[Camel]

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

[Bishy786]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

Atheism is the belief that there is no evidence of/for God. Once there is evidence, then maybe some will start to "believe".

By the way, you can't back up or provide evidence for a negative.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

Too bad your definition is wrong that's a positive claim which atheism isn't.

atheism is the lack of belief in a god because there hasn't been enough convincing evidence to prove there is one

As the 2nd poster said, you can't prove a negative unless you want to attack the properties of god (the abrahamic ones usually) and say it's logically impossible

[Gofre]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

Theists are the ones making the affirmative claim, that a deity(s) exists. We are perfectly justified in rejecting your claim until your side of the coin provides evidence.

[Pancakeman123]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Read it.

[WhiterunUK]

Atheism is not and has never been a claim. We are just saying we don't know whats out there, its possible there's a god- but its about as unlikely as every other obscure supernatural theory.

(similar to how we dont know for certain that ghosts dont exist)

[Einheri]

IMO atheism is as much faith as theism. Agnosticism is the only stance that doesn't require faith.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

If religious people are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

[Alexandra's Box]

Your OP failed.

[Bobifier]

(Original post by Einheri)
IMO atheism is as much faith as theism. Agnosticism is the only stance that doesn't require faith.

I always find this speculation to be somewhat deceptive since it puts the two options on equal footing. It is ideas like this that have led to the creation of the "Invisible pink unicorn" style arguments.

[chickenonsteroids]

(Original post by Einheri)
IMO atheism is as much faith as theism. Agnosticism is the only stance that doesn't require faith.

how? What faith is there in atheism?

Unless you'd say there's faith in not believing in unicorns?

[Profesh]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

Wrong. Next.

[lukas1051]

I don't understand why it is so hard for people who are not atheists to understand why atheists are atheists.

Do you believe in pink unicorns OP? You don't? Why not? I imagine it's something to do with the fact that you were not, from a young age, told that pink unicorns exist. All humans are born without the belief in pink unicorns, and when you look at the bare facts from a neutral mindset most people would probably conclude that pink unicorns do not exist.

Same thing applies to God. The difference is, children are told that God does exist, they are told to unconditionally believe this fact without questioning, and questioning of this fact leads to circular logic: God exists because the Bible says so, the Bible is right because it was written by God, who exists because the Bible says so etc. ad infinitum.

As for the reasons I don't believe in God, the reasons why I see the concept of God as ridiculous, the reasons why I believe all religions are wrong, well there are hundreds, and I won't go into them here because I can't be bothered. You could do worse than start here: http://godisimaginary.com/

[Camel]

Imagine there's a box. I say there's an apple inside, but you disagree. You can prove me wrong by opening the box and showing me there is no apple.

So don't tell me you can't prove a negative.

[NuclearFusion]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

Well I'm of the viewpoint that the burden of proof lies with whoever is making the claim, if you are charged with vandalism, it is up to the police to provide evidence that you were vandalising, it wouldn't work if the police simply took you to court and demanded evidence that you were not committing vandalism. I also believe that if a claim can be made without evidence, it can also just as easily be dismissed without evidence, as highlighted by the 'diamond the size of a refrigerator' scenario. Just as if I was charged with speeding, but the police provided no evidence that I was, I could dismiss their charges without having to prove my innocence. However, if they then found evidence to show that I was indeed speeding, then it would be up to me to prove otherwise, or admit to the charges.

Thus, I would say that because there is no credible evidence to support the existence of God, I can safely dismiss claims of God existing. However, just in my previous example, if evidence was found, then it would be up to atheists to disprove this evidence, or admit to God's existence. So in this way, I suppose I am sort of an agnostic atheist. This is my personal philosophical viewpoint, and I entirely respect people having faith, so don't think that I am in any way against religious people (in fact a lot of my friends are Christians- we do have some good debates!)

[stinkerbelll]

(Original post by Camel)
Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

If atheists are so sure, what evidence do they have to back up their claim?

Thanks for filling us on in that first sentence. I feel like I'm intellectually equipped to reply now.

I'm an atheist, and in all honesty I would love to have faith- I believe that having a religion can add a comfort to your life that mine lacks. But I simply cannot believe it, I can't force myself to dedicate my life to something I know is not there.

What evidence do we have? DNA- remind me how you make that from dirt again? The fact that people have explored the skies and drilled the ground for miles and found neither a heaven nor a hell. The fact that many religious concepts, for example the whole Noah's arc shebang, are totally implausible. I would say evolution, but people seem to come back with "it's only a theory!"... what, so the bible/torah/quran is proven fact?

Let's put all the science top the side because people always find a way to blame fossils/other scientific evidence on the devil, or a test from God to prove our faith.... If there is a supposedly malevolent, omnipotent being responsible for the creation of everything ever... How malevolent are they, when they instruct that women, or people of other creeds, or homosexuals, or anyone who believes in any other religion, regardless of the acts or intentions of that person, should be treated as inferior to the heterosexual man who happens to follow the right religion?

Does someone/thing like that really deserve to be praised, if they do exist?

[Cannotbelieveit]

(Original post by Camel)
Imagine there's a box. I say there's an apple inside, but you disagree. You can prove me wrong by opening the box and showing me there is no apple.

So don't tell me you can't prove a negative.

It's the other way around.

Any realist would say there is no god, and quite rightly because it's common sense.

It's up to the the theists to prove that God does exist.

[ConnorB]

This pretty much sums up your thread and your ideas OP...

[lucaf]

(Original post by Camel)
Imagine there's a box. I say there's an apple inside, but you disagree. You can prove me wrong by opening the box and showing me there is no apple.

So don't tell me you can't prove a negative.

you can prove a negative, but a negative is the default position until you can prove it is wrong. there could be an apple in the box, but there could also be a banana, or it could be empty. it isn't our job to disprove the apple.

atheism isn't the belief there is no god, it is the lack of belief in a god. that is a crucial distinction. you do not need proof to not believe in something, lack of proof in that thing is sufficient. you cannot assume everything is true until it is disproven, else you will believe in everything

[lukas1051]

(Original post by Camel)
Imagine there's a box. I say there's an apple inside, but you disagree. You can prove me wrong by opening the box and showing me there is no apple.

So don't tell me you can't prove a negative.

Imagine there's a box. I say there's an invisible, undetectable, untouchable teapot inside but you disagree. You can open the box but you can't prove me wrong.

Most people say "God is outside the universe", so how can we be expected to disprove something that is beyond all physical realms? Just because we cannot disprove something does not mean it is there. Scientists do not claim to know all the answers, that doesn't make you correct.

Poor analogy.