394 20

For atheists - what makes you believe no deity exists?

I became an agnostic because, from my perspective, there isn't enough evidence to prove whether there is a God or Higher Powers or not. I think atheism is based more on belief rather then empirical evidence and science, though much evidence would concur that there isn't a God.

Alright, shoot. smile001.gif

By RYSR10
Options Favorite Like

394 comments

64

you have it backwards - the idea of a deity needs to be proven, not the non existence of a fairy tale

ellipse Level 2 Nov 8, 2017
Reply

"Deity" and "Gods" are man made opinions that led to the "belief" of a hire being to change the views of the people to their own. For example, the Conquistadors that arrived in mexico brought Christianity to the picture. Changing the appearance of the Virgen de Guadalupe to conform the natives. Skin color, facial, the way the dress... Natives became slaves and thousands of years of history lost for the word for "God"

Yes, thank you.

@Chicano34 Hire Power? Lol

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

Nowhere is this more true than In science, where non-existence is not inferred but proven. For example, the Aether and the 100 GeV Higgs Boson and little green men on the mooon have all been proven not to exist.

As such, if we are to use a modern, scientific ideas in the quest to the answer "Does god exist?" it is necessary to prove via experiments that he does OR doesn't.

So until an experiment is formulate to prove that he/she/it should exist, and that fails, or an experiment is formulated to prove that he/she/it shouldn't exist, and that succeeds, scientifically we are not allowed to determine existence either way.

@Chicano34. You are right, and it is called syncretism.

@TheMiddleWay It is not necessary to prove God doesn't exist. The believers are making a claim of existence. The default position is to not believe until the claim is proven. There is no need to prove non-existence. That would be like asking someone to prove fairies don't exist.

@davepete
"The default position is to not believe until the claim is proven."
The logical default position is to not believe OR disbelieve until one claim OR the other is proven. The logical default in this context is therefore agnosticism, not theism or atheism. Using a secular example, it is more logical to not hold a position for or against a scientific concept until there is proof to believe or disbelieve that scientific concept.

"There is no need to prove non-existence."
If you are not making a claim of non-existence, you are correct. If a believer can't prove their claim of existence, that doesn't automatically prove non-existence and you are under no obligation to prove anything. However, you are then not justified in claiming non-existence... you can only claim the believer didn't prove existence.
OTOH, if you take the step to actually claim non-existence, then you are under the same burden as the believer to prove your case. And, just as before, if you can't prove the claim of non-existence, the believer can't use that as proof of existence... they can only claim that you didn't prove non-existence

"That would be like asking someone to prove fairies don't exist."
Yes, if you claim fairies don't exist then you have to prove it. To rely on "common sense" and thus abrogate any responsibility for proving that they don't exist is no different than a believer relying on their "common sense" and abrogating their responsibility for proving their god does exist.

@Profesao yeh you hire the power to do your bidding. “God” doesn’t shoot lightning bolts at your foes for free.

33

Think of all the things you would do if you were God. Would you stop child abuse? Would you cure cancer?
Then I realized that I used to believe in a deity who did none of these things.

MarkHawley Level 2 Nov 5, 2017
Reply

Consider the example of your child learning how to ride a bike. You could hold onto the bike for the rest of their life and thus guarantee that your child will never fall and never get hurt. Or, you can let go of the bike, know that your child will get hurt, but will eventually learn how to ride a bike on their own.

This is why the "why doesn't god stop XYZ" has never been a strong reason to hate or dismiss god. After all, we have the same power god has over us over our children in this regard and we still allow them to get hurt.

@TheMiddleWay
If your child were being raped by let's say a priest, and you were there, and you were powerful enough to stop it. Would you stop it from happening, or just chalk it up as a learning experience for the child?

@Eazyduzzit

Thing is, in this analogy, god(s) are a parent to all humanity not just one person
Thus this is a learning experience for mankind: how humanity reacts to said act is teaching us a lot about our selves and how our attitudes about said acts have matured.

If god(s) were to step in and prevent this from happening, would we really have learned that this is bad or would we just know that there is an external force preventing this for "some" reason unknown to us?

Me, I prefer to condemn this as bad because we know, from experience, that this is bad and not just because some higher power stepped in, didn't tell us it was good or bad, but prevented it "just because"

@TheMiddleWay: I'll give you the bike example. But what control do we have over catastrophic natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes or other devastating weather events? And what about famine and pestilence? "god" would have power over these that we do not. Why does it not exercise that power? It is either a sadist or non-existent.

@GareBear517

"It is either a sadist or non-existent."
There is a third possibility, actually two third possibilities that I can imagine:

1) We, today, now are NOT the most important people in gods life. Considering a god as eternal (a common thing attributed to god(s)), it would seem logical that it has to look after all peoples, past present and future. The people of tomorrow, the next gen, the future, might also be equally or more important than us today. Viewed in this light, what you describe is a way to weed out the people of today in order to make room for the people of tomorrow. Perhaps it's not even about weeding out but the natural forces that make the world make sense require that these events happen (remember what the architect said in the Matrix about the first version of the Matrix? smile009.gif ) A similar view would be that by virtue of evolution, the people of tomorrow will be better able to resist said tragedies by virtue of having experienced them in the past.

2) If people go to a better place when they die, then surely devastating weather events only brings you to that better place quicker. In a sense, instead of spending time trying to prove yourself on earth and then die after a long time, you get to "fast track" it into the afterlife without suicide, through no fault of your own.

Your statement reminds me of Stephen Fry in this interview:

@TheMiddleWay using your logic, your God should kill all of us immediately so we can be with him. This whole bunch of crap of "learning a lesson" is just a human construct. What god needs to teach lessons? Isn't he capable of creating something that doesn't need to be taught lessons? Isn't he capable of creating something that does not have flaws that need to be corrected? Is he so incapable that he made things that were flawed and needs to correct them en route to "a better place"? Then he's no god. All this stuff is just made up so the power elite of the religion can control people to give them money and to give them power. There are no gods.

@AtheistInNC

"using your logic, your God should kill all of us immediately so we can be with him"
Some people use that logic and kill their children. Even the most devout religious consider that delusional since clearly the fact that we are here in the first place and our self-survival instinct means that life is important for whatever reason regardless of who created us or didn't.

" What god needs to teach lessons?"
In my the "god simulation" scenario, it is not god that is teaching the lesson but living. The simulation is the teacher; god(s) is just the programmer.

"Isn't he capable of creating something that doesn't need to be taught lessons? Isn't he capable of creating something that does not have flaws that need to be corrected?"
Perhaps he is but like the Architect stated in in the movie the matrix, making humans like this leads to humans that don't accept the simulation, to humans that break down.

"Then he's no god."
Or maybe he is a god and your not having answers to those questions is your problem to resolve, not his to impart. Like @rick_T said above, your or our inability to answer questions about anything, be it science or religion, isn't proof for or against science or divinity.

@TheMiddleWay I try to use Occam's razor. Illiterate farmers and shepherds created religion to use against their own for power and control. No other explanation works better than that - no "god simulation" necessary.

God give to us authority for our world. Since men are separate from God, men has been doing everything like you are seen. Is not God guilty, is ours. What are you doing to change the bad situation that you see?

@rickarto First, prove your god exists, then we can talk about how silly he is.

If I were a deity I would clarify my existence. Unambiguously. Especially if I had the super-powers of omniscience and omnipotence. The rules of the game would be clear to everyone, not just to tiny tribes of illiterate iron-age goat herders. It would be the same regardless of where you were born and what era you lived within. Rules would be enforced. There would be no vacuous claims of "ohhh, just wait, they'll get theirs in the NEXT life ...".

The whole concept of what we consider 'god' is so clearly man-made that's I really do find it difficult to grasp that people still cling to it, despite the feelings of "comfort" or community it may bring. It's a very illuminating signal into the depths of human psychology.

@iamjc your statement is unclear.

Well maybe, but god certainly makes my sports team better...

17

I spent the first 21 years of my life trying to convince myself I believed. I realized in my last semester of college that I didn't and never had. I was going to a religious college, so I had to stay in the closet until I graduated.

Purplechic5 Level 3 Sep 29, 2017
Reply

I was in the same situation, but search God and discover His great love. Don't search in wrong places, the answers is in your heart. God loves you so much.

@rickarto How would you know for absolute certainty that you were not under a delusion? (example: millions of Japanese that believed their emperor was divine, or Hindus or Muslims that both you and I can agree are deluded and are pretending to know things they can't know)

14

Atheism is a lack of belief. Its why you can be an agnostic atheist. The terms are not really equivalent. Atheism requires nothing be a lack of belief, you don't need reason to be atheist. You are born atheist. You are taught something, then fall out of belief and claim to be agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist. I was an atheist for a long time before I ever bothered to understand why I was atheist. Now that I have studied religion's through history, I can tell you why I am atheist, but atheism requires nothing to justify it other then a lack of belief in a god or gods.

JoshuaAshley Level 3 Sep 30, 2017
Reply

Yeah, you're obviously just using a different definition than the OP.

Narrow definition "atheist", broad definition "agnostic":

P = god

Objectively: P or ~P

Subjectively:

Do you believe P?
Do you believe ~P?

YN: the(os)-ist
NN: agnost(os)-ic
NY: athe(os)-ist

"Agnostic atheist" doesn't describe a specific position, even using your definitions. Those 4 positions models a-theists pass around are false dilemmas.

The atheist believes there is no god. The agnostic does not believe there is a god. These are not equivalent positions.

@Coffeo

As I see it:

A-theist... "no god"... the belief that there is no god
A-gnostic..."no knowledge"... applied to theism means there is no knowledge of god.

An atheist claim that god(s) don't exist, call this ontological atheism or that they don't believe there is a god, call this epistemological atheism.

An agnostic claims that they have no knowledge of god and thus, as I use it, that they can render no judgement on ontology or epistemology, cannot render judgement on whether god exists or not or whether they believe in it or not.

@TheMiddleWay: I go along with you most of the way until the very end. As an agnostic, I may indeed be unable to render judgement on whether god exists, but I can certainly state whether I believe something or not.

@Coffeo

The old school of knowledge is "justified true belief" which would imply that belief is a prerequisite for knowledge. I'm experimenting with the opposite which might account for your opposition to my last. I'm experimenting with the notion that until you have some knowledge about something you can't express a belief in something.

I like to use the search for the Higgs boson as an example.

If I asked you "Do you believe in a 100 GeV Boson?" you would have to have some knowledge to answer... you'd have to know what a GeV is...what we mean by Boson... why we chose 100. Realize that knowing the answers to these questions doesn't mean that you believe or not in the premise; merely that you are capable of expressing a belief. Consider that on the other hand, if you didn't know what a GeV was, your belief or disbelief of this premise would be guesswork at best and an uninformed opinion at best.

It's a work in progress I grant you and I might do a separate post on this premise in the philosophy section. smile007.gif

@TheMiddleWay: I'll go halfway with you again. I can't state that I believe something. I CAN state that I do not believe something.

13

My position is not that no gods exist. My position is that the claim of Gods existence should be rejected until such time as there is evidemce to support the claim.

Davetheatheist Level 2 Oct 28, 2017
Reply

You're right, but I think you're in for a long wait.

Which is why I think atheists do not "not believe in god(s)." They KNOW there are no deities in the same way we know there are no fairies, great pumpkins or Santa Claus. All evidence to the contrary is enough sometimes to know the continued search for such evidence will be futile. I am an atheist because I KNOW there are no supernatural deities.

12

When 20 some six year olds can be shot to death in an elementary school, or when I see children with cancer. I see no God in that. I see no God anywhere.

jdpunk Level 3 Oct 17, 2017
Reply
11

Atheism is not the assertion that there is no god. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. If you lack belief in a god (which you appear to), then you are an atheist, plain and simple. Gnostic and agnostic are qualifiers used to describe theist and atheist. Technically, you are in fact an atheist, even if you don't realize it. Specifically, you would be an agnostic atheist, meaning you lack belief in a god but don't claim to know that one doesn't exist. Agnostic and gnostic aren't really separate categories; they're sub-categories of atheist and theist.

wjwolfe Level 5 Sep 27, 2017
Reply

I like your answer. Here is my take on why I can't believe in a god. I believe that we are intelligent animals ( well most of us) ones with a sense of self, a thinking animal with the largest brain pan and brain, given our size. The chimps and great apes come close, but we humanoids have the ability to anticipate and foresee the future and know that we will like all humans, die at some future date. It might be argued that chimps and the great apes may have the same ability, and perhaps they do. But here is the difference, we have gods, and as far as I, or the scientists know, at least for the time being, we don’t think chimps do. So it begs the question, why us? Is there a god or is this a construct we create? I think the answer is straightforward; it is within our nature to imagine a god or gods, because It is a coping mechanism. We know we will die, and because it is hard to accept the fact that we too will go back to nothingness as will our loved ones, so in order to keep our sanity and as a means of coping with this horror, we create a god and afterlife. In other words, there is no god without man, god didn’t create us, we created him/her. This makes life bearable, especially so in man’s early going, during those dark hard days, when life was short and brutal. As we advanced over time, became educated, understood thru science how things, nature and the universe works, developed labour saving devices and found free time to learn and grown intellectually, many of us have evolved to the point where we see religion, with all its contradictions and hypocrisy for what it really is, an imagined construct to get us thru the night, a night light if you will, to scare off the devil or the boogey man under your bed. My contention is supported by the fact that religion especially prospers in those poor parts of the world or the country where education is lacking, superstitious runs rapid, and life is hard and brutal. For the poor and the oppressed god and an afterlife makes life bearable, just like it did in the dark past. For the better educated and more free minded, those not held back by religion teachings and traditions, they are equipped to study the genesis of beliefs and religions, to see their fault lines, their lack of logic and hypocrisy, and are better able to form their own beliefs about the nature of man and his need for god, or not.

Seriously, more non-theists choose "nothing" or "agnostic" on surveys, than those who choose "atheist". If you have no belief a god exist, not a belief gods do not exist, it's you that's simply an agnostic, and doesn't know it.

This came first ...

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley, 1884

^Fully covered belief. He was a scientist. His ism amounts to a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim. Incompatible with theism, a belief a god exists. Incompatible with narrow definition atheism, a belief no gods exist.

This came later, fully acknowledged it was new, fully acknowledge it was hijacking the agnostic position into atheism ...

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ‘positive atheist’ for the former and ‘negative atheist’ for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’" ~ Antony Flew, 1984

And, "agnostic atheist" doesn't describe a specific position, even using your definitions. An agnostic weak/negative atheist, with no belief or knowledge either way? Or, an agnostic strong/positive atheist, who believes no gods exist, but doesn't claim to know?

I respectfully disagree. I started calling myself an atheist when I came to believe that humans invent religions to help them cope with reality and I do believe that there are no gods. I am not lacking a belief and it kind of low-key bothers me when people say I'm 'lacking' something because of my viewpoint. I am ok with using the word belief. As much as I feel as if I know that there are no gods, no one can truly know any of that. Therefore, I feel, for me, that it only makes sense to have the humility to call that a belief. Just my take on it, but I'll keep an open mind.

@JasonClark

Devastating Huxley quote!
Exactly how I think about agnosticism and refreshing to get reassurance that great minds have thought the same.
I'll have to keep that quote in mind, thanks for making us aware of it!

9

The absolute lack of proof.

ArwenEowyn Level 3 Nov 4, 2017
Reply
9

God is a human invention. Period.

SteveM Level 2 Oct 9, 2017
Reply

I fully agree, but why? Here’s what I think, for what it’s worth; I think god is a creation of man as a means of coping with a hard and cruel life. It makes life bearable knowing that a much better place awaits you in an afterlife. You will find god alive and well among the poor, uneducated, and most superstitious of peoples, but not so much among the better educated and well-off who see the lies, hypocrisy and hate on which religion thrives. Religion is like a night light for scaring off the bogey man under your bed, and it’s a promise of a better, happier afterlife once this horrible one comes to an end. If you do believe in god, but displease him you will be sent to burn in hell for ever and ever without end, but keep in mind, god loves you.

Saying 'Period' is like saying 'end of argument'. But you haven't made an argument, you've stated a belief. It's not binding on anyone else. 'Period' is inappropriate.

9

No evidence for a god. None. Simple as that.

DaleNash Level 3 Sep 29, 2017
Reply

Right you are, but it can be argued that there is no evidence that there isn't a god. This is a circular argument. You don't give any support or reason for not believing, sorry to disagree with your stance, but as an agnostic, I am looking for answers.

I have a talking unicorn, but no one else can see it. You just have to believe me.

The burden of proof is on me for trying convince you I have a talking unicorn. The burden of proof is not on the person saying talking unicorns don't exist.

7

So far, all known gods are made by egocentric males. It is just common sense that no such gods exist.

Andrew1954 Level 3 Oct 9, 2017
Reply

Religious people use the "common sense" argument too. That's not a real argument.

I have always been deeply mistrustful of 'common sense' as a justification for anything. It's frequently misused, and often wrong.

@Coffeo

Common sense is the least reliable of the human senses. smile009.gif

7

The structure of the question is wrong tho. The real question would be: What makes you believe a deity exists? Because people naturally doesn't believe things don't about, so by default we all don't believe in anything until we are told something.

Guyver280Z Level 2 Sep 28, 2017
Reply

Seems you understand the essence of the question, after all. So, what would be your answer? you believe that no god, no God The Father, no Allah, no god in whatever form or make exist?

6

There has been nothing in 56 years of life that has lead me to believe in the existence of God. Truthfully, I find the idea unbelievable and the opposite of how The natural world is. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I find it funny how we read our children fairy tales explain how they’re not real, but we’re expected to believe that the fairytales of God Are real? And yes I say fairytales. They follow the same premise.

Punch Level 4 June 2, 2018
Reply
6

Lack of evidence and since I was tried to be brainwashed by the Christian bible, there is no way that God exist! He's petty and just ridiculous.

EmeraldJewel Level 7 Nov 19, 2017
Reply
6

Reality gives me no reason to believe an omnimax god exists.
The problem of evil, when scrutinized, sealed the deal for me on my journey to unintentionally becoming a heathen.

Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, btw.
Atheism and theism speak to belief.
Agnosticism and Gnosticism speak to whether knowledge can be had on a topic, in this case, god(s).

AMGT Level 8 Oct 21, 2017
Reply

Atheism and theism also basically come from a perspective of knowing. I'm glad to see someone else feels agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive.

You are wrong bingst. Atheism & theism come from the perspective of belief or a lack or it & gnosticism & agnosticism come from the perspective of knowledge or a lack of it therefore a person can not believe a claim & yet still not claim to know for sure. Atheism & agnosticism are 100% compatible for this reason but if you insist on defining them incorrectly you'll never ever appreciate this fact. If you doubt me look up BOTH words on Wikipedia.

@Paul

How can you have a stated belief on a subject without knowledge of that subject?
For example, supposed I asked you "Do you believe in Category Theory?"
Assuming you don't know what category theory is (I chose it because very few people do; it's be awesome if you did BTW!), then how can you say you believe or disbelieve in it?

Applied to theism, if you have no stated knowledge of god, how can you claim to believe or disbelieve in it?

Thus, agnosticism comes before atheism insofar as in order to be atheist and have a belief on a subject, you must me gnostic, you must have some knowledge in that subject.... and since very few people that call themselves "atheists" claim to have knowledge of gods, many that call themselves "atheists" are really agnostics (no knowledge) and cannot in honestly call themselves atheists (no gods) since they have no foundation for their belief of no gods

6

You wrote 'there isn't enough evidence to prove whether there is a God or Higher Powers or not.'

Saying there isn't enough evidence appears to imply the existence of SOME evidence that god exists.

Feel free to post the evidence, I really want to see it.

TickTockNZ Level 2 Oct 6, 2017
Reply

There is no evidence for or against, just human logic, logic that leads me to believe that there isn't a god. Here's my take on why not:I believe that we are intelligent animals ( well most of us) ones with a sense of self, a thinking animal with the largest brain pan and brain, given our size. The chimps and great apes come close, but we humanoids have the ability to anticipate and foresee the future and know that we will like all humans, die at some future date. It might be argued that chimps and the great apes may have the same ability, and perhaps they do. But here is the difference, we have gods, and as far as I, or the scientists know, at least for the time being, we don’t think chimps do. So it begs the question, why us? Is there a god or is this a construct we create? I think the answer is straightforward; it is within our nature to imagine a god or gods, because It is a coping mechanism. We know we will die, and because it is hard to accept the fact that we too will go back to nothingness as will our loved ones, so in order to keep our sanity and as a means of coping with this horror, we create a god and afterlife. In other words, there is no god without man, god didn’t create us, we created him/her. This makes life bearable, especially so in man’s early going, during those dark hard days, when life was short and brutal. As we advanced over time, become educated, understood thru science how the universe works, developed labour saving devices and found free time to learn and grown intellectually, many of us have evolved to the point where we see religion, with all its contradictions and hypocrisy for what it really is, an imagined construct to get us thru the night, a night light if you will, to scare off the devil or the boogey man under your bed. My contention is supported by the fact that religion especially prospers in those poor parts of the world or the country where education is lacking, superstitious runs rapid, and life is hard and brutal. For the poor and the oppressed god and an afterlife makes life bearable, just like it did in the dark past. For the better educated and more free minded, those not held back by religion teachings and traditions, they are equipped to study the genesis of beliefs and religions, to see their fault lines, their lack of logic and hypocrisy, and are better able to form their own beliefs about the nature of man and his need for god, or not.

To some, the beauty we see and perceive is evidence. And the love humanity is capable to show one another. And the miracle of life, and evolution, and water, and ... that. But looking for a proof for God is a bit like a fish looking for the evidence of water. Only more so. Is this omnipresent God is indeed omnipresent, how can we step outside it to observe it?

@billins I would contend that the "problem of evil" (Cf the video of Mr Fry posted earlier) constitutes evidence of god's absence.

5

I feel that god or higher powers began when there was no explanation available. Now that we know more, I think we have outgrown gods.

NickyD Level 3 July 18, 2018
Reply
5

Have yet to see any evidence a deity exists = atheist. I think the main difference between atheists and agnostics is that one has completely let go of a notion, while one is keeping hope.

Switchcraft Level 6 June 16, 2018
Reply
5

It is not my responsibility to prove the non existence of God. It is their responsibility to prove that he does exist. One of my requirements in doing this is that they can't use the Bible as proof.

BobLang Level 4 Oct 19, 2017
Reply
5

I can say that there is absolutely NO evidence that there is a God. Only based on superstition and a need to explain the unexplainable without doing the work to find out one way or the other. Science is hard and requires people with the most serious minds and intellect. Religion is easy. Just believe everything the Clergy tells you.

Robertrivest Level 2 Oct 18, 2017
Reply
5

A. There isn't enough evidence to suggest that there is a deity running things.

B. I refuse to believe in any deity that lets the kind of injustice and inequality that goes on in the world every day.

SClodfelter86 Level 3 Oct 18, 2017
Reply

I get it, but that doesn’t prove that there isn't a god. Those who believe in god, say he gives us free will and doesn't interfere, so we are back at the start. Here’s what I think, for what it’s worth; I think god is a creation of man as a means of coping with a hard and cruel life. It makes life bearable knowing that a much better place awaits you in an afterlife. You will find god alive and well among the poor, uneducated, and most superstitious of peoples, but not so much among the better educated and well-off who see the lies, hypocrisy and hate on which religion thrives. Religion is like a night light for scaring off the bogey man under your bed, and it’s a promise of a better, happier afterlife once this horrible one comes to an end. If you do believe in god, but displease him you will be sent to burn in hell for ever and ever without end, but keep in mind, god loves you.

@billins There is proof that god doesn't exist as an all knowing, all powerful and all good single being. The evil in the world argument.

Anyway, who cares? Atheists don't believe in god. We don't need a reason to not believe in an illogical, unscientific concept that is totally unsupported by facts. I also don't believe in Santa Claus. Do you ask me why not?

Do you ask theists why they believe in god? There is no evidence for it.

5

We A-theists are not A-Deists... A-theists has the same approach as agnostics when thinking of a Supercreator may exists. But even if it exists (or not) we know it does not interfere in people life. (Where the name anti theism comes from this spot)
And this is where we are differencing with agnostics. Agnostics should say " we do not have enough evidence so it may interfere with human life etc.." (which means theistic gods or religions may be true and may be not.) But we atheist know that is all some myth. And there is no maybes when it comes to think about theistic gods.
In conclusion; No theistic gods exists. But deistic ones ( creation of known universe or the creator) may exists.

Tolga Level 2 Oct 9, 2017
Reply
5

I totally agree. We all should rely on our own instincts of good, as humans with intellect common sense and empathy could create a wonderful world for all to live!!!

Annedyas6 Level 2 Sep 30, 2017
Reply
5

I'm an Agnostic-Atheist. I require evidence to believe in something for the most part. There are some things that I can believe in without significant evidence. But God is not one of those things.

ErichZannIII Level 7 Sep 30, 2017
Reply

But can't it be argued, that there also no evidence that there isn't a god. I think your argument is circular in its nature, so here we are back at the start. I need more.

Your argument could also be considered circular. You also require evidence of some kind. We're basically saying the same thing.

Erich, sorry but no disrespect, but I think you are missing the point I am making. The point is your argument lacks any defining rationale for your position. I believe that we are intelligent animals ( well most of us) ones with a sense of self, a thinking animal with the largest brain pan and brain, given our size. The chimps and great apes come close, but we humanoids have the ability to anticipate and foresee the future and know that we will like all humans, die at some future date. It might be argued that chimps and the great apes may have the same ability, and perhaps they do. But here is the difference, we have gods, and as far as I, or the scientists know, at least for the time being, we don’t think chimps do. So it begs the question, why us? Is there a god or is this a construct we create? I think the answer is straightforward; it is within our nature to imagine a god or gods, because It is a coping mechanism. We know we will die, and because it is hard to accept the fact that we too will go back to nothingness as will our loved ones, so in order to keep our sanity and as a means of coping with this horror, we create a god and afterlife. In other words, there is no god without man, god didn’t create us, we created him/her. This makes life bearable, especially so in man’s early going, during those dark hard days, when life was short and brutal. As we advanced over time, became educated, understood thru science how things, nature and the universe works, developed labour saving devices and found free time to learn and grown intellectually, many of us have evolved to the point where we see religion, with all its contradictions and hypocrisy for what it really is, an imagined construct to get us thru the night, a night light if you will, to scare off the devil or the boogey man under your bed. My contention is supported by the fact that religion especially prospers in those poor parts of the world or the country where education is lacking, superstitious runs rapid, and life is hard and brutal. For the poor and the oppressed god and an afterlife makes life bearable, just like it did in the dark past. For the better educated and more free minded, those not held back by religion teachings and traditions, they are equipped to study the genesis of beliefs and religions, to see their fault lines, their lack of logic and hypocrisy, and are better able to form their own beliefs about the nature of man and his need for god, or not.

I agree with you. I said I don't believe in God. I just also happened to say that I know there's no proof that one doesn't exist.

4

Atheism is not the belief in a lack of gods it is the lack of belief in gods.

JoeChick Level 3 Sep 21, 2018
Reply
Write Comment
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • Agnostic.comis the largest non-profit community for atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, skeptics and others happy without religion!