"Yes, I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as atheist some people will say, don't you mean agnostic? I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one... etc., etc. It's easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal and that it's an opinion I hold seriously." -- Douglas Adams
Nobody can be sure. I think of it as rather like saying, how can we be sure there aren't leprechauns and fairies and unicorns? You have to have something more than just saying, well, there's no evidence against it, and there has to be some kind of positive evidence in favor of it in order for you to take it seriously. So I think that the absence of evidence is the same for leprechauns and fairies. And I think the positive evidence is also equally weak for all of them. In 'The God Delusion,' I made a seven point scale, from zero, meaning I'm absolutely confident that there is a God, to seven, absolutely confident there there isn't. And I think I call myself a 6.9. And one of the things I use that scale for is to get rid of the rather silly idea that if there's no evidence either way, therefore it's 50/50. It isn't 50/50, or it'll be something else. It's there's no reason to say that just because we have no positive evidence either way, therefore it's exactly equally likely. Because you could say that about leprechauns as well.
I don't have to be confident that there is no god in order to be confident that I don't believe theistic claims of gods.
"The Easter Bunny and your god are equally plausible. Stop being so damn naive."
"God is the only being who does not have to exist in order to reign." -- Charles Baudelaire
Lazy fucker. Can't even be bothered existing, yet still gets temples and monuments and people fighting over how to make him happy.
Give me that job - I'll actually put in the effort to exist.
Now it's often said—it was said tonight, and Dr. Craig said it in print—that atheists think they can prove the nonexistence of God.
This, in fact, very slightly but crucially misrepresents what we've always said. And there's nothing new about the New Atheists; it's just we're recent. There's nothing particularly new.
Dr. Victor Stenger, a great scientist, has written a book called The Failed Hypothesis, which he says he thinks that science can now license the claim that there definitely is no God. But he is unique in that, and I think very bold and courageous.
Here's what we argue: We argue quite simply that there's no plausible or convincing reason, certainly no evidential one, to believe that there is such an entity.
And that all observable phenomena, including the cosmological one to which I'm coming, are explicable without the hypothesis. You don't need the assumption.
I don't need to prove the non-existence of a god any more than Xians need to prove the non-existence of Atum, Freyja and Huītzilōpōchtli.
"Religions exist because people would rather have a wrong answer than no answer at all." -- Chuck Palahniuk
You can tell by the type of questions they ask when they find out you're a non-believer.
"Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths."
-- Denis Diderot
The Six Main Reasons I Don't Believe In The Existence of Gods:
1. It's such an extraordinary claim that I would expect to see some evidence. I don't. 2. There is no reasoning that necessarily leads to the existence of a god. 3. The philosophical contradictions that the typical god-belief leads to like the problem of evil, the problem of silence, the problem of poor design, and the problem of free will. 4. Contradictions within holy books themselves. 5. All the things religions get wrong about reality. 6. The overwhelming evidence of the power of indoctrination: people mostly believing whatever they are taught as children.
7. While we have zero evidence for any god(s), the existence of many mutually-exclusive god-claims is evidence that people can and do believe in gods that don't exist without ever knowing the truth. Even believers will agree with this... about other believers. That is, we have no evidence of god, and plenty of evidence of no-god. In the absence of the former, nobody can figure out the latter.
Your atheistic fedora-tipping rant is pathetic. Everyone's allowed to believe what they want - it's quite personal. It's not for some bigot with a blog to decide what's believable or what is not. Besides, all the data and knowledge suggests that there are higher forces of the universe and such. How are you different from those other bigots who preach religion, then?
LOL.
It’s notable that you didn’t bother to argue that I got anything wrong - you didn’t identify or even give any hints about which of my many posts you took issue with - just that you were bothered that I had the gall to say it out loud. This seems to be the latest tactic religionists have had to resort to. Arguing truth is a (very short) dead-end street - more like a driveway - so instead it comes down to “shh, not so loud or the kids will hear.”
You can believe whatever nonsense you want in the privacy of your own head, but when you say it out loud, and that it's true, I get to evaluate it and show your errors. It's not my fault when it falls apart and there's no reason for me to believe you. Nobody's forcing you to read my blog, but if believers get to say what they think, so do I; to insist otherwise would make you an outright hypocrite.
What you claim is nonsensical. There is plenty we don't understand about the universe, such as the origin of how gravity and time formed, literally none of which indicates a higher being. Much less your own specific magical imaginary friend, whichever one that might be. You don't get to insert stupid fan fiction into the gaps of human knowledge just because you prefer a wrong answer now to a correct answer when we find it. Lightning, rain, disease, earthquakes... all have natural causes. Thus far, "god" as an "explanation" has a 100% losing track record. And explains nothing anyway. With all this consistent failure in mind, to bet on the same losing (dead) horse is kind of... brave. What’s the saying about insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results?
So, sure, I’m gonna put my bet on “natural cause: TBD” and feel no stress about doing so, and be intellectually justified in doing so.
Nice that you close with saying how bad religion is. I don't have one, though.
Notice how you don’t see “fedora-wearing” aBigfootists. Because nobody has to actually say “I don’t believe in Bigfoot” and nobody has to defend the existence and nature of the universe from lunatics who insist either that “all the data and knowledge suggests” Bigfoot is responsible (whether through ignorance or dishonesty), or that if no other explanation can be provided, Bigfoot wins by default. My vocality is directly a result of people doing exactly this with their imaginary friends, and then crying foul when challenged.
If religionists shut up about their imaginary gods, they won’t have to hear from me any more that I don’t believe them.
[ As an aside, I’ve never met a single fedora-wearing atheist, and yet so many superstitionists invoke this bizarre and completely meaningless meme. Hats? Really? The unavoidable conclusion seems to be that none of them know any more about atheism or atheists than they do about their own scripture. ]
“Since all faith claims are equal in their unverifiability, then anyone can say whatever they want about God.
That is not scholarship. That is theology, which is itself a pseudo-scholarly discipline with no referent other than oneself - because all views of God cannot be shown to be anything beyond one's own opinion.
Any statement about God is an act of self-deification.”
-- Hector Avalos
“If there was ever an empirical refutation of the Christian belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God, the problem of evil is it.
It speaks like a megaphone against the existence of this God.”
-- John W. Loftus
-
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?”
“It was very disconcerting the first time I was exposed to the so-called proofs for the existence of God.
I still vividly recall my reaction at the end of that college theology class. All I could think was: "Is that all two-thousand years of theology could come up with?" Frankly, I was greatly dismayed.
Eventually my dismay turned to anger when I realized that I had been duped for so long.”
-- Joseph L. Daleiden
“The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires. A world without god or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn't require god to actually exist.”
-- Lawrence Krauss
Why is it that you people are supposedly in direct contact with this creature, and yet the best you can do remains “why are there still monkeys,” “how can something come from nothing” and “you’ll find out when you’re dead”?
If you’re in a “personal relationship” with it, how come of all the things you’ve ever prayed for, you’ve never asked for a better, more convincing argument? Surely that’s something an all-powerful, all-loving god could easily provide. And would want to. It wouldn’t even violate free will. Have you never asked? Or did it say no?
Why do all the arguments for god consist of silly human sophistry and not indisputable divine logic?