On religion vs. atheism

We don't understand because it doesn't make any sense. How can you prove that something doesn't exist if, in fact, we are right and it really doesn't exist. It is twisted logic. The kind of twisted logic that use Intelligent Design supporters to confuse people. They state that there is a god but it is us that has to prove its non-existence. Doesn't make sense. You claim something, well prove it mate.If someone states that something exists, he has the burden of the proof. Until then, it is accepted as non-existing. For instance, someome can believe in telepathia (mind reading) and use this to explain different types of phenomenon. He has the burden of proving that the only explanation possib...

We don't understand because it doesn't make any sense. How can you prove that something doesn't exist if, in fact, we are right and it really doesn't exist. It is twisted logic. The kind of twisted logic that use Intelligent Design supporters to confuse people. They state that there is a god but it is us that has to prove its non-existence. Doesn't make sense. You claim something, well prove it mate.If someone states that something exists, he has the burden of the proof. Until then, it is accepted as non-existing. For instance, someome can believe in telepathia (mind reading) and use this to explain different types of phenomenon. He has the burden of proving that the only explanation possible is telepathia If he does so then you could tell that telepathia exists. But, if everytime we can explain the phenomenons by something else than telepathia, so we prove by default that telepathia hasn't been proved and that until now it doesn't exist. And this is what science do, finding other explanations than these external elements called God, destiny or finality.

What people proclaim to believe is usually a dream. When reality strikes, the facade can be revealed. There are ""Christians", "Believers", and " faithful" who are genuinely concerned about people and you can see it by the way they act without them saying a word. There are others who are an embarrassment to the species, driven by self congratulation and reward. There are all states in between. Exactly the same is true of atheists.
Should there be conflict, stalemate, truce, or recognition and respect between beliefs ? They may have come from personal experience, that is impossible to convey ? There is as much trouble proving there is a god physically, as there is convincing somebody else t...

What people proclaim to believe is usually a dream. When reality strikes, the facade can be revealed. There are ""Christians", "Believers", and " faithful" who are genuinely concerned about people and you can see it by the way they act without them saying a word. There are others who are an embarrassment to the species, driven by self congratulation and reward. There are all states in between. Exactly the same is true of atheists.
Should there be conflict, stalemate, truce, or recognition and respect between beliefs ? They may have come from personal experience, that is impossible to convey ? There is as much trouble proving there is a god physically, as there is convincing somebody else that the divine was witnessed. Either you can believe it or not. I just try and be careful not to make my mind up before I've heard the story.

I think there are misconceptions on both sides here. Atheism is NOT about proving god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of believe. Believers have put forth a claim and the reasoning, evidence, and proof is not enough to prove that claim.

This site provides good information. Case in point is this comment :

Theism makes a positive belief claim in which existence of some sort of
god or gods is asserted. An atheist is someone who does not accept this
claim. Thus, atheism refers to the absence of theistic belief. That’s
it. It doesn’t mean anything else. Athe...

I think there are misconceptions on both sides here. Atheism is NOT about proving god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of believe. Believers have put forth a claim and the reasoning, evidence, and proof is not enough to prove that claim.

This site provides good information. Case in point is this comment :

Theism makes a positive belief claim in which existence of some sort of
god or gods is asserted. An atheist is someone who does not accept this
claim. Thus, atheism refers to the absence of theistic belief. That’s
it. It doesn’t mean anything else. Atheism is not a religion, a
philosophy, a worldview, or anything similar. It is not the conviction
that there are no gods, ghosts, angels, etc. Rather, it is the absence
of a belief that these things are real.

Don't confuse the act of pointing out the flaws of the theist's belief claim as preaching against a god. Because of the invasive nature of religion it should be expected that an atheist is going to respond to those claims to justify why the claim is not acceptable.

By the described nature of the Tooth Fairy, it is impossible to prove there is one.

It is also impossible, for the same reason, to prove there is no Tooth Fairy.

To believe in something without proof requires blind faith. Therefore both theism and atheism are ultimately about the intellectual ability of the individual.

Why this simple piece of logic seems to escape most believers, is understandable.

I get why atheists don't feel the need for ritual, or why they resist organising themselves into a Church (although professional science is quickly becoming as bigoted on the subject as any church), I don't understand how people who support credulity can not understand that they have blin...

By the described nature of the Tooth Fairy, it is impossible to prove there is one.

It is also impossible, for the same reason, to prove there is no Tooth Fairy.

To believe in something without proof requires blind faith. Therefore both theism and atheism are ultimately about the intellectual ability of the individual.

Why this simple piece of logic seems to escape most believers, is understandable.

I get why atheists don't feel the need for ritual, or why they resist organising themselves into a Church (although professional science is quickly becoming as bigoted on the subject as any church), I don't understand how people who support credulity can not understand that they have blind faith in something unprovable.

Is there a Tooth Fairy? I haven't the slightest idea, and neither does anybody else if they think about it for long enough. That's the nature of the question. Anybody who calls it one way or the other is merely relying on intellectual honesty, with evidence (or the complete lack thereof) to support their position.

"one must investigate these systems of beliefs in order to determine if they are correct or not."

Isn't that what's behind most of the conflicts between religions? Or just with people in general? Just how is it that any person can say "This thing that I have deemed correct is how everyone will live" ??

The thing is, is that there is no one system of thought or behavior that is going to work for every single person in every situation. What works for John Doe in Kansas probably won't work for a woman with five kids in Africa with no money, no water or food.

Granted, there are certain spiritual beliefs that every human could live by: don't steal my shit (ask and I'll give it to you);...

"one must investigate these systems of beliefs in order to determine if they are correct or not."

Isn't that what's behind most of the conflicts between religions? Or just with people in general? Just how is it that any person can say "This thing that I have deemed correct is how everyone will live" ??

The thing is, is that there is no one system of thought or behavior that is going to work for every single person in every situation. What works for John Doe in Kansas probably won't work for a woman with five kids in Africa with no money, no water or food.

Granted, there are certain spiritual beliefs that every human could live by: don't steal my shit (ask and I'll give it to you); don't screw my partner (unless I can watch); don't kill me and I won't kill you (unless asked to do so). Ya know, basic stuff.

Wiccantexan, I understand the point you are making, about the broad stroke of the term religion and I can agree that, as far as my own experience goes, these religions are not generally found harassing or attacking other people about their religion. However the point of this statement is directed more along the lines of those religions professing the existence of a specific god making specific demands.

So yes, I can accept that some few religions do follow a 'live and let live' philosophy, but for the majority of religions (about 75% worldwide) this is simply not so. Because of the invasive nature of those other religions then I am compelled to examine their claims to determine their validi...

Wiccantexan, I understand the point you are making, about the broad stroke of the term religion and I can agree that, as far as my own experience goes, these religions are not generally found harassing or attacking other people about their religion. However the point of this statement is directed more along the lines of those religions professing the existence of a specific god making specific demands.

So yes, I can accept that some few religions do follow a 'live and let live' philosophy, but for the majority of religions (about 75% worldwide) this is simply not so. Because of the invasive nature of those other religions then I am compelled to examine their claims to determine their validity. When they fail then I feel a compunction to point out those flaws in order to protect and educate my fellow humans.

So for many religions, yes, it IS easy to claim that.

This link shows a pie chart breaking down the worlds major religions. As you can see the use of 'many' is relative. Perhaps there are "many" eastern religions, but taken in the whole they are few in terms of world wide population of followers.

It is because of their non invasive nature that I can agree not to lump them into the argument so I can accept the technicality of your statement, but that does not mean that I take them any more seriously than any other religion.

Is there a God? I haven't the slightest idea, and neither does anybody else if they think about it for long enough. That's the nature of the question. Anybody who calls it one way or the other is merely relying on gut instinct, with no evidence to support their position.

I believe that this was a very fair and reasoned argument.

I am very happy that others believe in a god, it just is not for me. My problem is with the 'rightness' of believers. Why cannot they believe without wanting me to believe too. Why do I have to join the same gang?

If they practiced Jesus Christ's Christianity they might have some chance, but the 'eye for eye' version of the 'moral majority' bears no...

Is there a God? I haven't the slightest idea, and neither does anybody else if they think about it for long enough. That's the nature of the question. Anybody who calls it one way or the other is merely relying on gut instinct, with no evidence to support their position.

I believe that this was a very fair and reasoned argument.

I am very happy that others believe in a god, it just is not for me. My problem is with the 'rightness' of believers. Why cannot they believe without wanting me to believe too. Why do I have to join the same gang?

If they practiced Jesus Christ's Christianity they might have some chance, but the 'eye for eye' version of the 'moral majority' bears no relationship to the Christianity that I grew up on.

Where is the separation of church and state? Why so upset by Muslims in Arab states when your lead is way ahead of them. They must conform to your notions but you make no allowance to them. Some Christianity. Where is LOVE thy neighbour? Tolerance?

Quite often there is a stronger focus on "you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god" as a means of making an argument, but this really really a weak argument. This is the point behind the 'teapot in space' or the 'unicorn in my closet' analogy. Just because you cannot prove it does not make it true. It is an ironic contrast to those exact people making the claim.

However, we can use our minds to rationalize a claim and determine its worth. Using this argument simply does not provide support to any specific claims of god. It is still quite acceptable to say "there may be 'some' kind of god, but it most definitely is NOT (insert specific god here)." by examining the claims and ...

Quite often there is a stronger focus on "you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god" as a means of making an argument, but this really really a weak argument. This is the point behind the 'teapot in space' or the 'unicorn in my closet' analogy. Just because you cannot prove it does not make it true. It is an ironic contrast to those exact people making the claim.

However, we can use our minds to rationalize a claim and determine its worth. Using this argument simply does not provide support to any specific claims of god. It is still quite acceptable to say "there may be 'some' kind of god, but it most definitely is NOT (insert specific god here)." by examining the claims and proof provided by that religion.

Frankly, no religion has been able to uphold the claims that they make. It is obvious to any examiner that while currently no definitive conclusion can be had on the existance of 'a god', people proffessing membership in any religions today are basing their beliefs on what they want to believe.

Religion depends on an element of the unknown in order to continue their existance. So long as they can claim "we don't really know" then they will be able to continue fooling people. Sadly people just do not realize that the claim "we don't really know" applies to the religion as well.

If I walk up and poke you in the eye then I think that you would react to my presence, showing that I did indeed exist within your reality.

Why does god have to exist if I exist? There is absolutely nothing that suggests this is the case other than a person's desire for it to be so.

You have a bunch of logical fallacies there. I could just as easily say that if we exist then god does not exist. Why are we god's children? Because bronze age primitives declared it so? Neolithic people claimed the same thing with their gods, yet we no longer follow their beliefs or worship those gods.

If you are going to hang your argument on some frivolous philosophical issue of what defines reality then ...

If I walk up and poke you in the eye then I think that you would react to my presence, showing that I did indeed exist within your reality.

Why does god have to exist if I exist? There is absolutely nothing that suggests this is the case other than a person's desire for it to be so.

You have a bunch of logical fallacies there. I could just as easily say that if we exist then god does not exist. Why are we god's children? Because bronze age primitives declared it so? Neolithic people claimed the same thing with their gods, yet we no longer follow their beliefs or worship those gods.

If you are going to hang your argument on some frivolous philosophical issue of what defines reality then why is there such a need for any believer to make the claim of a god? To make the claim suggests that you accept your own existence and are trying to influence others within that existence with your claim.

If you truly believe that you cannot accept the data from your senses to prove reality then why even bother to contemplate what is real or not? To even participate in such a debate suggests that you already accept reality and the point of arguing your own existence is moot.

So again, it all boils down to claims; who's making them and what can be shown to validate them.