Why do atheists not believe in God?

Just want people serious answers I am just curious
Why do atheists not believe in God? What do they then believe in?

I have often quarrelled with this issue myself. I dont claim to know everything but from the basic knowledge I have, to claim there is not God is absurd. Yes, we can't experimentally prove the exisitence of God but that doesn't entirely mean there is no God. To say there is a supernatural being out there, does seems unlogical at first but I pondered whether anything in this universe is logical. Human beigns have invented ideas and concepts to make the universe understandable but are those ideas correct methods?
For example, lets looks at the area of quantum physics, where crazy unimaginable things happen, but that doesn't necessarily mean it doesnt happen.

I think to say 'I'm an atheist' is foolish but to say 'I'm agnostic' is more wiser, imo.

Google 'agnostic atheist'.

I don't think a discovery in necessary, after a while people will see how far religion has backtracked from just medieval times that eventually it's use will be obsolete. Just look at the anglican church with gay marriage, their beliefs are just out of touch, their lack of opinion on IVF and their bigotry toward homosexuals. It will no longer be a 'must' to be religious but a choice that people choose to make, and not many of those who are educated will pick it. It ties in with tradition and upbringing that will be the cause of it lasting so long. I think it was Dawkins who said that if you brought up a child with no religion and just facts then there would be no doubt it would grow up an Athiest, it's the same on the opposite side with religious groups like Mormons, except for the fact that facts are true not just opinion or 'belief' with no supporting evidence. That's why I think it will fail, they are grasping at straws so hard.

Couldn't have put it better myself



Yes, there could be a god, but I still find it seriously unlikely. After all, it's all just ideas dreamt up by random humans over the centuries.

Oh, and Quantum Physics actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. It's not 'crazy unimaginable', it's rational and experimentally sound.

I thought the wisest thing to do is to believe in a creator, then not believing in one and end up in 'hell'.

I just call it non-existence. After all, how can something be hellish if you can't experience it, it's like what it was like before birth.

Who says we need a creator? If god created everyone, then who created god? if everyone needs a creator like the religious people say.


As for human life, we all started as single-celled organisms, then after a few million years there was a mutation in the genetic code and the organisms became multi-celled and eventually grew appendages for swimming... The Earth was nearly covered in water at this time so in the beginning, we were all fish. Then when land started rising more, there developed more terrestrials (land animals) and birds and now we have millions of different living animals and humans aren't really that special, the only reason we are smarter than the animals is because we were the first to stand up and look at the world in front of us, as opposed to the floor which is what most animals are constantly looking at. Then we started to look at the sky and ask questions about our existence and developed intelligence... we aren't the only species that has developed intelligence but we have gone furthest with it.

Really?? How did this single called organism start off??
If you believe that we came from fish, then I guess that's your belief

Circular logic there.

Atheists do not believe in God because they're atheists.
They're atheists because they don't believe in God.

Bit of a silly answer.

Really?? How did this single called organism start off??
If you believe that we came from fish, then I guess that's your belief

the wisest thing to do is to believe in a creator, then not believing in one and end up in 'hell'. .

not so much the thing itself but the idea of it.

Its a very common claim from atheists that the universe exists inexplicably - there just is no explanation for why the universe exists.

However, in every corner of science and philosophy, arguments from explicability are used (or EA's).

For example, a common argument from physicists regarding the reality of consciousness, is that if it isn't reduced to physical systems it is essentially inexplicable.

Now, suppose we apply an EA to the question: why do things exist? Well that would seem to rule out the common claim by atheists that the universe is a brute fact or the laws of nature are brute facts. Because an EA implicitly entails that these options are false, that an inexplicable options is false.

Ofcourse, atheists may say: well it's meaningless to apply and Explicability argument to that question. Fair enough.

1) some EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Others - like for why things exist - are not.

2) no EA'S for a conclusion are legitimate.

3) all EA'S are legitimate forms of argument. Even for why things exist.



If you are atheist who thinks the universe and/or the laws of nature are brute facts, you cannot take option 3.

It seem option 2 is ruled out by anyone who uses an EA in other contexts, scientific or philosophical. Almost all atheists?

So that leaves 1.* The trouble, though, is that there doesn’t seem to be any non-question-begging way of defending option 1.* For why should we believe that EAs are legitimate in other cases, but not when giving some account of the sheer existence of things?* It seems arbitrary to allow the one sort of EA but not the other sort.* The atheist cannot respond by saying that it is just a brute fact that some kinds of EAs are legitimate and others are not, because this would beg the question against 3, which denies that there are any brute facts.

Interested to know how far explicability arguments go.

You have good points too, and it's nice to see a good attitude unlike some of the close-minded people on here

But this point is the one I fail to understand. If there really is a benevolent creator, then surely the last thing he would do is banish the non-believers to 'hell' when they've been given no reason to believe in him?

ahh I see, thanks! I didn't know there was such a term