Everyone is sure they're right. It's not limited to atheists.
2007-07-04 15:22:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lanani 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
Put it this way, being an Agnostic and being and Atheist is just two side of the coin :
An Agnostic believes there may be a god, but no evidence shows it.
(Definition of an Agnostic :
1.a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
)
An Atheist does not believe there is a god, as no evidence shows it.
(Definition of an Atheist :
person who disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.)
Absence of evidence does not give you a reason to create up a fantasy to believe. It just means there is no reason to believe the existence.
The two side of the coins : One side believes, the other side don't, even though both agrees that there is no proof that such creature existed.
Just a thought from your friendly neighbourhood Atheist.
2007-07-04 15:41:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually it is. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
Evidence of a Proposition is defined as any fact which increases the probability of the Proposition being true.
Bayes Theorem shows exactly how much absence of evidence for a proposition increases the probability for that proposition. Therefore it logically follows that Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
The fact people say something doesn't make it true.
I see no more evidence for gods than I do for lamp genies. I estimate the likelyhood for gods as roughly the same.
2007-07-04 15:22:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
There are 150 major world religions. They are major because they contain over 1 million followers for each religion. This is according to the "World Christian Encyclopaedia" & other independent studies. What that means is no matter which religion you choose you only have a 0.6% chance of having the correct religion. This also means there is a 99.4% chance of having the wrong religion. That only scratches the surface there are thousands more religions.
Before arriving to the conclusion that god does not exist nor does Jesus. You must first investigate the origins of religion. A good place to start is sun-gods that were worshipped prior to the creation of Jesus and Christianity. Do your homework you might be shocked to learn Christianity and Jesus are just a newer version of ancient religions combined.
Most likely you will refuse to do so for fear of finding the truth. Instead you rely on faith. Faith is rejecting fact and evidence that contradicts your beliefs and understandings. Which prevents you from fully understanding the world around you. Locking your mind in a primitive state. You no longer learn because of your rejection to explore.
2007-07-04 15:19:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
So you're saying that I should believe in the possibility of Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Amaterasu, Vishnu, Cthulhu, the FSM, Tooth Fairies, Unicorns and God, based on the fact that there is no evidence for any of them.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but it certainly isn't evidence of existence either. Prove anything positively and I'll believe it, no lies.
2007-07-04 22:58:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually, a complete and total lack of evidence *is* evidence of absence. It might not be PROOF of absence, but it is *evidence*.
Anyway...I'm atheist and I don't claim to know with 100% certainty that there is no God, just as no believer can *honestly* claim they know with 100% certainty that there IS a God. Until I see some compelling evidence otherwise, I have no more reason to believe in God than I do the tooth fairy.
2007-07-04 15:20:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jess H 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you know where the evidence should be. If it's not there, then the lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
2007-07-04 15:20:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by sfbcaptain 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
You are very, very correct. Any sane person realizes you cannot prove a negative. We cannot prove that Big Foot does not exist.
What we are witnessing with the increase in people considering themselves atheists is the increasing influence in schools of socialism. Socialism cannot exist with any form of moral absolutism. God or a Creator represent a higher authority than man. This restricts the actions of governments. Right is always right while wrong is always wrong.
If you examine any socialist government, one of the first tasks required as the government takes control is to arrest and disgrace all religious leaders and destroy all houses of worship. Once God is erased from a country the government is free to follow a policy of moral relativism or secular humanism. These are fancy words for replacing God with man. In effect, allowing the government to do whatever it wants and declare it just.
So, if the goal is socialism, atheism is an absolute necessity. Perhaps that is why they are so sure they are right. They are convinced socialism is right.
.
2007-07-04 15:27:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jacob W 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
In the absence of evidence, does one then believe?
I think not. It would not be rational. So, until there is evidence, we both continue to not believe.
Bottom line.
2007-07-04 15:30:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by CC 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am sure I am right insofar as my own life is concerned. I don't care what you believe.
Oh, and absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it has worked so far.
2007-07-04 15:20:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by link955 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
What makes any other religion so sure they're right? It is a belief, they may say its the truth. Yet that is only because they believe in what they have been told. From what i have seen there has been gaps in every form of beliefs, just sometimes people look over them i guess not sure though...
2007-07-04 15:53:04
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋