100% Proof That Gods Do Not Exist

[Immanuel Can]

That's where we're at, yes?

No. That's how Atheism has to tell its story.

If that person continually tells others that they're going to a fictional hell because their fictional god said so -- or if that person kills people in the name of their god, or commits any of the other absurd far-reaching behaviors that are supposedly sanctified or forgiven by their god -- that's a good reason to SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, don't you think?

Not from a consistent Atheist viewpoint. From a consistent Atheist viewpoint, nothing is wrong with that, or with anything else, for that matter. There is no wrong. So one fiction is just as good as another, and any fiction is just as good as truth. Whatever it pleases anyone to believe, think or do, that's okay with Atheism.

We're here by accident. We live, we please ourselves, we die, and that's the end. That's Atheism.

[Lacewing]

From a consistent Atheist viewpoint, nothing is wrong with that, or with anything else, for that matter.

It appears that you're using your uneven and extreme view of "what an Atheist is" as a wave-of-the-hand technique to avoid responding to questions regarding questionable behavior/thinking of theists. Yes?

Did you hear me and believe me when I said: Many non-theists, including myself, DO NOT CARE what anyone wants to believe. All that matters is WHAT THE PERSON DOES. Doesn't this seem reasonable to you? What would be more reasonable?

Doesn't it also seem reasonable that non-theists would oppose anyone continually telling them that they're going to some sort of hell because some sort of god said so -- or telling them that people must be killed in the name of the theist's god, or that anything the theist does is supposedly sanctified or forgiven by their god? Even if you think these behaviors are not representative of the values you live by, can you see that these absurdities exist?

[Walker]

Many non-theists, including myself, DO NOT CARE what anyone else wants to believe. All that matters is WHAT THE PERSON DOES.

Re: doing. If in doing the intent is to not harm then in comparison the odds for success favor not-doing, unless one has a serious ailment and can’t go gentle. If the aim is to win then out-doing the competition is the ticket.

[Immanuel Can]

From a consistent Atheist viewpoint, nothing is wrong with that, or with anything else, for that matter.

It appears that you're using your uneven and extreme view of "what an Atheist is" as a wave-of-the-hand technique to avoid responding to questions regarding questionable behavior/thinking of theists. Yes?

No. I'm dispassionately describing what Atheism as an ideology entails.

But if you think I'm not, then it's easy to prove it. Just give me one moral precept an Atheist is morally bound to believe. If you can find one, then I'm wrong. If you can't, then I'm clearly right.

Either way, it requires no personal arguments.

All that matters is WHAT THE PERSON DOES.

As per Atheism, you would have no view at all of what a person should or should not do. There is no morality.

Doesn't this seem reasonable to you? What would be more reasonable?

Well, that Atheists should either live 100% as Atheists -- admitting and acting on everything their ideology rationally requires of them -- or stop playing pretend. That seems reasonable.

Unfortunately for Atheism, I've never met a single person who had that kind of rational consistency. But it's very fortunate for all the rest of us humans that they do not, because totally amoral people would be potentially very dangerous for us.

Doesn't it also seem reasonable that non-theists would oppose anyone continually telling them that they're going to some sort of hell because some sort of god said so...

It would depend. If Atheists actually are on the road to a lost eternity without God, and if nobody pointed it out to them, then it would seem very bad for a person NOT to say something to them.

[Science Fan]

Lacie is correct in stating that atheists are more concerned with what a person does, as opposed to what a person believes, and this is the key to understanding why atheism developed modern secular societies with individual rights and liberty for all. Religious societies are not capable of doing this because religions are concerned with the private beliefs of others. It's only by adopting an atheistic outlook that one can limit a government's concern to regulating behavior, and not regulating a person's private thoughts and beliefs. This is why atheism leads to more just societies than religion ever did or could ever manage.

[Immanuel Can]

... atheism developed modern secular societies with individual rights and liberty for all.

Historically false. Our modern conception of rights and liberty are derived from Locke, a Protestant.

Religious societies are not capable of doing this because religions are concerned with the private beliefs of others.

You haven't read Locke. That's clear.

It's Atheism that can ground no conception of human rights or rights of liberty. It's amoral, remember? You discovered that when you tried to find even one Atheist moral precept and couldn't. So there can be no "good" inherent to allowing freedom, and no "rights" for contingent creatures that only exist by accident anyway.

It's only by adopting an atheistic outlook that one can limit a government's concern to regulating behavior, and not regulating a person's private thoughts and beliefs.

Which Atheists government has done this? You mean Stalinist Russia? Maoist China? Or North Korea today?

This is why atheism leads to more just societies than religion ever did or could ever manage.

Um...precisely which "just Atheist societies" did you have in mind? You couldn't be referring to any of the above...

[Dontaskme]

As per Atheism, you would have no view at all of what a person should or should not do. There is no morality.

An Atheist can be a moral person. But if someone chooses not to be moral, then the moral person would have no right to condemn a person that amoral choice, it would be each to their own. I am the author of my own life situation.

It's not as if there is no morality full stop for an atheist. The difference between an atheist and a theist is the atheist believes the morality comes from their personal individual sense of identity. In that they believe they are the authors of their moral decision making. Whereas a theist knows there is no individual identity, they understand that Satan was just a fallen angel who wanted to rule on earth rather than serve in heaven. Theists are well aware that to carry out satanic thoughts would not be the moral angelic thing to do because that is not what God is. .

https://images.fineartamerica.com/image ... ompson.jpg

If Atheists actually are on the road to a lost eternity without God, and if nobody pointed it out to them, then it would seem very bad for a person NOT to say something to them.

Then tell them properly instead of beating around the bush about it.

[Immanuel Can]

As per Atheism, you would have no view at all of what a person should or should not do. There is no morality.

An Atheist can be a moral person.

Not the question. The question is, can a rational, consistent Atheist prove that good and evil exist. The answer to that is "No," as has repeatedly appeared here. For every single time I ask an Atheist to give me an Atheist's necessary moral precept, he or she cannot. Not one. Not ever.

QED.

It's not as if there is no morality full stop for an atheist.

It is that there is no morality full stop for Atheism. The ideology is morally bankrupt. So an Atheist will have to steal any moral convictions he or she has from some other set of suppositions. For Atheism will not sponsor them.

After abandoning any hope of consistent Atheism, yes, an Atheist can behave well -- well, according only to the lights of a borrowed value system that does not rationalize with Atheism. But he or she will never be able to say with any certainty from Atheism what a good or bad person is. Atheism knows no such terms.

If Atheists actually are on the road to a lost eternity without God, and if nobody pointed it out to them, then it would seem very bad for a person NOT to say something to them.

Then tell them properly instead of beating around the bush about it.

Was I insufficiently clear? I've said it frankly and often before this, but I'm happy to say it again anytime. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just did.

[Dontaskme]

Was I insufficiently clear? I've said it frankly and often before this, but I'm happy to say it again anytime. In fact, I'm pretty sure I just did.

Maybe people are not really listening, that is often the case. Often, one believes their view to be the only view. That's the problem, holding onto one view when there are as many views as there are grains of salt... the majority of views are cloudy but in order to come to a clear place of pure clarity we must slowly and surely navigate through them all until the big final Aha moment dawns and there is no turning back.

I personally think all human beings look for God at some point in their life, unconsciously so, the man who visits the prostitute is really looking for God, the teenagers trance-in out at the club are looking for God, the alcoholic is looking for God, the druggie is looking for God. People are so alone in them self. Every one else is alone in their aloneness as well...so we're not going to find satisfaction in another person.

Some people just know God, other people only know their own self. As for me, I don't know what the heck I am, but I do know something does know, else I wouldn't be here. That's how I know God. That's how I logically conclude the mystery solved. How about you IC? how did you come to know God?

Anyway...this image is a clear illustration of how this one here, (me) ..sees God.

[Immanuel Can]

How about you IC? how did you come to know God?

Second year of university, by reading agnostic and Atheist literature, actually. That was step 1...the dawning realization that their answers were all dusty.
Step 2 was getting desperate enough, as a result, to take seriously for the first time -- and just as a hypothetical idea, at the time -- that before I turned into a complete nihilist I should rule out one more thing...God. So for the first time in my life, I actually sat down to read the gospels with a hint of seriousness. I wasn't looking to believe, really; I was pretty cynical then. I was ready to read with an open mind for the first time. And one way to proceed toward truth, when you don't know where it is, is to be honest with oneself about ruling out all the stuff that's not truth. So I figured that I'd better check this off my list.

So I read. And I found that Jesus Christ told me the truth about life, about good and evil; and more importantly, about who I was (I was more of the latter than the former, as I found). And I decided He was much, much better than me...and if anybody actually knew anything about God, it would be someone like Him.

Of course, there is no one like Him, as I've found out subsequently. And He just continued to be better. But that was my start.

[Noax]

To be worthy of the title 'God', a being must be 'truly just'.
The 'truly just' consider all beings to be equal.

Your proof depends on some definition that requires any god to be worthy of the title being bestowed by you, his most fervent unbeliever. Textbook strawman argument alert....

In short, if you are required to obey the edicts of another being in order to receive a reward, it's not a 'God'. You've been duped.

Maybe there's a god that meets this and makes no requirement of us. You're a step away from quoting scripture to prove God doesn't exist, a funny way to go about it. How do you know there is no such 'Just' thing that indeed makes no requirements of us? Why does your refusal to bestow a title to it make it not a God?

Or is this just one of those language quibble proofs?


I'm more disappointed in a few responses that regularly point out fallacious reasoning in the pro-God arguments, but seem to be OK with this one.

[Greta]

Although this is an 'absolute' proof, it's not a proof that all will be willing to accept.

To be a 'God' a being must be worthy of the title.

That's an immediate dealbreaker for me. In my experience, nothing in nature (nor I presume that is outside of it, if existent) needs to be worthy of anything in the opinions of puny post-apes, just a century into their most recent kind of civilisation. These post-apes mostly scuttle around the surface of a small rocky planet that orbits a medium-sized star in a medium-sized galaxy that lies anonymous within a galactic supercluster that itself is utterly dwarfed by the cosmic web. God is supposed to be "more" than all that. Much more.

So why would our opinions ever be pivotal in proving the existence of such a thing? For all we know, maybe one needs different sensory organs or a differently structured mind to comprehend the nature of reality? That is ultimately what the argument about God is about. We simply don't know the ultimate nature of reality. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not providing an honest report but pushing a line driven by emotional need. Which is fine - we do it all the time, but it's not philosophically valid.

[thedoc]

100% proof. You're halfway there to being totally alcoholic.

PhilX

100 proof isn't all that bad or good depending on what you mix it with. I had some 180 proof moonshine once, I ended up mixing it with Ginger Ale so that I could drink it. The Pa state stores used to sell 110 proof Chartreuse, but I suppose it was too strong for most people.

[Dontaskme]

How about you IC? how did you come to know God?

Second year of university, by reading agnostic and Atheist literature, actually. That was step 1...the dawning realization that their answers were all dusty.
Step 2 was getting desperate enough, as a result, to take seriously for the first time -- and just as a hypothetical idea, at the time -- that before I turned into a complete nihilist I should rule out one more thing...God. So for the first time in my life, I actually sat down to read the gospels with a hint of seriousness. I wasn't looking to believe, really; I was pretty cynical then. I was ready to read with an open mind for the first time. And one way to proceed toward truth, when you don't know where it is, is to be honest with oneself about ruling out all the stuff that's not truth. So I figured that I'd better check this off my list.

Well thanks for being honest and open about your truth journey.

So I read. And I found that Jesus Christ told me the truth about life, about good and evil; and more importantly, about who I was (I was more of the latter than the former, as I found). And I decided He was much, much better than me...and if anybody actually knew anything about God, it would be someone like Him.

Me too, Jesus is my man. No human man can compare to him. If I married a man like Jesus, now that would be a match made in heaven. I'd rather spend the rest of my life single than marry a man that does not have Jesus is his heart. Human marriage is a form of legal slavery anyway, no one enslaves this girl, it's all or nothing for me.

IC, we cannot teach God's existence to another, not with words or explanations or debates, or by winning people over to our side of an argument. God has to be tasted, and until it's tasted for one self, ain't no God ever going to show up no way no how.

It's like no one can taste the taste of an orange for another person, only the person can taste the taste of an orange. Although God is hidden within words, the words are not enough on their own, but when the moment of clarity comes, all the words can be thrown away for good, they were useful tools, but like any tool once it's served it's purpose, it's no longer required to do the job.

Of course, there is no one like Him, as I've found out subsequently. And He just continued to be better. But that was my start.

Only Jesus saves. He is my king and I am his princess.

A lot of people just don't understand that there are only stories in life. And that it's all His story.

.

[Dontaskme]

So why would our opinions ever be pivotal in proving the existence of such a thing? For all we know, maybe one needs different sensory organs or a differently structured mind to comprehend the nature of reality? That is ultimately what the argument about God is about. We simply don't know the ultimate nature of reality. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not providing an honest report but pushing a line driven by emotional need. Which is fine - we do it all the time, but it's not philosophically valid.

No singular person knows anything, everything is already known, here now functioning as it is without any inference to it. I'm assuming Apes don't have the sense of life is happening to me, whereas human do have that sense. And that is where God enters the scene for the human experience as it instantly rushes in to repair the breach.

.