What do you believe?

22 posts / 0 new
Last post
AnonMtz20's picture
What do you believe?

Atheists say "No one can prove the existence of God." And they're right. But I say: "No one can disprove that God exists."

^^From God's Not Dead.

Can you disprove it? Can you prove it? What do you think?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
That's an old and tired

That's an old and tired question. Can you disprove elves? The burden of proof is on the one asserting the existence.

AnonMtz20's picture
So then, in a way, we are all

So then, in a way, we are all pretty clueless as to what exists and what does not ... yes?

CyberLN's picture
No, we are absolutely not

No, we are absolutely not clueless about what exists.

Ellie Harris's picture
Atheist do not have to

Atheist do not have to disprove an undemonstrated claim. Theist make the claim that god exist and until it is shown that god exist we will lack belief in god. If you think I am going to spend time trying prove a negative you may be mistaken.

In order for you to prove an entity to be god you would have to be a god in able to know to distinguish it as god instead of just a being with more power than humans.

ex-christian_atheist's picture
You cannot prove or disprove

You cannot prove or disprove anything, unless you are talking about mathematics. You can show evidence for a claim, and until evidence is sufficient for a claim, it should not be believed to be true. It is my opinion that it can be shown that individual religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism) can be shown to be most likely false, and I certainly claim that there is no justification for the belief in a god because of a lack of sufficient evidence.

AnonMtz20's picture
Yes. That's the thing though.

Yes. That's the thing though. To me, I can't see him. I can't feel him. I can't provide tangible evidence to you. I can feel though (spiritually). It's how I am. I feel Him. And though you did not see nor feel the Big Bang..

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Let us assume that you are in

Let us assume that you are in fact feeling something.

Have you ever questioned, that maybe what you are feeling is something else?

And what you have been told is just 1 interpretation of a human(that does mistakes) about that feeling?

This would explain why there are so many religions right?

Or why there are so many denominations of religions?

Why don't you have any interests in the other religions? Maybe they are describing the same thing with different names or assumptions.

Does what you feel in anyway give credence of all the claims in your religion? Where does the feeling tell you that god hate gays?
Or not to use condoms? etc...
Or there is a god at all. Is it possible that that feeling comes from the good part in you?(like a subconscious)

You need to analyse the feeling for what it is:
A feeling.

A theistic religion might be abusing that feeling for its own ends.

Are you smart enough to understand that your theistic religion has no grounds to practically all it's claims about that feeling?

There is a reason that DOUBT is called a SIN, they do not want you to be smart but stupid enough so you never make that honest question.

AnonMtz20's picture
Who makes the claim that

Who makes the claim that doubt would be considered a sin? Also you have a point of it being a feeling and it may be having to deal with how I was raised, but it still means more to me than JUST a feeling, you know?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Read tour bible:

Read tour bible:

King James Bible (Romans 14:23)
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For whoever is doubtful and eats is condemned because it is not in faith, for everything that is not from faith is sin.

AnonMtz20's picture
Nor do you have evidence....

Nor do you have evidence.... do you believe in it?

Nyarlathotep's picture
The statement that we do not

The statement that we do not have evidence for the big bang is patently false. You seem like an honest guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that someone told you this lie and you ended up innocently repeating it (I'm sure we have all been in this position).

Furthermore it is not a question of belief in the big bang. The big bang is a model that (so far) has made accurate predictions. So we accept it, with the caveat that when it starts making inaccurate predictions we will abandoned it or modify it. This has actually already happened a few times (and it was modified).

AnonMtz20's picture
I'm a girl /.\ and I will

I'm a girl /.\ and I will look it up. Thank you.

mysticrose's picture
That's why we should live on

That's why we should live on the present and on the things that exist. I'm agnostic and a humanist.

Chris T.'s picture
We can never prove nor

We can never prove nor disprove a "creator". Theology on the other hand collapse on itself. The falsehoods, inconsistencies, and condridictions are enormous. Not to mention secular areas of study such as history, psychology, philosophy, culture, geography, civics, and just plain out human experiences. As far as the " feeling" aspect, feelings are eqivilent to nothing. Feelings are limited to the one with said feeling. That's not evidence. The son of Sam had feelings, but was his dog really telling him to kill people? A feeling is "a sword in a field". That means in an world of infinant possibilities, one picks the explination that best suits their needs and understanding.

doniston's picture
No one can realy know, or

No one can realy know, or prove it either way until they are dead and gone, and/or if there is a hereafter. Personally I believe in a fom of a hereafter, but I don't believe there is a "person GOD", but that's just my opinion, and always will be, but not proof.

chance191's picture
i would like to hear some of

i would like to hear some of your world views if you could check out my thread posted under world views. all i need is you to answer the questions if you can

JadeB's picture
Placing the burden of truth

Placing the burden of truth on non-believers is a way for the religious to avoid hard-hitting debates with us because they (1) lack the knowledge of their own religion and are therefore unable to put forth an intelligible debate (2) they can sleep better at night knowing that their religion hasn't been picked apart at the seams.

Reiterating what another poster said - the one who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof, not he one with the negative claim. Presenting me with an argument "god is real" and then providing "evidence" to back up that claim is challenging me to accept or reject your hypothesis. I say, that theists have presented evidence that is not objective (or even sensical; or real) and they have not provided a convincing argument; therefore I reject your hypothesis - your theory has not been proven, therefore I do not believe.

Now, if the evidence changes to support your hypothesis, I will modify my views. But until then, regardless of how it is twisted, the burden of proof will always lie on the one presenting the claim.

jordtame's picture
Tsnu, the facts found in

Tsnu, the facts found in nature, especially geology and the fossil record, disprove Genesis. Also in my life I have found that more religious people have been the ones commuting crimes against children and women, than non believers.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well they certainly

Well they certainly contradict a literal interpretation of Genesis. This leaves the believers with 2 choices (that I see):

1. Stick you head in the sand and somehow make yourself unaware of the mountains of evidence is against you. See posts from Chuck Rogers for an example of this method: (http://www.atheistrepublic.com/users/chuck-rogers/10049).

2. Claim that certain parts of the bible are literal and that other parts are figurative. This is often represented by the view that anything in the bible that disagrees with science must be figurative, and everything else is literal. However, as scientific knowledge grows it causes a reassessment what is literal and what is figurative (decreasing the amount of literal material, and increasing the amount of figurative material). While this seems to be the path a vast majority of religious people take, it seems somewhat distasteful to me (but I guess that is their problem, not mine).

Chris T.'s picture
I want to hear more about

I want to hear more about this "God created" test.

Nyarlathotep's picture
same here.

same here.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.