I'm new around here. This is my first blog post in effort to spark some interesting discussions. Depending on the feedback, I may write more! Let me know what you think.
I am having a bit of a struggle understanding what my approach should be when I am having debates with theists. On the one hand, I feel that proving whether or not there is a god is an impossible task. This would make me an atheist. On the other, I would like to use reason, understanding, and tangible evidence to determine whether or not a god exists. Why even posit a god if you cannot see evidence? This makes me lean more toward anti-theist. I am of the opinion that one can have a discussion about a god but all of these discussions are irrelevant and inconsequential. The way we should determine the things that we can truly know is if we have evidence for this knowledge. Otherwise, why are we having a conversation about something that does not exist?
I would personally like to assert that no gods exist for the simple reason that I have never seen evidence of one. Until evidence is provided, it is nonsensical to make claims about a being that does not reveal himself. For example, everyone who has read the story of Humpty Dumpty can reasonably assume that the entire story is a false story. Plain and simple. The story was made up. Eggs are not anthropomorphic. I have never seen an anthropomorphic egg, nor has anyone else. Anthropomorphic eggs are not evident in any reasonable body of knowledge. Sure, we can have a philosophical conversation of what an anthropomorphic egg would be like. This does nothing to convey the reality of all anthropomorphic eggs BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST. And I can say this with *reasonable certainty* because that which does not provide evidence of itself is ridiculous. I object with a reasonable disdain to the argument that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I would argue that the "absence of evidence IS, in fact, evidence of absence" because it simply does not make reasonable sense to make up stories to make one feel better. Also, arguing logical fallacies simply cannot work in the case of a faith-based claim, but this is another topic entirely.
It literally pains me to see people waste time and money (through church-going, among other things) on such a nonsensical subject. Philosophical arguments for the existence of the universe and everything in it are not impressive in the least. One cannot simply introduce an unknowable creator-of-everything into a debate. Faith is very unsatisfying. The truth of reality is a much more wonderful understanding than any supernatural explanation. One can be spiritual without the need for divine intervention. Through looking up at the universe at night, smelling the roses, and observing a flock of birds, there is a feeling of awe that can strike our human emotions. This is spirituality in the truest sense. I am of the mind that religion is quite perverse to spirituality. We should all satisfied with pondering the things that are real, not the supernatural.