Atheists, do you simply believe there is no god or are you sure of it?

Question

How do you see it?

1)Absence of proof = proof of absence

2)Absence of evidence = evidence of absence.

Answer 1

Atheists don't "believe" there is no god. They DO NOT BELIEVE in god.

Atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief.

Answer 2

How about this?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it's a duck.

I never saw God do any of those things.

(And this argument still follows Occam's razor, sorry I changed it so radically... didn't mean to make your additional comments look out-of-the-blue.)

Answer 3

Replace "god" by goblins and try answering your own question...

Answer 4

Why believe in the supernatural when we have reality?

Answer 5

Both 1 and 2 say the same thing.  

The way I see it is that I simply cannot believe until shown the evidence.  In anthropology, we do not accept anything as truth until it has been proven.  What we do is make theories and then seek for evidence of those theories.  If evidence is found, we continue along the same vein of questioning and putting pieces together to support the hypothesis.  If no evidence is found, we go back to the drawing board and reform the hypothesis.  

It's not as if we find one artifact and say "Aha!  That proves it!"  That's not how it works.  We find an artifact and say "This seems to support the supposition put forth by so-and-so, but how do we know for sure?  Let's dig deeper."

In the God discussion, it must work the same way.  If someone says "My mother had cancer and I prayed and she was healed", we might be tempted to conclude "Aha!  That proves God exists."  But does it?  Let's examine the other data:  There are millions of other people with cancer who have prayed and were NOT healed.  The hypothesis must be flawed, then.  

Hope this helps.

Answer 6

Here's the basics of my logic:

We have one source as to the existence of god (the christian god, anyways). That source is a book, known as the bible. That's the one and only source. The bible is flawed. If the bible is flawed, it is meaningless, if you read it and take it literally. Therefor, the one and only source we have to the existence of god is wrong. That does not mean there is no god. It means only that we have no reason to think that there IS a god.  Until I have a reason to think that there may be a god, I cannot bring myself to believe in one.

Therefor, I believe that there are no gods. Not a single one.

That's the base of my belief. Now just factor in, as you say, "absence of evidence = evidence of absence". There is no evidence in this world to say that there is a god. Only the bible. There is no god in this world to give evidence. Only the bible.

So why base my life off a book that can't be trusted?

I hope I haven't muddled that up too much.

Atheistically yours,

JM Gendron.

Answer 7

lack of belief in deity.

why....

abundance of proof proving against it

abundance of evidence against it

Answer 8

There is no evidence of God in any way that is meaningful in a modern scientific world.  So, belief simply isn't necessary.

It serves no purpose -- gives me no benefit --personally. So, belief simply isn't useful to me personally.

--------------------------------------...

If you could offer me some scientifically valid evidence that (1) GOD exists or (2) where it is he might exist or (3) a purpose he might give me that is useful to me that is not served just as well by some other means, then, yes, I might be moved to believe that a god or gods might exist.

But then you are stuck with the horrible burden of proving to me that your feeble human mind has some curious power that I lack:  namely, that you can know the mind of GOD while I cannot.  

That is, it isn't enough to simply say "GOD exists" or "GOD might exist."  The whole point of religion is that knowledge of GOD then leads to some action...some duty to follow the rules of that GOD.

And that premise -- that any human could possibly know the mind of GOD any more than any other human -- is laughable on its face.  Man is no more capable of knowing the mind of GOD than reorganizing time and space.

That is the problem.

Not GOD.

Not Belief of GOD or in GOD, but...

Religion.

Answer 9

The way I see it, either you worship all supernatural beings lacking evidence or none.

Guess what I chose.

Answer 10

Sure, its a matter of faith, and I lack faith

Answer 11

By proof do you mean a close examination of evidences dating back several thousand years, then yes. There has been no shred of evidence that I have not tied to an agenda to climb to power. Christianity is a power struggle to bleed the average person dry and alleviate them of their pocket book, while guised as 'all loving'

Show you? Do you have 20 years, that is how long I have been looking. Do you really think I can throw out a few words and actually convey anything that you would understand. That would be a no.

Answer 12

Evidence and proof come to the same thing

-God has never left any physical evidence of his existence on earth

-There is no evidence of miracles done by Jesus

-God has never spoken to modern man

-The resurrected Jesus has never appeared to anyone

-The Bible is provably incorrect and is the work of men, not God

-Statistically, there is no evidence that God is answering prayers

-Disasters like the Holocaust and AIDS happen without any assistance from God

Answer 13

For crying out loud...just when you thought it couldn't get any more stupid...

Answer 14

I don't believe.  I can't really say I know for sure.  I mean I can't know for sure there isn't a bigfoot, leprechaun colony, or unicorn planet.  But I have a pretty good idea.

Absence of proof = absence of proof

absence of evidence = absence of evidence.

When those two are satisfied, it is logical to not believe.

Answer 15

I feel pretty strongly that any being with the power to break the laws of the universe would throw it into chaos at best.  In addition to the complete lack of evidence for gods, this is why I don't believe in them.

However, I could never assert that idea with any legitimacy because it's merely my own thoughts.  To me it's a closed case - no gods, but I realize I could be wrong.

In the end, I still lack belief in gods.

Answer 16

Once again, neither.

I simply am not convinced there are any gods, and as a default position remain skeptical of extraordinary claims unless they are supported by evidence or sound argument.

I'd if pushed assess a pretty low probability for gods existing - somewhat akin to the probability of an extremely advanced alien race secretly running experiments on us for example - but I neither believe they do not exist nor do I claim to know it.

EDIT for your ADD.   I have to question your presnetation of Occam's razor.  the choices really are

1) The universe, which demonstrates entirely naturalistic processes currently and as far back as we can study - just a split second after the singularity - also began with entirely naturalistic processes.

2) Even though there is no indication or evidence, an immortal omnipotent being who must by definition be incredibly complex, created the universe and made it look like it developed and is governed under naturalistic processes.

The second introduces unnecessary complexity to explain observable phenomena.  Occam's razor is a bit more than "which can I express in the simplest sentence?".

Answer 17

I'm 100% SURE THERE IS NO CHRISTIAN GOD or any kind of personal gods .

but Pantheist or Deist god is impossible to disprove .

the deist god is unnecessary since it's "undetectable "

not to mention , he doesn't care about us.

Answer 18

I'm sure: 'God' is defined as all powerfull and benevolent. Children starve. Therefore 'God' doesn't exist b/c there is obviously not an all powerfullness looking out for those children. If you were given omnipotence and , I presume you're not a monster, would you sit by and let children starve ? An all powerfull deity who is a prick, a powerfull but not ALL powerfull deity who cares, or a world full of nothing but puppies and rainbows-those are the choices .Oh , and of course, No 'God' at all. But 'God' is defined as sort of a 'personal god' by saying 'He' answers prayers and cares about us.

Answer 19

I can't prove that there is no God.  For exactly the same reason, I can't prove that there is no tooth fairy.  Having considered the question at length, I am forced to the conclusion that neither exists.  The reasoning in each case is identical.

I say forced to the conclusion for good reason.  I'd LIKE there to be a god.  I admit that the thought of my own mortality distresses me, and I'd like to believe that there's an afterlife of some sort.

But just because I'd like to believe in something, doesn't make it true.  Therefore, I remain an atheist.

Answer 20

well om nom

i am certain there is no god of the religious description

totally certain,

im not certain there is no creator at all, but it seems logical and probable that it woudl NOT be conscious and aware if there was, and that it did not create us with intent and does not notice or affect us

i choose both, there are more than 1 reason for my not believing  

Answer 21

Absence of evidence = disbelief is the logical default.

Answer 22

I think absence of evidence IS evidence,not proof,of absence.Especially since man has been diligently searching for that evidence for thousands of years.I am not sure there is no god.I am sure the bible's depiction is false

Answer 23

If I wasn't sure of it I wouldn't be able to consider myself an atheist.

Answer 24

I agree with the second statement, I simply believe there is no god.

Occam's Razor is not about the complexity of an explanation, it is that the explanation which requires less assumptions is more likely correct.  This principle applies in this case, even though some people can make persuasive arguments that the creator option is less complex.  Simply, the first option only assumes that natural cause and effect relationships could lead to the formation of the universe.  We know, based on the laws of physics, that every cause has an effect, or for every action there is a reaction, so no major assumptions or inferences are required, other than some action or reaction set it in motion.  The second option involves a number of assumptions, that being that there is a very complex higher power, that the higher power has the ability to create a universe, that the higher power has the intent and motivation to create a universe, that the higher power need not have been created himself or have any creator, and so on...  Thus, the principle of Occam's Razor would suggest that the first option is more likely correct.

Edit:  **Ok, I just scratched out the second paragraph about Occam's Razor.  Please disregard it.

Answer 25

I say I'm still waiting for some form of evidence to pop up. Until that time I am a skeptic and best.

Answer 26

Nothing can be proven to not exsist, the only thing that can be proven is the exsistance of something.

That is the truth.