Do you believe in God?

[Danoff]

My views are largely agnostic. I don't believe in god but I'm open to the possibility.

I call that atheist.

 

[mani_23]

The flip side is that religion teaches basic life principles to live a happier life. I look upon the Bible, the Koran, and so on as essentially "how to live your life" guidelines which help people to be better.
There are some rather dated and rediculous guidelines of course and many of the stories should not be taken literally. But at the heart of it, its simply guiding people to be better for themselves and for society.

The bad part of religion is people missing this important key and taking things all too far.

I agree with you though, on the whole religion is not really needed but perhaps it just makes it easier for everyone to have a belief like that to help them see through the "life guidelines" set out in these books.
Also, it helps in the current topic on the afterlife for some people to accept things they don't really understand. For many people, its rather depressing to think your life means nothing and when it ends nothing glorious happens. So it helps them to think of an afterlife and to think that small good deeds will help them in relation to god. Is it better they believe their life ultimately means nothing and humanity as a whole is insignificant to the bigger picture?

Personally I don't really know what I think about the afterlife and death. I want it to be true but I see no evidence or proof of it being so. For the better of my own being, I think I just leave it at that - a hope but nothing more. Thinking about it too much is too maddening.
My views are largely agnostic. I don't believe in god but I'm open to the possibility. I have a passive belief in luck, karma, fate and so on. I don't feel the need to follow a religion and on the whole I detest how some organisations abuse it.

I agree with most of it, and respect your opinions.
For me to reply to the 2 and only 2 things I dis-agreed on, it would take and hour. Trust me, it almost did, I chose to erase it after I realized I had missed my episode of seinfeld. However, I understand thinking about life and death is maddening. Sometimes I feel like throwing up thinking of various things like death and space, and how significant we really are- Despite how strongly I feel towards them, for example, I believe no After-death, I don't believe in anything being capable when your dead either (E.g, No ghosts, No animal respawn, no paradise of any sort). However, I still think about it. I also believe that we know very little about space, and we should start thinking about it more than what we can already do (With Religion limiting or altering some thoughts on space throughout the world). The fact is its people that think we are something significant in this universe that screws up society. So regarding your comment about if people should live their life knowing there insignificant to the big picture, Yes they should, It opens up new priority and more people wanting to study and expand on their knowledge. With our expanded mindset, the things we can learn can end up saving this earth, rather than figuring out a way to make another one work. (Albeit I hope im not implying that I do not believe in Space funding)

To hambone8611:
The reason atheists (Me) seem arrogant, or close minded on other beliefs is because they follow what science can prove, or come close to saying. There is low (or no for me) superficiality in the way we think. Religious people are arrogant and can come off dumb if they try to defend fiction and their superficial beliefs.

To danoff:
I don't see how. If he's open to the possibility of a god, then thats agnostic.
An atheist would never really be open to that..
Although I don't bash him on that (As I explained in my post towards him)

 

[niky]

Possibly he's thinking of God in the whole black and white aspect... either you do or you don't.

I don't tend to think that way.

-

One very interesting thing to note... how certain religious thinkers keep throwing up irreducible complexity in the universe and biology (they're not irreducible... it just takes a lot of steps...) and the extreme unlikelihood of us coming to exist as reasons for proof in supernatural dieties...

The thing is: we are only witness to the extreme unlikelihood of our existence because we actually exist to witness it. We are (at the moment) winners in a cosmic lottery. And the prize for winning is existence itself. If we hadn't won, we would not be saying: "ah... see... life doesn't exist. Therefore, there is no God."

If I were God, I'd have created the Universe with rules coded to make the occurence of life much more likely. And I'd find a way to make interstellar communication and commerce easier. More worshippers for me.

 

[hambone8611]

[Q
To danoff:
I don't see how. If he's open to the possibility of a god, then thats agnostic.
An atheist would never really be open to that..
Although I don't bash him on that (As I explained in my post towards him)[/QUOTE]

Yup that’s how I see it to, and being someone who waffles back and forth I think it’s fair to say that I’m at my most serene when I feel that there is or has been a god. I don’t need any sort of real understanding of religion or dogma to feel that benefit. Plus being a recovering alcoholic plays a role too. Enough said

 

[Ardius]

Agreed completely I also find it ironic that the only group of people more arrogant about their opinions than the bible thumping crowd is the atheists

Perhaps, anyone can be arrogant though.

I call that atheist.

You call it wrong then. Atheism = belief in nothing, no higher beings. Agnostic = unsure, doesn't believe but is open to the idea.

I agree with most of it, and respect your opinions.
For me to reply to the 2 and only 2 things I dis-agreed on, it would take and hour. Trust me, it almost did, I chose to erase it after I realized I had missed my episode of seinfeld. However, I understand thinking about life and death is maddening. Sometimes I feel like throwing up thinking of various things like death and space, and how significant we really are- Despite how strongly I feel towards them, for example, I believe no After-death, I don't believe in anything being capable when your dead either (E.g, No ghosts, No animal respawn, no paradise of any sort). However, I still think about it. I also believe that we know very little about space, and we should start thinking about it more than what we can already do (With Religion limiting or altering some thoughts on space throughout the world). The fact is its people that think we are something significant in this universe that screws up society. So regarding your comment about if people should live their life knowing there insignificant to the big picture, Yes they should, It opens up new priority and more people wanting to study and expand on their knowledge. With our expanded mindset, the things we can learn can end up saving this earth, rather than figuring out a way to make another one work. (Albeit I hope im not implying that I do not believe in Space funding)

Not everyone wants to study and expand knowledge. Not everyone has the strong will and mind to get through life like that either.
I agree that we should try to move away from the idea that we need to feel significant but this is not easy for everyone.

Sorry for making you miss your tv programme.

 

[Famine]

Agreed completely I also find it ironic that the only group of people more arrogant about their opinions than the bible thumping crowd is the atheists

How is it more arrogant to say you don't know the answer than to say the one you happen to have been brought up believing is the correct one regardless of any evidence?

 

[Touring Mars]

I'd like TM to forward the books to Famine, if he would be good enough to read them.

I can always drop them off at the next GT4 LAN, journeys to space (not mine, his) permitting... anyway, I'll post a comment regarding the books in the Astronomy thread later, as and when time permits.

 

[Duke]

You call it wrong then. Atheism = belief in nothing, no higher beings. Agnostic = unsure, doesn't believe but is open to the idea.

Not necessarily or exactly. Neither Danoff nor I (among others) believe that a god exists at all. Nonetheless, logic and rationality dictate that we must allow for the possibility that a god could exist since it is a logical impossibility to prove that something does not exist.

We (among many others) call ourselves "atheist".

"Agnostic" carries a strong implication that the person believes it is likely that god exists, but that the person does not know what form that god takes. This is why we do not identify ourselves as "agnostic".

 

[Danoff]

My views are largely agnostic. I don't believe in god but I'm open to the possibility.

You call it wrong then. Atheism = belief in nothing, no higher beings. Agnostic = unsure, doesn't believe but is open to the idea.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in nothing. Your statement "I don't believe in God" qualifies you as an atheist in my book. You do not need to have proven or believe that God does not exist in order to be an atheist.

Let me restate that:

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. false
Atheism is a lack of belief that God exists. true

An agnostic is undecided on the issue of God's existence. You, like myself, Duke, and others here, have a stance and are waiting to be convinced otherwise.

 

[Dotini]

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. false
Atheism is a lack of belief that God exists. true

What then is the correct term for an active belief that God does not exist?

 

[mani_23]

Not everyone wants to study and expand knowledge. Not everyone has the strong will and mind to get through life like that either.
I agree that we should try to move away from the idea that we need to feel significant but this is not easy for everyone.

Sorry for making you miss your tv programme.

Its not easy, but it needs to be done. Religion has created a mindset for many to not look beyond, to just stand still, and not look at their surroundings in the way we should. Knowing that we are truly insignificant in this universe opens up peoples mind. It reveals how little our problems are, [like how little a problem GT5 being delayed is], then influences, and reasons people to be a bit smarter in this world. People overall need to be more logical, and need to think more realistically. A christian may come up to me and laugh at the fact that scientists still aren't sure of how the universe, or our planet, was made, However, I just laugh at the fact that he believes an all knowing spirit has done it. Atheists call anything they don't fully know about (that is still likely) a theory. Religious people call something they know nothing about, nor from hands on experience or by ear, a cold hard belief. The fact that the big bang theory, a widely accepted theory that still gets strongly contested by religious people (and other scientists too), is a stupid picture to look at. The fact that people believe there is a god waiting "Up there" is far more unrealistic, Taking that, a) "Up there" is no longer the clouds, since people have discovered space's possibilities, b) There has been no evidence of any sort of activity. nor from god, or a person or spirit he could send down. Finally, c) An airplane hasn't hit him yet, and if he's invisible, then all the more reason to be skeptical,
People have to be more realistic in the sense that, you only get one life, and should do as much as you possibly can with the time you have here on earth.

I don't think that one paragraph of writing is sufficient to really elaborate on everything, but Im stopping there anyways.
About the program thing, I can't blame you for my long process and lack of condensing my thoughts, Im not too good in writing just because it takes me a long time to really get all my thoughts down.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in nothing. Your statement "I don't believe in God" qualifies you as an atheist in my book. You do not need to have proven or believe that God does not exist in order to be an atheist.

Let me restate that:

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. false
Atheism is a lack of belief that God exists. true

An agnostic is undecided on the issue of God's existence. You, like myself, Duke, and others here, have a stance and are waiting to be convinced otherwise.

I understand what you mean, but, its frustrating to have so many people (Not you, but real life debates) challenging my "Beliefs", just to say I can't have any. There needs to be a change in the definition of atheist doesn't there.

 

[Danoff]

What then is the correct term for an active belief that God does not exist?

Such a person lacks a belief that God exists, so I would call them an atheist.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Its not easy, but it needs to be done. Religion has created a mindset for many to not look beyond, to just stand still, and not look at their surroundings in the way we should. Knowing that we are truly insignificant in this universe opens up peoples mind. It reveals how little our problems are, [like how little a problem GT5 being delayed is], then influences, and reasons people to be a bit smarter in this world. People overall need to be more logical, and need to think more realistically. A christian may come up to me and laugh at the fact that scientists still aren't sure of how the universe, or our planet, was made, However, I just laugh at the fact that he believes an all knowing spirit has done it. Atheists call anything they don't fully know about (that is still likely) a theory. Religious people call something they know nothing about, nor from hands on experience or by ear, a cold hard belief. The fact that the big bang theory, a widely accepted theory that still gets strongly contested by religious people (and other scientists too), is a stupid picture to look at. The fact that people believe there is a god waiting "Up there" is far more unrealistic, Taking that, a) "Up there" is no longer the clouds, since people have discovered space's possibilities, b) There has been no evidence of any sort of activity. nor from god, or a person or spirit he could send down. Finally, c) An airplane hasn't hit him yet, and if he's invisible, then all the more reason to be skeptical,
People have to be more realistic in the sense that, you only get one life, and should do as much as you possibly can with the time you have here on earth.

I don't think that one paragraph of writing is sufficient to really elaborate on everything, but Im stopping there anyways.
About the program thing, I can't blame you for my long process and lack of condensing my thoughts, Im not too good in writing just because it takes me a long time to really get all my thoughts down.




I understand what you mean, but, its frustrating to have so many people (Not you, but real life debates) challenging my "Beliefs", just to say I can't have any. There needs to be a change in the definition of atheist doesn't there.

YOU MANI_23 are my Soul Mate!!!

👍 suberb post! I agree with everything you wrote! Exactly what i have always wanted to say and to tell other people... trying to open up their eyes a bit more...

Look around ... instead of looking straight up.

I can just kiss you right now for posting today!

Fortunately for the both of us, and everyone here, we are not right next to each other



EDIT:

Agreed completely I also find it ironic that the only group of people more arrogant about their opinions than the bible thumping crowd is the atheists

To hambone8611:
The reason atheists (Me) seem arrogant, or close minded on other beliefs is because they follow what science can prove, or come close to saying. There is low (or no for me) superficiality in the way we think. Religious people are arrogant and can come off dumb if they try to defend fiction and their superficial beliefs.

To habone8611:

I wanted to reply to you yesterday, but was interrupted by my own pity life... Anyways anyhow.
To respond to you, as atheist/agnostic, we may seem "arrogant" because we have to defend ourselves when those "bible-thumping-crowd" just accused us of being the devil or for sinning just based on the fact that we don't believe in the same things as they do... How can we be sinners if we don't even believe in what they believe... Let's not repeat history, and destroy population that are different or dont belong to Christianity...

If any "religion" or beliefs, i would prefer to be associated with the Buddhists and buddhisms... which half of my family belong to.

 

[mani_23]

Such a person lacks a belief that God exists, so I would call them an atheist.

How can an atheist lack a belief when they are not able to have the belief.

YOU MANI_23 are my Soul Mate!!!

👍 suberb post! I agree with everything you wrote! Exactly what i have always wanted to say and to tell other people... trying to open up their eyes a bit more...

Look around ... instead of looking straight up.

I can just kiss you right now for posting today!

Fortunately for the both of us, and everyone here, we are not right next to each other

Thanks!

Live in reality...
Well its always nice somebody agrees with me, no matter what level they're agreeing with me on. Lets face it, were living in a idiotic world, but that can change if everybody becomes more logical, and rational about situations. If they can think about realistic possibilities to daily questions regarding death, spirit, or gods, then maybe we could be living in a more intelligent world. I Believe religion has been partly to blame with all the superstition, and illogical way of thought.
Live in reality...

 

[Danoff]

How can an atheist lack a belief when they are not able to have the belief.

??

 

[Ardius]

Not necessarily or exactly. Neither Danoff nor I (among others) believe that a god exists at all. Nonetheless, logic and rationality dictate that we must allow for the possibility that a god could exist since it is a logical impossibility to prove that something does not exist.

We (among many others) call ourselves "atheist".

"Agnostic" carries a strong implication that the person believes it is likely that god exists, but that the person does not know what form that god takes. This is why we do not identify ourselves as "agnostic".

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in nothing. Your statement "I don't believe in God" qualifies you as an atheist in my book. You do not need to have proven or believe that God does not exist in order to be an atheist.

Let me restate that:

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist. false
Atheism is a lack of belief that God exists. true

An agnostic is undecided on the issue of God's existence. You, like myself, Duke, and others here, have a stance and are waiting to be convinced otherwise.

Then let me re-word what I said - I don't think I believe in God then. The key is the uncertainty, where an atheist is sure, an agnostic is not. I am not sure that God does not exist and therefore open to the possiblity. I am leaning more on the side of doubt that he exists but not so much that I could not believe.
Although I say I don't believe in god, I am not fully confident he doesn't exist. So I think he doesn't, but I'm not so sure I am correct.

Such a person lacks a belief that God exists, so I would call them an atheist.

I agree with mani:

How can an atheist lack a belief when they are not able to have the belief.

Lacking belief suggests there is not enough belief or a measure of belief. Guess it depends on what you consider "lack of" to mean - whether you think "lacking" means none or not much.

 

[Famine]

I am not able to have an ovary, thus I lack ovaries...

Anyway, "theism" is "a belief in a god" and "atheist" merely means "one without belief in a god". Someone who believes there is no god is a "nontheist".

 

[Danoff]

Then let me re-word what I said - I don't think I believe in God then. The key is the uncertainty, where an atheist is sure, an agnostic is not.

...sounds agnostic.

I am not sure that God does not exist and therefore open to the possiblity. I am leaning more on the side of doubt that he exists but not so much that I could not believe.

...sounds atheist

Although I say I don't believe in god, I am not fully confident he doesn't exist.

There is no need for an "although" in that phrase. I (an atheist) also don't believe in god - and I am also not fully confident that God does not exist. Neither am I fully confident that an invisible pink unicorn of the flying spaghetti monster exists. In fact, it is a logical impossibility to be certain that these entities do not exist. I call myself an Atheist because I lack a belief in God - not because I have a belief in a lack of God.

If you remain largely unconvinced that a supreme being of any kind exists, you are an atheist in my book. If you think there is compelling evidence for a supreme being but are uncertain of the form or purpose of that supreme being and/or are still not 100% convinced by the evidence that you find compelling - then your use of the term agnostic makes sense.

The question is not one of certainty - but how convincing you find the concept.

 

[Ardius]

There is no need for an "although" in that phrase. I (an atheist) also don't believe in god - and I am also not fully confident that God does not exist. Neither am I fully confident that an invisible pink unicorn of the flying spaghetti monster exists. In fact, it is a logical impossibility to be certain that these entities do not exist. I call myself an Atheist because I lack a belief in God - not because I have a belief in a lack of God.

If you remain largely unconvinced that a supreme being of any kind exists, you are an atheist in my book. If you think there is compelling evidence for a supreme being but are uncertain of the form or purpose of that supreme being and/or are still not 100% convinced by the evidence that you find compelling - then your use of the term agnostic makes sense.

The question is not one of certainty - but how convincing you find the concept.

Hmm, again I didn't choose my words very well. I was referring to believing in god and believing god exists as the same thing, though I do realise they are two different things.
For me, they are one and the same idea, I don't think I believe in god because I don't think he exists. I am not certain or as you put it, convinced he exists but neither am I convinced he doesn't exist. For me to believe in god, in the idea that he/it can manipulate the events of life, I would have to believe he/it exists in some form or other.

I feel there are degrees of agnostic, whereas atheism is only one value.

 

[Danoff]

Hmm, again I didn't choose my words very well. I was referring to believing in god and believing god exists as the same thing, though I do realise they are two different things.
For me, they are one and the same idea, I don't think I believe in god because I don't think he exists. I am not certain or as you put it, convinced he exists but neither am I convinced he doesn't exist. For me to believe in god, in the idea that he can manipulate the events of life, I would have to believe he exists in some form or other.

I feel there are degrees of agnostic, whereas atheism is only one value.

I think I'm not really getting my point across. Which of these statements best applies to you?

1) I have complete faith that God does not exist.
2) I know God does not exist as well as I know the sun will come up tomorrow. Not with complete logical certainty, but about as certain as I can know anything about my reality.
3) I don't believe god exists because I have seen no compelling evidence that he exists.
4) I see some (but not much) compelling evidence that god exists. He might, but science will probably come up with a non-god explanation for what little evidence there is out there.
5) I see some evidence that god exists that I doubt science will answer. His existence seems very possible, but I know almost nothing about this god.
6) Science will almost certainly never answer some of the questions we have, and the answer seems like it must be God. It seems likely that a supreme being has guided our existence.
7) While I acknowledge that there is some evidence that casts doubt on God's influence in our life, it seems impossible that God does not exist.
8) All evidence points toward God's existence and every attempt to show otherwise has failed miserably. God almost certainly exists and watches over us - but I do not know which religion's teachings to follow.
9) I know exactly which religion's teachings to follow. God exists and is good - but I will conceed that, despite overwhelming evidence, there isn't iron-clad proof that God exists. It requires faith.
10) I have spoken to Allah and he compels me to blow up your building.

 

[Ardius]

Those are all answers from your viewpoint though, and none apply fully to me. I do not fully believe in god but I do not fully believe in science either. Sometimes I feel perhaps there is a god, sometimes I feel science could explain something which seems inexplicable.

It is not question of evidence for me, more that I feel occassionally things are not explained particularly well by science or not even explained at all yet. The question of afterlife is a pure idea of faith in something with little proof. I am not convinced there is no afterlife as there is no evidence to suggest it doesn't exist just as much as it does. Same for god, there is little evidence to suggest he exists but this does not stop me thinking perhaps he does.

I guess what I'm trying to say is really that I don't have a belief. I think anyway. I don't believe he doesn't or he does, I just consider the possiblitity. I felt that is agnostic as I am not fully convinced he doesn't exist.

Sorry if this is getting a bit long-winded as I guess I'm working this out for myself as I type.

 

[Danoff]

Those are all answers from your viewpoint though, and none apply fully to me.

Which of these statements best applies to you?

...for god, there is little evidence to suggest he exists but this does not stop me thinking perhaps he does.

Somewhere between 4 and 5 then?

 

[Ardius]

Yeah, I guess so, both are a bit too much leaning one way or the other. One is saying "I doubt science" the other is saying "I doubt god". I don't fully subscribe to either. If you were holding me at gun point, I'd say 4 but my mind is not so certain to always say that. Currently, I doubt god, but I do not always doubt god.

 

[Small_Fryz]

I think I'm not really getting my point across. Which of these statements best applies to you?

1) I have complete faith that God does not exist.
2) I know God does not exist as well as I know the sun will come up tomorrow. Not with complete logical certainty, but about as certain as I can know anything about my reality.
3) I don't believe god exists because I have seen no compelling evidence that he exists.
4) I see some (but not much) compelling evidence that god exists. He might, but science will probably come up with a non-god explanation for what little evidence there is out there.
5) I see some evidence that god exists that I doubt science will answer. His existence seems very possible, but I know almost nothing about this god.
6) Science will almost certainly never answer some of the questions we have, and the answer seems like it must be God. It seems likely that a supreme being has guided our existence.
7) While I acknowledge that there is some evidence that casts doubt on God's influence in our life, it seems impossible that God does not exist.
8) All evidence points toward God's existence and every attempt to show otherwise has failed miserably. God almost certainly exists and watches over us - but I do not know which religion's teachings to follow.
9) I know exactly which religion's teachings to follow. God exists and is good - but I will conceed that, despite overwhelming evidence, there isn't iron-clad proof that God exists. It requires faith.
10) I have spoke to Allah and he compels me to blow up your building.

I pick 10 i pick 10!!!

Seriously though I pick 3 with some leaning towards 4. What does that make me?

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, I guess so, both are a bit too much leaning one way or the other. One is saying "I doubt science" the other is saying "I doubt god". I don't fully subscribe to either. If you were holding me at gun point, I'd say 4 but my mind is not so certain to always say that. Currently, I doubt god, but I do not always doubt god.

Interestingly enough I'd draw the cutoff between Atheist and Agnostic between 4 and 5 - 4 is an atheist statement and 5 is an agnostic statement. From what little I know about your beliefs you seem to be right on the border. You're almost an atheist but not quite.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your self-assessment of your position. You just threw me pretty far off with this:

I don't believe in god but I'm open to the possibility.

That sounded strongly atheist to me, but I think I understand your meaning better.

I pick 10 i pick 10!!!

Seriously though I pick 3 with some leaning towards 4. What does that make me?

I'd call you an Atheist.

 

[Ardius]

Yeah, I didn't word what I meant very well. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[niky]

I think I'm not really getting my point across. Which of these statements best applies to you?

1) I have complete faith that God does not exist.
2) I know God does not exist as well as I know the sun will come up tomorrow. Not with complete logical certainty, but about as certain as I can know anything about my reality.
3) I don't believe god exists because I have seen no compelling evidence that he exists.
4) I see some (but not much) compelling evidence that god exists. He might, but science will probably come up with a non-god explanation for what little evidence there is out there.
5) I see some evidence that god exists that I doubt science will answer. His existence seems very possible, but I know almost nothing about this god.
6) Science will almost certainly never answer some of the questions we have, and the answer seems like it must be God. It seems likely that a supreme being has guided our existence.
7) While I acknowledge that there is some evidence that casts doubt on God's influence in our life, it seems impossible that God does not exist.
8) All evidence points toward God's existence and every attempt to show otherwise has failed miserably. God almost certainly exists and watches over us - but I do not know which religion's teachings to follow.
9) I know exactly which religion's teachings to follow. God exists and is good - but I will conceed that, despite overwhelming evidence, there isn't iron-clad proof that God exists. It requires faith.
10) I have spoken to Allah and he compels me to blow up your building.

Actually... I'd rework the changeover between 4 and 5. As there are people who have seen no evidence for God and admit to the lack of evidence, and yet hold out the belief that one might be out there.

 

[Dotini]

Superb list, but it needs a precise definition of God be integrated into the choices. I have a friend who refuses to accept the angry, bearded figure in the Bible, but readily accepts God if God is defined as a pantheistic "everything".

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

I'd put myself around a 2-3 there. I can't with 100% certainty say that there is no God and never has been, never will be one. But I also can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't planets out there with pink bubblegum forests.


I have seen no compelling evidence for God, so I don't believe in it any more than I believe in Santa Claus. I don't say it's impossible for there to be a God or Santa Claus, but there is no evidence going for it. It's logically impossible to prove that something conceivable in your mind can not exist, but that doesn't just go for God. It goes for the bubblegum forest, invisible crab monsters, and Santa Claus. So therefore the burden of proof falls onto believers, because they have to prove God/Santa exists. It's not the responsibility of the Atheist to prove God doesn't exist.

 

[mani_23]

I'd put myself around a 2-3 there. I can't with 100% certainty say that there is no God and never has been, never will be one. But I also can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't planets out there with pink bubblegum forests.


I have seen no compelling evidence for God, so I don't believe in it any more than I believe in Santa Claus. I don't say it's impossible for there to be a God or Santa Claus, but there is no evidence going for it. It's logically impossible to prove that something conceivable in your mind can not exist, but that doesn't just go for God. It goes for the bubblegum forest, invisible crab monsters, and Santa Claus. So therefore the burden of proof falls onto believers, because they have to prove God/Santa exists. It's not the responsibility of the Atheist to prove God doesn't exist.

👍
Thats a good way of putting it. I don't think ive really thought of it like that, but, It works.