Current Events > ''There is no proof necessary for denial'' is not a good argument from atheists

(+) Yeah! (+)

Or "the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim"

This is a great line to use in an internet argument, but it has no meaning. This is the exact reason why not everyone is an atheist. There is no proof of there being no god, and therefore people will naturally be inspired by things within the universe and/or see those things as proof for themselves for themselves that there is a god.

So while a debate consisting of

Atheist: "There is no proof of a god existing"
Religious person: "There is no proof of a god not existing"
Atheist: "The burden of proof is on you for making the original claim"

may be a rhetorical "win" for the atheist, nothing will result from this debate. If you think the world would be better if everyone was an atheist, this rebuttal is never going to make anyone an atheist. And the statement "there is no proof of a god not existing" is basically the reason why not everyone is going to be an atheist (as mentioned before, the reason why people are specifically religious is that they find proofs/evidence for themselves in whatever religion they believe in).

---

As I said to another user on CE, there is also no point in atheists trying to make more than a brief swipe of an argument against the existence of god because it has no impact on anyone or anything, even if the society isn't secular. There is nothing gained or lost from disbelief, and so inciting arguments from atheists as a believer makes you someone inciting belligerence in conversation.
As for your particular topic you've brought up with example - although the logic provided flows, the logic also misses of a host of alternate possibilities such as the existence of an evil god, or a chaotic god seeking confusion, or a silent god seeking silence, or large fantasy universes and the like. The described atheist's argument applies in every case, but the counterpoint you've clung to doesn't because it is presupposed on a particular type of god.
Have a good evening.

---

Forget proof, how about some evidence? I haven't even seen that yet.

Also, no proof or evidence is a good argument. I could say there is an invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky, would you believe me just because you can't prove said taco doesn't exist?

There's an inherent problem with an argument that has no definitive proof for or against, so most people trying to participate in it is usually just trying to feel better than you.

seems like believers will never understand that lack of evidence is in fact a good reason to not believe in something

"but... just THINK ABOUT IT! Really hard! It must be true!"

But there's no *evidence*

---

are there atheists that actually try to argue against the existence of a god without first being confronted over why they dont believe in god?

---

People saying that there is no proof that magic doesn't exist is always amusing to me.

My battle tested doctor approved approach to debating religion is that I typically dont give a crap about anyone's religious beliefs or lack thereof, and it would be super swell if that was a lot more common

---

MKScorpion posted...

Forget proof, how about some evidence? I haven't even seen that yet.

Also, no proof or evidence is a good argument. I could say there is an invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky, would you believe me just because you can't prove said taco doesn't exist?

The reason people are specifically religious (rather than just "theists") is because they've read, for example, a particular religious book and that was evidence enough for them to believe in that religion. And on top of that, no one is actually certain about anything theology-related which is why faith is considered a virtue is essentially every religion.

So what was evidence for one person to become religious may not be evidence for you to become religious, comparing this evidence to an "invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky" is not a compelling or really even a respectful argument.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The reason people are specifically religious (rather than just "theists") is because they've read, for example, a particular religious book and that was evidence enough for them to believe in that religion.

You can't be serious with this shit.

You have never been in a formal debate before have you? Claiming that the burden of proof isn't on the person making a claim will get you laughed out of the room.

The whole "but you can't prove God doesn't exist!" is just an arguement used by extremist Christians that want to push their beliefs on everyone else. Or just those that don't want to admit they are wrong. Prove there isn't an invisible purple dragon behind you right now. You can't, and you will never be able to. Its a stupid argument that anyone with the slightest amount of common sense sees right through.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The reason people are specifically religious (rather than just "theists") is because they've read, for example, a particular religious book and that was evidence enough for them to believe in that religion. And on top of that, no one is actually certain about anything theology-related which is why faith is considered a virtue is essentially every religion.

So what was evidence for one person to become religious may not be evidence for you to become religious, comparing this evidence to an "invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky" is not a compelling or really even a respectful argument.

Except it is.... both have no empirical evidence of their existence.

---

The problem is that the default setting for most people isn't "I'll believe it when I see it."

If someone told me Pokemon actually existed in the real world, I wouldn't believe you until I saw one for myself.

---

Well, Prove to me 12 foot tall ants don't exist. you can't, therefore they are real.

---

Oh look its this topic again

---

MKScorpion posted...

Forget proof, how about some evidence? I haven't even seen that yet.

Also, no proof or evidence is a good argument. I could say there is an invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky, would you believe me just because you can't prove said taco doesn't exist?

Religious people will always tell you there is plenty of evidence. The problem is their idea of evidence isn't scientific. They cite their "feelings" like sensing God. Or cite the Bible. Because they think its a historical document. You can't win when you get into that kind of debate with religious people

Trying to get someone else to give evidence for your point would get you laughed at and you considered the idiot you are in any standard debate/stance.

The same with using feelings to prove god exists. Feelings might be important to you, but as empirical evidence they don't really mean much. Flat earthers feel the world is flat. Ancient civilisations felt their gods existed and so on.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Or "the burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim"

This is a great line to use in an internet argument, but it has no meaning. This is the exact reason why not everyone is an atheist. There is no proof of there being no god, and therefore people will naturally be inspired by things within the universe and/or see those things as proof for themselves for themselves that there is a god.

So while a debate consisting of

Atheist: "There is no proof of a god existing"
Religious person: "There is no proof of a god not existing"
Atheist: "The burden of proof is on you for making the original claim"

may be a rhetorical "win" for the atheist, nothing will result from this debate. If you think the world would be better if everyone was an atheist, this rebuttal is never going to make anyone an atheist. And the statement "there is no proof of a god not existing" is basically the reason why not everyone is going to be an atheist (as mentioned before, the reason why people are specifically religious is that they find proofs/evidence for themselves in whatever religion they believe in).

It's not so much the burden of proof belonging to the one making the claim but rather, if the claim is nearly impossible to falsify, proof needs to be provided with that claim.

The classic example. I say there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, between the orbits of Earth and Mars. It could be there or could not be there but my demanding you to prove me wrong is a fairly impossible task thus it's my responsibility to show the evidence I've seen that led me to the conclusion that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun.

Nothing even supernatural about it. Hell we have the technology to put a teapot there if we really wanted to although they did not when this problem was invented.

---

Zikten posted...

The problem is their idea of evidence isn't scientific. They cite their "feelings" like sensing God.

Faith can be found not only in the heart, but also in the mind. The existence of God can be explained as naturally as our hunger for food: Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such thing as food. Why do we yearn for something more? Because something More does exist:

Part I
If there is a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves. Surely this ought to arouse suspicions?

Part II
My argument against God (when I was an atheist) was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some ideal of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?....If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark.

---

Gamerguymass posted...

The whole "but you can't prove God doesn't exist!" is just an arguement used by extremist Christians that want to push their beliefs on everyone else.

You seriously say this (which is an insult in itself) while insulting my intelligence throughout your entire post.

I don't care what you believe. I can tell you about the religion I believe in and if you don't agree, that's on you. Specifically talking about belief and God, no one actually knows what is true. All we can do is gather evidence and make assumptions. You may see this evidence and assume there is no god, but many see this evidence and attribute it to a god. And of course many will basically just deny the evidence or call it trickery.

No one is ever going to prove or disprove the existence of God (any evidence you give of there being no God could easily be attributed to the power of God), so the existence of God is never going to decided from a debate. Comparing the existence of God to a flying taco or a purple dragon is just you being insulting and disrespectful more than anything.

---

the whole point of faith is that you believe without proof. it's dumb that people try to talk about this in objective terms like it's science or something

---

believe thing i say

"why"

because what else is there

"oh ok"


---

ledbowman posted...

the whole point of faith is that you believe without proof. it's dumb that people try to talk about this in objective terms like it's science or something

that's all good and well, but when you start to attempt to influence all of public relations pertaining to laws and how things are run, it needs to be defined as a science, not as faith. Feel free to have faith all you want. the moment you attempt to impose a law that affects me and others who may not hold that faith, it needs to be scrutinized under a scientific lens.

---

ledbowman posted...

the whole point of faith is that you believe without proof. it's dumb that people try to talk about this in objective terms like it's science or something

Despite this, people try to dispel faith as if it was science. And faith isn't just a guess. People have faith in different things because they've read different things or seen different things, etc. People's differing personalities are probably a big reason why different people approach faith differently as well.

I'm not trying to argue that God exists in this topic. I'm simply trying to say that atheists' arguments that God doesn't exist are pointless for various reasons.

---

It's why I'm agnostic, because ultimately it all boils down to "your guess is as good as mine" as well as the fact that I wouldn't personally care which side ended up right because it would have no affect on how I go about my life.
---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Despite this, people try to dispel faith as if it was science. And faith isn't just a guess. People have faith in different things because they've read different things or seen different things, etc. People's differing personalities are probably a big reason why different people approach faith differently as well.

I'm not trying to argue that God exists in this topic. I'm simply trying to say that atheists' arguments that God doesn't exist are pointless for various reasons.

You saying arguments are pointless isn't the same thing as the arguments actually being pointless.

---

The more we learn about the world and universe around us, the less we need God as an explanation for anything. Reality lies way too heavily on probability, when we uncover the details of things. The more we learn about the universe, the smaller God's role gets.
As a biologist, I'll use adaptive immunity as an example.
It's cool how we develop antibodies against specific pathogens isn't it? It seems as though our cells have designed the antibody just for that very invader! How does it know?
Well, long story short, you're constantly producing B cells that you'll never use. These cells would produce random antibodies, most of them not matching anything. Some of them happen to match up to a given pathogen though, just by chance. This is possible because of the limited number of amino acids and limited ways to arrange then into antibodies. It works for us but its a vastly inefficient way of doing it.
Though, that's the way biology tends to work. There are a small number of survivors that are effective at doing what they do, compared to the large pile of dead failed attempts.
If an intelligent creator exists, he's got a boner for death. Lol

---

As an atheist, what bothers me is that the existence of a "God" necessitates it existing outside the realms of science. Asking for proof on that is ridiculous. I have no proof of thing existing outside the laws of science NOT existing as much as you have proof OF it.

You can't ask me to disprove with science something that exists outside of it.

---

Gamerguymass posted...

You have never been in a formal debate before have you? Claiming that the burden of proof isn't on the person making a claim will get you laughed out of the room.

Tbf, this is the only point that TC is right on. OUTSIDE of a formal debate, burden of proof is different because the two people don't usually have the same objective in the conversation. If I'm trying to change my parents' political views, all of the burden lies on me because their "objective" is to keep their held beliefs.

If you're an atheist trying to convince someone their religion isn't real, saying "You actually need to prove to me it IS real" isn't going to do anything for you, because unless they're also trying to convert you, they don't need to justify their beliefs to themselves.


---

Tyranthraxus posted...

You saying arguments are pointless isn't the same thing as the arguments actually being pointless.

Pointless in the sense that you can say "there is probably is no God because of x y and z" and it wouldn't affect me at all. Just like if I said "I believe in God because of a b and c" and it wouldn't affect you at all.

Not to mention that regardless of the existence of different gods, each religion, its writings, and its teachings stands on its own. You can live your life as a Buddhist or following Jesus or following the Quran and it wouldn't matter whether the claims of these religions/people/books are true. In particular, following Jesus isn't really any different practically than following Socrates and following the Quran isn't really any different practically than following the writings of some philosopher.

---

I find it weird that people need a god to tell them to be good.

---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Well, Prove to me 12 foot tall ants don't exist. you can't, therefore they are real.

Why would you be inclined to believe that they exist at all if you've never seen them?

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Pointless in the sense that you can say "there is probably is no God because of x y and z" and it wouldn't affect me at all. Just like if I said "I believe in God because of a b and c" and it wouldn't affect you at all.

Not to mention that regardless of the existence of different gods, each religion, its writings, and its teachings stands on its own. You can live your life as a Buddhist or following Jesus or following the Quran and it wouldn't matter whether the claims of these religions/people/books are true. In particular, following Jesus isn't really any different practically than following Socrates and following the Quran isn't really any different practically than following the writings of some philosopher.

That really only means the act of arguing with you specifically is pointless. Burden of proof is an extremely important point for many claims, not just ones about God.

---

Agreed TC.

As a Christian, I will flat out admit that Agnosticism makes the most sense out of the three, with atheism and theism being two sides of the same coin. Declaring yourself as atheist, you're declaring there is no God, which in and of itself requires some form of evidence, because contrary to what gets parroted fucking constantly, you can in fact prove a negative statement. And in that same breath, making the claim that no God exists is almost as grand of a concept as claiming that there is one. So honestly, the two are pretty damn close to one another.

I feel like a lot of people who aren't into religion would fall into the Agnostic camp, but just don't really grasp the idea of it. So instead they erroneously identify as atheist.

---

LostForest posted...

Declaring yourself as atheist, you're declaring there is no God, which in and of itself requires some form of evidence, because contrary to what gets parroted fucking constantly, you can in fact prove a negative statement.

No it doesn't require evidence, and no amount of people claiming this makes it so.

We simply believe nothing shows that a deity exists, just like nothing shows the flying spaghetti monster exists. It is the lack of evidence that supports our belief, and faith requires you to believe despite a lack of evidence or it wouldn't be faith. It'd be a scientific fact.

---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

You can't ask me to disprove with science something that exists outside of it.

well said. they're asking for something that is literally impossible as a big "gotcha!" trap

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That really only means the act of arguing with you specifically is pointless. Burden of proof is an extremely important point for many claims, not just ones about God.

And those claims are not the same as claims about God's existence.

Whether God exists or not is not something that is provable, so to act like it is misrepresenting the question.

---

Funkydog posted...

No it doesn't require evidence, and no amount of people claiming this makes it so.

We simply believe nothing shows that a deity exists, just like nothing shows the flying spaghetti monster exists. It is the lack of evidence that supports our belief, and faith requires you to believe despite a lack of evidence or it wouldn't be faith. It'd be a scientific fact.

The problem with comparing God VS a spaghetti monster is that a godlike figure, or lack thereof, carries certain grand-scale implications about the universe. A spaghetti monster doesn't.

---

LostForest posted...

The problem with comparing God VS a spaghetti monster is that a godlike figure, or lack thereof, carries certain grand-scale implications about the universe. A spaghetti monster doesn't.

The great 'Ghetti as we faithful like to affectionately call him believe that he created the universe from his pastary goodnees and from the broth of his sauce brothed life into us all. Please prove he didn't.

---

Funkydog posted...

The great 'Ghetti as we faithful like to affectionately call him believe that he created the universe from his pastary goodnees and from the broth of his sauce brothed life into us all. Please prove he didn't.

He also sent his son, meatball, to die for all of our sins, like putting ketchup and mayonnaise on a hot dog.

---

LostForest posted...

Agreed TC.

As a Christian, I will flat out admit that Agnosticism makes the most sense out of the three, with atheism and theism being two sides of the same coin. Declaring yourself as atheist, you're declaring there is no God, which in and of itself requires some form of evidence, because contrary to what gets parroted fucking constantly, you can in fact prove a negative statement. And in that same breath, making the claim that no God exists is almost as grand of a concept as claiming that there is one. So honestly, the two are pretty damn close to one another.

I feel like a lot of people who aren't into religion would fall into the Agnostic camp, but just don't really grasp the idea of it. So instead they erroneously identify as atheist.

Nearly everything you said here is wrong. Atheism does not require a claim. As post #5 already pointed out, theist seem to have a hard time understanding that.

---

MKScorpion posted...

I could say there is an invisible ice cream shitting taco in the sky, would you believe me just because you can't prove said taco doesn't exist?

Of course I believe you. Isnt that what clouds are?

---

Its impossible to prove there is no God, so all atheists can do is take any claims theists have and reason whether it makes sense or not. What do you expect them to do?

---

OP needs to look up what a strawman fallacy is, as the entire premise of the topic is one.

---

Bananana posted...

Its impossible to prove there is no God, so all atheists can do is take any claims theists have and reason whether it makes sense or not. What do you expect them to do?

This is why so many online atheists are also antitheists.

Or that may be a bad way of putting it because there are probably a lot of online atheists who never talk about religion.

---

It's also not really necessary since they are coming at things from two different angles.

For Theists the whole point IS faith without proof. That is what faith means. Atheists (usually) come at the complexities of the universe from a scientific point of view where proof is literally all that matters. Proof or at least some sort of evidence.

They are opposing views on the universe.

---

Still don't get how people can't seem to grasp that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God or other deities. That is all there is to it. Most atheists are agnostic, so labeling yourself as just agnostic in an attempt to distance yourself from either "side" is kind of pointless. And obviously not all atheists are antitheist or anti-religion either.

---

You can't prove that invisible unicorns don't provide the world with electricity. Both sides are equally plausible

---

hockeybub89 posted...

You can't prove that invisible unicorns don't provide the world with electricity. Both sides are equally plausible

This and every argument like it is so disingenuous. It totally ignores the fact that essentially every religion has so much knowledge behind it and developed from it that it would be impossible to learn it all in one lifetime.

So again, regardless of whether religions' claims are true or not, the religions do stand on their own.

---

LostForest posted...

The problem with comparing God VS a spaghetti monster is that a godlike figure, or lack thereof, carries certain grand-scale implications about the universe. A spaghetti monster doesn't.

No. The problem is your flawed human awareness and understanding. You are severely underestimating the power, love and ultimate knowledge held by Flying Spaghetti Monster. Since you can not prove Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist, please dont be disrespectful.

---