What proof is there that atheism is accurate and correct?

[LilBTheBasedGod]

pretend the OP is thuinking about becoming an athiest and he wants you to prove there is nothing beyond this...

To be earnest, atheists essentially don't care if religious people want to be atheists because they mutually believe that existence is vain. Essentially. They try to incorporate their 'relative morality' bullcrap but its all self-indulgent.

[-playmaker-]

IMO the existance of the universe shouldn't be compared to big foot or a breif case of money...

it is a unique topic...there is nothing else like it

[-playmaker-]

So you're saying atheists should provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn't have proof to exist in the first place? LOL

IMO the universe being shit out of nothing is more ridiculous than a designer...so from my standpoint you could flip that the other way around and it would make more sense...NEITHER SIDE HAS PROOF

like

So you're saying Theists should provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn't have proof to exist in the first place? LOL

like I said, the existance of the universe is a subject that is unique like that...

we are all lost here on this one...it isn't like claiming there is a speghetti monster or something that is is obvious

[LilBTheBasedGod]

So you're saying atheists should provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn't have proof to exist in the first place? LOL

I think the issue is, that the complex ideology of God is beyond anthropomorphic proof. To say you can't prove it or disprove it could be because its impossible to explain or present such proof when we are so feeble compared to the ideal.

[joe]

So you're saying atheists should provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn't have proof to exist in the first place? LOL

No.. the atheists should provide proof because they're making a claim. The other side of the argument is irrelevant. The fact that religious people claim God is real does not mean you can claim the opposite without proving it.

"Big Foot is real!"

"Where's your evidence? I say he's not real."

"Well, where's YOUR evidence?"

"Umm, you're the one making a claim. Durr. You have the burden of proof."

"So.. saying Big Foot isn't real, was not making a claim, huh?"

"Nope."

"Wow. I want to punch you."

[-playmaker-]

Well it's not exactly shit out of nothing. Really, we do now that technically there are other universes within our own universe, or at least basically. So it just comes down to where our universe comes from and what the original universe that made all the other universes came from.

how ever the first atom/particle/ect appeared...it was shit out of nothing

*if you are an athiest, that is what you believe...it magically appeared from complete NOTHINGNESS

[vinsane01]

This. The question is kinda incoherent to be honest. You're making it seem like accuracy and correctness are similar words. They are not. Atheism is not believing in deities. So if you re-phrase your question it will sound like this: "What proof is there that not believing in deities is accurate and correct?" It doesnt sound right.

But yeah i understand what your trying to say. Atheists do not have the burden to prove the existence of a god and no one should prove a negative position. If someone claims there is a god, there are the ones that has to prove that there is. Its an unfalsifiable hypothesis to begin with. Religious people believe that god exists in immaterial and metaphysical reality. So there is no way to disprove its existence since we live in a material/physical reality. If you believe there is a god just because it hasnt been proven that there isnt, then you might as well believe any claim from anybody.

[-playmaker-]

This. The question is kinda incoherent to be honest. You're making it seem like accuracy and correctness are similar words. They are not. Atheism is not believing in deities. So if you re-phrase your question it will sound like this: [COLOR="Red"]"What proof is there that not believing in deities is accurate and correct?" It doesnt sound right. [/COLOR]

But yeah i understand what your trying to say. Atheists do not have the burden to prove the existence of a god and no one should prove a negative position. If someone claims there is a god, there are the ones that has to prove that there is. Its an unfalsifiable hypothesis to begin with. Religious people believe that god exists in immaterial and metaphysical reality. So there is no way to disprove its existence since we live in a material/physical reality. If you believe there is a god just because it hasnt been proven that there isnt, then you might as well believe any claim from anybody.

it sounds right if he is asking people who claim that as fact!!!


he is asking athiests to prove thier believes...

ATHIEST: I believe there is nothing else besides this

HIM: PROVE IT!!!

[LilBTheBasedGod]

This. The question is kinda incoherent to be honest. You're making it seem like accuracy and correctness are similar words. They are not. Atheism is not believing in deities. So if you re-phrase your question it will sound like this: "What proof is there that not believing in deities is accurate and correct?" It doesnt sound right.

But yeah i understand what your trying to say. Atheists do not have the burden to prove the existence of a god and no one should prove a negative position. If someone claims there is a god, there are the ones that has to prove that there is. Its an unfalsifiable hypothesis to begin with. Religious people believe that god exists in immaterial and metaphysical reality. So there is no way to disprove its existence since we live in a material/physical reality. If you believe there is a god just because it hasnt been proven that there isnt, then you might as well believe any claim from anybody.

I don't think its that black and white, I think you could use a lot more logic and reason into understanding which metaphysical reality is real, if Jesus Christ was God and was a man and actually existed, wouldn't that be God himself manifesting his metaphysical reality and fusing it with ours? Then its not a debate of hallucination or revelation, but of history. If he historically existed and his claims were true, then the fusion of realities fall on the Christian faith.

[-playmaker-]

It didn't have to appear to exist.
And what's the difference between that and God appearing out of nothing? Doesn't a being appearing out of nowhere, or always existing seem less likely then an object?

IMO it seems more likely that this was desinged..

OH, well what a coincedense that "TIME" exits for us!!!...and gravity!!!

it is all so well put together...




BOTH are unexplainable IMO

[ballup]

Monotheism and atheism are beliefs, not facts. That's why none of them are "proven"

[vinsane01]

It didn't have to appear to exist.
And what's the difference between that and God appearing out of nothing? Doesn't a being appearing out of nowhere, or always existing seem less likely then an object?

I saw this video on youtube by lawrence krauss giving a lecture about the universe and quantum physics. He says that total energy of the universe is 0 and it can come out of nothing. So it doesnt need a creator. And that empty space isnt really empty at all since we are actually made of empty space. He says that the mass of protons and neutrons comes from 10% quarks and empty space between the quarks makes up 90% of its mass. Pretty interesting stuff.

[Hulk Hogan]

So you're saying atheists should provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn't have proof to exist in the first place? LOL

Its non-existent to you because you claim its non-existent.
Just because you claim something is non-existent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You need to provide evidence or proof to make that claim especially when you want someone to believe it. And just because you claim something does not exist doesn't mean you don't have to provide evidence or proof for that claim!

If you want me to be an atheist, I need evidence or proof that atheism is accurate and correct!

[vinsane01]

it sounds right if he is asking people who claim that as fact!!!


he is asking athiests to prove thier believes...

ATHIEST: I believe there is nothing else besides this

HIM: PROVE IT!!!

Thats why i said it doesnt make sense, since there is no reason to believe if you know it is a fact. Knowing and believing is two different things.

[IcanzIIravor]

IMO it seems more likely that this was desinged..

OH, well what a coincedense that "TIME" exits for us!!!...and gravity!!!

it is all so well put together...




BOTH are unexplainable IMO

How do you figure it is so well put together? Seems to be faulty as hell to me. Is this version 1.0?