Happy Atheist Forum

Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

Sorry, but....No.

My position is simply from a lack of belief, I make no positive claims.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

It's good to see you here again, angelosergipe.  

For me, atheism is the null hypothesis, religion (or theism of any variety) is the alternative hypothesis. Since there has been no evidence which I consider at all convincing (and certainly no proof) for the alternative hypothesis, I'm content to endorse the null hypothesis. Considering your posting history here, I think that most likely you take the opposite stance. The thing is, I don't have any stake in convincing you to change your mind.  As long as religion is willing to live and let live by not trying to impose its views on the rest of us, I have no problem with it or its practitioners.  

As for explaining our existence, I think that science is making remarkable headway on that front; describing the universe we inhabit, and how we as a species most likely arose on this planet. So far, there has been no unequivocal evidence of a deity of any sort discovered by the explorations of science.  Those who have made assertions to the contrary have almost all turned out to be pushing an agenda, rather than following evidence impartially.

I'm not going to ask you to witness for your faith, but neither am I going to attempt to justify my lack of faith to you.  I guess all this comes down to is a long winded way of stating, "What she said."  

Prayers have no effect, and God didn't create us, rather we evolved without a plan. This does not disprove a Deistic God but it does disprove the Abrahamic God.

why is it up to me to prove that something you claim is not true?
do you think it's up to you to prove that bigfoot isn't real?

Quote from: "Whitney"Sorry, but....No.

My position is simply from a lack of belief, I make no positive claims.

http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god (http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god)

 after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment.  In other words, a position is taken.  This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness.  To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired.  This is agnosticism, not atheism.  It is an admission that not all information is acquired, thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered.  This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this.  Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think?  Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility?  Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity?  Would you request evidence for it?  Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl?  Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.  Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it.  We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical.  It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection.  It is our nature to do this.  We don't do nothing with information.

Quote from: "Sophus"Prayers have no effect.

How do you KNOW ?

I have received a LOT of prayers responded.......

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Sophus"Prayers have no effect.

How do you KNOW ?

I have received a LOT of prayers responded.......

Faith of a mustard seed can move mountains.
Ask and ye shall receive.
My grandparents are as faithful a pair as any on the earth.  They have prayed for years over my little brother that God heal his Celiac Sprue (gluten intolerance disorder).  He still has Celiac Sprue.  Can't eat bread.  No healing.  Too many of my own prayers when I was Christian... I asked and did not receive.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment. In other words, a position is taken. This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness. To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism. It is an admission that not all information is acquired, thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered. This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this. Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think? Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility? Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity? Would you request evidence for it? Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl? Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it. Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it. We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical. It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection. It is our nature to do this. We don't do nothing with information.

Somehow I think I've seen this argument.  As far as I'm concerned, the "lack of belief" defense is certainly more logical and defensible considering the preponderance of evidence than belief in the supernatural.  I agree with previous posters.  It's not my job to prove to you that gods do not exist.  The burden of belief and faith is on you.  I don't care if you choose to believe in gods.  I just care if my right to the knowledge of non-existence is infringed upon.

I won't say that I don't have to explain my lack of belief, because even though atheists do not have the burden of proof regarding the existence of a creator, by definition alone, those of faith tend to see that as a victory somehow...and I am reminded of this:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F30.media.tumblr.com%2Favatar_3e5edbdb68f9_128.png&hash=d1a8d911a57b191d89dd1847a51c90c464a8764b)

I think the most impressive "evidence for atheism" is the fact atheists can present something like Recusant has stated above (great post, and I agree). The only "proof" for god I have ever heard has been "We are here, aren't we??? You atheists think we came from nothing??? How arrogant! There has to be a God!" and more archaically (and this example I will not apply to the more  enlightened religious "The Bible/Koran/etc says the Lord/whatever else is alive today!!!!!!!!". These are lifeless, stale arguments that cannot be falsified, prove nothing whatsoever, and while answering the world's questions in one fell swoop, fail to actually answer anything.

Taking the stance of the null hypothesis allows for living, breathing, falsifiable observations that can change, and are not rigid. Science can tell us very concrete things about how life operates, and we should believe them if they have enough evidence, but science always keeps one eye open, so to speak, for evidence against. Suspending judgment about the creation of the universe as we know it is careful and in my opinion more exciting than asserting I know the answer without any sound evidence.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Whitney"Sorry, but....No.

My position is simply from a lack of belief, I make no positive claims.

http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god (http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god)

 after being exposed to a concept, a decision is made about that concept even if it is to withhold judgment.  In other words, a position is taken.  This is not the same as going back to a state of unawareness.  To suspend belief on a subject is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired.  This is agnosticism, not atheism.  It is an admission that not all information is acquired, thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered.  This is something atheists do not do by definition; rather, agnostics do this.  Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired.

If I said there was an ice cream factory on Jupiter, what would you think?  Would you entertain the idea as a serious possibility?  Would you quickly dismiss it as an outlandish absurdity?  Would you request evidence for it?  Or, did you suddenly have a desire to go to Jupiter for some Jupiterian Swirl?  Of course, an ice-cream factory on Jupiter is ridiculous, and we automatically know this so we naturally make a judgment on it.  Thus, we cannot remain in a state of lack of belief concerning the concept once we've been introduced to it.  We assign it to the that-is-ridiculous category.

This is why the "lack of belief" defense we hear from atheists is not logical.  It ignores the reality that people categorize concepts anywhere in the range of total acceptance to total rejection.  It is our nature to do this.  We don't do nothing with information.

Please read the forum rules.  If you aren't using your own words they must be displayed in quotations, a random link isn't sufficient.  Also, if you aren't going to address the membership in your own words then I am going to assume you don't respect us enough to actually participate; which is uncivil.  Please reconsider how you are approaching your attempts to save us, so far not good.  This is a friendly rules reminder; further reminders will be warnings.

If you post in your own words I will respond in detail...for now I'll just say that your response fails as I can consider any random idea you come up with to be absurd up until the point you prove that it is not.

Positve evidence for atheism: People not believing in a god or gods is my positive evidence for atheism.

Citing Matt Slick is a terrible idea. If you want to have a rational discussion, take everything you've learned from Matt Slick and use it as an example of what not to do.

Quote from: "Davin"Positve evidence for atheism: People not believing in a god or gods is my positive evidence for atheism.

Much along these lines. My evidence is me. I have no belief in any gods therefore I am evidence and actually proof that at least one person is an Atheist therfore Atheism exists.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

I think the more important question here is why you want to be convinced. I have the suspicion that this post is entirely self serving. I don’t think you really want to find truth I think you want to be given opportunities to exploit gaps or contradictions in the opposing argument. You see, a question like this, from a truly religious person is only fuel for their own religion. The more important question is what would it take for you to let go of your faith of the supernatural? How far out into the cosmos would we have to see? How small are the subatomic particles that we would have to detect before you could say, ok I’m ready to let go of my faith. Under a certain religious mindset no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them they could easily say that god created the evidence, either to fool you or that whatever evidence science finds is evidence of gods full range of power to create the cosmos in ever smaller and ever larger degrees into infinity. If you take the counter to this argument a person fully committed to scientific explanation would look at evidence of god in this way as well. Any religious miracle, such as Jesus healing blindness, to the scientific mind would immediately be viewed with skepticism. A truly scientific mind would immediately want to know the biological or chemical cause and purpose of such an anomaly. On the surface this miracle appears to be magic, but to the scientific mind it’s another problem to be solved. So before I entertain this question, and give your argument any potential fuel. I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

Quote from: "Twentythree"I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

 

Quote from: "Twentythree"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

I think the more important question here is why you want to be convinced. I have the suspicion that this post is entirely self serving. I don’t think you really want to find truth I think you want to be given opportunities to exploit gaps or contradictions in the opposing argument. You see, a question like this, from a truly religious person is only fuel for their own religion. The more important question is what would it take for you to let go of your faith of the supernatural? How far out into the cosmos would we have to see? How small are the subatomic particles that we would have to detect before you could say, ok I’m ready to let go of my faith. Under a certain religious mindset no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them they could easily say that god created the evidence, either to fool you or that whatever evidence science finds is evidence of gods full range of power to create the cosmos in ever smaller and ever larger degrees into infinity. If you take the counter to this argument a person fully committed to scientific explanation would look at evidence of god in this way as well. Any religious miracle, such as Jesus healing blindness, to the scientific mind would immediately be viewed with skepticism. A truly scientific mind would immediately want to know the biological or chemical cause and purpose of such an anomaly. On the surface this miracle appears to be magic, but to the scientific mind it’s another problem to be solved. So before I entertain this question, and give your argument any potential fuel. I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

Well, since we, theists are frequently asked to provide evidence for our faith, i think the same has to be asked to atheists as well. So do you have any evidence to present, that makes a good case for atheism ?

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Well, since we, theists are frequently asked to provide evidence for our faith, i think the same has to be asked to atheists as well. So do you have any evidence to present, that makes a good case for atheism ?

Easy: there is no evidence for a god, theists just have faith (defined as strongly believing in things without evidence), so the case for not accepting that there is a god (atheism) is because there is no reason to even posite that there is a god.

If all the holy books were lost, and everyone forgot about religions altogether, how would humanity come to your conclusion of your version of god?

Because given that all science was forgotten, all scientific research/books/papers were lost, I can explain how people will come to the same conclusions on various theories (not all of them because I've not done enough research into all of them).

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Twentythree"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

I think the more important question here is why you want to be convinced. I have the suspicion that this post is entirely self serving. I don’t think you really want to find truth I think you want to be given opportunities to exploit gaps or contradictions in the opposing argument. You see, a question like this, from a truly religious person is only fuel for their own religion. The more important question is what would it take for you to let go of your faith of the supernatural? How far out into the cosmos would we have to see? How small are the subatomic particles that we would have to detect before you could say, ok I’m ready to let go of my faith. Under a certain religious mindset no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them they could easily say that god created the evidence, either to fool you or that whatever evidence science finds is evidence of gods full range of power to create the cosmos in ever smaller and ever larger degrees into infinity. If you take the counter to this argument a person fully committed to scientific explanation would look at evidence of god in this way as well. Any religious miracle, such as Jesus healing blindness, to the scientific mind would immediately be viewed with skepticism. A truly scientific mind would immediately want to know the biological or chemical cause and purpose of such an anomaly. On the surface this miracle appears to be magic, but to the scientific mind it’s another problem to be solved. So before I entertain this question, and give your argument any potential fuel. I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

Well, since we, theists are frequently asked to provide evidence for our faith, i think the same has to be asked to atheists as well. So do you have any evidence to present, that makes a good case for atheism ?

I want you to go disprove, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Abominable Snow Man, Goku and Galactus.

So let's start, in order to do that, you will likely have to scour the entire universe for at least Galactus, find remnants of Planet Vegeta for Goku in addition to seven mystical Dragon Balls, explore every nook and cranny of both the south and north pole as well as Antartica for both the Snow Man and Santa, probably Greenland and Canada as well or any other place that gets bad snow. As for the Tooth Fairy, I couldn't tell you where to begin, now GO!!

Sounds absurd right? Even if you had the means to explore the entire universe in your tiny lifetime, it would still be asburd to attempt to find any of this, for one, it all has come from humans who believe a few of these beings may be real. Despite all of their absurdity and any attempt to prove that they don't exist is even more absurd. Now you want us to provide evidence that a being who is omnipotent, source of "goodness" and supposedly defies logic and all the other silly contradictions applied to the abrahamic god?

I apologize if you find this offensive but that is even more absurd than trying to find Galactus, at least he doesn't claim to be omnipotent, the source of all good then creates evil while still claiming to be good and omnipotent. -_-

There is a reason the burden of proof always falls on those who are trying to prove a negative. You can prove that John Bunyan didn't exist by looking at every bit of substance that may or may not credit his origin but it would be ridiculous to do a manhunt for John Bunyan because when you don't find him on Earth, how do we know he is not in space? Are we going to explore the entire universe looking for John Bunyan?

Are you suggesting Atheists jump in the USS Enterprise and explore the universe, on a quest to find God?

Quote from: "Ulver"

Quote from: "Twentythree"I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

 :pop:

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Sophus"Prayers have no effect.

How do you KNOW ?

I have received a LOT of prayers responded.......

Because there have been I don't know how many studies done on prayer. It never makes what is being prayed for more probable to occur. In one case they actually had a negative effect on the patients being prayed for because there was added psychological pressure for them to get better.

When McQ noted that angel had been banned before I took a look at the logs.  I don't think we banned him (at least the logs don't show it) but he did get two warnings for exactly the same thing I gave him a friendly reminder for:

QuoteWhitney    Mon 04 Jan, 2010 9:18 am    The following warning was issued to this user
» This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=57008#p57008 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=57008#p57008) .
same reason as before    

QuoteWhitney   Sun 03 Jan, 2010 2:59 pm    The following warning was issued to this user
» This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=2&p=56874#p56874 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=56874#p56874) .

You cannot copy paste huge chunks of text as your own without putting it in quotes and providing a link to the original source. Linking to the forum that links to the original source is not acceptable. This is called plagiarism and is not only against HAF rules but is intellectually dishonest.

So, we obviously will not be going easy on further moderation and after researching his internet history of being banned elsewhere have decided he belongs in the restricted group.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"

Quote from: "Twentythree"

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

I think the more important question here is why you want to be convinced. I have the suspicion that this post is entirely self serving. I don’t think you really want to find truth I think you want to be given opportunities to exploit gaps or contradictions in the opposing argument. You see, a question like this, from a truly religious person is only fuel for their own religion. The more important question is what would it take for you to let go of your faith of the supernatural? How far out into the cosmos would we have to see? How small are the subatomic particles that we would have to detect before you could say, ok I’m ready to let go of my faith. Under a certain religious mindset no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to them they could easily say that god created the evidence, either to fool you or that whatever evidence science finds is evidence of gods full range of power to create the cosmos in ever smaller and ever larger degrees into infinity. If you take the counter to this argument a person fully committed to scientific explanation would look at evidence of god in this way as well. Any religious miracle, such as Jesus healing blindness, to the scientific mind would immediately be viewed with skepticism. A truly scientific mind would immediately want to know the biological or chemical cause and purpose of such an anomaly. On the surface this miracle appears to be magic, but to the scientific mind it’s another problem to be solved. So before I entertain this question, and give your argument any potential fuel. I’d like for you to explain you motives and convince me, that you are here out of genuine curiosity and are not just poking the bear.

Well, since we, theists are frequently asked to provide evidence for our faith, i think the same has to be asked to atheists as well. So do you have any evidence to present, that makes a good case for atheism ?

Male bovine excrement, this is. You are the one making a positive claim of something existing without proof. The burden of proof does not lie with the people calling you out on it.

How do you people not understand this??

My evidence is scientific progress, and your complete lack of evidence for your positive claim.

Not sure why I bothered to respond to this.... Trying to get a theist to understand this point is about as futile as trying to keep a dog from licking his balls.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"This is agnosticism, not atheism.

Atheism is agnosticism.

You don't believe in Odin, ruler of the Norse gods, right? That's analogous to my opinion of your god. And the Jewish god. And Allah. And Shiva. And every god.

If atheism is the lack of belief in gods because of the lack of evidence, then positive evidence for atheism would be the lack of evidence of gods.

I think that sums it up for me.

There's really a major difference between not accepting theistic "evidence-based" claims for whatever reason and saying something such as "there are no conceivable versions of god(s)", for which I doubt anybody can present positive evidence.

Here is my "proof".

I grew up Catholic and I was very religious for most of my life. I went to Church every Sunday, I went to Sunday school, I attended summer "church camps" (which were Baptist, actually. I went with some Baptist friends) I believed, hook line and sinker. I prayed daily, read the bible daily. I remember at one of these "church camps" I prayed and felt moved to tears by "the spirit" and I was convinced. As I got older I even tried to "minister" to one of my Gay, openly agnostic friends.

I did everything right. I hung around with equally religious people, I followed all of the "rules" (no pre-marital sex, etc). But as I got older, I started to feel my faith slipping away. It terrified me because I "knew" that non-believers were destined for hell. I prayed so hard that God would give me back my faith that had made me feel so secure. At one youth group event that I went to, our leaders had us write letters to God, which they would burn to "send up to God". We were to write what we wanted for our lives, what we wanted God to do for us. I wrote that the only thing I wanted was to have my strong, un-questioning faith back. I waited. I prayed. And it kept slipping away.

When I turned 18 I got a tattoo of a cross on my back as a final desperate act. Maybe if I "proved" how devoted I was (or wanted to be), God would come back. I got the stupid tattoo. Kept praying. And NOTHING HAPPENED.

Do you know why? Because there is no God! I find it kind of embarrassing to talk about all of this now, because it seems so silly to me. I was so miserable, I was trying so, so hard (I was talking to myself and wasting so much energy).

But, from a religious perspective, what possible reason could there be for God to "not answer my prayers"? I wasn't praying for vanity, or to re-grow a limb, I was praying for faith. Why would God deny someone belief when he "loves" us so much and knows we'll go to hell without it?

He didn't deny me. He wasn't there. And my life got a million times happier when I realized that.

Positive, eh..?

Ok.

One can see or hear no god unless one has schizophrenia, which is no more divine than a chemical imbalance.

One can come in deliberate physical contact with no god.

One can find good, verifiable evidence of not a single god.

Thus, one should really consider worshipping Atheos the Ungodly.

These are positive statements, yes?

Quote from: "DeterminedJuliet"Here is my "proof".

I grew up Catholic and I was very religious for most of my life. I went to Church every Sunday, I went to Sunday school, I attended summer "church camps" (which were Baptist, actually. I went with some Baptist friends) I believed, hook line and sinker. I prayed daily, read the bible daily. I remember at one of these "church camps" I prayed and felt moved to tears by "the spirit" and I was convinced. As I got older I even tried to "minister" to one of my Gay, openly agnostic friends.

I did everything right. I hung around with equally religious people, I followed all of the "rules" (no pre-marital sex, etc). But as I got older, I started to feel my faith slipping away. It terrified me because I "knew" that non-believers were destined for hell. I prayed so hard that God would give me back my faith that had made me feel so secure. At one youth group event that I went to, our leaders had us write letters to God, which they would burn to "send up to God". We were to write what we wanted for our lives, what we wanted God to do for us. I wrote that the only thing I wanted was to have my strong, un-questioning faith back. I waited. I prayed. And it kept slipping away.

When I turned 18 I got a tattoo of a cross on my back as a final desperate act. Maybe if I "proved" how devoted I was (or wanted to be), God would come back. I got the stupid tattoo. Kept praying. And NOTHING HAPPENED.

Do you know why? Because there is no God! I find it kind of embarrassing to talk about all of this now, because it seems so silly to me. I was so miserable, I was trying so, so hard (I was talking to myself and wasting so much energy).

But, from a religious perspective, what possible reason could there be for God to "not answer my prayers"? I wasn't praying for vanity, or to re-grow a limb, I was praying for faith. Why would God deny someone belief when he "loves" us so much and knows we'll go to hell without it?

He didn't deny me. He wasn't there. And my life got a million times happier when I realized that.

Quite the story! Whatever became of the tattoo?

Quote from: "Ulver"Quite the story! Whatever became of the tattoo?

I still have it. It's kind of a black cross "pattern" that I came up with, so when you first look at it, it's not completely obvious to everyone that it's a cross (some people say it looks like a compass ). And it's on my back, so it doesn't bother me too much. I am looking to getting it covered up sometime, though. I'm just not sure if it's possible, or what I'd like to get it covered up with.  

But yes, boys and girls, let this be a lesson. Don't get religious tattoos out of desperation!  

I feel that alot of people get confused as to the meaning of the term Atheist.

Atheist means a person who lacks a belief in God.
This is different to a person who believes that there is no God.

They both fall under the umbrella of Atheism because the person who believes that there is no God also lacks a belief in God.

So a clear definition is Hard Atheism and Weak Atheism.
I feel you would be justified in asking a Hard Atheist for proof in their belief.

A weak Atheist has no belief, so they do not make a claim to having any evidence one way or the other for or against gods in general.

In my opinion it is rediculous to expect evidence against gods in general when there is no clear definition of the term "god". Some specific religions ascribe very generic, untestable definitions. e.g. the creator of the Universe. What woud be the test for that? We can't go back 14 billion years and watch how our Universes expansion cycle began, even if we could, would we be able to see that this non material, invisible, undetectible god just decided to create it?

Stevil writes,

"So a clear definition is Hard Atheism and Weak Atheism.
I feel you would be justified in asking a Hard Atheist for proof in their belief."

But would you feel equally justified in asking the Hard Atheist for proof that Quetzalcoatl doen't exist?

Respectfully, I suggest you give some thought to your answer for the next question might ask you to justify why one god is more credible than the other.

May I point out also that only EVIDENCE is being asked for in support of atheism. That is all one could ask in this context. PROOF of a Hard Atheist's conviction is impossible. Proof is something that science doesn't deal in.

Extropian

Will writes,

               "Atheism is agnosticism."

               In fact the two are quite different.

               The agnostic believes that nothing can be known or will ever be known about gods, so speculation as to any god's existence is futile.

               The atheist has no belief in gods and lives his life as though no gods exist but is open to evidence of gods. This has been regarded as a "weak" position by comparison with the "strong" position which takes a step further by averring that no gods exist, never have and never will...........that gods exist only in the minds of Homo sapiens sapiens and nowhere else. The Universe and all existence has been for eternity and will be for eternity unalloyed by the supernatural.

               Rather than "Strong Atheism", I'd rather describe this as "positive atheism".

Extropian

Quote from: "Extropian"But would you feel equally justified in asking the Hard Atheist for proof that Quetzalcoatl doen't exist?

If one states that they believe Quetzalcoatl does not exist (Even a blanket statement that they believe that no gods exist, which would infer that they believe that Quetzalcoatl does not exist) then it is not unreasonable for someone else to ask for proof. One could then respond, "It's a belief, it has nothing to do with proof or evidence"
That would be an honest answer.

Quote from: "Extropian"Respectfully, I suggest you give some thought to your answer for the next question might ask you to justify why one god is more credible than the other.

I have no belief in any gods. How could I possibly rank credibility of that which I have no belief?

Quote from: "Extropian"May I point out also that only EVIDENCE is being asked for in support of atheism.

There's not a lot of difference in my opinion with regards to evidence or proof.
Some people could call anything evidence as long as someone is using it to substantiate the case that they are arguing.
If it doesn't substantiate then I would down grade it from evidence to merely unrelated.

Evidence for atheism hmmmm.

The multitude of consistently adapting and contradictory institutionalised superstitions. Should there be such a thing as a God I would expect that all theists would worship the same one. The fact that they don't is, for me, adequate evidence that there is no real God(s).

Proof for or against the existence of God (by any common definition) is impossible.  We can't rule out the possibility that an intelligent entity created the universe or multiverse.  All we can say is that many of us who don't accept the teachings of any organized religion have honestly looked at the evidence and have concluded that 1) it's very unlikely, and 2) it's even more unlikely that such a God would put any premium on whether or not one believes in Him.  Nothing in the world is provable, when you come down to it, unless you start with certain postulates.  It's all a matter of probabilities.  An objective observer would say, in my opinion, that the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe is small (but not zero), and that the chances that any one religion has it right are even smaller (very damn close to zero).

Positive evidence for the non-existence of gods.

In science, answers tend to converge towards a single theory. This is what happens when people study things that really exist. What's more, the convergence often happens on several unrelated fronts, with multiple lines of inquiry pointing towards a single answer. This is what you get when facts weed out fantasy.

This does not happen when people study gods and other imaginary things. What happens then is that you have a divergence of answers as people are free to make whatever claims they like without the worry that any actual facts might intrude and show them to be wrong. The sheer number of different religions in the world places gods squarely in the Imaginary category.

This observation constitutes positive evidence for the non-existence of gods. Is it a slam-dunk? Of course not, but it satisfies the request.

There, that was easy.

Quote from: "angelosergipe"Please present positive evidence that atheism is true. No bible bashing, but   rational , logical , compelling arguments, better atheist arguments than theist ones,  to explain our existence.

If Atheists exist, then Atheism is true... And the most positive answer I can give you is that Christianity is either the worshiping of a Volcano, or the worshiping of Pantheism.. To put this bluntly, Christians don't even know what it is that they are worshiping. So volcano GOD is laughable, and Pantheism GOD is just stupid "/.. And those are the max extremes you can go on either side of the coin. So lets put this into perspective:

1) Atheists don't worship Volcanoes as GOD's... Yes Volcanoes exist, so in that sense the Christian GOD exists, and there are many of them.. Unless you want to call Moses a liar

2) Atheists don't worship Pantheism.. AKA existence itself and the entire sum total of.. Yes existence exists, but why worship it? That would be like worshiping yourself, or that pile of dog shit you stepped in.

Quote from: "TheJackel"...Pantheism GOD is just stupid...

...Atheists don't worship Pantheism.. AKA existence itself and the entire sum total of.. Yes existence exists, but why worship it? That would be like worshiping yourself, or that pile of dog shit you stepped in.

I beg to differ on the first point.  I think that pantheism is one of the more understandable and reasonable forms of theism.  If I were ever to adopt theism, that would probably be the form that it would take.
I would be in good company with Spinoza and Einstein.

Yes, I think that part of pantheism is understanding that you and the universe really aren't two different things, so  you share in the divine nature of the universe.  Whether or not you choose to worship the universe (and yourself as part of it) does not affect whether you're a pantheist. One may also be a pantheist who simply acknowledges the universe as divine.

I think I'd like to add that agnosticism is, itself, an incomplete position. It refers, by its roots, to a lack (a) of knowledge (gnos).

Atheism, on the other hand, is a term that operates on a separate axis (think of the old D&D alignment system, which consists of a dual axis -- law/chaos, and good/evil)

In older editions, a D&D character was not simply "lawful" or "good." They were defined on both axes, because each was a measure of a different type of quality.

Likewise, there are two forms of understanding: knowledge and belief. Therefore, we must ask two questions of a person in order to grasp their position on the matter of God.

1) Do you know whether there is a god of any kind? (My answer is "no," and I am, therefore, agnostic)
2) Do you believe that there exists a god of any kind? (My answer is, again, "no," simply because I have no knowledge of God and will not make assumptions in the absence of knowledge. Lacking belief in God makes me an atheist)

Thus, we find that I am an "agnostic atheist." With this term, I cover the fact that I don't know whether God is real, as well as the fact that I don't assume (believe) that he is real. It entails a reality in which I base my values and judgments on what can be observed or measured. As God cannot be reliably measured or observed, and reality, as I know it, refuses to demonstrate the reality of the claim that God exists, I will not assume he's real, while admitting to the technicality that I do not possess demonstrable knowledge on the matter, mainly because he cannot be disproved.

This is also my stance on unicorns if you were wondering.

EDIT: Looking back, it appears as though Extropian sort of covered this point already. Oh, well. Further reinforcement.

On prayer: I'd put it this way: a prayer is kinda like the swig of alcohol that you'd get from a st. bernard in a blizzard. Some of you might remember this paticular myth being tackeled by the (in)famous Mythbusters. Basicly they noticed that the alcohol will exhilerate your blood folw in the outer veins (the ones that go through you hands, legs, etc), while leaving less warm blood to flow inside (for those who didn't know: when your in a cold enverioment, your blood will lessen it's flow in these outer veins, and concentrate on your innards so that they won't freeze). Basicly it's a psychological trick to make you think that you just got warmer and are able to move a little further, even though now the cold can attack your innards and once the effect of the alcohol wears out, your even deeper in the swamp.
With prayer, you achieve this same kind of "warm feeling", but with out the physical effect. It's the same kind of psychological trick to make you feel better and think that you can go on a little longer or "heal", while actually getting little to no actual help.

And as for evidence:
"Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof", as they say. The theist are making a claim of divine being(s) that, for example, have created the world and all in it within a specified amount of time, that can be found from writing theist consider "holy". The athesits simply do not believe or accept these claims. They do not make a counter claim, and try to prove something that by defenition is unprovable as it is a matter of faith, but simply choose not to believe in these divine beings defined by theists.

Stevil writes,
Atheist means a person who lacks a belief in God.
This is different to a person who believes that there is no God.

They both fall under the umbrella of Atheism because the person who believes that there is no God also lacks a belief in God.

So a clear definition is Hard Atheism and Weak Atheism.
I feel you would be justified in asking a Hard Atheist for proof in their belief.

OK, let's look at this from a slightly different perspective.   

Kindly indulge my invoking your likely response as I proceed.

We both see POSITIVE ATHEISM as a claim and a positive assertion. My experience in other fora advises that you see this positive claim in the same light as a theist's positive claim that a god exists and therefore it follows that each assertion requires compelling evidence.

But although I am asserting positively I am not asserting gods do not exist. I assert they all exist solely as figments of human imagination encompassed in a realm styled the supernatural. I am asserting that gods do exist but in a realm where science can deal with them.

It follows then, that positive atheism is not exactly the other side of the coin and equal in probability or certainty with theism. But it is an inevitable consequence of all gods being a figment of human imagination that no gods exist elsewhere. It is an inevitable, logical, natural consequence and not one consciously sought after or contrived.

This atheistic cosmic outlook is advantaged twice over theism. [1] It is favoured by Ockham's Razor. [2] It is open to scientific falsification.

I offer my regrets if I have misinterpreted you in any way.

As a trivial aside and with the greatest respect, may I point to an error in the following?...........

(Even a blanket statement that they believe that no gods exist, which would infer that they believe that Quetzalcoatl does not exist)
A speaker, a writer or an independent entity IMPLIES something [in this case "a blanket statement that they believe that no gods exist"].
An audience or a reader INFERS something from the implication.
At my age, I bear the brand of insufferable pedant with an indifferent stoicism.
Biggles, Prime

Wilson writes,

An objective observer would say, in my opinion, that the chances of the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe is small (but not zero), and that the chances that any one religion has it right are even smaller (very damn close to zero).

Would you please justify your assertion that one chance is greater than the other?

IOW, I'd like to know why you differentiate them...........why is a supernatural creator more credible than the chance of any particular religion having it right?

Recusant writes,
                     I beg to differ on the first point. I think that pantheism is one of the more understandable and reasonable forms of theism. If I were ever to adopt theism, that would probably be the form that it would take.
I would be in good company with Spinoza and Einstein.                      
                     
                      I beg to differ concerning your categorisation of Albert Einstein.
                           
                     I would attribute to him a kind of romanticised and poetic deism. In many of his quotations he refers to God clearly as a metaphore in that He is described as subtle but not malicious, that He eschews playing dice with the Universe etc. Elsewhere Einstein describes an illimitable superior spirit and uses other similar terms.
                   
                    "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
                             
                    "At any rate, I am convinced that He [God] does not play dice."  In a letter to Max Born, 1926
                           
                    "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
                             
                    "Each of us visits this Earth involuntarily, and without an invitation. For me, it is enough to wonder at the secrets."
                             
                   "To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive forms--this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men."

IMHO, he should be seen as tending to deify that great amount of knowledge that was beyond him, that he barely perceived but knew was there. He dwelt in his later years quite frequently on his perceived frail and feeble mind and how he regretted the limitations he suffered because he felt his mind to be incapable of the Great Task he saw in the future.
                           
His way of thinking so reminds me of the seemingly ingenuous observation of Isaac Newton...............

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me." Isaac Newton, From Brewster, Memoirs of Newton (1855) English mathematician & physicist (1642 - 1727)
                           
..............and Newton was an Arian, a fatal heretical sin in the christian eyes of his day.

Numerous other quotes from Einstein supporting my opinion may be found at;
http://www.quoteworld.org/authors/albert-einstein/1/

Extropian

I note that my most recent posts received a minus on the kudos scale.

May one ask who allocates kudos and why my posts were so awarded?

It seems when asked to argue in support of assertions with evidence and reason, some members flee the topic. Is my questioning so outrageous?

A genuine response would be much appreciated.

Extropian

Quote from: Extropian on May 05, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

May one ask who allocates kudos and why my posts were so awarded?

A genuine response would be much appreciated.

My genuine guess... it could have been your continued use of the horrid quoting style you continue to use. It's just hard to read, man.

What I know for sure is I did not give you a minus.

Quote from: hismikeness on May 05, 2011, 03:31:18 AM

Quote from: Extropian on May 05, 2011, 01:32:44 AM

May one ask who allocates kudos and why my posts were so awarded?

A genuine response would be much appreciated.

My genuine guess... it could have been your continued use of the horrid quoting style you continue to use. It's just hard to read, man.

What I know for sure is I did not give you a minus.

I didn't do it either....I don't even read posts that aren't formatted correctly.

Quote from: Extropian on May 02, 2011, 05:56:13 AM
Recusant writes,
                     I beg to differ on the first point. I think that pantheism is one of the more understandable and reasonable forms of theism. If I were ever to adopt theism, that would probably be the form that it would take.
I would be in good company with Spinoza and Einstein.                      
                     
                     I beg to differ concerning your categorisation of Albert Einstein.
                           
. . .

Extropian

So when Einstein was asked the direct question as to whether he "believed in God," and he answered that he believed in the God of Spinoza (who is generally cited as a pantheist, though he did not use that word in his writings) he was equivocating?

By the way, don't look at me.  I'm pretty sure I only used the kudo system to make positive votes, and I certainly didn't down-vote any of your posts.  I'm glad it's now disabled, myself.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty with involuntary scrolling of a quoted post and of quoting lines of posts.

It seems to occur mainly when I click on QUOTE to make a reply. The writing jerks up and down.

It doesn't happen with the several other groups I contribute to.

Can any member suggest whether my computer's at fault or could it be a managemen/server problem?

I'm surprised my formatting arouses disquiet in some members. If there are standard rules for formatting, what are they?

I have posted this way since the mid 1990s and not been criticised for it. I have no intentions of antagonising any one.

Extropian 

On forums the proper format is to use the bbcode to quote other users and when quoting from outside sources (i don't know that bbcode existed in the early 90s)...this gives a basic overview of how to do that:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=203.0

This is a stable release of the SMF software and I haven't had any weird scrolling issues; so I'd assume it is your computer. 

I get teh same problem, makes it very hard to write a post, especially if it is over a certain amount of lines long. Basically exceeds the default length of the input box, This commonly occurs when quoting a previous post.
Instead I press Ctr+A to highlight all the text, then Ctr+C to copy and edit it within Word or something else. When finished I paste it back. Quite annoying, but workable.

Quote from: Stevil on May 10, 2011, 11:33:41 AM
I get teh same problem, makes it very hard to write a post, especially if it is over a certain amount of lines long. Basically exceeds the default length of the input box, This commonly occurs when quoting a previous post.
Instead I press Ctr+A to highlight all the text, then Ctr+C to copy and edit it within Word or something else. When finished I paste it back. Quite annoying, but workable.

I've had the same problem.  Seems to be an Internet Explorer issue with me.  Once I switched to Firefox, no problem.

These posts don't seem to present positive evidence for atheism.
They seem to indicate mysterious forces interfering with an atheist forum.

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 16, 2011, 09:44:47 AM
These posts don't seem to present positive evidence for atheism.
They seem to indicate mysterious forces interfering with an atheist forum.

Ach.  There are atheists.  Therefore atheism is a real thing.  That's positive evidence that there is atheism.

Quote from: fester30 on May 18, 2011, 05:17:35 PM
Ach.  There are atheists.  Therefore atheism is a real thing.  That's positive evidence that there is atheism.

You are right.
I think it's time for a purge.
Time to eliminate those who don't don't believe right.

The fault lies with Internet Explorer. I'm not sure if there is a workaround, short of getting another browser, but now that I remembered this issue, I'll look and see if I can find one and post it here if I do.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 19, 2011, 07:11:14 AM
The fault lies with Internet Explorer. I'm not sure if there is a workaround, short of getting another browser, but now that I remembered this issue, I'll look and see if I can find one and post it here if I do.

But I'm using Firefox and still not seeing it.

Quote from: fester30 on May 19, 2011, 11:58:13 AM

Quote from: Asmodean on May 19, 2011, 07:11:14 AM
The fault lies with Internet Explorer. I'm not sure if there is a workaround, short of getting another browser, but now that I remembered this issue, I'll look and see if I can find one and post it here if I do.

But I'm using Firefox and still not seeing it.

That's because Firefox=win

Quote from: Whitney on May 19, 2011, 03:20:30 PMThat's because Firefox=win

It's free software. For that reason alone, it will forever remain crap in my book. Mostly because I know two guys who make free software... It's a personal thing.

EDIT: fester, you are having this very issue while using FireFox? If so, I'll need to dig in a slightly different direction.

Quote from: Asmodean on May 21, 2011, 07:43:43 AM

Quote from: Whitney on May 19, 2011, 03:20:30 PMThat's because Firefox=win

It's free software. For that reason alone, it will forever remain crap in my book. Mostly because I know two guys who make free software... It's a personal thing.

EDIT: fester, you are having this very issue while using FireFox? If so, I'll need to dig in a slightly different direction.

So how come Microsoft make billions and STILL make crap software?

Quote from: Tank on May 28, 2011, 10:14:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on May 21, 2011, 07:43:43 AM

Quote from: Whitney on May 19, 2011, 03:20:30 PMThat's because Firefox=win

It's free software. For that reason alone, it will forever remain crap in my book. Mostly because I know two guys who make free software... It's a personal thing.

EDIT: fester, you are having this very issue while using FireFox? If so, I'll need to dig in a slightly different direction.

So how come Microsoft make billions and STILL make crap software?

Imagine if there was no Apple or any other competition.

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2011, 01:35:56 AM

Quote from: Tank on May 28, 2011, 10:14:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on May 21, 2011, 07:43:43 AM

Quote from: Whitney on May 19, 2011, 03:20:30 PMThat's because Firefox=win

It's free software. For that reason alone, it will forever remain crap in my book. Mostly because I know two guys who make free software... It's a personal thing.

EDIT: fester, you are having this very issue while using FireFox? If so, I'll need to dig in a slightly different direction.

So how come Microsoft make billions and STILL make crap software?

Imagine if there was no Apple or any other competition.

NNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Quote from: Tank on May 29, 2011, 08:23:43 AM

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on May 29, 2011, 01:35:56 AM

Quote from: Tank on May 28, 2011, 10:14:48 PM

Quote from: Asmodean on May 21, 2011, 07:43:43 AM

Quote from: Whitney on May 19, 2011, 03:20:30 PMThat's because Firefox=win

It's free software. For that reason alone, it will forever remain crap in my book. Mostly because I know two guys who make free software... It's a personal thing.

EDIT: fester, you are having this very issue while using FireFox? If so, I'll need to dig in a slightly different direction.

So how come Microsoft make billions and STILL make crap software?

Imagine if there was no Apple or any other competition.

NNNNNNNNNNnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Actually, the sometimes frustrating Microsoft software has served me well for as long as I can remember. Oh, sure, there have been problems and glitches and crashes and bluescreens, but it's kind of like my car.... There may be rust, but it never fails to get me where I'm going.