Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Look at my file above.Incorrect. If there were proof then your faith would have no need to exist. You have faith therefore there is no proof
The sky is observed to appear blue. Do you have such observation of god? If not your statement is illogical
Why does it bother you so much if someone claim to be an atheist? Does He not have a right to claim that he does not find a proof of God, as you have a right to claim you can prove God exit?Look at my file above.
Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
It is not logical, the same level of dishonesty has this sentence:
``I am atheist because the sky is blue." He would demonstrate a reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God does not exist."
If you could go back though, you could. If something is there, you will be able to prove he/she was there. So your example is poor.You can't prove a negative.
Such as, you cannot disprove the murderous shadow stalker in your room, watching your every move, waiting until you are at your most comfortable and secure before killing you. You cannot prove that is bullocks and doesn't exist.
No, atheism is the null hypothesis. When it comes to believing something one should believe after sufficient evidence of the claim is presented.Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
It is not logical, the same level of dishonesty has this sentence:
``I am atheist because the sky is blue." He would demonstrate a reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God does not exist."
I don't believe Dawkins ever used those words. I think the quote has been made up or tampered with.Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
It is not logical, the same level of dishonesty has this sentence:
``I am atheist because the sky is blue." He would demonstrate a reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God does not exist."
This is the film that Dawkins was duped into being in ...Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
It is not logical, the same level of dishonesty has this sentence:
``I am atheist because the sky is blue." He would demonstrate a reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God does not exist."
No. Because there are no scientific ways of proof.Maybe he has not found any proof that he him self can accept as a proof of Gods existance?
Can God be proven 100% by use of scientific ways of proof?
No, atheism is the null hypothesis. When it comes to believing something one should believe after sufficient evidence of the claim is presented.
I learned something new Thank you @exchemistNo. Because there are no scientific ways of proof.
Science does not deal in proofs at all. It deals in evidence and in models of nature. Not proofs.
I would say that he is a "soft atheist". Atheists include those with just a lack of belief in a god. They do not have to say "there is no god".Dawkins, by his own words is not atheist
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...doesnt-exist/2012/02/24/gIQA7496XR_story.html
However he is correct in saying that "there is no proof that god exists". If you think that statement is incorrect then please provide evidence
When one tries to "read between the lines" they are usually trying to create a false narrative.Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
First of all, it is incomplete. Let us read between the lines:
``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted] proof that God exists and I want
to be atheist." He would demonstrate an un-emotional reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God
does not exist."
When one tries to "read between the lines" they are usually trying to create a false narrative.
And he was speaking informally. So one needs to let him get away with some terminology.
Properly speaking one would say "I am an atheist because there is no reliable evidence for God". He was not asking for a "globally accepted proof" that is your false narrative.
You are making the error of shifting the burden of proof, which only demonstrates that Dawkins was right. Atheists do not have the burden of proof, theists do.
I'd give up on a career in logic, if I were you...Proof of Theism:
1. atheism can be strong or weak. Thus, if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.
2. Strong Atheism is not logical.
3. Thus, theism is proven.
And this is false as well. You also take on a huge burden of proof. How do you know that atheists did not God a chance? Most have. Honest people do not believe until sufficient evidence has been provided. All you do with this sort of argument is demonstrate that Dawkins was right. Why not do what you theists should have done a long time ago. Find valid evidence for a God.If you don't give God nor his Messengers nor any of their believers a chance to guide you and prove God, then blame yourself. If you hate believers so much that you reject all their reminders that prove God and his existence, blame no one, but yourself.
Yes, he is Atheist, because he doesn't see proofs for God. He is not the standard for humanity that we have to accept him as intelligent and honest to himself, neither is something we have to accept. This is while honesty radiates from the honest ones, and those who testify to God know God is a proof of himself.
But aside for being a proof for himself, his vision also is required and is a component that is part of who we are, we exist in his judgment and vision, and nothing with identity can exist with a reality other then God's perfect judgment or else would be false.
Yes, if theists can find evidence. The odds are that all you have are poor arguments filled with logical fallacies. But go ahead. What is the "proof" of God?If Theists have the burden to present proofs, then Atheists have the burden to listen to those proofs attentively. In my experience, Atheists tend to be stubborn, no matter how clear the signs and proof is, they will deny.
And this is false as well. You also take on a huge burden of proof. How do you know that atheists did not God a chance? Most have. Honest people do not believe until sufficient evidence has been provided. All you do with this sort of argument is demonstrate that Dawkins was right. Why not do what you theists should have done a long time ago. Find valid evidence for a God.
It is incomplete. Many respectful and valid theists say:Properly speaking one would say "I am an atheist because there is no reliable evidence for God".
Yes, if theists can find evidence. The odds are that all you have are poor arguments filled with logical fallacies. But go ahead. What is the "proof" of God?