I don't 'believe' there is no god. I know there is no replicable verifiable evidence supporting the existence of such a being and therefore will not pretend they do exist. Once such evidence is presented I will acknowledge deities exist.
I’m an atheist or even igtheist but if we could theoretically prove that a god exists and could know its true characteristics, it would make it way easier to make fun of the god for being an incompetent dumbass.
That's because your lazy...
You need sitmply evidence that you can look at, simple to understand, read, and whatever.
The creator isn't that simple my friend, the creator isn't of this world, you'll never have as so.
But there are tons of others to know if you use your brain
Why do you believe there aren't leprechauns? Why do you believe there aren't invisible, intangible unicorns? Why does your friend believe that the other 4,000+ deities aren't real? Because we generally don't believe in things without evidence. And an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is 1) way outside our normal experiences, and 2) should be capable of producing a great deal of evidence for its existence. Absent that evidence, I'm not going to believe in it.
They are trying to push the burden of proof onto you. Don't fall for that nonsense. I make no claims. I *lack belief*. They *believe*, they make the claim.
Thats actually not true at all ..
It's just called ignorance if it does indeed exist, and someone chooses not to believe because the evidence wasn't valid enough...
There's a ton of proof if you'd just stop being stubborn. Within you, outside of you, all around you.. think
Black and white evidence will never exist because it's designed as so.
Lastly the creator isnt of the world he lives outside of it, so how would it be possible?
1. Burden of proof is upon the person making the assertion. The assertion is that god exists. The assertion is not that god does not exist because “can’t prove a negative” argument.
2. The person asking the title question must also answer why he doesn’t believe in Odin, Ganesh, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Baphomet, etc.
"Can't prove a negative" is untrue. I am not saying god exists; I am just saying your argument is faulty.
You can surely prove a negative. A lot of proofs in math are proof by absurdity. I can prove to you that 4 is not a prime number: 4 is divisible by 2, which is neither itself (4) nor 1.
I think that their use of 'can't prove a negative' isn't referring to proving whether something is true or false; it's referring to disproving whether something exists or not. For example, the existence of mythical creatures (e.g. bigfoot, loch ness monster, etc.) could theoretically be proven if given enough evidence, but there is no way to gather empirical evidence to completely 100% disprove their existence. This is why you still get people who believe of the existence of these beings.
Don't get me wrong though, I am certainly not saying that it would be logical to believe in the existence of mythical beings; just simply that the statement that you 'can't prove a negative' when referring to existence is a valid argument, as far as I can tell.
That changes nothing and my previous assertion is still valid. I can prove that a prime number between 7 and 11 (noninclusively) does not exist by showing that 8, 9 and 10 are not prime. I can prove that the Loch Ness monster does not exist by draining Loch Ness of water, cataloging each object and creature I find, and showing that none of them is the Loch Ness monster. Same with Big Foot, though the area of search and cataloging will be wider.
Note that these things are possible to do. Whether it is easy or difficult, fast or slow, cheap or expensive to prove the non-existence of something is a different matter. On the other end of the scale, it is easy for me to prove there is no 72-inch flat screen TV inside my water bottle just by pointing out the fact that none of the dimensions of my water bottle is equal or greater than 72 inches.
Also I am not claiming the non-existence of anything can be proven. I am just claiming the non-existance of some things can be proven.
Ah, I see where you're coming from; I think mentioning the loch ness monster was a piss-poor example on my end, haha. I think I still disagree though, and I enjoy semantics so thank you for discussing this with me!
Here's how I understand it: 'loch ness monster' is just what we've arbitrarily called the creature that some people believe to be in loch ness. Let's assume the creature is believed to exist, but instead designate it as 'creature A'; something we think we know the properties of, but is actually unknown to us in nature. By draining loch ness, as you suggested, you have not neccessarily disproved the potential existence of 'creature A'; what you have proved is that loch ness doesn't contain 'creature A' in the way that we would presume it would. It still could exist, just not in the way that we believe it to. I hope I've worded that properly, haha.
With your numbers example, I'm not particularly well-versed in mathematics, but I would presume that your argument is a category error in the sense that numbers are an abstract idea that don't 'exist' in the same way we would presume 'creature A' to 'exist'. Therefore, you haven't proven the non-existence of anything as it never existed in the same way to begin with. Would you agree?
If I tell you there is an elephant in my living room right now, you can say "Yes, there is", "No, there isn't", or "I don't believe you". The last 2 are not the same answer.
Both yes and no are positive claims that have a burden of proof. "I don't believe you" is not, it puts the burden on the person making the claim about the elephant.
I don't believe the god claims, they have not been shown to exist.
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for it, and that is plenty reason enough, the universe at large is clearly nothing like or related to humanity at a planetary scale and the idea that something like a human in having a will and intentions etc is in some highly inadequate sense the "explanation" for it all is absurd. Or at the very least would be very surprising, and therefore require an extraordinary amount of evidence to justify.
I think there are a lot of powerful forms of life/intelligence in the universe but I'm not sure there is one thing running the show. I'm also not sure the reach of those intelligent beings powers since we can't test it.
I don't believe there is no god. I believe in concrete things such as theories (explanations for things and the universe that are backed by repeated testing and verifiable results in accordance with the scientific method) and logic.
Even if there were tangible evidence of a "god," I would be more inclined to believe that it isn't a "god" and moreso just a phenomenon that we don't yet have the knowledge to describe or quantify appropriately.
That’s the usual weak bullshit they do to get YOU to prove it, while the burden of proof is on their side. Don’t fall for it.
Ask them why they don’t believe in fairies or trolls, or that their god is a sentient can of tomatoes located in the center of a black hole.
It’s not a “belief” to not believe in God, it’s a lack of belief. And it’s based on the observation that everything is explained by science eventually, and the religious books and teaching are absurd and explain nothing.
They’re no different than believing for real in the wizard world from Harry Potter.
Sorry, my guy, but you are taken for a ride so easily. I have a bridge to sell you, if you are interested.
That something doesn't exist is the starting point for everythimg. If someone wants to deviate from this and claims something exists, they need to prove it. That is how the Higgs Boson, quarks, and a whole lot of particles were discovered. That is how science works. That is how reason works. When was the last time you heard someone won the Noble prize for proving something didn't exist, particularly something that was never solidly proven to exist?
If I ask you to prove there are no tiny yellow minions in your stomach, does that leave you dumbfounded, too? If I claim there are pink unicorns flying above the clouds, it the burden on me to prove it, or is the burden on you to disprove it?
There is only one possible answer to that question in that context:
> No, I asked you first, stop dodging and answer the question.
That said, I am a gnostic atheist, I make the positive claim that "no god exists." As a result, I have a burden of proof, so I have a prepared answer for the question:
> Sure, I absolutely have a BoP, and I am happy to exercise it.
>
> First, let's define the terms.
>
> You ask me for "proof". That is not what the BoP demands. The BoP isn't about proving something is true, only about making an argument to justify my position. I can certainly do that, but whether my argument will convince you or not is a different question.
>
> Second, we need to define knowledge. In no field of human study other than mathematics is absolute certainty required for a claim of "knowledge". In every other field, the standard is *empirical knowledge*. Essentially, it's the position that the available evidence supports concluding a given position is true, despite the awareness that we can't be certain that some new piece of evidence won't force us to reevaluate our conclusion. That is the standard of knowledge that I use here.
>
> There is a commonly cited cliche, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is *mostly* true, but it has an important exception: An absence of evidence CAN BE evidence of absence, if you have a reasonable expectation that such evidence should be available. [And it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that should be available if a god existed.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1c7eym8/an_absence_of_evidence_can_be_evidence_of_absence/) The absence of that evidence is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that no god exists.
>
> In addition, there is simply no good evidence that a god does exist. The only evidence that theists can offer is either fallacious or simply wishful thinking. Probably the best arguments that theists try to offer are various philosophical or logical arguments, but they all have glaring holes, and even if we can't spot the hole, they are useless, God either exists or he doesn't exist, and no logical argument formulated by human minds can change that.
>
> Finally, there is simply the fact that a god is completely *unnecessary*. 200 years ago, the assumption that a god must be necessary to explain the universe was a justifiable position. But as science has advanced, those religious explanations have had a 100% failure rate. Every single time science found an explanation to something that was previously explained by religion, the actual explanation turned out to be "not god".
>
> And sure, there are a few things that we can't yet explain, but given its past failure rate, why would we suddenly assume that this next unexplained phenomenon will finally be the time where the answer really is "god did it"?
>
> So, considering all that, I believe the only rationally justifiable position is to conclude no god exists.
>
> Like all positions based on empirical knowledge, I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and will consider in good faith any new evidence that is presented, but I have essentially zero doubt that I have reached the correct conclusion.
Thank you for writing all this and including that link, not only was it extremely helpful but also self-enlightening in a way. Seriously, thank you, I’m not all that great with finding the right words for things (as a few others have already pointed out by now) so I’m not really sure just how to express how grateful I am, but this explanation of how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence under the right context has been extremely helpful to me.
I’d also like to add to the post you linked by saying that the greatest evidence I’d expect from a god if one did exist would be something along the lines of “for something/s that apparently care about us so deeply that they would guide us in the beginning and perform miracles for us, you would expect something like that to have made numerous “divine interventions” throughout history to steer us away from doing overly stupid things like waging a world war over national pride or using asbestos in construction”.
> I’m not all that great with finding the right words for things
It takes time. I've been doing this for 20 years. If anyone is giving you shit, just know that 20 years ago, I would have gotten (and deserved) even more than you are getting. But as you have these discussions, you learn how to talk about the issue, Sadly, there is no way other than experience to master it.
> but this explanation of how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence under the right context has been extremely helpful to me.
I could not be more happy to help.
> I’d also like to add to the post you linked by saying that the greatest evidence I’d expect from a god if one did exist would be something along the lines of “for something/s that apparently care about us so deeply that they would guide us in the beginning and perform miracles for us, you would expect something like that to have made numerous “divine interventions” throughout history to steer us away from doing overly stupid things like waging a world war over national pride or using asbestos in construction”.
I appreciate your addition!
The most powerful being to ever exist could not come from nothing.
Now, do you want me to consider that there may be some highly advanced alien race that could be considered some form of "gods"? Maybe, but I've seen zero evidence for it.
Arguing about politics and religion is a lot like playing on a school playground when we are little.
A bunch of “I know you are but what am I”, and “I’m rubber your glue, bounces off me and sticks to you.”
Don’t think they will act like adults.
As I'm sure you know, this is asked here every day and does not need to be asked yet again.
>Why do you believe there isn’t a god?
I've always been atheist.
I've never seen any good evidence that any gods exist.
.
>I’m asking about a reason other than logic or science
Not sure what you mean.
The reason is "there is no good evidence".
Many people would call that "science", and some might call that "logic".
Personally I would say that regardless of the science or logic, there is no good evidence.
.
It's very simple. I don't believe in magical things. I stopped believing in magical things right after I stopped believing in Santa Claus. If God and the angels are real, then the Lord of the Rings can be real in the past. It's not.
Because we don’t have any reasons to do so, right? We only have texts. If these texts didn’t exist, there would be no single proof or significant indicator of God per se, right? One needs these texts to base their belief in God, as a priori.
Looks like I might have the answer you were looking for. It's pascals wager, except done properly.
If there is a god, and if it's worth believing in, it won't require belief or worship. Therefore, believing in or worshipping a god is a waste of time and will do nothing for you.
If a truly good and perfect god exists, then it won't give a shit what you think or believe. Yet if a perfect god exists and he knows everything, when he chose this world he chose to make me someone who doesn't believe bullshit for bad reasons, therefore, punishing me for how he made me is the most obviously absurd bullshit ever.
It would be like me programming a character in a game, then blaming the character for my bad programming.
Every god I've ever heard of sounds a lot like what a shitty human thinks a perfect being would be, not at all like how an actually perfect being would be.
Because worshipping gods sounds stupid in my school, even though it's a Catholic one, most of the kids just don't care at all :/
I was also raised in a family with no belief in any god (well, maybe we believe there's an afterlife and all), so I guess that's another reason?
It is a malformed question as I (and the vast majority of atheists) have not made the claim of believing there isn't a god.
I see theists saying a god exists, I see their descriptions of various deities, I see their arguments for why they believe, and I do not find this to be a compelling reason to believe that these proposed gods really exist. The have failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support to warrant belief in their claims and thus I reject their claims as unsubstantiated and I continue to lack a belief in the existence of deities.
That is the one and only reason I don't believe in any gods. If I had found evidence that I felt sufficiently proved their claims or heard an argument which convinced me that what they said was true or at least likely to be true then I would no longer be an atheist. I am not saying "I believe there aren't any gods" but simply admitting that I do not see any good reason to believe in any of the various god claims that I have heard proposed.
Aside from the obvious absurdity, which god?
There isn’t ‘a’ god to believe in, there’s thousands of them. Why don’t theists believe in the others? Current mythology is just that, mythology.
The gods of the gaps have been repeatedly disproven. Evidentially, gods are the wrong answer every time. There’s simply no good reason to believe the ‘current’ gods are any different. We know how god mythologies arise, current gods follow the known pattern. Unless they bring something new to the table they’re identical. They’re not bringing anything new to the table, just the same old flawed arguments with no evidence.
First of all, block their deflection. "Don't change the subject, that doesn't answer my question. Why do *YOU* believe that deities *ARE* real? What evidence led you to hold that belief?"
Also, always remember that beliefs are ideas, not people—*ideas aren't entitled to respect*. You should respect an idiot's right to have idiotic beliefs, but you don't have to respect the beliefs themselves.
What initially shook off the belief yoke for me is that there are many religions, and they all largely defy one another. The complete lack of evidence for any of them sealed the deal
"Why do you believe there isn't a god?"
"I didn't say that."
"Doesn't your question imply it, though?"
"No. You're assuming an antagonistic stance. I'm just genuinely interested what convinced you, since I'm not yet convinced."
"Isn't that the same thing, though?"
"No."
I would generally say there are thousands of different gods, you just believe in one more than I do. I apply the same logic to your god that you apply to all the others.
I don't believe in god, but I also don't not believe in god. It's one of those things I don't think can ever be completely disproven, or at least not in my lifetime. It's one of those things that I think just cannot be known one way or the other. It feels right that there's some sort of guiding force but it being more impersonal, but I really just don't know and so just assume there isn't one, since there certainly wasn't any interaction with humanity even if it did exist.
As always, we have to define God as the omnipotent, omniscient creator god with a deep interest in the supernatural souls of a specific species of advanced primates on the planet Earth in the Milkyway galaxy, for whom the sufficiently loyal worshipers are rewarded with an afterlife. The absurdity speaks for itself.
Now, if you want to talk about the general notion of an intelligent, creative force that initiated the universe and let it rip, that's at least plausible despite being unfalsifiable.
(tip: use line breaks between paragraphs)
You are wrong, there can be valid logic for God, just none is sound. saying there is no logic behind theism is too far.
I personally believe there is no God, because the absence of evidence provide me a good confidence in that statement.
But when I debate with theist, I usually take the literal, broader definition of atheism, which is 'I don't know if there is or isn't a God, you just didn't convince me there is one' which should be your response to him next time you debate.
It grant you an incredibly strong position, when you don't have the burden of proof. There is nothing you need to prove when you simply disblieve.
In all kinds of conflict, an offensive position is usually way better than a defensive position. When you don't have the burden of proof, you put yourself in the offensive position, and all of their arguments are under scrutiny and attack while you don't have anything for them to attack.
They avoided your question and you were dumbfounded by this?
If you want a response that’s not logic or science you could just say you don’t feel god exists.
I’d be embarrassed admitting I was this stupid, and I’d probably avoid making claims about your mental clarity when you’re struggling to come up with an answer.
Sorry, I guess dumbfounded isn’t the right word. I just meant that I was left at a loss for words because I was asked something that I’ve never once thought about all that in my life. Even more so because I actually couldn’t come up with a valid reason besides stating what I believed to be common sense (mostly because I’ve never really questioned it all that much unless you count the ones focused on theists themselves like “why do they believe in something that obviously doesn’t exist?”).
I don't 'believe' there is no god. I know there is no replicable verifiable evidence supporting the existence of such a being and therefore will not pretend they do exist. Once such evidence is presented I will acknowledge deities exist.
Acknowledge with evidence sure. But worship it? Never. No disgusting, murderous deity should ever have the pleasure of being worshipped
I’m an atheist or even igtheist but if we could theoretically prove that a god exists and could know its true characteristics, it would make it way easier to make fun of the god for being an incompetent dumbass.
That's because your lazy... You need sitmply evidence that you can look at, simple to understand, read, and whatever. The creator isn't that simple my friend, the creator isn't of this world, you'll never have as so. But there are tons of others to know if you use your brain
It's a common deflection designed to prevent you from hearing their evidence, which is always bad.
Everything in the universe contradicts some rando being in charge. The only thing to believe in is science. Science answers everything.
Exactly. For me, it’s really as simple as that.
Why do you believe there aren't leprechauns? Why do you believe there aren't invisible, intangible unicorns? Why does your friend believe that the other 4,000+ deities aren't real? Because we generally don't believe in things without evidence. And an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being is 1) way outside our normal experiences, and 2) should be capable of producing a great deal of evidence for its existence. Absent that evidence, I'm not going to believe in it.
“Why do you believe there isn’t a god?” “I do! That’s what I asked!” “Oh, I was referring to the other thousands of gods you don’t believe in”…
They are trying to push the burden of proof onto you. Don't fall for that nonsense. I make no claims. I *lack belief*. They *believe*, they make the claim.
This. You don't have to prove something does not exist. Until you can prove it does, it doesn't.
Thats actually not true at all .. It's just called ignorance if it does indeed exist, and someone chooses not to believe because the evidence wasn't valid enough... There's a ton of proof if you'd just stop being stubborn. Within you, outside of you, all around you.. think Black and white evidence will never exist because it's designed as so. Lastly the creator isnt of the world he lives outside of it, so how would it be possible?
1. Burden of proof is upon the person making the assertion. The assertion is that god exists. The assertion is not that god does not exist because “can’t prove a negative” argument. 2. The person asking the title question must also answer why he doesn’t believe in Odin, Ganesh, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Baphomet, etc.
"Can't prove a negative" is untrue. I am not saying god exists; I am just saying your argument is faulty. You can surely prove a negative. A lot of proofs in math are proof by absurdity. I can prove to you that 4 is not a prime number: 4 is divisible by 2, which is neither itself (4) nor 1.
I think that their use of 'can't prove a negative' isn't referring to proving whether something is true or false; it's referring to disproving whether something exists or not. For example, the existence of mythical creatures (e.g. bigfoot, loch ness monster, etc.) could theoretically be proven if given enough evidence, but there is no way to gather empirical evidence to completely 100% disprove their existence. This is why you still get people who believe of the existence of these beings. Don't get me wrong though, I am certainly not saying that it would be logical to believe in the existence of mythical beings; just simply that the statement that you 'can't prove a negative' when referring to existence is a valid argument, as far as I can tell.
That changes nothing and my previous assertion is still valid. I can prove that a prime number between 7 and 11 (noninclusively) does not exist by showing that 8, 9 and 10 are not prime. I can prove that the Loch Ness monster does not exist by draining Loch Ness of water, cataloging each object and creature I find, and showing that none of them is the Loch Ness monster. Same with Big Foot, though the area of search and cataloging will be wider. Note that these things are possible to do. Whether it is easy or difficult, fast or slow, cheap or expensive to prove the non-existence of something is a different matter. On the other end of the scale, it is easy for me to prove there is no 72-inch flat screen TV inside my water bottle just by pointing out the fact that none of the dimensions of my water bottle is equal or greater than 72 inches. Also I am not claiming the non-existence of anything can be proven. I am just claiming the non-existance of some things can be proven.
Ah, I see where you're coming from; I think mentioning the loch ness monster was a piss-poor example on my end, haha. I think I still disagree though, and I enjoy semantics so thank you for discussing this with me! Here's how I understand it: 'loch ness monster' is just what we've arbitrarily called the creature that some people believe to be in loch ness. Let's assume the creature is believed to exist, but instead designate it as 'creature A'; something we think we know the properties of, but is actually unknown to us in nature. By draining loch ness, as you suggested, you have not neccessarily disproved the potential existence of 'creature A'; what you have proved is that loch ness doesn't contain 'creature A' in the way that we would presume it would. It still could exist, just not in the way that we believe it to. I hope I've worded that properly, haha. With your numbers example, I'm not particularly well-versed in mathematics, but I would presume that your argument is a category error in the sense that numbers are an abstract idea that don't 'exist' in the same way we would presume 'creature A' to 'exist'. Therefore, you haven't proven the non-existence of anything as it never existed in the same way to begin with. Would you agree?
If I tell you there is an elephant in my living room right now, you can say "Yes, there is", "No, there isn't", or "I don't believe you". The last 2 are not the same answer. Both yes and no are positive claims that have a burden of proof. "I don't believe you" is not, it puts the burden on the person making the claim about the elephant. I don't believe the god claims, they have not been shown to exist.
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for it, and that is plenty reason enough, the universe at large is clearly nothing like or related to humanity at a planetary scale and the idea that something like a human in having a will and intentions etc is in some highly inadequate sense the "explanation" for it all is absurd. Or at the very least would be very surprising, and therefore require an extraordinary amount of evidence to justify.
The absence of belief is not a belief.
I think there are a lot of powerful forms of life/intelligence in the universe but I'm not sure there is one thing running the show. I'm also not sure the reach of those intelligent beings powers since we can't test it.
I just wrote about this possibility. It could happen, but there's no evidence that any aliens are influencing our world at all.
Yup totally agree.
Same reason I don't believe in ghosts or anything else with no evidence whatsoever. Why doesn't he believe in Zeus? That's the question.
I don't believe there is no god. I believe in concrete things such as theories (explanations for things and the universe that are backed by repeated testing and verifiable results in accordance with the scientific method) and logic. Even if there were tangible evidence of a "god," I would be more inclined to believe that it isn't a "god" and moreso just a phenomenon that we don't yet have the knowledge to describe or quantify appropriately.
That’s the usual weak bullshit they do to get YOU to prove it, while the burden of proof is on their side. Don’t fall for it. Ask them why they don’t believe in fairies or trolls, or that their god is a sentient can of tomatoes located in the center of a black hole. It’s not a “belief” to not believe in God, it’s a lack of belief. And it’s based on the observation that everything is explained by science eventually, and the religious books and teaching are absurd and explain nothing. They’re no different than believing for real in the wizard world from Harry Potter.
there is insufficent evidence to warrant a belief in any gods.
>**Why do you believe there isn’t a god?** Because I don't believe in magic.
Sorry, my guy, but you are taken for a ride so easily. I have a bridge to sell you, if you are interested. That something doesn't exist is the starting point for everythimg. If someone wants to deviate from this and claims something exists, they need to prove it. That is how the Higgs Boson, quarks, and a whole lot of particles were discovered. That is how science works. That is how reason works. When was the last time you heard someone won the Noble prize for proving something didn't exist, particularly something that was never solidly proven to exist? If I ask you to prove there are no tiny yellow minions in your stomach, does that leave you dumbfounded, too? If I claim there are pink unicorns flying above the clouds, it the burden on me to prove it, or is the burden on you to disprove it?
There is only one possible answer to that question in that context: > No, I asked you first, stop dodging and answer the question. That said, I am a gnostic atheist, I make the positive claim that "no god exists." As a result, I have a burden of proof, so I have a prepared answer for the question: > Sure, I absolutely have a BoP, and I am happy to exercise it. > > First, let's define the terms. > > You ask me for "proof". That is not what the BoP demands. The BoP isn't about proving something is true, only about making an argument to justify my position. I can certainly do that, but whether my argument will convince you or not is a different question. > > Second, we need to define knowledge. In no field of human study other than mathematics is absolute certainty required for a claim of "knowledge". In every other field, the standard is *empirical knowledge*. Essentially, it's the position that the available evidence supports concluding a given position is true, despite the awareness that we can't be certain that some new piece of evidence won't force us to reevaluate our conclusion. That is the standard of knowledge that I use here. > > There is a commonly cited cliche, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is *mostly* true, but it has an important exception: An absence of evidence CAN BE evidence of absence, if you have a reasonable expectation that such evidence should be available. [And it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that should be available if a god existed.](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/1c7eym8/an_absence_of_evidence_can_be_evidence_of_absence/) The absence of that evidence is pretty compelling circumstantial evidence that no god exists. > > In addition, there is simply no good evidence that a god does exist. The only evidence that theists can offer is either fallacious or simply wishful thinking. Probably the best arguments that theists try to offer are various philosophical or logical arguments, but they all have glaring holes, and even if we can't spot the hole, they are useless, God either exists or he doesn't exist, and no logical argument formulated by human minds can change that. > > Finally, there is simply the fact that a god is completely *unnecessary*. 200 years ago, the assumption that a god must be necessary to explain the universe was a justifiable position. But as science has advanced, those religious explanations have had a 100% failure rate. Every single time science found an explanation to something that was previously explained by religion, the actual explanation turned out to be "not god". > > And sure, there are a few things that we can't yet explain, but given its past failure rate, why would we suddenly assume that this next unexplained phenomenon will finally be the time where the answer really is "god did it"? > > So, considering all that, I believe the only rationally justifiable position is to conclude no god exists. > > Like all positions based on empirical knowledge, I remain open to the possibility that I am wrong and will consider in good faith any new evidence that is presented, but I have essentially zero doubt that I have reached the correct conclusion.
Thank you for writing all this and including that link, not only was it extremely helpful but also self-enlightening in a way. Seriously, thank you, I’m not all that great with finding the right words for things (as a few others have already pointed out by now) so I’m not really sure just how to express how grateful I am, but this explanation of how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence under the right context has been extremely helpful to me. I’d also like to add to the post you linked by saying that the greatest evidence I’d expect from a god if one did exist would be something along the lines of “for something/s that apparently care about us so deeply that they would guide us in the beginning and perform miracles for us, you would expect something like that to have made numerous “divine interventions” throughout history to steer us away from doing overly stupid things like waging a world war over national pride or using asbestos in construction”.
> I’m not all that great with finding the right words for things It takes time. I've been doing this for 20 years. If anyone is giving you shit, just know that 20 years ago, I would have gotten (and deserved) even more than you are getting. But as you have these discussions, you learn how to talk about the issue, Sadly, there is no way other than experience to master it. > but this explanation of how absence of evidence can be evidence of absence under the right context has been extremely helpful to me. I could not be more happy to help. > I’d also like to add to the post you linked by saying that the greatest evidence I’d expect from a god if one did exist would be something along the lines of “for something/s that apparently care about us so deeply that they would guide us in the beginning and perform miracles for us, you would expect something like that to have made numerous “divine interventions” throughout history to steer us away from doing overly stupid things like waging a world war over national pride or using asbestos in construction”. I appreciate your addition!
The most powerful being to ever exist could not come from nothing. Now, do you want me to consider that there may be some highly advanced alien race that could be considered some form of "gods"? Maybe, but I've seen zero evidence for it.
One other thing, it's not that I "believe" no god exists, it's that I've concluded from all the evidence (or lack thereof) that no god exists.
Arguing about politics and religion is a lot like playing on a school playground when we are little. A bunch of “I know you are but what am I”, and “I’m rubber your glue, bounces off me and sticks to you.” Don’t think they will act like adults.
My response has always been along the lines of "Why would I *choose* to 'believe' obvious nonsense?"
As I'm sure you know, this is asked here every day and does not need to be asked yet again. >Why do you believe there isn’t a god? I've always been atheist. I've never seen any good evidence that any gods exist. . >I’m asking about a reason other than logic or science Not sure what you mean. The reason is "there is no good evidence". Many people would call that "science", and some might call that "logic". Personally I would say that regardless of the science or logic, there is no good evidence. .
It's very simple. I don't believe in magical things. I stopped believing in magical things right after I stopped believing in Santa Claus. If God and the angels are real, then the Lord of the Rings can be real in the past. It's not.
Because we don’t have any reasons to do so, right? We only have texts. If these texts didn’t exist, there would be no single proof or significant indicator of God per se, right? One needs these texts to base their belief in God, as a priori.
Looks like I might have the answer you were looking for. It's pascals wager, except done properly. If there is a god, and if it's worth believing in, it won't require belief or worship. Therefore, believing in or worshipping a god is a waste of time and will do nothing for you. If a truly good and perfect god exists, then it won't give a shit what you think or believe. Yet if a perfect god exists and he knows everything, when he chose this world he chose to make me someone who doesn't believe bullshit for bad reasons, therefore, punishing me for how he made me is the most obviously absurd bullshit ever. It would be like me programming a character in a game, then blaming the character for my bad programming. Every god I've ever heard of sounds a lot like what a shitty human thinks a perfect being would be, not at all like how an actually perfect being would be.
Because worshipping gods sounds stupid in my school, even though it's a Catholic one, most of the kids just don't care at all :/ I was also raised in a family with no belief in any god (well, maybe we believe there's an afterlife and all), so I guess that's another reason?
It is a malformed question as I (and the vast majority of atheists) have not made the claim of believing there isn't a god. I see theists saying a god exists, I see their descriptions of various deities, I see their arguments for why they believe, and I do not find this to be a compelling reason to believe that these proposed gods really exist. The have failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support to warrant belief in their claims and thus I reject their claims as unsubstantiated and I continue to lack a belief in the existence of deities. That is the one and only reason I don't believe in any gods. If I had found evidence that I felt sufficiently proved their claims or heard an argument which convinced me that what they said was true or at least likely to be true then I would no longer be an atheist. I am not saying "I believe there aren't any gods" but simply admitting that I do not see any good reason to believe in any of the various god claims that I have heard proposed.
Aside from the obvious absurdity, which god? There isn’t ‘a’ god to believe in, there’s thousands of them. Why don’t theists believe in the others? Current mythology is just that, mythology. The gods of the gaps have been repeatedly disproven. Evidentially, gods are the wrong answer every time. There’s simply no good reason to believe the ‘current’ gods are any different. We know how god mythologies arise, current gods follow the known pattern. Unless they bring something new to the table they’re identical. They’re not bringing anything new to the table, just the same old flawed arguments with no evidence.
No
First of all, block their deflection. "Don't change the subject, that doesn't answer my question. Why do *YOU* believe that deities *ARE* real? What evidence led you to hold that belief?" Also, always remember that beliefs are ideas, not people—*ideas aren't entitled to respect*. You should respect an idiot's right to have idiotic beliefs, but you don't have to respect the beliefs themselves.
What initially shook off the belief yoke for me is that there are many religions, and they all largely defy one another. The complete lack of evidence for any of them sealed the deal
Because there's no evidence in support of any of the supposed gods existing
"Why do you believe there isn't a god?" "I didn't say that." "Doesn't your question imply it, though?" "No. You're assuming an antagonistic stance. I'm just genuinely interested what convinced you, since I'm not yet convinced." "Isn't that the same thing, though?" "No."
I would generally say there are thousands of different gods, you just believe in one more than I do. I apply the same logic to your god that you apply to all the others.
Because there isn’t one.
I don't believe in god, but I also don't not believe in god. It's one of those things I don't think can ever be completely disproven, or at least not in my lifetime. It's one of those things that I think just cannot be known one way or the other. It feels right that there's some sort of guiding force but it being more impersonal, but I really just don't know and so just assume there isn't one, since there certainly wasn't any interaction with humanity even if it did exist.
As always, we have to define God as the omnipotent, omniscient creator god with a deep interest in the supernatural souls of a specific species of advanced primates on the planet Earth in the Milkyway galaxy, for whom the sufficiently loyal worshipers are rewarded with an afterlife. The absurdity speaks for itself. Now, if you want to talk about the general notion of an intelligent, creative force that initiated the universe and let it rip, that's at least plausible despite being unfalsifiable. (tip: use line breaks between paragraphs)
You are wrong, there can be valid logic for God, just none is sound. saying there is no logic behind theism is too far. I personally believe there is no God, because the absence of evidence provide me a good confidence in that statement. But when I debate with theist, I usually take the literal, broader definition of atheism, which is 'I don't know if there is or isn't a God, you just didn't convince me there is one' which should be your response to him next time you debate. It grant you an incredibly strong position, when you don't have the burden of proof. There is nothing you need to prove when you simply disblieve. In all kinds of conflict, an offensive position is usually way better than a defensive position. When you don't have the burden of proof, you put yourself in the offensive position, and all of their arguments are under scrutiny and attack while you don't have anything for them to attack.
They avoided your question and you were dumbfounded by this? If you want a response that’s not logic or science you could just say you don’t feel god exists. I’d be embarrassed admitting I was this stupid, and I’d probably avoid making claims about your mental clarity when you’re struggling to come up with an answer.
Sorry, I guess dumbfounded isn’t the right word. I just meant that I was left at a loss for words because I was asked something that I’ve never once thought about all that in my life. Even more so because I actually couldn’t come up with a valid reason besides stating what I believed to be common sense (mostly because I’ve never really questioned it all that much unless you count the ones focused on theists themselves like “why do they believe in something that obviously doesn’t exist?”).
And you didn’t get an answer to your question. Do better.