What did you get told as a child that you realised was a lie as you got older?

I'm not against religion, but that's not how evidence and proof works. Do you have any proof that tiny invisible pink elephants aren't hiding in your fridge?

that’s not how evidence and proof works.
Proof of a negative is common in science and mathematics.
No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
Edit: For those who are downvoting here are some sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
- No, you can't prove that something never happens or that something doesn't exist. You can sometimes prove something that contradicts the existence of something, but that's not proving that the thing itself doesn't exist, because it's epistemologically not possible
  
  No, you can’t prove that something never happens or that something doesn’t exist.
  Science, philosophy, and mathematics say otherwise.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
  
  Then why did you dodge the request to prove there are no tiny invisible pink elephants in your fridge, wise guy? lmao
  
  If you're claiming my fridge has no tiny invisible pink elephants you are welcome to provide evidence.
  I will make no claims on the matter and thus have to provide no evidence either way.
  Edit: I think you're confusing me for the other guy.
  
  I think you're confusing me for the other guy.
  I was, but you're running defense for him so I think the point still stands.
  Believing claims on the grounds that they haven't been disproven is just bad epistemology, and it certainly isn't good science. Hence the elephants.
  
  Believing claims on the grounds that they haven’t been disproven is just bad epistemology
  Well, it's a good thing that wasn't my position.

That's not really how it works though. If I tell you there's an invisible dragon living under your bed who will burn your house down at some time in the future if you don't give me $10. You can't disprove it, but because I'm the one making the claim that the dragon exists the burden of proof is on me.

The burden of proof tennis is quite tricky here because it's not about whether you claim something exists, it's whether you claim something that goes against what's generally accepted. If I claim quantum mechanics don't exist, it's not on you to prove they do.
And that's before we get into the fact that there isn't a general consensus on whether God (or any gods) exist.
- Your premise is incorrect. The burden of proof for quantum mechanics is on the people claiming they exist. They provided those proofs, which is why people believe in them. I haven't studied quantum mechanics, but if you asked somebody who does, they could offer proof or evidence. And if they couldn't, then your claim it doesn't exist (until proof was proffered) would be correct.
  
  It was on them until society generally accepted it. Now if I claim it doesn't exist, the burden is on me.
  Or how about this: if I claim dinosaurs never existed and thus the fossils didn't come from them, it's not on you to prove they did.
  
  You're missing the point. It's not a one time thing. Evidence existed, that evidence was found, and that's what made it change to being accepted.
  That evidence still exists, so if you claim dinosaurs don't exist, we can just point to the evidence that still exists. That evidence didn't get spirited away like golden plates to heaven. We're still finding dinosaur bones.
  If you claim dinosaurs don't exist, I would point to the wealth of evidence that they do. If you were raised in some religious cult that never taught anything about dinosaurs and taught that the Earth was 6000 years old, and therefore didn't think giant creatures existed hundreds of millions of years ago, it would absolutely be on the person claiming they exist to show you dinosaur bones. Which is evidence.
  
  Don't argue with idiots.
  
  I see your point, but the idea here is that, since I'm starting from the assumption that dinosaurs don't exist, I conclude that the fossils came from some source other than dinosaurs, so they can't be used as pro-dinosaur evidence. But at the same time I don't offer an alternative explanation on where they came from.
  
  No. Your claim has shifted; you are now claiming that the evidence is false/incorrect, and now the burden of proof is on you to prove that it is.
  
  The existence of dinosaurs is well-established through a variety of scientific evidence. Here are some of the key proofs:
  1. Fossil Evidence
  Bone Fossils: The most compelling evidence for the existence of dinosaurs comes from fossils. These are preserved remains found in sedimentary rocks that have formed from sediments laid down in ancient rivers, lakes, and seas. Dinosaur bones show distinct features, such as air-filled cavities that indicate they were adapted to support massive bodies while being lightweight, similar to modern birds.
  Tracks and Footprints: Fossilized footprints and tracks give clues about the behavior, movement, and size of these creatures. Sites like the Paluxy River trackways in Texas and others around the world show clear, sequential dinosaur footprints.
  Egg Fossils: Fossilized eggs have been found in many locations around the world, providing direct evidence of reproduction in dinosaurs. Some nests even contain embryos, which help scientists understand growth and development in these creatures.
  2. Geological Distribution
  Global Spread: Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent on Earth, including Antarctica. This widespread geographic distribution is consistent with the known plate tectonics and continental drift over geological time scales, supporting the timeline in which dinosaurs are said to have existed.
  3. Radiometric Dating
  Age Determination: Radiometric dating methods allow scientists to determine the age of rock layers where dinosaur fossils are found. These methods typically use the decay of naturally occurring isotopes, such as uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating, to establish the age of rocks as ranging from about 66 to over 200 million years old—corresponding to the Mesozoic Era, the time period during which dinosaurs thrived.
  4. Comparative Anatomy and Phylogeny
  Anatomical Similarities: The study of dinosaur fossils allows scientists to reconstruct their skeletons and infer muscle attachments and body shapes. Comparisons with modern animals can help interpret their posture, diet, and lifestyle.
  Evolutionary Relationships: Dinosaurs share many features with other groups of vertebrates, especially birds. In fact, modern birds are considered the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs, a relationship supported by numerous anatomical and genetic data.
  5. Soft Tissue and Molecular Evidence
  In some rare cases, soft tissues have been preserved in dinosaur fossils. For example, flexible blood vessels and cells have been reported in Tyrannosaurus rex fossils. While controversial and rare, such findings can provide insights into the biology of these ancient creatures.
  6. Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions
  Contextual Clues: Fossilized plants, pollens, and associated animal fossils found alongside dinosaur remains help reconstruct the environments they lived in, further validating their existence and providing context about the ecosystem dynamics of the past.
  Collectively, these evidences from paleontology, geology, and biology robustly demonstrate that dinosaurs existed as real, living organisms on Earth millions of years ago. Their study continues to provide valuable insights into the history of life on our planet.
  
  Thanks ChatGPT. Those are all from fossils.
  
  It sounds like you're taking a skeptical stance towards the conventional interpretation of dinosaur fossils without proposing an alternative hypothesis for their origins. This approach can be useful for critically examining evidence but might limit understanding if alternative explanations aren't explored. In scientific discourse, it's typically valuable not only to critique existing theories but also to propose viable alternatives that can be tested and evaluated against the evidence. If the goal is to challenge established views like the existence of dinosaurs, developing a coherent alternative theory on the origin of fossils could strengthen your argument and provide a new perspective for consideration.
  
  Just to address the chatgpt comments, I assumed you were a troll but I now see that you're a real person, deserving of a real answer. My standpoint is that science should enhance religion: as they approach different problems, they should be compatible. Science deals with the workings of the natural world and how things happen, while religion often addresses why the world exists and what our purpose might be. For this reason I'm against dismissing scientific discoveries solely due to religious teachings. Some see new discoveries about the universe as enhancing our understanding of God. Just because the bible was written without the understanding we have today doesn't mean that the progress of all modern knowledge is false. And similarly when specific bible teachings are disproven doesn't mean that the underlying purpose or values are invalid. In summary, ai think the purpose of religion is to improve society and wellbeing by addressing fears, providing a deep need for community and creating a moral code. I think problems and frictions arrive when, the moral codes develop over time due to new understanding of what is right or fair, and knowledge of the world improves. There are religions that accept that they should change over time and accept these new viewpoints, such as evolution, dinosaurs, or to respect womens rights. There are other hardline religions that believe that the world is 6000 years old, that women have no rights, that dinosaurs are false creatures created by the devil, and that technology is evil and should be avoided. Right now you seem to be leaning towards more hardline standpoints, which can anger some people, as you've seen by the down votes. I would encourage you moving forwards to not see new viewpoints and scientific understanding as a challenge to your religion, and instead accept that the world is beautiful and this knew knowledge was a gift to you from God. Gay marriage is legalised, so God accepts that people should be allowed to be happy in themselves, accept that into your religion. Dinosaurs are found and thousands of people work to understand them, God has given those people a gift to work in such an exciting career, accept the gift into your religion. To dismiss knowledge, is to dismiss a gift from God. Ancient wisdom and modern understanding should go hand in hand.
- So if everyone believed in the invisible dragon under your bed, would that shift the burden of proof to you? I don't see what the general consensus has to do with anything.
  The people who say quantum mechanics exists don't just claim it, they can demonstrate it through peer reviewed evidence. Quantum mechanics is also a theory based on observable facts intended to propose testable mechanisms by which those facts can be explained. My claim of a dragon under your bed has no such backing.
  As smarter people than me have said, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
  
  Yeah, if everyone believes there's an invisible dragon under my bed, then that means the burden of proof is on me to claim there isn't. And I'd probably address that with a stick.
  As for assertion without evidence, how do you feel about eyewitness accounts of miracles? Or sociological reasoning on the odds of the disciples keeping a conspiracy for their whole lives? Or how about the origin of the universe - we had all the matter in the universe condensed into a single point, complete with laws that would lead to such interesting things as nuclear fusion, complex planetary orbits, and even pockets of life. Do you take it as a given that it's far more likely for that to have come out of nowhere than for a higher power to exist and have arranged it as such?
  You're free to discount the evidence (though I'd be happy to debate it with you,) and dismiss the claims because it doesn't align with your experiences. But note that the idea that all this happened without God is as absurd to me as the existence of God is to you, and equally unsubstantiated.
  
  so, you can get around the burden of proof by getting enough people to perpetrate the lie?
  
  Much like every good con or pyramid scheme.
  
  No no a stick won't work, the invisible dragon is very small and agile and would easily dodge your stick. It only makes itself known when it wants to.
  I feel the same about eyewitness accounts of miracles. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence. It could be a good place to start to investigate miraculous claims but that's all.
  I'm not dismissing claims because it doesn't align with my experiences, but because there is no reliable evidence. In fact depending on the type of diety you propose I think many claims can be shown to be false because they a contradictory with reality.
  I'd be interested to hear the evidence you have for sure. I'm open to changing my views. I'm not scholar but my understanding is that the best we have is a collection of anonymously written books which isn't enough for me to accept such a huge claim.
  I don't know about the origin of the universe but I don't think anyone claims things came from nothing, we simply don't know what was before the big bang. Not knowing the answer to me isn't a good enough reason to assume a divine entity is responsible.
  
  Eyewitness testimony isn't evidence, eh? Before I get too invested in this, I want to know what you do consider to be evidence. Suppose that, hypothetically, I run a study where I recruit 1000 people off the street. I tell them that at some point over the next 10 days, I'm going to pray for them to experience peace. For each person, I roll a 10 sided die to choose which day to pray on, do so, and record the result. Then at the end of the 10 days, I bring them all back and ask them to indicate on which day they felt the most peace. ~600 of them say the same day that I rolled for them, ~150 of them are one day off, and ~100 can't give an answer. If this were to happen (solely hypothetical, ignoring any arguments about whether God would play along for a study,) would that count as evidence?
  
  Yes that would count as evidence but only if you modified your experiment slightly:
  Don't tell anyone that you will pray for them.
  Instead of personally praying for each person, give the list of participant names to someone you trust.
  This person can then pray for a subset of the people listed on random days, recording the person they prayed for and the day.
  You conduct interviews with the people as you suggested.
  After you record the results of the interviews, you then look at the data from the person who prayed and see where things matched up. You can then observe if there are any statistically significant differences between those who were prayed for and those who were not
  The reason this counts as evidence is because it's not eyewitness testimony, it's a controlled experiment which should be reproducible by anyone. By itself it doesn't prove anything but it would help to start building a body of evidence that prayer can work, or not depending on your results.
  
  This is how you do experiments. Double blind all the way.
  
  So if it doesn't meet the standards of a double blind study, it's worthless as evidence? What about case studies?
  I get that double blind studies are superior because they combat bias, but sometimes double blind studies aren't what's been done. Other types of studies aren't invalid, you just have to take them with salt and consider alternative explanations - just as you do with a double blind study.
  
  Case studies are similar in my mind to anecdotes or eyewitness testimony, an interesting starting point or indication that something might be worth digging into but not really evidence.
  And yeah I suggested a double blind study because it has the most value for providing potential evidence although even that is no guarantee depending on the experiment design. It'd definitely be a good start though at the very least. You could do a non blind study but then the fact that it's non blind will be the first thing to come up and cast doubt on the results. If you want to provide solid evidence I don't think you would want to settle for less than that if you can avoid it.
  FWIW I think there have already been studies done on prayer but they don't seem to be conclusive from what I could tell at least but hey, I'm not a scientist. You just asked what I'd consider evidence so hopefully this has helped answer that somewhat. Even with a double blind study though I think you would have some work ahead of you but you'd definitely have my interest!
- Not really though? Non-existence of anything is the default. Existence of something puts the burden of proof on whoever claims this something exists. "Quantum mechanics" is a bad example, it's a set of theories, not a single theory (like "a god exists"). Depending on what is being claimed, you can easily show people papers, such as this one which shows experimental observable proof of principles of quantum theory.
  At one point, quantum mechanics didn't exist and wasn't generally accepted. Physicists like Heisenberg took upon them the burden of proof and provided it.
  General acceptance is how it is treated since then, by non-physicists, but it is simply possible to follow the proof of it if you really wanted to. There are experiments that have been performed and that can be performed again that create observable evidence of the principles of quantum mechanics.
  The burden of proof still lies on proponents of quantum mechanics. What you're talking about is more of a societal shortcut, accepting that the burden of proof has been verified by other people, not by yourself, as it's impossible to go deep enough into every subject to actually verify every proof you come across. That's why specialization exists.
  The difference is that 99% of physicists confirm the proof of quantum mechanics. Specialists on religion are all very much divided on which god(s) or whether at all one exists, and no proof exists for any religious theories.

You should familiarize yourself with the concept called Burden of Proof. They (those who believe in God, and claim he exists and created all things, etc) are the ones where the burden lies. It is not for the rest of us to prove their beliefs for them, or you.

The default position is that we don't know if a specified thing exists. To prove or disprove it, you need evidence. I can prove that the Christian God doesn't exist, as it is logically impossible, but it's possible that some other version of a god might exist, I don't know. I don't have evidence either way.

How can you prove the Christian God doesn't exist?
- It's logically impossible, it has contradictory aspects.
  
  Yes, you said that, but what exactly?
  
  It's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. It's on those who believe in god to prove its existence.
  And the Bible doesn't count as sufficient evidence because that would be like believing Harry Potter exists because JK Rowling says so.
  
  Unless you claim, as OP did, that you can actually disprove it.
  I agree that the Bible is not sufficient in the sense that it proves anything or sews up their arguments, but to suggest its historical value as evidence is the same as modern day fiction is absurd.
  
  For example, omnipotence is a self-contradictory term, as you have a dilemma - if a being is all powerful enough to give itself limits, it is not omnipotent as it wouldn't be able to do the things it limited itself to do. Whereas if it can't self-impose limits, it's also not omnipotent as it isn't able to self-impose limits. Another example is that suffering exists in the world, which would be a contradiction if an all-powerful being that wanted to end suffering existed, since it should, but it isn't.
  And these are just contradictions within God's character. If you want to look at the things he actually claims to have done, you'll find numerous more in the Bible. Just as one example, Jesus's last words are different in almost every gospel.
  
  None of this is new or hasn't been thought about, written about and deflated for centuries. I doubt you have any theologians shaking in their boots.
  The meaning of omnipotence as it translates to Good has always been nuanced. There have always been things God can't do - sin being the obvious example. You could debate whether he can, but just never would because of his character, but it amounts to the same thing and has been orthodoxy for centuries.
  The apparent contradictions on the Gospels (especially synoptic) have been done to death. Debated and answered more times than you've had hot dinners. There is no serious theologian or biblical scholar who would hear that argument and be at all concerned by it.
  Honestly the same applies to the idea of a good god and suffering.
  
  Just because people think they've put forward an excuse doesn't mean it's a good excuse. None I've heard have convinced me yet.
  
  And that's fair enough. Claiming you can definitively disprove the existence of the Christian God and having some objections that you haven't heard a convincing response to aren't the same thing though...
  
  You made a typo in your original comment
  I can prove that the Christian God doesn’t exist
  
  I don't see any typo, where do you think there is one?
  
  Ah sorry I misunderstood your comment

Let’s start with clarifying an element of the question:

Which characteristics define a god? Do these characteristics violate the laws of physics and/or internal logic? If these characteristics do not violate the laws of physics, then what aspects distinguish a god from a mundane or natural entity?

Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

Not one person has provided proof that there is no Higher Power. Grow up....

Because that's not the atheist position. You're wrestling with a claim nobody is making.

Atheism doesn't claim there is no "Higher Power", it's just a disbelief in theistic claims.

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Careful, many online atheists don't understand that they have to prove a negative. That they have to prove the assertion: "There is no god."

The default position is that there is yet insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion.

Edit: Thank you for the downvotes, you have provided me with further evidence that online atheists don't understand that they have to prove a negative. Your butthurt fuels me.

This guy eats babies
prove me wrong
- You have made the assertion, thus you have the burden of proof.
  "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" QED
  
  ...Do you not realize that the same goes for god?
  
  I wasn't arguing for the existence of god.
  Let me break this down:
  "There is a god." --> Burden of proof
  "There is no god." --> Burden of proof
  "Hey, man. I don't know." ---> No burden of proof
  
  The second one is wrong, there is no god is not a claim that requires evidence in the same way there are no fairies in my fridge doesn't require evidence
  
  Negative claims require evidence.
  Otherwise a safety engineer can go to a regulator and say "There are no structural issues with this building." He is claiming there are no issues, he needs to back that up with evidence.
  Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. 😜
  
  That's making a positive claim about a negative outcome. "There is enough evidence to be confident there aren't structural problems" is what they're really saying.
  This doesn't work for god because there's nothing to check, there's never been any evidence for god, but there's been plenty of evidence for structural issues existing.
  
  “There is enough evidence to be confident there aren’t structural problems” is what they’re really saying.
  Bro, the graphite is not there. Everything is completely normal.
Are you implying that a negative categorically cannot be proven?
Edit: I have since disavowed this instance
- No. A negative can be proven. It's done all the time in science and mathematics.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Proving_a_negative
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
  
  Ok, just verifying that that fallacy wasn’t the crux of your argument
  Edit: I have since disavowed this instance

1. Fossil Evidence

2. Geological Distribution

3. Radiometric Dating

4. Comparative Anatomy and Phylogeny

5. Soft Tissue and Molecular Evidence

6. Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions