Arguments, that convince you, strong atheism is true. If you are not a strong atheist, but a weak one, don't argue with this question. its not for you. Its for the ones, that positively assert, most probably God does not exist. Please don't base it on a negative ( the bible is worthless etc....), but positive arguments, which do make strong atheism stand on its own right.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Such a simple yet great way to put it. I don't get how people don't understand this. Beyond me.
the question is incomplete
No. My question is complete and well defined.
Atheists no more need to prove god does not exist than a-unicornists need to prove unicorns do not exist. It is virtualy impossible to prove a negative(except in very rigidly defined cases) so it is up to the person making the positive claim to prove he's case. So it is nonsensical for you to ask us to prove god does not exist as that is impossible and most people know that.
Now then the best evidence that god does not exist is the fact that theists have no real evidence for hes existence and also how every argument they make fails on some level or another and proves nothing.You can also bring the god of the gaps into this . So then if theists can not even make a semi decent case for a gods existence then the default position is disbelief in its existence, it is as simple as that
If you haven't already read them, I refer you to Atheism, The Case Against God (Smith) and God, the Failed Hypothesis (Stenger)
You've got this backwards.
For me, atheism isn't about proof that god exists, but about the absence of any credible evidence for the existence of god. No evidence, not reason to believe in it.
Exactly! But this person doesn't seem to understand this. Besides the fact that the burden of proof lies on the believers, not us.
and what evidence do you have on hand, the universe is self existent ?
What exactly does this have to do with the burden of proof? You claim there is a god, it is not the non-believers burden to prove that there is NOT a god, but for the believers to prove their theory of there being a god in the first place.
It is impossible to prove the negative of something, therefore your question isn't relevant.
On your self existance of the universe question, as I stated in my previous comment further up in the thread, if you read up on the vacuum fluctuation theory, it provides a relevant explanation of the origins of the universe ABSENT of a god like interference.
The universe no longer needs a god to help explain it, therefore the theory of god is no longer applicable. We no longer need the "Goddidit" explanation as the generations before us did, because we now know the truth and are getting closer to an explanation of the origins of the universe which is one of the last questions that scientists have been unable to answer.
To be fair, his OP is directed towards Strong Atheists, who make the claim that there is no god - not just a rejection of the claim that there is a god.