Religion can't be disproven because it deals with the idea of an immaterial existence; science can only prove or disprove material concepts. Whether or not there's an invisible, omnipotent being who judges our also invisible souls after death is not a subject that can be physically put to the test, therefore it cannot be 100% disproven. Ever, really. Unless Zeus comes down from Mt. Olympus and proves that he's the real deity to be worshiped, or something of that nature.
No, that's a misconception. By lacking faith (in a religious context), one simply believes in what can be observed and tested. To lack faith, one simply has to not have faith in what cannot be proven.
By having faith (in a religious context), one arbitrarily believes in an extraordinary existence that can neither observed nor tested. To have faith, one must always have faith that their beliefs are correct despite the fact that they cannot be proven to be.
Do you see the difference? Between the positive action which is the belief in the extraordinary, and the negative lack of action which is the nonbelief in the extraordinary?
__________________
Last edited by NewGuy01 on Jul 24th, 2016 at 10:38 PM
Though IMO the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Thus if I'm saying "There is this all powerful entity that exists" I feel the burden of proof would be on me and I'd feel more than "well you can't disprove it" would be needed.
You can't disprove an anal bead didn't somehow gain sentience in the future, travel back in time, and create the universe.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jul 24th, 2016 at 10:42 PM
I get the whole burden of proof/proving a negative thing, but thats been discussed to death in various threads here.
Thats not a dead horse i'm looking to beat.
I was wondering, actually wondering, if any atheist here could point to a specific event they credited with disproving God's existence.
I've seen the opposite asked and seen answers like "a baby being born", "the glory of a sunrise", and even "ears are in the perfect place to hold up our glasses, thats not random".
Yeah, those are kinda lame, sorry.
Figured i'd get something more concrete going in the opposite direction.
And, just so we get off on the right foot, my basic rule of thumb is:
don't like my threads dont post to them.
I do the same, in this forum and all the others here.
While that idea can be connected to what I said, it wasn't the point. My second post was addressing your comment about how one needed to have faith not to have faith--and how that is indeed self contradictory.
Well, as I addressed in my first post, that's impossible.
Correct, just like our anal bead overlord hasn't been 100% disproven either. Whether or not that is also good to know is, I suppose, up to you.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Jul 25th, 2016 at 02:17 PM
No, of course not, "100%" proof either way is a bit nonsensical. But that's not what atheism is. Though imo, certain posters on this forum come close to disproving God by their very existence.
Your inquiry is somewhat common though. I've encountered it irl more than once. The "you can't prove a negative, so how are you an atheist?" challenge. If that's one's view of atheism, it's no wonder many see it as in defiance of reason. But it misconstrues the argument quite crucially.
Much like people, even something as seemingly singular as atheism can mean subtly different things. For some, they frame it in terms of belief, as you mentioned earlier. So they might say "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God." The other primary option is a lack of belief, which is indeed different. Do you have a belief on the omniscient space gnome behind your couch? Of course not. You simply lack any belief whatsoever on it, and indeed you lack a belief for an infinite number of hypotheticals. For many atheists, and I count myself among them, it's simply a lack of belief in a God or gods.
Both of those have been stated elsewhere in this thread. But I thought I'd rephrase it in my own way. As for burden of proof, the default philosophical position for any of us on any matter is a lack of belief...we're not born with a positive or negative belief for or against anything. So the burden is on the claimant, not the one who maintains the lack of belief.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 23rd, 2016 04:49 AM
