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?"....

The same reason I don't believe in vampires or werewolves....there is no evidence that supports the claim. I also do not believe in magic due to the same reason. It's not what makes us believe that no god exists its what makes people think there is. The burden of evidence lies with the people making the claim. Much like if i said I could fly w/o any kind of assistance, then ask why you don't believe me and that you couldn't prove that i could not. Also the "agnostic" or "atheist" is beyond foulable. You are Heather an agnostic atheist or Gnostic atheist, or agnostic theist or agnostic theist. Agnostic meaning not to know for certain beyond a shadow of a doubt, Gnostic meaning to know beyond a shadow of a doubt. I cannot prove a negative, I can be fairly certain of its lack of existence from the lack of evidence, yet cannot be 100% sure. Much of the same can be said about the theists side, not one can prove their god(s) exist, so therefore all are agnostic.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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

Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. The theistic answer involves a supreme being (That comes from where?) that looks us over all the time, who has a plan, while we have free will. That conveniently doesn't actually show up anymore. If you look at all that, and compare it to the idea that life evolved, you realize that life evolving is a more probable and simpler answer.

I am an atheist because i don't belief a god exist. Who came up with the concept anyways? I'm not agnostic because I also don't believe in dragons fairies, slender man, big foot or anything else that makes no sense. Are you an agnostic of those claims as well or do you not think about it? what about the claims you haven't heard yet? are you Agnostic towards claims you haven't heard?

Never seen one. Never heard from one. No evidence to support the existence thereof. World will be gone in 4.5 billion years...what happens to a so called god then?