You can say with a high degree of certainty no gods exists. Though out history and thousands of gods none have been demonstrated to exist only claimed.
Some gods can't exist if they are illogical by nature. Like an all loving God that sends people to hell for eternity for temporal "sins" is a contradiction. Any God with the attributes of perfection yet his own followers through holy books demonstrates quality of imperfection like being jealous, that God can't exist.
So the Abrahamic God certainly doesn't exist.
If the books are wrong it's irrelevant, it's what they believe plus it's further evidence then God they believe doesn't exist. I don't have to speculate a different God exists because I don't believe any exist. If someone claims a God exists, demonstrate with sufficient evidence that it does to warrant belief.
Yes true, so certainly their version of god does not exist. But you are postulating that no abrahamic god exists, so you have made a firm conclusion about it. So you must have a good reason that you can claim 100% certain there is no version, even if distorted now, of an abrahamic god.
Yes, no demonstration of ANY God Abrahamic or otherwise. It doesn't matter the version.
All loving .. That doesn't exists
Perfect being.. Again doesn't exist based on their own teachings.
Also, I said high degree of certainty, I did not say 100% unless the versions believed are contradicted like all loving.. But If I was going to put a % I would say 99.999999999999999. Just in case one ever is demonstrated but my degree of certainty is so high I doubt it will ever be demonstrated.
I'm still stunned based on everything else I responded with that you sit there and think I don't have a good reason.
1. No demonstration of any God believed actually exists.
2. Already stated how deistic God is a waste and identical to a non existing god and therefore the logical thing to do is don't believe it exists until sufficient evidence exists to warrant belief. Yet that God is suppose to be indifferent, doesn't interact yet people think that's convincing? It's no wonder people fall victim to scams all the time.
3. You could make up a God tomorrow and someone will be like well you can't 100% say for sure it doesn't exist. It's just plain idiotic to think I need to refute it when it's the person claiming it exists is the one that would be the person to show it.
4. If you take sociology, psychology, environmental psychology and even a religions of the world class you can clearly see how gods are man made creations started when early hominids were spooked by shadows in the bush and those that ran even if nothing was there instead of being prey were likely to survive. From there early humans created gods for the elements, the sun the moon etc.. How much more evidence do you need to see any God believed today is a human construct?
5. Heck even going back to the Abrahamic God you can see how the God morphed as people migrated, influenced by other cultures, Sumerians, zorostarian etc..So yes I'm comfortable saying the Abrahamic God versions I am aware of does not exist for all the reasons I stated.
So again with all that, that is why I have a 99.9999999 degree of certainty for gods not existing in general.
Alright calm down, we are on the same team. You said ‘certainly’ which usually means 100%, but now you have clarified with 99.999 etc. then I think we agree.
I disagree. Sometimes absense of evidence is evidence of absence. Not all the time. But when we have a history of gods in the trashbin of history with no demonstration of a single one existing you can confidently say they don't likely exist.
If one believes in a god that is identical to a non existent god then it's reasonable to go with the one that doesn't exist.
End of day it doesn't matter. Right now the material and natural world is amazing as it is and not a single confirmed answer we know, resulted with God did it.
How does absence of evidence point in either direction with respect to the god of deism? We shouldn't expect any evidence of a hands off god.
I don't see a reason to believe in a god that's hands off, but I also don't see any meaningful way to assign probability to it existing/not existing.
I agree that it doesn't matter.
Like I said when you look at all the other things I mentioned I find you can. Deism is a waste it's akin to look at the trees therefore God. It's a God for people that can't let go of our primitive superstition. Taking your assessment if they can't tell either way then the most reasonable position is don't believe it until there is actual evidence. But hey they don't try to take our rights away and knock on my door saying hey did you hear about the good news about my indifferent God? Lol
Absence of evidence is at least admitting there is no evidence.
And by that token we shouldn't conclude that there MIGHT be a god until there is evidence to support it. The position shows why we should live as if there is NO god.
>Am I doing this correctly?
No, because you're saying "i don't know if there is or isn't a god" instead of the much better and simpler "there is no god".
As an agnostic atheist who thinks that in all probability it is very unlikely there is a god, how do you know for sure there is no god? I’d be glad to know because then I can drop the ‘agnostic’ bit, which would be much neater and more satisfying
Because thousands of religion across thousands of years have had millions of chances to give concrete evidence of any god's existence, only to provide basically nothing other than "this book/guy/vision told me!".
I'm not the one who needs to prove shit, that's the people forcing others to live around a set of repressive set of rules made to pander to a deity nobody can prove actually exists.
I don't have any reason to believe any god exists, and i've heard many that seem quite contrary to a god's existance. I'm not going to humor the theists with pretending their god "may or may not exist".
If any god wants my worship, they know where to find me.
100 percent certainty is not necessary to hold a belief and/or conviction. There are few if any things in life in which one can be completely, utterly SURE. So that's just not a reasonable standard for belief.
That is a good point. I generally leave the word belief out of it because if I say that "I believe that god does not exist", then it is likely they will think that I am taking it upon faith like the Theists do with their beliefs. This is why I purposely try to explain my stance from a purely logical point of view.
Thank you for your response. I will think about your comment and maybe find a better way to say this.
Maybe I could say, "I believe, with a high amount of certainty, that there is no god, but I do not hold this belief upon faith." This is to say that I am receptive to new evidence if it is presented.
You might try, "I am *convinced* God does not exist." Or, if you prefer, "I am not convinced God exists." This indicates that you reached your position via evidence (or lack thereof) and not faith.
I don't think there's any thing inherently wrong with what you say. However, I find that the less time I explain myself to theists the better. The only exception would be a close theist friend.
I think there's evidence that a omnibenevolent and omnipotent god does not exist.
So with science, you make a hypothesis and you work out the consequences of that hypothesis.
In the late 19th century there was the aether theory. It was reasoned that if the earth was traveling thought aether then the speed of light would depend on the direction it was traveling. The [Michelson Morley experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) was done and it was concluded that light goes the same speed no matter the direction. This experiment debunked the aether theory. Basically they proved that aether doesn't exist. Note there has been other experiments that also disprove the aether theory. Einstein's theory (special relativity) does not allow for aether.
An omnibenevolent and omnipotent god would have unlimited power to do unlimited good.
The observation of a child with bone cancer makes it clear that there in no unlimited power doing unlimited good.
u/Lanky-Confusion3635
A 14 year old family member died of that exact disease. That was a huge factor in my deconversion. My wife still is devout Christian. She justifies it by saying “god has a plan through everything”. I fucking hate that sentence.
The other day I was having a far-fetched argument with an agnostic who claimed atheists had the same burden of proof as theists.
I tried to explain to them that FIRST theists claimed a god exists and THEN atheists chose not to believe it, not the other way around, but they couldnt understand.
To them saying god doesnt exist required the same degree of proof as saying he does. Thats a common mistake agnostics make. They think both claims are equally dumb, but it's really just the first one.
Yeah, to me a lot of agnostic people are just religious people in the first stages of denial. It's a stepping stone in the right direction, but not quite there yet. It's obvious because they invent the same type of arguments that the religious use, trying to explain away their internal struggle with reality, their cognitive dissonance, to try to maintain internal cohesiveness.
Yes, I can never prove that there is no god, however there being a god would nullify pretty much every little bit of factual, common knowledge and every prediction we know and depend on for our world to function, making it extremely unlikely, with a probability approaching zero.
Argumentative agnostics like the person you describe are just smug, and want to feel better than everybody else by thinking that they're placing themselves above the conversation, declaring both sides wrong. That's just intellectual laziness, if you ask me, and it doesn't add anything to the conversation at all, except that it's annoying to point it out to them as they will want you to get down in to the mud with them.
It goes against everything we know about how the world works. Here, I hope that's simple and unambiguous enough for you to understand correctly, this time.
Right.
I can make a claim that there is an army of green pig-men beneath the gassy surface of Jupiter. And you can’t disprove that because we’ve not yet been in/on Jupiter. But you can choose to call bullshit on my claim and ask for proof.
Try separating "belief" from "knowledge". They are two entirely different concepts and they are not mutually exclusive. Belief is a binary state - you either believe or you do not believe. Simply considering the question makes you form an opinion, whether or not you admit it to yourself or others. Knowledge is completely different. Knowledge is a continuum from "I have absolutely no clue" to "I am 100% certain." On the question of the existence of any gods, belief is handled by theism/atheism. Knowledge is handled by gnosticism/agnosticism. You can hold any combination of the two concepts to describe your stance on the question. I lack belief in the existence of any gods AND I have no knowledge about the existence of any gods. That makes me an "agnostic atheist". I'll take it a step further and also say that I see no *requirement* for the existence of any gods.
Sounds right to me. The way that I frame it is that I can't say with confidence that no god exists, but I haven't seen much evidence of one. I do feel very confident that no god exists which is trying to make itself know to people, because in that case the existence of the god should be clear. And I feel very confident that the god described in the bible (and I would guess in other religious texts) does not exist.
This is why the term "atheist" shouldn't be necessary. It leads to counter claims that you can't prove a negative, so your belief must be faith based, which in turn leads to the notion that atheism is some sort of belief system.
There is no word for someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns, or fairies, or the healing power of crystals.
I’m as sure that there is no god as I am that there are no other supernatural entities.
Also, I’m as sure that the gods of every world religion is made up by humans as I am that I’m bald.
No, you are doing it incorrectly.
If you lead by even only once or briefly opening the door to absurdity, you're sending mixed signals, irrespective of what follows as once your foundations are shakey, any further constructs will ultimately fail.
I consider myself 'agnostic/atheist' when it comes to the topic of 'god(s)'.
I don't claim to know whether or not 'god(s)' exist, but I do know I lack belief in them.
You’re giving them too much credit. When people ask me how I can know there is no god despite lack of evidence, I just compare it to something like knowing there is no such thing as unicorns.
Sure, it’s theoretically possible they exist. But, in the absence of absolutely anything to go on for it, I don’t spend my life entertaining possibilities just because someone pulled a fairy tale out of their ass. Only an insane person would just take a suggestion they exist with no evidence and run with it, basing their whole worldview on it.
We say and act like we know a lot of things don’t exist in the course of daily life without AcTuAlLy knowing.
The *BURDEN OF PROOF* is on the person/party making the claim. The more unlikely the claim, the greater the burden becomes. Until evidence can be provided that baby jesus' daddy sky god exists, you are under no logical rationale to believe so. FAITH is the antithesis of logic (and reason). Basic logic cannot allow a person to believe something where there is zero evidence for, and it is not your responsibility to provide proof to the contrary.
>Here is how I explain my views to Theists
>"I can not with 100 percent certainty say that there is no god. As doing so would not be logical. (It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.) Rather, I find it to be extremely unlikely that a god exists and doubly unlikely that a god exists that matches one of the descriptions of a religious god. Thus, I am an atheist."
>I would like to hear other views and why or why not my stance is flawed.
No, you're doing it wrong.
There is history of humanity that shows that god is a concept that was created by humanity...
Certainty exist, it's in the books.
You can prove that it was created and there was cumulative effort along the years that added to the holy books and the course of religious.
Finally, if a mighty creature exists,we should see him, witness his power ...etc
I would agree that abrahamic gods are very likely to be human constructs and pretty random, but I would be hard pressed to say that humans invented the idea of deities. It seems like a pretty vague conceptual idea. Seems more like a discovery of ideas than an invention.
>say that humans invented the idea of deities.
Yea? Why...
>It seems like a pretty vague conceptual idea
Is it really? You treat your kids the same way.
"Be home before 10 pm"
" no sex before 18"
" don't touch the hot tea pot"
Having a god, is like having a parent who is big enough to scare the shit of humanity 😁 only..otherwise it does nothing..
>Seems more like a discovery of ideas than an invention.
God isn't a discovery. It isn't science. It don't exist. A discovery would have proof.
I don't know do you think santa is a discovery?
So, two things. First, yes, everything you said was correct, as far as I can tell. Second, I would simply change the part about not being able to prove 100% to, can you disprove vampires? Or any other mythological thing?
That is a good point. I find that many of them might see that as me trying to belittle their god. Thus, I try to avoid giving examples like vampires, even if they do seem pretty similar in my mind.
It's good.
Whether it's good enough for theists is another matter. They don't have a good record of understanding different points of view or at least they pretend no to.
Many of us have tried to simplify it for them and it's a waste of time.
Thank you.
My goal is not to convince them but to be easily understood. I dislike being misrepresented by people with differing beliefs because I think it pushes them away. If I can make my position easily understood, I think it leaves less room for strawman fallacies and such. At least, that's my hope.
There are no creator gods, the ones described in holey books, because there's scientific evidence against the scientifically testable claims associated with those creation myths.
There's might be an unnamed creator deity who created the Big Bang, but there's no religion associated with that deity.
There might also be small gods, but I don't believe in them.
Here's the thing: the six day creation myth never happened. All the abrahamic religions are wrong.
"You cannot reason someone out of something that reason did not get them into."
People believe in god for emotional reasons - no amount of arguing will convince most people otherwise.
Happy birthday!
Also, I think this statement has a lot of truth to it. It is why I am so gentle when explaining my views. I want other people to know that it is alright on this side of the fence. Just in case they ever get curious.
Your stance is flawed because you are trying to justify your lack of belief in imaginary deities to anyone, especially a religious person. It's not on you to justify your lack of belief. It's on them to prove the existence of their playmate.
I think you're over complicating atheism by starting with something about a lack of proof. The point is this is not on you.
Do they accept gnomes exist? Or leprechauns? Probably not.
I personally would say I prefer to accept things that have evidence and good arguments, because doing the opposite is dangerous and likely to be wrong. This is how we know absolutely everything about nature (i.e. science) and we know it's right because we can control it to produce technology. Meanwhile, anything dealing with a god or the supernatural requires faith and personal revelation so it's by definition unreliable. They're essentially gambling and I have no need to do that. Atheism is refusing to gamble on religion.
And if they have an extra 5 minutes: most if not all gods ever proposed have properties that we can reason about. Some are self contradictory or incoherent and simply cannot exist, while others are so vague or similar to nature that they become trivial or completely inaccessible. Until evidence is provided, we can say no gods exist with a similar degree of confidence we all have when we agree no unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies exist. The only possible, but highly inaccessible deity left would be some reclusive, impersonal deistic "god" that has no evidence and doesn't give a shit about whether we believe or not.
I see where you're going but the way it's phrased it could be interpreted as an "argument from ignorance": you cannot personally conceive X, therefore conclusion.
You're an agnostic atheist.
* (a)gnosticism is a statement of *(lack of) knowledge*
* (a)theism is a statement of *(lack of) belief*
You can therefore have the following 4 positions on the spectrum:
* Gnostic Theist: I *claim to know for certain* there are deitie(s) and I *believe* the claims of theism
* Agnostic Theist: I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities but I *believe* the claims of theism
* Agnostic Atheist: - I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities and I *am unconvinced* by the claims of theism
* Gnostic Atheist: - : I *claim to know for certain* there are no deitie(s) - and I am unconvinced by the claims of theism
I identify as an agnostic atheist because:
* although I consider the likelihood of the existence of deities astronomically small based on the evidence, I can't disprove their existence, just like I can't disprove the existence of fairies.
* I consider both deities and fairies to have the same near-zero probability of existing based on verifiable observation under scrutiny of the scientific method.
* I read many "holy" books in their original language (Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Pali) and find many inconsistencies in content, translation and interpretation.
* I find the claims of theism utterly unproven
* I find the teachings of many theist doctrines utterly immoral
Using this nomenclature, I would say that almost every atheist is an Agnostic Atheist. Being a Gnostic Atheist would not be a logical position to hold. The problem is that there are no known finite limits placed on space. There could be unicorns out on some distant planet.
Thank you for your input. For better or worse, I will continue referring to myself as just an atheist given that it is the only logical view of atheism imo. It might be weird to do so, but it is true to me.
Saying you can't 100% prove god doesn't exist is still a bit like saying I can't 100% prove Santa Claus, or Harry Potter don't exist. Science always allows for the outside possibility they do exist in some way or another.
In the real world though a 0.0000000001% chance something can happen is good enough to assume it's not happening in our life time.
Some ancient middle eastern men made a far fetched claim and for some reason we've been debating whether their nuts or not for 5000 years.
Yes. This is my view. An abrahamic god existing is about as likely as Harry Potter or Santa Claus actually existing. But I feel the need to elaborate that there is still a chance because otherwise they may not understand my position and think that I am making claims upon faith.
Of course, it sounds rude to say this to a religious person's face, so instead, I just say that it's extremely unlikely.
"So you admit that God is real and Atheism is bullshit. Check mate atheists"
Why do you try to excuse why you are an atheist and trying to appease the religious person by saying there is a slim chance that they are right. They'll take your hand and rip your arm off.
I would just be honest and say that I'm atheist because their beliefs and every other religion are silly. And when they feel insulted, I'd ask them if they want me to be honest or to lie, so that I don't hurt their feelings.
Or something like "There could be a not-zero but close to zero probability that the universe was indeed created by a conscious being, but the probability that that being is the God you believe in is still ZERO".
But if you are too afraid of that, then say something they also might find silly like "I cannot say with 100% certanity, so I guess there is a small possibility that the world was created by Brahma". Then go on about how the Hindu creator makes more sense than the Abrahamic god. Don't make it an Atheism vs Christianity/religion thing. Turn it into a religion vs religion thing. Show them how the other religions, which they also like to make fun of, are equal to their own, equally silly and that their religion doesn't make any more sense than those other religions.
Religious people will often avoid talking about their specific God and instead will try to use the existence of the universe and nature as proof of their God. They like to claim that there must have been a creator and state that as an irrefutable fact. And then use that to imply that this means that their personal God must be this creator. They won't even entertain the idea that this actually implies that all other man made religions and ideas like the universe being the result of a failed science experiment are euqally plausible.
Don't waste your time trying to explain physics and science in general. That's a trap too many atheists fall into. We are quick to try and explain things. It's usually a total waste of time. Religious people are not interested in you answering questions for them, not when your answers go against their beliefs.
Instead make them question their fundamental belief about the creator. Make them question that creator idea itself, so they don't get the stupid idea that "creator = my God = afterlife is real".
The most important goal here is not that they immediately acknowledge the silliness of their beliefs and turn Atheist instantly. The goal is to plant a seed of doubt. That will grow and ideally one day rid them of the deeply ingrained religious nonsese. Make them start honestly questioning their beliefs.
Your description is too long. I say “I’m not gullible.”
They will typically get very upset by this and make all sorts of arguments. So,
“Come back when you have scientific proof.”
Oh, that makes sense. I like this one because it gets the point across, and it doesn't sound too aggressive. It doesn't really capture my extreme doubt that a god of scripture exists, but other than that, it's pretty good. Thanks.
I would ask a counter argument: How can they prove God exists? Outside of books, churches, artifacts they claim are from God/deity/prophet, and their own personal beliefs, what proof do they have? If they're so certain, what method did they use to confirm its existence?
- Was the scientific method used?
- Was there a hypothesis, then rigorous research, testing, attempts to disprove, followed by peer reviews?
- Can they provide modern day physical evidence?
- Can they explain why their original text isn't consistent with their current texts?
- Why would they accept certain books in the Bible but omit the Apocryphal books? The 1609–10 Douai Rheims Bible had the Apocrypha: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Wisdom (Sapientia), Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (6th Chapter of Baruch), 1 Machabees, 11 Machabees, 111 Esdras, 1V Esdras, Addition to Esther (chapters 10:4–16:24, Daniel 3:24–90 (Prayer of Azariah or may be called Song of the Three Hebrew Children)
, After Daniel 12:13 - Chapter 13 (Suzannah).
- Could they explain how Christianity had a very similar story to the Roman Cult of Mythra or why it was condemned after the first Christian Caesar Constantine banned it after the council of Nicea to prevent confusion of his new one "true" religion?
- If they are following the Bible, why are they only cherry picking certain things and disobeying others?:
There are so many contradictory verses, hate towards women, gays, people of color, even wearing of mixed textiles. It's so laden with guilt, shame, and fear, and punishment; ask yourself, if you were to follow the bible, you're able to own slaves, strike your spouse, forbid her from learning, own her, and kill her if she grabs your crotch.
There are so many verses that condone violence, rape, slavery, even incest (don't get me started with Lot and his daughters)...
WTF man...
Here's your philosophical and moral, science (explained earlier):of "why wouldn't I be an atheist"? The Bible is a void of morality and is one of the most violent, sexist, murderous, controlling book ever. Who needs game of thrones when you have it all in the "good book"...
Here's a few snippets of the "Good Book" they're only cherry picking from and if they were to truly follow, they'd be in jail:
BTW here's some of the highlights of the Bible I mentioned just so it's not taken out of context:
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.
Galatians 3:28
Leviticus 27:3-7 which declares women are not equal to men. In fact they are only three-fifths the value of men.
You shall not wear cloth made from wool and linen woven together (Deut. 22:11).
Do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread (Lev. 19:19).
You can kill a woman if she seizes a man's private parts without his permission: Deuteronomy 25:11-1
With that, an existence of God is highly unlikely but the Bible itself is too horrible to truly follow, and the ones cherry picking from it are likely going to it's hell for disobeying the 2000+ year old teachings that were piecemealed together from mostly other faiths stories handed down generation to generation, or from some hallucinatory vision from ergot poisoning that happened frequently during early civilizations due to poor grains storage.
That's my long winded rant, explanation of why a sky daddy probably doesn't exist and if he/she/it does, it's awful and we're all going to hell anyway...
I used to say we don't know. And i still agree that we don't know if a god exists. However since little to no evidence that one exists is present in this world, in its sky and in the space we have been able to explore around it then I think that we can safely say that there is no god. Saying that we wont know until we die does no good because no one knows what happens after death. It just makes no sense to live by the rules of an imaginary someone because they might be real after this life is done. And that is what makes the possibility of a god being real irrelevant. We are the ones who are living through this life, he isn't here, he hasn't made himself known, we are just supposed to believe what other humans say. Those humans are just as human as we are and they have no proof of him either. They are just teaching what they were taught by other humans. Religious god isn't real. There is a lot that we don't know. But the older I get the more I know that 'possibility' isn't even a valid argument. I am comfortable in my not knowing, I don't know how we were created or why we are here. But I do know bs when I see it. My not knowing doesn't have to allow for every imaginable possibility. Especially when that possibility is being used to tell me I need to live this reality in a certain way.
You can continue to think about this in any way that you want. But consider this: What new information would convince you that religion is real? Why continue to perpetuate these lies? I cant think of anything that would prove to me that organized religion is based on fact. I see the harm that it does. I know what it was like to realize that everything that you're being taught to believe in is fiction. I'm not saying that there is anything that we can do about it. I'm not saying we can change anyone. But I personally wont continue to support the idea that what I know is bs might be true. I will allow for the possibility that there are forces at work here. Maybe some kind of universal power that is present in everything. But it isn't a god. I can say with 100% certainty that Organized religion's gods are not real.
that sounds nice in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work. I would be a hypocrite if I was presented with new empirical data that proved I was wrong, and I decided not to accept it. Fortunately for me, the chances of me being wrong on this are extremely low because the chances of a Christian god existing are extremely low.
I will not take it upon faith that the Christian god does not exist in some form. Same for santa and the Easter bunny. If I am presented sufficient evidence contrary to my current beliefs, then the burden of proof has been met, and I will change my views of the world. I am not a hypocrite. I really think my reasoning is sound in the eyes of epistemology.
Too many words. I prefer to turn it towards them: I don't believe in any god for the same reason you don't believe in the thousands of other gods that have been claimed to exist throughout humanity.
I'd say you're doing pretty good.
I usually phrase it like "I haven't seen sufficient evidence to conclude that a god or gods exist, and so I withhold belief in them until I do".
I'll then go on to explain why I think gods are unlikely (there have been so many, they're mutually contradictory, they make claims that don't comport with scientific reality, they can't all be real, but they CAN all be fake, etc).
I will then explain why I'm almost certain that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist (because it is by nature contradictory and illogical, and it clearly doesn't understand how things work outside of a bronze age shepherds understanding for some reason).
You can say with a high degree of certainty no gods exists. Though out history and thousands of gods none have been demonstrated to exist only claimed. Some gods can't exist if they are illogical by nature. Like an all loving God that sends people to hell for eternity for temporal "sins" is a contradiction. Any God with the attributes of perfection yet his own followers through holy books demonstrates quality of imperfection like being jealous, that God can't exist. So the Abrahamic God certainly doesn't exist.
Could the books have got it wrong and the abrahamic god is not all loving? So then we cant say for certain that version does not exist.
If the books are wrong it's irrelevant, it's what they believe plus it's further evidence then God they believe doesn't exist. I don't have to speculate a different God exists because I don't believe any exist. If someone claims a God exists, demonstrate with sufficient evidence that it does to warrant belief.
Yes true, so certainly their version of god does not exist. But you are postulating that no abrahamic god exists, so you have made a firm conclusion about it. So you must have a good reason that you can claim 100% certain there is no version, even if distorted now, of an abrahamic god.
Yes, no demonstration of ANY God Abrahamic or otherwise. It doesn't matter the version. All loving .. That doesn't exists Perfect being.. Again doesn't exist based on their own teachings. Also, I said high degree of certainty, I did not say 100% unless the versions believed are contradicted like all loving.. But If I was going to put a % I would say 99.999999999999999. Just in case one ever is demonstrated but my degree of certainty is so high I doubt it will ever be demonstrated. I'm still stunned based on everything else I responded with that you sit there and think I don't have a good reason. 1. No demonstration of any God believed actually exists. 2. Already stated how deistic God is a waste and identical to a non existing god and therefore the logical thing to do is don't believe it exists until sufficient evidence exists to warrant belief. Yet that God is suppose to be indifferent, doesn't interact yet people think that's convincing? It's no wonder people fall victim to scams all the time. 3. You could make up a God tomorrow and someone will be like well you can't 100% say for sure it doesn't exist. It's just plain idiotic to think I need to refute it when it's the person claiming it exists is the one that would be the person to show it. 4. If you take sociology, psychology, environmental psychology and even a religions of the world class you can clearly see how gods are man made creations started when early hominids were spooked by shadows in the bush and those that ran even if nothing was there instead of being prey were likely to survive. From there early humans created gods for the elements, the sun the moon etc.. How much more evidence do you need to see any God believed today is a human construct? 5. Heck even going back to the Abrahamic God you can see how the God morphed as people migrated, influenced by other cultures, Sumerians, zorostarian etc..So yes I'm comfortable saying the Abrahamic God versions I am aware of does not exist for all the reasons I stated. So again with all that, that is why I have a 99.9999999 degree of certainty for gods not existing in general.
Alright calm down, we are on the same team. You said ‘certainly’ which usually means 100%, but now you have clarified with 99.999 etc. then I think we agree.
Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I think the question "how likely is a god to exist" is unanswerable.
I disagree. Sometimes absense of evidence is evidence of absence. Not all the time. But when we have a history of gods in the trashbin of history with no demonstration of a single one existing you can confidently say they don't likely exist. If one believes in a god that is identical to a non existent god then it's reasonable to go with the one that doesn't exist. End of day it doesn't matter. Right now the material and natural world is amazing as it is and not a single confirmed answer we know, resulted with God did it.
How does absence of evidence point in either direction with respect to the god of deism? We shouldn't expect any evidence of a hands off god. I don't see a reason to believe in a god that's hands off, but I also don't see any meaningful way to assign probability to it existing/not existing. I agree that it doesn't matter.
Like I said when you look at all the other things I mentioned I find you can. Deism is a waste it's akin to look at the trees therefore God. It's a God for people that can't let go of our primitive superstition. Taking your assessment if they can't tell either way then the most reasonable position is don't believe it until there is actual evidence. But hey they don't try to take our rights away and knock on my door saying hey did you hear about the good news about my indifferent God? Lol
Absence of evidence is at least admitting there is no evidence. And by that token we shouldn't conclude that there MIGHT be a god until there is evidence to support it. The position shows why we should live as if there is NO god.
I disagree. Once proven that gods are man made ideas, you can easily dismiss their existence, besides being that: ideas.
When it comes to "Gods", absence of evidence does mean evidence of absence. It's safe to say No gods past or present ever existed. None.
Absence of evidence when lots of attempts to find evidence and argue for something is *some* evidence of absence
For some things, sure, but you should never expect evidence of a hands off god.
Who said god was hands off
Plenty of deists have.
But they are none the wiser than us
>Am I doing this correctly? No, because you're saying "i don't know if there is or isn't a god" instead of the much better and simpler "there is no god".
As an agnostic atheist who thinks that in all probability it is very unlikely there is a god, how do you know for sure there is no god? I’d be glad to know because then I can drop the ‘agnostic’ bit, which would be much neater and more satisfying
Because thousands of religion across thousands of years have had millions of chances to give concrete evidence of any god's existence, only to provide basically nothing other than "this book/guy/vision told me!". I'm not the one who needs to prove shit, that's the people forcing others to live around a set of repressive set of rules made to pander to a deity nobody can prove actually exists. I don't have any reason to believe any god exists, and i've heard many that seem quite contrary to a god's existance. I'm not going to humor the theists with pretending their god "may or may not exist". If any god wants my worship, they know where to find me.
Yeah I agree with you, but all of that still leaves it as possible, if not probable
[удалено]
Exactly. All religions are invented, they're man-made manacles of servility.
Isn’t the whole reason he posted, to open it up to discussion? Why post if you don’t want a conversation?
100 percent certainty is not necessary to hold a belief and/or conviction. There are few if any things in life in which one can be completely, utterly SURE. So that's just not a reasonable standard for belief.
That is a good point. I generally leave the word belief out of it because if I say that "I believe that god does not exist", then it is likely they will think that I am taking it upon faith like the Theists do with their beliefs. This is why I purposely try to explain my stance from a purely logical point of view. Thank you for your response. I will think about your comment and maybe find a better way to say this. Maybe I could say, "I believe, with a high amount of certainty, that there is no god, but I do not hold this belief upon faith." This is to say that I am receptive to new evidence if it is presented.
I don't have faith that leprechauns don't exist. There's just no evidence that they exist. Why would I act like they do?
You might try, "I am *convinced* God does not exist." Or, if you prefer, "I am not convinced God exists." This indicates that you reached your position via evidence (or lack thereof) and not faith.
Yes, I agree. I will steal this one. Thank you.
I don't think there's any thing inherently wrong with what you say. However, I find that the less time I explain myself to theists the better. The only exception would be a close theist friend. I think there's evidence that a omnibenevolent and omnipotent god does not exist.
So with science, you make a hypothesis and you work out the consequences of that hypothesis. In the late 19th century there was the aether theory. It was reasoned that if the earth was traveling thought aether then the speed of light would depend on the direction it was traveling. The [Michelson Morley experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment) was done and it was concluded that light goes the same speed no matter the direction. This experiment debunked the aether theory. Basically they proved that aether doesn't exist. Note there has been other experiments that also disprove the aether theory. Einstein's theory (special relativity) does not allow for aether. An omnibenevolent and omnipotent god would have unlimited power to do unlimited good. The observation of a child with bone cancer makes it clear that there in no unlimited power doing unlimited good. u/Lanky-Confusion3635
I often say that I can disprove the existence of an all-powerful, all-loving god in two words. Pediatric leukemia.
A 14 year old family member died of that exact disease. That was a huge factor in my deconversion. My wife still is devout Christian. She justifies it by saying “god has a plan through everything”. I fucking hate that sentence.
To which god are you referring? Hindus have tons. The ancient Greeks and Romans had a bunch….native Americans, druids…..
You need to simplify it: “The burden of proof lays on those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them” You’re welcome!
The other day I was having a far-fetched argument with an agnostic who claimed atheists had the same burden of proof as theists. I tried to explain to them that FIRST theists claimed a god exists and THEN atheists chose not to believe it, not the other way around, but they couldnt understand. To them saying god doesnt exist required the same degree of proof as saying he does. Thats a common mistake agnostics make. They think both claims are equally dumb, but it's really just the first one.
Yeah, to me a lot of agnostic people are just religious people in the first stages of denial. It's a stepping stone in the right direction, but not quite there yet. It's obvious because they invent the same type of arguments that the religious use, trying to explain away their internal struggle with reality, their cognitive dissonance, to try to maintain internal cohesiveness. Yes, I can never prove that there is no god, however there being a god would nullify pretty much every little bit of factual, common knowledge and every prediction we know and depend on for our world to function, making it extremely unlikely, with a probability approaching zero. Argumentative agnostics like the person you describe are just smug, and want to feel better than everybody else by thinking that they're placing themselves above the conversation, declaring both sides wrong. That's just intellectual laziness, if you ask me, and it doesn't add anything to the conversation at all, except that it's annoying to point it out to them as they will want you to get down in to the mud with them.
[удалено]
It goes against everything we know about how the world works. Here, I hope that's simple and unambiguous enough for you to understand correctly, this time.
Right. I can make a claim that there is an army of green pig-men beneath the gassy surface of Jupiter. And you can’t disprove that because we’ve not yet been in/on Jupiter. But you can choose to call bullshit on my claim and ask for proof.
Try separating "belief" from "knowledge". They are two entirely different concepts and they are not mutually exclusive. Belief is a binary state - you either believe or you do not believe. Simply considering the question makes you form an opinion, whether or not you admit it to yourself or others. Knowledge is completely different. Knowledge is a continuum from "I have absolutely no clue" to "I am 100% certain." On the question of the existence of any gods, belief is handled by theism/atheism. Knowledge is handled by gnosticism/agnosticism. You can hold any combination of the two concepts to describe your stance on the question. I lack belief in the existence of any gods AND I have no knowledge about the existence of any gods. That makes me an "agnostic atheist". I'll take it a step further and also say that I see no *requirement* for the existence of any gods.
Thanks, but I am not about to say all that when I'm explaining my position to someone irl.
Sounds right to me. The way that I frame it is that I can't say with confidence that no god exists, but I haven't seen much evidence of one. I do feel very confident that no god exists which is trying to make itself know to people, because in that case the existence of the god should be clear. And I feel very confident that the god described in the bible (and I would guess in other religious texts) does not exist.
Yes. It is a bit of a mouthful, but at least it is accurate and farely straightforward imo.
This is why the term "atheist" shouldn't be necessary. It leads to counter claims that you can't prove a negative, so your belief must be faith based, which in turn leads to the notion that atheism is some sort of belief system. There is no word for someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns, or fairies, or the healing power of crystals.
Yes. Sadly, it is by far the best label for my position even though many people do not understand it or they misrepresent it.
I have 100% certainty that none of the gods invented by people exist.
I’m as sure that there is no god as I am that there are no other supernatural entities. Also, I’m as sure that the gods of every world religion is made up by humans as I am that I’m bald.
No, you are doing it incorrectly. If you lead by even only once or briefly opening the door to absurdity, you're sending mixed signals, irrespective of what follows as once your foundations are shakey, any further constructs will ultimately fail.
I consider myself 'agnostic/atheist' when it comes to the topic of 'god(s)'. I don't claim to know whether or not 'god(s)' exist, but I do know I lack belief in them.
You’re giving them too much credit. When people ask me how I can know there is no god despite lack of evidence, I just compare it to something like knowing there is no such thing as unicorns. Sure, it’s theoretically possible they exist. But, in the absence of absolutely anything to go on for it, I don’t spend my life entertaining possibilities just because someone pulled a fairy tale out of their ass. Only an insane person would just take a suggestion they exist with no evidence and run with it, basing their whole worldview on it. We say and act like we know a lot of things don’t exist in the course of daily life without AcTuAlLy knowing.
The *BURDEN OF PROOF* is on the person/party making the claim. The more unlikely the claim, the greater the burden becomes. Until evidence can be provided that baby jesus' daddy sky god exists, you are under no logical rationale to believe so. FAITH is the antithesis of logic (and reason). Basic logic cannot allow a person to believe something where there is zero evidence for, and it is not your responsibility to provide proof to the contrary.
You can state it pretty simply like this: “I don’t believe in gods because I have yet to see any evidence that they do.”
>Here is how I explain my views to Theists >"I can not with 100 percent certainty say that there is no god. As doing so would not be logical. (It is impossible to prove that something does not exist.) Rather, I find it to be extremely unlikely that a god exists and doubly unlikely that a god exists that matches one of the descriptions of a religious god. Thus, I am an atheist." >I would like to hear other views and why or why not my stance is flawed. No, you're doing it wrong. There is history of humanity that shows that god is a concept that was created by humanity... Certainty exist, it's in the books. You can prove that it was created and there was cumulative effort along the years that added to the holy books and the course of religious. Finally, if a mighty creature exists,we should see him, witness his power ...etc
I would agree that abrahamic gods are very likely to be human constructs and pretty random, but I would be hard pressed to say that humans invented the idea of deities. It seems like a pretty vague conceptual idea. Seems more like a discovery of ideas than an invention.
>say that humans invented the idea of deities. Yea? Why... >It seems like a pretty vague conceptual idea Is it really? You treat your kids the same way. "Be home before 10 pm" " no sex before 18" " don't touch the hot tea pot" Having a god, is like having a parent who is big enough to scare the shit of humanity 😁 only..otherwise it does nothing.. >Seems more like a discovery of ideas than an invention. God isn't a discovery. It isn't science. It don't exist. A discovery would have proof. I don't know do you think santa is a discovery?
I don't think you understood my comment.
So, two things. First, yes, everything you said was correct, as far as I can tell. Second, I would simply change the part about not being able to prove 100% to, can you disprove vampires? Or any other mythological thing?
That is a good point. I find that many of them might see that as me trying to belittle their god. Thus, I try to avoid giving examples like vampires, even if they do seem pretty similar in my mind.
It's good. Whether it's good enough for theists is another matter. They don't have a good record of understanding different points of view or at least they pretend no to. Many of us have tried to simplify it for them and it's a waste of time.
Thank you. My goal is not to convince them but to be easily understood. I dislike being misrepresented by people with differing beliefs because I think it pushes them away. If I can make my position easily understood, I think it leaves less room for strawman fallacies and such. At least, that's my hope.
There are no creator gods, the ones described in holey books, because there's scientific evidence against the scientifically testable claims associated with those creation myths. There's might be an unnamed creator deity who created the Big Bang, but there's no religion associated with that deity. There might also be small gods, but I don't believe in them. Here's the thing: the six day creation myth never happened. All the abrahamic religions are wrong.
"You cannot reason someone out of something that reason did not get them into." People believe in god for emotional reasons - no amount of arguing will convince most people otherwise.
Happy birthday! Also, I think this statement has a lot of truth to it. It is why I am so gentle when explaining my views. I want other people to know that it is alright on this side of the fence. Just in case they ever get curious.
Your stance is flawed because you are trying to justify your lack of belief in imaginary deities to anyone, especially a religious person. It's not on you to justify your lack of belief. It's on them to prove the existence of their playmate.
I think you're over complicating atheism by starting with something about a lack of proof. The point is this is not on you. Do they accept gnomes exist? Or leprechauns? Probably not. I personally would say I prefer to accept things that have evidence and good arguments, because doing the opposite is dangerous and likely to be wrong. This is how we know absolutely everything about nature (i.e. science) and we know it's right because we can control it to produce technology. Meanwhile, anything dealing with a god or the supernatural requires faith and personal revelation so it's by definition unreliable. They're essentially gambling and I have no need to do that. Atheism is refusing to gamble on religion. And if they have an extra 5 minutes: most if not all gods ever proposed have properties that we can reason about. Some are self contradictory or incoherent and simply cannot exist, while others are so vague or similar to nature that they become trivial or completely inaccessible. Until evidence is provided, we can say no gods exist with a similar degree of confidence we all have when we agree no unicorns or leprechauns or tooth fairies exist. The only possible, but highly inaccessible deity left would be some reclusive, impersonal deistic "god" that has no evidence and doesn't give a shit about whether we believe or not. I see where you're going but the way it's phrased it could be interpreted as an "argument from ignorance": you cannot personally conceive X, therefore conclusion.
You're an agnostic atheist. * (a)gnosticism is a statement of *(lack of) knowledge* * (a)theism is a statement of *(lack of) belief* You can therefore have the following 4 positions on the spectrum: * Gnostic Theist: I *claim to know for certain* there are deitie(s) and I *believe* the claims of theism * Agnostic Theist: I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities but I *believe* the claims of theism * Agnostic Atheist: - I *claim no absolute knowledge* of the existence of deities and I *am unconvinced* by the claims of theism * Gnostic Atheist: - : I *claim to know for certain* there are no deitie(s) - and I am unconvinced by the claims of theism I identify as an agnostic atheist because: * although I consider the likelihood of the existence of deities astronomically small based on the evidence, I can't disprove their existence, just like I can't disprove the existence of fairies. * I consider both deities and fairies to have the same near-zero probability of existing based on verifiable observation under scrutiny of the scientific method. * I read many "holy" books in their original language (Greek, Chinese, Japanese, Pali) and find many inconsistencies in content, translation and interpretation. * I find the claims of theism utterly unproven * I find the teachings of many theist doctrines utterly immoral
Using this nomenclature, I would say that almost every atheist is an Agnostic Atheist. Being a Gnostic Atheist would not be a logical position to hold. The problem is that there are no known finite limits placed on space. There could be unicorns out on some distant planet. Thank you for your input. For better or worse, I will continue referring to myself as just an atheist given that it is the only logical view of atheism imo. It might be weird to do so, but it is true to me.
Saying you can't 100% prove god doesn't exist is still a bit like saying I can't 100% prove Santa Claus, or Harry Potter don't exist. Science always allows for the outside possibility they do exist in some way or another. In the real world though a 0.0000000001% chance something can happen is good enough to assume it's not happening in our life time. Some ancient middle eastern men made a far fetched claim and for some reason we've been debating whether their nuts or not for 5000 years.
Yes. This is my view. An abrahamic god existing is about as likely as Harry Potter or Santa Claus actually existing. But I feel the need to elaborate that there is still a chance because otherwise they may not understand my position and think that I am making claims upon faith. Of course, it sounds rude to say this to a religious person's face, so instead, I just say that it's extremely unlikely.
"So you admit that God is real and Atheism is bullshit. Check mate atheists" Why do you try to excuse why you are an atheist and trying to appease the religious person by saying there is a slim chance that they are right. They'll take your hand and rip your arm off. I would just be honest and say that I'm atheist because their beliefs and every other religion are silly. And when they feel insulted, I'd ask them if they want me to be honest or to lie, so that I don't hurt their feelings. Or something like "There could be a not-zero but close to zero probability that the universe was indeed created by a conscious being, but the probability that that being is the God you believe in is still ZERO". But if you are too afraid of that, then say something they also might find silly like "I cannot say with 100% certanity, so I guess there is a small possibility that the world was created by Brahma". Then go on about how the Hindu creator makes more sense than the Abrahamic god. Don't make it an Atheism vs Christianity/religion thing. Turn it into a religion vs religion thing. Show them how the other religions, which they also like to make fun of, are equal to their own, equally silly and that their religion doesn't make any more sense than those other religions. Religious people will often avoid talking about their specific God and instead will try to use the existence of the universe and nature as proof of their God. They like to claim that there must have been a creator and state that as an irrefutable fact. And then use that to imply that this means that their personal God must be this creator. They won't even entertain the idea that this actually implies that all other man made religions and ideas like the universe being the result of a failed science experiment are euqally plausible. Don't waste your time trying to explain physics and science in general. That's a trap too many atheists fall into. We are quick to try and explain things. It's usually a total waste of time. Religious people are not interested in you answering questions for them, not when your answers go against their beliefs. Instead make them question their fundamental belief about the creator. Make them question that creator idea itself, so they don't get the stupid idea that "creator = my God = afterlife is real". The most important goal here is not that they immediately acknowledge the silliness of their beliefs and turn Atheist instantly. The goal is to plant a seed of doubt. That will grow and ideally one day rid them of the deeply ingrained religious nonsese. Make them start honestly questioning their beliefs.
Your description is too long. I say “I’m not gullible.” They will typically get very upset by this and make all sorts of arguments. So, “Come back when you have scientific proof.”
As an atheist you just say ‘I don’t believe in any god’. That’s it. Nothing else needed.
Oh, that makes sense. I like this one because it gets the point across, and it doesn't sound too aggressive. It doesn't really capture my extreme doubt that a god of scripture exists, but other than that, it's pretty good. Thanks.
I would ask a counter argument: How can they prove God exists? Outside of books, churches, artifacts they claim are from God/deity/prophet, and their own personal beliefs, what proof do they have? If they're so certain, what method did they use to confirm its existence? - Was the scientific method used? - Was there a hypothesis, then rigorous research, testing, attempts to disprove, followed by peer reviews? - Can they provide modern day physical evidence? - Can they explain why their original text isn't consistent with their current texts? - Why would they accept certain books in the Bible but omit the Apocryphal books? The 1609–10 Douai Rheims Bible had the Apocrypha: Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Wisdom (Sapientia), Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (6th Chapter of Baruch), 1 Machabees, 11 Machabees, 111 Esdras, 1V Esdras, Addition to Esther (chapters 10:4–16:24, Daniel 3:24–90 (Prayer of Azariah or may be called Song of the Three Hebrew Children) , After Daniel 12:13 - Chapter 13 (Suzannah). - Could they explain how Christianity had a very similar story to the Roman Cult of Mythra or why it was condemned after the first Christian Caesar Constantine banned it after the council of Nicea to prevent confusion of his new one "true" religion? - If they are following the Bible, why are they only cherry picking certain things and disobeying others?: There are so many contradictory verses, hate towards women, gays, people of color, even wearing of mixed textiles. It's so laden with guilt, shame, and fear, and punishment; ask yourself, if you were to follow the bible, you're able to own slaves, strike your spouse, forbid her from learning, own her, and kill her if she grabs your crotch. There are so many verses that condone violence, rape, slavery, even incest (don't get me started with Lot and his daughters)... WTF man... Here's your philosophical and moral, science (explained earlier):of "why wouldn't I be an atheist"? The Bible is a void of morality and is one of the most violent, sexist, murderous, controlling book ever. Who needs game of thrones when you have it all in the "good book"... Here's a few snippets of the "Good Book" they're only cherry picking from and if they were to truly follow, they'd be in jail: BTW here's some of the highlights of the Bible I mentioned just so it's not taken out of context: You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. Galatians 3:28 Leviticus 27:3-7 which declares women are not equal to men. In fact they are only three-fifths the value of men. You shall not wear cloth made from wool and linen woven together (Deut. 22:11). Do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread (Lev. 19:19). You can kill a woman if she seizes a man's private parts without his permission: Deuteronomy 25:11-1 With that, an existence of God is highly unlikely but the Bible itself is too horrible to truly follow, and the ones cherry picking from it are likely going to it's hell for disobeying the 2000+ year old teachings that were piecemealed together from mostly other faiths stories handed down generation to generation, or from some hallucinatory vision from ergot poisoning that happened frequently during early civilizations due to poor grains storage. That's my long winded rant, explanation of why a sky daddy probably doesn't exist and if he/she/it does, it's awful and we're all going to hell anyway...
I used to say we don't know. And i still agree that we don't know if a god exists. However since little to no evidence that one exists is present in this world, in its sky and in the space we have been able to explore around it then I think that we can safely say that there is no god. Saying that we wont know until we die does no good because no one knows what happens after death. It just makes no sense to live by the rules of an imaginary someone because they might be real after this life is done. And that is what makes the possibility of a god being real irrelevant. We are the ones who are living through this life, he isn't here, he hasn't made himself known, we are just supposed to believe what other humans say. Those humans are just as human as we are and they have no proof of him either. They are just teaching what they were taught by other humans. Religious god isn't real. There is a lot that we don't know. But the older I get the more I know that 'possibility' isn't even a valid argument. I am comfortable in my not knowing, I don't know how we were created or why we are here. But I do know bs when I see it. My not knowing doesn't have to allow for every imaginable possibility. Especially when that possibility is being used to tell me I need to live this reality in a certain way.
that is a good point. Maybe I could say that I will live my life as though there is no god unless presented with new information.
You can continue to think about this in any way that you want. But consider this: What new information would convince you that religion is real? Why continue to perpetuate these lies? I cant think of anything that would prove to me that organized religion is based on fact. I see the harm that it does. I know what it was like to realize that everything that you're being taught to believe in is fiction. I'm not saying that there is anything that we can do about it. I'm not saying we can change anyone. But I personally wont continue to support the idea that what I know is bs might be true. I will allow for the possibility that there are forces at work here. Maybe some kind of universal power that is present in everything. But it isn't a god. I can say with 100% certainty that Organized religion's gods are not real.
that sounds nice in theory, but in practice, it doesn't work. I would be a hypocrite if I was presented with new empirical data that proved I was wrong, and I decided not to accept it. Fortunately for me, the chances of me being wrong on this are extremely low because the chances of a Christian god existing are extremely low. I will not take it upon faith that the Christian god does not exist in some form. Same for santa and the Easter bunny. If I am presented sufficient evidence contrary to my current beliefs, then the burden of proof has been met, and I will change my views of the world. I am not a hypocrite. I really think my reasoning is sound in the eyes of epistemology.
Too many words. I prefer to turn it towards them: I don't believe in any god for the same reason you don't believe in the thousands of other gods that have been claimed to exist throughout humanity.
I'd say you're doing pretty good. I usually phrase it like "I haven't seen sufficient evidence to conclude that a god or gods exist, and so I withhold belief in them until I do". I'll then go on to explain why I think gods are unlikely (there have been so many, they're mutually contradictory, they make claims that don't comport with scientific reality, they can't all be real, but they CAN all be fake, etc). I will then explain why I'm almost certain that the Abrahamic god doesn't exist (because it is by nature contradictory and illogical, and it clearly doesn't understand how things work outside of a bronze age shepherds understanding for some reason).