Why must theists prove god exists?

[ruby sparks]

This seems to me like a much more plausible claim.

Online atheists do appear to be somewhat obsessed about it. I'll give you that. Possibly less than the average believer.

I realized long ago that online atheist communities, like any other sort of online religious community, are not a good populational representation. But I suspect the question of "proof" or lack thereof is pretty important to most people who self-identify as atheists. Would you agree?

Hm. I'm not sure. I know a few fellow-atheists who don't frequent online forums and my impression is that they just....lack belief. They're not generally as 'angry' as the online ones. As to whether lack of 'proof' is important to them, I don't know.

I think the overall picture will be varied, for both believers and atheists alike.

 

[ruby sparks]

The OP is very specific though.

Point taken.

 

[ruby sparks]

My guess is that an interest in 'proofs' (or justifications) one way or the other could, as often, be a way for anyone to shore up their lack of belief, just as it might be done to shore up a belief. I don't think atheists are immune to that sort of thing. Absolute certainty is not all that common, perhaps.

Many atheists used to either be religious or were brought up in a religious family. You know what they say about ex-smokers. They're said to be more aggressively anti-smoking than people who just never smoked.

 

[Politesse]

I realized long ago that online atheist communities, like any other sort of online religious community, are not a good populational representation. But I suspect the question of "proof" or lack thereof is pretty important to most people who self-identify as atheists. Would you agree?

Hm. I'm not sure. I know a few fellow-atheists who don't frequent online forums and my impression is that they just....lack belief. They're not generally as 'angry' as the online ones. As to whether lack of 'proof' is important to them, I don't know.

I think the overall picture will be varied, for both believers and atheists alike.

I agree with your characterization of temperament, but would continue to maintain that lack of proof, or the connected notion of lack of "evidence", lies pretty close to the reasoning of most if not nearly all people who actively identify as atheists. I could be wrong; while I know many atheists, they are mostly scholars or students given my usual social mileu, and may spend more time thinking about such things.

 

[skepticalbip]

I note that most believers don't give two shits about proving that God exists.....

Watch out folks, poli is on the defensive........again.

It is odd that Politesse would claim such a thing. I only have my personal experience but I have never had atheists knock on my door and tell me that they want to reveal the glories of atheism to me, never had atheists stop me out in public to give me the "good word". I have many times had theists do this.

 

[James Brown]

Clearly we didn't attend the same religious schools. I received regular instruction in defending my faith. The apostles Paul, Peter, and James all wrote about defending one's faith.

Heck, if miracles is a proof of the existence of God, then the entire Bible is filled with evidence.

When did Paul, Peter, or James write one word about "proving God's existence"?

Well, perhaps I misspoke, The Biblical writers don't set out formal proofs of God's existence. They assume from the beginning that God exists, that we all agree on that, and then they explain why their religion is superior to yours.

As for defending their faith, there are plenty of passages that were used to justify teaching me apologetics all through my schooling years and beyond. (I Peter 3:15; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Phillipians 1:7; Titus 1:9; James 1:20-24; every single passage in which 'signs and wonders' are performed, etc. The Book of Acts repeatedly mentions Paul "reasoning" with Jews, Greeks, etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It is odd that Politesse would claim such a thing. I only have my personal experience but I have never had atheists knock on my door and tell me that they want to reveal the glories of atheism to me, never had atheists stop me out in public to give me the "good word". I have many times had theists do this.

Are the doorbell ringers trying to prove anything or are they just selling a product? I think they're just a bit more obsessed than the ones that don't ring doorbells.

And lets not forget that selling woo is a pretty profitable business for lots of people. Religion has to generate a cash flow or it won't be around long.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Proof is important for some to proselytize. For some to prove they are not wrong about being religious. And some to prove they are not following the wrong religion.

 

[Politesse]

Proof is important for some to proselytize. For some to prove they are not wrong about being religious. And some to prove they are not following the wrong religion.

That's not the same thing as proving God's existence, though.

 

[southernhybrid]

Where I live, the majority of people simply assume that their god exists. They don't try to prove it. They don't question it. They've been taught that their god exists since childhood and unless something happens in their lives to make them question their beliefs, they simply go on believing. Some of them do try to convince others that their beliefs are the only true ones, but they are usually shocked or surprised when I tell them I'm an atheist. Where I live, most cultural and social activities revolve around the church.

As far as atheists go, it is much more common to find atheists who like to argue about the existence of god on forums like this one. I guess it's sort of an intellectual sport that some enjoy. If you were raised with a god belief and lose it for one reason or another, sometimes you do like to ask theists why they believe in this supernatural entity that simple seems nonsensical to you.

I know atheists of many different varieties. Some of them barely made it through high school, usually due to having grown up in dysfunctional homes while others have Phds. One is a female retired GBI agent. A few are stay at home moms with young children. My less educated atheist friends are usually more obsessed with things like separation of church and state than they are in trying to disprove the existence of gods. They don't believe in any gods and they have no desire to debate that. They just don't want religion thrown in their faces, as it often is here in Georgia.

Come to think of it, I did have a former coworker try to convince me that god existed about a year ago. She sent me a card with a Bible verse on it and said something like how can love exist without god. I wrote back to her to tell her that one didn't need god to experience love. I put the note in a card with a picture of a dog on it, and probably that dogs love us, and they don't seem to believe in any gods, other than their humans. I never heard back from her. Oh well. I don't think she has serious thoughts about her beliefs. It just really bothered her that I didn't believe in god.

 

[skepticalbip]

Proof is important for some to proselytize. For some to prove they are not wrong about being religious. And some to prove they are not following the wrong religion.

That's not the same thing as proving God's existence, though.

There are several meanings for words in the English language. The fact that people constantly change which meaning they are using makes modern philosophical arguments rather ridiculous. In common usage, the word, prove, is taken to mean to convince someone. A formal proof is a very different matter.

Proselytizers try to convince (common usage, prove) others the truth of their beliefs.

 

[Lion IRC]

I had a philosophy professor who was a teen in Lithuania in WWII.

He told a story about the Soviet occupation. A Soviet political officer was giving the town an indoctrination lecture. One of the people stood up and said 'If god does not exist why must you prove it?' The Soviet shot him.

Indoctrination?
What does God's existence have to do with Soviet Communism?
Oh wait...I remember now. Atheism was the State religion.

 

[ruby sparks]

I realized long ago that online atheist communities, like any other sort of online religious community, are not a good populational representation. But I suspect the question of "proof" or lack thereof is pretty important to most people who self-identify as atheists. Would you agree?

Hm. I'm not sure. I know a few fellow-atheists who don't frequent online forums and my impression is that they just....lack belief. They're not generally as 'angry' as the online ones. As to whether lack of 'proof' is important to them, I don't know.

I think the overall picture will be varied, for both believers and atheists alike.

I agree with your characterization of temperament, but would continue to maintain that lack of proof, or the connected notion of lack of "evidence", lies pretty close to the reasoning of most if not nearly all people who actively identify as atheists. I could be wrong; while I know many atheists, they are mostly scholars or students given my usual social mileu, and may spend more time thinking about such things.

I suppose it would not really be surprising at all if you were correct.

It might be that a preference or inclination for what we might call evidence-based reasoning, and other associated types of analytical/critical thinking, could be positively correlated with not readily believing in .......certain stuff.

 

[Atheos]

Clearly we didn't attend the same religious schools. I received regular instruction in defending my faith. The apostles Paul, Peter, and James all wrote about defending one's faith.

Heck, if miracles is a proof of the existence of God, then the entire Bible is filled with evidence.

When did Paul, Peter, or James write one word about "proving God's existence"?

Well, perhaps I misspoke, The Biblical writers don't set out formal proofs of God's existence. They assume from the beginning that God exists, that we all agree on that, and then they explain why their religion is superior to yours.

As for defending their faith, there are plenty of passages that were used to justify teaching me apologetics all through my schooling years and beyond. (I Peter 3:15; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Phillipians 1:7; Titus 1:9; James 1:20-24; every single passage in which 'signs and wonders' are performed, etc. The Book of Acts repeatedly mentions Paul "reasoning" with Jews, Greeks, etc.

I would also argue Paul appealed to something akin to a Teleological Argument here:

Romans 1

:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse:
:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

[Politesse]

Proof is important for some to proselytize. For some to prove they are not wrong about being religious. And some to prove they are not following the wrong religion.

That's not the same thing as proving God's existence, though.

There are several meanings for words in the English language. The fact that people constantly change which meaning they are using makes modern philosophical arguments rather ridiculous. In common usage, the word, prove, is taken to mean to convince someone. A formal proof is a very different matter.

Proselytizers try to convince (common usage, prove) others the truth of their beliefs.

"Truth of beliefs" and "existence of God" are different issues. The first opponents of Christianity, and for centuries the only common opponents, were other religions, none of which rejected the existence of YHWH. Jews and Pagans not only already assumed God's existence, but participated in his worship by various means. Proving that God exists is an activity that only makes sense if you've met an atheist. And not all Christians or Muslims or Jews or Hellenic Reconstructionists agree that trying to formally prove God's existence is even a good idea, let alone something they are "obsessed" with doing.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I suppose it would not really be surprising at all if you were correct.

It might be that a preference or inclination for what we might call evidence-based reasoning, and other associated types of analytical/critical thinking, could be positively correlated with not readily believing in .......certain stuff.

No religious salespersons ever come to my door and give me a choice, you know, how like when you buy insurance? They all have their favorite color of religious magic to peddle. I don't think these chaps and gals are any different than their fellow laid-back pew-sitters except that they're just a bit more obsessed.

And let's not forget that religion is a business and there isn't any religion without cash flow. Religious magic is quite profitable, supply and demand and all, and lots of people give money away to guarantee themselves a share of the religious magic. I guess the nice thing about selling religious magic is that there is an infinite supply so it's just a matter of creating a demand.

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.

When I make bread I "proof" the yeast or the starter. That means you just make sure it's nice and lively and can do it's job before it goes into the rest of the mix. In a way these doorbell ringers are just "proofing" their magic. It's how they make sure they're not losing their love for their favorite color, their preferred woo. The world would be a better place if they stayed home more, made some bread and then took it to strangers no questions asked.

 

[skepticalbip]

There are several meanings for words in the English language. The fact that people constantly change which meaning they are using makes modern philosophical arguments rather ridiculous. In common usage, the word, prove, is taken to mean to convince someone. A formal proof is a very different matter.

Proselytizers try to convince (common usage, prove) others the truth of their beliefs.

"Truth of beliefs" and "existence of God" are different issues.

How so? The primary belief for theists that all their other religious beliefs rely on is the belief in the existence of god.

 

[Politesse]

There are several meanings for words in the English language. The fact that people constantly change which meaning they are using makes modern philosophical arguments rather ridiculous. In common usage, the word, prove, is taken to mean to convince someone. A formal proof is a very different matter.

Proselytizers try to convince (common usage, prove) others the truth of their beliefs.

"Truth of beliefs" and "existence of God" are different issues.

How so? The primary belief for theists that all their other beliefs rely on is the belief in the existence of god.

Cuts out explanatory comments from post, then asks for clarification. Are you serious?

 

[skepticalbip]

How so? The primary belief for theists that all their other beliefs rely on is the belief in the existence of god.

Cuts out explanatory comments from post, then asks for clarification. Are you serious?

Yes, I'm serious. Your "explanatory comments" were for a period long ago when 'everyone was religious' so do not apply to today's proselytizing theists... especially when they know they are trying to convert an atheist.

 

[steve_bank]

They say insanity is expecting new results from the same process that gives the same results.

Politesse is giving the same internalization but not saying or answering anything.

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

I was trying to cut to the chase and simplify, why must Christians prove god? Most every Christian I have known has verbalized some form of proof as an intro to starting a conversion.

I expect most theists do knot know why they do what they do. They become indoctrinated and caught up in the spirit and enthusiasm, and start acting it all ut. Part of which is proof of god.

They can't really articulate why they do what they do.