Atheists: what gives you the certitude that god is not real?

Question

The lack of any evidence is not an evidence that he is not real, it's just an evidence we haven't discovered anything yet

America existed even before it was discovered, right? :-)

My appologies, I think I just invented a new word :-) What I meant was: what makes you 100% sure god is not real

SW I did not say I believe in god either. I mentioned nothing, you just asumed

Nemesis: god has nothing to do with most religions. My question is not regarding any of the existent religions, but the simple idea of a god

PastorSauce I must remind you too: I did not specify anything about MY beliefs

Answer 1

The lack of evidence is not evidence that he IS real either.

So, I ask you: If given no evidence of something (anything), then which would you choose to believe--the something exists or the something does not exist? Hell with that logic, you may as well believe in any and everything. Can you disprove an invisible man hides under your bed at night and spits imaginary cider in your ear while you sleep, a cider that magically evaporates before you awake thus leaving no sign of it ever being there? No?!? So you will choose to believe this, too?

And, it would not have been unreasonable for Europeans not to believe in the existence of North America until they 'discovered' it. (The native population was well aware of its existence long before the European arrived.)

And it is not so much certitude that God does not exists, rather just not giving a damn about it. I certainly do not claim to 'know' the nature of God if even one were to exists. Moreover, I HIGHLY doubt that humanity itself would have any clue as to what the nature of God, if one were to exists, would be. Humans created their gods in their image, ascribing to their god human emotions.

(This is not directed at you specifically, but I cannot see how anyone can be so self-righteous about the nature of God when so much uncertainty surrounds the it.)

Answer 2

Certitude is a word ;)

There's an old saying: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Ironically, it's a saying favoured by scientists (like me - I'm an ecologist). But I guess it can apply to the existence of God as much as it applies to scientific hypotheses.

Having said that, I'm definitely an athiest. I've observed wild animals going about their daily business, and realised that nature is such an amazing, complex process that input from a God really isn't necessary. Things happen because they happen - that's what makes nature so fantastic.

Answer 3

You are not applying logic properly. People cannot prove a negative....the burden of proof is on those who say God exists.

And while I agree that there is a God and that just because you cannot perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.......for sake of debate this is like the tree falls in the woods.

If a deity exists in the woods and no one can see, hear, touch, taste or smell it..does it really exist? It would be totally beyond detection so for you might as well not exist since you cannot perceive it at all in any way....just like America. No one knew of America during the crusades so what impact did America have on the history of the time...None at all in any way.

Atheists could reasonably ask why you+I DO believe in a God in the very void of anything that could almost be called proof......so you believe one thing..they believe another.

Just like those that said the Earth revolved around the sun...no one will take it as anything more than a random idea unless you back up your argument with solid data.

Also the idea that a lack of evidence is not evidence is in error. If there is NO evidence at all..that itself is support to the opposition statement, just the rules of logic. I could say we all have undetectable bugs in our brains that are the true source of all the neurotransmitters.....but doesn't make me right just because I think that....the rules of logic must be obeyed or your argument is nothing more than empty fluff worth nothing more than the air used to create the words.


Anyway the human race is made of varied types..some lean towards the metaphysical, others towards the natural world, others to the sociological aspects....to each their own in their own way as God obviously would have made them that way and hence would have it's own reason for doing so....not my place to question why God made someone one way over another....maybe it is to keep the religious honest and centered since religion tends to want to fly right off the face of reality and run blind into madness

Answer 4

"the burden of proof is on those who say God exists" That is the typical answer from the God rejectors.

It is as if we Christians are trying to convince others of something and we are not (or should not) be doing that. Let the debate be within each of us and not between Christian and atheist.

I am created or not. If I am created then my Creator is the One about Whom I must decide. Forget about Zeus or the FSM or the God of the Bible. The question is about my Creator.

Do I really want to come to know my Creator, even not knowing whether He exists or not? I am greatly attracted to the idea of my Creator and greatly repelled at the idea that here is Someone who has moral authority over me and watchfulness over me. I make my decision to seek God or not based upon my most earnest desire. Evidence has nothing to do with the decision.

Once I make my decision on the path I will take, I begin to construct a web of reality around that decision. If I choose to reject God, I simply adopt the position that God must prove His existence to me.

Answer 5

It's true that as long as no evidence proves anything about whether or not God exists, we can't know for sure. Theists assume that there is a God, atheists don't assume that as long as there is no evidence.

There are different kinds of atheists, ones who claim to "know" there is no God and ones who just don't assume that there is one.

I'm the latter kind. I don't assume that things exist when there is no evidence to support that claim. That goes for gods, fairies, mermaids, unicorns and whatever else people have through history claimed exists without being able to prove it.

Answer 6

The lack of a scientific answer is not proof of a Devine Existence, either. The point is moot.

One cannot prove that an object under discussion does not exist. Rather, in the absence of empirical evidence to the contrary the object is assumed not to exist until such time as it can be empirically demonstrated that the object does exist.

The burden of proof rests upon the party proclaiming that the object under discussion does exist.

I maintain that the object cannot be empirically demonstrated to exist. Perhaps you will empirically demonstrate that the object does exist.

Answer 7

I can say with a clear conscience that gods don't exist because analysis of historical mythologies and religions shows that gods are a product of man's lack of knowledge, imagination and desire for something to be "out there".

And there doesn't seem to be anything out there to suggest anything to the contrary, therefore I'm sticking with "gods don't exist".

Make no mistake, I don't discriminate against your god, I don't believe any gods exist. Likewise though, do you believe there is evidence for gods? If so what evidence is there that you're worshipping the right one?

Answer 8

I've never seen a god!

NOBODY has EVER seen a god!

No god has EVER shown up on Earth since recorded history and the only claim of anyone seeing a god was made up by goat-herders and camel-traders who used to think the earth was flat and eclipses were the end of the world!!!

JUST BECAUSE SOME ILLITERATE SANDAL-MAKERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST SAID THEY TALKED TO A GOD DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!

If ANYBODY today claimed that god came to them and told them to take over the world or blow it to hell, he would be locked up in a second! We'd think HE was nuts but we believe old, toothless, barefooted brick-makers who lived thousands of years ago before there was education, democracy or even clean drinking water!

And what does Jerusalem or Mount Sinai or Jericho have to do with 21st century North Americans ANYWAY? It's all so "foreign" to us. We would be better suited to worshiping as the First Nations did here for thousands of years; honouring the sky, land and water of our great nations.

THIS is home; NOT Canaan or Galilee. Hell, I've only ever seen a camel in a petting zoo!

Blind faith is insane sometimes! It is in THIS instance anyway!
.

Answer 9

Protestants do no longer evaluate themselves component to the Catholic "everyday" church (Catholics have confidence that protestants are component to their everyday church, yet are only in a rebellious state of denial). Our call comes from our "protest" of the Catholic church. Martin Luther, alongside with different reformationists including Wycliffe and Huss, argued that salvation grow to be by utilising grace, and not by utilising the works (sacraments, etc.) of the Catholic church. See the finished record under. The Catholic Church has grow to be a company that would not carry authentic to the tenets of the Bible anymore - with misguided ideals in areas including purgatory, calling the Pope the Vicar (actually replace) of Christ, the infallibility of a individual (the Pope), praying to a Saint instead of Christ on my own, and extremely some different themes too long to observe right here. that is a stable question.

Answer 10

Certitude?

I'm not certain that god doesn't exist. Of course it's possible that there's a god out there somewhere. It's just like with pink unicorns and orbiting teapots - it's possible, but there's no evidence.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods. Atheism doesn't imply certainty - in fact, it's the believers who are most likely to have that false certainty problem, not the atheists (don't believe me? Go ahead and ask believers and nonbelievers if they're certain).