112 16

Proof of no god?

I consider atheism to be a religion just as christianity because it states unequivocably that there is no god, just as christianity insists there is a god. I would like to know the scientific proof that there is no god; otherwise, I remain a skeptic and an agnostic waiting for proof one way or the other.

Swingdancer 4 Mar 30

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Atheism doesn't make any statement other than "I don't believe your claim that a god exists." This is entirely different from making a claim that no gods exists. Atheism is not a religion.

Deb57 Level 8 Mar 30, 2018

“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”

Penn Jillette



I'll move to the crux of the matter since I'm sure many have already pointed out the errors in your statement. Whether there might be a god is irrelevant: 1) There is overwhelming of evidence of the Bible's sketchy inspiration, contradictions, mistranslations, alterations, lack of historicity, moral inadequacy (Does the following sound more like the it came from the mind of an omniscient deity, or that of primitive, barbaric bronze-age patriarchs: The condoning of slavery, lack of equality for women, advocation of inhumane punishments such as stonings, and burning for eternity, and promulgation of the immoral scapegoating practice of vicarious redemption and repentance which allows you to duck responsibility to your victim.) Just do your homework. 2) Other religions also claim to be the word of God, and they contradict the Bible. Man has created some 2000+ gods and religions through the years. It's simply something man has had a propensity to do, especially in pre-scientific times. Obviously they can't all be correct. 3) The absence of any conclusive manifestation of God: How is it that he intervened wildly in affairs before the advent of cameras and the printing press, but now is undetectable? THE BOTTOM LINE: IF SOME GOD WERE TO BE DISCOVERED TO EXIST, IT WOULD NOT BE THE DEITY OF ANY EXISTING RELIGION EVER DEVISED, AND SO THERE WOULD BE NO DOGMA OR DOCTRINE TO FOLLOW OTHER THAN THOSE WHICH WE DEVISE FOR OURSELVES. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO WORSHIP THIS DEITY EITHER, UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT IT MANIFESTS DECISIVELY TO EACH US, NOT THROUGH SOME SELF-ORDAINED SPOKEPERSON.


Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism is therefore a religion just like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

That which is claimed without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Since there is no objective evidence that any god exists, the notion may be dismissed without evidence.

The non-existence of a god can be proven as easily as the non-existence of Russell's teapot can be proven. (It can't.)

Most atheists are agnostic atheists, meaning that they do not believe in the existence of any gods, but if pressed, they will acknowledge that they do not know with absolute certainty that there are no gods, but rather consider the probability of the existence of any god to be so remote as to be negligible. There exist gnostic atheists, those who claim to "know" there is no god, but they are just as delusional as those who claim to "know" there is a god (which, in my experience, is the majority of theists.)

Since there is no objective evidence of the existence of a god, I choose to reject the notion. I do not need evidence to prove the irrationality of something that is claimed by people who have no evidence to support their claim. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is nothing more than having no belief in any gods. Period.


I as well.

Silly. Nobody can know for sure. That’s an obvious, axiomatic truth. Agnosticism is an unfortunate abdication concerning weighing the evidence for and against the matter and concluding you can never know, as if pointing out the obviousness of our inability to be 100% certain of anything means you have to act according to Chidi’s cognitive dissonance and be unable to choose. Which way does the evidence point? If you can’t decide, do you understand the evidence? It’s quite a leap to think a cow just might, if everything was fine-tuned, jump over the moon. It could not. Ever. It goes against all we know in all areas of science. I know I’m committing a fallacy of false dichotomy, but there is one instance I can understand the use of the term agnostic: by the religious coming out of their states of indoctrination. I imagine that could be a most painful, bewildering process where you ARE questioning the validity of your former beliefs. Anyways, just my own thought not meant to offend. Cheers.


Atheism has no dogma, holy books, rituals, creeds, pledges, hierarchy, popes, uniforms, rulebooks, or requirements to accept any assertions as a matter faith.

How is it a religion exactly?

Atheism is a religion like "bald" is a hair color, like non-stamp collecting is a hobby, like barefoot is a type of shoe.


There is no evidence, facts or data that any god(s) exist and until some is presented, the default position is that none exist.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.". - Christopher Hitchens


Can you prove the Spagetti Monster doesn't exist?
I think it is incumbant upon a god to prove that he exists. So proof.


"It states"? Who exactly is this "It"?


You need to learn something about logic.

You can't prove a negative. It is impossible to prove there is "no god".

However, there is ZERO credible evidence that there IS a god, nor is there any evidence for any phenomenon in the Universe which could have been created by a god that isn't better explained by a simpler explanation.

So a reasonable person will not believe in gods.




  1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
    the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

  3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Christianity qualifies on all 3. Buddhism on the last two. Atheism qualifies on none. There are no specific rituals/practises involved in being an atheist. There is certainly no belief in a superhuman agency.

Pesky words and their darned fixed meanings, very inconvenient when your trying to asset that they can mean whatever you want them too.
Dictionaries are obviously inventions of the devil. 😉


You're entire argument is ass-backwards and incoherent.

One cannot disprove a negative.

The Burden of Proof is on the Theist, where there is no proof, there is no argument.


You cannot prove God does exist .. As you cannot prove a unicorn exists. This gives us a pretty much 100% probability God does not exist (or unicorns) because after searching for pretty much the span of human existence all we can find is fictional accounts with no skeletal evidence of unicorns or direct evidence of a divine entity. Nobody has ever witnessed or even come close to proving these things therefore we can say we need to prove them for them to be validated .. We base this upon the supposition that anything we made up without empirical evidence is by definition imaginary. Or it could be a delusion!

Henceforth God clearly cannot exist. It is not up to anyone to disprove the existence of divine deities. It is up to people to prove that they exist seeing as so far there is absoloutely zero evidence of a divine creator (or unicorns) .. Apart from made up stories.

That being said i am just off to visit Kuthulu for a joint!

I'm sorry !!!! @ADistantShore .... I mean odds on there is more chance than god .. there are Horses, Rainbows and Narwhals !!

@MrLizard Hahaha!!! woah.. Mindlblown !!! I'll have a lie down and a think!


No athiest makes these claims . What athiest claim is that there is no proof of god , prove it is all we ask . No one forced anyone to be athiest we don't go to war or torture anyone so how is it a religion ?


This is a good example of a strawman argument: creating your own version of what someone else says and attacking that instead of their actual argument. Atheism is NOT "stating unequivocably that there is no god", it is simply not believing that there is one.

I suggest you do a bit more reading on things like Russell's Teapot ( and the burden of proof. The person making a claim has the burden of proving it, and until they do the default position is that there is no reason to believe their claim. You cannot expect to receive any scientific proof for or against something that has been designed specifically to be non-falsifiable. God is just an increasingly small gap in our scientific understanding of the Universe, since everyplace we look we find the same lack of any evidence that she exists. But there's no indication that we'll ever run out of new places to look.


You do not understand the concept of religion. A religion is an ideological system including a belief in a theological dogma. Atheism is the absence of such belief. They are polar opposites. Just because one feels certainty in their conclusion IN NO WAY makes the stance "religious."

Well stated


Atheism's premise that there are no gods is a religion the same way being bald is a hair color. is not believing in the tooth fairy also a religion? how about not believing in unicorns? you are certainly entitled to remain a skeptic and an agnostic but i do take issue with your labeling atheism a religion. as for proof that there are no gods, the onus of proof is on those making the positive claim. if we have to prove there are no gods, we have to prove there are no unicorns too. we'd be awfully busy with an awfully long list of imaginary beings to disprove. bring me a unicorn and then we'll talk.


She’s not agnostic either
Perhaps a skeptic but not agnostic

@darthfaja her personal beliefs are not a problem for me, or even my business... until she makes a statement based on a mistaken apprehension, such as what an atheist is. being an atheist, and knowing atheists, i can attest to the falseness of that statement (not the part about how she feels but the part about why she feels that way, and i am not accusing her of lying but pointing out that she is mistaken about what an atheist is, feels, does and says). so she can be an agnostic or not, a skeptic or not, that's her business. she can even hate atheists if that's how she feels; she doesn't need to justify it to me. but if she says atheists make a certain statement and we do no such thing, then i feel a need to correct that. my life doesn't hang in the balance, but here i am on this site, reading the statement, so here i am correcting that.


@genessa ??‍♂️?


Atheism is like a religion just like bald is a hair style. You would like proof of a negative? Good luck with that. From your post, it seems that you rate the probability of god vs. no god as exactly 50%. I would politely suggest to you to take a stand, have an opinion. What, in your mind, are the chances there is a god who created the earth, etc, versus the scientific explanation of the cosmos? How would you rate yourself on Dawkins’s scale of atheism?


Atheism doesn't "state" anything. There is no doctrine, other than a disbelief in deities. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An invisible omnipresent, omnipotent being is certainly an extraordinary claim. As for proof there is no loving Christian god, ticks and chiggers are enough evidence for me... 😉


The burden of proof always, always falls with those attempting to prove the existence of something, not the existence of nothing. I believe your logic here is flawed. Also, Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a "belief system." It is merely the LACK OF BELIEF. Atheists simply do not believe in the existence of a mystical supreme being. That is all.


How can u prove the nonexistence...

Precisely, attempting to prove the existence of non existence is a contradiction in terms, and is like proving the existence of dark or cold, these words are terms for the absence of other things they do not exist in and as of themselves.

it's EASY to prove the non-existence of a non-existent magical being...

Like Vanna in front of the existent letters... i wave my hand in the air and say "VOILA - NO GOD"



Atheism is in no way akin to a religion, it's just a natural conclusion based on the evidence one has parsed through their understanding of the world which we live in. Atheist has no creeds, places of worship, prophets, it's just a lack of any belief in a god...that's it.

Philisophical athiesim does sort of make the posative statement that there is no god, but most atheists generally don't strictly adhere to the philisophical version due to the problems that can come with it.

And really? Demanding proof of there being no god? Cmon this is logic 101 here, you can't prove a negative, and the burden of proof lies on the one making the posative claim. Most "proof" anyone has ever given for a god has been terribly weak and full of problems and logical fallacies.

You can’t prove a negative? Reductio ad absurdum.

In essence you might be right. On the other hand, why do especially Atheists look each other up to share their experiences. What they think, and do. They form groups, have speakers and writers of the best theories, seeking unity and agreement. Well, they don't sing, don't have rituals (at least I have never heard of that), don't light candles. But there are quite some comparable things in the essentials. So I agree, I'd rather be Agnostic, because than I can stay free to think my own thoughts. I love to share an evening with a mixed group of Atheists an Agnostics, and it's very instructive. I never read those books, as I don't want to have my thoughts lead into certain directions. I lived with the Bible for many years and I have enough of people that try to convince me of their way to be an Atheist.


Believe whatever the hell you please. That is your right.
However, don't take offense if anyone tells you that your definition of atheism is complete nonsense. You know, because it is.


By the way, atheism is not a religion. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying abstinence is a sex position. Our belief is based on evidence. Faith maintains itself in spite of facts. You can't put atheism on the same shelf with Christianity. Christianity belongs on the same shelf with Zeus, Romulus, etc.


Is bald a hair style?



Common sense is not a religion. And science is the most reliable method yet devised to understand reality. And if new methods are discovered, guess what? It will still be science.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:46439
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.