strong atheists...?

Question

What has led you to believe that there is no God, rather than saying, "I don't know if there is a God". Please don't answer "there is no evidence for Him", to that I say, "There's also no evidence against Him." Theists, like myself, if they truly believe in God, believe in God thruogh personal experience of God revealing Himself to them in different ways. So this is our evidence, though it is only personal and cannot be proven in a lab.

With that said I guess I've got two questions:

1. Can you offer any proof or evidence of the non-existence of God? Again, a lack of evidence is not evidence against his existence - maybe he's an asshole who just chooses not to reveal Himself.

2. If you cannot offer any evidence, then are most atheists really at the core of their beliefs agnostics?

and lastly, don't offer evidence against any religion, such as historical contradictions in The Quran, or the Bible, or The book of Mormon. I'm only talking about the existence of a Deity

Well I haven't gone through all the answers. I do realize that atheists probably get asked this daily, I just.

You all seem to beb saying basically the same thing. I must admit, it's a good point. You cannot disprove something that is not there, it's not a fair challenge. I will no longer approach atheists with this kind of challenge.

So I hold a new challenge to you. Ask God, if He is real, to reveal Himself to you. You must not presuppose that he wont, He will not reveal himself to you if you do not want Him to. And if He truly does not exist, then what have you lost?

So I majorly crewed up those first two sentences. What I meant to say is...
"I have not thoroughly read through every answer, but have scanned through pretty much all of them." I don't know what I was going to say with that unfinished sentence "I just...". so please disregard that.

Answer 1

what evidence do you have that magic pink unicorn doesn't exist? does that mean you're agnostic about the unicorn?

Answer 2

Proof as in scientific proof, no - it's philosophical.

I always rather thought that Jews, various sects of Christianity, and Muslims really all worshipped the same deity, merely had different ideas on particulars. Along my own spiritual path I'd long given up the idea of the deity being personified - it simply didn't make sense. It was more a feeling, an essence, a light.

Then at one point I help someone with a Master's thesis on rhetoric studying NDE's from around the world. It was interesting, that such descriptions from people who were not brought up in Western Culture were completely different than the descriptions from people who were.... on the surface. The project was an exercise in rhetoric and in studying the words people used and finding meaning in their experiences, it seemed that most people experienced very, very similar things, only in the context of their dominant religion or culture.

I came to the conclusion that deities and all the other supernatural entities are not actually real, but are metaphors for something our human minds can't comprehend - an attempt to define the undefinable.

Later on when studying World Religions I was introduced to the concept of the Tao, and it made so much more sense to me than the idea of a deity. For one thing, the description of the Tao actually matches the way things work in real life, whereas many definitions of deitys simply didn't match at all my experience of life. You know, the kind of questions you get where "If god is this, then why/why not does this happen?" One would, after all, expect that if somethng were true, things would work out as if it did.

So it really fell in line with what I'd long thought.

To your second point, everyone is agnostic when you down to that level, since no one really knows what happens when we die. But because I have a positive belief in something else that does not involve deities, I am honestly truly an atheist, albeit a spiritual one.

Answer 3

I'll try to give a clear and honest answer, It is a matter not having belief. It is not a matter believing in God's nonexistence.

The existence of God is an important question. He is, as stated in the Bible, an omnipotent supernatural being who created and has control over all things. His laws and required behaviors are extensive. One should give careful thought before committing their life to such a pursuit, don't you think?

Lets consider the historic validity of the bible. Accounts of the Sun standing still, a world covering flood, and a 6,000 year history of the world can not be supported by other evidence.

The Bible makes clams of supernatural beings and activities. Many other beliefs also make similar but contradictory claims. Obviously you don't except all such claims. Consider the level of evidence you would need to accept any one of these other faith's claims. Now please apply that criteria to what the Bible says of the supernatural. Are those stories really any more likely that the ones of other faiths. Do the biblical claims have any more creditable evidence?

I am confident that not believing in the Christian God is a reasonable way to approach the question of his existence. I would not call that agnosticism.

Answer 4

Actually according to Bayes Theorem, Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. It is Bayes theorem that allows us to determine exactly how Absence of Evidence improves the probability of Absence.

Evidence is not about proof or certainty or necessity, it is simply something that can contribute to a probability estimate.

The probability of an event A conditional on another event B is generally different from the probability of B conditional on A. However, there is a definite relationship between the two, and Bayes' theorem is the statement of that relationship.

If the claim is that there is a being which causes measurable effects in the universe and we fail to observe those effects then according to Bayes Theorem that is evidence that such a being does not exist.

An example is as follows: suppose we are trying to determine if someone has cancer. They do a mammogram and do not find breast cancer. Is this evidence that the person does not have cancer. Of course it is, the person may still have cancer. Indeed they might still have breast cancer but the fact they didn't find it reduces the probablity that cancer exists. It is bayes theorem which tells us exactly how much the probability is reduced by the false result.

So by your argument you believe in an invisible weightless unicorn sitting on your head. You have no evidence that doesn't exist either.

However of course, you do have evidence that that unicorn isn't sitting on your head. The lack of evidence for it is itself evidence, which is why you don't believe in it.

Lack of evidence is indeed evidence according to Bayes Theorem. Evidence is simply any fact which influences a probability estimate. Bayes theorem shows that indeed the lack of evidence does influence a probability estimate. Therefore the lack of evidence is indeed evidence.

The other factor that influences the belief of a claim is the complexity of the claim. As you add unsupported complexity to a claim the probability of that claim being correct decreases. Without supporting evidence the probability of an infinitely complex god existing is infinitesimal. This is similar to how the probability of your unicorn existing drops as you add properties to it. Say the probability of a unicorn over your head is X, now the probability that your unicorn has three eyes is less than that. The probability of it having three tails is even less etc. The more complexity you add to the claim the lower the probability estimate becomes. The fact Christians claim an infinitely complex god lowers the estimated probability accordingly.

As far as most atheists being agnostics. That depends on the definition of agnostic. Atheism means without god belief. Agnosticism means without knowledge or without the possibility of knowledge. One can certainly be both.

In order to have a belief I require a probability estimate of at least 50%. Therefore lacking evidence in such a being, I have no choice but to be an atheist.

Answer 5

Just because the existence of god cannot be proved or disproved does not mean they are equally likely. There is no more evidence for god then there is for the tooth fairy, but most people are happy to take a strong atheistic position on the existence of the tooth fairy.

It is not up to atheists to disprove the existence of god. Theists are the ones making the claim, we weren't saying anything. It is up to theists to substantiate what they are saying.

Being an agnostic is giving too much creedence to an idea that is equally as likely as santa or unicorns. Just because the idea of a god is more popular than really believing in unicorns, does not actually make it a better argument.

Answer 6

Anything that can't be proven OR disproven is a terrible theory, any scientist will tell you. The likelihood that a premise that can't be proven or disproven is true is miniscule.

Personal experience is not evidence, my friend. The mind has incredible powers for delusion and self-deception, especially when it comes to allaying fears like the fear of death. Atheists and theists alike seek transcendent moments, and while atheists find them in art and literature, theists find them in private, internal fantasies of being the focus of the creator of the entire universe (doesn't this sound like "finally getting Daddy's attention," anyone?).

What's silly is that so many theists actually USE the argument of diminished likelihood to support creationism/intelligent design. They say it's impossible for the world to have not had a creator because it's so complex, but the God they describe as being the creator is only MORE complex than the world. (Which should lead them to, Something as complex as God couldn't have just happened...)

Rational thinkers don't deal in absolutes, and science doesn't require it--only dogma does. By your argument, we can all only claim to be agnostic, since neither of us has absolute proof. I may not have proof, but the odds are rather heavily in my favor. Add that to a lifetime of no sign of God, and that's how an atheist is made.

Answer 7

1. I cannot conclusively prove that Santa does not exist. I CAN prove that what is claimed about him is impossible (going around the world to every house in one night) but I cannot prove he does not exist. I still do not believe Santa exists though.

2. It's not a belief, it's the rejection of a claim based on a lack of evidence. As you say, the ONLY evidence of God's existence is the claim by some that is completely unverifiable. Thus there is NO evidence, no matter how strongly you feel. It is not based on faith, but the rejection of spurrious claims.

Answer 8

Although I am not an atheist I find many of these arguments suprisngly weak. anyone comparing the tooth fairy or pink unicorn to the claims about Jesus Christ are unaware of the evidence (not final proof) that exists in favour of Jesus. Some of the leading legal minds in history have come out in favour of believing the testimony of the witnesses of the gospel to be highly credible. These legal minds would be considered expert witnesses. Names such as Hugo Grotius (considered the father of modern law), Professor Simon Greenleaf, who was a royal professor of law at Harvard and his writings are still used as what constitutes admisssable evidence. He also wrote a volume examining the testimony of the witnesses of the gospel.J .N.D Anderson was an expert Islamic law and Oriental law. Sir Robert Anderson was twice knighted by Queen Victoria for his ability to cut through the maze of lies and reveal truth. He was chief inspector for Scotland Yard, a lawyer, and secret service member. Lionel Luckhoo is listed in the book of lists as the most successful lawyer in history having one 247 consecutive cases. Add to these names Lord Hailsham, John Singleton Copely(Lord Lyndhurst) is recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history. He was solicitor general of the British government, attourney general of Great Britain, three times high chancellor, and elected high steward f the university of Cambridge, Lord Darling a former lord chief justice of England... and many more. These expert witnesses came out in favour of the ressurection wintesses being honest reliable men. This kind of testimny in no way can compare with foolish tooth fairy analogies. As far as scientific evidence goes there is nothing that would satisfy the critea of the critics as any evidence including if God himself if he performed some miraculous event would be inadmissable as it would be rejected as religion sighting that religion is not science. So how then could there be an evidence? The only argument being presented is to shift the burden of proof to theists while avoiding proving their own assertion. Add to the burdon of proof athesits have no workable model that demonstrates how complex life forms could have arisen without intelligent agency. Yet the theist can argue and demonstrate complex machines have a designer in every other instance so why is it not conceivable that complex design in organisms could to.

Answer 9

Leaving a small margin of doubt arguably does make you an agnostic but really, does it make sense?

Should I reserve some small margin of doubt for invisible pink dragons frolicking in the sky, or pixies hiding behind flowers? Why should gods have some exempt status? If anything (being omnipotent and omnipresent at all) they should present much better evidence. There is none. Zero.

Answer 10

I can offer no evidence acceptible to the unbelievers, and agnostics leaning either way, but will offer a quotation
as an explanation. Josh 24:15 : "But if serving the Lord
seems undwsirable to you, then choose for yourselves this
day whom you will serve. But as for me and my household,
we will serve the Lord" (unquote). Though I argue/discuss
the point, my belief is set in stone.

Answer 11

Which god do you believe in? And why do you not believe in all the other gods that are available?
I, as an atheist, believe in NO god - is this one or more less gods than you?
I have not had the "personal experience of God revealing Himself", therefore I have no personal evidence of his existence.
Nor have I seen any provable evidence put forth by anyone else for his existence.
That is enough evidence of no god for me.

A strong atheist