As an atheist, am i arrogant for rejecting the idea of god, or as a theist are you arrogant for thinking that everything was created for you? [Spirituality & Religion]

@SW-User

I'm not sure there are many atheists that think a god is impossible

@Pikachu hmmm, maybe :v
Rejecting the idea of God is kinda arrogant and kind of goes against reasonableness

@SW-User

Can you clarify?
Rejecting the claim that god exists is arrogant or rejecting the possibility that a god can exist is arrogant?

@Pikachu I would say so .-.
Like, ya want a detailed explanation, or something straight to the point?

@SW-User

Umm straight to the point?

@Pikachu

To the point:

the idea of God is out of our control and completely not up to us to decide whether or not God can exist or does exist ._.
Therefore, we cannot reject it be definition since we got no proof for it, yo

[sep]

Elaboration:

If God exists, who can deny that or reject that? And if God doesn't exist, who can deny that or reject that?
The answer is nobody, but NEITHER side has been scientifically proven or even is POSSIBLE

To think we can endorse or reject that idea is implying we have something we can use to make a CONCLUSION about God and as human beings from a limited world with limited understanding with all of our ideas and thoughts ever changing and our societies ever changing with all of our sciences themselves changing, it is important to understand what is acceptable and not out of our place. To [b]challenge[/b] ideas that go above and beyond what we can prove or disprove is completely okay. However, to ever come to a [b]conclusions[/b] about it, be it by rejecting or saying we got empirical evidence, is wrong because we have no such proof. It's like sayig our word (as a limited being) defines our subjective conclusion about a logically and realistically UNlimited being, which is not a sound ground you and I ever want to be on. It just us not our place and we just can't do that. It's presumptuous ._.

@SW-User

[quote]the idea of God is out of our control and completely not up to us to decide whether or not God can exist or does exist .[/quote]

Agreed. What we believe is has no bearing on what is.

[quote]Therefore, we cannot reject it be definition since we got no proof for it[/quote]

Disagree. We can certainly reject the claim that a god exists on the basis that there exists insufficient evidence to substantiate that claim.

We don't have to be able to prove that god does not exists in order to find the evidence for its existence to be uncompelling.

@Pikachu [quote] We can certainly reject the claim that a god exists on the basis that there exists insufficient evidence to substantiate that claim [/quote]

We can reject anything. I can reject that the sky is blue. To reject a claim should be backed by reason. There was a time where there was no substantial evidence for the earth being egg shaped (because it isn't a perfect sphere, but more elliptical) since humans did not know the shape of the whole earth. There was a time people did not have substantial scientific evidence for:

- Germs
- Stars
- Electricity
- How babies are formed within the mother
- What atoms are

And many other things. To encourage that someone of the past can reject these NOW fundamentally basic and accepted concepts JUST BECAUSE their era has no substantial evidence does not make it correct >_>

@Pikachu [quote] We don't have to be able to prove that god does not exists in order to find the evidence for its existence to be uncompelling [/quote]
This is correct. You can always find something uncompelling and that is subjective. However, you need to prove God does not exist to conclude that he cannot .-.

Proof by contradiction doesn't work here

@SW-User

[quote]. I can reject that the sky is blue[/quote]

Not on the basis of a lack of evidence.

[quote]There was a time people did not have substantial scientific evidence for:
[quote][/quote][/quote]

And?
The fact that we found evidence for these things does not necessitate that we accept that evidence for a god may be found.
Those people were right not to believe in something for which there was insufficient evidence.
Until such time as there is sufficient evidence for a god, we are right to reject the claim there one exists.

@Pikachu [quote] Those people were right not to believe in something for which there was insufficient evidence. [/quote]

I guess this is where we differ. I only believe one should reject ideas when one is factually sure if it .-.

Not just because we are unsure, but that is okay so long as it harms nobody else v.v

@SW-User [quote]we got no proof for it[/quote]

and we have no compelling necessity to even postulate it. In fact, the postulation merely adds unnecessary complication, explains nothing, and gains us nothing, so we can simply dispose of it without loss

@SW-User

Well then yes, we certainly disagree.
The skeptical view of the world is that you should not believe something until you have sufficient reason to do so.
This is an effective and consistent way to learn the truth.

You don't have to be certain that bigfoot does not exist in order to assume that he does not exist on the basis that no good evidence is available to indicate that he does.

@SW-User You can never be factually sure that something doesn't exist. It's impossible to prove a negative.

But believing in santa and vampires is a silly way to go through life. The number of things that "could" be possible is pretty much infinite. If you assume they all exist, it becomes paralysis. Assuming something doesn't exist until evidence is formulate and located, is simply more rational.

@newjaninev2 we weren't discussing postulating God but I see what you mean. I am just saying we can't make any aassertions based on science XD

@QuixoticSoul I am 100% factually certain water dos not boil at 150° Celsius :v

The reason is because it is not water at 150° Celsius and boiled to gas WAYYYY before that. This is an example of proving a negative. I can prve a positive for water boiling at 100° Celsius or a negative for water boiling at 50° Celsius :v

@SW-User

It's not an example of proving that something doesn't exist, which is what people mean when they say "you can't prove a negative" in reference to disproving the existence of the supernatural.

@SW-User Water boils at 150 degrees at 0.4762MPa. But you know what I really mean. Russel's teapot, etc.

@Pikachu exactly. It is a logical trap. It is true that you can't scientifically prove a negative on something that science cannor disprove ._.

This means that you also can't prove the positive either XD

The answer remains indeterminate :v
That is it

@SW-User

Sorry, you lost me

@SW-User Nah, proving something exists is relatively easy. You just need a single example. Proving something doesn't exist *somewhere* is more or less impossible.

@Pikachu
Darnit :v
I gotta explain it better. If science cannot deal with something, then you cannot scientifically prove or disprove it


@QuixoticSoul I don't know about that .-.

If I know something is impossible by definition, I can prove that you cannot have it. A great example would be trying to say a colorless object is green :v
That's absolute baloney because by DEFINITION, colorless means WITHOUT color. I can prove that the breaking point of a particular structural steel beam is is at a specific pressure level, and in turn prove that it ISN'T below that level because it already exists, cannot have TWO breaking points, and is at a DIFFERENT level :v

I get what you mean in essence

@SW-User Come on, everyone understands that we are talking about things in the ontological sense.

@QuixoticSoul okay :v
I was talking about in general tbh

You're right v.v