How do you know science can't prove the existence or non existence of god? Judging by what science has already achieved, I find that a bold statement.

Anyway, isn't atheism more of a non belief system? I don't believe in unicorns but that hardly ranks as a belief system.

Anyway, I've concluded from most of this that both the religious (not surprisingly) and agnostics (surprisingly and vocally) have a big problem with atheists, even though from a purely scientific standpoint, it seems to me at least the most sound of all the viewpoints to hold.

After all, if you agnostics do believe there may be a god, then which one (or maybe any, or maybe all)?

It seems the agnostics here are more of the technical, philosophical kind, that refuse to discount anything, no matter how preposterous.

Really just makes me more confirmed in my atheism.

"How do you know science can't prove the existence or non existence of god? Judging by what science has already achieved, I find that a bold statement. "

My challenges to you -

1) Name me a single thing that has been definitively proven by science.

2) Address the fact that science has nothing to say on logical and mathematical truth and yet it completely relies on them.

Please note I am not dismissing science by these remarks, in fact just the opposite. I emphasise that science must be pregnant with doubts; indeed, this is the true scientific methodology. Furthermore, if this were not the case no scientific progress could be made.

Speaking personally I have learnt to live with this and even embrace it in my day job.

"After all, if you agnostics do believe there may be a god, then which one (or maybe any, or maybe all)?"

This is another tried and tested atheist attack, which for me holds little water. Wearing my believer's hat I imagine that we are standing at different points scattered around the bottom of a hill. There are many paths to the top, they all take a slightly different route and yet arrive at the same destination. This is entirely consistent with many religions actually believing in one God.

Romantic nonsense? Probably, but better than a dogmatic atheist/fundamentalist negativity perhaps?

What is it that you find so negative with atheism, might i ask?

To whoever said ahteism isn't a belief system.

You believe there is no higher power. You may say it's a non-belief system or whatever bull, but you have a belief: a belief in the absence of something. Therefore atheism is as much a belief system as theism.

LMAO @ Draugnar.

How can you say that? That is obviously your own corrupted view on athiesm.
I am an atheist, and i simply don't belive. And what do you mean with "a belief in the absence of something"? I don't go around praising nothingness.

@ Thucydidies: "Jamie, I'm not asking anyone to prove anything, I just want you to admit that you don't know there is no God."

I am happy to admit that I cannot be 100% certain that there is not a god. I would say I was 99.999999999999999% (recurring) certain that there is no god, but not 100%.

So technically, I am a 'de fact' athiest, like Dawkins, and not a 'strong' atheist.

I do however think that the concept of god existing is so wildly unlikely and implausible that believing in god is a pretty stupid thing to do. I completely fail to understand how anyone could rationally look at the world and conclude that god's existence was a certainty.

I strongly believe that people have a right to believe in god if they want. But it's pretty stupid of them to want to. People similarly have the right to believe that the planet Jupiter is ruled by an invisible gummi-bear. But anyone who does believe that, unless they've got some pretty good evidence for the existence of the invisible gummi-bear ruler of Jupiter, is an idiot.


@ Draugnar: "You believe there is no higher power. You may say it's a non-belief system or whatever bull, but you have a belief: a belief in the absence of something. Therefore atheism is as much a belief system as theism."

Draugnar, don't be silly. Do you believe the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If you don't, do you agree that you have a 'belief system' founded on non-belief in the FMS? Please tell us more about your anti-FMS belief system.

*FSM, not FMS, dammit

Your belief is in no higher power, not a specific higher power like His Noodliness (rAmen). Which means your belief is in random chance and the laws of physics if you like.

"How do you know science can't prove the existence or non existence of god? Judging by what science has already achieved, I find that a bold statement."


It's quite simple, I'd say. IF God exists, He must not be part of His creation, i.e. our reality. In order to create space and time, God must be outside space and time, otherwise He would not be God, but part of our reality (and as such controlled by something bigger, the limits of space and time).

As we operate in a space-time continuum which shapes all of our observations we cannot know God. Our view of nature and the cosmos may influence our view on the probability of the existence of a god, but we may never actually see/experience God.

Unless, of course, He decides to show Himself...

Unless, of cource, He does not exist.

That's not the question here. The question here is "If God existed, would science be able to prove or disprove it?". My answer is no, for the very definition of God prevents Him from being knowable. You may of course disagree with my definition of 'God' or 'a god'. But I think for God, in order to be God, for instance creating the universe and being allmighty and all-knowing, must neccessarily be outside the universe He (supposed to have) created.


To be clear, I am a theist. But that's a belief, and not based on any scientific data or something.

I love it how people who have imaginary friends claim that they're right, but other people with different imaginary friends are wrong and deluded and going to hell.

I mean, imagine I'm from Mars. Please explain to me why the Holy Trinity (which is a single God, right... but he's got three Gods.... gah.) is real, but Vishnu the Preserver is false. Or Baal, or Jupiter, or any number of imaginary friends.

@Ursa
Is it logical or even remotely sensible to believe something, in the absence of evidence, when you know there is no evidence?

"What is it that you find so negative with atheism, might i ask?"

Simple, its claim to certainty, which is a tenet shared by religious fundamentalists.

Further, if you care to call yourself a soft rather than a hard atheist then, IMO, you are misusing the language, when you should really be using the word agnostic.

I have a friend who says he wouldn't believe in God even if he were standing in front of him. I have to hand to the guy he really is an atheist in the true sense! Are you?

Um. Who supports the evolution theory. Yet there are so many who believe in it, with absolutely no evidence. Combat that chumps. Darwin is a huge chump who liked writing stories. Who supports the belief in a God? Yet there are so many who believe in it, with absolutely no evidence. All of them are chumps too. Now we just have to see the differences between the two different kind of chumps. Now I find Richard Dawkins as some chump too, who likes writing stories.

That's the lamest semantic construction i've ever seen, comparing atheism to religion fundamentalism.

But if that's the game you want to play, let's examine for just a second how many have died for their so called god, and "his" religion and compare that to the numbers killed in the name of atheism.

religious*

Yes, the difference between the chumps is huge.

Indeed it is.

I like the religious chumps though. Quite inspiring.

I bet you do, perhaps you should join them if you find them so inspiring.

”But if that's the game you want to play, let's examine for just a second how many have died for their so called god, and "his" religion and compare that to the numbers killed in the name of atheism.”


Stailin + Pol Pot, +/- Hitler for starters.

chumps.

Are you saying they killed people in the name of Atheism? Lol?!

These people killed for political reasons. Not "I KILL YOU BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IN GOD LOL"

Well they (atheists) say that politics and religion should not be mixed! Perhaps the same might be applied to politics and atheism, or is the latter an inconstancy of which you approve?

Of course Communism and Nazism are, at their heart, atheist ideologies aiming at a religion-free 'utopia'. Therefore, the deaths caused by these movements are, at least partially, attributable to their atheist stand points:

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/6071292

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/religion.humanrights

http://digilib.bu.edu/journals/ojs/index.php/perspective/article/view/407/403

etc………………………………………………………..

I must also point out that there is no denying the deaths also carried out in the name of religion/civilisation. However, IMO a balanced view would be that nasty (evil?) men use ideology (of whatever hue) as a fig leaf to achieve their political and economic aims.

Incidentally may I ask that if you could see and touch God would you remain an atheist?

I never claimed i was an atheist to begin with, and what definition of god are we talking about here?

I only asked you what you thought was wrong with atheism, and you started comparing them (atheists) to religious fundamentalists, which in my honest opinion is a huge leap in imagination and unlogically drawn conclusions.

And also: Yes, the separation of church and state is an important achievement.
And by that, an ideology cannot be "atheist", only a person, or groups of people can choose to be theist(s) or atheist(s), that is not something imposed on you by your government... But perhaps you'd like god in the government, much like in Iran?

I see you group religion and civilisation together, how come?

@fulhamish: Politics and religion should not be mixed. Secularism should be the de facto stance of any legitimate society. This does not mean atheism.

In Canada (and elsewhere) we are a secular society with accommodations for freedom of religion. National and legal references to religion (federal holidays coinciding with Christian observances, Ontario funding for Catholic schools, etc) are mostly relics of past traditions.

I believe in France they have a framework of 'legal secularism'. So discussions there about banning burqas and religious artifacts must be understood in the context of legal secularism. I agree that this is just as bad as the tyranny of state religion. (I may not have this quite right. If there's anybody from France I'd love clarification.)

Also, I think it's a bit of a stretch to define Nazism as an 'atheist ideology' at its heart.