What do you think about the atheist viewpoint?

All these answers seem so shallow, both sides saying the rhetoric and really not saying anything new to the conversation.

Using the no evidence = no possibility rhetoric, you seriously undermines everything you could believe in, including your own existence, but that's not what I want to discuss.

Can one prove that George Washington was our first President? We might say there is evidence for it, but in reality people can lie to you, and documents can be forged, which are the two things that hold people's belief that Washington was the first president of America.

But can you prove he was? No, yet people still believe it.

Clamoring for evidence of something existential is impossible and illogical. If someone wants to argue for evidence, most science has no real evidence. Theories, valid thought, hypothesis, and lots of what-if. And the evidence they can show, can be seriously skewed.

I direct you to the article Data, Phenomena, and Reliability by Jim Woodward which explains some of what I said.

In the scientific realm there are two general theories that everyone knows about:

Newton's Physics and Einstein's theory of relativity. Are these two "scientific truths" actually real and true?

The short answer is no. As things in the Universe get extremely large, suffice to say Einstein's theory looks a little muddled and definitely on shaky ground. As we get better technology to examine the minutest things this world has we see Newtonian Physics takes a serious beating.

Things in the universe do not behave how we believe they will.

I also disagree with the people are logical and God isn't logical therefore no God. There is a very serious flaw in that argument. People are NOT logical. We have to look only outside to see that. (theories of) Economics can prove time and again people are not logical.

I think "the atheist" viewpoint is rubbish for 95% of atheist, mostly because it seems less like atheism and much more like apathy. The other 5% hold onto their views and can discuss them with wit, humor, and importantly intelligence. I don't agree with those 5%, but I can respect someone who holds beliefs with valid reasons.

Actually guys, if you had read further than "why not believe in God?" you would see that this ISN'T Pascal's Wager. But, your point is still invalid. You usually believe in something in scientific terms with the intention of having a testable hypothesis to verify the finding. Please tell me how this would be accomplished with an anthropomorphic construct that only exists in your mind. Why not just believe in absolutely anything you can imagine, until the all possibilities of that thing being ruled out are explored? That would be stupid, that's why. I can imagine invisible, intangible pink unicorns. I have no way of exploring every last inch of the universe to search for said unicorns. That does not mean that people aren't correct when they ridicule my belief in unicorns as retarded.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Look who thinks his ridiculous suppositions are better than other people's ridiculous suppositions.

So believing in gods a little is rational, but if you believe in them too much or not enough it is silly?

So you think it is reasonable to assume things exist without any evidence whatsoever so long as you don't believe too much? Is this true of gods alone or do you also believe in mermaids, pixies, Santa and the abominable snowman?

Based on your argument it is unreasonable to presume that ANYTHING does not exist. That is ridiculous and if you thought about it objectively for just a moment, you'd know so.

EDIT: Your feelings?

Your argument for god is that you have feelings? Are you so self centered that you actually believe that your feelings constitute evidence for gods? Do you have feelings about cold fusion too? What about global warming? The bird flu? If you do should we all just accept and respect that you know better than anyone else because you have "feelings"?

Your desire to believe is no excuse for your superstition. Nor is it an excuse for your rude attitude toward people with a natural worldview.

The basis for argument within atheism is that they do not believe in the existence of God. However, by the very fact that an atheist feels the need to deny God's existence, they are admitting that God exists in the first place. Personally, I find this somewhat strange and quite ironic; this is my 'viewpoint.

I like to know that what I believe are truths and not stories unsupported by any evidence. God in a biblical sense has no evidence supporting his existence, but it depends on your definition of God

Why not believe in Leprechauns?

What do you have to lose? If you chose not to believe in them, you will never find the pot o gold at the end of the rainbow, but if you choose to chase rainbows for the rest of your life, you won't have lost anything?

Bad argument.

The reason why you shouldn't believe in a God or a Leprechaun is simply because there is no evidence for their existence, and wasting time searching for evidence for things that are quite capable of producing it for us on their own is counter productive.

Have you ever asked why an all powerful deity would choose to hide measurable evidense of his own existence from his own creation?

If someone said they believed that there were invisible, 3-headed aliens from outer space running around your town, would you think they are a little silly and unintelligent...maybe a little wacko?

Tell the truth...You would ...wouldn't you??

But what if that person asked the same type of question like you did about God?

"Why not believe in invisible, 3-headed aliens from outerspace running around town?"

How do you know there isn't?

Do you understand my point?

Wow are you living in a hole? We know heaps about this world we live in and have explored most of it.

Everything in this world follows logic and science, but God doesn't. Believe what you want to, but you are certainly out of line assaulting atheists beliefs.

Pascal's Wager restated is still Pascal's Wager.

Besides, what reason is there to believe in something you don't have evidence for? Usually, humans are very logic-based creatures, and believing in a god that has absolutely no evidence to support his existence is quite insensible.

I personally do not call myself atheist.

But the reason i don't not believe in god is not only because it makes no sense to me but also because i do not feel like i need a god, if i did then surely i would consider one.

Science does makes sense to me, well he easier parts. like gravity and so.