Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zambero

(9,775 posts)
5. That's where the faith part comes in?
Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:10 AM
Jul 2019

An atheist cannot prove the non-existence of a deity, nor can a believe prove otherwise. The latter relies on faith. The absence of faith does not prove the atheist to be incorrect, nor does form a basis for any scientific conclusion along those lines.

I've seen some baseless arguments, but this one from Gleiser takes the entire cake.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The hard atheism straw man is theists' go-to argument. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #1
Then immediately followed by the assertion of rejection of faith is "faith" Major Nikon Jul 2019 #4
Yes, atheism is inconsistent with science. But so is the concept of religion. DetlefK Jul 2019 #2
Given the complete absence of any evidence for a God edhopper Jul 2019 #3
That's the difference between faith and knowledge. DetlefK Jul 2019 #7
Good point. edhopper Jul 2019 #15
"Shouldn't we ask whether God's existence is provable/disprovable at all?" Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #6
While at the sime time pre-supposing God's non-existence. DetlefK Jul 2019 #9
So, your argument is "I can't prove god exists because I don't know what god is"? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #13
No, my argument is that we don't know whether the question even has an answer. DetlefK Jul 2019 #19
I could substitute "vampires" for "god" and using the same argument... Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #21
Actually you should first define your terms Major Nikon Jul 2019 #8
Define your terms!! SCantiGOP Jul 2019 #10
I have seen both definitions used in practice. DetlefK Jul 2019 #12
You can be both an agnostic and an atheist Major Nikon Jul 2019 #20
Any god worthy of the name Mariana Jul 2019 #22
Yes. Even the 1) Bible god hisself says we could and should look for proofs Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #40
About that last part Lordquinton Jul 2019 #44
Because we are finite and can't prove him edhopper Jul 2019 #46
That depends on the definition of "proof". DetlefK Jul 2019 #48
If those things edhopper Jul 2019 #50
There is a difference between finite and infinite gods: DetlefK Jul 2019 #47
But? If an infinite god promises to deliver a billion pizzas at 10PM? Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #49
Thor does indeed fly through the air on a chariot pulled by two goats. trotsky Jul 2019 #51
That fire-breathing dragon... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #52
Nothing is absolutely certain in an Infinitely complex universe. Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #54
Well of course. trotsky Jul 2019 #56
Yeah. Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #57
Numbers are infinite. Voltaire2 Jul 2019 #53
In which case ... Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #55
That's where the faith part comes in? Zambero Jul 2019 #5
That's really just where faith starts Major Nikon Jul 2019 #17
How do you have a belief in disbelief? Thomas Hurt Jul 2019 #11
you don't edhopper Jul 2019 #16
True. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #25
Because it's not a belief edhopper Jul 2019 #34
I accept that this is your view. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #35
Yes we know you insist on defining atheism for atheists. trotsky Jul 2019 #36
No, I insist on defining what it is. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #37
You seem to have fallen into a neverending Arguement Sketch... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #38
Pretty much. trotsky Jul 2019 #39
The best part is he defines himself as both a deist and a theist Major Nikon Jul 2019 #41
'god' is the proffered hypothesis... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #14
Yes edhopper Jul 2019 #18
only need to disprove them to the extent.. uriel1972 Jul 2019 #23
True. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #24
Why is God unprovable? edhopper Jul 2019 #27
Ask God. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #28
If I could ask God something edhopper Jul 2019 #29
One might be able to ask, in a sense, guillaumeb Jul 2019 #30
The unclear edhopper Jul 2019 #31
How convenient. A one-time answer in the form of a human before the first camera was invented. AtheistCrusader Jul 2019 #33
Substitute purple people eater for god and the circular logic works the same Major Nikon Jul 2019 #42
Only the one eyed, one horn, flying variety edhopper Jul 2019 #43
Such a boring argument in the abstract... Moostache Jul 2019 #26
Sure. And not believing in the fucking easter bunny is inconsistent with science. enki23 Jul 2019 #32
I get this feeling when theists try to talk science Lordquinton Jul 2019 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»"Atheism is inconsistent ...»Reply #5