atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

i cannot imagine how anyone could ever possibly assert with any certainty that the form of deity i believe in does not exist.

You don't feel certain that other concievable beings don't?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

a lack of evidence for something also constitutes its nonexistence,

Unfortunately, many people interpret evidence differently and so erroneously conclude the nonexistence of God. You may reject my interpretation of the evidence in much the same way I reject yours. Who is right? Time will tell.

[finalfrogo]

Originally Posted by Shtef

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

We are also lacking evidence that an Invisible Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist... does that mean we should consider the possibility?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Unfortunately, many people interpret evidence differently and so erroneously conclude the nonexistence of God.

This thread may be useful to you. It isn't essentially interpretation that is the problem, it is the question of what constitutes evidence. When a non-theist, like myself, asserts that they have seen no evidence for your hypothesis it is not likely that they interpret the data differently but because they've yet to see it.

[St0ne]

I guess atheism in unscientific in the same way theology is. Personally I don't believe ina personal god because there is no evidence for one, in a court of law if there is no evidence that a person commited a crime then it is accepted they did not do it, for me it is the same situation with a personal god. For a non-personal god though that is a whole different kettle of fish.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Shtef

scientists justify atheism by arguing that the existence of God can not be proven.

True, their is no proof that God exists. However, there is also no proof that God doesn't exist. Given that scientists base all of their beliefs on proof how can one believe there is no God when the absence of God has not been proven.

In this situation I would think that agnosticism is the most scientific belief

There's no proof that leprechauns don't exist, but I bet you don't believe in them.

There's no proof Thor doesn't exist, yet you don't believe in him.

True, there is no evidence for God, but according to the bible there should be lots of evidence. The Bible tells us that jesus was followed by lots of people, and yet there are no accounts of him from the time that he lived. A bit strange, don't you think?

if I said that I had a porsche, but you didn't see any evidence of it until a decade after I sold it, wouldn't that strike you as odd too?

There are cases where an absence of evidence does equate to evidence of absence.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Exactly Jay, i couldn't possibly agree more. But what you are describing isn't strong atheism as i understand it.

A strong atheist will never "advise you that their appraisal is dependent upon the state of the evidence and subject to change in the event new evidence were to be made available" as this asserts that there may be the possibility of deity's existance.

I'm a strong atheist, and I actively believe that God (in any form) does not exist. Yet I am more than happy to reconsider my viewpoint and consider the possibility of God existing given the right evidence. I may even change my mind.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

This thread may be useful to you. It isn't essentially interpretation that is the problem, it is the question of what constitutes evidence. When a non-theist, like myself, asserts that they have seen no evidence for your hypothesis it is not likely that they interpret the data differently but because they've yet to see it.

Let me ask you something. Do you see evolution as evidence for or against God's existence?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

But if disbelief in something for which there is no evidence is an "irrational faith based belief system," what can we say about those who believe in something for which there is no evidence?

That is, if disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is irrational, it remains that belief in the Tooth Fairy is more irrational still.

But I don't agree that disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is irrational at all. Disbelief in the Tooth Fairy is in keeping with all the evidence we have.

Likewise, we can say with confidence that if there is a deity, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that deity conforms to human conceptions of it; many mystics of all the great religions have said the same. John Scotus Eriugena, for example, said that in truth God does not exist, since God is beyond existence. If there is a deity, our conceptions of it are but metaphors for something we do not and cannot understand, and it would be a fundamental error to take those metaphors as literal fact.

It doesn't matter if one prays to Allah, or to the Christian Trinity, or to the Norse gods and goddesses, or to the sun and the moon, or to water spirits, or to no god at all. But the minute one imagines that the reality of the deity corresponds to the image in one's mind, one has fallen into the basest idolatry.

If there is a deity, theism and atheism are equally good metaphors for deity, but neither theism nor atheism can be literally true.

If there is no deity, atheism is literally true, and theism is literally false.

Either way, theism seems more likely to lead one into pernicious error.

Right on. The "pernicious error" is that "the metaphors of deity" must be "literally true" in order to be something to believe in. In truth, it doesn't matter if god exists or not. Religion is the relationship we build to the "images in one's mind" that represent god; metaphors are non-literal in nature.

But the "pernicious error", the idolatry of god, is not unique to theists. Many atheist base their "disbelief in God" on the belief that all theists hold up the Images of God as god. They assume a position of rebelling against the idolatry, some justifiably so, others in error. It would seem to be the same error --the belief that what is literally true is what must be believed in.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

You don't feel certain that other concievable beings don't?

I don't feel certain that other concievable beings don't exist?
No, that would by hypocritical of me, i can't claim to believe in one form of deity without clear proof and reject another. But i can prefer to believe in one form over another, even if it is based on intuition alone.

Originally Posted by finalfrogo

We are also lacking evidence that an Invisible Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist... does that mean we should consider the possibility?

Yes it does. But we can analyse the possibility of its existance in light of the evidence for its artificial creation as an atheistic argument against belief in a deity of approximate attributes.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

There's no proof that leprechauns don't exist, but I bet you don't believe in them.

Leprechauns,unicorns, cyclops, kraken, dragons, ape men, sea monsters etc are all mythical beings but usually have real-world origins as exemplifyed in the links i gave.
A god is in a totally different league to such creatures and really should not be compared. All cultures have a concept of deity and a religion, and their religions more often than not stem from the concept of a single divine force in the universe. Mythological creatures can easily be disproven due to their lack of physical existance, proving the non-existance of a non-physical, hidden force that in most cases is seen as the origin of the concept of existance itself, and thus technically lies outside of existance is, as you can see, incomparable.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

There's no proof Thor doesn't exist, yet you don't believe in him.

What you're suggesting is theist atheism ie. believing in one concept of deity but not another, which does not make sense, you are right. I prefer to see different gods as simply different cultures attempting to imagine the unimaginable.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

True, there is no evidence for God, but according to the bible there should be lots of evidence. The Bible tells us that jesus was followed by lots of people, and yet there are no accounts of him from the time that he lived. A bit strange, don't you think?

Personally i would say this is exaggeration, i don't think he had many followers and those followers he did have were unlikely to be noteworthy in history. It could be that extrabiblical references to jesus were destroyed during early Roman persecution, but that is just speculation.
For me the best evidence for the existance of Jesus are the Mandaens. They are the "descendants" of the followers of John the Baptist, a real figure we know existed, they believe Jesus was a real man, they don't like him but they do believe he existed.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

There are cases where an absence of evidence does equate to evidence of absence.

I disagree, absence of evidence is just that, absence of evidence. Extrapolating absence of evidence to become evidence of absence is, for me, taking it one step too far. To have evidence of absence we need evidence of myth origin or evidence that precludes the real world existance of the object in question.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

I'm a strong atheist, and I actively believe that God (in any form) does not exist. Yet I am more than happy to reconsider my viewpoint and consider the possibility of God existing given the right evidence. I may even change my mind.

See, then i wouldn't call you a strong atheist, just an atheist. A strong atheist as i know them are certain of the non-existance of deity and will not listen to theist reasoning of any kind, even evidence to the contrary they would reject (although i don't know how you could have actual evidence for deity).