# Talk:What proof or evidence do you have that atheism is true and correct?

## Don't Feed the Troll[edit]

I always thought we would never make this article or attempt to answer the question -since there is no need to. We already know this has been addressed numerous times, we've spoon-fed to Shock several explanations why this question is structured and asked incorrectly, and both weak and strong atheists have already refuted it to the letter.

I am not restricting the author of this article, saying he/she cannot write it, but I would advise that we think about it this first. Does anyone have any objections to writing this article, or should we drop the "Don't Feed the Troll" and just go with it? Feredir28 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

- I don't know any of the history on this. I was just struck by how he kept asking the same question with the same wording, and thought it could use a reasoned answer. I would have thought the long existing page on Shockofgod meant that the "feeding the troll" ship had sailed - we are addressing him there at some length, so I don't think this page makes it any worse.--
Kriss Akabusi
^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1}19:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

- Point taken, and it is true that no official post on RW has told us not to go there. I asked if we should respond to Shock within a couple of weeks when I joined RW, and on my talk page I was told to not feed the troll. All I did was say fine and moved on. Yes, we already have given a lengthy history of Shock, but I think we already given a proper response to his question by linking to the Atheist article that fully explained that no one can prove a negative - which seemed good enough. However, it is true that much is left out, such as explaining in a detail manner why this question is faulty, nor is a responses are given from strong atheists (I have seen a really good response on YT by Dhorptan - See here). I would also include DonExodus2's famous video "Where is your proof and evidence that my magic sandwich does not exist?" - it was from this video that the "Magic Sandwich Show" was created starring the big intellectuals among the YT atheist community. Feredir28 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

- I don't think the explanation that you can't prove a negative is enough, because it misses the point about asking for proof
*or evidence*. Evidence and proof are different things - you can have evidence suggesting something that is not, in fact, true, for example - and that's a subtlety that people on both sides of the question sometimes miss.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1}10:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

- I don't think the explanation that you can't prove a negative is enough, because it misses the point about asking for proof

- Hi, I agree with Kriss about this matter. To fully push the burden of proof to the theist seems to make the atheist stance very weak, and in fact dependent on theist arguments. It suggests that unless the theist completely exhaust their arguments, atheism cannot be fully validated and is at risk of collapsing. I would like to suggest an alternative consideration. It is possible to proof a negative, through contradiction. Contradiction of the holy texts, contradiction of logic, etc. For instance, in math, there is a proof that ALL math systems are either incomplete or inconsistent (Godel's incompleteness theorem) where he uses logic and acceptable assumptions to proof a contradiction. Full Disclosure: I don't stand in any camp currently. I'm confused and looking at both sides of the theism argument to see which one is objectively more reasonable.
^{— Unsigned, by: 182.55.75.244 / talk / contribs }

- Hi, I agree with Kriss about this matter. To fully push the burden of proof to the theist seems to make the atheist stance very weak, and in fact dependent on theist arguments. It suggests that unless the theist completely exhaust their arguments, atheism cannot be fully validated and is at risk of collapsing. I would like to suggest an alternative consideration. It is possible to proof a negative, through contradiction. Contradiction of the holy texts, contradiction of logic, etc. For instance, in math, there is a proof that ALL math systems are either incomplete or inconsistent (Godel's incompleteness theorem) where he uses logic and acceptable assumptions to proof a contradiction. Full Disclosure: I don't stand in any camp currently. I'm confused and looking at both sides of the theism argument to see which one is objectively more reasonable.

- What about the point that atheism is an individual's stance on the issue of whether they think there is a god or not - usually based on whether they think the evidence for one convinces them? One can't judge the viability or veracity of what another thinks. If I don't think there is a god for whatever reason, there is nothing to prove or disprove. Perhaps it is a semantics problem where the word "atheism" covers both someone's opinion and the notion that there is no god, as in opposition to people trying to prove there is one.

## "true" vs "accurate"[edit]

It seems like Shock usually says "accurate and correct" as opposed to "true and correct". I suggest we change the title of the article to reflect this. Flies (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)