A case for positive atheism

[chatpilot]

My experience with most theists I have met is that they make the statement that their God exist as a statement of fact. They don't base this statement on what we as atheists would consider valid evidence but rather on faith (subjective evidence). As far as providing evidence to a non believing atheist who is expecting empirical or objective evidence I believe that this is impossible. When I was a theist I believed that a relationship with god was a personal matter and choice on behalf of the believer.

In fact in the bible it says that even Jesus according to the author of Luke in chapter 9:2,5 stated
2.And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
5.And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

As a Christian your duty was to simply preach the gospel and if the person accepts it fine and if he/she doesn't then fine, you have done your job by simply presenting them with the Word. The bible does not tell you to get into theological arguments and discussions of science and of presenting evidence these are all things that were added on later as an answer to philosophy and science. They were meant to respond to the changes of a new world.
Titus 3:9,10
9.But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
10.A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

[Facejacker]

It's positive but it's just a faith based belief, not a scientific claim.

[Edwardo Piet]

What's science got to do with it?

[fr0d0]

How can you believe in God, but not his existence? Saying 'I believe in God' is equivalent to saying, 'I believe in the existence of God'. That's what most people assume it to mean. What else can it mean?

The scientific quest (should it exist) to discover God is nothing at all to do with belief in him. God's existence is of no importance, and doesn't enter into the question of belief. I'm not believing to make any claims about his existence, but to acknowledge how that belief impacts my life. This 'existence' bears little relation to anything else we can classify, and is defined as 'beyond understanding'... it is therefore futile to spend time on it.

[Facejacker]

Nothing (EvidenceVFaith), that's what I mean. Faith and evidence are mutually exclusive so a faith based statement of opinion requires no evidence since it is entirely unscientific. Your username says it all.

[fr0d0]

Theism of course has the burden of proof because theism positively believes God exists.

What's science got to do with it?

You're suggesting that theism postures observable existence (to your own demands) and therefore bears a burden of proof. Science is all you're allowing for.

[DR7164]

As a Christian your duty was to simply preach the gospel and if the person accepts it fine and if he/she doesn't then fine, you have done your job by simply presenting them with the Word.

That is mature theism. It is people like that who religion has a positive effect on. They let religion *benefit* them and aren't focusing on the wrong things. Too bad that's not always the case :\

[chatpilot]

I know DR7164 but that is not the case at least here in America where theists are trying to force feed their doctrines down the rest of societies throats.

[Minimalist]

Science is all you're allowing for.

Anything else is mere imagination.

[The Omnissiunt One]

You're suggesting that theism postures observable existence (to your own demands) and therefore bears a burden of proof.

It does. It claims that wishes are granted according to prayer, which, if indeed true, should have an observable effect in the world. Prayer has been shown not to do so, in a double blind trial. Theism, or versions of it, also claims that the laws of nature are occasionally suspended, when people visit special holy places, or when they ask for it. No amputee has ever grown back a limb, and never has there been a confirmed miracle with no naturalistic explanation. Admittedly, science has nothing to say about the non-existence of a deist, non-interventionist god, but a theist god has been proven to be either non-existent, arbitrary in his actions, or very ineffectual.