My question at a early age was "which one",? Which church? From a very small town, at least five differant churches...I asked why, if there was only one god, how come so many differant churches. When I got older, found out different people had different gods, and near as I could tell they were all jealous, vicious, and murderous. Then one day I read that to be a good god follower, you had to have "faith". Near as I could find out that meant tossing out rational thought, and believing in something without any basis. I just never had enough imagination. Atheism is simple as occams razor.

From the perspective of the believer that realizes that theism doesn't make sense, agnosticism makes sense. If I've been told that there is a god, it makes sense that I should disprove it.

But if I take a more rational stance that starts from nothing and someone makes a claim that there is a god, that is a claim that needs evidence. A book cannot prove that something exists just because it says so. If that were true there are fairies, unicorns, Harry Potter and Middle Earth is a place. Empirical evidence is needed.

An atheist does not have to deny that no gods could ever exist. They can simply say that they are certain that no god exists because there is no proof. Zero. Nada. Zip. And they are confident there never will be any proof.

What makes me not believe in a literal deity isn’t the absence of evidence to support it; it’s the presence of evidence that adequately explains why we are so nearly universally tempted to believe in spite of that absence. The evidence is well-presented and studies
cited in biologist John Wathey’s
“The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing”

[amazon.com]

All religions have a creation story. Evolution makes a nonsence of creation. Deities existence is built on the premise that these creation stories are true.

As for the higher power. Well maybe one day science will be able to explain that to.

Its all so silly until the believers use their conviction to enact real world change and effects. You can mock the religious as much as you want until they have a bomb or a gun. Or they elect one of their own to a position of power. Then the veracity of their God has no meaning in the face of their real power to enact the change they want. So the question of God or not is pointless, the real question is what is the real world effect of their conviction given form through action.

To be really honest here, I can't believe that any god of any kind or any spirit of any kind of higher or lower power could be so damn dumb, blind, sadistic, rotten, weak , ineffective that it would allow child rape and murders, mass extermination of humans, of all life, including their pets, gassed and burnt to ashes, would allow the intolerable pain of torture during the wars of the prisoners, unspeakable acts of nightmare terror. Any god if it did exist is not one I'd surely worship that's a for sure. If there is something running the show here on Earth, it is one sick s o b , twisted and insane. I can't believe that anything so evil exists except in the minds of men. Evil and good exist only in the minds of mankind.

The concept of their being a god, or gods, seems ridiculous to me. i can't entertain a "maybe" about it; it's like reserving judgment on whether or not the tooth fairy exists, even after you've seen your mom sneak a quarter under your pillow (is that still the going rate?) the line between not believing in something and believing in the absence of something is slim, and sometimes (not always) just semantic (not to knock semantics). i don't go around trying to convince everyone there are no gods, but i don't go around wondering either. i think that makes me an atheist. to me, an agnostic feels the verdict is still out. i just do not feel that doubt.

g

What makes you believe no werewolves exist?

You can't provide any empirical evidence to prove the non-existence of something, as that isn't how science works, yet no one actually believes that shape-shifting lycanthropes inhabit our world. Why do you think that is? Do you think you could conclusively state that werewolves don't exist, and if so, why does that not apply to things such as gods?

okay, not trying to be funny, but you said you think atheism is based more on belief than evidence, then went on to state that you think much evidence indicates there is no god. can you reconcile that contradiction for me?

Well the modern sense of an omnipotenet deity existing is impossible to boot

There is no evidence that supports the existence of a deity or deities. Every piece of evidence that has been presented has been derived from ancient writings from Ignorant nomads.

The question is a poor question. I am an atheist and do not believe no deity exists. I just have a lack of belief in gods but this does not mean I presume no deity exists. It is possible a deity exists.

You have it a little backwards. The idea of something, like a deity, needs to be proven.
Also, in order for there to be data to experiment against to test an idea, there has to be some kind of foundation. Can't prove liquitheriumoson (made up element for example) doesn't exist if there are no data to even give rise to the idea that it might.

I stopped believing because of the ridiculousness of the claims by the bible. Simple as that. Commenting on anything else is really just extracurricular activity.

It is about probability.

We have no evidence for any supernatural entity, place or event. Zero. Absence of evidence does not prove a negative, but in the case of something that claims to be this pervasive, constant and "omni", we can make a safe conclusion that the claim of a god is very unlikely.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. The existence of gods is an outrageous claim, pervasive as it is. Yet the evidence to support this claim is not provided. In cases such as the bible, koran, torah, book of mormon and the deuterocanonical it is easy to conclude that the god described within is false. The statement that no god exists is much more broad.

Quantum theory implies that I can jump through a wall. Mind you that it is possible, but extremely unlikely. I do not try to jump through walls when I am in a hurry because I am confident enough that it will fail that I don't live my life on the off chance that it might work. I claim to be an atheist, not because I claim a 0% chance of god, but because the chance is so small that the effort of belief would almost certainly be a waste of time.

I have never seen anything which hints a god exists. I've never heard of evidence proving a god exists. I believe there are no gods, 99.9% sure. Would a hardline atheist still deny the existence of a god if such a thing were proven? I reserve that . 01% for accepting the existence, via the scientific method, because I'm droning on and lost interest to make any more words about this

atheism is based on not believing people about their God

I am an atheist because when I make a decision I consult the facts. The fact is the theists can't support their claims, making gods a non-issue.

It isn't a 50/50 chance things exists just because SOMEONE claims it does.
If a man tells me the flying spaghetti monster is real, based on no evidence at all, I have no reason to believe what he says is true. It makes no sense to me to be "agnostic" about the possibility that there is a flying spaghetti monster. No more than being "agnostic" about healing chrystals, alchemy, flat earth or the theory that reading makes the womb shrink on women.

I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny, or any other magical fantasy creatures -- they're simply not real. I don't even need empirical evidence to know that Humpty-Dumpty isn't real, he just isn't because reality, logic, and reason. There are no egg-beings just as there are no all-powerful magical super-beings in the sky.

That said, if anyone does come forth with truly compelling proof that, say, Santa Claus is real then I'll stipulate the possibility of god....and the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny too for that matter.

Simple... the null hypothesis. [en.wikipedia.org]

Atheism is not an assertion, it's a rejection of theist claims based on lack of evidence.

Furthermore, I would contend that someone who claims to be an agnostic is, in practice, an atheist. Do you accept as valid the claims of theists? No? Then you're a non-theist (sometimes known as an atheist). In my view, there is not a 'middle ground'. If you don't accept theist claims as valid, that means you don't believe in god(s). You can do some hand waving regarding gnosis, but knowledge (or the lack thereof) is not equivalent to belief (although it can inform it).

I know I'm not answering your question but I would only like to agree with you. Michio Kaku had said something along the lines of what you state of how their is no evidence to prove or disprove God but rather more scientific evidence is needed to evaluate the creation of our universe and how it came to be.

I don't believe that god doesn't exist. That's why I'm an Atheist. I simply lack a belief in god as an unproven assumption. A belief that god doesn't exist would be a religious position, something taken on faith.

The word Agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley, AKA Darwin's Bulldog. He defined it as A-Gnostic, or without knowledge. Similarly, A-Theism means without belief in god. The two words address two different things, knowledge and belief. You can have knowledge without belief, and belief without knowledge. I am an Agnostic Atheist, as I see no evidence of god and therefore lack a belief in god. I am also an Antitheist, as I believe that religion is bad for humanity.

That's easy… no real proof.

Just little update on the courtroom analogy I posted before.

For starters, I've yet to hear a clear, discernible and, most important, testable definition of a good or deity.