Why must theists prove god exists?

[DBT]

Converting others to the Club is a way of defending the faith. Or at least justifying a belief in God.

 

[abaddon]

The atheist myth thread became about proofs of god. There is a long history of theists showing up determined to prove god exists.

Because in a sense theism is the absence of atheism. As people have noted, many believers tend to just believe without needing reasons. The ubiquity of the god-belief limits their options about how to explain god's absence from the world.

But once their minds become aware-enough to realize that "maybe god doesn't exist" is something to consider also, then unbelief's a threat. Previously the only options were "I'm a sinner", "God's abandoned this wicked world", "God's ways are mysterious", "I'll have to pray harder". Now there's an additional possible reason why so many prayers don't get answered and the world looks material, and just material (aka "godless").

 

[skepticalbip]

The atheist myth thread became about proofs of god. There is a long history of theists showing up determined to prove god exists.

Because in a sense theism is the absence of atheism. As people have noted, many believers tend to just believe without needing reasons. The ubiquity of the god-belief limits their options about how to explain god's absence from the world.

But once their minds become aware-enough to realize that "maybe god doesn't exist" is something to consider also, then unbelief's a threat. Previously the only options were "I'm a sinner", "God's abandoned this wicked world", "God's ways are mysterious", "I'll have to pray harder". Now there's an additional possible reason why so many prayers don't get answered and the world looks material, and just material (aka "godless").

There are a few other options. Even though theists like to believe that a few thousand years ago everyone believed in gods, I don't think atheism was as scarce as imagined. Around two thousand years ago Lucius Seneca is noted as writing, "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". Even earlier, many Greek philosophers seem to have shared this sentiment.

Things don't seem to have changed much. Politicians still use religion to gain power and evangelists still fleece the believers.

 

[ruby sparks]

These more outspoken doorbell ringers just have a favorite color and they think everyone needs to have the same mental affliction. I think that's a good analogy. Who knows why exactly, except that certainly they're wired a bit differently upstairs because green is right and purple is wrong. Odd.

I like the 'favourite colour' analogy. I think it works very well. No one colour is more 'correct' than another, but obviously, if you have been brought up in a home decorated with a certain colour, that will affect your adult preferences (you may rebel against it though). Etc.

Actually, this works just as well for many things, religion is only one of them.

Which begs the question, is atheism a colour (of belief) or an absence of colour?

To me, it's a colour. Others may disagree.

 

[Politesse]

These more outspoken doorbell ringers just have a favorite color and they think everyone needs to have the same mental affliction. I think that's a good analogy. Who knows why exactly, except that certainly they're wired a bit differently upstairs because green is right and purple is wrong. Odd.

I like the 'favourite colour' analogy. I think it works very well. No one colour is 'truer' than another, but obviously, if you have been brought up in a home decorated with a certain colour, that will affect your adult preferences (you may rebel against it though). Etc.

Actually, this works just as well for many things, religion is only one of them.

Which begs the question, is atheism a colour (of belief) or an absence of colour?

To me, it's a colour. Others may disagree.

To me, it depends on whether someone actually identifies as an atheist and actively makes that a component of their social identity, in which case it is definitely a color. If on the other hand we are simply labeling people "atheist" based on their answers to a hypothetical bank of philosophical questions, then they are likely any sort of color they like; they are not obligated to accept a categorization they did not choose. Ditto "theism", or "polytheism", or "animism", or any other such academic generalization.

 

[ruby sparks]

To me, it depends on whether someone actually identifies as an atheist and actively makes that a component of their social identity, in which case it is definitely a color.

I agree. Some say it is merely the absence of a belief (colour) but I'm not sure about that.

If on the other hand we are simply labeling people "atheist" based on their answers to a hypothetical bank of philosophical questions, then they are likely any sort of color they like; they are not obligated to accept a categorization they did not choose.

I am not sure what you mean here (especially bit in bold).

Ditto "theism", or "polytheism", or "animism", or any other such academic generalization.

Again, I'm not quite with you.

 

[Politesse]

I agree. Some say it is merely the absence of a belief (colour) but I'm not sure about that.



I am not sure what you mean here (especially bit in bold).

Ditto "theism", or "polytheism", or "animism", or any other such academic generalization.

Again, I'm not quite with you.

i.e., some people consider anyone who happens to lack a belief in god as an "atheist", whether or not they would agree. That's not a color, to me, because it isn't a preference. Given the choice, someone might choose to identify in any number of ways other than atheist; the very reason sociologists of religion struggle to understand the so-called "nones".

Summarizing: Categorizing yourself is picking a color. Being categorized by someone else is not.

 

[Tigers!]

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Curiously, every time I had been asked to prove God's existence is when an atheist brings it up.

I don't bring up 'proofs' of God's existence in random conversations or for the fun of it.

 

[DBT]

Why would an atheist bring it up?

 

[Politesse]

Why would an atheist bring it up?

Most American college students have an obligatory class as part of their general education pattern, Philosophy 100 or some similar designation, in which a (usually atheist) professor tries to disprove theism for a semester. It's called introduction to philosophy, but god's existence is nearly always a central topic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is an interesting cycle because theists will argue evidence that proves a god(s) existence, but sometimes when pushed into the intellectual corner, an argument of 'faith' is made, indicating that proving god(s) existence would actually be a bad thing because one needs to believe without evidence in order to provide testimony to their devotion to god.

And the next day, it'll be back to the ontological argument.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why would an atheist bring it up?

I can think of lots of reasons. And of course atheists do bring it up. Quite a lot. Theists bring it up too.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't bring up 'proofs' of God's existence in random conversations or for the fun of it.

It makes sense that you don't do that. Well, if we are restricting ourselves to proofs of the formal or philosophical argument kind. Which is arguably a very limited use of the word 'prove'.

If we restrict ourselves to that definition, as the thread-starter appeared to, at least in their OP, then atheists may indeed be more interested (some may even be slightly obsessed) than theists, albeit both engage in the activity, but if we used a wider definition, I think we'd find that it would be the other way around, possibly significantly so.

 

[ruby sparks]

i.e., some people consider anyone who happens to lack a belief in god as an "atheist", whether or not they would agree. That's not a color, to me, because it isn't a preference. Given the choice, someone might choose to identify in any number of ways other than atheist; the very reason sociologists of religion struggle to understand the so-called "nones".

Summarizing: Categorizing yourself is picking a color. Being categorized by someone else is not.

The reason I haven't replied to this is that I can't work out an answer.

I'll just say that I think I broadly don't disagree.

Point taken about 'nones'. Yes, I'm sure it must be hard to work out what that means, as I guess it will mean different things to different people, and indeed mean different things as an answer to different questions, which might have different lists of options as answers, in different contexts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Curiously, every time I had been asked to prove God's existence is when an atheist brings it up.

I don't bring up 'proofs' of God's existence in random conversations or for the fun of it.

I can't remember a time that an atheist ever knocked on my door to testify to me.

Excuse me, have you been introduced to the concept of god(s)... and that they are just made up?

 

[ruby sparks]

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Curiously, every time I had been asked to prove God's existence is when an atheist brings it up.

I don't bring up 'proofs' of God's existence in random conversations or for the fun of it.

I can't remember a time that an atheist ever knocked on my door to testify to me.

Excuse me, have you been introduced to the concept of god(s)... and that they are just made up?

Tigers!, like poli, is talking about 'proof' in a certain way, the way the OP introduced it (proof by rational/philosophical argument). They (and to be fair the OP) are not talking about......things that are meant to convince, for example, or justifications, of themselves. Or indeed other things that are in a different way essentially meant to prove. Faith healings, miracles generally, the answering of prayers, etc, for example.

 

[skepticalbip]

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Curiously, every time I had been asked to prove God's existence is when an atheist brings it up.

I don't bring up 'proofs' of God's existence in random conversations or for the fun of it.

In my real life, I generally don't ever hear anything concerning religion or religious beliefs except when initiated by religious proselytizers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Turning the question around for the theists if god exists and you have faith why must you prove it?

Curiously, every time I had been asked to prove God's existence is when an atheist brings it up.

I don't bring up 'proofs' of God's existence in random conversations or for the fun of it.

In my real life, I don't generally don't hear anything concerning religion or religious beliefs except when initiated by religious proselytizers.

The RN that was talking to my Dad when in the hospital was mentioning being able to get the cancer into remission was a "miracle". I interjected and noted the doctors and surgeons and chemo likely deserved some credit.

 

[DBT]

Why would an atheist bring it up?

Most American college students have an obligatory class as part of their general education pattern, Philosophy 100 or some similar designation, in which a (usually atheist) professor tries to disprove theism for a semester. It's called introduction to philosophy, but god's existence is nearly always a central topic.

Which appears that a claim for the existence of a God or gods must be made before an atheist can argue against it?

If there was no belief or claim for the existence of God, everyone would be an atheist by default.

 

[Politesse]

Why would an atheist bring it up?

Most American college students have an obligatory class as part of their general education pattern, Philosophy 100 or some similar designation, in which a (usually atheist) professor tries to disprove theism for a semester. It's called introduction to philosophy, but god's existence is nearly always a central topic.

Which appears that a claim for the existence of a God or gods must be made before an atheist can argue against it?

If there was no belief or claim for the existence of God, everyone would be an atheist by default.

An intriguing claim. Many people of all religious traditions think children are naive/innocent members of their faith until taught otherwise, though. Children themselves rarely opine in quite the terms expected by the adults around them.