Sur-reality

ah yes but incidently i have a friend who lost thier home due to the fact that they did not even know there was smoke or fire because it was hidden and they did not know that the house was on fire until they were burned. How quaint a discription to bad there is not someone here to use it. Any way i suppose you have seen my other post mageth.

WWSD

But there was a point at which the evidence became undeniable.

Hopefully you won't tell me that the evidence will only become undeniable when I die, as that is an old refrain that carries no weight here.

In fact, only when you die will the evidence that my god exists become undeniable to you.

Kvalhion

The most obvious and most repeated answer to your question is that if you apply the same logic to any other mythical god or thing, you would see how absurd a stance is.

For example, how can you possibly not believe in invisible pink faeries when you have no evidence they don't exist?

Take a look at the world around you. There is simply no compelling reason to believe everything you see is controlled by some mysterious supernatural god. This is exemplified every single day by the random happenings seen around us. Reality is such that no matter what religion you are, no matter what your stature in life, no matter what you believe or disbelieve, reality remains consistent throughout. Horrible things happen to theists and atheists alike. Great things happen to theists and atheists alike. Prayer has been shown to be absolutely worthless in producing results. By realizing this, the existence of gods or pink faeries essentially becomes irrelevant. The only difference is how you decide to perceive reality and how you decide to spend your time being alive.

Sur-reality

Thank you that is my point, at no piont in time can you absolutely prove that faeries don't exist (if you can please tell me). So therefore the definition of atheism is reduced to "well it is highly improbable that god(s) don't exist" and i know that that is not what you hold to be true. So that just leads me back to the question that i originally postedd where is the proof. And would people stop categorizng me incorrectly don't categorize me as a christian but as a skeptic i believe nothing, ina god or in that there is no god i'm just trying to get an opion
never said no to this
that is all

Asha'man

The definition of atheism is "lack of belief in god/gods." Nothing more, nothing less. If you say you don't believe in a god, then you are already an atheist. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Some people make a distinction between "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. The "strong" position is more confident that there are no gods, while the "weak" position merely affirms non-belief.

Fiach

I agree. Atheism in the pure Greek derivation means absence of belief in the existence of god(s). It doesn't say "believe that God doesn't exist." Maybe it would be Antheobiosis (no god lives).

Of course the problem is that God is not defined. God is usually defined as the universe creator. That leaves three possiblities:

1. Anthropomorphic God (Judeo-Christian-Islamic), conscious and cognitive with human personality traits.
2. Conscious god with no human traits, excludes Christianity.
3. Inanimate creator (God) whose purely natural property is to fart out universes periodically.

I find a human god of Christian Mythology with human vices of jealousy, insecurity, narcissism, vindictiveness, hate, rage episodes, absense of mercy or sense of justice, cruelty, and irrational ideation, too absurd to exist. I am a stong athiest regarding the Judeo-Islamic-Christian Giant Human God.

A conscious god with no human traits can make some sense, and here I am an agnostic. I don't deny it, but need some proof.

A purely naturalistic process that produces universes is something that many would like to call God, like Stephen Hawking. I aggree with what it is, and that natural forces made the universe, but I would not like to call it god because of the implied superstiton of god belief.

Fiach

Lobstrosity

Sur-reality, a lack of belief does not require proof. Scientists who currently refuse to believe in a controvercial new theory don't hold those views because they have proved the theory wrong. They hold those views because the proponents of the theory have not provided enough evidence to support their claims. Until such evidence is put forth, people will not assume the accuracy of the theory. That's just common sense.

Think of it this way: there are an infinite number of things that you do not believe in. Most of these you don't even know about because you've never even considered them. You don't fail to believe these things because you have disproved each and every one. That would be stupid. For example, I bet you never considered the possibility that there's a giant yellow box of diapers on Pluto. Furthermore, there is a substantial possiblity that this box of diapers might emit rays that will kill you (just you, not anyone else) in your sleep if you don't give me five dollars. If I were to assert this to you, would you believe it? Would you give me the money just in case? The answer is no, because the scenario doesn't seem likely. You don't fail to believe me because you have proved me wrong. You haven't gone out to Pluto to look for a giant box of diapers. You fail to believe me because I have not proved my assertion to you and logic tells you that the claim is more likely wrong than right, though you can never be completely sure since I set up a scenario that would be completely impossible for you to falsify given that you don't possess the technology to go to Pluto.

The Christian claims about God to me seem as illogical as that deadly box of diapers on Pluto. I have considered the logical arguments both for and against this God and come to the conclusion that the religion is most likely does not possess any accurate understanding of this universe. That's the best justification anyone can do when they refuse to believe something someone else says, especially when the assertions are specifically set up to be unfalsifiable. I will easily change my views if I am given reason to. This reason would come in the form of evidence.

Let me just point out now some of the things you don't believe in and have thus far failed to disprove:

fairies; unicorns; leprechauns; mermaids; invisible lesbian mummies from space; man-eating burritos; and the fact that I am reading your innermost thoughts right at this very moment and I'd like to tell you that you're sick, sick bastard for thinking about such perverse things.

Of course, maybe you actually believe all those things since you haven't yet disproven them, in which case I have a great bridge for sale. It's a real bargain, too!

Sur-reality

Hey where can i get this bridge, is it on e-bay? Point well taken, but it leaves me withthe lingering question what is the difference then between you and an agnostic? All it seems to me is that the two are getting definitely muddled in my book of definitions and would like to have some clarification.

as for proof of god well the best i've had given me is to go take a 45 and blow my head off. Except for the fact that that's rather counter-intuitive. Oh well guess i'll have to wait a while...

One final word: now yes your argument is a good one, we can't really belive in everything (pink bunnies on mars, yellow cosmic diaper boxes on pluto, etc.). On the other hand my problem with atheism is why risk being completly wrong if on the apperent off chance they were right. And so that is why i continue on in my search for a belief (or lack there of) that seems plausible No offense but yours just doesn't cut it with me, oh well.

Oxymoron

To carry on this theme:

4) The existence of atheism is evidence that God exists
5) The Holocaust is evidence that God exists
6) The forced circumcision of women yada yada
7) The number of miscarriages blah blah

If everything is evidence - even the illogical and contradictory stuff - then (paradoxically) nothing is evidence; to see that, simply replace 'God' with 'natural processes are responsible for all that we observe' in your assertion.

Notice that the opposite is not true. If we take the assertion 'everything is evidence that natural processes are responsible for all that we observe', there are no contradictions, because the world is how we might expect it to be if there were no God as others describe.

Asha'man

Technically, I am both an atheist and an agnostic. An atheist is without belief of god(s), and agnostic is without knowledge of god(s).

Again, some people make a distinction between is a "strong" agnostic and a "weak" agnostic. The "strong" position claims that god is unknowable, the "weak" position merely affirms personal lack of knowledge.