but criticize theists for that same reason?  how is it rational to say with certainty that something does not exist when the possibility will always remain that it does?
215297
How is it rational to say with certainty that something does exist when the possibility will always remain that it does not?\n\nNOT believing is what atheism means.
386511
When atheist criticize they do it out of hurt because they were raised and some are forced into religion and sadly not the right one and they put on their focus on people and not God. They have never experienced him but yet they say he doesn't exist which is a easy cop out and a excuse to falsely antagonize believers. They are weak minded individuals on a destructive path trying to take others with them. Does this sound familiar? A Demonic entity is trying to do the same thing! Hmmmmmmm.............\n\nShalom
43216
As an atheist, I have tried to grasp how believers in a god can actually believe. Many religious people have deemed this annoying and respond with hostility because their faith comes under question. And contrary to what people above me have said, we DO have beliefs. Just different (which to some people means none at all). I believe in science and proven fact. I have discussed my beliefs, and come under attack, because if people of faith can understand where I stand, they can further help me understand where THEY stand.
130571
Good question - It always puzzles me that religious people can look at the universe, and see that it looks precisely indistinguishable from how a universe would look if there was no god, and yet they still believe one exists.  More perplexing still, they are quick to credit this supposed omnipotent god with whatever they judge to be good in the world, but are not nearly so quick to blame him for the bad.  That's downright absurd.\n\nNB people here seem to think that all the evil and suffering the world has ever known is a perfectly reasonable penalty for some bloke plucking an apple off a tree 6,000 years ago.  How completely, utterly, breath-takingly stupid.
262263
If everybody could approach the Bible as rationally as you do, then there would be no need to point out contradictions. But so many millions of people do take the Bible as the infallible word of God and to be interpreted completely literally. Using a flawed book as the sole code by which you live is dangerous, and Atheists feel obliged to point this outto them.
494289
Of course, the real reason they don't want to believe that has more to do with the fact that if they deny supernatural causation of the mind, they cannot come to any other conclusion but that free will is only an illusion, that determinism rules (if only stoichasitically, taking quantum randomness into account).\n\nThey'll probably accuse me of being a nihilist for having aquired this understanding of the reality of the universe as if it's something evil.  Me, I consider deterministic nihilism the only logical conclusion when faced with the facts the universe provides.
668523
Since there is no proof either way (pro or con) an athiest has chosen one of 2 logical positions.  He just has chosen one that differs from the "believers".  His decision has no more or less merit than those who choose god.
240619
It is mistakenly imagined by some that belief in a Supreme Being as the Creator and Controller of the universe is a mere emotional aspiration, a superstition of ancient times, irrational and illogical, and exploded by modern science. It is believed that scientists (physicists, biologists and others) have erected some theory which both refutes and replaces the traditional belief in God. Such ideas have only a very superficial grounding, and are the result of ignorance or an indifference to both the fundamentals of religious faith and the scope of the physical sciences. It is a significant fact in the history of world thought that very few people have ever made it their business to refute the existence of God. The views of the universe which are considered to be anti-religious are almost all agnostic, not atheistic, that is to say, they attempt to ignore the existence of God instead of denying it. This is true of certain views of modern science as well as of the ancient non-religious theories. The universe in which we live comprises an evident system of causes and effects, of phenomena and their results, and it is possible to discuss them indefinitely and construct theories about them, giving a superficial appearance of completeness. This is done, however, only at the expense of ignoring fundamentals or claiming that they cannot be known. If one were to search for a convincing statement based on firm principles that the existence of a Supreme Being is impossible, one would not be able to find it. \nThe reason for this state of affairs is that belief in God is at once instinctive, rational, evidential and intuitional, and it is only by deliberately neglecting to consider it that the non-religious attitude is maintained. It is instinctive in that man has an innate feeling of his own inadequacy and helplessness, which accompanies him from the cradle to the grave, a feeling accompanied by the complementary desire to seek refuge and support with a being who controls all those forces before which he feels himself inadequate. We put this feeling forward as instinctive, although it will immediately be perceived that it is also evidential. The weakness of man before all the uncountable influences over which he has no control is a fact so obvious as to require no discussion. \n\nWhat is less well grasped by some who have claims to intelligence is that belief in God is fully supported by reason and logic, the principles on which all human intelligence stands. For instance, it is a basic requirement of reason that an effect cannot exist without a cause. However hard we press our mental faculties, we cannot conceive rationally of a causeless effect, and if we wish to postulate one we can only do so by temporarily putting our reason on the shelf. Reason leads us to the conclusion that just as the elements which compose the universe are effects of certain causes, the universe itself must be the effect of a cause, a cause which is itself mightier than and outside the universe. Non-religious thinkers have to ignore the origin of the universe and postulate something existing in the beginning without any known cause. This postulate is essentially non-rational and therefore unscientific, but it is a necessity for those thinkers who have unconsciously or deliberately decided not to consider fundamentals. Of these there are even some who openly proclaim their refusal to discuss or admit any metaphysical concept. This kind of attitude, however, can only be upheld by abandoning reason. Reason itself guides us inexorably to the conclusion that there is an ultimate cause, the Cause of causes, beyond this universe of time, space and change; in fact, a Supreme Being. \n\nAnother of the basic demands of reason is that diversity cannot exist without a fundamental unity. Whenever the human mind is confronted with diversity, it immediately sets to work to synthesise it into unities, then to synthesise these unities into higher unities and so on until it can go
652457
Your assumption is incorrect. Atheism does *not* mean that you know for a fact that there is no God without a possibility of being mistaken. Atheism is simply a belief that there is no God.
598299
The way i look at it there are people out there that say why believe in something that couldn't be true? i say why shouldn't you? some people will go thier whole life not believing to find out GOD IS REAL and then spend eternal life in hell. or they could simply have the belief in Him and when they die IF He wasn't real what did they lose? nothing. but he is there and there is an eternal wonderful life that is so perfect. so the people who don't beleive come out as a loss
419828
I dont think they can be right, especially those that refute the others.  I think a spiritual path with no fixed ideas about God, the form he takes, is best.  It allows athiests and believers to agree.
253955
The atheist believes there is no god. ("God does not exist." / "There is no God.")\nThe agnostic believes that one cannot prove whether God exists or does not exist. ("We can't know if God exists or not.")\n\nThe dictionary says this about agnosticism   \n         1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.\n         2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.\n   2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.\n\nI followed definition 1. I guess uncertainty falls under definition 2.\n\nSUMMARY:\nATHEIST -- "THERE IS NO GOD."\nAGNOSTIC -- 2 KINDS: \nA. "WE CAN'T KNOW IF GOD EXISTS OR NOT." (THIS IS MORE DEFINITE. THERE IS CERTAINTY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.)\nB. "I'M NOT SURE IF GOD EXISTS. I'M NOT SURE IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST." (THIS IS REALLY UNCERTAIN.)
458215
I think (though I'm an atheist and therefore possibly more rational than some here) that one can't - a priori - prove that he's NOT, therefore he COULD BE.
495510
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.  \n\nHowever, it is the logical (or I should say illogical) fallacy "argument from ignorance" that because there is no evidence that God exists, that is evidence that God does not exist.   \n\nIt is also logical fallacy of "negative proof," that God must exist because there is no proof that God does not exist.  Why do you think God exists.  Why do you think God doesn't exist?    \n\n"The burden of proof should be on the proposed idea, not the challenger of the idea."  The challenger must only raise an issue of doubt, whereas the proposer must carry the burden of persuasion.  \n\nWhat can be more "honest," "practical," "intelligent," than LOGIC?\n\nAnother point, it is beliefs we are talking about, which are devloped best from the weight of the evidence in a world that seldom presents absolute proof.  Provocative question!  Thanks for keeping me up all night with this non-sense!
53646
Youre right, you cant prove it. But thats fine for most people, cause if you keep telling yourself thats something exist, its gonna exist. So you dont need a proof. If you keep telling yourself that theres God, God will exist. If you dont, then he wont. It simple. And about the Bible, I could write a book right now about a new God, bury it in the earth and then about 1000 years later someone's gonna find it, and there will be a new religion, and everybody will believe in my God. You know what im saying? So you cant prove anything, its just whether believe in it or not. If you do you'll see it.
12991
To everyone here - you can't argue with each other. You are arguing matters based on someone's faith - so there can be no logical outcome as viewed from both parties. To have religious faith means you 'just believe' despite what might be shown false - that's when these folks tend to raise the 'get real - how can that be so' attitude.\n\nStay in your realm and believe what you want to, but do not tell me and others that all of observed science is garbage. If you fell ill at ease when looking at science - perhaps you need to look inwards and ask what is making you feel uneasy?? If you feel that folks who believe in evolution are all going to hell for denying God - then why worry about them? I'm sure that they are not concerned about it.
607344
it goes against those who say we don't exist, life is meaningless, or that we cannot know, the skeptic i believe. knowing something implies that we must have life. or is dependent on the fact that we must be alive to know. Similar to the cartesian (descartes) who said I think therefore i am. \n\nDescarte is absolutely certain that he exists because he thinks and experiences things. This absolute certainty is then used to prove we can know something. but this is descartes not nietzsche. I don't know who came first but they sound similar. He's not reacting against descarte he's just rephrasing what he said. I pretty sure he is reacting against the skeptic who's all spaced out hippie and is like maybe my blue is your purple and we're just beamed down manifestations of one being. \n\nI never read nietsche so don't know exactly what he was trying to say. have to read the whole section of the book to know exactly but that's what it sounds like. \n\nalso if we try to say that we know we can't know we destroy any value of knowing we can't know. obviously if we can't know anything then we can't know we don't know. You can just say maybe we don't know. which is kind of weak. \n\nsorry so confusing; hope that helped :^)