Why do people believe you need evidence to disprove a god?

The logic is really simple here: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" If you made the claim the world is ending tomorrow it would be up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove you. The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, why is this so hard for some people to grasp? Your claim is worthless and pointless if you cant support it with evidence, so why do I see so many religious people asking for Atheists to disprove their beliefs?

Because God means a lot to them one way or another, and it isnt easy for them to admit the possibility he is just like flying unicorns, giant teapots etc, the only difference being his/her/it's greater plausibility, which is only true based on standards of human psychology, not science.

That's my take.

Because God means a lot to them one way or another, and it isnt easy for them to admit the possibility he is just like flying unicorns, giant teapots etc, the only difference being his/her/it's greater plausibility, which is only true based on standards of human psychology, not science.

That's my take.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Because God means a lot to them one way or another, and it isnt easy for them to admit the possibility he is just like flying unicorns, giant teapots etc, the only difference being his/her/it's greater plausibility, which is only true based on standards of human psychology, not science.

That's my take.

BiancaDK

Perhaps the way God is important to them is such that doesnt even "allow" them to rationally think of the merits of those arguments? In this case there is no perceived inconvenient truth, just someone threatening their worldview, whether its with lies or truth; that probably doesnt matter since I dont think its evaluated before its rejected.

Because events in their life have happened that led them to believe that it's not just coincidence?
Because as far as they're concerned, they've got all the proof they need for a deity's existence?
Because there's no reason not to?
Because they're idiots.
Because they're not idiots.

Any of the above.

Because some people need to believe that there is more to life, that someone is there to help them, and that there will be justice for those who do wrong in this world. The cold hard truth that we are alone and that this life is it. That is just incomprehensible and too painful of a thought for many people.

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Because God means a lot to them one way or another, and it isnt easy for them to admit the possibility he is just like flying unicorns, giant teapots etc, the only difference being his/her/it's greater plausibility, which is only true based on standards of human psychology, not science.

That's my take.

Teenaged

Perhaps the way God is important to them is such that doesnt even "allow" them to rationally think of the merits of those arguments? In this case there is no perceived inconvenient truth, just someone threatening their worldview, whether its with lies or truth; that probably doesnt matter since I dont think its evaluated before its rejected.

there we go, that was beautiful and i agree with you now

The cold hard truth that we are alone and that this life is it.junglist101

It's not a truth. It's an educated guess at best. Anything else is just conjecture and theory unless you've actually died for yourself.

Because some people need to believe that there is more to life, that someone is there to help them, and that there will be justice for those who do wrong in this world. The cold hard truth that we are alone and that this life is it. That is just incomprehensible and too painful of a thought for many people.

junglist101

because that's how science works.

because that's how science works.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because that's how science works.

SuperKaio-ken

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because that's how science works.

th3warr1or

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because that's how science works.

th3warr1or

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because that's how science works.

th3warr1or

The problem with this is that some religious people think the various holy books are science textbooks, this is why conflict occurs.

I'm not really talking to much about religion here, for example you can prove that religion exists and you don't need religion to believe in god. I'm really trying to not be science specific here, I'm simply saying that if you cant support ANY claim you make with evidence than there is no good reason to believe in your claim, and no reason as to why anybody else should have to disprove your claim either.

SuperKaio-ken

Surely there are various qualities, sources and amounts of evidence. In your "world ending tomorrow" scenareo, I might supply some old calender from an ancient race that goes all the way up to today, but has no tomorrow on it. That evidence might be good enough for some to believe in doomsday and revel in their panic, but it might cause others to investigate the ancient race for more information about why their calender stopped today.

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

Asim90

For example, an opposing argument towards yours would be

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. Somethings exist.

3. The things that currently exist could not have come from not existing.

4. Therefore, the things that currently exist have never not existed.

5. Therefore, everything that exists has always existed.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because that's how science works.

SuperKaio-ken

science doesn't deal with proving or disproving god, it has more productive. less impossible things to do,

stop trying to debate the undebatable.

the most you can accomplish with this thread is to upset and or anger a few people.

the only way this thread has any value is if your actually interested in what the opposing side has to say in order to expand your world view and understanding of the human psyche and maybe have a few good scholarly discussions along the way, but chances are that you aren't, and only want an opportunity to bash and insult people who happen to be religious and disagree with you, but hey I've been wrong before.

science doesn't deal with proving or disproving god, it has more productive. less impossible things to do,

stop trying to debate the undebatable.

the most you can accomplish with this thread is to upset and or anger a few people.

the only way this thread has any value is if your actually interested in what the opposing side has to say in order to expand your world view and understanding of the human psyche and maybe have a few good scholarly discussions along the way, but chances are that you aren't, and only want an opportunity to bash and insult people who happen to be religious and disagree with you, but hey I've been wrong before.

frannkzappa

But don't you believe in the Church of Appliantology, as founded byL. Ron Hoover?

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

Asim90

Science is for everyone - not just those annoying atheists. It's method and rigour deny favouritism and scientific conclusions can not be reasonably dismissed, even if they do conflict with religious ideas (i.e.Galileo, Bruno, ID, et al.)

You use an argument from authority to make your case for ID, which is a logical fallacy. The Scientific method doesn't rely on great historical scientists for it's acceptance - it is only a resiliant framework for discovery and has been driven to mass acceptance and adoption purely by the accurate results obtained from its method.

The nature of evolutionary theory and natural selection rather contradicts the idea of intelligent design, so there is limited scientific scope and evidence for that theory. If your final answer is that we are limited in understanding but your God is not, then don't you find that a highly unsatisfactory conclusion? How do you know that your God transcends space and time?

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

SuperKaio-ken

For example, an opposing argument towards yours would be

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. Somethings exist.

3. The things that currently exist could not have come from not existing.

4. Therefore, the things that currently exist have never not existed.

5. Therefore, everything that exists has always existed.

You're right, you don't make sense. I already addressed your numbered points if you read my post. This is something that humans will be stuggling with until the end of the universe, but me for, no greater purpose or design is a nonsensical idea.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

science doesn't deal with proving or disproving god, it has more productive. less impossible things to do,

stop trying to debate the undebatable.

the most you can accomplish with this thread is to upset and or anger a few people.

the only way this thread has any value is if your actually interested in what the opposing side has to say in order to expand your world view and understanding of the human psyche and maybe have a few good scholarly discussions along the way, but chances are that you aren't, and only want an opportunity to bash and insult people who happen to be religious and disagree with you, but hey I've been wrong before.

RationalAtheist

But don't you believe in the Church of Appliantology, as founded byL. Ron Hoover?

anybody who references joes garage goes on my list of cool people.

its a small list...gratz

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

RationalAtheist

The nature of evolutionary theory and natural selection rather contradicts the idea of intelligent design, so there is limited scientific scope and evidence for that theory.

Absolute nonsense. This is a very flawed debate among Atheists. Just because you can see an evolution, does not mean it was not designed that way. Among our creations you can see evolution, that doesn't mean they weren't designed. It may contradict your idea, but in reality it doesn't contradict it at all.

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

because that's how science works.

frannkzappa

science doesn't deal with proving or disproving god, it has more productive. less impossible things to do,

stop trying to debate the undebatable.

the most you can accomplish with this thread is to upset and or anger a few people.

the only way this thread has any value is if your actually interested in what the opposing side has to say in order to expand your world view and understanding of the human psyche and maybe have a few good scholarly discussions along the way, but chances are that you aren't, and only want an opportunity to bash and insult people who happen to be religious and disagree with you, but hey I've been wrong before.

anybody who references joes garage goes on my list of cool people.

its a small list...gratz

frannkzappa

Just remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over!

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

Asim90

For example, an opposing argument towards yours would be

1. Something cannot come from nothing.

2. Somethings exist.

3. The things that currently exist could not have come from not existing.

4. Therefore, the things that currently exist have never not existed.

5. Therefore, everything that exists has always existed.

You're right, you don't make sense. I already addressed your numbered points if you read my post. This is something that humans will be stuggling with until the end of the universe, but me for, no greater purpose or design is a nonsensical idea.

Absolute nonsense. This is a very flawed debate among Atheists. Just because you can see an evolution, does not mean it was not designed that way. Among our creations you can see evolution, that doesn't mean they weren't designed. It may contradict your idea, but in reality it doesn't contradict it at all.

Asim90

No - it is a debate from evolutionary scientists, based on verifiable evidence. It is how evolution works. Random mutation is the mechanism. The case for ID is expounded by the Discovery insitute, who are biased to skew results to their original assertions. That is most unscientific. How would you explain all the billions of extinct species using intelligent design?

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

Absolute nonsense. This is a very flawed debate among Atheists. Just because you can see an evolution, does not mean it was not designed that way. Among our creations you can see evolution, that doesn't mean they weren't designed. It may contradict your idea, but in reality it doesn't contradict it at all.

RationalAtheist

No - it is a debate from evolutionary scientists, based on verifiable evidence. It is how evolution works. Random mutation is the mechanism. The case for ID is expounded by the Discovery insitute, who are biased to skew results to their original assertions. That is most unscientific. How would you explain all the billions of extinct species using intelligent design?

Yes, it is a debate. It is not fact. Evolution simply does not contradict design. Sorry you can't accept that.

Yes, it is a debate. It is not fact. Evolution simply does not contradict design. Sorry you can't accept that.

Asim90

Don't apologise - supply evidence to support your view.

Evoutionary theory is a "fact du jour", in the same way that the theory of gravity is also a fact du jour.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"] You make a claim, you give no supporting evidence and say that what you claimed is a fact. This isn't reason enough to believe in something, and it's not up to the person who is not making the claim to disprove you, it's up to you to prove your claim. Science has no reason to disprove something that has been asserted without a spec of evidence.

SuperKaio-ken

science doesn't deal with proving or disproving god, it has more productive. less impossible things to do,

stop trying to debate the undebatable.

the most you can accomplish with this thread is to upset and or anger a few people.

the only way this thread has any value is if your actually interested in what the opposing side has to say in order to expand your world view and understanding of the human psyche and maybe have a few good scholarly discussions along the way, but chances are that you aren't, and only want an opportunity to bash and insult people who happen to be religious and disagree with you, but hey I've been wrong before.

never said you were being offensive just said most threads of this nature tend to turn out that way.

I've stated my view you stated yours, that's all fine and good.

if your willing to have an actual discussion that's fine by me.

just don't go thinking your gonna change anybodies beliefs, better men have tried and failed.

Huh? "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe" You use science to prove things, in geography, history etc.. And so far religion, which is touting various gods as real beings, cannot be proven. chaplainDMK

That's what I said. Religion is not a branch of science. They're two separate schools of thought.

You cannot use scientific methods to prove something spiritual.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

Yes, it is a debate. It is not fact. Evolution simply does not contradict design. Sorry you can't accept that.

RationalAtheist

Don't apologise - supply evidence to support your view.

Evoutionary theory is a "fact du jour", in the same way that the theory of gravity is also a fact du jour.

If one thing turns into something else, it is impossible to say those both were not designed. Evolution is simply a bridge that explains a change, it does not contradict design. You can see evolution among things created by humans. You say its debated by scientists arguing it is random? How do you know it is random? It is random from an observable viewpoint. This is a theory remember.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

Asim90

The nature of evolutionary theory and natural selection rather contradicts the idea of intelligent design, so there is limited scientific scope and evidence for that theory.

Absolute nonsense. This is a very flawed debate among Atheists. Just because you can see an evolution, does not mean it was not designed that way. Among our creations you can see evolution, that doesn't mean they weren't designed. It may contradict your idea, but in reality it doesn't contradict it at all.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. themajormayor

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. l4dak47

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. SuperKaio-ken

Well that is debatable also. A lot of theologians argue that humans are religious by nature and have a tendancy to believe in the unseen, which in many aspects is certainly true. It just depends on what you mean by God.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. themajormayor

You're just being silly now

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. themajormayor

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. SuperKaio-ken

That's not really Atheism though IMO. Sounds more like Agnosticism to me. Of course it depends on what defintion you use. It's all very fluid.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. themajormayor

Though if it means anything, I do lack the belief in god

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one making the claim that he doesn't exist. themajormayor

If one thing turns into something else, it is impossible to say those both were not designed. Evolution is simply a bridge that explains a change, it does not contradict design. You can see evolution among things created by humans. You say its debated by scientists arguing it is random? How do you know it is random? It is random from an observable viewpoint. This is a theory remember.

Asim90

Do you have any evidence to support your view, or is repetition your preferred tactic? Perhaps you should investigate evolutionary biology some more, before making your claims.Random mutation has been clearly evidenced in meiosis and DNA division. Are you saying randomly mutated off-spring have been designed that way?

I think you confuse what a scientific theory is. Theories are different from hypotheses, since they have corroborating evidence to support them. Do you accept the theory of gravity, or do you float about? Being a self-proclaimed "engineer", you'll be needing scientific theories to establish your engineering principles.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] No, the burden of proof is on the one that claims god is real. chessmaster1989

Then it's a little silly to make such a claim then.

[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] No, the burden of proof is on the one that claims god is real. SuperKaio-ken

Though if it means anything, I do lack the belief in god