Another user asked "Why are Christians and Muslims unwilling to apply the same rigorous tests to their religious beliefs that atheists do?"?

":So, atheists tell me what "rigorous tests" have you run in order to determine there can be no God?"

First off, Atheists don't do religious tests. Atheists don't have a religion, so there's nothing to test. Here's the simple logic about how atheists know there are no gods.

1. All claims are false until evidence is provided to support them.

2. Those making the claim have the burden of proof.

3. No one has to disprove a claim, the burden is always, 100%, on the claimants.

4. The existence of gods is a claim made by theists. (1)

5. Theists have the burden of proof (2)

6. Atheists don't have to do anything. Theists have to do all he work. (3)

7. To date, no tangible, verifiable, testable evidence has been provided to support the claim that gods exist.

8. Gods don't exist (1, 7)

Summary:

You make the claim, you do the work. Gods don't exist until you provide evidence that they do.

The same one that you did to determine that Odin, Zeus and B'aal don't exist...

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him, or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence what so ever.” ― Sam Harris

‘Religious apologists complain bitterly that atheists and secularists are aggressive and hostile in their criticism of them. I always say: look, when you guys were in charge, you didn’t argue with us, you just burnt us at the stake. Now what we’re doing is, we’re presenting you with some arguments and some challenging questions, and you complain.’ A.C. Grayling

"Many believers admit that nothing could change their mind about their religious beliefs, which means they are no longer seekers of truth and have become, in essence, mindless religious robots. Religion consistently and effectively discourages introspection and inquiry. That isn't by accident."-- Bob Peters

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." Isaac Asimov

The thing is you can believe in a god if you want. I don't care and most atheists actually do not care if you believe in a god. Sure, there are some who are crazy and try to convert theists but I have more of a live and let live policy. The line gets crossed when someone demands their beliefs be made a part of law, government, public education, or science. Also, if someone feels their belief makes those who do not believe sub-human then there is a problem. If someone feels that their belief entitles them to commit acts of violence, hatred, or discrimination then there is a problem.

So, I say as long as it is just your personal belief ignore those who demand you justify your belief. Now, if you are trying to cross those lines I mentioned earlier and you are trying to force your belief on others then you need to justify the belief to justify the actions you are taking.

As an atheist, the test I tried was the experiment that the Bible itself claims could be used to prove God's existence. It failed.

If you'd like to conduct this experiment yourself, it can be found in 1 Kings 18:21-35. Even thought this experiment is specifically used in the Bible, I've yet to meet any Jew or Christian willing to attempt it.

The failure of this test means either one - or more - of these things are true:

1) No God exists;

2) the God of the Bible doesn't exist; or,

3) the Bible is not infallible.

Was this test rigorous? That's your call I suppose. I just know it was a Bible-endorsed test.

(Note: I didn't slaughter the animal myself as it would have violated health codes.)

what tests have i put to the notion that i don't believe in any supernatural beings of any kind?

i've never seen one or heard a single credible source state or document that they have either.

i've been on the planet for over 50 years and not once have i found 'god' to be a rational or acceptable or believable explanation to a single thing i have ever seen.

not once.

based on that, if i'm to be honest, i have to admit that i simply don't believe there are any supernatural beings.

i have documented the medieval imagination and it is fascinating.

werewolves, vampires, succubus, incubus, demons, witches flying around on brooms, imps, demonic possession - all as ways to explain the world - or at least be afraid of the dark and stay out of the predator filled night.

however, i have never once found any evidence that any of these myths were based on anything other than imagination.

i believe the exact to be true of all religions and any beliefs in supernatural beings...

I'm not surprised the two don't see eye-to-eye. Why? They are polar opposites. Here's why...

1 Corinthians 2:11-15 explains, "11 For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God except the spirit of God. 12 Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. 13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words. 14 But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. 15 However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man."

You made a comment as to an answer I wrote, yet your mail box is closed... odd.

Take a few classes in rel. studies, somewhere, and study the bible not in a devotional way, which you likely have with some preacherman, but in a historical-critical way....which is how biblical studies are taught in grad schools. She asked a question as to why the bible said that. And I answered it the way any of my prof at the U of Chicago's Divinity School would.... putting those words in its historical setting, not in today's setting.

Helpful? And obtw, my box is open.

'If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to

Then he is not omnipotent.

If he is able, but not willing

Then he is malevolent.

If he is both able and willing

Then whence cometh evil?

If he is neither able nor willing

Then why call him God?'

also, if I told you there was a murderer outside your front door, waiting for you to come out, wouldn't you want proof of that if you needed to go to work or a dr's appointment, or whatever?

so asking for proof of a claim that's as unnatural as a masculine individual creating life is not 'not answering the question'.

Religion is easier to believe then to prove to others. You need life experience to be able to defend your faith. think of it as a brain. Everybody knows how to use their brain but only a chosen few of educated people can explain how the brain works. Religion is the same way. Knowing it is real is different from proving it's existence to others.

Yes, because one atheist said it, it certainly must be true for ALL ATHEISTS right? Wow, I don't have to say a word here - theists and atheists alike all know what I think.