Uhm...the lack of existence of any deities.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

because what is the purpose of a god, is it just so we can bow down to him and make him feel good, if there was a god then it is an attention seeking fool. maybe years ago when humans where scared that the crops would fail or the sun wouldnt rise,i can understand why they worried and prayed. what
do we even need a god for.how can that benifit me in anyway.

Because theists have not met their burden of proof. In the same way that I do not believe unicorns and the Loch Ness monster exist.

If you tell me you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it is up to you to provide the evidence that you do. It is not my job to prove that you do not.

There is no proof for the existence of god and the whole concept is silly.

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.

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?

I don't think I've ever seen absolute proof of any viewpoint. Evolution is not a belief, it's a fact, but it doesn't necessarily disprove religion. That said, there is plenty of evidence that seems to support the non-existence of a sentient creator/god, in my opinion.

1. There are little to no examples of 'fairness' or 'justice' in the world that is not created by human societies, despite all the talk of reward and punishment in most religious doctrine. I think maybe the reason people are so attached to their religious beliefs is because the idea of being able to bargain with or appeal to an all-powerful sentient being gives us a sense of control over all of the unfortunate stuff that happens in life. Point is, either an all-powerful god doesn't care about his creatures in the slightest or a caring god is powerless to help.
2. There are countless examples of things that science can predict the outcome of with extreme accuracy, (ie the outcome of a chemistry 'experiment', physics equations, the way specific microbes will reproduce). This is certainly not true of religion. It has never accurately predicted anything that I know of.
3. With everyone killing and condemning everyone else over the debate, why wouldn't he/she just duck its head out for a minute and give us the answers? Why would he/she only send messages through humans, who are so flawed according to religion?

Science. And rational though.

By this same argument then, you must allow for the existence of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Bigfoot. The scientific method cannot prove non-existence. But we can say that people have been trying to prove a deity's existence for thousands of years, and not a shred of evidence has been produced by this effort. It is certainly reasonable to conclude therefore that there is no deity.

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 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.

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

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

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.

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.

Is not that I believe there is no gods what makes me an atheist. Is that I haven't found a reason to believe there are gods.

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.

Somehow this tends to get conflated when the subject is God. If you put it in perspective though, I don't believe in fairies or unicorns either. Could they exist? I suppose. But so far I have no reason to even entertain their existence. Likewise, I haven't seen a single shred of anything I'd consider evidence for God's existence. Thus, I don't need to be conflicted about whether or not there's some possibility such a being might exist or something.

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?

What makes you believe Harry Potter doesn't exist?
Or Unicorns?
Ooh I like unicorns.