But I feel as if both sides of the argument do not have sufficient evidence. Should I give it time?
Posted: October 9th 2010
Eshu www
Perhaps consider the difference between weak and strong atheism.
In practice virtually no one is a “strong atheist”. A strong atheist would actually require evidence (or at least a comprehensive argument that excluded even non-interventionist gods) to be consistent in their positive (dis)belief. A weak atheist meanwhile, simply withholds belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
How much positive evidence do you have against the existence of unicorns? None, I’d guess. But you probably consider it reasonable to disbelieve in them, all the same.
Posted: October 13th 2010
Leeta www
You do not need “evidence” to not believe in something. There is no evidence for a god, period. The default position is indeed atheism until someone can provide material evidence for Zeus, Amun-Ra, Wotan, Yaweh, Ashur, Marduk, or any other number of gods in our history.
In other words, because there is no evidence, you are an atheist.
Posted: October 11th 2010
bitbutter www
You were born not believing in gods. If you think the evidence for the existence of any particular god is unconvincing, reason dictates that you remain an atheist.
This is not to say that you shouldn’t examine arguments for and against religious belief. But in terms of deciding how to self-identify, I think it’s worth bearing in mind that atheism is the null hypothesis.
Posted: October 11th 2010
logicel
There is evidence from neuroscience, history, psychology, etc. that god belief is man-made. This body of information coupled with the stunning lack of evidence for god makes a pretty good case for just not bothering with gods.
Posted: October 9th 2010
Mike the Infidel www
Think of it this way: You’re told that there’s an invisible dragon living in your friend’s garage. When you ask him to provide you evidence, he comes up with excuses about why it’s not possible to provide any – you just have to believe.
Do you believe the dragon exists?
Now replace the dragon with the idea of a god. If you can respond to that question with “no,” you’re already an atheist. That’s really all there is to it; anything beyond that is outside of the realm of what the word “atheist” covers. It doesn’t even necessarily mean that you actively believe there are no gods – a position which would require a bit of evidence to be supported.
Remember, atheism doesn’t require evidence. It’s not about having evidence that disproves religious ideas – it’s about disbelieving if there’s not any evidence for those religious ideas. You don’t have to be able to disprove Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. to be an atheist. You don’t have to do anything, other than withhold belief until there’s good evidence.
Posted: October 9th 2010
Dave Hitt www
Sure. What’s the hurry?
The atheism/theism question should be considered as important as the Curly/Shemp question or the Ginger/Mary Ann question. It’s interesting and fun to discuss, but ultimately trivial, minor and unimportant. Theists insist it’s important, but they’re wrong.
So take your time. There’s no hurry.
By the way, the correct answers are “Curly” and “Mary Ann,” and if you disagree you’re an evil heathen with no morals and destined to be tormented forever by a loving god.
Silly, isn’t it?
Posted: October 9th 2010