Atheists, Why do you claim God doesn't exist?
Please read the rest before answering, Thank You :) Now before you call me all kinds of bad names, I want you to know that I'm an agnostic and I find believing in religion just as silly as most of you, but I find it unbelievably arrogant, and intellectually irresponsible to claim that no god exist. I mean you can't possibly believe that there is "no" being throughout the vastness of our universe that is capable of creating life as complicated as ours. Even if it's a billion to one chance that a god-like being exist, there is still that small chance that god exist. You must look past man's current understanding of god (religion) and see that there is a possibility that a god or a god-like being can exist in some form or another, because if you don't you are making the biggest mistake anyone who is looking to achieve a higher understanding of our universe can make, which is, closing off your mind to new information because of past prejudices. So again I ask you, Why do you claim God doesn't exist? Oh and please don't tell me it's because you logically came to the realization god doesn't exist because human logic is based on too many varying factors to even call it logic. It's more like a glorified gut instinct than actual logic. .
Some atheists on here love to claim that God doesn't exist, but they never provide empirical evidence for such a claim. Why is that?
The thing is, the EXISTENCE of God is a claim, not his non-existence. Can you empirically show that there is a God? Not statements about his existence, which are effectively anecdotal. (Sure, Christ existed, but that does NOT prove that he was the Son of God -- note that he never called himself that; he referred to himself as the son of Man -- or that there is a God (or maybe a whole pantheon of gods)). Even the Old Testament is anecdotal stuff, interspersed with historical stuff and parables and analogies, and NOT proof of the claim (unless you believe the Book, but that's still not proof to anyone else).
Atheists. What about you claim God doesn't exist... PROVE IT ! N YES YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE?
Can you prove your 3rd arm is not invisible and undetectable by natural means? This is the irrational game that theists play. For all practical purposes, your 3rd arm does not exist. It is your claim so it is up to you to enlighten us to how we might know as you do that your 3rd arm does in fact exist. Now I can offer you very compelling reasons for why Gods/Goddesses cannot exist such as the natural order of existence, which is from simple to complex over time. The natural order makes the concept of God that of a square circle where you can know the "contradiction" makes the concept of God impossible. I can point to all religious holy books that contain human ignorance instead of any higher intelligence since we have humans with a higher intelligence that the writers of these holy books. It makes sense that irrational, superstitious humans would invent a magical super Being to explain the magic of nature that they are ignorant of. I am a gnostic atheist who "knows" why Gods/Goddesses are purely an invention of the human mind but most atheists don't share my knowledge. Atheism as a whole not really about addressing Gods, it's about addressing the "claims" of theists who claim magical super Beings exist. We have asked theists how they came to know this existence and to date we have only received emotional, superstitious reasons that demonstrates the irrationality at play here. Atheism is the claim "we don't believe your claim of magical super Beings", that we also find completely unsupported. The default position has to be nonexistence when no evidence/reasoning can get us to the "possibility" to be agnostic about or enough evidence/reasoning to get us to known existence. Theists cannot even get us to agnosticism with their evidence or reasoning. I would be willing to accept pure conceptual reasoning with no direct evidence at all, but theists are blinded by their irrationality so it is not even an intellectual topic to discuss. One last note, theists who wrongly consider a God is needed also wrongly assume it is their God of choice with the same poor reasoning. You not only have to demonstrate a "possibility" that a God could exist but you also need to reason it down to one God vs. billions of Gods and Goddesses and then reason it down to your particular God, the reason it down to the proper rules/denomination to be followed.
When atheists have no idea of God, how can atheists claim there is no evidence of God?
Atheists are actually real believers of god than devotees and hence they use the idea of god in a negative way than devotees do.The problem with atheists is that they seriously takes what is mentioned in religious scriptures which are a little confusing and so believes that god does not exist. Real devotees pay least attention to religious scriptures and feels the presence of god in every walk of life.Evidence of existence of needs to be felt rather than seen. People who reads only literal meaning of religious text could not understand the idea behind it as all religious scriptures are written in much earlier times and the scenario at that time could not be felt by today's generation. People who has wisdom to understand the spirit in text could obviously feel the existence of god.Edit 1Received some comments from a few athiests and their comments clearly proved they take text seriously than intent.God has no religion and god is an idea rather than a physical entity or super being. As long as intent is clear, no one should have problem when people worship a stone, animal, tree, personified idol etc. Names does not matter. Instead of understanding idea these people poke others belief system without sensibilities.Further they ask evidences as if they are the authority to approve.Athiesm itself is a religion believing in non belief in existing ideas of god and adoring their logic and reasoning leaving every thing else.Dear sirs/Madams, we are not believers, we know the idea of god, we understood the essence in every idea of god with positive approach, truth seeking rather than waiting for somebody to prove for us.Life is so short to argue. Healthy discussions will bring clarity.Let me put my point very clear. What is difference between a piece of a paper and a currency note? It is clear that note is aknowledged by people as a tender with specific value.Earlier coins of gold, silver of equal value of denomination were used. Now, What is the logic in accepting a piece of paper for some dollars? It is simply for convinience and nothing else. As we are used, no one questions now.Similarly when people acknowledge a stone as a symbol of idea of god, What is the problem? Questioning logic is mere arrogance and norhing else.Devotees have a reason and logic behind their perception but atheists lack an eye to see logic of others.
Why do atheists have to prove god doesn't exist?
You say, "You do realize 'the burden of proof falls on the person that makes the claim' is meant for people who claim a positive and not a negative." My fairly simple response is ... why? You ARE making a POSITIVE claim. You are making a positive claim that "the burden of proof falls on the person that makes the claim". Well, if that's true ... PROVE IT!! You have to PROVE the burden of proof falls on the person who makes the claim. Because IF IT'S TRUE, then since you are making this positive claim, you have to PROVE IT!!
Why do Atheists claim that people don't need God to know morality?
If you were born and raised in ancient Rome or some other culture, you would have been taught the morality of that time and that culture. But you have been raised with the morality of the culture you live in now. That doesn't mean it's the one and only morality there ever was or will be. Maybe in the future people will back at your moral values to same way you are looking back at Rome. It's just the one you happen to have been taught because you had the parents you had. If your parents taught you to be self-congratulatory and arrogant about your moral beliefs versus, say, a moral person who happens to be an atheist, sorry, but that doesn't make you morally superior. In fact, in most cultures, arrogance and self-righteousness are not considered good moral values. Morality CAN be taught in ways that don't involve scaring a child with threats of God's wrath. I wanted to be good simply to get my parent's praise and love, and of course, to get the rewards every child wants for good behavior... toys. So you are wrong if you think it takes a god to instill in a child good moral values. You are ignoring reality if you think that believing in a god prevents bad behavior. Consider the millions of god-believers who committed serious crimes and are in jail. A god-based morality didn't stop them. Good morals come from parents who were able to teach their children to do what is right even when no one is looking.
Why do Christians claim atheists can't prove god doesn't exist?
First of all, a lot of Christian's also know "the myths and the origins of the myths that these stories were based upon." but we chose to believe anyway. Is it not possible that even though some of the stories were based on myths that God was still presenting Himself to us through the story? Secondly, the Bible is a way to get to know God but that is not all there is to being a Christian. Even if the Bible is completely false there may still be a God that you can have a relationship with through prayer. Thirdly, please don't group all Christians in the same category as far as knowledge goes. Just like I won't assume you are ignorant just because you are an atheist. There are many different branches of Christianity and you should judge all of them just because of the radical views of one of them. That would be like hanging an entire country for a crime committed by one person. Finally, I know that I cannot prove the God does exist and I am okay with that. Why don't you just accept that you can't prove that he doesn't? Trying to prove God doesn't exist would be like trying to prove love doesn't exist. It can't be proven either way but the people who feel they are in love feel sad for those who don't believe in it. Just like as I Christian I am sad for you that you have decided not to open yourself to the works of the Lord. EDIT: I wanted to address a point I read in the other answers because I found it quite interesting. It was as follows: "christians believe they can't possibly be wrong. If anyone were to really find undeniable proof their god doesn't exist, everything they cling to in their fear of ceasing to be would be destroyed." I just want to point out that most Christians do not believe through fear. Also, I would be sad if God did not exist but I would not regret believing because I have built amazing relationships through the church and believing in God has made me a better and stronger person. If God did not exist I would not lose any of that. I have no fear of ceasing to be because if I die and there is nothing I will have lost nothing in my belief but if there is a God through my belief I will have gained everything.
Why do atheists claim they don't believe in gods, despite acknowledging the possibility? How is that possible?
Your argument -- like many theist arguments -- relies on what I have come to call 'vacuous possibilities'. A vacuous possibility is a hypothesis which is not logically impossible, but for which there is no evidence of its actually occurring. The existence of a square circle is not a vacuous possibility, because it's logically impossible. Barack Obama being President of the US is not a vacuous possibility, because there is evidence to support it.What your argument amounts to is that we shouldn't say 'God doesn't exist' when there is a vacuous possibility of God existing. But if this is valid evidence for the existence of God, it's also valid evidence for all these other vacuous possibilities -- and an infinite number of others:Purple-haired undetectable leprechauns living under your bed Your mother being a shape-shifting alienA meteor being about to hit your houseMeteors being about to hit everywhere around you except your houseYour head exploding tomorrow at four am unless you jump up and down every fifteen minutes between now and then shouting "Ping! Ping!"Do you believe in any of these possibilities? Do you believe in any of them enough to change what you will say or do? In view of possibility 5, are you going to change your behaviour in any way? In view of possibility 3, are you going to leave your house? But what about possibility 4?There is no logical way to get from a vacuous possibility to sensible behaviour or meaningful communication. We can express this by saying: from a vacuous possibility, nothing follows. And since the mere unsupported possibility of God's existence is also a vacuous possibility, it makes no claim on our actions, our behaviour or our speech.
Why do atheists falsely claim evolution proves God doesn't exist when evolution doesn't talk about how things got here only change afterward?
Your question is so full of strawmen and nonsense it is hard to decide where to start. 1) Atheist don't say evolution proves god doesn't exist. In fact atheists lack a belief in god and that is not contingent on evolution. Science does prove that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story is false. When I say science I mean discoveries in the fields of Cosmology, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, and Physics. All of them can be used to show the genesis creation story is only a myth. Yes, evolution by natural selection is a foundation of modern biology but all these other disciplines also contradict Genesis. 2) You are using evolution in a way that is probably a result in you conflating a-biogenesis and evolution. This is a common mistake of creationists but not of people that understand the science. 3) This search for transitional fossils is nonsense. Every species is transitional. You are a demonstration of a transition from your parents into a new life. As species change over time a recent ancestor is not going to look drastically different from a current species. You are using the crock-a-duck argument and those that make it are only demonstrating their total ignorance of evolution and how it works. 4) The section on Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (aka modern evolutionary synthesis) is especially hilarious. Your comments are funny because they are so ignorant of science it's like having someone that had never seen American Football before try to explain what is happening during a game. Neo-Darwinism was a mathematical model that combined what we knew about evolution and genetics into a model developed in the 1st half of the 20th century. You got one thing correct, it is now generally considered dead, not because evolution is wrong, but because additional research into both genetics and evolution has added to our knowledge so that the 90 year old model has been added to and refined so much that it is no longer the same model from a century ago. We have moved well beyond model but that has not disproved Evolution by Natural Selection, it has enhanced and confirmed that theory. I could continue debunking more of your "updates" but you are either a troll or need to go to your middle school science class and pay attention this time. Next time you want to question evolution try posting in a science blog, because as I stated atheism is unrelated to evolutionary biology.
Why do atheists think they KNOW that a God doesn't exist ?
Sometimes atheist assert that God does not exist or that there is no proof God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim. In order to state there is no proof for God's existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God's existence. At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say he believes there are no proofs for God's existence. But then, this means there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there, and that he simply has not yet encountered one. Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would the atheist be able to accept it, given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God's existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do, and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God's existence, and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.