Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For example. If I am testing for radiation in a room, I can run lots of tests with devices and machines and prove that there is no radiation in that room.
Or, I could prove that there are no polar bears living in the Arizona desert. This can be proven by understanding the polar bear and where it lives, and finding that Arizona is uninhabitable for the bears. Proving tht indeed, there are no polar bears roaming the desert.
Your first example only proves that only radiation that is detectable by scientific means isn't in the room. Somebody could easily say, "There is radiation in here that you can't detect." Second example only proves that the desert isn't a good place for polar bears. If a person in Arizona tells you they have a polar bear in their house, you can't prove them wrong. You can search every inch of their house, and all they have to do is say "It's an invisible polar bear." It's a ridiculous statement, but can you prove it wrong? No, you can't, but due to a lack of evidence, you can dismiss his/her claim. That's what atheism is all about. It's up to the ones making the claims to prove what they're saying. Until then, we don't believe it, period. No matter how much you try to dispute it, a universal negative (ie. the nonexistence of something) can't be proven. If you disagree, I'd like to see you provide concrete proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyMonk
Thse are just a couple examples off the top of my head. But of course things can be proven not to exist. It is done all the time.
Unlikeliness due to lack of evidence can be proven. Nonexistence can not.
Your first example only proves that only radiation that is detectable by scientific means isn't in the room. Somebody could easily say, "There is radiation in here that you can't detect."
My four years of engineering have turned to dust. My professors lied to me. Frog tosspots.
Your first example only proves that only radiation that is detectable by scientific means isn't in the room. Somebody could easily say, "There is radiation in here that you can't detect." Second example only proves that the desert isn't a good place for polar bears. If a person in Arizona tells you they have a polar bear in their house, you can't prove them wrong. You can search every inch of their house, and all they have to do is say "It's an invisible polar bear." It's a ridiculous statement, but can you prove it wrong? No, you can't, but due to a lack of evidence, you can dismiss his/her claim. That's what atheism is all about. It's up to the ones making the claims to prove what they're saying. Until then, we don't believe it, period. No matter how much you try to dispute it, a universal negative (ie. the nonexistence of something) can't be proven. If you disagree, I'd like to see you provide concrete proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Unlikeliness due to lack of evidence can be proven. Nonexistence can not.
I see what you are saying. But personally I think it is silly to just believe that there is no God until "proof" is shown. God is a mystical and metaphysical concept. It has no physicality and cannot even be properly defined. So of course proof cannot be shown.
Many theoretical physicists have found lots of evidence that suggests God exists in some form. But proof? It's never gonna happen.
To me, it seems very obvious and very logical that if there were a God, it would be absolutely impossible for anybody to prove it. If there were a God, it would be so immense, abstract and incomprehensible by our standards that there would be no way to measure it or prove it using any means available to us.
So I think it is just silly that people say "prove it" about God. And then when no proof exists to assume God must not exist.
We as humans have just barely entered the information age. Space travel is still a new game to us. We are still struggling with mundane social problems. Technologically we are still on the edge of a frontier of exploration.
Human society is still in a rather early stage of development. Yet you expect this society to prove the existance of God itself? Seems ridiculous. God is not so simple.
FunkyMonk makes an excellent point on this issue. But, then, so does MontanaGuy in his claim that the notion of God is a holdover from past mythologies.
In my experience, what we are about to do as a civilization is redefine our concept of God. We will take it out of the realm of mythology whereby we worship or pray to someone "up there" and begin to understand it as a force within ourselves and our world accessible to all. From that perspective, we will not be able to prove the "source" of a God, but we will be able to scientifically prove the powers traditionally attributed to a God are right here in our plants, animals, and people.
This is the first time that I have really looked into this section of city data, and all I can say is.... Wow!!!
I am seriously shocked by what I am reading. I am not an atheist, and I have no problem with Christianity. But a lot of the Christian views I am reading about here are very, very, very extreme.
I don't even know where to begin, but it's definantly a wake up call to read some of this. Lots of people here seem to take the metaphors of the Bible literally, and lots of people are are just taking things so out of context.
In the US, many people would call the Muslems of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries fanatics, or extremists. But by the looks of what I see here, Christianity is just the other side of the same coin.
Two sides of the same coin? I think not. Unless if you say Christianity is the truth and Islam is a lie. But then that would put anyone who is athiestic, communistic, budist, brahmist, any other religion, any other belief on this coins other side with Islam.
Yes, the bibles metaphors should be read as metaphors, but also its histories should be read as histories and that includes the account of Genesis.
I see what you are saying. But personally I think it is silly to just believe that there is no God until "proof" is shown. God is a mystical and metaphysical concept. It has no physicality and cannot even be properly defined. So of course proof cannot be shown.
Many theoretical physicists have found lots of evidence that suggests God exists in some form. But proof? It's never gonna happen.
I agree, most of the atheist are just as stubborn. And they, just like religious fanatics, are making huge assumptions about the most mysterious things in the universe.
The religious side scares me more though. Because they act out on their beliefs in more organized and extreme ways. Religious zealots get together and form a huge, powerful, groupthink mentality. The sheer power of it, and how much it influences people is frightening. The lack of logical thought and the passionate, angry fixation on their beliefs is downright frightening.
The atheists seem more like they are just into argueing, and debating, but beyond that they don't really do anything too crazy about their belief in a no God. They don't seem to get together in large groups much, and they do not have the same kind of frightening power as the religions.
Lack of Logical thought? Are you generalizing? stereotyping? What? This is bad logic. You should be ashamed to go to these kind of lows.
There are many good, kind, intelligent religious people in America. You group them all together and say they lack logical thought, is illogical and lacking in thought and compassion on your behalf. Let's argue issues and points and not attack people.
I see what you are saying. But personally I think it is silly to just believe that there is no God until "proof" is shown. God is a mystical and metaphysical concept. It has no physicality and cannot even be properly defined. So of course proof cannot be shown.
Many theoretical physicists have found lots of evidence that suggests God exists in some form. But proof? It's never gonna happen.
One of these jars has an invisible man in it, can you tell me which one does? Is it reasonable to assume that because they all weigh exactly the same, and nothing is seen inside them, there is no little man in there *until proven*?
Or I could show just one jar, and claim that it's full of invisible beer. Just because you can't taste it, smell it, weigh it or see it only means that it has the properties of being unobservable. Is it reasonable to take the claim as possible or probable?
Some like to play the semantics game and "prove" god by redefining it to something already observable. There is an infinite number of ways to define God, just as there is an infinite number of ways to describe the clothes on the little man in the jar above.
But when you include the unobservable/supernatural in your definition of God, you are making a claim that needs support before it can have credibility. If you have had a 'personal experience' that made you believe, then that is only good enough "proof" for you. We are not unreasonable to assume the pink elephant you saw was not really there.
Two sides of the same coin? I think not. Unless if you say Christianity is the truth and Islam is a lie. But then that would put anyone who is athiestic, communistic, budist, brahmist, any other religion, any other belief on this coins other side with Islam.
Yes, the bibles metaphors should be read as metaphors, but also its histories should be read as histories and that includes the account of Genesis.
I say that they are two sides of the same coin for a reason.
These two religions are perhaps the most dogmatic ones. The adherents to both of these religions have tendencies towards extremism and fanatisism. These religions both require for the believer to refute many other teachers. These religion both claim to be the one and only truth and do not accept other religions.
For these reasons and many others. These two religions create a very dogmatic, conservative, god-fearing, hatred for other religions and a fear of having their religious beliefs questions.
As for Buddhism, and Hinduism, they are not like this so much because they are much more inwardly focused. The practitioners of these paths and the teachings of these paths are much more attune to a persons inward spiritual world and growth. There isn't much of any dogma in these paths. There isn't a lot of folklore and history, these path are much more about studying your own spirit.
How often do you see Buddhists and Hindus getting all fired up and angry about how their path is the truth? Not often. Because these paths do not have the dogma and the stories to be defended.
It is the Biblically rooted religions that seem to create anger in thier followers.
Location: In the North Idaho woods, still surrounded by terriers
2,179 posts, read 7,019,105 times
Reputation: 1014
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyMonk
I don't think that the concept of God itself is primitive. It is primitive when people simplify God and think that God has human characteristics. Or think that God is a human-like being who watches over us. The worst is the idea that God has laid down rules for us to follow. Or the idea that Jesus Christ was the ebodiement of God. These are all primitive beliefs.
When a lot of people explain thier view of what they think God is. They describe something that sounds like old mythological beliefs. They try to humanize God far too much. But if God exists, I am sure that it is absolutely nothing like a human. It is narrow-minded to think otherwise.
You can't take the most mystical and mysterious thing in the universe and make it fit into a neat little understandable box.
This is a great post!!! Reps to you!
I agree that the problem Fundamentalists have is trying to make god Human...believing that he/she/it is a thinking, acting entity who sits up in the heavens keeping track of we beings here on earth. Those of us who fall in the middle (non-Christian, non-atheist) have some insight of our own into who or what god may be and many of us do believe in a creator source/force. It's just the intolerance and dogma that tends to rile me up a bit. I firmly think that whatever a person believes is that person's "truth" and we, as mortal humans, have no right to judge the beliefs or truths of another person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
