Is it a good idea to be an atheist?

[Mister Agenda]

Hello,

I just want to ask a little, simple question here, to all atheists?

If you ask a believer why he believes in God, his answer most likely will be "Because I believe" or something to that extent.

Not very convincing, huh? The thing is, next time a believer convinces an atheist into believing, please let me know. I would be curious.

Let us turn the question around. Let us ask an atheist why he doesn't believe.

Most likely, we will hear something like "I only believe what I see" or "Why would a God let little innocent children die in a natural disaster?"

So we ask the atheist again: "Why don't you believe?". Let us record the answer.

Then we ask the atheist, "you don't believe because of...[his answer]?"

Then we tell him, "you realize you can help humanity a great deal by sharing your answer with the rest of the world?". "The world will be so much better knowing somebody has found a definite proof God does not exist because [his answer]". "You will be rewarded with a Nobel Prize and all wars will stop thanks to your thoughtfulness."

You see, the difference between a believer and an atheist is a believer believes and an atheist thinks he is right.

If you are an atheist and you so damn think you are right to be one, then let the world hear how you came to that conclusion, because for sure, this will change the world.

Thank you

I think you overestimate the world's susceptibility to reason.

A person should not believe something unless the reasons for doing so are good enough to overcome the null hypothesis. The proposition that God exists has never been supported to the extent that it would be more rationally supported to believe in God than not. Not to mention how many mutually exclusive concepts of God abound. Therefore, you should not believe God is real, and you especially should not believe a particular God is real.

---

None of you has answered my question.

I am still waiting.

Sorry but the burden of proof, as you call it, is on you. Otherwise, it means you would first - if no proof - assume there is no God. Which is contradictory.

The burden of proof to prove what? That we don't believe God is real? Met, I would think.

Burden of proof to prove God is not real? How did we wind up with that burden when we never asserted it to be the case? If you don't believe in leprechauns, is the burden of proof on you to prove they're not real? Are you sure you're not just trying to shift the burden of proof to us because that would be convenient to your argument?

I don't think you understand what the word 'contradictory' means. It's in no way contradictory not to believe in something until a convincing argument for it's existence has been made in the first place.

---

And you are absolutely right, an atheist may believe - and not think - he is right. Sorry about this. All the more evidence the atheist at point should not, let us say, disbelieve.

Everyone should disbelieve everything that there is not a good reason to believe in the first place.

---

Because I cannot prove you wrong. I cannot prove there is a God.

And we can't prove there isn't. Why should that be a problem for us rather than you?

But I acknowledge it.

That's refreshing for a theist. Par for the course for an atheist.

On the other hand, you are saying that I need to prove to you there is a God.

Only if you want me to believe you.

Which comes back to my original point. If I were able to demonstrate to you there is a God, I would be sitting on a pile of money, because not even the Pope can do that.

No kidding. The Pope is in the same position as you. So is the Ayatollah, the Dalai Lama, and on, and on, and on. You can't all be right, but you CAN all be wrong.