Atheism (Strictly) isn't formally falsifiable because it makes no statements that can be tested; however, conclusive proof of the existence of gods would refute atheism.

Theism cannot be falsified because mere belief in God(ess(ses)) doesn't make any statements which can be tested.

Occam's razor states that of several equivalent explanations for a phenomenon, the one that "is simpler" (Generally, this means the one making the least assumptions) is true.

Abrahamic religions make the statement: "God created the Universe; God exists."

Atheism shortens that to "The Universe exists."

When I quote your post, all my quotes disappear, and the little thing at the bottom of the page doesn't go back that far, and I've forgotten what I wrote, so my post might be slightly messed up here.

Religion doesn't have to be entirely false in order for people to believe it because they take comfort in it. There are huge discrepancies in what people even within the Christian faith believe. My parents, both Roman Catholics, don't believe in hell. I understand that Roman Catholicism states that there is hell (I get this impression because of something someone said about the Pope changing the rules so unbaptised babies don't go there anymore). Clearly if that's true they're adapting their own beliefs so they can feel better about them and justify continued faith in the good God Christianity presents etc. etc. OTOH, a Mormon friend I recently started talking to again believes that there is hell and that I'll be going there for various reasons when I die. This is simply a product of upbringing and education, since she's nice (and I'm pretty sure she actually likes me and has no wish to see me in hell), but I would imagine that this particular belief could be attributed to the comfort of the people who don't want to imagine themselves going to hell way back at the origins of religion.

That all said, you're right; I was coming at this from the perspective of the religions being wrong. I'm not convinced that atheism has anything to do with comfort though. You might think to look at some people (Verithrax) that they think that way just to be a rebel or whatever you were implying there, but unlike religions, atheism isn't organised or dictated by anyone. It comes from dissatisfaction with "facts" and so forth presented atheists by religions in most cases, I would think. You COULD definitely make that case about things like humanism though. I'm going to have to go look that up since I think the definition in my head is wrong, but it sounds entirely like the same kind of principle could be said to be at work there.

Vis. what comfort religions like Christianity provide: heaven is a powerful motivator, as is not going to hell. (I'm not sure if most people would rather have oblivion or eternal suffering, the choice seems obvious to me but it's distinct anyway.) Also, some people DO think God intervenes through hardship and answers prayers etc. - remember my atheist uncle in the car explosion I mentioned a few pages back? Most of my family is convinced he's safe because they stayed with him for a long time while he was in ER and prayed for him, whatever that entails. Believing that certainly makes things easier for them, and they'd probably be happy to go on believing it even if he'd died. Confirmation bias is also powerful. Note that these things don't make it much easier for people converting to a religion, but though I don't have the statistics I know anecdotally that MANY MANY MANY more people who are religious were brought up or born into it than converted into it willingly.

P.S I wouldn't worry about my posting too much, I'm getting frustrated by my inability to write down my thoughts properly. I can see this is going to be a bitch when I start philosophy classes in May...

Obviously then, Atheism is not ground in reality if it can not be tested...


Anyways, here is a proof, simplified to an extent:

1) I think, therefore I am.

2) I cannot be mistaken about the ideas that I have.

3) There can never be more objective reality in the effect (i.e., the idea) than there is formal reality in the cause (i.e., object of the idea).

4) I have an idea of perfection or infinite substance.

5) My idea of perfection is the most objectively real idea that I have.

6) The only possible formal cause of that idea is infinite substance.

_________________________________________________________________

Therefore, God must exist.

_________________________________________________________________


This is Decartes Proof of the Existence of God, the same one which Kant took, and modified creating a slightly stronger argument.

The proof is explained in detail here:
Decartes Proof for the Existence of God

Why do you believe that the earth goes around the sun?
Why do you believe that there are funky statues on Easter Island?
Why do you believe that women get orgasms?
Why do you believe that getting shot in the head would be unpleasant?
etc. etc.

These are both silly. People are mistaken about their ideas all the time. And we can very easily imagine something that doesn't exist. Like, dare I say, everything and everyone in Lusternia?

SYLOGISMS!

1)
All I know is 'real' in the universe is that I perceive with my senses;
I have not perceived God;
Therfore God cannot be real unless he/she/it is perceived.

2)
God cannot be real unless he/she/it is perceived;
God is imperceptible;
God is not real.

I don't really care if these are logically sound, they more-or-less sum up my opinion.

Oh, and as for:



Solid objects impacting on my body and caused pain;
A bullet impacting on my head would be a solid object impacting somewhere on my body;
A bullet impacting on my head would cause me pain.

Empirical data can be used to hypothesize... this is also true in the cases of your other points.
Unlike this, I've certainly never encountered any empirical data for the existence of God, or even anything Godlike. Therefore, a hypothesis of God's existence would be irrational.

: )

Naturalism (I won't say atheism because atheism is too strict a word to use, but the vast majority of modern atheists who aren't also members of some religion are also materialists or naturalists) is grounded in reality because it includes belief exclusively in those things which have been proven to be real.

This is an odd and obfuscated formulation of Descartes' Proof, which is generally phrased as:
1. Whatever I clearly and distinctly perceive to be contained in the idea of something is true of that thing.
2. I clearly and distinctly perceive that necessary existence is contained in the idea of God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

This is essentially, "I perceive existence as a necessary property of God; therefore, God exists."

However, Descartes' argument is part of a larger class of arguments known as the ontological argument. David Hume provides one simple objection:

1. The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction. For example, I am a married bachelor.
2. The resulting contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
3. It is possible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is not inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
4. Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.

Another simple objection is reductio ad absurdum. This is my take on it:

1. I clearly and distinctly perceive that, in order to be perfect, a perfect beer bottle must exist.
2. Therefore, a perfect beer bottle exists.

Another objection is that existence is not a property of things, and treating it as such confuses the distinction between something and the concept of something.

You can regurgitated philosophers without any critical thought of your own. Good job.

I was not regurgitating, I was just providing a proof that wasn't as simplistic as the ones you presented like you asked. I freely admit that I do not know enough about Christianity to really argue the proof.

Oh, so when you take a famous philosopher's "proof" of God's existence, that's providing proof; when I came up with some of the objections to it that cropped up in the last 400 years or so, that's "regurgitating". How remarkably convenient.

Critical Thinking at its best.

It seems to me Callia expects me to reply to 400-year-old arguments by either reinventing the wheel or coming up with wholly original, never-before-thought-of replies. Because only one side in this argument gets to use reference material!

I was only showing you there were more proofs. you decided to respond to it, and do so in the absence of critical thought. I am not very interested in proving the existence of god... perhaps because it is a non-issue to me?

But whatever, I have no desire to join in on your "I am smarts, I am man" chest beating, so go along.

If it were possible to prove God's existence people wouldn't need faith to believe in Him, merely logic.

God's existence is neither proveable nor disproveable materially.

I understand that most religions make provisions for why God doesn't make it bleedingly obvious that he's there, but God could obviously prove that he exists.

Then again, if the Christian God didn't want it to be too easy for people to believe in him, then why was he revealing himself to people all the time in the old testament?

'Cause he liked playing with the Old Testament people, but when he sacrificed his son, his wife kicked the out of him and he couldn't play with humans no more.

Again, you obviously havn't read the bible very well. For every story about a G-d interacting with a person, there are 5 stories of people not knowing/not believing that G-d is there, or responcible.

There are still several stories where God talks to people.

Wait a minute...

Why do people always use "The existence of God cannot be disproved" as a defense for belief?

Surely, by that logic, I should believe EVERYTHING that cannot be proven... so I guess aliens really do come to Earth just to flatten wheat then. And that the entirety of existence is merely the passing daydream of a giant intergalactic tadpole from another dimension. And that Wierd Al Yankovich is funny.