What is the self-evident foundation of atheism?

Question

If you want to deny the existence of God, then fine. But how can you prove that you exist to deny him in the first place? Cogito ergo sum?

I find this self-defeating. Please explain.

Answer 1

Sand.

Answer 2

To some extent, "cogito ergo sum" is as far as I can go to prove I exist (though I like the Hume answer). Basically, all I know is that I have a sense of self-awareness, and that's basis enough for my assumption that I exist. Since I seem to sense and interact with a world around me, and I have no way to know anything outside of what I sense, I must assume I exist. Whether I exist in any larger, "objective" sense is immaterial.

I'm not sure why this is is self-defeating. This perspective underlies one rationale for atheism -- I must accept as real what I can perceive/sense/experience, and I have no justification (besides superstition) for accepting what I cannot perceive/sense/experience.

However, atheism isn't a specific belief system in the same way as most religious systems are. There are lots of different perspectives defined as atheism, so this is not the only foundation.

Answer 3

I don't need to prove anything. If you do not believe that I exist, that's fine with me. For myself, I have reasons enough to assume that I exist, and that's ok for a working hypothesis.

As an atheist, I normally do not bother to explicitly "deny" the existence of any god. If I would, I probably would end up denying all gods ever invented by man, and this would not leave me enough time for the real important things in life. Gods are irrelevant, that's all. As long as no god shows up for a serious conversation, I will keep it that way. I will particularly ignore humans claiming they speak for a god, or they know any god, or they have seen any god or spoken to one. If a god steps forward by itself, okay, that would be another story. But it's always just humans doing all the talk.

Answer 4

if I say, "I exist," isn't that proof enough? The old, I think therefore I am?

Why do you need to prove to yourself that you exist, isn't the pain of mortal life proof enough? And if the suffering of mortal life is not enough to force you to make opinions on the matter, what good will a theory or argument do for you? How can it be that a man stumbles through life without even thinking that he exists? Existence is self-evident, any being that is in existence and possesses consciousness must be aware of his own existence. Any time a man asks "what is the meaning of life," he is well aware of his own existence.

Is your premise that the existence of God must coalign with the existence of the individual? If God required humans to exist, then he is no more powerful than the whims and will of humanity. But if God existed apart from humanity, then he could maintain his existence despie the belief or disbelief in the changing aspects of human nature.

But the deeper question is, why do you care? You are well aware of the fact that people will continuously deny and affirm the existence of God. They will use any form of reason or rationality to either accept unity or chaos. So either way, the question of existence is always looked upon by the discriminating judgment of the individual. And the only way one does that is through the use and exercise of logic and rationality. But then you would ask, how is it that a man knows that he exists? He can rationalize and use his logic to discern it, but could he ever come to a realization without those properties of mind? I would resolve the question by saying that although a thought can be produced in that matter, the thought will eventually shift to something else, so that memory would have to provide him with formidable proof of his own existence.

Answer 5

"Cogito ergo sum" was good enough for Descartes.

Besides, theism offers no relief from the same question. It assumes that if God exists, God created.

There is no sure statement of that, only the writings of other humans. All the while, science thrusts the God ever deeper into the increasingly narrow gaps.

Answer 6

I can't conclusively prove I exist.
You can't conclusively prove you exist.
However, we both must necessarily accept we exist to function; to do otherwise is madness.

I can't prove conclusively god doesn't exist.
you can't prove conclusively god does exist.
However, we don't necessarily have to accept god exists to function; we can function perfectly well without a god.

In addition, there are so many flavours of god(s) (hindus, islam, christians, pagans, and each comes in various sub-flavours) and they all have their own wacky origin theory. The various religions will never, ever reconcile because they are static. BTW, are you a christian? I bet you are.

Scientific theories might disagree at times and scientists might have conflicting ideas but these ideas get resolved over time as more evidence, experiments, measurements and knowledge become available. A giant framework of natural beauty slowly unfolds, and lo, it does not require a god.

Science has gone from a flat earth to a round planet that is center of the universe to a planet that revolves around the sun to a planet that revolves around the sun with several other planets to a solar system that has its place in the galaxy, and so on, and so forth.

Religion is still stuck at 'god did it'.

Answer 7

I wrote this post. Therefore, some entity or cause affected the physical world in a viewable manner. You can see this post as evidence for my existence. Or is physical proof such as that not enough? Because I'd certainly accept some physical proof of god.

Also note that my claim to existence is a rather natural one. Obviously, you've seen other adult males before, and spoken with them online. It's not hard to assume the existence of another adult male.

It's quite a different step to assume the existence of an all-powerful all-knowing supernatural being who never interacts with his creation at all.

Answer 8

The self-evident foundation of atheism is the fact that no god exists.

I don't have to prove that I exist to prove that there is no ketchup in my fridge. When I open the fridge, there's no ketchup. Therefore, I am an aketchupist.

When I look around the universe, I fail to see any signs of a giant white bearded guy in a robe who will punish me for all eternity for not grovelling in worship of him. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Simple as that.

Answer 9

Only our own consciousness is self evident. Everything else requires this consciousness in order to appear to us at all. There is some debatable evidence about a necessary source of the universe, but there is none to suggest that this source has a personality, which is what most theists mean when they say god.

Answer 10

I can't prove I exist. This is the problem of epistemology. Nothing can actually be proven to exist. Existence must be accepted axiomically.

-------------

NH Baritone: The Cogito was disproven by Jean-Paul Sartre, as primarily demonstrated by the brain in the jar scenario.

Thought or experience are insufficient proof of existence. At best they are evidence but useless as proof.

Answer 11

Atheists do not ask questions to themselves that is why they do not believe in God questions like:
Questions for Atheist:

1-If a pen can not write on its own, it can't work without our help then how can these whole universes is working without a God?

2-When a person dies for example of the blockage of vain of a heart, after a minute of his death doctors open his vain but he can not live again, why? He had only 1 problem which is cure after his death, so he should stand on his feat and say thank u doctors, but this is not happen why? Where his soul does goes? Do u believe in souls? If not then tell me why he is not alive again?

3-We human make from the biggest things like Airplanes to smallest things like tooth picks, v make them all. These things can not built themselves I know I m 100% right they can't make themselves then who made this HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE universe?