Is it normal i wonder why atheists are so confident?

I understand how they can believe in their methods of debunking all religions known to man.

However, it is impossible to actually prove that a god doesn't exist.

Even if every religion was wrong, that would simply mean that THEIR gods don't exist. They say things like, "If god was real, he would do this or that."

From their perspective, that should just mean that religious people are wrong about the way god acts, and who he is.

God could just be content to watch the affairs of humans play out after he created them, like entertainment.

I get agnostics, but atheists literally have no way of knowing, despite their big words.

Is It Normal?
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 44 ) Sort: best | oldest
  • We feel the same way about religious people. Every damn day I think they are absolutely ridiculous and I can't wrap my head around it. So we're even, let's just be cool w that and not all fight.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Exactly. A lot of atheists seem to suffer from the "dunning-Kruger" effect, and are so wrapped up in how edgy they think it is to reject a "popular belief" that they don't even realize their hypocrisy. Agnosticism makes the most sense, but let people believe whatever the hell they want. Most of them aren't hurting anyone

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I believe in fairy tales.

    You can’t disprove them!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • Those fairy tales would be written by men, just like religious books.

      I already acknowledged that religious texts written by men can be debunked. However, the hypothetical existence of an unknown god, never written about, cannot.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • -
      • Could be if you know about negative energy, photons and small black holes preventing time for a god to exist.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Religion makes no sense, nor do their gods. Those of us who have read the bible for instance, find it to be silly, the stories are whimsical and full of holes. It's very obvious it was made up by people.

    The burden of proof is upon the people who claim there is a god, all atheists are really doing is asking for evidence of god and the silly stories in the bible.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • You don't seem to know a lot about the Bible. Also, even if the text has "holes", as many believers from most denominations accept as a consequence of the variety of sources, this only would mean that either the original sources suffered some corruption, or that their divine inspiration did not work in a way that was clean enough to make them unambiguous. If you really think any of these conclusions would make Christian religions crumb rather than suffer theological reconsideations, then you don't understand them very well either.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Good observation: God pulls up an easy chair, gets a bucket of buttered popcorn and an ice cold beer. Then He lays back and laughs hysterically while he watches His creation make murderous fools of themselves. Makes sense really. He has plenty of time on His hands

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • Funny, the Bible actually says that God sits in the heavens and laughs at his enemies. God also ate butter when he went to Abraham's abode.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Evolution= Evidence

    God= Non-factual "belief" with no evidence.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • Since Evolution is only a problem for Fixism, not Theism, the argument is invalid. However, a valid argument would be that believers' reasons for believing don't follow the criteria of empirical sciences. It's true, they don't. Even so, that does not mean the reasons don't matter, nor that they don't make sense in their own way if you take the Gospels seriously, and there are many valid reasons to take them seriously. As a believer, do I think it's the most logical path to believe in God? Not really, but I still understand why I do, and I don't regret it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • mebbe god exists or mebbe not

    simple fact is that nobody knows

    some simpleton fuckwits seemsta think that they does though causea indoctrination and strong delusional feelins and tryta tell others howta live life

    this tendsta enrage free thinkin peoples like myself

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • Y'alls got a nice way of puttin it. Thankfully, we all got our moonshine and our land mines. Moonshine to help us fergit about them God happy fuckwits, and land mines stop them from knockin on our doors with evangelical insults to our common sense.

      Mindlessly happy people; they's a curse.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Atheists have such a narrowed mind that if Gid doesn't fit their concept or idea, it does not exist.
    It is good to remind that there is The atheist who doubt The existance of God, and The one that belive that it doesnt exist. It is like The belief of The non existance of God, and in that they havê faith

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • They hate God because they're going to hell anyways.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Hitchens Razor: Anything claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Confident that Abrahamic religions are false you mean? Well because you never provide evidence for your scary threats of hell etc. You go by one book and claim it's the word of god and you know because it's in the book too.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I mean, there's no real way to prove that there is a god, and there's no real way to prove that there isn't. i guess you find out when you die

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • No because, for the millionth time, atheists don't believe that god doesn't exist, 100%. We think it's more likely "he" doesn't. We simply don't believe in god(s).

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I believe all the different religion and concepts. The muslims think , you have to be muslim to go to happen. jews believe they are the chosen ones. Christians believe that unless you accept Christ you cannot enter the kingdom. The truth is we should all treat one another the way we want to be treated. When you do good,good follows you, and when you do bad , it follows you also. Do no harm, , so that when your times comes.. you would not regret, wherever you may go!.No one is better than anyone , and the truth is , in death we are all called the same.. ":bring that body here or take that body there"

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Maybe there are beings or something/s unimaginable and incomprehensible to the human mind that started/created the universe and everything in it but the singular personified gods of this planet is obviously a buncha bull..a big guy in the sky that created the world..uhhh ok,,

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I know what you mean. I just want atheists and religious people alike to stop treating their belief (or lack of belief) fact.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • But if you experience God and see evidence of him acting in your life, do you mean to say such a person should act as if they doubt their own reality? And why would an atheist be automatically right to put it down to schizophrenia, if no signs of illness or imbalance are present?

      If you don't experience God, you can't prove that that means he doesn't exist. You just didn't have contact with him. But if you do experience God, then manifestly, he does exist.

      It's a little like saying a microscopically small bug, reputed to have a very nasty bite, doesn't exist just because you can't see it (and you don't happen to have the correct equipment to properly detect its presence). But if you walk into its alleged habitat and it bites you, you have to loosen your grip on your disbelief and think about whether you really want to reject everything you've been told.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • -
      • You only have to loosen your grip about something having bitten you, you don't have a good idea about what it is without having a way to operationalize the system, test the variables, replicate the results and compare thousands of results through statistics, and even then you cannot know for sure. Those are the criteria of science, and I personally have never read any kind of apologetics that covers these criteria when establishing arguments our thought experiment. Of course, that does not mean our reasons are not strong enough for faith, but it's still faith. As a believer, I additionally also believe it's completely possible to act in humility concerning our relationship with God when talking to nonbelievers. I don't think we should pretend we don't think He exists and matters, but even so, we can change the way how we express that belief.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • -
        • UNRIVALED eloquence, my respected colleague. Your grip on the torch of human enlightenment is indeed inspiring. Please join us, the MENSA level contributors, here at IIN. I would love to be your friend, and vigorous understudy.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
      • And look for contraindications to avoid confirmation bias.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Explicit atheists annoy the hell out of me.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • you read my mind

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 1) What is a person who doesn't believe in something that doesn't exist?

    2) "However, it is impossible to actually prove that a god doesn't exist."
    Is incorrect.
    It is actually possible. It is called the study of Physics.

    3) What is a good?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • You don't know how Physics works, apparently. Or any empirical sciences, for that matter.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • -
      • Fine, then you tell me how it works.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • -
        • Empirical sciences work by accumulating and, most of all, replacing tentative, imperfect, probabilistic evidence with new evidence obtained by tests that undermine at some level previous evidence. Unlike other believer stated earlier here in this thread, no, there is no faith involved, but all of it is – and its credibility (the highest there is, on this I agree with you) is based on this fact – inherently provisional, imperfect, probabilistic and incomplete. Even the "laws" of Physics are just imperfect models, super accurate and predictive as they may be. Newtonian laws seemed just as "perfect" as the current laws seem right now until we started to develop the technology necessary to make tests in systems of greater scope, when it became obvious that they were pretty unreliable at that level. Even so, at the level they worked before with very little error, they still work, even though their wrongness now is so much clearer. Of course, current laws are more accurate, but they are still imperfect, they don't explain everything we observe, and odds are the laws we arrive at in the future won't either. There are physical "laws" we don't know yet, some we may never know, and the laws we "know" now may (most likely do) have better formulations and explanatory foundations than the ones right now available to us. Does that mean these results and explanations are bad, unreliable or equivalent to theological statements? Nope, they are still more reliable and predictable, obviously, as I stated before. But they still don't prove anything, they just accumulate tentative (sometimes, like in this case, very good) evidence, and of the many things they accumulate evidence about, well, God is not one of them. We can, yes, accumulate evidence about things that in Theology are related to narratives about God, and these things can refute some theological statements, but both religion and Theism survive all of this, because religion is dynamic and change many of its beliefs with time, while some of them, like the existence of God, don't need to change, since they are untestable and thus out of reach for the tools of science. God is not equivalent to a spaghetti monster either, since the sociohistorical background, philosophical foundations and evidence are still much stronger and its anthropological status completely different. However, the evidence (or lack thereof), indirect though it may be, for the existence of the Christian God that is the strongest in theological narrative happened in the far past, 2000 years ago, and the other minor evidential reports were also either far in the past, or unrecorded by scientific standards, or not within the minimum requirements of the empirical sciences. In other words, using God as an explanation goes against Occam's razor, at one level, since it does not stem directly from supported (that is, tested) evidence, and at another level is in itself untestable and in this sense uninteresting for science, while “God’s will” variables cannot be observed in data in any significant way. Thus, the rational reason for not believing in God is not that science proves He does not exist, nor that science is all encompassing at any given point in its knowledge (both claims are unarguably false), but that God is not falsifiable, that is, impossible to test, and thus uninteresting from a scientific perspective, and its suggested existence based on evidence itself unfalsifiable, while He cannot be directly observed in trends that cannot be explained by operationalization, which means that, from a scientific point of view, there is no reason at all to rely on God as an explanation, nor to actively believe he exists. Since science is itself linked to probability, most of the models of decision-making based on probabilities assumed from the given scientific data are also not supportive of adopting a belief in God, based on the same arguments above. Many actually argue that Occam’s Razor can basically be understood as a less formal but more theoretically grounded form of this very same style of modelling probability. Does not mean this actually says anything directly about God or comes close to refuting His existence, just that, on an evidence-based model, the reasons for believing in God with the best knowledge of data are weak.

          By the way, I may be a believer, but the best atheist philosophers are going to give you basically the same answer, but probably with much more and better detail into the philosophical considerations involved, and probably with less mistakes regarding the philosophy. As a scientist, I know only the basics on that front, and this is basically a philosophical, not scientific, problem. By the way, Dawkins is a very good Evolutionary Biologist, but a bad philosopher. William Lane Craig, the believer who crushed him in a debate, is a better philosopher (good enough to know at least some of the major arguments relevant to the problem, and Dawkins didn’t; that’s why he was crushed besides being mostly right), but IMO still bad (again IMO, he arrives at the wrong conclusions and is one of the main models in a school of theology that goes against many of the arguments above), besides being basically a conman (since he just cherry-picks popular amateurs in philosophy like Dawkins in order to crush them on video and make himself look good, when he is not actually engaging the best in the field at all). If you want an easy to find, generally good resource on problems like this, I would check the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, then look for relevant authors representative of the major arguments mentioned there and in other credible sources.

          Now, why one believes is another question not touched above, but most answers in Christianity will turn to faith at some point, at some level and according to a theological conception of the term. Like I mentioned, it’s not the ideal option from a purely probabilistic point of view, but it may be in accordance with other reasons to believe (and, after all, almost no one follows the ideal probabilistic option in most of one’s life). Few atheists even know the best probabilistic reasons to be an atheist, and everyone is full of at some level irrational thought processes or solutions, usually with much more trivial reasons for their adoption than those taken into account for the faith in God.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          • -
          • So we're all still waiting for your proof of god. Not your senseless babbling.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
          • You simply make me breathless. After I get a hold of myself, maybe I'll realize that I just fell in love.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
          • Wow, you seem to know a lot!

            What is the first thing that I need to know, in Physics, such that I am able to explain and understand the Universe?

            Comment Hidden ( show )
    • If there really was an all powerful being who didn't want to be discovered, do you really think he'd have a hard time dodging some physics?

      If he's a god, then humans would not be powerful enough nor knowledgeable enough to disprove his existence.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • -
      • It is impossible to 'dodge physics'.
        Physics supersedes everything else, and preempts any real or imagined, so-called "all powerful being".
        In fact, 'power', in any form, is regulated by the Laws of Physics.
        Even any real or imagined, so-called "all powerful being" needs to abide by the Laws of Physics, or it simply wouldn't exist, in this Universe, or in any other Universe.

        Your assumptions are rather human-centric.
        I would aver that there are many life-forms in the Universe, that are neither male or female, as we understand it.
        If it's a good, and there is only one, which apparently (in your mind) is supposedly male, then how does it reproduce?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • You are being lazy. Try to put yourself in their shoes. Your confusion just reflects on your own lack of trying.

    If I just made something up off the top of my head, would you be agnostic about it, or would you say its not true?

    To an atheist god is nothing more than a made up idea. It has no credibility to them whatsoever.

    If I said that if you took a spacecraft for three trillion miles you would exit our dimension and there is a store filled with cantaloupe and pictures of your mother there.
    You cannot disprove this. Are you going to suspend disbelief because it could be possible?

    This scenario is equally likely to an atheist as the existence of god.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    • -
    • I'm not lazy, you're just narrow-minded. All powerful simply means all powerful. A god, in the way that I mean, is above all other forces.

      It seems a bit egotistical of you to assume that humans know so much about the universe.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      • -
      • I have literally never seen so much projection in one post.
        1. You wrote this post about how you don't understand atheism. I as a fellow theist, explain this to you, and you call ME narrow minded.
        2. You are being an extreme egotist in your assertions about the nature of god and his existence, and your judgement of atheists. I did not make a single claim as to humans having knowledge about the universe.

        If we are going to continue dialogue please actually respond to the things I say, as opposed to these prepared blanket defensive mean words.

        This was thoroughly unpleasant to read.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        • -
        • Hmm, I think I made a mistake, and sort of mixed up your comment with another one. The first sentence is directed at you, but the rest is a mistake.

          Apologies.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Also, are you even confident that other gods don't exist instead of yours?

      If not then you are 99% using the same thinking as an atheist. You do exactly what you are surprised by them doing with every god except yours

      Comment Hidden ( show )
Add A Comment