Atheists and god?

Question

Ive seen most people say they don't believe in god because there is no evidence for him. There is also no evidence against him, so logically couldn't there be a god. I'm not saying the christian god, just a god. It doesnt have to be allpowerful or allimighty, it could have just created everything and thats it. Or else any other possibility. But doesn't it seem illogical to say that definitely no god exists. Then if you do believe some part of what I said, that makes you an agnostic not a atheist.

Im an agnostic deist, so don't say anything dealing with christianity.

Either way for evolution or god creating everything, something was always there. There had to be something always there or else nothing would be here. As for people always needing a higher power comment, im not saying you need a higher power im just saying there could be a possiblility, a possibility can be less than a millionth of a percent, but it could happen.

Answer 1

There is no evidence for an invisible man sitting on the moon and no evidence against an invisible man sitting on the moon. I chose not to believe there is an invisible man on the moon because there is no evidence. the same with god.

Answer 2

Here's the thing. There IS evidence for the non-existence of God. Scriptural claims about the natural world being disproven by science, astronomical data, prior events which people thought were acts of God being given scientific explainations, etc....

There's just no definitive proof that he does not exist. That is a big difference. Lots of evidence but not incontrovertable proof.

On the flip side there is no credible evidence for the existence of a supreme supernatural being. Not even a shred. So in addition to having no proof, there is also no evidence.

The "bridge hand theory" is not evidence. That the chances of things being the way they are are just too remote. Just because the chances of getting any one bridge hand are 1 in 4 to the 10th power times four to the 210th power does not mean that God intervenes every time you get dealt 13 cards, after all the chance of getting the hand you got was astronomically small!

Therefore it is logical to give much more weight to the theory that God does not exist because there is a preponderance of evidence that he does not.

Answer 3

Very few atheists claim that there is 'no god'. Making such a claim implies that you have absolute knowledge about the universe and know for certain. Such knowledge is impossible.

I would be considered an agnostic atheist:

"There is no evidence in support of the existence of a god or gods, therefore I don't believe."

I cannot fathom your position at all. It seems logically untenable.

To say:

"There is no evidence for a god or gods, but there is no evidence against one either, therefore I believe in god conceptually"

That seems like a cop-out to me. It's as though you're an agnostic atheist, but can't admit it. The call for evidence to disprove is a logical fallacy. You know full well that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something.

I can't decide if your position is better or worse than that of the proclaimed agnostic:

"There is no evidence for a god or gods, but I refuse to take a position."

Answer 4

You're setting up a false dichotomy. I don't buy that argument from Christians, and i won't buy it from an agnostic deist.

I am both agnostic and atheist. I'm agnostic in the sense of Huxley's original definition, that i don't claim knowledge of things that i can't possibly know. No evidence, no knowledge. I'm an atheist because i don't believe that any gods exist. It would be unreasonable to require me to dismiss each of an infinite number of concepts of "god" before i can say that i don't buy the whole lot.

Nevertheless, i do have beliefs about some specific concepts of "god." Here are some, along with my reasoning.

- I'm a weak atheist wrt your god: I neither believe in nor deny the existence of a "first cause." I consider it outside the sphere of current human knowledge.

- I'm a strong atheist wrt all anthropomorphic gods--Yahweh, Athena, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Isis, Krishna, and the rest of them. In the case of Yahweh/Jesus/Allah, the state of the world is just not consistent with a god of his description(s).

- I'm a stong atheist wrt animist gods. I regard them as a violation of Occam's razor.

- I see the pantheist god as an abstraction--more a point of view than a faith.

- And finally, the FSM, the IPU, and Xenu are all acknowledged fiction, begging no belief--notwithstanding that the Xenu people refuse to admit it.

Answer 5

I agree which is why I am agnostic. There is no proof for nor any proof against a deity or deities. However, I am not a deist as I do not believe in religion. Religion is made by society for the control of society and I refuse to be a part of it. Since deities are such unknown entities I focus on humanity instead.

However, I would not call atheist beliefs illogical, they are merely different.

Answer 6

There is evidence against theistic versions of deity. Proof, in fact, against. I do not believe in God because theism is provably false.

Theism has as a necessary consequence the existence of free will. The existence of free will would indicate the possibility of a deity, but the absence of free will would be definitive proof against.

Free will is a literal impossibility in the universe in which we find ourselves as the mind is processed by the brain, which is a neural network. Neural networks are provably equivalent to von Neumann architectures, which means they are also provably equivalent to Deterministic Turing Machines. Determinism invalidates free will. Choices are made but they are deterministically computed.

Since free will is absent, the theistic hypothesis is false.

This leave two options: Deism or atheism. As deism is in all consequences equivalent to atheism, but with one more a-priori agent, I see no reason to keep the unnecessary a priori.

QED.

Answer 7

It is just as reasonable for you to believe a donkey is the supreme being as creating an almighty god. Watch the donkey, you won't see any miracles, talk to the donkey, he won't talk back, ask for a sign and he stamps his foot wow he must be the true god. At the end of the day its kind of absurd to hypothesize the existence of god, when a donkey explains all the same observations.

Hey, Donkeyanity. I like it. Right up there with the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Answer 8

Actually, there is scientific explantions that both go against and support god. For example:
Pro: no scientific explanation for exocism.
Con: Ley lines, scientific explanation for blessings, ect.
I am an r/o Neutralist and I'm saying this!
I still beleive some of what you say, but in neutral beleifs all religions are (unintentally) worshiping the same mystery god. this soposive god was created by us and not him/her/it. this gods porpose is mainly to supervise us because of our hostility. This god also determines our rewards and punishments. If we break one of the three laws (No murder, theft, or rape) we will be cursed with a crappy life. or if your really bad you won't reancarnate at all! Because there is evidence that supports both the existance and non-existance of gods, it is a colassal violation to the neutral religion to say for sure there is a god.

Answer 9

Yes, you have stated the agnostic position. From my point of view, an agnostic seems to be employing Pascal's wager without any payoff, which makes a wager pointless. What if energy created everthing? Should I say a prayer everytime I flip my light switch?

Answer 10

Fair enough point. However, I can tell you that there is plenty of evidence/proofs that the Abrahamic God cannot and does not exist. So, I will remain an Atheist towards The God. As for the greek pantheon - you are correct - no way to disprove it.

Of course, if it applies to one, it usually applies to all gods...

Answer 11

Are you familiar with the difficulty of proving a negative or the term unfair burden?

Not disbelieving in the face of a preposterous and undocumented claim may be a comfortable place for you, but in my opinion it gives the claim too much credit.

Any claim requires validation through proof. The more radical the claim the more evidence required.