Can one proof that god DOESN'T exist?

I have a problem with "atheists" who wish to prove that no god exists. To me, this constitutes a form of prostletyzing (sp?) which is akin to the religious variety. I have had contacts with atheist organizations, but, not being a joiner (joined the Army once, got out of the joining habit right quick), and disliking their pseudo-religion of atheism, i stayed away.

I am an atheist--simple definition, i am without god; simple reason--there are no gods or goddesses. Can i prove that? Why should i be obliged to do so? Those who make extraordinary claims have the burden of proving them, i'm not obliged to disprove them.

Overall I though the story was quite comical but the comment from Hitchens just demonstrates that he doesn't even understand what he's talking about. His statement was

"I'm an atheist. I'm not neutral about religion, I'm hostile to it. I think it is a positively bad idea, not just a false one. And I mean not just organized religion, but religious belief itself."

So he claims to be an Athiest and then claims he's hostile to religion and religious belief itself... Atheism IS a religion!

No, Fishin', his brand of "atheism" constitutes a form of religious practice. This is one of those circumstances in which i am anxious to divorce the simple definition of the word from what it is percieved to mean, thanks to jokers like that guy . . .

Setanta - I suppose that depends on how one defines "religion".

The standard dictionary definitions generally fall along the lines of " A system of beliefs in regard to the relationship between mankind and a supreme diety."

What follows from there is what seems, to me, to be the fundamental question of "religion" - Does a supreme being exist?

If one answers "no" they are an Athiest. If they answer "yes" they are a Thiest. If they answer "Not sure" they are an Agnostic. All 3 are a "religious" belief though.

Would you care to expound on your view of that?

(btw, I would refer to Hitchens as an "Evangelical Athiest". lol)

I think the burden of proof rests with those who make far fetched claims. God is a construct that through inventive lateral thinking can't be disproved.

Creating such is easy:

There once was a boy with 5,000 arms 2,000 legs no eyes and he lived on Jupiter. He didn't need food water or oxygen and could survive in any temperature.

There are some other qualities he had that are not named here (in case anyone really wants to try to disprove this).

---

Given enough lee way that theory can't be disproved.

i am, quite simply, an atheist, i need not prove nor disprove anything to anyone.

I believe my signature line says it all pretty well.....Grasshopper.

Well Fishin', there being no "supreme deity" (which dictionary, Boss?), i have no system of beliefs regarding any putative relationship between man and his superstition. As far as that joker you referred to, at BLathams link, is concerned, i would call him a "theophobe." (Your description is a nice touch, Boss.)

No, of course you cannot prove that god does not exist - and whenever you muster up good arguments, theists are able to counter with numerous subtle tweakings of the postulated nature of the deity - as with the problem of evil, for instance.

I do, however, recall once being, briefly, convinced by the ontological argument for the existence of god - and an exciting moment it was! Bertrand Russell had the same experience once, too - but I believe, apart from legs, arms and suchlike, that that is my only similarity to the Great Man. Oh lord, I am digressing once again...

Anyway, it is damned difficult to prove negatives anyway - which is why science tends to proceed by framing positive hypotheses to attempt to disprove - (insofar as it really proceeds in an orderly manner at all, as readers of books like "The Double Helix" will have cause to ponder.)

I can't prove that s/he/it does not exist - I can only base my position on what seems the most reasonable belief at the time - if we suddenly find phalanxes of angels hiding behind Mars, or there is a second coming with attendant stunning miracles - or something - I shall rapidly revise my agnostic position.

(Here is a brief and extraordinarily unsatisfying reference to said ontological argument, if anyone wants to look - I shall search for a better explanation - if anyone wants me to: http://www.infoplease.lycos.com/ipd/A0567143.html)

I would be lost without, but, how does one prove an absolute negative?

BillW makes a cogent observation. The nature of knowledge being what it is, disproving a theorem for which no data exists is impossible. The most that can be proved is that no supportive data has been found.



timber

We will know at the end of time - ours that is. I'm not one who believes in the statement in addendum:

"And I ain't taking any chances"

God exists in religion to control the masses. I don't need someone to give me directions and stick a bunch of musts in there including the one:

"If you don't give me 10% you're not gonna get there."

If you seek, you will find!

I want to give a nod to Craven's post here. It seems quite clear to me that theism and atheism are not equal or balanced stances, and therefore the argument that "they are both beliefs" is not very helpful, and in a real sense, wrong.

Craven's example is a good one too. I'll make another... I propose that there is a pink elephant in a tutu sitting on my head and this elephant is invisible and undectable by any possible means we might discover. You, hearing this proposition, might think to yourself...."Nah, I'm pretty sure that's nuts".

There is a burden of proof for the maker of a proposition (or the holder of a belief) which isn't equally reflected on the listener (or non-believer). It is in this sense that atheism is/can be quite different in nature from theism.

"faith" is a tricky master

"faith" is in the mind of the beholder. If one says, I am positive there is no God - that my friends is faith.

But Bill, my good man, is 'faith' the proper word for your (likely) non-acceptance of my pink elephant?

I didn't not accept your pink elephant! I have but one question, is that elephant doing you good. If the answer is no, lose the elephant and get a donkey - purple would be a nice color!

To an extent I'd agree with this with a slight twist. IMO, the burden of proof is upon the one that wishes to convince the other that their position is the "right" position. Each of us is free to believe as we see fit. If anyone wants another to change their view see things as they do then it is incumbent upon them to provide sufficient proof. That axiom holds for the athiest or thiest equeally...

And any inbeteenhiest.