Meh, for me, it isn't so much that I rule out gods or the supernatural, just any description of either that we've been able to muster up thus far. I have serious doubts about the concept of supernatural to begin with. Seems to me to be a linguistic holdover from a far less informed time. Everything that has ever been pointed at and called supernatural turned out to be entirely natural, or an unfortunate misunderstanding of natural things. The idea that the natural and the supernatural were somehow different, that sort of divider line, isn't exactly an ancient concept anyway. There was no distinction between our world and the world of the supernatural, our world was a supernatural one, to the founders of most religious faiths, even up to and including the "Big Three". It's only after carefully looking that we've realized that there is a difference. Namely that our world appears to exist, while theirs does not.

I believe there is no god for the same reason I believe there is no such place as Narnia. God and Aslan are on the same footing, they are fictional characters in stories made up by people. You wouldn't expect me to believe in fairies, or elves or hobbits. So why should I believe in gods?

What puzzles me is not why anyone of intelligence is an atheist, but how anyone of intelligence can possibly believe in any particular one of the myriad fictitious stories upon which the various religions depend. Why that religion in particular? Why not believe the world is a boiled egg and we are all dust mites living on its shell? Because it's silly nonsense, that's why. Not a problem!

I can see the argument for agnosticism and for most of my life I held that position too - until i read "The God Delusion" and Prof Dawkins drew my attention to the scientific method, by the standards of which my actual position was clearly that of atheist rather than agnostic. My views did not change, merely my perception of what those views truly represent.

Scientists used to believe in something called phlogiston. Then they saw the light, and discovered there is no need for it. They didn't then carry on forever debating the issue. The same is true of God. We now know there's no need for it in the great scheme of things, so what's the point of conjuring it up? The only reason loads of people believe in God is because loads of people keep insisting God exists. There is no other reason.

OK - that's my answer to the original post on this thread. When I get a mo I shall maybe have a look at what other atheists have said - meanwhile I have a different fish to fry.

By definition the supernatural is not real and therefore does not exist. Take supernatural being A example. All evidence points out that supernatural being A does not exist, thus believers put them outside of reality by calling them supernatural, fair enough. However, what if it was eventually discovered through observation that supernatural being A does exist? The mere act of observing them makes them quite real and then we can use these observations to get more information. Even merely discovering that they did exist would be enough to change them from "super" natural to just natural; they would be an extension of physics.

Plain and simple: Suffering...... Erhman had it right with God's Problem. Cannot have All Loving, All Powerful and Suffering. Impossible not matter how fundies try to spin it.

Quote:All evidence points out that supernatural being A does not exist,

Sorry to be picky,but no,it does not,unless there have been new discoveries in the last few days I haven't heard about.

That is why I and every atheist I know asserts "I do not believe in God(s) due to lack of credible evidence"

There is no credible evidence one way or the other.

I'm with Dawkins,my disbelief 6.9 out of 7. I am unable to assert certainty.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:I believe there is no god.

That is a positive claim, called 'hard atheism',in making the claim, you attract the burden of proof. Your argument is a logical fallacy, called argument from incredulity, a form of argument from ignorance.You really have no idea, do you

Quote:What puzzles me is not why anyone of intelligence is an atheist, but how anyone of intelligence can possibly believe in any particular one of the myriad fictitious stories upon which the various religion

Same again,argument from incredulity (and an ad hominem).

Bored now.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Quote:Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

The other basic fallacy implied in your argument;

Quote: If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

I like to point to cargo cults for examples of absolute proof of the non-existence of a proposed supernatural entity Padraic.

---

With other religions, one can always make the qualifier "as described" and then point to proof yet again.

(August 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm)padraic Wrote: Sorry to be picky,but no,it does not,unless there have been new discoveries in the last few days I haven't heard about.

No pickiness assumed Padraic. I did use the word evidence quite deliberately. My point is this, is that there is no evidence for supernatural phenomena, despite research and even if there were it would cease to be supernatural. Thus we are safe in assuming the supernatural does not exist, from an evidential standpoint. From the perspective of reason alone it cannot be dismissed, but any such attempts to reason to the supernatural are holed below the waterline with fallacies

(August 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm)padraic Wrote: That is why I and every atheist I know asserts "I do not believe in God(s) due to lack of credible evidence"

This isn't the case. You are right to assume that this is a common perspective and that hard atheism attracts a burden of proof. But that doesn't mean that it is not a position that can't be adopted and argued for, nor that it is not more probable than theism. The weakness of agnostic atheism (whilst perfectly coherent) is that you would also be an agnostic aunicornist, an agnostic aelvisliviesist if you were being consistent. Why give theism special treatment when we dismiss unicorns and Elvis living (even though we can dig up his body his spirit lives on etc). All of these things should be accorded the same reverence ie none at all. I would be happy to concede that the hard atheist is not able to knock down theism, but I think it can win the argument on the grounds of probability, and in our universe that is often the best you can do. Hard atheism is not an argument from incredulity, it can imagine the supernatural but cannot affirm it, and further asserts that wrt it's claims the absence of evidence is indeed in this case evidence of absence, partly because of the way the supernatural is defined. Any evidence for it would immediately make it natural and thus subject to physical laws etc. The supernatural then is logically incoherent and evidentially bereft and therefore does not exist.

(August 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm)padraic Wrote: There is no credible evidence one way or the other.

There is no credible anything wrt to the positive claim that the supernatural exists. Yet there is credible evidence that the world is natural and material. What if we found evidence of the supernatural? Does that mean it is no longer supernatural? In my view yes it would.

(August 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm)padraic Wrote: I'm with Dawkins,my disbelief 6.9 out of 7. I am unable to assert certainty.

Dan Barker has a nice view on this. He is a hard atheist wrt all supernatural phenomona he has had chance to investigate and research for himself and an agnostic atheist wrt those he hasn't.

(August 19, 2011 at 9:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I like to point to cargo cults for examples of absolute proof of the non-existence of a proposed supernatural entity Padraic.

---

With other religions, one can always make the qualifier "as described" and then point to proof yet again.

Yes, credible evidence that those people are mistaken. (I'm rather cautious about the word 'absolute)

If someone claims a red lizard is on my window, I take a look, and see no such lizard, I say BS. If on further inspection I find a green lizard, guess what, it was still BS. I've posted my soviet car jokes before so I'll spare the forums. If people attribute actions, desires, and characteristics to a god, and it turns out that they are mistaken, even if there is still some god, it is not that god. End of.

In a nutshell : the pieces do not add up. It really is that simple. You
would, for example, expect there to be some points of collusion between
the Abrahamics, and there are, but just as baffingly, there are major areas of
disagreement. And this beautifully references the less than perfect hand of Man rather
than the flawless one of God. Also, why does religion actually exist ? The simple answer : to
rationalise death. Since there are so many who simply refuse to accept that when the brain ceases
to function that is it. it is very arrogant of us to assume that we amongst all the members of the animal
kingdom deserve - and need - immortality. Well no, we don't. And what exactly is so terrifying about spending
the rest of eternity in a blissful state of non-consciousness anyway ? Sounds fine to me. But let us play devil's advocate
for a moment and push that bar far as it will go. Let us assume that God does exist. I will certainly acknowlege His presence
but will not bow down to Him. For that She has to be compassionate, forgiving and loving. attributes which He appears to be devoid of