I do not quibble between words like agnostic and atheist. We all know there is no evidence of gods. If you quibble between word meaning too much you might end up placing the burden of proof upon yourself. The best example of this is when you declare that there absolutely are no gods. I don't believe in any, but the believer will offer his Buybull and other nonsense as his proof. He might even have you looking at trees and birds. Maybe a sunset.

It's the word "belief" that I think needs to be addressed. We don't "believe" that nothing exists. I don't "believe" that no Santa, Easter Bunny, unicorns... exist. I simply take the null hypothesis.

We believe in things because we don't have evidence for them. I don't believe that the earth is round... I don't have to. I don't believe that water boils at roughly 212 degrees (depending on elevation), it just does. I don't "believe" I can fly or "believe" I can touch the sky. Simply because, if I spread my wings to fly away... I'd be dead.

So this isn't about belief. If someone asks me if I "believe" in the possibility of God, I would say "yes." I reasonably acknowledge that there is no evidence for a God, and assume for now that there is no God. But I also see something beyond me that I don't understand, and so I create "beliefs" about that... knowing that beliefs are present in the lack of evidence. IF evidence ever shows up to verify a god, then I'll no longer need to believe.

I used to think I was an agnostic. My only scenario for existence of a god was that there was a chance the laws of physics had been arbitrarily defined and we would have no way of finding out either way. I had a long conversation with the smartest, most centered philosopher I know about this, and hours later we agreed that if that was my definition, then I must be an atheist. In essence because otherwise the only definition of Atheism would be paradoxical: a firm arbitrary belief in the nonexistence of credible arbitrary beliefs.

For believers whats makes you think any diety does exist. Disregard any single point in the theist paradigm and the who paradigm falls apart

There has been nothing in 56 years of life that has lead me to believe in the existence of God. Truthfully, I find the idea unbelievable and the opposite of how The natural world is. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I find it funny how we read our children fairy tales explain how they’re not real, but we’re expected to believe that the fairytales of God Are real? And yes I say fairytales. They follow the same premise.

It has been said that if, right this very moment, ALL human knowledge ceased to exist, the Bible (or Koran or any religious text) would not be re-created with the same information. However, eventually, everything we now know about science would eventually be re-created.

An old book, « Le testament du curé Jean Meslier » should be read by all persons who are looking for reasons not to believe in God. This book is a powerful explanation of the reasons why nobody should believe in God or in any religion based on the belief in a god. Do a Google search and you will find where it can be downloaded. Also, Candide, by Voltaire is a novel that is worth reading if you are sceptical about religions and beliefs. You won'gt regret reading it!

Spinal cord injury-paralysis

I think for 99% God does not exists. If God of the Bible does exists then then he is not loving but a controller of what I shoud act,speak and think hi s way or it is hell for me. I sensing no love from being controlled.

I do think there is uncontrollable force beyond our understanding.

I'm an atheist because I reject the claim that a god or gods exist. I reject the idea based upon the absence of evidence to support the claim.

There is no need for proof of lack of anything existing. Just proof that it does exist. So far there has been no proof.
I follow that idea in everything. I don't have to make up an answer when there isn't one. I am usually quite alright with accepting that there isn't an answer to a question.
Theists seem to need to make up an answer, otherwise they can't relieve their fear of living without an answer.

Because nothing attributed to a god can not be attributed to chance, circumstance, or reason. So called miracles are not duplicatable, which would not be the case were there a puppet master who supposedly was creating them. I tell people who get in my face, flip a coin or pray, the result will be just as dependable. ?

There's a subtle difference between believing in no deity and not believing in any deity.
I do not have a belief in any deity as each time I've examined evidence for one I've found it lacking.

I may find logical inconsistencies with certain proposed deities, for example Epicuris phrased the problem of suffering as
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Yet in batting down these Gods with logic and reason, we find a moving target, theres always an evasion or edge case: limits to God's problematic omnipotence; mysterious ways and God's ineffable plan by which all this suffering is actually a good thing in ways we can't understand. So on and so forth. So I recognise that there can be no proof positive of there being no possible God whilst the definition of God is allowed to be so fluid as to evade concrete conclusions to be drawn regarding his or her nature. The Ignostic at this point draws a line under the question and ignores it as meaningless. "Come back with a definition of God" they say "and then maybe we can address the question." I'm sympathetic to the point of view but it's too late for me. The question has captivated my mind and I can't simply ignore it whilst the answers people live their lives under have such an impact on my life.

So we are left with a "God of the gaps" Wherever there is mystery there is a form of God to fit in the place of a useful answer. A God that can have little to commend it but nonetheless is vague and malleable enough to dodge any rational attack. But just I as don't believe in Bertand Russels teapot orbiting a distant planet in deep space or the invisible Dragon in Carl Sagan's garage when it comes to God I'm with Laplace "I have no need of that hypothesis"

I do not have a belief in God and so I'm an Atheist, I also do not have certain knowledge and so I'm an Agnostic. Contrary to common misconception, the two descriptions do have significant overlap.

Have yet to see any evidence a deity exists = atheist. I think the main difference between atheists and agnostics is that one has completely let go of a notion, while one is keeping hope.

I only understand the word god as a metaphore or philosophicle construct. I worship life since we are life and life is resilient beautiful and indeed a force to be recond with so if that makes me a pagan or polythiest so be it..i have examined many creation myths of the world and these myths are simply stories but in them exist the same desire that exists in the sciences our basic need as intelligent creatures to understand what is going on around us. When socrates posited that it is simply the clouds that cause rain rather than a pantheon of gods and godessed, this was a cognitive leap of intellect . This is what inspired our inate coriousity as human beings nature or existence is its own excuse for being and we are lucky enough to understand and explore it...

I DON'T "believe no deity exists". I an without a belief a deity exists until I see evidence of a deity, just like I am without a belief in leprechauns until I see one. Who knows, there might be a deity who refuses to show itself, but that seems highly unlikely.

Everything does, particularly common sense!

Why should I even give the claim that there is a deity any credence? There is zero physical evidence of any of them being real, yet they all have "eyewitness" accounts to vouch for them - despite pretty much all of them being mutually exclusive.

The fact that priests are child molesters at at least the same rate (or more) as the general population seems to point to the complete lack of those deities ability to do anything in the physical world. The rate that people seem to commit atrocities in the name of their god without being struck by lightning bolts suggests that either said deities are ok with that kind of behavior, or that they don't exist enough to be offended by it.

Belief is Evil. It gets in the way of Knowledge.

Why is my belief system (I have a very strong belief system) defined by not believing in a fantasy? I would rather be defined as not believing in the Wizard of Oz, another fantasy. I like the Wizard of Oz more than the different Gods of the western monotheistic religions. The Wizard would not condone stealing children from their parents crossing the Mexican - United States border. According to our Vice President, stealing children is condoned in some book called the Bible. Must be a horror story.

Atheism is not based on belief, but a lack of belief. There is no evidence to conclude that there are such things as deities, angels, demons, or spirits. The onus is on the believer to prove their deities exist. Atheism is not a belief system. If you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster that is fine, but unless you can prove it exists, it is just an amusing idea.

The onus of proof lies with the person who is making moronic assertions. Why should it be up to science to prove the non existence of a God, which by definition can not be proven to exist or not?
Does science have any need to prove that Venus is NOT being orbited by an enormous teapot? If we did, then the idiots would simply redefine the concept of a teapot in order to back up their stupidly.
Even the question of whether there is a god, assumes that people are stupid. That is, after all, the reason that god was invented.

I would say you're asking the wrong question. I don't have a belief that there is no god. I have no belief that there is a god. It's not a belief, but the absence of belief. The difference might be too subtle for some, but it's there.

I feel that god or higher powers began when there was no explanation available. Now that we know more, I think we have outgrown gods.

Name one incident in the known history of the world that a god or "god" intervened in the affairs of humankind and cite your proof!!!