How are Atheists so confident in nothingness?

Question

real question,

seen atheists here make such a big deal out of their belief that there is no heaven, hell, afterlife, whatever.

but what is this confidence based upon?
I mean if its not there, then you can't experience the vacancy of it.... where at least theoretically if there was something, or the possibility of something, someone could theoretically perceive it in some way.

NOT having perceived something doesn't mean it definitely is not there....

I guess I don't see how someone can be so confident when their only evidence is the fact that they have not observed any evidence.

I mean at least most people who belive in something, in their own mind, have experienced something to lead them to that belief..... and you can't disprove what someone else has observed, you can merely find it untestable and/or unrepeatable.

seems scientifically unsound to be so confident due to a lack of evidence.

if I misunderstand... than explain.

put myself in their shoes? the only remotely rational non-belief I can imagine is Agnostic.

>>"An atheist believes that there is no God. Just because there is no God does not mean that there is no afterlife, etc. "<<
if an atheist belives theres no god, but does belive in metaphysical things... isn't that an issue of defining what god is?

Caribbean, firstly I'm not christian... but I have personally experienced and observed things that prove to me beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the God I belive in, exists. I know it exists with as much, if not more certainty than I know that I exist.
I fully admit theres no scientific evidence, but at least to me, there indeed is irrefutable evidence.

... lack of evidence is not conclusive to anything.

>>" but how can anyone say for sure that this place actually exists. athiests need proof. end of story "<<

a religious/spiritual person can have at least a personal experience or SOMETHING to lead them to belive it DOES exist. you can't have a personal experience to say it does NOT. you can just LACK an experience otherwise.

the farthest a skeptical, but scientific approach can go, within reason and logic, is Agnostic. that is, "I don't know if theres a god or not as I've been shown no satisfactory proof"

damn thats one long post... lets just say this is targeted at those that have a variety of atheism that gives them the place to feel they can say "none of that stuff is real!"

Spooky, things I've personally experienced, are the evidence I need for what I belive in, to put it rather simply.

I have "Faith" in myself, my abilitys, my mind, my perceptions, and I have confidence and trust that the God I do belive in, granted me these facultys and that they are reliable.

>>"It can also be found to be simply too absurd to find any semblance of credibility. "<<

thats a matter of perspecfive, how many scientific principles we know now, many years ago would have been considered too absurd to have any credibility?

>>"Your assertion that atheists 'believe' that god does not exist is true ONLY with respect to the 'strong atheist' position. Most atheist simply do not believe that god exists. Can you discern the difference?"<<

yes, I get the difference. but for someone to declare that heaven/hell/god/souls/ect do NOT exist is a pretty strong impression they are confident in god and/or metaphysicality's non-existance.

I am NOT saying theres scientific or empirical evidence for God, I'm saying theres no scientific or evidence AGAINST god either.

>>" It's not just lack of evidence; It's their belief that there's just no way something could exist other than this world."<<
thats the crux of the question though, WHY do they belive so firmly that it doesn't exist?

>>"Kind of hard to follow the twists and turns in your logic there, but I think what you're saying is that your confidence in the lack of evidence for the existence of something, is superior to my confidence in the lack of existence of nothing?"<<

ok, your missing it too,

I belive in God. I have personal experiences and such that lead me to this belief, they may not be scientifically provable, but they are enough for me to be confident in my views.

An Atheist disbelieves. they have... a lack of evidence of any form.

a lack of evidence does not mean it does not exist, it only means that you have no evidence.

Answer 1

The problem with atheism is that there isn't a lack of evdience, but that it limits the type of evidence it allows. Atheism is frontloaded with the notion that no evidence for the supernatural can exists because atheism will only except evdience that is observable in nature. This is empirical evidence. The argument basically goes like this:

1.) All that is knowable is the natural world
2.) Therefore the supernatural world is not knowable
3.) Therefore evidence for the supernatural world does not exist.
4.) Because there is no evidence, there is no reason to belive.

Simplify it using hypothetical syllogism

1.) If all that is knowable is the natural world, then there is no way to beleive in the supernatural world.

Because of this, it really has nothing to do with the lack of evdience, and everything to do with the premise that all that is knowable is the natural world. This makes it impossible to believe in the supernatural world, so naturally no evidence can exist.

This type of thinking denies a priori evidence. A priori evidence are those things that we know without having to experience them. These things are known by intuition, such as murder being wrong. Thse would mean that there is a sense of justice in every reasonable person.

To an empiricists, such knowledge is learned through experience and is not innate. Then this raises the question, where did such notions like justice, love, and hate come from? If an atheists wants to make an ontological leap here, then he or she would be making claims without empirical proof, and basing the claims on something else other than empirical observation (i.e. more assumptions).

Answer 2

However, just to point this out, Atheism is as big a load of BS as the Atheists claim the Christians are handing out.

The claim that since the existence of God can't be proven, then God does not exist is as big a leap of faith as anyone claiming there is a God. The existence or non-existence of deity is something which can NOT be proven either way.

So when the Atheist make their unsupported claims, they like to hide behind science as their dodge and shield, knowing full well that any real logical examination of their arguments turns up just as much dogma and faith as any bible waving christian.

The only true stance of an Honest person is Agnostic, since they understand that neither position can be proven, and so will admit they don't know, or that they are still searching for an answer.

Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!

Answer 3

If you have zero evidence then ANY hypothesis is true, which means that all hypotheses are equally useless. If you want to believe in an afterlife, go ahead, but in the absence of evidence it is just wishful thinking.

I think it is best to simply admit that we don't know, but to assume that most likely the truth is the simplest explanation (Occam's razor). The simplest explanation given all of the evidence is that there is no soul, only consciousness that is the result of the processes going on within the brain. When we die, our brain dies, and our consciousness ends. To believe in an afterlife, you have to postulate something mysterious that cannot be observed that is somehow independent of our body, yet intimately part of our identity. This seems very far fetched, and I feel that believing in it is just giving into fantasy.

Answer 4

Quote: "seems scientifically unsound to be so confident due to a lack of evidence."

Same goes for religion. See, religion makes ridiculous claims about the origin of the universe, man/woman, morals, etc., yet religion has not one shred of evidence either other than "God said it". And no, a book written by men does not count as evidence. Try this: In the past three thousand years that religion controlled man and the world, what good come of it? War, hatred, bigotry, abuse of power. Now, ask what science has done for humans in the last 50 years. Cures for diseases, better crops, safer lifestyles, extended lifespans etc. I could go on, but I think I made my point.

Answer 5

We athiests do not have a BELIEF. We only believe what is tangible or what can be explained by plausible theories, such as particle physics or chemistry (you can't actually see atoms and subatomic particles, but you may measure the results of experiments).

Believers of any faith use the argument of "God is like a fart, you might not see Him but if you sniff hard enough, with all your heart, you'll be able to smell Him".

Most of us take pride in knowing that. although we are far from reaching the truth we're constantly pursuing, we've been able to see the footprints of such truth on the beach of the Universe, and so we follow in its footsteps.

Believers haven't seen those footprints, because faith keeps them blindfolded. They vouch for the existence of something they have NEVER seen or sensed in any MEASURABLE form.

We don't need any belief to fill any gap, because we fill that gap with knowledge and certainty.

And Wise above should be wise enough not to post that Crap.

Answer 6

Personally, I am not an atheist, but I can see their logic. Your argument that: "I mean if its not there, then you can't experience the vacancy of it...." completely mystifies me. Using that logic, we can never argue that ANYTHING doesn't exist because we cannot experience the VACANCY of it. So I guess the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, etc. exist then, by that notion.

I think that most atheists feel that all of the questions that religion attempted to answer can be answered more sensibly through science. They don't buy into many of the arguments that believers offer, i.e. "you just have to have faith," "God exists because the Bible says so," "fossils were put here to test our faith" and "I ain't descended from no monkeys."

Answer 7

I've often wondered this myself. I have three friends that consider themselves athiest. I'm not, but I guess I can somewhat answer your question. It's not just lack of evidence; It's their belief that there's just no way something could exist other than this world. When I've asked athiests "What if you're wrong," they just say "What if I'm not." It seems as if THEY don't even know why they don't believe. Maybe it's because they're afraid to admit that there's someone/thing else's hands they should put their lives in.

Answer 8

It's as simple as this: Atheists don't believe in something just because someone made it up. That's all god is; something that someone made up. We believe in a lot of things, but these are things that usually have some evidence to support them. The notion of the existence of god has less to support it than the notion of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Answer 9

In the US, many humans wish their devout perspectives written into the legislation, and to be considered while our leaders make selections. This is a foremost hindrance. This detail of faith have got to certainly be destroyed. In addition. many selections citizens make are impact through the citizens' devout perspectives. This hyperlink have got to be destroyed. People must vote for what's satisfactory for themselves. the nation, and the sector, no longer what they imaging their god might wish. To the level that humans hold their faith personal, faith does no longer have to be destroyed. --- Atheism, like a-unicornism and a-inexperienced-cheese-moonism, is with no trouble the loss of notion in anything which can not be verified, and could be very, very unlikley to be real. A man or woman who does not feel in Unicorns would feel in existence after dying, and so would an atheist or a-flying-piggist. Having foolish ideals isn't a mark of a-pixie-dustism or atheism, however this is a mark of theism.

Answer 10

Kind of hard to follow the twists and turns in your logic there, but I think what you're saying is that your confidence in the lack of evidence for the existence of something, is superior to my confidence in the lack of existence of nothing?

Asked and answered.