There is no God.

[archangle]

We don't need to prove the non existence of god/s for sure. We don't need to prove existence either.

If you're telling children that the moon is made of cheese, that they had better believe it is made of cheese or else they'll be condemned to the ovens for eternity, or if you're promoting the general idea that it may be made of cheese but we just can't know and shouldn't trust any observations made by scientists, then the justification is on you to provide sound reasoning for why anyone should not hold you morally accountable for spreading such nonsense. We have every right to marginalize your type in the sphere of public discourse and diminish any effects you may have at misleading more people. That being said, I can wait for you to provide justification, which you never will because you can't, and just ignore the perpetual lies your fellow conspirators tell naive saps, or I can actively argue the case that science leaves no room for any relevant definition of God. The problem with the deist god is not merely that there's no reason to believe it exists and actually reasons to the contrary, the problem is that it is irrelevant to us.

Science always works on proof though, and if shonuff claims that science claims something, anything, then he better be prepared to support that claim with evidence.

Virtually all major fields of science have chipped away at the characteristics of god we were told counted. All that's left standing is an ineffable force, you might as well call it "quantum spiritual energy vibration." I can confidently state there is no such thing because that phrase literally has no meaning in relation to anything actually observed in the real world. Those words all mean something in a specific context. Stringing them together does not illuminate a new concept previously unknown to man. It means next to nothing. Same with "the Godfather." He (the definition that matters, the one generally perceived as an omniscient, omnipotent, omniscient Mind's Eye, the one embraced by BILLIONS around the globe in many different faiths) is antithetical to the universe that we have found ourselves in.

Just trying to help

I hope I could clarify.

I like to be pedantic about this because of the implication of your statement here. What you're defining isn't 'atheism', it's 'antitheism': you're not disbelieving a positive claim in favour of theism, you're making a positive claim in opposition to theism. Antitheism is a subset of atheism but they're not the same thing. Your implication of dishonesty (that atheists are dodging a burden of proof by defining atheism in a particular way) is demonstrably wrong, unjustified and feeds some of the mischaracterisations of atheists which are used by aggressive theists to cause harm to non-believers.

Regarding the Abrahamic gods, I share your antitheism: they're demonstrable nonsense and sharing & popularising that information is a laudable goal. I'd simply ask you, please can you rethink the way you phrase your point so that you avoid giving ammo to theists who would do you harm?

I wholeheartedly embrace the label "anti-theist." I wish more atheists would as I see it to be the only moral and logical response to religious thinking, all things considered. But I reject the claim that I'm portraying atheists as somehow dishonest when they shift the burden of proof back to whom it belongs (the believers). I've stated that much clearly--the burden is not on us, but we also shouldn't simply sit around and wait for theists to try to make their case...they never have and never will, yet so many continue to be deceived. We should, in my opinion, be actively making the case against God, because science gives us a pretty good one.

well, this is bullshit.
You are making a claim that past the knowledge of science.

hey, but maybe your the smartest stupid fucker in the world.

Or maybe you just completely missed the point of science, which is thinking critically and questioning authority, gathering facts and testing theories...none of which leave room for religion other than a thing to study objectively, or the Abrahamic Gods, or pretty much all monotheistic or supreme deities traditionally granted that title.

for axample.
"I believe he is an asshole" (no one in particular just an example)

evidence;
based on thes post, he has no more insight about science than your average butt fucked alter boy.

If that was meant to be some indiscreet shot at me, you can kindly go fuck yourself.

why would you think it was you? I clearly understand science more than little butt fucked atheist like you. You give the rest of us butt fuckers a bad name.

you make a claim, you need evidence shit for pitz. It aint that hard.

[Cato]

[Mudhammam]

why would you think it was you? I clearly understand science more than little butt fucked atheist like you. You give the rest of us butt fuckers a bad name.

you make a claim, you need evidence shit for pitz. It aint that hard.

Claim antithetical to theism: Religion is a cultural phenomenon that evolved like language. Do your research, there's plenty of evidence.

Claim antithetical to theism: Mankind is the result of natural selection, a process that requires no intelligence or forethought, a play between chemicals, from atoms to molecules to organisms, a fight for survival between between genes within vehicles and their surrounding environments. Do your research, there's plenty of evidence.

Claim antithetical to theism: Models in cosmology that purport to explain the origins of the Universe that leave no room for God to act. Do your research, there's plenty of evidence.

[GrandizerII]

---

I treat god the same way I treat a lot of things I do not believe in-- I don't go to any lengths to disprove something that I spent decades searching for and never found, so I live my life as if there are no gods. If someone claims to have found god that's fine. If he can show me this god, that'd be great. If he says god can't be demonstrated that way, then I shrug my shoulders and wonder if there's any peanut butter in the fridge. As long as that guy isn't telling me I have to live by his god's rules, we're good.

We will never disprove god in the sense of being able to search everywhere and say "see? Nothing here!" This past week I watched The Inexplicable Universe with Neil deGrasse Tyson and one of the points he makes repeatedly is that there is a great deal about the universe we simply do not know, and there is a lot we know we don't know, and there is a lot we know we won't know for some time and that we may never know. So there will always be spaces for believers to tuck god into and keep him out of the reach of everyone else.

---

And if one of those gods finally comes out of hiding, I'll become a theist again.

Be careful, it just might be a smart space alien with a bagful of fancy tricks. Gideon was fooled by wet and dry fleece.

If an alien can do that, that's God enough for me.

[ignoramus]

49% of me can't help thinking of this possibility.
"We" are proof that life exists on other planets!

The odds of life not existing on other planets is similar to the odds of a "god" having created us in his image.
It is so close to zero that we need to accept it as an unproven "guess" based on logic.

[Ryantology]

Don't let him off the hook. He made a claim.

Otherwise you will look incredibly hypocritical asking for empirical evidence for anything from now on.

The problem for theists is that they are not just making one claim. Theists, as a rule, believe in specific gods rather than gods in general. In the case of Christianity, they further make the claim that there is only one true god. So, in addition to meeting the burden of proving your god's existence, you have to prove that all competing gods don't. That compounds the burden of proof for any positive theist claims, and makes the theist position weaker than a positive atheist claim by orders of magnitude.

Gods appear to be one of the only things which are nonexistent according to any objective measure, yet we're not supposed to claim there are none. We can do this with leprechauns and unicorns and nobody bats an eye. We can say that there isn't an invisible planet between Earth and Mars and the fact that there's no evidence of any planet in this area is considered sufficient enough to make a positive claim about it.

If after the entirety of human civilization 0% of god claims produce anything of even the tiniest substance, it should be okay to make the claim that they aren't there, especially when theists hold the conceit that they don't have to prove any of their claims.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

49% of me can't help thinking of this possibility.
"We" are proof that life exists on other planets!

The odds of life not existing on other planets is similar to the odds of a "god" having created us in his image.
It is so close to zero that we need to accept it as an unproven "guess" based on logic.

Suppose life is discovered on Mars or on the outer moons. How would such discoveries affect your position?

[ignoramus]

My position?
I'd be absolutely horrified if there's no life on other planets?

With all the infinite time and space, the odds have to approach 100%

[Ben Davis]

---

I like to be pedantic about this because of the implication of your statement here. What you're defining isn't 'atheism', it's 'antitheism': you're not disbelieving a positive claim in favour of theism, you're making a positive claim in opposition to theism. Antitheism is a subset of atheism but they're not the same thing. Your implication of dishonesty (that atheists are dodging a burden of proof by defining atheism in a particular way) is demonstrably wrong, unjustified and feeds some of the mischaracterisations of atheists which are used by aggressive theists to cause harm to non-believers.

Regarding the Abrahamic gods, I share your antitheism: they're demonstrable nonsense and sharing & popularising that information is a laudable goal. I'd simply ask you, please can you rethink the way you phrase your point so that you avoid giving ammo to theists who would do you harm?

---

I wholeheartedly embrace the label "anti-theist." I wish more atheists would as I see it to be the only moral and logical response to religious thinking, all things considered. But I reject the claim that I'm portraying atheists as somehow dishonest when they shift the burden of proof back to whom it belongs (the believers). I've stated that much clearly--the burden is not on us, but we also shouldn't simply sit around and wait for theists to try to make their case...they never have and never will, yet so many continue to be deceived. We should, in my opinion, be actively making the case against God, because science gives us a pretty good one.

And that's the point, isn't it. Anti-theism is a positive claim which has a burden of proof and you respond to that burden by using rebuttals of theistic claims (e.g. biblical historical claims vs archaeological evidence, religious 'omni' claims vs logical absolutes). Atheists are not being dishonest when shifting the burden of proof back but if you hold an antitheistic position and do the same, that is dishonest. By then trying to classify all atheists as antitheists, you mischaracterise the atheists position on burdens of proof. That can be dangerous as it lets theists accuse atheists of being dishonest. Does that make sense?

[vodkafan]

Claim antithetical to theism: Religion is a cultural phenomenon that evolved like language. Do your research, there's plenty of evidence.

Claim antithetical to theism: Mankind is the result of natural selection, a process that requires no intelligence or forethought, a play between chemicals, from atoms to molecules to organisms, a fight for survival between between genes within vehicles and their surrounding environments. Do your research, there's plenty of evidence.

Claim antithetical to theism: Models in cosmology that purport to explain the origins of the Universe that leave no room for God to act. Do your research, there's plenty of evidence.

That seems to clear that up. Next?