To those who consider themselves textbook Atheists?

Question

How do you reconcile the fact that there is no proof that there is no God, and the necessity of faith to that effect with utter adherence to reason and rejection of faith? It seems to me like a self-contained contradiction which, at heart, seems to embody all of those things you stand against.
It's axiomatic to say that since there is no science on the subject of God, or on the subject of whether or not he/she/it/shmizmar exists, that there is no rational position, for or against his/her/its/shimizmarrin existence. This, at best, paints you in a slightly unfavorable and hypocritical light, and at worst makes you out to be flagrantly, and deliberately denying that which you embrace in defiance of reason.
So which is it? Are you honestly really Atheists? Or are you deep down Anti-Theist agnostics? And if you -are- Atheists, will you admit that this requires faith and conviction without evidence?

Most of you seem to be making a nice little straw man of my argument. No, I don't claim to believe in anything at all. But I also do not deny their possibility. I do not deny the possibility of FSM, the possibility of an ornate floating invisible tea-pot. The statistical improbability of these things existing are staggering, but they are statistically possible. But I don't assert as a 'fact' that there is no God without any evidence to back me up. And this is exactly the point I'm sharpening.

"it's not hard to understand the default position is until proven otherwise it does not exist thus it does not require faith, if i told you there is a pink invisible unicorn under my desk, does it require faith to not believe or just a clear mind"
This seems to be the position of a lot of you. But yes, there is absolute proof that there is no invisible pink unicorn, because a unicorn cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time. This is self-contradictory.
Now the idea of a "God" not any particular God, but a being that put the universe into motion, is not nearly the same thing as a self-contradictory creature or object. Again, I'm not advocating any particular God, but I'm simply pointing out that that particular attempt at an answer for a "First Cause" cannot be completely ruled out without faith in the contrary. That is, faith that there is no God as a first cause.

Perhaps you do not understand the invisible pink unicorn... it is only visible sometimes (and only to true believers).

The "first cause" argument fails when we realize that radio active particles decay with no apparent cause.

The analogy doesn't fit. God as a first cause has no bearing upon whether or not God decides to reveal itself to anybody. There is nothing scientific about blind belief. There is a potentital, though highly improbably, a small amount of scientific merit to the idea of a Deist God who sets the world into motion and walks away, so to speak. This is a different matter altogether, and to claim without evidence that their God does not exist is an affront and an insult to 50% of exceedingly intelligent scientists across the world.

Answer 1

agnostisism is a more sound stance.

Answer 2

As neither the existence or non existence of gods cannot be proved, the purely logical and scientific stance is not atheism but agnosticism.

I am an atheist based on mankind's past history of attributing things they didn't understand - like the moon, or why volcanoes erupt - to gods. These days everyone understands such things but instead God is used for other things that are not understood, such as the origin of life on this planet. I believe that one day in the future we will indeed understand the origin of life on this planet but God will still be used as a catch-all for something we aren't even aware of yet. That will also turn out to have a natural explanation.

My reasoning is what the heck. People have been putting gods to things they don't understand for as long as people have existed. Let's just all accept it, there aren't any gods.

Answer 3

There is no science on the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, because there are none of these creatures to do any science on! You also seem to conflate religious belief (without, in fact in spite of, evidence) with the contingent belief of scientists, based entirely around evidence.

Besides, no science can be done until there is some clear agreement about what this word "god" means.

Answer 4

God is imaginary. End of story.

Oh I was BORN an Atheist, I never have had any religious beliefs or feelings. Neither has anyone in my family.

No one is born anything other than a non believer. And a non talker and non walker. These things are all learned behavior. Religion is a choice that is either made or is forced upon a person by the society they live in as they grow.

Answer 5

I am an atheist in the sense of someone who does not believe in God... Just the way I do not believe in unicorns.

I can not prove that either does not exist. But I would say their is roughly equal improbability.


Perhaps you do not understand the invisible pink unicorn... it is only visible sometimes (and only to true believers).

The "first cause" argument fails when we realize that radio active particles decay with no apparent cause.


EDIT: Your "50% of scientists believe in a God" argument is not a very good one when you consider that NONE of them believe what they believe for scientific reasons.

Answer 6

Thank you.

I have been asking Atheists similar questions for some time now.

Is the idea of a world without a deity or deities of any kind a creation of imagination just like any other myth?

Why should I choose to believe in the truth of a negativist myth about a world without a deity or deities of any kind when I could choose to believe in the truth of the one myth out of all possible that enables me to have the highest esteem of self and world I can possibly imagine?

Even if my model of self and world that is not in accord with actuality, at least I might have a happier and perhaps healthier life. Scientific research from a variety of sources seems to indicate that optimistic thoughts, beliefs, and expectations about self and world influence health, health behaviors, immune and biochemical functioning in ways that make the body more resistant to illness and better able to recover from existing disease. In addition, those who experience joyful emotions tend to lead better social lives and to enjoy an improved quality of life whatever its’ longevity.

Answer 7

One cannot prove a negative (i.e. "there is no god"). The burden of proof rests on the one making the positive assertion (i.e. "there is a god").

I am an agnostic-atheist; as such I discount no possibility, but recognize that possibility does not equate to probability nor fact.

Answer 8

What do you mean by "textbook atheists"?

If you claim that "God(s)" exist(s), the burden of proof is upon you. Saying that something does not exist is the default position, unless you can prove otherwise.

There is no proof that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster either. Why do you not believe in Him?

Answer 9

If you're going to base your faith in something based solely on the fact that there's no proof that it DOESN'T exist, then that's you. But I'm going to take what there IS proof of. I'm not believing in anything without evidence. Too bad no one's out there finding evidence that God does exist. But I think I know why.

It's impossible.

Answer 10

Well, I'm an atheistic-agnostic. But I call myself an atheist to avoid confusion. Of course you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but you can't prove that an invisible purple monster isn't hovering over your head now either.

Answer 11

i personally don't know anything about any gods (certainly i'm aware of the beliefs of some other humans, but that isn't the same thing). since i don't know of any good reason to, i don't believe in any gods. i'm an agnostic atheist.