I can't categorically deny that a god (or gods) created the universe and seeded it with life. But when I see a child born with terminal leukaemia, that isn't 'working in mysterious ways', that's not existing, not caring, or no longer having influence.

I can see no evidence of god, just a few things that science can't adequately explain (which would be true of 'why the sun rises and sets' back in the day) that can conveniently be attributed to external intelligent influence. I see plenty of evidence that there is no benevolent god, and that in all probability, any creator that might have had influence long since abandoned this project and moved on to better things. For all intents and purposes, a god that no longer cares is no god at all. Hence, from a practical perspective, I believe there is no god.

the simple fact the supposed Deity has to be believed in is the answer in it self !

all that HAS to be believed IS false, if it can't be KNOWN, then it can't EXIST !

the correct definition of belief is the Act of Pretending that Pretending can be MORE then Pretending .

ALL Abrahamic Literalist Interpretations of the Writings they Call RELIGIONS are based on the FALSE concepts of

All that is Written is True\

That True Belief in God CREATES God !

this IS all 7 year old little girl magic " if we all sit in a circle and pretend REAL hard, it'll come true"

I question the reasoning of "beliefe" and "proof" to begin with! Secondly, the evidence is always somewhat biased. Here is a thought, what about culture is that also a belief system?

I don’t have a problem to acknowledge a God existing, but these ones described written y man, there is no way those Gods exist. If a God today proves to me he was real then I would acknowledge his existence. I just don’t see no point in living your life according to what is written down in a book by a bunch of Bronze Age people, filled with Bronze Age rules when you could just be enjoying the only life you may only possibly have.

There's a quote, "the world behaves just like it would if there were no god", or something to that effect. But maybe I'm not technically a full-on atheist. I just think it fits better than agnostic. Because the existence of supernatural magical beings that I have to believe in so that they become real to me is just a bridge too far. Also, the supercomputer that keeps up with every human thought or act for millions of years (or thousands), just no. I do have a vague concept of redemption. Meaning something bigger than us absolves us of most of our petty misdeeds. This is something I feel, so I guess it's fair to say I "believe in" it. I also feel, in much the same way, that we are accountable to something. I just don't think we are any good at identifying or naming whatever this is. And as soon as this thing starts enumerating rules, I'm like, no. That's something people are doing and saying it's from a deity. I'm more than ok with there being a mystery. With not being certain of everything. But I'm certain there's no sky daddy breathing down my neck. You can't prove a negative, but it just makes logical sense to me.

I think it's a slight play on words here - but it's not that I believe that no deity exists - I don't believe a deity exists. I know - but it means 2 different things to me. But I guess it's because I believe "gods" once had a purpose and that was to explain things we don't understand. Every culture had one or more and every one was there to explain why... why day and night, why birth, why tides, why weather. We don't need them anymore.

I don't see any existence of deity in the first place... Burden of proof lies with those who believe. If someone tells you that they have an invisible friend they talk to but no one else sees, would you believe it's there? Unless that person provides evidence ( maybe a brain tumor?) Then sure. Otherwise, nope

While I agree that nontheism is somewhat belief based, it’s also scientifically based, and in my opinion moreso.

I believe that if you traumatize someone especially at a young age there perspective of life even if different would always be based on that fear. Unless they would be able to get away from those that are constantly reinforcing those beliefs with the fear of hell, alienation, or just plain dissapointment from those you honestly love. Its hard to detach yourself from an abusive relationship especially when you don't think their is any abuse cause you're doing the same thing as them.

I like this subject a lot. This is why I joined the group. I don't mind whether people call me an athiest or an agnostic, this doesn't matter to me. I would say that it is not possible to disprove something which is unfalsifyable (infact the very definition of 'unfalsifyable' is something which can not be disproven). I would argue that anything which is unfalsifyable is extremely unlikely to be true and in no way should be taken seriously (I am talking about the spagetthi monster, the flying teapot etc). When you have a theory which is not testable, or falsifyable, then you have nothing which can be proved to be true. The only way I could except that god exists is if there was some actual evidence that stood up to ridicule. This does not exist.

I don't say that god definately doesn't exist, instaed I would say that there is absolutely no evidence what so ever to support the god theory. If you think this makes me agnostic then fine you are welcome to that opinion. But if this is the case then I would say I am just as agnostic about the tooth fairy, the spagetthi monster, invisible unicorns living on the rings of saturn and any other silly unfalsifyable thing you want to think of.

I also think that Billins makes some good points about belief in god. Jerry Coyne does a lecture which you can watch on youtube

I believe only what I have evidence for belief. I believe in atoms, quarks, galaxies, love, black holes, innocence of children, electricity, compassion, ... but I have no evidence of any deity or demon, not for ghosts, leprechauns, spirits, etc. If I have no reason to believe in something why should I believe in it?

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no credible, verifiable evidence to make the existence of any god even remotely conceivable. There is, however, ample credible, verifiable evidence that all religion is a scam, meant for the powerful to remain in power, to prey on people and keep them in line. I think the invention of gods was just the way the primitives used their limited faculties to explain the things they didn't yet understand. Most gods went the way of most myths. Some have managed to hang on into modernity and become mainstream. That's only because of religion, not because they're real. Some people need a "tribe" to feel like their lives have meaning. It's actually rather sad.

The burden of proof for the existence of God is on the person making the claim that there is a God. The answers supporting the assertion that God exists are often illogical, incomprehensible, and sometimes ad hominem attacks on people doubting the claim. I have seen debates on the internet of various people who claim that God exists. They do not meet the burden of proof. For example, William Lane Craig frequently trots out arguments that have been debunked hundreds of years in the past. Frequently also his arguments have logical flaws . It shows his dishonesty because many of his arguments have been debunked long ago and he only brings them out because he believes that the person debating him is unaware of that fact. As someone with a doctor's degree, he should have known that those arguments have been debunked and does not use them in any kind of debate.

Because the burden of proof that there is a God has not been met, it is safe to ignore that proposition in all normal circumstances. Therefore, the existence of God is irrelevant to ordinary conduct of life. Because it is irrelevant, I do not have to believe that God exists, and therefore I can conduct my life as if he does not. Of course, if sufficient proof or evidence comes to light that there is a God, then I will change my mind, and the person who comes up with such proof will receive the Nobel Prize.

Making the statement that there is no God has the burden of proof of such lack of the existence of God. The only way to prove a negative statement is in mathematics, which solves a problem by finding a closed system in which the statement can be discussed positively or negatively. For example, you can prove that it is impossible to trisect an angle using a straightedge and a compass. We can find a system in which that problem can be stated. In that system, we can show that it is not possible to construct a figure that trisects an angle for some angles, and we can say that that the general statement is false. There is no closed system in which the statement that God exists can be examined. There is no closed system in which the statement that God does not exist can be examined. To say that God does not exist has a burden of proof that is impossible to overcome.

I read a bunch of comments but not all so sorry if I reiterate points already made in here.

I think the definitions of atheism and agnosticism are too varied and most fall short. We all would need to reach a consensus before a production debate can occur.

I like to add gnostic and agnostic to provide a more granular description of the claims a hand.

Gnostic theist - Claims to know with 100% certainty that God/s do exist.
Gnostic Atheist - Claims to know with 100% certainty that God/s do not exist.

Agnostic theist - Claims that there is a greater than 50% but less than 100% probability that God/s do exist.
Agnostic Atheist - Claims that there is a greater than 50% but less than 100% probability that God/s do not exist.

From an epistemological standpoint, all knowledge is incomplete so all we can ever talk about it the likelihoods of whether a claim is true or not. Bayesian inference\reasoning is the best way that I know of to ascertain said likelihoods. From this position, the Agnostic Atheist has the philosophically sound claim and, but the same goes for an Agnostic Theist. And now we can argue the evidence and update our credences.

Um... was there any form of ground for the existence of a theistic god? I've seen nothing supernatural, nor heard of anything of the like from a reliable source. You do understand that to prove a theistic god exists one must first prove that there has ever been an action within the universe that is by definition inexpiable within the scientific method.

I think you're making the same mistake that most theists make. Atheism does not imply certainty, it simply means we don't believe. Saying "I don't believe X" is not the same as "I am certain that X is false." It is the believers who claim that a god exists, and it's up to them to provide the evidence.

Also, atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive terms. Agnostic deals with knowledge (i.e. we can't know for certain if a god does or does not exist). Atheism is about belief, specifically the lack of belief in a god. Personally I think agnostic is a pointless term, since none of us can actually know with absolute certainty.

I have a feeling the question would be better if reworded a bit.

You see, nothing makes me not believe in anything. It came about as a process of weighing the information available and looking at the evidence. There was no evidence to be found, and the information was nil as well. However, I am not one to make an absolute statement because that places the burden of proof on me. I remain 99.999...9% sure there is no supernatural being of any kind. So let's say I am essentially convinced there is no deity, but am unwilling to make the assertion on the grounds of it not being a rational position to take, just as it is irrational to claim there is one.

the lack of any real evidence, bring forth the proof of said claim, and i mean proof not a holy script. however i doubt you have any. the burden of proof is on you to convince me (us) that there is a higher power. Much like if I said i could fly w/o assistance of anything, just could take off like a bird, you would want proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet this question is like doing that, saying "I can fly..." someone saying "prove it..." then saying you can't prove that I can't, can you?"....

For a long time, I called myself agnostic. I wanted to believe. Everyone else believes. At some point, I realized that it was gullible to believe. It was harmful to believe. If you believe in something false, it denies you of knowing truth.

There is a point, or at least there was a point for me, where the cynicism that I had toward belief became toxic. Where the disbelief I had with everything I heard come from the church, the clergy and the believers just seemed overwhelmingly ignorant. That is when I realized that there is more to believe in nature that there is in a book of fairy tales. My belief in nature is greater than any outdated book that contradicts itself. My universe is bigger than any god that doesn't even know what a star or a planet is, let alone basic physics. My understanding of nature can change but it cannot fail. There is always an explanation. It sometimes takes longer to find it but it is always there.

So I don't have to have faith, exactly. I believe what is currently understood. Not what might be. I can and should change my mind. I can't say that I don't have belief though. I have to believe some things that I cannot test myself. Sometimes that can also be deceptive and I keep my cynical eye on everything still. But you have to believe in something. There's a saying, if you don't believe in something, you're gonna fall for anything.

I guess that you're right in saying that atheism might be based more on belief than empirical evidence, unless you take the view that this alleged great creator allows evil, cancer, wars, greed, starvation and a host of other truly awful things to exist without doing anything to correct us/the situation, out of the professed love for us all! To me, the actuality of these things is evidence of the actual non-existence of a supreme, omnipotent, omniscient all loving and self sacrificing entity.

Working on the allegations, in all religions, that the "supreme being" is omnipotent, omniscient, all loving and self sacrificing so that we can become as one with it, why the blazes does this mythical entity allow cancer, starvation, wars, greed, cruelty etc., etc., to exist in any shape or form? Plus, having given us free will, rules to follow, it then says, in effect, "obey totally, or suffer ETERNAL punishment and suffering".....so why would anyone accept the existence of this "god"???

This is a question I answered to my complete satisfaction when I was about sixteen. I took a good hard look at the God-based Christianity and realized that if god knew the present past and future, then this whole human experiment made absolutly no sense. Before god laid a single brick in his creation of the universe, he KNEW how it would play out. He knew the answer before he even asked the question (whatever that is). Why would such a being be interested in playing a game the outcome of which is already in his own mind. And why all this stupid dicking around with man's "following his laws" and having faith if he already knows the outcome. That's just totally whacked.

Later in life, as I studied cosmology and physics in collage, I saw that scientific evidence points toward a richness and complexity that far, FAR exceeds the simplistic thought of organized religion.

Because the burden of proof lies almost solely in a book that has been rewritten and retranslated several times and and the contradictions for this book are virtually limitless.

A god who would sentence you to an eternity of fire for not believing in him, yet refuses to provide unambiguous, tangible evidence of their existence is not a god, it's a myth.

Every religion I’ve looked at seems to have so many holes in it. If you google “how old is the Earth according to the Bible”, you get 6,500 years. That is crazy!!! If you confront any Bible person they’ll tell you how wrong carbon dating is and how scientists are wrong. I’ll stick with science.