[Bishy786]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
poor way to admit you're wrong...

I just couldn't understand what you were saying.

[max.d.cox]

(Original post by Bishy786)
Improve your spelling dude.

Do you not understand what he has written; "dude"?

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by Camel)
Imagine there's a box. I say there's an apple inside, but you disagree. You can prove me wrong by opening the box and showing me there is no apple.

So don't tell me you can't prove a negative.

this is sooo true

the only reason nobody can disprove a higher power is because it is not of the physical realm not because it is a negative

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
this is sooo true

the only reason nobody can disprove a higher power is because it is not of the physical realm not because it is a negative

Or maybe because somebody needs to prove the existence of a deity first?

[Bishy786]

(Original post by max.d.cox)
Do you not understand what he has written; "dude"?

No.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
this is sooo true

the only reason nobody can disprove a higher power is because it is not of the physical realm not because it is a negative

Camel's thought experiment is misleading because all you prove is that the apple is not in the box - you don't prove that there is no apple.

You cannot prove empirically that a deity doesn't exist because there will always be somewhere you haven't looked yet. To prove definitively that something does not exist it would be necessary to simultaneously observe everything in the universe.

But we can say that it's vanishingly unlikely.

[sugar-n-spice]

(Original post by mmmpie)
Camel's thought experiment is misleading because all you prove is that the apple is not in the box - you don't prove that there is no apple.

You cannot prove empirically that a deity doesn't exist because there will always be somewhere you haven't looked yet. To prove definitively that something does not exist it would be necessary to simultaneously observe everything in the universe.

But we can say that it's vanishingly unlikely.

true, but you cant observe the metaphysical anyways using physical implements so you can prove these things dont exist.

[mmmpie]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
true, but you cant observe the metaphysical anyways using physical implements so you can prove these things dont exist.

No, but I think it suffices to point out that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they do exist - just as there is no reason to suppose that a giant immortal bunny lives in the centre of the Earth and earthquakes happen when it hiccups.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by sugar-n-spice)
true, but you cant observe the metaphysical anyways using physical implements so you can prove these things dont exist.

No, you can't prove their existence either way. There's no evidence for the existence of God/Thor/FSM/whoever else or to suggest they don't exist.
However there is evidence for evolution, for dinosaurs, for the age of the earth and universe, which goes against the whole creation theory & scriptures covering from the beginning of time onwards. That is possibly proof that religion might just be a bit of a crock of ****.
So - no proof for the existence, or lack of existence, of God, but proof that the system through which They are revealed to us is built on lies. Seems reason enough to dismiss his existence, if there's no proof of something existing, it doesn't need proof to be dismissed as not existing.

[max.d.cox]

(Original post by Alofleicester)
No, you can't prove their existence either way. There's no evidence for the existence of God/Thor/FSM/whoever else or to suggest they don't exist.
However there is evidence for evolution, for dinosaurs, for the age of the earth and universe, which goes against the whole creation theory & scriptures covering from the beginning of time onwards. That is possibly proof that religion might just be a bit of a crock of ****.
So - no proof for the existence, or lack of existence, of God, but proof that the system through which They are revealed to us is built on lies. Seems reason enough to dismiss his existence, if there's no proof of something existing, it doesn't need proof to be dismissed as not existing.

Couldnt agree with you more!

[abc:)]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

If someone was in court, telling you they weren't present at the scene of a crime, and you told them 'prove it' and they couldn't, you wouldn't arrest them on that basis.
This is the same principle. You have to prove something DID happen, or someone WAS somewhere, or that something DOES exist. Like God.

[mariachi]

(Original post by abc:))
If someone was in court, telling you they weren't present at the scene of a crime, and you told them 'prove it' and they couldn't, you wouldn't arrest them on that basis.
This is the same principle. You have to prove something DID happen, or someone WAS somewhere, or that something DOES exist. Like God.

the problem is not so much in people believing in the most outlandish, gratuitous idiocies for which no proof can be produced -

it's in them labeling everyone who does not share in their beliefs as "evil unbelievers" and in trying to impose those beliefs on society as a whole

[abc:)]

(Original post by mariachi)
the problem is not so much in people believing in the most outlandish, gratuitous idiocies for which no proof can be produced -

it's in them labeling everyone who does not share in their beliefs as "evil unbelievers" and in trying to impose those beliefs on society as a whole

I agree this is the real problem but my post was more just answering the question 'why dont atheists believe' and for me personally, it is because there is no evidence