Fundie Claim #9: You can't prove that there is no god!
5/18/2008 | 12:30 PM | Evolved Rationalist
Fundie: In order to be certain that God doesn’t exist, you have to have the ability to be 100% certain. A human can’t be 100% certain about anything. You cannot prove that god does not exist, so there is a god!
Most theists fail to realize that asking atheists for proof of atheism is the same thing as asking for proof that dragons, the FSM, fairies or goblins don’t exist. It is absurd to be asked to prove a negative. As Carl Sagan famously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The (in this case, Christian) theist claim that there is a personal, omnipotent, creator, redeemer deity out there watching over us is certainly an extraordinary claim, but so far no evidence has been forthcoming (extraordinary or otherwise). There is simply no evidence for this retarded, infantile, ignorant belief in a mythical, invisible sky-daddy imaginary friend.
Atheism, not theism, is the default position. The burdens of proof lies on the side making the positive claim, no matter how much theists try to avoid this simple fact. Although no atheist has ever claimed that the non-existence of god is the ultimate Truth with a capital T, what we know about the natural world make the existence of a god (let alone a personal god) highly improbable, if not impossible. The improbability of such a god is great enough to deem the odds of Christian doctrine being true are close to zero.
I am always willing to change my mind on the basis of evidence. As theists haven’t provided any, there is no reason for me to prostrate myself in front of an altar to speak like a schizoid to an imaginary god. I'll save that for the theistards.
Posted in
Atheist Refutation of Fundie Claims
|
I agree with what you say, but why are you always so rude?
Okay you can never be certain about anything.
But
If there is only one god, and god created life, and then if we were able to synthesis artificial life/ clone somebody/ alter genes etc in a sense "Play god" would this not in turn disprove the theory that there is only one god, and so in turn disprove the basis of there being a god....
-aside from this I have heard people saying they believe in the one god jesus christ... I fought jesus was meant to be the son of god, admitadly the one god and his only son jesus christ is long winded, unless gods name is jesus christ also, and then bible simply forgot to mention the one from bethlehem was Jesus Christ Jnr.
Wouldn't the default position be agnosticism?
CR, is the default position for a belief in unicorns and the FSM etc also agnosticism?
agnosticism is the position that you can't know whether or not there is a god.
atheism is the lack of belief in god.
The two are completely compatible.
because of the supernatural aspect of god, I am an agnostic atheist.
To Anonymous,
IMHO, she is rude out of sheer frustration. Refuting the same arguments over and over again from the same people does that.
BionicHips
So CR, if I claim that "I can make yo a billionaire overnight, if you send me $20 now", you would say the appropriate default position is "it's impossible to say whether it's true or not and we should not prefer to believe or disbelieve the claim", rather than "I can't be certain that it's false, but that's such an extraordinary claim that I won't give my money until I've seen some solid evidence."
An as-believeable-as-not response is an appropriate reaction to a completely uncontroversial and plausible claim like "I had toast for breakfast". You can't know I didn't have cereal instead, but if there's nothing riding on it, it doesn't matter, so it makes sense as a default position.
[However, if you're a breakfast radio host giving away ten thousand dollars to people who had a very specific kind of breakfast, you would want more than just their own assertion that they did indeed have the required breakfast - like some evidence. The claim "I had strawberry jelly on whole wheat toast with black coffee" is no longer an utterly ordinary claim - un this case because I would have something to gain from holding it to be true.]
Some claims are very ordinary, and require no evidence for us to be at least indifferent to a claim of truth.
Some claims are unordinary and require at least some evidence (such as "proof of purchase" for a contest, perhaps, or a medical certificate for absence from a test). The appropriate default there is moderate skepticism.
Some claims are extraordinary, and they require extraordinary evidence. The appropriate default is stronger skepticism.
Though you probably haven't noticed, you do it yourself all the time.
(If you think you don't, I have this really nice bridge to sell you. It's going cheap, because I'm in a hurry to sell. Send money now. Pictures? Why do you need pictures? Are you some kind of nutcase skeptic? Alright, I'll send you pictures. What? Now you want title deeds? Why can't you just be agnostic? You already have pictures. Just be agnostic and send half the money, then.)
I wasn't defending the postion ER is criticizing efrique, I was just clarifying
Anonymous, is it not rude for the religious to say that those who do not believe in god are going to hell? Yet, they are entitled to some special privileges so that others can't be rude in return? I don't think so. I don't think it was rude anyways. It was merely constructive criticism. If anyone offended it is because of their own dispositions.
I recently posted an open question of whether Agnostics must be Atheists, just so I could get a general working sociological model of how others view both those terms. Though my question was not about my specific religous viewpoints, I nevertheless cited myself as an example, stating "I am an Agnostic who does not worship a god, because there is currently no evidence of a god who interacts with humans on a personal level."
To my great surprise, someone called me a close-minded bigot! He said I "refused to even try to worship one". Excuse me? I'm close-minded because I don't "try to worship" a god? Since when am I obligated to worship a god without existance of one's need for me to worship him/her/it? (He was wrong, as most people are who make assumptions - I had in fact attempted to worship the Christian God for 18 years.)
In conclusion: I AM NOT OBLIGATED TO WORSHIP THE UNKNOWN/UNKNOWABLE!
Josh & Created Rationalist: There all manner of Agnostics, ranging from Agnostic Atheists to Agnostic Christians. Also, there are Atheist religions such as Buddhism.
I personally find Agnostic Theism to be quite silly, but respect their open position.
CR - I was only taking issue with the "default position is agnostic" question, a position with which I strongly disagree.
My apologies if I went overboard.
I have never seen god and do not believe in god. But I do believe in Moses. I have never seen Moses but at least he wrote his stuff down and I can see that. And he got his information from a bush on fire. How fucking cool is that?
Right, no one can prove there is a God and nor can anyone prove their isn't one. By definition, that makes everyone an agnostic (whether they admit it or not).
I guess it just comes down to who has the more compelling argument.
gruntled atheist:
The bible has it backward. What Moses actually wrote in his diary was:
Saw my dealer again - little bastard has hiked his prices again. "First hit's free" my talking ass. Anyway, that was a bummer, so I took two tablets and walked around on the mountain. I got so stoned I set my bush on fire and then I heard God. Reminder to self: don't take drugs when you're walking near open flame. Ow!
It obviously became a bit garbled in the retelling.
As Bronze Dog puts it:
"Of course, all us skeptics know the core problem with all this: It's classic shifting of burdens. First, the person making the positive claim has to make it falsifiable: They have to know how they could disprove it if they're wrong. Making a claim of yours unfalsifiable is just showing off closed-mindedness. Second, you don't blindly assume everything you can't disprove is real. Lack of negative evidence alone doesn't make something more plausible. There has to be confirming evidence. Otherwise, we'd be forced to believe in everything, including ideas people haven't defined in meaningful ways, and ideas yet to be dreamed up."
Please pay special attention to this part:
**************
THEY HAVE TO KNOW HOW THEY COULD DISPROVE IT IF THEY'RE WRONG.
**************
Get the hint?