Atheists and Theists, can we agree on one thing?

Question

I constantly see questions from both Atheists and Theists asking each other to offer "proof" of either the non-existence or existence of God.

Neither position can be definitively proven. Theists cannot provide incontrovertible evidence for the existence of God. On the other hand, Atheists can't provide similar evidence that God doesn't exist. In each case, it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

Both sides seem to commit the same logical fallacy. Lack of evidence for either position is not definitive proof that the other side is right.

Lack of evidence for a positive does not mean that the negative is therefore true.

Lack of evidence of a negative does not mean that the positive is therefore true.

Can we agree on this?

Answer 1

Excellent points.  It is nice to see someone actually follow the claims of evidence and logic, instead of just making them.

Lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.  It may equate to "no reason to believe" but does not equate to non-existence.

Answer 2

This is true and I can agree on this with you. I am a Christian. I believe in God, but more so because of my instincts not because of what pastors tell me. The Bible also helps.  

Answer 3

No!  Existance came out of nowhere cuz it did!  FACT!

Everyone logical knows that!

I'm Atheist!

Answer 4

There is absolutely no logical fallacy involved with the fact that I lack belief in gods.  

Answer 5

Why must a lack of understanding on our part automatically default to magic and superstition.   Has humanity not learned yet the something unexplainable is something not yet fully researched?

Why must the burden of proof of a god existence rest on the atheists when the concept of god is a result of religious imagination.  It is up to those who believe in a god to prove his existence if they wish the rest of us to follow. This would normally be a non-issue but religion has a bad habit of infringing on other people's rights.

Non-believers can explain the world through logic.  We have evidence.  Religion has no evidence other than a book of stories.

Answer 6

"Sorry PatriotH, but I must respectfully disagree. Knowledge is based on fact. If all you have is conjecture, then all you have is belief."

Sorry, but that's almost entirely false.

Our knowledge of the world around us is based on the state of the available evidence. If you insist that something is only "knowledge" if it has been proven to be true, then you're stuck saying that we have no knowledge whatsoever outside of mathematics and logic. That means that (by your standards/definitions), we don't know what causes daylight or rain, or if pregnancy is caused by sexual activity, or if wood burns... Hence your standards/definitions are reduced to an absurdity.

You also seem to think that we can sort our beliefs into those that are just beliefs and those that are knowledge. That's also false, unless, again, you mean that we have knowledge of mathematics and logic, and everything else is just belief.

Finally, you seem totally unaware of the nature of the burden of proof (or more properly, the "burden of evidence"). You're treating "there is a god" and "there are no gods" as though each is equally in need of evidential support, but that is, of course, not true.

Answer 7

I agree with your assumptions up to a point. Of course no one can know everything, so we cannot "prove" things 100%. On the other hand, we can apply common sense and judge the probability of a claim someone makes. If I cannot prove a positive or a negative, this does not mean that the probability of positive or negative is equal.

And then, there are some things that can be actually proven. If someone makes a claim that is self-contradictive, I can prove this claim wrong by pointing out the contradiction. To apply logic must be always allowed.

Answer 8

Nope. Lee Strobel has a great book called "The Case for Jesus" that pretty much lays out the truth. Jesus Christ did exist and did lead us to heaven.  

Answer 9

Basic logic - an affirmative assertion has to be supported by sufficient evidence to validate it, or the default position is its opposite.

Affirmative assertion - there is a god.

Evidence to validate it - none

Default position - no there isn't.

Answer 10

I agree.

Answer 11

Yes, we can agreed on one subject, The atheists is wrong to say there no God, & the Christain is right to say there is a God. BTW, I don't have to prove God, he can do that himself, But I can also pove there is only the ONE TRUE GOD, just looking at nature.-----That is what i said, Do you need any interpretation to that statement.

Answer 12

So, will you carry this a step further and agree that the origin theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether God exists?  If so, then I agree with you and have actually been saying this for some time.  I would have to search, but I think Einstein said it.

Answer 13

No, onus of proof is on the positive assertion, theists insist on there being a deity it's up to them to show why.

From an anthropological point, we have alot of evidence that shows the evolution of the Abrahamic god from a polytheistic beginning through henoism to his present monotheistic state. In other words we can see man inventing him.  

Answer 14

WHICH IS WHY I AM AGNOSTIC. like all of you numnuts should be. or part agnostic part something else.

Answer 15

lack of evidence- he doesnt exist

Answer 16

Agreed.

Answer 17

This would make sense, except for one thing. Logically, if there were a "God" like the one described by most theists - the biblical god, e.g. - this deity would make his presence known absolutely in clear communication with his creations. It's inconceivable that the creator god, omnipotent and all-knowing, would play a guessing game of blind faith with its creations, the losers of which would spend eternity in h**l.  

Answer 18

But the balance of probability is totally different.

What is the likelihood of the tooth fairy existing?

What is the likelihood she doesn't?

It would be simple to prove the existence of god. All he need do is show up.

All the myths and stories surrounding the god, according to the book which is supposed to give testament to his existence (the bible) have been proven false- Instant creation, the flood, the red sea parting and so on.

As this is supposed to be the evidence for his existence, and it is false, ergo, god also is false.

Answer 19

Yes, I agree with you. I do not see atheism as any more than a belief, and I hate it when theists say that we claim to "know" that there is no God - of course we don't know that, but the lack of proof leads us to believe that there probably isn't a God.

Answer 20

I can absolutely agree.  

I wish we could go one step further and get everyone to agree that there is a difference between things that are amenable to being called knowledge or science - i.e. ARE amenable to being proved or disproved - and things that aren't, such as belief in God.  Then we could perhaps stop having this idiotic argument about creationism and the theory of evolution as if they were in the same realm of existence.  The basic premise underlying the theory of evolution is that of science, that a theory is open to testing and disproof.  Therefore it is not something one 'believes' in, but something one 'accepts', i.e. accepting that the scientific evidence to date supports the theory but also accepting that later evidence might call into question and demand a new theory to fit the facts.

EDIT:  Ruth - exactly.  Belief in God, on the one hand, and theories of evolution or the origins of the universe, on the other, are not in the same arena, are not the same sort of 'understanding'.  If only everyone could get hold of that basic comprehension, we could have more interesting discussions.  It is completely possible to believe in God AND accept evolution and cosmological theories.  In fact, most European Christians do exactly that, without any sense of difficulty.

Answer 21

The only problem I see with your logic is that as atheist, we can't really 'prove' a negative.  In the same way we can't "prove" there is no Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot.  Proving a negative is much different and in some cases impossible.

Answer 22

"On the other hand, Atheists can't provide similar evidence that God doesn't exist. In each case, it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

Both sides seem to commit the same logical fallacy. Lack of evidence for either position is not definitive proof that the other side is right."

Sorry, but you're the one with the logical fallacy. Definitive proof is not required for knowledge - if it were, we'd know essentially nothing about the world around us.

If you have a hard time seeing that, replace "belief in god" with "belief that the entire United States is purple" in your argument, and it should become pretty clear.

=================

"Knowledge is based on fact. If all you have is conjecture, then all you have is belief"

You're confusing belief with reality, and you seem to be entirely unaware of how science works. Take a statistics course.

As for the second sentence, it doesn't apply to atheists. We're not the ones making conjectures. We're the ones accepting the state of the evidence with respect to the existence of gods.

Answer 23

Most theists and atheists agree that all gods (except the one that the theist believes in) do not exist. Atheists believe in only one less god than the theist. So theists and atheists actually have a lot in common in that they reject a lot of gods.

This quote by Stephen Roberts sums this up quite nicely:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Answer 24

We have the evidence to prove the nonexistence of the anthropomorphic judeo-christian god, so we do just that. But, being logical, we don't try to deny anything we can't prove the absence of.

Answer 25

Strictly speaking, you are correct. Theists certainly cannot offer proof that any god exists, and atheists cannot offer incontrovertible proof that no god exists. However, that does not mean that we cannot safely assume that no god exists. We know that there is no evidence for any god. We also know that early humans created stories of gods to explain the natural world. We know that later religious books were written by humans. Knowing all of this, we can very easily put god it the same category as any number of mythological and fictional beings which, while we cannot explicitly disprove their existence, we can also safely say do not exist.

Answer 26

You have chosen to preach to a stone wall. I say this, in an abbreviated form, every time someone starts talking about proof. Most people have no idea what real empirical proof is, or how incredibly hard it is to come by. I recall in college taking a research methods and design class, and on the first day the professor said, "You'll never prove anything with the skills you will learn this semester."  

Answer 27

hmmmm ..... how should I put it ...... ok .... we shall put it this way :

Theist = People agnostic with the existence of god but chose to believe in it.

Atheist = People agnostic with the existence of god, therefore chose to disbelieve in it.

People who call themselves agnostic = atheists without balls.

Agree?

Answer 28

Yes, there is no way you can prove or disprove God. That's why we have the faith thingee.

I appreciate your effort, but atheists will still continue to try to prove God doesn't exist and will not cease trying to convert my kind, even though we don't want to be.

Answer 29

I agree. We both need faith after the evidence ends

Answer 30

You have a good argument.  Unfortunately, I don't think too many people are going to listen to you.  For some, they have too much invested in their own point of view, and for others, it's simply a matter of entertainment.  Either way, they're not going to stop arguing.

Sadly, you have probably hit on the one concrete statement that can be made in this section.

Answer 31

The judeo-christian god is just a character created for a book of fairy tales.  These stories have little historical basis, and no awareness of science, physics, astronomy or geology.

Nothing from their fairy tales can be taken as factual, just as nothing from Grimm's fairy tales can be taken as factual.

So there is absolutely no basis for beleiving in God - just as there is no basis for beleiving in the easter bunny or tooth fairy.