This is the Santaa Claus argument, where because he only exists if you believe in him, however it can not be proven that he does or does not exist, he onlly exists as a figment of imagination, so he does exist IF you belive in him in your mind. most people grow out of this believe but what the heck, its a free country. ????

I don't see my atheism in that way at all - just that I am personally without a god A = without theist = god and I am unhappily also without the flying spahetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn as well. i'll not get inot any arguments about word usage suffice it to say I never had a god and never felt the need of one - You might want to join the people who quibble over words but I am and have for 70 years now been happoily without a god and happpily calling myself Atheist.

Any scientific conclusion is always op0en ended for re-evaluation when noew evidence is found.

Agnosticism and Athesim are both (for most who are in those categries) based on what is most probably based on avaialbe facts and evidence. The fact is that the old testament can be traced to and is an amalgamation of at least four previous religions where the religious traditions were bombined to form a single narrative. Since the jewish, Chrsitan and Mulim religions all use the old testamen, it is easy to conclued that all three religions are not true.

The only real arguement left for the existance of god, is to explain what is yet unexplained. Howeever, many assertions one attributed to god and used as explanations to prove th eexistance of god have been exp0lained by oher means. So, a lack of explanation is not really proof of the existance of god.

So, what is left? The vast majority of evidence suggests that god was made up to explain the unexplainable, but a lack of knowledge about why things are does not justify proof of god. So, the evidence suggests that we will find explanations for what is yet to be explained, and there is no real evidence of god.

The scientific explanation is that based on available vidence, there is no god.

It is my understanding, and one that I believe to be the definition of an atheist, that there is/are no god(s) due to a lack of evidence to the contrary, it's not even close. And the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion.

The Oxford dictionary defines religion as 'belief in super human controlling power' therefore atheism cannot be a religion because it is not a belief it is a lack of belief.

In reality , the burden of proof is on those of faith. We can see how the concept of god was created by humans. Intentional agency set forth a belief that every object had a human or supernatural characteristic. As time went on, religion became more complicated as governments figured out that a way to keep people obedient is by saying there is an invisible guy in the sky who watches everything u do. All religions are borrowed from previous religions before it. It is all man made. All of this along with other evidence show there is no god. We can make that conclusion. Should we be open to new evidence of a god? Absolutely. But until that evidence appears, we can conclude that there is no god.

No idea really, but I can say that the current understanding of God was written before the texts we know as the bible. Judaism is based on historical fables overwritten.
The story of Jesus had been told several times before the time of Jesus.
Islam has adapted from both.
They're just fables and storied retold. There are ample examples that show this.

If there's some original doctrine or knowledge that had existed prior to any of these, I don't know.
I can say this. There is absolutely no evidence of a deity in action in living our history. None what so ever. That makes it hearsay.

I make no knowledge claim. What supernatural claims does atheism have? What universal doctrines do atheists share? Is the absence of a religion or belief in a deity a religion in itself now? The theist says god exists. I do not believe their claim and for good reason. Their burden of proof has not been met. The best they have is faith and poor anecdotes. It just plain bad reasoning to prove something does not exist that has never been proven to begin with. Anything crazy can be asserted with that method. Prove the invisible pink hippo that lives on my shoe laces does not exist.

war , hunger, strife , eradication of species daily and of course the pictures from the hubble telescope. god is a figment of a believer's imagination PERIOD. they think they are so special that they deserve an imaginary friend ? what a crock

Atheism is the complete opposite of a religion.

Atheists don't make the positive claim there is no god, they simply don't believe there is one. Not all theists make the positive claim there is a god. Therefore, whether we believe or not, we are all agnostics, in that no one knows a god exists or not. But when it come to believing or not believing we are either theist or atheist.

It is impossible to disprove the existence of a god when there is no proof of one's existence in the first place, however, the invisible and the non-existent look very much the same.

Science has disproven many religious claims, however, if you are "waiting for proof one way or another" I'm afraid you will have a very long wait.

Atheism means without belief where I'm from.

One factual claim we can make is that no one who promotes gods have any evidence.
While not proof of absence; it's proof people - many, many people - are arguing the existence of things they have no tangible reason to promote.
It's not that I reject the possibility of gods; I simply see no reason to reserve judgment on topics where the very promoters themselves of the existence of X has nothing to suggest it's even possible their assertions might be true.
Same as goblins, fairies or the alien overlords in Scientology. As far as I know, lack of belief in those things are not considered to be a religion. Why would a lack of belief in any magical beings be?

Your interpretations of religion, atheism, and agnostic are inaccurate in my opinion.
Atheism is in no way any form of religion. Agnostics don’t need proof one way or the other.

Who cares if there is a god or not? It makes no difference in our current life. If there is a god it still doesn’t mean they want us to be Christian over Islam or any of the many other choices that exist.

If there is a god then we should all be frightened because that makes us an ant farm and the enity a childish vengeful prick.

Proving the existence of any higher power changes nothing of my life. Never cared before and I won’t care after. However my anxiety will go off the charts waiting for the selfish motherfucker to smite us whenever they get the nerve.

If a god exist that would leave us to suffer and kill each other and children to starve and be abused when they have the power to change it?
Well fuck them, I want no part.
I’ll figure it out on my own.

That’s really how we should all look at it in my opinion. If a god has the power to make and create and they leave the world like this? Well my message to them would be “you had one job and you fucked it up!”

I don't consider it to be a religion, personally, but atheism - hard atheism - certainly requires an amount of faith. There are arguments against the existence of a god or gods, absolutely tons of them (many are successful, in my mind), but they all rely on logic. Given that logic is (loosely) a description of how to think correctly, it's hard to be certain that it works, at least in my mind, at all levels of perspective. For instance, some believe that, at the quantum mechanical levels, one of the three laws of thought must be violated due to the superposition principle (although I believe this interpretation of quantum mechanics is slowly going out of favor). Anyway, I find it to be difficult to assert something which by definition is impossible to have experience with, so I'm ultimately an agnostic, and only say I'm an atheist with respect to specific examples of gods from throughout human history.

+1

happy waiting to you. i do not believe. since when is that a religion? get your logic straight.

Read some physics. More proof we could be a simulation or even two dimensional beings living like a matrix in 3d. Not enough to say any of that is true, but mathematical models say it is possible. I don't know of a scientific math model that shows the existence of God, unless you count someone creating a simulation. We might be a seventh grader's science project that he, she, or it may have just placed into the closet.

It's the same proof that there are no unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, etc., which is the lack of ANY evidence they exist or influence the physical world in any way. Do you feel the same about these mythical creatures as you do about 'gods'?

Atheism cannot be characterised as a religion as it doesn't have the precepts of religion i.e. Doctrine, belief, texts, rituals, experience, testimony, symbols and art. A 'god' is not a pre-condition for a religion. What you are asking is not a scientific question but a philosophical one. Probably compare texts by Thomas Aquinas and Richard Dawkins if you are asking the question seriously. 1,000 years between and both with rigorous and robust study and argument. If you want to compare, best not dive into Summa Theologica, a beginners guide to Aquinas will provide enough to consider both sides.

A negative cannot be proven. I don't know and you don't either!?

Faith (belief without evidence asserted as truth (things that can be demonstrated)) is the foundation of religion. With this in mind try to honestly answer the following questions.

If off a television channel?
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
Is not accepting the yet to be demonstrated faith based assertion (religion) that a god exists a religion?

I'll give you a clue: All of these similar questions have the same answer.

It is often said that there is no way to "prove a negative". But If someone said there was mountain Lion in your house what would you do? I suspect you would, gun in hand, search every room systematically. So you do so and find absolutely no evidence of the existence of a mountain Lion in your house. Maybe, to be sure, you would double check every room or get someone else to check. But still no mountain lion. Would you still be agnostic about the existence of a mountain lion in your house? So relax and go to sleep without a concern. Same with God. Billions of people have looked for evidence and it is not there. So by any normal meaning of proof, we have proven that there is no God.

I'm agnostic and I don't make any claims that I know for a fact a God doesn't exist. However I do assert based the information that I have I have little reason to believe in one but I am still open to the possibility of God.

There is no evidence against the existence of any god. There is no evidence for either.

But, consider that the only reason anyone believes is because they learned about the mythology to begin with.

there is no 'it' to state anything, there is no, anything, to be stated there is no 'christianity' only people who call themselves christians and worrship their god - there is no body of christianity that speaks in one voice - there is no science that can make something that doesnt exist; exist so that you can square the circle that you have made. I think your choice therefore to remain a sceptic is a good one- as for the proof there are 320,000,000 gods in the world would they all need to be proved to you ? Or are you only talking about the Christian god?

There are also people who identify as atheists who just say they don't believe in god(s). In that sense, agnostics, the true non-believers, are also atheists; ie, atheos without gods.

I am, and have been, a relaxed agnostic for many years. To my way of thinking, there is no possible way to prove or disprove the existence of a nonmaterial being with material proof. Soon enough we will ALL knoww for certain one way or another.

In the interim, I see this vast quantity that we call "society" to be an enormous machine, and all we H. Quasi Sapiens are the cogs, cams, gears, and mainspings, in that machine. And kindness and courtesy are the lubrication for that machine.

Those childish persons who would choose to troll, confront, conflate, contradict, or otherwise fuck with the idea of creating community online or in person, are the self-same fuckwits who would throw sand in that machine. UNfuck 'em.