god is real prove me wrong (atheist beware)

Originally posted by pinkbutton
sex!

I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to prove that you're right.

What must I do to drive this point home?

Originally posted by rwingett
There are several degrees of classification. There are many arguments about this but it is commonly agreed (but not by me) that from greater belief to lesser, they go as follows:

theist
agnostic theist
agnostic
agnostic atheist
atheist

Atheists are typically classified as 'strong' or 'hard' atheists or 'soft' or 'weak' atheists. A strong atheist w hat atheism entails, we see that there is really no need for so-called agnosticism.

Thanks; I appreciate the explanation.

The groupings seem to make intuitive sense and are those at which I've previously arrived. I began doubting them due to never having really come across the term 'agnostic atheist' before, coupled with a tendancy to fall into the "EVERYONE seems to believe all atheists are strong atheists" mode, mainly due to the content of several posts by non-believers (and also vice versa by the sheer numbers of dyed-in-the-wool absolute believers overshadowing anything by agnostic theists).

One final thing: Your wording: 'A soft atheist would be one who, while admitting that there can be no proof for god's existence, sees no reason to believe the claim'. The 'admitting that there can be no proof part' I find slightly confusing. Is it not more accurate to say that the agnostic atheist 'recognises for them as an individual a hitherto absence of proof and insufficient evidence - and as such sees no reason currently to believe the claim - but is open to the possibility that at some point evidence could be presented that is sufficient to shift their belief to agnostic theism'?

Have I got it wrong, or did you mean to say that the typical agnostic atheist (if there can be such a thing) believes that there never can be an absolute proof (the part you said), but that there could be sufficient evidence to sway him to agnostic theism but that he is yet to see it (the part you didn't explicity say)?

Originally posted by rwingett
There are several degrees of classification. There are many arguments about this but it is commonly agreed (but not by me) that from greater belief to lesser, they go as follows:

theist
agnostic theist
agnostic
agnostic atheist
atheist

Atheists are typically classified as 'strong' or 'hard' atheists or 'soft' or 'weak' atheists. A strong atheist w hat atheism entails, we see that there is really no need for so-called agnosticism.

It is not a fact that there are no strong atheists. In fact, I am one, as are many of my more educated acquaintances.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't give a hoot why god has not been proven. The fact is that there is no reason to believe in him. None. Yes evidence matters. You can convince 12 people of anything, as in your O.J. Simpson example. Which is to say that you can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. People have failed for 2,000 years to prov ...[text shortened]... ying is that if I believed in god, then I'd believe in god. Well what do you know about that?

Do you think that it is necessary in order to know P that one be able to prove, unto certainty, that P is the case? If so, then you don't know anything at all. If not, then absolute certainty is not required for knowledge, and it is an open question whether the reasons that have been provided against the proposition that God exists are sufficient for knowledge that God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by bbarr
It is not a fact that there are no strong atheists. In fact, I am one, as are many of my more educated acquaintances.

In what way do your beliefs as a strong atheist differ from those of a soft atheist/agnostic atheist?

Originally posted by T1000
In what way do your beliefs as a strong atheist differ from those of a soft atheist/agnostic atheist?

I think there is evidence sufficient to show that it is very improbable that God exists, and hence to justify the belief that God does not exist. They think merely that the lack of evidence for God's existence is sufficient to make the belief the God exists unjustified.

Originally posted by bbarr
It is not a fact that there are no strong atheists. In fact, I am one, as are many of my more educated acquaintances.

Please elaborate. How can you claim to know that god does not exist? You can be fairly certain, but you must always leave room for the possibility that you may be wrong. Hence, I will always stop short of claiming that god does not exist. The most I will allow myself is that god very probably does not exist.

Of course there are some who will go out on that limb and claim to be strong atheists. Richard Dawkins comes to mind. But I think that if you really examine their stance, what they're really doing is strongly putting forward their soft atheism, which is something else altogether.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't give a hoot why god has not been proven. The fact is that there is no reason to believe in him. None. Yes evidence matters. You can convince 12 people of anything, as in your O.J. Simpson example. Which is to say that you can fool some people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. People have failed for 2,000 years to prov ...[text shortened]... ying is that if I believed in god, then I'd believe in god. Well what do you know about that?

What I am saying is that if you had proof there is a God you couldn't prove it. What is your motive for asking for proof that you know can't be proven, if not to try and hide the proof from those not wanting to except the proof? Why try to prove by asking for proof what you can't prove with theory that there is no God. And if that is what you are trying to prove than you are proving to me that there is an anti God. Which proves scientifically that there is a God by there being an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore it is my conclusion that killing flesh is no proof there is not a God and or spirit. Claiming in theory you are an ancestor of an ape, pig, or rat does not prove you to be correct. (Not you personally)I certainly hope that to be wrong. Or if you claim to be formed out of nothing does not prove that there was not a God who formed the nothing that allowed your ancestors to be formed. If DNA cloning doesn't help to prove creationism then what does? To be a Christian is to do as God does or Christ like. If God created man then why can't we? We now have his knowledge of creation reveled to us. But you refuse to see the evidence. I am sure it will be dismissed.

Originally posted by bbarr
I think there is evidence sufficient to show that it is very improbable that God exists, and hence to justify the belief that God does not exist. They think merely that the lack of evidence for God's existence is sufficient to make the belief the God exists unjustified.

Belief that god exists is unjustified, certainly. But that is a far cry from justifying belief that god does not exist.

Originally posted by rwingett
Please elaborate. How can you claim to know that god does not exist? You can be fairly certain, but you must always leave room for the possibility that you may be wrong. Hence, I will always stop short of claiming that god does not exist. The most I will allow myself is that god very probably does not exist.

Of course there are some who will go o ...[text shortened]... eally doing is strongly putting forward their soft atheism, which is something else altogether.

You're not certain that your name is Rob, either. After all, it could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon you since birth. But you are confident enough in your belief that you claim, positively, that your name is Rob. So, why do you switch the evidential criteria when you talk about God? If you can know that your name is Rob, even though you can't be absolutely certain about it, then why can't I know that God doesn't exist, even though I'm not absolutely certain about it?

Originally posted by bbarr
I think there is evidence sufficient to show that it is very improbable that God exists, and hence to justify the belief that God does not exist. They think merely that the lack of evidence for God's existence is sufficient to make the belief the God exists unjustified.

Presumably 'that it is very improbable that God exists' is the same as: 'that it is very improbable that God exists, and only very marginally probable that God does exist'. Given that you are willing to accept the existence of this very marginal probability of God's existence, does that not bar you from being a 'strong atheist', and place you instead as an agnostic atheist who believes very strongly (since the probability being assigned to God's existence is so small) that you will remain an agnostic atheist?

Edit: Nevermind, I think in your reply to rwingett you've answered the question I was trying (rather poorly) to ask here.

Originally posted by rwingett
Belief that god exists is unjustified, certainly. But that is a far cry from justifying belief that god does not exist.

Right, but if there are good reasons to think that God doesn't exist (e.g., the evidential argument from evil, inconsistencies in the supposed divine attributes, etc.) then why isn't that sufficient to justify the belief that God doesn't exist? If we have good evidence that God doesn't exist, provided by these sorts of arguments, then we thereby have good reason to believe (i.e., are justified in believing) that God doesn't exist.

Originally posted by T1000
Presumably 'that it is very improbable that God exists' is the same as: 'that it is very improbable that God exists, and only very marginally probable that God does exist'. Given that you are willing to accept the existence of this very marginal probability of God's existence, does that not bar you from being a 'strong atheist', and place you instead as an agn ...[text shortened]... eply to rwingett you've answered the question I was trying (rather poorly) to ask here.

Right, the point the Rob fails to recognize is that knowledge does not require certainty. If it were the case the knowledge required certainly, then it would be impossible to know anything at all.

Originally posted by bbarr
You're not certain that your name is Rob, either. After all, it could be an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon you since birth. But you are confident enough in your belief that you claim, positively, that your name is Rob. So, why do you switch the evidential criteria when you talk about God? If you can know that your name is Rob, even though you can't be abs ...[text shortened]... n why can't I know that God doesn't exist, even though I'm not absolutely certain about it?

I have a copy of my birth certificate. That is very good proof that my name is Rob. It is satisfactory to all parties involved. Now it's still possible the birth certificate could be mistaken, but I am justified in believing that my name is Rob. I could gather more evidence to verify my claim that my name is Rob if so required. Verifiable, tangible evidence. With belief in or against god, there can be no such evidence. The most you can claim, in my opinion, is that belief in god is not justified. But I'm not prepared to go out on that limb and claim that belief in the non-existance of god can be justified.

I think that you are accomplishing nothing but fulfilling the theist's greatest wish, which is to have someone who has to share his burden of proof. That is all your position accomplishes is forcing yourself to take on half of that burden.

Originally posted by bbarr
Right, the point the Rob fails to recognize is that knowledge does not require certainty. If it were the case the knowledge required certainly, then it would be impossible to know anything at all.

I think after many months I've just learned why a Freethinker can say to his sweetheart: "I love you" as a statement of 'certainty', without always needing to say every single time so as to be consistent with Freethinkery: "The evidence presented before me indicates that with a high degree of probability I have feelings of love towards you, though there remains a degree of probability that I have interpreted the evidence incorrectly and in fact do not".

P'raps you Freethinker chaps aren't cold-hearted unromantics after all 😉