Does the claim "there is no God" require evidence/reasoning to support it?

[Windfish]

What I’m trying to wrap my head around is the innovative definition, “a lack of a belief in God.” You can believe, you can disbelieve, but you have a lack of a belief? I maintain that this is practically untenable since the moment you enter this debate, you abandon your “lack” of a belief and pick a side. Someone who “lacks” a positive/negative belief altogether would remain ignorant of the debate, but because they enter it, how could they have a “lack” of a belief?

Man, I am so confused.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

What I’m trying to wrap my head around is the innovative definition, “a lack of a belief in God.” You can believe, you can disbelieve, but you have a lack of a belief? I maintain that this is practically untenable since the moment you enter this debate, you abandon your “lack” of a belief and pick a side. Someone who “lacks” a positive/negative belief altogether would remain ignorant of the debate, but because they enter it, how could they have a “lack” of a belief?

Man, I am so confused.

A lack of belief in this case is uncertainty.

 

[Nan_S]

Theism = you believe that God exists

Atheism = you believe that God does not exist

Agnosticism = you don’t know and don’t really care either way, you haven’t evaluated the evidence well enough to make up your mind and you’re indifferent to the resolution

Both atheism and agnosticism are sins against the Holy Spirit, because both have closed themselves off from receiving God’s saving grace. A atheist adrift in a sea of worldly misery looks at the life preserver God throws to him, declares it unclean, and pushes it away. An agnostic adrift in a sea of worldly misery looks at the life preserver God throws to him, wonders if it’s worth the trouble to reach for it, and watches it gently float away. Consequently, both drown.

**The Confiteor **(the penitential prayer at the beginning of the mass)
I confess to Almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts, in my words,
in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do;
I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Both atheism and agnosticism are sins against the Holy Spirit, because both have closed themselves off from receiving God’s saving grace. A atheist adrift in a sea of worldly misery looks at the life preserver God throws to him, declares it unclean, and pushes it away. An agnostic adrift in a sea of worldly misery looks at the life preserver God throws to him, wonders if it’s worth the trouble to reach for it, and watches it gently float away. Consequently, both drown.

And this probably fills you up with righteous pride that you are the one who is saved. Guess what, the Catholic Church does not teach that. It teaches that there is no saving grace for anyone which would assure their salvation. God’s mercy is inscrutable, and no one has “dibs” on it. Maybe only the atheists are saved because they use their God-given rationality to decide that the evidence is lacking, and God actually prefers reason and frowns on blind faith. Who can tell?

 

[Moonstruck888]

The point is, for my disbelief to carry any legitimate weight at all, I have to stand ready to prove why I don’t believe you. Just saying I don’t believe is never enough.

Then I’m sorry to sound offensive, but you are incapable of critical thinking and you’re just plain wrong.

If I make an extraordinary claim, the default position is that you should be skeptical of it unless I can back it up with extraordinary evidence.

You are making a very extraordinary claim, that not only does the supernatural exist, not only is it completely immune to any ordinary form of observation, but that out of all the thousands of supernatural entities that have been claimed to exist without evidence I should believe in yours.

The onus is on you to prove that I should follow your religion out of the thousands of religions available. The onus is on you to demonstrate that I would be prudent to follow any religion at all.

I don’t have to prove to you that I don’t believe in God. I know that I don’t believe in God. If you want to change my mind, then you’ll have to do a lot better than trying to force feed me the irrational idea that every single claim ever made by anyone is a fifty-fifty proposition. The default position for any extraordinary claim to knowledge should always be skepticism.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What I’m trying to wrap my head around is the innovative definition, “a lack of a belief in God.” You can believe, you can disbelieve, but you have a lack of a belief? I maintain that this is practically untenable since the moment you enter this debate, you abandon your “lack” of a belief and pick a side. Someone who “lacks” a positive/negative belief altogether would remain ignorant of the debate, but because they enter it, how could they have a “lack” of a belief?

Man, I am so confused.

Then let me help you…

There is no such thing as a positive and negative belief. You either believe something or you do not believe it.

The idea that someone is making a positive claim to knowledge by disbelieving something has been invented in an attempt to force atheists into a position of having to justify skepticism.

The idea of stratifying agnostics as being more respectable than atheists when agnostics are also by defintion Godless and therefore atheists (a - whithout, theos - God) is nothing more than verbal flim-flammery.

 

[tonyrey]

A claim is a claim whether it is positive or not and requires justification if it is intelligible and not obviously false. The claims that “there is a God” and “there is no God” both fall into this category. The claims that “there is no God” certainly requires justification because it is contrary to the belief of the vast majority of people. Even though they differ in their interpretations of God they share the belief in a Supreme Being…

 

[Moonstruck888]

A claim is a claim whether it is positive or not and requires justification if it is intelligible and not obviously false.

All claims are positive. “There is no God” is a positive claim.

The claims that “there is a God” and “there is no God” both fall into this category. The claims that “there is no God” certainly requires justification because it is contrary to the belief of the vast majority of people. Even though they differ in their interpretations of God they share the belief in a Supreme Being…

I don’t believe there is a God. I don’t care if I’m the only person on Earth who does not believe there is a God, I still wouldn’t believe it. That position needs no defence. I don’t believe that aliens are being held prisoner in Nevada by the US Government either, I don’t believe that the world is going to end in two years, I don’t believe there is a tea pot in orbit around Neptune and I don’t believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

The idea that a person should have to justify everything they don’t believe in comes from the false contention on the part of superstitious people the belief is the same as knowledge.

I don’t believe in God and I know there is no God are two completely different statements. Their meanings are not even similar.

 

[tonyrey]

A claim is a claim whether it is positive or not and requires justification if it is intelligible and not obviously false.

I don’t believe there is a God. I don’t care if I’m the only person on Earth who does not believe there is a God, I still wouldn’t believe it.
In other words you have no respect for the opinion of the vast majority of those who have lived on this earth…

That position needs no defence.

So say you dogmatically - without giving any reason! That’s a return to the usual refrain…

I don’t believe that aliens are being held prisoner in Nevada by the US Government either, I don’t believe that the world is going to end in two years, I don’t believe there is a tea pot in orbit around Neptune and I don’t believe that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden.

The difference between all these fantasies and belief in God is substantial:

1. They have not been held by the vast majority of people since time immemorial.
2. They are not based on any evidence whatsoever.
3. They serve no useful purpose.
4. They have nothing to do with truth, goodness, justice, freedom, beauty or love.
5. They do not correspond to spiritual experience.
6. They have not inspired great works of art, science and literature.

The idea that a person should have to justify everything they don’t believe in comes from the false contention on the part of superstitious people the belief is the same as knowledge.

That is a false assumption. You are equating belief in God as superstition even though you have** no convincing evidence **that God does not exist.

I don’t believe in God and I know there is no God are two completely different statements. Their meanings are not even similar.

You should have taken that into account when you made your derogatory statement about “superstitious people”. It is far more plausible that those who attribute the existence of the order, magnificence and beauty of the universe to **blind, purposeless processes **are the ones who are superstitious…

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

The idea that someone is making a positive claim to knowledge by disbelieving something has been invented in an attempt to force atheists into a position of having to justify skepticism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

*I don’t believe in God and I know there is no God are two completely different statements. Their meanings are not even similar. *

They are the same. Stop playing semantics and doublethink. In either case you live as though there is no God. In either case, you will be judged accordingly.

“He who is not with me, is against me.” Matthew 12:30

 

[Nan_S]

And this probably fills you up with righteous pride that you are the one who is saved. Guess what, the Catholic Church does not teach that. It teaches that there is no saving grace for anyone which would assure their salvation. God’s mercy is inscrutable, and no one has “dibs” on it. Maybe only the atheists are saved because they use their God-given rationality to decide that the evidence is lacking, and God actually prefers reason and frowns on blind faith. Who can tell?

Ah yes, a classic dodge. Sorry, you miss the target on this one.

I never said or even implied that any believer was assured salvation. I merely said that the athiest and the agnostic are NOT saved, because they fail to respond to God.

 

[Nan_S]

Then I’m sorry to sound offensive, but you are incapable of critical thinking and you’re just plain wrong.

Your apology falls short. You are being offensive. You’re trying to dodge the whole issue by tossing out personal insults against anyone who does not agree with you.

If I make an extraordinary claim, the default position is that you should be skeptical of it unless I can back it up with extraordinary evidence.

You are making a very extraordinary claim, that not only does the supernatural exist, not only is it completely immune to any ordinary form of observation, but that out of all the thousands of supernatural entities that have been claimed to exist without evidence I should believe in yours.

The onus is on you to prove that I should follow your religion out of the thousands of religions available. The onus is on you to demonstrate that I would be prudent to follow any religion at all.

I don’t have to prove to you that I don’t believe in God. I know that I don’t believe in God. If you want to change my mind, then you’ll have to do a lot better than trying to force feed me the irrational idea that every single claim ever made by anyone is a fifty-fifty proposition. The default position for any extraordinary claim to knowledge should always be skepticism.

LOL. Clasic atheist self-righteous blanket statements, spewed by one who considers himself the ultimate “judge and jury”. Your mind is obviously closed, so why are you here?

 

[R_Daneel]

I never said or even implied that any believer was assured salvation. I merely said that the athiest and the agnostic are NOT saved, because they fail to respond to God.

Oh yes, you implied it. But let’s have it your way. What about the believers of other religions, who follow a “false god”? What about the protestants? What about the unborn, who have no brain, no mind, cannot act in any manner? Is there no “invincible ignorance” any more? And I am pretty sure that the CC still did not assert that atheists and agnostics are all “doomed” to hell. What is your evidence for that claim?

 

[GaryTaylor]

There’s a difference to deduce non-belief which is based on fact. Then to conclude non- belief based on what you “think” might be true?

But in either case both logic leads to destruction through the Catholic Faith. So before you condemn your Soul, make sure you conclusions are based on Solid Fact. Cause it sure would be foolish to take the less traveled road for any other reason?

If you honestly don’t know? Then wouldn’t it be wiser to say I’m not knowledgable on the topic, than to say I don’t believe?

Even if this thinking pattern involves menial topics which amount to nothing. Its a habit that leads to consistant mistakes?

As mentioned above, its either Yes, No or Maybe? While the Grey area may provide a interesting debate. It won’t do much for the outcome?

What really baffles me? Is when you really don’t know, yet will uphold that side of the debate, while your gambling for the highest stakes in the world…Your Soul. You have to answer this question for yourself when you look in the mirror, is that really what you want to do with this life?

Look what does it require to uphold a Catholic Living? How is it going to distract you in any way from your living? What is the actual issue that troubles you about GOD and Heaven? Surely its not the effort? I don’t know your answers or how you actually “live”. I know how the Catholics live. I often wonder if non-belief is an excuse for bad behavior? And the part of the faith you chose not to apply to your own lifestyle bring you to the conclusion that I can’t accept the rest?

As time ticks into the future. History is constantly being confirmed in the Catholic Faith. Not disporven, which should in essence only strenghten the idea for a need to change? I guess the only thing missing is the desire?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Educate me please.
I always thought that atheism was based on the belief that God does not exist.
Agnosticism, however, is stating that we cannot know if God exists. (Again, that’s what I always thought was the difference between the two.)

Have I misunderstood these two terms?

I think agnosticism claims more than just ignorance. It seems to me that Agnosticism makes an epistemological claim implying that in principle Gods existence is beyond the human capability of knowing and thus any inference to God is necessarily false from a human perspective. In other words they are saying that Gods nature prevents human knowledge from truly proving that God exists and that when we try to prove God, we are not truly proving the existence of God because it is impossible to make inferences to the type of nature that God has.

Intellectual Atheism is simply the principle refusal to believe in God without either scientific observable evidence or logical certainty. Real Intellectual Atheists (not necessarily the one s on this forum) have a tendency to reject probabilistic or faith driven evidence, but they do not reject the possibility of a logical proof.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Maybe only the atheists are saved because they use their God-given rationality to decide that the evidence is lacking, and God actually prefers reason and frowns on blind faith. Who can tell? *

I can tell. Read scriptures and stop pretending that atheists get a free pass.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1

“If we have died with him we shall also live with him; if we persevere we shall also reign with him. But if we deny him he will deny us.”
2nd Timothy 2:11-12

 

[Moonstruck888]

Nonsense! If you cannot give any reason why you disbelieve something you are being unreasonable.

Because there’s no evidence.

More nonsense. Agnostics are not “Godless” by definition. They accept the possibility that God exists and may even pray hoping their prayer will be answered…

I think you need to have a quick look through the Bible and refresh your memory as to what qualifies as belief. Even believing in the wrong God falls short of the criteria set out.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Your apology falls short. You are being offensive. You’re trying to dodge the whole issue by tossing out personal insults against anyone who does not agree with you.

Fascinating… This ^^

LOL. Clasic atheist self-righteous blanket statements, spewed by one who considers himself the ultimate “judge and jury”. Your mind is obviously closed, so why are you here?

Followed by this ^^

One of us certainly has a closed mind. Of course, I’m not a “hardcore” atheist.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck

*I don’t believe in God and I know there is no God are two completely different statements. Their meanings are not even similar. *

They are the same. Stop playing semantics and doublethink. In either case you live as though there is no God. In either case, you will be judged accordingly.

“He who is not with me, is against me.” Matthew 12:30

They might be the same statement in the eyes of religion, but they certainly are not the same statement in terms of the meaning of the words. Belief and Knowledge are not the same thing.

By the way, are you sure you aren’t mixing up Matthew and George Walker Bush?