god....?
I don't. it is a nonsense challenge also, I think. there is even no defination of what is meant by a god, for one thing.
I think people are wasting their time on these disputes, and not discussing what really matters - which is ethics.
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#14 May 24, 2012
LOL in a suit wrote:
<quoted text>I think a fence sitter.
you should know better than that. are you as nuts as skeptic now?
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#15 May 24, 2012
got you worked out wrote:
Your making up all these names to describe yourself, b***hit your a godbot trying to get athiests to give credence to your fairytails by messing about with words, I've read this nonsense before. Its not up to me to dig through the books & try & disprove your god. And one is either, a believer, an agnostic, or an atheist. The other names you made up yourself. Good try.
I suspect that you are using another name and also are Skeptic. you have the same nastiness.
You however are so dumb that you call something a fairytail - though the flying unicorns might appreciate it - instead of a fairytale, in your haste.
I have no god for you to disprove. If you want to claim that you know or can prove that there is no god - I think you need to be able to be able to prove it. you might start with defining what sort of god you are disproving, if you want to take them on one at a time - or by explaining how you can disprove the existence of all alleged gods at once. if you have ever written or said that you know there is no god, you should be able to put up or shut up.

one is either a theist or an atheist. one is either an agnostic or someone who claims to know regarding some matter, in this case something about god, God or gods. those are the alternatives. one can be an agnostic and a theist. one can be an agnostic and an atheist. claiming to know is an entirely different matter from saying what one believes. I do not believe and I do not claim to know is a possible viewpoint. I do not bellieve and I claim to know is a different viewpoint. I believe and I claim to know is a third viewpoint. I believe and I do not claim to know is a fourth viewpoint. Each one is different from the other.

your use of the term godbots and of the term using *** makes you one of the disgusting types who are so offensive to decent persons, whether they are believers or not, or persons claiming to know or not. you either are Skeptic or much like him, both in your love of slander and your nastiness. liars who misrepresent the views of others are liars, even if you think you are superior because you think you are a brilliant atheist.
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#16 May 24, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You write a lot, but none of it is proof that god is real or that you're not a liar.
I never claimed that any type of god is real (unless did you see me kidding about the mythical Hermes and take it seriously?). You are the liar who wants to insinuate that. You read hasily and without comprehension, and do not want to admit it. You got nasty to me the first time you replied and cannot admit your mistake. I never claimed that there is a god.

I have claimed that I am an agnostic atheist about all gods except one, and regarding that concept I am a so-called hard atheist, with a type of proof to offer that would not appeal to a nasty type of human being like you. I offer only a moral proof, which would be recognized by decent persons, and do not claim it as an intellectual or logical proof, apart from the ethics within it. I do not think it is at all possible that there could exist a being with the following characteristics:

allgood,allpowerful,allknowing .

my moral proof is the existence of pain.

you do not seem like a decent person to whom such a proof would be appealing.

Let me make it very clear. A good person who is a socalled believer can be a much nicer and better person than a nasty person who is not a believer.
That does not mean the believer believes in something I think is true. It means that a person can be kind, can support economic and social policies that are kind, can vote for and work for the political candidates and movements that are the most humane and caring about persons and other living beings - and be a believer.

and a person can be a non-believer and be a nasty human being.

I prefer the good person. That does not mean I agree with his beliefs. If ever his beliefs led him to think he should act in a certain way that I consider unethical, I would oppose not only the unethical action but also the belief that led to it.

Something other than your atheism leads you to be a nasty person. I do not wish to allow the believers to assert that atheism makes a person disgusting.
Ia havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#17 May 24, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
" One might be asked "How can you prove that a god does not exist?" One can only reply that it is scarcely necessary to disprove what has never been proven." - David A Spitz
clever quote. by the way. would you please explain Russell's teapot and especially why it is an interesting thing for you to use. just curious.
tixtytive

Saltville, VA

#19 Jun 9, 2012
everyone is God.. and everyone made up the commandments.. and the commandments work because our minds made them work...

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#21 Jun 10, 2012
Ia havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> clever quote. by the way. would you please explain Russell's teapot and especially why it is an interesting thing for you to use. just curious.
Russell's Teapot is a famous argument put forth by Bertrand Russell. It is a counter argument to the idea that, without proof, both belief and non-belief are equally valid.

Basically it argues that, just because something is possible (i.e., a little teapot floating in space between the orbits of Earth and Mars) doe not mean that it is reasonably plausible. Some possibilities are still absurd to consider.

This can also be seen in arguments that cite absurdity of believing in the existence of garden gnomes, faeries, Mother Goose, etc. None of these can be proven to not exist, yet most reasoning people dismiss their existence as absurd without a second thought.
redneck

Glendale, OR

#22 Jun 11, 2012
Proof that god does not exist.--Look all over the place.SEE! No god!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min IB DaMann 61,150
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 22 min Messianic114 2,661
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 9 hr IB DaMann 5,970
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 16 hr Science 28,312
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Wed Eagle 12 452
Deconversion Mar 20 Eagle 12 138
News Quotes from Famous Freethinkers (Aug '12) Mar 18 Eagle 12 2,043
More from around the web