this post was submitted on
124 points (82% like it)
156 up votes 32 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,223,713 readers

1,178 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
AtheistVids atheismbot secularstudents
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

123
124

There is no god and that's the simple truth - Penn Jillette (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by undercurrents

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on
all 27 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]I_Hate_Nerds 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Pythagorean theorem has been independently discovered several times throughout history from the Egyptians to the Mayans and Europeans. Independent religions are always wildly different from each other.

[–]Parrot132 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's just as simple as that.

Well it's

Just a

Simple fact.

[–]mlazaric 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Oh my science I shit you not I have seen this quote like 5 times in the 5 months that I have been on reddit.

[–]ScottFree37 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Ok fair point however we can be fairly certain that the broad concepts of the soul and the afterlife would recur in this situation (as they have done previously). If repetition is a test of legitimacy, what does this say about these concepts?

[–]I_Hate_Nerds 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Broad concepts sure, not exact mathematical formulas. As I said in a previous post there are many examples of independently discovered science and mathematics throughout history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries

Native American's and ancient Egyptians both had concepts of an after life but they were vastly different from each other. The Egyptians and Pythagorus both independently discovered A2 + B2 = C2 exactly.

[–]ScottFree37 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No one is disputing the validity of repeatable maths and science. And I agree that if any human conception of the afterlife cannot be replicated in a vacuum then it is most likely false. What I'm asking is that if the concept keeps recurring does that adds weight to the idea that there is indeed something there, and we are simply unable to properly analyse it at this time. And what of the soul? what happens to the soul after death differs greatly from culture to culture but the description of what a soul is remarkably similar. Does this go some way to proving the existence of a soul?

[–]Kafke 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Can you please describe what a soul is. I seem to be a bit lost, and no one is real clear.

[–]ScottFree37 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I guess in the sense that most believe the soul is the essence of a human that carries on in some way after the corporeal form has expired. Kant believed the soul and the mind to be intrinsically linked to the point where they were basically the same thing. This seems fair as both the mind and the soul are at this point still mysteries to us. No one can really quantify the soul nor even definitely confirm its existence and yet the concept has recurred in most (if not all) societies and cultures. I'm not sure of the existence of a soul but believe the robust nature of the concept cannot allow it to be dismissed as delusion without offering an explanation as to why so many cultures through the passage of time shared this delusion.

[–]Kafke 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The way I've seen it explained is that it is basically your mind. Thoughts, sight, hearing, etc. However, with that description, it doesn't fit into any religion.

[–]ScottFree37 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While that is certainly how the soul is said to manifest during life, most descriptions of the soul also pertain to a part of the self that continues on after death, which is the common theme of most if not all religions.

[–]pngwn56 -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, but this is assuming that atheism is correct.

If Christianity was correct (very unlikely), then the world would occur exactly as it had occurred, as the Christian god would have made it occur in exactly the same way.

[–]ScottFree37 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I am in no way shape or form implying that christianity (or any other man made religion) is correct. ANY person and/or organisation claiming to know conclusively what happens after death is, in my opinion misguided. my question was how do the broad concepts of a soul and the afterlife stand up to Penn's test of repetition? Given that they seem to recur in most (if not all societies) it would appear that these concepts could be regarded as existent and we simply lack the ability to understand them sufficiently at this time.

[–]pngwn56 -2 points-1 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I had understood the quote to mean that time would be rolled back and all traces of religion to be erased.

I can see what you are saying now.

[–]Bunbury42 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Penn is actually one of the nicest dudes I've met. I met him after his show in Vegas. He (and Teller) will pose for pictures, sign autographs and talk to anyone who wants to.

[–]Neuromancer4242 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Did so too. He's awesome.

[–]Bunbury42 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He's also terrifyingly tall. Pictures don't give away how big he is. I'm between 6'0-6'1 and he dwarfs me. He must be 6'7 or more

[–]pundemic 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As much as I appreciate the sentiments of the quote, the claim is un-falsifiable.

[–]yourmomdoesntloveyou 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Stop reposting this thing. We have seen it like 50 times in the past week alone. Go fuck yourself and then contribute some new and original content and stop making this place look like a goddamn circlejerk

[–]undercurrents[S] -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that is an unbelievably obnoxious remark. I typed in Penn Jillette, and just Penn, into the search function and this pic with quote did not come up. Since I lack mental telepathy, there's no way I could have otherwise known it had been posted. And yes, you are so right, making this place look like a circlejerk because I was unaware my post wasn't new despite that almost half of everything on here is a repost and I did what I was supposed to by using the search, is so much worse than telling a fellow subscriber who you know nothing about to "go fuck yourself." You must be a hell of an awesome person in real life.

Although, I have noticed that every one of my posts on here that I know for a fact are original submissions barely get looked at 10 times, if even. The ones I've gotten the most upvotes for (which in all honesty I don't care about since they have no real point- about as useful as however many cows you have on internet farmville), are simple pictures with quotes that require no energy to actually learn something from.

Here, you want original content that is not a circlejerk in anyway and you will most definitely learn something from, check out this post (which I'm sure you missed while your were busy bitching at other people): http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ohoxw/mental_illness_and_why_the_skeptic_community/

[–]The_Seventh_Seal 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

While I believe with his sentiment, a brilliant philosopher and author (and also an Atheist) named Joseph Campbell wrote countless volumes on the common narrative present in mythology and the religions that base themselves in them. He found that throughout all moral teaching, parable, or allegory their is a common thread that appears in them, the story of transcendence, the story he called the Hero's Journey. So while I believe the wild traditions, and religious organizations would be formed differently, there would still be this common narrative because as human's we simply MUST tell stories to grapple with the human condition, and if we are all humans, we must be witnessing something faintly familiar in our lives to all the other's that exist on this planet. The issue is when we believe they MUST be real to have any impact on our lives and morality. Just imagine all the amazing books you've read, the films you've seen, did they have to be an historical account to affect you, teach you? No, but the messages beneath the surface are real, a conversation with the storyteller, posing questions of what it is like to be human, for better or for worse.

[–]pngwn56 -5 points-4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

With his claim of "There is no God," he has shifted the burden of proof back onto himself.

Just like I can't disprove Thor, god of lightning, Ra, the son god, Zeus, god of gods, or Aphrodite, the god of love, I can not disprove the Christian God.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. If you claim God exists, you have the burden. If you claim he doesn't, you still have an equal burden.

The only position that does not share in the burden of proof is the weak atheist position, that there may be a god, but there is no proof, and therefore no reason to believe in him.

[–]undercurrents[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

that is an awful, nonsensical argument. There is no burden of proof when claiming something that has not been proven to exist does not exist- to reference Dawkins' fairies in the garden, Russells' space orbiting teacup, and Gervais' mini elephant up your ass, you do not have the burden to prove these things aren't really there.

[–]pngwn56 -2 points-1 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, I understand that. I've made that same argument several times before.

Let me illustrate my point. If someone claimed that all chairs were illusions, would it not be up to them to prove so.

Should I have to go seek out, and prove the existence of the chair to prove them wrong? Of course not. It would be up to them to prove that all chairs are illusions.

Again, when you make a claim, it is up to you to prove it. I could surely continually have someone run back and forth across the continent by claiming things don't exist. My claim, my burden. Your claim, your burden. No claim, no burden.

[–]undercurrents[S] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

but you can't claim things don't exist that do exist. Chairs exist. This is a known, tangible fact. Gravity exists- can't be seen but a proven fact. Chairs have always been known to exist, and every person across every country during every time period can claim the existence of the exact same chair in the room. That is not the same about god- everyone claims a different god is real but no one has any proof for it- none whatsoever.

If you claim to disprove something that has proven fact to back it up- like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon- then you have to prove your claim. But you do not have to prove your claim that something never proven to exist does not exist.

Your argument just makes no sense. It's almost like you are trying to be philosophical but completely missing the mark.

[–]firedine 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The burden of proof is shifted on to the person who makes the affirmative statement.

Saying "there is no God" means that the person claims to have absolute knowledge of God's existence ( or lack thereof). As he has claimed to have knowledge (hence the affirmative statement), he therefore claims the burden to prove this statement.

If something is inherently unknowable, you can say that there is no evidence for it, but that doesn't exclude its existence.

With regards to you saying "chairs exist", what you're actually saying is that because I have felt chairs, seen them and sat on them etc, I consider this to be sufficient evidence to sustain my belief in the existence of chairs. The issue with this is that it relies upon your own perception of things, and human senses are entirely fallible. So realistically, it is entirely possible for there not to be any chairs at all, because you've been hallucinating all of them for your entire life. Whilst this is unlikely, you can't actually disprove it, and so you actually mean: "I think that it is highly likely that chairs exist."

TL-DR: In order for someone to make the statement "God does not exist", they have to give evidence for there not being a god (any and all gods, rather than the christian one). Otherwise, they just say "there is no reason for me to suppose a god exists, and so I shall act as if there is not one."

[–]JimmerUK 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unicorns don't exist.

Leprechauns don't exist.

Fairies at the bottom of the garden don't exist.

What evidence would you like me to provide that proves these things don't exist?

[–]pngwn56 -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Unicorns may exist, but it is highly unlikely. Until such time that proof is provided for their existence, I will continue to lack belief in them.

For a long time, giant squid were thought not to exist. They were believed to be fabled. A person who made the claim they do not exist could not have been falsified, nor verified at that time. Similarly, a person claiming that they did exist could also not have been falsified, nor verified.

This does not mean that they did not exist. The most logical conclusions (based on the given evidence) would have been "giant squid may exist, but there is no empirical proof for them, and I will not believe in their existence until I am provided with such proof."

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 16794 on app-04 running e103ce9.