Has atheism been proved?

[grapevine]

Interesting atheists demand proof that there is a God. when a sign is presented of course reject it. Or get an undesirable sign such as gettin sick or struck dumb. I had people quote biblical passages on faith than say is there any way besides faith to porve the bom true. When that is the last thing they want.

Besides a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign. In any case what proof do people have that God does not exist? Were is proof there. They want people to prove there is a God. Why don't they try to prove there atheism. When asked how do you know he does not exist they can't say they know he does not exist but twist the words.

[UtahDan]

[YOUTUBE]KayBys8gaJY[/YOUTUBE]

[RobinFinderson]

I proved it this morning. You will have to accept this on faith, because I'm not sharing.

[hopfrog]

I love it when my intellectual friends tell me that my religious beliefs are crap because they are too intelligent to believe. They "know" there is no god cuz it doesn't make sense to their line of reasoning. And I laugh in their moronic face. Puny human intellect proves nothing, contains no answers whatsoever.

[Jacob]

In any case what proof do people have that God does not exist? Were is proof there.

The exact same proof that people have that Big Foot and Nessie don't exist. Yet SoCal still believes.

[Non Sequitur]

Puny human intellect proves nothing, contains no answers whatsoever.

But it's that same puny intellect that asserts that there is a God. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that we don't anything.

[UtahDan]

The exact same proof that people have that Big Foot and Nessie don't exist. Yet SoCal still believes.

No one can prove conclusively the non existence of God, just as no one can conclusively prove the non existence of anything. This does not mean, however, that the existence of god and the non existence of god are equally probable.

The burden is always on the person choosing to assert a claim to support it with reason and evidence. It is never on the skeptic to prove a negative.

[Jacob]

No one can prove conclusively the non existence of God, just as no one can conclusively prove the non existence of anything. This does not mean, however, that the existence of god and the non existence of god are equally probable.

The burden is always on the person choosing to assert a claim to support it with reason and evidence. It is never on the skeptic to prove a negative.

I disagree. There is no burden on the believer to support his claim. He is free to believe or to not believe. But he has no basis to expect his claim to be taken seriously by others without providing reason. The skeptic is likewise under no obligation to believe the claims of the believer.

[UtahDan]

I disagree. There is no burden on the believer to support his claim. He is free to believe or to not believe. But he has no basis to expect his claim to be taken seriously by others without providing reason. The skeptic is likewise under no obligation to believe the claims of the believer.

We agree. I'm talking about anyone choosing to assert a claim to me. People are free to believe any number of things based upon inadequate evidence, and of course they do.

[Indy Coug]

No one can prove conclusively the non existence of God, just as no one can conclusively prove the non existence of anything. This does not mean, however, that the existence of god and the non existence of god are equally probable.

The burden is always on the person choosing to assert a claim to support it with reason and evidence. It is never on the skeptic to prove a negative.

Are you an atheist?

[Blueintheface]

No one can prove conclusively the non existence of God, just as no one can conclusively prove the non existence of anything. This does not mean, however, that the existence of god and the non existence of god are equally probable.

The burden is always on the person choosing to assert a claim to support it with reason and evidence. It is never on the skeptic to prove a negative.

Is that right? I'm honestly wondering because wouldn't a skeptic also be putting forth his own theory to counter the believer? Wouldn't that theory require some sort of merit/support? I realize we're dealing in some serious abstracts here but I don't think it necessarily absolves the skeptic of providing some sort of support for his/her "belief".

[UtahDan]

Is that right? I'm honestly wondering because wouldn't a skeptic also be putting forth his own theory to counter the believer? Wouldn't that theory require some sort of merit/support? I realize we're dealing in some serious abstracts here but I don't think it necessarily absolves the skeptic of providing some sort of support for his/her "belief".

A skeptic is not necessarily asserting a claim. In that role there simply saying show me the evidence. Give me the arguments. If a skeptic chooses to assert something, of course they must support it with evidence and argument. But they don't have to assert anything.

The video above illustrates this well.

[UtahDan]

Are you an atheist?

Sam Harris has persuaded me this is not a good descriptor.

[hopfrog]

But it's that same puny intellect that asserts that there is a God. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that we don't anything.

It wasn't intellectual means that returned me to religion but supernatural manifestation that I did not believe in but that kicked my ass as a result of prayer. It was a moment of intellectual horror, because I knew that the experience really happened, but it made no sense, except as a manifestation of mysticism. And then I applied intellectual means to the supernatural, studying the Book of Mormon, thinking deeply about the mysteries of God. Faith stands outside reasoning (did a bunch of ye just shout "Amen" and "Damn straight"?). The things of God and faith exist in a realm all their own, and to know them one must enter that realm, as I did when I cluelessly fell upon my knees in prayer, not expecting that anything would happen, because I did not believe there was a being that would cause anything to occur. Freaked me out when it did.

[Non Sequitur]

It wasn't intellectual means that returned me to religion but supernatural manifestation that I did not believe in but that kicked my ass as a result of prayer. It was a moment of intellectual horror, because I knew that the experience really happened, but it made no sense, except as a manifestation of mysticism. And then I applied intellectual means to the supernatural, studying the Book of Mormon, thinking deeply about the mysteries of God. Faith stands outside reasoning (did a bunch of ye just shout "Amen" and "Damn straight"?). The things of God and faith exist in a realm all their own, and to know them one must enter that realm, as I did when I cluelessly fell upon my knees in prayer, not expecting that anything would happen, because I did not believe there was a being that would cause anything to occur. Freaked me out when it did.

I envy your experience. I went down the same road but with different results. When I was married and a fence-sitter my wife challenged me to pray earnestly and make a study of it and find out what was true and what was not. I was hesitant because I was afraid of what I wouldn't find. I took her up on it, though, and made an honest attempt to see if it was all true after all. A failed experiment. I'm now on the other side of the fence and happy, even though I know that life on the other side would be much simpler. Again, I envy your experience.