Atheists go ahead and answer?

I was religious from childhood, and have always been interested in religions, mythology and science; I was a devout, practising Catholic; I read the Bible, both Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha, several times; and was taught about it in school.

After studying and thinking deeply about faith, I realised in mid-teenage that faith was based upon nothing but itself, that science explained nature satisfactorily without needing supernatural beings, and that religious beliefs were no different to those of ancient beliefs in gods and goddesses.

When I first had doubts about my faith I thought that maybe this was a test of it, which was an idea planted in my mind by those teaching us about our faith. So I made the effort to accept it even more so. But the doubts came again, and I wondered what would happen if we took faith out of the equation; the world and nature still made sense, so I saw no reason to get back into it. And my understanding is that there's no theoretical or mathematical need for a god or gods, and there's no valid evidence of it or them; so there's no reason to believe. At the time this was difficult intellectually and emotionally (I was a teenager, after all).

That was over 45 years ago, and my escape from faith has freed me to embrace what science has to offer, which I consider far more plausible than belief in the supernatural, and is the nearest we can get to the truth about how nature and the universe work. I've felt a sense of freedom ever since, and am happy and at peace with this. And I've found the humility to admit that I don't know everything, rather than masking this by invoking a deity.

I still have an interest in religions, mythology, folklore and related matters, and am fascinated that people still believe in things that to me are clearly just not true.

Why do Atheists completely deny the existence of god?

Deny?

No..we simply state that we have been provided with NO VALID Testable evidence FOR the existence of a god,,so to conclude a god exists is Illogical...

sorry you don't understand the difference....

""But even if you were given 100% proof that a god does exist you would still deny it?""

Naturally NOT..we are NOT confused theists,,who don't understand that they have NO VALID Testable evidence FOR the existence of a god..yet continually claim they do...

""It is totally impossible, maybe even insane to say a god doesn't exist because you simply have no proof""

NOPE!!! what it IS, is LOGICAL to make that claim,,,since No valid evidence exists...

""We still have no proof that aliens exists yet some of you believe they do ""

I do NOT believe some supernatural all Powerful Omniscient aliens exist who can speak the universe into existence with a Magic spell...

there IS the Remote POSSIBILITY that Real natural world alien Life MAY exist out there..but at this time,,we have NO Valid testable evidence it does... but again..I wonder IF you can see the difference?

Why is it that you confuse proof and evidence like just about everyone else who asks this question?

You have not now, and have never had any observable, measurable evidence for the existence of any god at all. You do not have a single assertion about evidence that has not been challenged and in most cases disposed of. The fact that theists keep on repeating the same old invalid material does not make the material valid.

Never mind about "proof", you don't have any evidence to even make a start at "proof".

Aliens? If any intelligent aliens exist they will be so far away that they may as well not exist.

Why do people who harass atheists with this question constantly misuse the concept of "proof"? The word is "evidence". And while we don't have direct evidence of the existence of aliens, we do have evidence of the existence of extra-solar planets and the existence of life. Having shown that life can arise on one planet, one can reasonably conclude that among a innumerably large selection of similar planets there's no reason to expect no other planets which bear life exist. But no, even though I call myself an atheist, I would not deny "100% proof" that I was wrong. I am quite aware that I may be wrong. But any sane person is aware that they can be wrong and nobody is harassing sane Christians with demands that they start calling themselves agnostics.

Oh, look , an Agnostic pretending to be a Theist and giving Agnostics unwarranted approval. I knew you lot were weak-kneed but this takes the take. You can't even stand up as an Agnostic.

Actually, Mr Agnostic, you assert that we can NEVER know one way or another. You are closed off to refutation and proof. And for you personally, you seem to not know your own position beyond using the label to be a poseur. You think its a shiny button.

Atheists, on the other hand, evaluate all claims that come their way. So far, all claims have been fairly refuted. And thus the onus remains on Theists. We ignore Agnostics, in the main, as they're just background static in the debate.

1. If I was given 100% proof that gods exist I would accept it. That is what living an evidence-based life is about. However, to date there has been 0% provided.

2. Aliens and gods are two different things. Aliens are defined as being part of the natural world, gods are defined as being outside the natural world. Therefore, it is possible, thought extremely slim, that evidence of aliens will be found. I do not include the "ancient aliens" codswallop of von Daniken and that weird Italian guy as evidence. They're as bad as people who see Jesus' face in toast.

But while it is possible-though-not-likely that we may someday find evidence of alien life, it is essentially impossible that we will ever find evidence for the existence of gods, since all our abilities to gather evidence are limited to the natural world ... and they are not part of that.

3. Given that no evidence has EVER been provided for the existence of gods, and given that such evidence can NEVER be provided, I see no reason to include gods in my day-to-day life. I see anyone who does as wasting time that could be better used elsewhere.

"Why do Atheists completely deny the existence of god ?"

We don't. Those who say that a god definitely does not exist are the anti-theists.

"But even if you were given 100% proof that a god does exist you would still deny it ?"

No, I would not.

" But even if you were given 100% proof that a god does exist you would still deny it?"

That's a completely meaningless statement unless you have such proof you are ready to put on the table. You seem to have no problem with theism, which is nothing but the polar opposite of atheism. In essence they define each other, so it doesn't make sense to view one as a valid POV but not the other.

I don't understand it. Why do you completely deny the existence of Brahma, Vishnu, and Maya? I can see being Agnostic about them --- a billion Hindu people believe, and maybe there's something to it. If you were given 100% proof that Brahma exists, would you still deny it?

Atheists don't completely deny the existence of God. They just deny the God hypothesis as almost certainly false. Atheists view the God hypothesis as an extremely unlikely explanation for the existence of the universe.