Proof for God's Non-existance?

Name me a prominent atheist by the definition as you understand it, I'd be interested to know.As I understand the definition I am an atheist since I affirm the nonexistence of god with the same force I affirm the nonexistence of any supernatural being. I also reject theism. I do not need evidence of God's nonexistence to affirm his nonexistence with this strength. If you consider yourself agnostic with regards to Santa, Vishnu, Leszi, Odin or Buffy the Vampire Slayer then that's fine - but I don't. I affirm that the above do not exist - do you demand evidence for this too? Why focus on God?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

---

No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?

Yes - and that is the position I take. I take the same position with Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Celestial Teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns and God. If you think that can only be called agnosticism, so be it. The strength I referred to was the strength of my disbelief in God which is equal to the strength of disbelief in Santa and the toothfairy. I also can say the same thing for X ='God' - for I positively affirm the existence of God with the same strength as I do Santa.If someone makes a claim, it is up to them to back it up if they want me to believe it or if they want to use their belief as the reasoning behind policy decisions.I, on the other hand am only suggesting that I don't think that God exists any more than any other unfalsifiable entity with no positive evidence for it. Nobody finds this reasoning problematic for most entities that could be put forward, though most people make exceptions - special pleading.The underlying question in an atheists philosophy is 'why should I believe?" and, considering the successes of the sceptics outlook - and the failures of the gullible, decides to disbelieve unless moved otherwise. Why? Because it helps prevent us from believing things which aren't true, which can be dangerous.Do believers need proof? Not at all - as we can see. However, I think for, our own safety and well-being we should demand proof if they want to do something like blocking medical research based on this belief.

I affirm the nonexistence of God in the same sense I affirm the nonexistence of Santa.I disbelieve that God exists in the same sense that I disbelieve that Santa exists.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

---

No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?

Just so there is no confusion - I did not compare God to Santa or Buffy. I was comparing my beliefs in those three proposed entities for explanatory purposes.

And indeed they do. The difference might be subtle to some. However, there exists a difference. The theist hears an extraordinary worldview and says 'OK, that's the way the world is, I have faith that is so', or they say 'Show me that what you say is true, otherwise I have no reason to believe you'.Atheists generally take certain things on faith - such as 'the world exists', but only as a necessity (how else could we function?). They don't generally demand that others prove their propositions absolutely either. Normally they simply ask for the evidence that supports a position, if the evidence is lacking they tentatively reject the hypothesis.In the case of God, evidence is very much lacking. So if any God exists, it doesn't seem to have much of an impact in the world - or any impact it does have is cryptic and indiscernible from nature. There seems no reason to assume that God exists, so the default stance is to not believe unless evidence arises.Why is that the default stance, you might ask? Well, you should ask yourself that very thing - since you do it all the time. Theists do it, atheists do it. The biggest difference is the consistency with which it is done.In a world of mental illusions, psychological tricks, pitfalls and the people who exploit them, it is prudent to be skeptical. The most convincing hallucinations are not the visual ones, but the psychological ones are the ones where you believe certain insane things are happening (like in some dreams where contradictory or surreal things make sense and are true) - an atheist defends themselves against such things as best as they can by trying to remain skeptical. Of course, this stance cannot withstand the force of powerful hallucinogens, but it does do well against powerful oratory, spooky feelings, and the feeling of divine contact or beauty or awe or call it what you will that we all feel sometimes.

Which is presumably why you are a Muslim. After all, the scriptures, which predate any contradictory claims state that the entirety of the Koran was penned by Mohammed dictated by God via the angel Gabriel. And we definitely know Mohammed existed - there exists a fair amount of documentation to confirm this.Salaam,

---

No - I don't believe a cosmic Jewish zombie can make me live forever if I eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can then remove an evil force from my soul that is present in all of humanity because a dirt/rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree about 6,000 years ago just after the universe was created. Why should I?

Whether or not God is fictional, the kind of writing you refer to does have a specific name: mythology.I'm sure the atheists here will happily say that mythology is an old genre of fiction. You believe that some mythology is true or correct. I am using mythology to mean "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces or creatures , which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon"

Hmm, I suppose then that you believe that after his resurrection, Jesus went to minister in the Americas? After all he said so, and it has been recorded as such. It was written that Jesus spoke to a man named Mormon in the Americas. The onus is on the critics to prove that this event never took place.Likewise, the onus is on the critics to prove that God did not speak to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel, AS WAS WRITTEN!That is why I am a Judeo-Christian-Mormon-Muslim. There is more to the title, but I find it gets a little mouthy. As I concluded much earlier in the thread - you must be just like me!

Actually what you said was God made a claim, it got written down, and the onus is on the sceptic to prove otherwise. That is a different proposition entirely than this one which is basically saying we should evaluate claims on their merits. Sceptics do do the latter, and they are not dodging the implications. Indeed - your statement can be turned around. What drives people to avoid the implications of an absence of God? Fear? Denial?The point is - how do we analyse claims? Taking a person's word for it when they say they heard voices and they told them some information is fraught with danger - we might end up wearing trainers, drinking poisoned fruit juice and hoping to catch the next comet into a massive gas giant.If God did make a claim - obviously he exists. However that God made a claim is itself a claim and we should approach it with the same scepticism we approach Jim Jones' claims, or Koresh's claims. I have yet to hear a single reason why we shouldn't. Why? What have they done to earn respect? Suspended their disbelief? That might be something to respect when you are reading fiction or watching a film - but why is something to respect in the real world? Sounds like you respect people for being deliberately gullible to me.

Yes: People lie.
People make stuff up.
People can be deluded.
People take hallucinogens to come to religious states.
People have epilepsy.If someone went up in court defending themselves by claiming God told them to do it and thus it was perfectly morally right...what is more likely?God exists?
They are lying?
They are deluded?
They were on LSD?
They had an epileptic fit?I say the first option is so absurd, that the other possibilities almost entirely refute the first argument. Nothing can completely refute an unfalsifiable claim though - that's kind of the defining feature of an unfalsifiable claim.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.