Seriously

[W.Smith]

Seriously. I have joined to find answers to the big questions in life. I cannot believe in anything just because someone says so... and that goes both ways - both by religions and by nonbelievers. For someone to say there must be a God, for how else can we explain the existence of the universe.... or for someone to say there cannot be a God because we cannot prove the existence of such a God... are equally unacceptable! These are just opposite "view points" but with no real substance. I hope by joining this forum that I can have some proper discussions and ideas/feedback from people who are open-minded and serious.

[robvalue]

Hello welcome!

Let me jump right in and say most atheists do not claim there is no God. The general atheist position is that there is no good reason to believe there is a God, yet, given the current information. It's not a claim that the negation, no gods, is true.

Most atheists are agnostic, meaning we don't believe a God does exist, but we don't know for sure whether one does or not. That's being both sceptical and open minded.

You'll find different definitions of "atheist" all over the place, but the one I describe is the most accurate as currently used by atheists.

Someone who claims to know "there is no God" would be a gnostic atheist. This is not a requirement to be an atheist, but rather a further position. The distinction is subtle, and one that many people seemingly cannot grasp (not aiming that at you, just talking from experience).

---

Let me use an example to demonstrate.

There's a huge container of marbles in front of us. It has so many in it that we can't possibly count them. I make the claim to you that there is an even number of marbles in there. I offer no evidence, I just ask you to believe me.

Do you accept my claim? Are you convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the number is even?

The sensible answer is no, you're not convinced. You reject my claim. You have no good reason to just accept that there's an even number.

Notice that by rejecting my claim, you are NOT saying my claim is untrue. You are saying there is not enough evidence, yet, to agree that it IS true. So to reject a claim, you need not declare that it is false. In this example, if you had to also declare the claim was false, you would be in the position of making your own claim that there are in fact an odd number of marbles. Which I hope you can see is absurd.

It's the same with the God claim. Someone claims "God with properties x,y,z... Exists". I reject the claim, because there is no good evidence. I am not saying the claim is false, I'm saying there's no good reason to say yet that it is true.

Atheism and theism are to do with what you believe. Agnosticism and Gnosticism are to do with what you claim to know. These combine to give you four possibilities:

Agnostic theist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist [most atheists!], gnostic atheist.

[Alex K]

or for someone to say there cannot be a God because we cannot prove the existence of such a God...

That statement is logically wrong and I seriously doubt anyone here would say that. Seriously.

[robvalue]

Agreed.

The only time I would make the claim that a god doesn't exist, is in response to a specific claim about the nature of that God. For example, someone claims God is both 50 foot high and 100 foot high, simultaneously. That's not logically possible, so not only do I not believe the claim, I am prepared to make the counter claim that such a God does not exist.

[Aoi Magi]

When you want to talk about god, you would first need to define 'god', and depending on that definition you can verify the claims presented and either accept or reject it. Atheism isn't a positive or negative position by itself, however it does take positive or negative stance based of particular claims.

So if I claim that I believe the Sun to be a god, and I don't claim any supernatural attributes to it. Then it isn't something you can't really disagree with, unless I clarify my criterion for the word 'god'.

But in a general sense, 'god' generally refers to the abrahamic or biblical god, and due to the huge amount of misinformation, contradictions, and verifiable false informations, some atheists would reject that particular god without much consideration.

[Exian]

Welcome....Will?

If a god of some sort does end up existing, it will be a huge coincidence, as all god concepts come from human imagination; not evidence. It is even less likely for that god to share any resemblance with what is described by any/all of the world's religions.

Can you imagine laying around after a relatively easy day of hunting/gathering and coming up with a story about a human or animal-like creator being to explain all of existence, telling your friend, who changes it and tells a friend, who changes it and tells their children, who change it and invent a written language and write it down for the further generations to edit out the bits they don't like for the next generation, and have any of it be accurate? Me neither.

[robvalue]

Yeah, good point, atheism is a general position that every claim we have heard is not supported by evidence. Most atheists would agree to be open to convincing by new evidence, or further claims that can be supported by evidence.

It's just that none have appeared, ever.

[Tonus]

or for someone to say there cannot be a God because we cannot prove the existence of such a God... are equally unacceptable!

I would not say that there cannot be a god, nor would I say that we cannot prove the existence of a god. Humans have theorized and detected neutrinos-- particles so small (trillions of times smaller than an atom) and so ethereal (they pass through solid objects) that their existed was only hypothesized in order to solve the problem of where most of the energy from a supernova went. If we can detect something like that, I don't see why we couldn't detect god if she was there.

And of course, god could make the point moot by actually showing up, as some of his adherents have been warning us will happen any minute now... for the past thousand+ years.

[robvalue]

He could?

Oh yes! I forgot about that possibility.

Indeed he could.

He either doesn't want sceptics to believe in him after giving them a sceptic brain, or he finds this whole thing hilarious. Especially the killing. Or...

[Whateverist]

Welcome Mr. Smith. I applaud your efforts to understand why there are people drawn to hold both of those perspectives.

On the surface it can seem that religion is just a tradition based on a mistake. But that response is probably too glib. Hard atheism also is probably a position that is too much ado about something we consider to be nothing. Most of us here are not hard atheists. But Rhythm in particular can make a pretty compelling case for anti-theism in regards to Christianity.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your own views. There are plenty of soap boxes lying about. Grab anyone of them and have at it.