Atheists: What evidence/reason do you have in your belief in no God?

Question

I'm not talking about proof. Proof is required for something you know. Evidence/reason is required for a reasonable belief.

Refer back to the question, I WILL respond to all who disagree.

Thank you all for your answers!

Paul, I can refute every single thing you've said, if you would like to challenge me on this, type Edit: Yes.

Really??: You've still given me no evidence of your claim, rather, you simply state your claim is more reliable. Tell me, how is this a logical way of debating?

Weird Darryl: You said: "My reason for not believing in a god/goddess/gods is the lack of compelling evidence."

You cannot claim this, simply because you cannot prove there is a lack of compelling evidence. Unless, you are also claiming to be a person of infinite wisdom, are you?

Teri, I agree that you cannot prove either belief, otherwise it wouldn't be a belief.....

Captain Blue Dog: This is extremely flawed thinking. I was told there were no trees anywhere in the world, so I looked in my cupboard and realized trees were not everywhere. In your rationalization, there's no such thing as a tree?

salient: Are you a person of infinite wisdom? Do you KNOW there is lack of evidence? Do you know all of the evidence for everything in the world? How can there be evidence for a lack of evidence, when there's a chance that the reason there is a lack of evidence, is because you still haven't found/noticed it? I disagree with a lack of evidence, look at the order in nature and creation. If our planet was 100 miles closer, or further away from the sun, we would burn or freeze. Does the earth have a brain? Did it know, through evolution, to position itself perfectly so that we may live? Explain why you KNOW this is not evidence of God?

I'll stop right here, anyone who would like me to refute any disagreements you have against me, please E-mail me at o0_content_0o. As long as you respond, I will reply.

Okay Paul, here goes........

Paul, the very first thing you type is: "The fact that there is no evidence for any gods, of course."

This is incredibly irrational thinking, for this reason:

You state there is no evidence of a God/Creator, as a FACT. Therefore, you realize that you must now prove to me, that evidence is non-existent, and SINCE you cannot prove a negative, you lose. On to your second statement........

Paul, the second thing you stated was, "You worded the question poorly, apparently having forgotten that the burden of evidence is on the person claiming that there is a god."

This is completely irrational thinking as well.

You state that the burden of evidence is on the person claiming there is a God. I agree with this statement, HOWEVER, just because the burden of evidence is required for the person claiming there is a God, DOESN'T mean that takes away the burden on the person needing evidence for claiming there is no God. If you believe in no God, you must provide evidence for it. Just as it is my burden to give evidence for my belief in God, it is JUST as much of a burden for you to give evidence in your believe in no God........on the your 3rd statement.

You asked, "As worded, your question is similar to asking "What evidence do you have for your belief that there are no polka-dotted chimpanzees dancing on your head?"."

This is COMPLETELY irrational, beyond belief. Here's why very simply:

The burden of evidence to prove pokadotted chimpanzees is not my burden, BECAUSE I simply do not claim to believe this..........on to your 4th statement....

You stated, "I assume when you see it put that way, you can see what was wrong with your question."

I fully agree with this statement. However, I do NOT see it your way...therefore there is nothing wrong with my question.

Paul, I've proved your thinking to be irrational, just like I said I was going to do.

Paul, I've proved your first 4 arguments as flawed, must I continue? I guess I will........

Paul, LOL. You paste my first refute to your statement and simply say, "I've already refuted that one."

Have you refuted me in a way that I am incorrect? Really? In which ways? I'm listening.....

Paul, Captain Blue Dog claims that since he does not see God as being omnipresent or being everywhere, this claim must be untrue. I disagree, because even though air is everywhere in the atmosphere, just because I can't see it, does it prove that it doesn't exist? This is why Blue Dog's claim is irrational, and I have proved it to be, there is no other rational way of looking at it. It's simply flawed....

Paul, before I continue, it's obvious to me you are not understanding logic. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing with me about half this stuff.

Paul, there is a difference between my arguements vs. your arguments. Maybe you don't realize it, BUT. Notice how when I refute your claims, I give reasons behind them, instead of saying, "nope that's a lie." Or, "I've already refuted that one." Alright, if you tell me your red shirt is colored red, and I tell you you're lying. Than by your rationalization, the shirt must not be red? Are you not a thinking person? I'm listening.

"Kid, you're not very bright, you're poorly informed, you're arrogant, you're terribly confused, you're not listening at all to what others are saying....."

Under what basis other than your own flawed reasoning do you claim any of these things? By your rationalization, if I were to call you names, that must make them true? I'm listening.

Answer 1

The fact that there is no evidence for any gods, of course.

You worded the question poorly, apparently having forgotten that the burden of evidence is on the person claiming that there is a god. As worded, your question is similar to asking "What evidence do you have for your belief that there are no polka-dotted chimpanzees dancing on your head?". I assume when you see it put that way, you can see what was wrong with your question.

This question is asked several times per day - did you consider looking at the past questions?
=================
"Paul, I can refute every single thing you've said, if you would like to challenge me on this, type Edit: Yes."

Don't be silly.

You'll just say some more uninformed stuff, keep arguing without ever making any sense, and think that because I eventually give up trying to get you to understand things, you've won the debate. Evidence for that? The fact that the rest of your responses to people contain the whole gamut of mistakes from a repetition of the "where's your evidence that there's no god?" error to the "you can't know there's no god unless you're a person of infinite wisdom" nonsense. You also completely missed the point of Captain Blue Dog's argument, then turned around and said it was a "flawed" argument.

You've thoroughly demonstrated that you don't know enough to participate in a debate on this topic. You're a waste of my time, and I'm not willing to go there.

Now, if you actually have any evidence for the existence of god, put up or shut up. Of course we know that you don't - if you had such a momentous thing, you wouldn't be here making poorly informed claims about religion on Y!A.

Consider yourself defeated in debate.
==================
"You state there is no evidence of a God/Creator, as a FACT. Therefore, you realize that you must now prove to me, that evidence is non-existent, and SINCE you cannot prove a negative, you lose."

Already refuted that one.

When you go on to the second statement, try to come up with something that we haven't already refuted. So far you're batting exactly zero.

"If you believe in no God, you must provide evidence for it. Just as it is my burden to give evidence for my belief in God, it is JUST as much of a burden for you to give evidence in your believe in no God"

Oh, too bad! Same mistake, just rewritten.

If this were a baseball game, I'd throw you the same pitch a third time. Let's see if you swing and miss the same way, or come up with some new way to mess this up.

Side comment: Folks, notice that he hasn't produced any evidence for the existence of god yet? Wonder why that is.

"The burden of evidence to prove pokadotted chimpanzees is not my burden, BECAUSE I simply do not claim to believe this.........."

Oh, now that's interesting. You failed to notice that you just refuted your own argument. I really didn't expect that you'd turn out to be THIS bad at it.
----------------
Kid, just give it up. You're utterly unprepared to participate in this kind of thing, as I pointed out at the start.

"Paul, I've proved your thinking to be irrational, just like I said I was going to do".

Nope. That's just a lie.

"Paul, I've proved your first 4 arguments as flawed, must I continue? I guess I will........"

Nope, that's just a lie.

When you've dug a hole this deep, the best thing to do is to stop digging, kid. Someday you'll be thankful that I gave you that free advice.

"Have you refuted me in a way that I am incorrect? Really? In which ways? I'm listening...."

No, you're not. That's just another lie, and pretty central to your personal problem.

Yes, I did refute you in a way that you are incorrect. Do you not know what "refute" means?

Kid, you're not very bright, you're poorly informed, you're arrogant, you're terribly confused, you're not listening at all to what others are saying, and in your response to my "polka-dotted chimpanzees" argument, you managed to directly refute your own argument AND fail to notice that you did so (and apparently you still don't see how deeply you inserted your foot into your mouth).

You remind me of the knight in the Monty Python "Holy Grail" movie who keeps insisting that he's winning after his arms and legs have been cut off by the superior fighter. You're twisting frantically on the ground here, completely and easily defeated by just about everyone who answered your question, and you think that insisting you're winning somehow changes the facts.

You were so insistent on this that you let it move you over the moral boundary from simply writing confused statements to writing out-and-out lies. Is this really the face you want to show to the world? Someday you're going to realize that your reputation is valuable: telling bold-faced lies does neither you nor your religion any good.

"Paul, before I continue, it's obvious to me you are not understanding logic. If you did, you wouldn't be arguing with me about half this stuff."

Another lie. In fact I taught logic in college.

Shall I start calling you names now? Or perhaps I should conclude from your behavior that "Christian apologetic" is another way to say "confused arrogant adolescent"? Either way, it strongly reinforces my belief that religious people in general just simply don't know much about religion, belief, or spirituality. Once again, the atheist in the argument turns out to be the one who knows something about the subject matter. What does that tell you about religious belief?

Way up above I wrote

"You'll just say some more uninformed stuff, keep arguing without ever making any sense, and think that because I eventually give up trying to get you to understand things, you've won the debate".

Needless to say, I was right. That's not exactly a gift of prophecy - I'm pretty sure that just about everyone else who looked at your "question" saw right through you as well, kid.

Answer 2

1. No evidence of creation, every evidence for evolution; therefor the bible is wrong or misleading.
2. No evidence of a global flood and evidence that people have unbroken civilizations during that time period, therefor the bible is wrong or misleading.
3. No evidence of any of the 200 to 600 years from Joseph to the Exodus; therefor the bible is wrong or misleading.
4 The Bible records humans as living very long live spans which have slowly decrease until the time Israel was founded, all evidence points to human live expectancy remaining the same until recently.
5. The portray of God varies, and if read objectively is not that of a "loving father".
6. There are a number of of contradictions in the bible.
7. The only hard evidences for the Bible are the locations and peoples/races.
8. There are and have been many religions through out the world, all are clearly man made.

Edit:
Once again, in logic you don't prove the negative, so even if I have no reason not to believe, it doesn't mean that I should believe until you present evidence for your case. (You must prove the positive not the negative).

The reason for this should be obvious as if you say that we can't disprove god, then anyone can make the same claim about their gods, Santa, or any other thing that has no proof.

Edit:
Given that many of us have been looking for "compelling" evidence for quite sometime and none has come to light, I'd say that the statement "there is a lack of compelling evidence" is true.

Answer 3

You can't prove something doesn't exist. What science can do is show that the story presented in the Bible cannot be true. Science does that perfectly.

Christianity, however, with the challenge to prove that something does exist, has consistently failed to provide the proof and the evidence. They can't even provide proof that Jesus Christ existed. They have a new testament written 20 or more years after the alleged death of Jesus, with no eyewitness first testimony. There are no independent historians of the day who write about the miracle worker who healed the sick, raised the dead, walked on water, fed the 5000, and spoke to crowds of thousands. Not one line about such a man! So us the evidence. The challenge is as I said for Christians to prove God exists.

EDIT to the Christians replying here, I posted the question as to why God created woman twice and received no answers. Can somebody enlighten me?

Also the animals were created a second time after the creation of Adam. What was going on?

Answer 4

First my Reason:

You simply cannot explain the origin of complexity with a prior greater complexity.

Then my Evidence:

Lack of evidence is indeed evidence according to Baye's Theorem.

Note to Questioner: It is not required that I am aware of all possible evidence, it suffices for the purposes of Baye's theorem that I have looked and not found any.

Expounding on the reason:

Christians think by stating their god is timeless that this addresses the problem of the origin of complexity. It does not. The issue is not time, but one of complexity. Precisely what we Mathematicians call Kolmogorov Complexity.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KolmogorovComplexity.html

The more complex a system is the more unlikely the possibility of that state just existing without exterior context. If a system has one bit the odds are one half. If a system has two bits of complexity the odds are one fourth etc .

Christians claim a god with infinite complexity and no external context. The odds for this are essentially zero.

By external context, one means the system is part of a greater system which provides context for it's state. Usually in the form of a selection effect, but it could also be an evolutionary mechanism or designer. But Christians claim their God, was neither designed, evolved nor was part of a greater whole.

The only possible answer to this conundrum of how reality exists, it seems to me is that reality as a whole is not complex but simple. Since the part of reality we see seems complex, it must have external context. The likely reason then for the observable complexity is a huge selection effect: ( Our own existence ). Only in locally complex regions within the simple whole can beings such as ourselves evolve. This selection effect mechanism is what the physicist Brandon Carter has referred to as the Anthropic Principle.

Not all of us atheists claim a belief in No God, Some simply do not believe in gods. There is a subtle difference. I however believe no such gods exist.

First: You are completely wrong that if the earth was 100 miles closer or further we would not survive. This is complete nonsense. The window is actually about 20% of the earths orbit. Don't believe creationist web sites they lie all the time. Second the argument from design is horribly flawed as I showed in my reason above. I suggest reading The anthropic cosomological principle to see exactly why.

http://www.geo.umass.edu/courses/climat/radbal.html

Note To Questioner:

The fact we see order does not imply it is purposeful. This is another fallacy. Does the fact a hole fits a puddle perfectly imply that the hole was designed to fit the puddle? Of course not, yet that is what the creationists would have you believe. They argue the hole fits the puddle too perfectly not to be designed for it. When in reality the puddle fits the hole not the other way around. It is simply man's arrogance that makes him think the universe was designed with him in mind.

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474

Note: I think you miss the entire point of the puddle analogy. When we observe complexity it is due to selection effects not to a greater complexity. I strongly suggest reading the book I just mentioned.

Answer 5

We can't say that God wants us to believe him. It is only your imagination. God is the creator of whole universe He does not differentiate his own creations i.e. human beings or animal of lesser intellect. Actually man is the most intelligent animal of the universe so it is our intellect that makes us believe in God. And if we like we show respect for God as we show respect for our parents. Yes, God is invisible but God is also visible if you belief that God is creator of everything. Every face you see is creation of God. So every face is God's face. The body which you claim to be yours you dont have full control over it. You dont know how you will look like after 10 years. For non-believers tell them that mathematicians and scientists also have their limitations. There is a term 'infinite' in science and mathematics from where starts the reign of God. If you believe that according to different religions there are different beliefs about God which must be human imaginations. But still all of them connect us with God. It is a scientific fact that there is a certain super power which has no start or end (infinite) which is behind the running of the whole universe. That is called God.

Answer 6

I'm willing to learn and adapt.
Come back to me with evidence or proof that your claimed god is real and I'll go with the flow.

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so.
Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic.
So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition.
It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.

Clear enough?
Summing up - I am not interested in providing evidence that a god or gods do not exist. I just have no need. If you have a problem with that, do as is suggested and give us YOUR evidence or proof. It is all up to you.

Answer 7

It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism as it does to believe in God. To make the absolute statement “God does not exist” is to make a claim of knowing absolutely everything there is to know about everything – and of having been everywhere in the universe there is to go – and having witnessed everything there is to be seen. Of course, no atheist would make these exact claims. However, that is essentially what they are claiming when they state that God does not exist.

Answer 8

The lack of evidence FOR god is obvious.

The evidence AGAINST a deity is also quite solid. I'll give you a few headlines to get on with:

o The requirements for a God to explain reality are steadily reducing

o The universe shows no sign of a deity needing to be involved in order to explain its properties.

o Life - especially human life - requires no deity in order to be as it is.

o God shows the fingerprint of a human invention. Gods supposed characteristics are just what would be expected from the cultures that invent them: warlike, despotic, capricious, violent etc.

You answer those while I get the website together, OK?

CD

Answer 9

Again? My answer from the same question:

The Epicurean Paradox:

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

Not only this, but as a former christian (roman-catholic) I used to find the word "god" as a being of omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. Upon reading the bible, I find it is the contrary, not only is it arrogant, selfish, irrational, and often child-like behavior. Its powers of omnipotence, seems limited to only verbal commands to its subjects (which apparently were a few only) and its omniscience limited as to the result of his "tests" to his subjects.

So in conclusion, such a being cannot exists, for it would collapse on is own based on this descriptions. For the logical motive behind this, at the time of the creation of this doctrine, was to explain the unknown and unexplainable at that moment in time of the development of the human society, something now science, reason, logic, and common sense has taken over.

Answer 10

What else but God can make so many people on such a silly site go so crazy and answer this question.
Just look at all you people trying so hard to find reasons why God doesn't exist.
Wow, Thank God I BELIEVE!!!

Answer 11

I don't have "a belief in no god" as that makes no sense at all.

I was born without any knowledge of the man made god(s) as all humans are, and have seen no reason to change that state of mind.

And btw you argue like a 5 year old with about as much logic.