Atheism isn't related to the Christian God, it's the belief there is no God at all.
Dawkins trying to arrest Pope Benedict Xvi
- Thread starter keyser87
- Start date
Atheism isn't related to the Christian God, it's the belief there is no God at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Well done Sherlock. Just replace the word 'belief' with 'understanding' and you're pretty spot on.
Wow, who put sand in your panties. No need to get so angry - I was just pointing out that your post was totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Wow, who put sand in your panties. No need to get so angry - I was just pointing out that your post was totally irrelevant to the issue being discussed.
What about my post was angry? I thought it came across are more patronising/sarcastic.
Still since they used the word 'God', we live in a largely christian country and christianity is one of the only faiths that don't have another name for their higher power/powers it's a pretty safe assumption to make.
It's a silly assumption to make. Atheism isn't the belief that there is no Christian God specifically, as Sherlock has already pointed out to you.
Just because you can't answer his question properly no need to be 'patronising/sarcastic' is there.
PS. I don't believe in a God either but if I did you aren't doing a good job of addressing the questions being asked.
But you cannot seem to offer any scientific proof to back up this certainty. So how can you say that you "as a follower of science" you have a pretty absolute certainty?
Of course to follow science you need to have a little bit of faith that the basis of science is true. As you seem to be ascribing more than predictive accuracy to it I would assume you mean scientific realism?
Other than the fact that the teapot is a physical object, would have had to have been made somewhere and then put in to orbit around Mars. Or are you talking about the intellectual exercise that is Russell's teapot? In which case I refer you back to the same answer as the FSM (which is dervived from Russell's teapot).
I also find it insteresting that you seem to be only making philospohical arguments as to the non-existence of god rather than presenting the masses of scientific evidence that proves it with almost absolute certainty.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
The question being asked was 'what proof is there for God not existing'.
@above, Science doesn't work that way. If somebody has a theory then they're welcome to prove it and present it to the Scientific community. Then, if the evidence and reasoning is sufficient it is likely to be accepted by the majority of it. Is it up to Science to prove that say... having grey hair is not directly caused by miniature fairies that live in tealeaves? It has about the same validity.
Last edited:
No it's a belief, you believe without proof that there is no and can be no god/creator/higher power.
Not really God/gods is just the English term for deities not the Christian god.
He is Jehovah (Again translated/Anglicised).
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
No, i understand that believing in something without proof is a stupid thing to do. Therefore i don't. You can't just walk into a Scientific congregation and say 'mice are actually super intelligent trans-dimensional beings, if you don't believe me then it's up to you to prove me wrong!'. No, you would have to present your case with evidence, facts and tests.
Should we believe in everything that hasn't been disproved?
nope.
There has been no evidence presented for such a being so to accept its existence would be based on nothing but "well what else could it be?". Again atheism is simply the absence of belief in 'God'. I don't think any atheist at least no intelligent atheist would say 100% there is no God, but simply there is no evidence of one so to so why worship? There is a probability a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Scientologist/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Space Pirates all started the universe all along with an infinite amount of beings but the evidence for all of them is the same....zilch.
If I told you theres an invisible dragon sitting behind you while you type, would you 'believe' he is not there because of lack of evidence or would you know hes not there?
But you are believing something without proof?
Quick analogy,
I have a coil hidden i none of my hands and nothing i nthe toher.
Which hand is the coin in?
Atheist: Believes it is in the left
Theist: believes it is in the right
Agnostic: Says they don't know which hand it could be in.
that annoying git on here: "define coin"
Picking a side without any proof for either is just pointless.
Isn't that agnostic? Atheism is 100% belief there is no God - that's the whole point?
Then they're not atheists.
The problem is that the use of the word "atheism" has had a bit of scope creep of late and now seems to include everyone that doesn't believe in god. It seems to be something to do with the rise of atheism as a movement and a very faith like attempt to bump up numbers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
But you are believing something without proof?
Quick analogy,
I have a coil hidden i none of my hands and nothing i nthe toher.
Which hand is the coin in?
Atheist: Believes it is in the left
Theist: believes it is in the right
Agnostic: Says they don't know which hand it could be in.
that annoying git on here: "define coin"
Picking a side without any proof for either is just pointless.
6.9. Never have i phrased my posts saying 'there is definitely no God'. I might as well for all the validity the theory holds.
The problem is that the use of the word "atheism" has had a bit of scope creep of late and now seems to include everyone that doesn't believe in god. It seems to be something to do with the rise of atheism as a movement and a very faith like attempt to bump up numbers.
yes it is one of things I dislike about dawkins.
agnosticism
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
an atheist simply makes the conclusion that agnostics aren't willing to make. Considering theres no evidence then logically that means no need to believe in a God. When said evidence comes about then they'll rethink their position.
I have never heard any atheist assert 100% there is no God, several times the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God has been ridiculed and said it cannot be true based on what the teachings and text say about it but never (even by Hitchens and Dawkins) has the claim been made 100% without a shadow of a doubt there is no creator.
The clue is in definition 'b' and the 'true atheism' part.
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
There is no 'not 100% sure' about it I'm afraid.
a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
There is no 'not 100% sure' about it I'm afraid.