What's Your Practice? And Does It Work In Theory?

The question is as stated in the thread title. I'd like to discuss theoretical proofs for atheism, and counter-proofs for God/Gods or Godlike aliens. I have some ideas but I don't really know. Enlighten me with your wisdom!

 

This is my theory and my practice:

Theory is 1% practice is 99%. It doesn't mean that theory is unimportant, it means that to understand the theory and to test the theory you have to get out of the armchair and practice it.

 

As far as I'm concerned, you can't have a "proof" for atheism, since it doesn't make a positive claim, its just a default state in the face of a lack of convincing evidence.

As for counter proofs, I suppose if we found the Higgs-boson and it had "very well done everyone! you have passed my test. Now we can all forget about those physical laws for a bit and have fun flying around. Yours sincerely, God." on it. And then we could all fly.

 

The preponderance of non existent Gods becomes evident when measured against all of the failed God proofs. Atheism must be the de facto conclusion, logically.

 

It wont be all the theistic scholars over the last 5000 years from all the worlds religions


It will be the buttheads here at hip forums that will finally find the answer

 

There Ain't No Problem Hip Forums "Buttheads" Can't Solve......



Cheers Glen.

 

i like invisible things.

i don't like when someone else tells me what to pretend about them,
when they have no reason to imagine they know any more about them,
then anyone else.

my practice? to appreciate the universal wonder of strangeness,
wherever, why ever and whenever, i experience it.

works for me.
as much as anything ever does.

the universe is what it is,
and its diversity works for me.

gods are cool, should the choose to exist.
the bullshit people come up with about them,
maybe not so much.

existence is open ended,
not limited by or what we think we know,

its just not limited by nor to
what people try to tell each other
what to think they know
about
the unknown either.

so reverence;
reverence for the strangeness of everything strange,
without all the bullshit of pretending anything good,
would have the slightest wish to be feared.

that anything godlike would have a damd thing to gain by being feared,
nor by rewarding hatred of anything either.

nor even be at war with anything,
nor so lack consideration as to require hierarchy.

that's a human failing, if that,
and at any rate not a god-like one at all.

gods are peaceful, loving and friendly,
if they exist at all,
otherwise they wouldn't be gods,
though of course other invisible things could exist too.

anything could.
but we don't have to make life be a problem about it.

 

How is that logical? Neither god(s) nor atheism can be "proven". The former is a matter of faith, which I take as a bet, consistent with the available evidence, such as it is. The latter, if it goes beyond mere lack of belief to make assertions about the non-existence of god(s) is pretty much the same.

 

Every atheist thinks they're correct as does every religious person.

The different folks are us pagans where only oneself is important. It doesn't phase a pagan what anyone believes in quite like it phases religious fanatics and atheists alike.

 

I don't need proof in order to be comfortable with my technically agnostic convictions. Agree with autophobe2e

 

You're illogical. Atheism LITERALLY requires "NO PROOF". Lack of belief in Gods should be a default logical state until God or Gods are proven. Not only is there no evidence for God, God makes no sense in the natural order of complexity observed to this date in our universe. Also, God answers no existential question: "why something?". "Because super something!". FAIL. Furthermore, all claims of God can be logically explained through human nature. People lie to each other to gain social advantages, people are delusional, people selectively believe what they want to suit their egos and desires.

 

When it comes to God, or the lack thereof, or whatever, I think of humans as teeny tiny ants who are too tiny to comprehend the world around them. Or maybe bacteria would be a better metaphor, we're like bacteria occupying a foreign body but we're too small to truly comprehend the body we're occupying.

 

Whose to say the entire universe isn't some gigantic neural network in which we're a single neuron. Atheism requires faith in the separateness of every person and their disconnectedness to anything larger than themselves.

 

WRONG!

How would you know what i think or feel about it? How would you know about what any atheist thinks....? ..one of those broad, assuming, holier than thou statements, it feels like.and why are you so concerned with what Atheists believe...., anyway?

Concern yourself with what you think and believe...What you believe in is no concern to me....as long as it does not interfere with my freedoms.

 

Awesome post, Themnax.

 

Goddess provides....

 

...Dude abides

 

You ignore the words "if it goes beyond mere lack of belief to make assertions about the non-existence of god(s)". S(h)e who asserts must prove. No belief requires "proof", defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth", unless assertions are made or we're involved in some kind of legal proceeding. It is entirely "logical" for rational decision makers to take action on the basis of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or substantial evidence. They do it all the time. If atheism were defined as simply a lack of belief in gods, as is the current fashion, instead of denial that there are gods, atheists would not have to "prove" anything either, or have any evidence at all. But there is no particular reason to accept atheism as a "default position" unless the theist or deist is making an assertion. It is quite obvious from your long history of anti-religious posting that you are not one who simply doesn't believe in gods, but instead are out to convince others not to believe, in which case you've assumed the burden of proof. Atheists, like theists, confront the great mysteries of the universe: why is there something instead of nothing? where did it all come from? how could life and DNA happen? what is consciousness? What accounts for the laws of science and the ordered complexity of the universe? So far, science has hypotheses bearing on these phenomena, but no real proof of anything. Some think that the universe "popped' into existence, that chemicals sloshing about in a primordial soup caused life, that brains produce consciousness, that the order of our particular universe is the luck of the draw among multiple universes, etc., but all of that is based on faith in equations on blackboards, unsupported by substantial evidence. They are "just so" stories that naturalists tell their children. All of these narratives can be explained as an attempt by humans to convince themselves that they can explain reality. The true "default position" would be agnosticism. But ithat seems so noncommital.

 

To Moonglow181: You're right. To each their own.

 

My beef with religion is an entirely different subject than my lack of belief in all Gods. Why I champion against religion is because it is an oppressive ancient crutch that hinders modern progress. The GOP republican climate change deniers are a prime example. Religion and ignorance go hand in hand.