I don't think you properly understand what atheism is. I don't need proof to prove atheism, I just haven't yet seen any good arguments made to suggest the presence of a god, and hence I suspend this belief. I think you're mistaking atheism with claiming you can disprove God (which atheism doesn't do).
If that is how you perceive logic, then to you the notion of god will never actually be challenged. There is absolutely nothing that can happen in reality, ever, that will prove 100% there is no entity some people would consider god. The only way that can possibly be accomplished is if we mapped the entire universe to the last millimeter and document every living being in it. Also, we would have to have 100% certainty that there are no additional universes, parallel dimensions, etc. The exact same goes for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and literally every single creature or thing you can imagine and blurt out. Theism and deism claim that there is a god, so the burden of proof is on them to prove its existence. Not on those who are not making the claim in the first place.
You're still missing the point man. An atheist purely doesn't buy into any arguments that God is real and hence doesn't believe it. A theist believes in God without any evidence. I don't need to prove anything, I think that's what you don't understand. All I need to show is that arguments for God haven't been enough to sway me. Seriously bro, look up what an atheist is - you clearly don't understand.
no i am stating there is a commonality in the world of ateism and theism....since they both stand for something....even if you stand for nothing you stand for something because the number zero proves that nothing is something....i think the hindus got that right i am not missing any point....you say you dont have to prove....neither do i....so be it
I'm genuinely interested in conveying this point successfully. I'm not sure if it's just a matter of how people are wired. If I say I have a golden chicken at home that lays 12 golden eggs for me every day. Everyone would of course say I'm lying. I can't then turn around and say "well, you can't prove it, so it's just as likely there is a golden chicken as that there isn't". Of course everyone would still disagree with me. God is the golden chicken that people choose not to disagree with because they grew up with that story. Ironically, the story of god is far more out there than me actually owning a golden chicken.
Atheism is the default position. Non belief. If evidence for something is available in reality then belief is warranted. The default position on anything, including the flying spaghetti monster, is non belief until evidence is present. Can you prove to me that the fsm isn't real? No. You can't prove a negative. You can only prove a positive assertion. Religion makes the positive assertion when they say that God is real yet no evidence is offered to support that positive assertion. The burden of proof is on those who make an unfounded claim. Where is the evidence?
At this point, I honestly believe this comes down to how people are wired. What you are saying makes 100% sense to me, but it is mind blowing how many people simply do not process information that way.
Well when it is pounced in to ones head in the formative years as well as becoming associated with community, festivities, and all around positive vibes at church there is little chance of abandoning that belief system.
That has got to be one of the laziest attempts at an analogy I've ever seen on an internet forum, and that's really saying something. First off, whether or not you have a golden chicken at home is subject to scientific inquiry, God (yes, this old argument) is not. Scientific arguments concerning the possible existence of God are really just that; arguments made to propose the possibility or necessity of a God (or something similar) existing. It's not simply the silly arguments of "well, bananas fit nicely into our hands, therefore Jesus". Second, the belief or non-belief in God has a number of philosophical ramifications. The same can't be said of your chicken. And this ties into my third point: your golden chicken doesn't provide or answer any major questions concerning human life or human nature. It's completely superfluous. And finally, this analogy of yours completely misses the central understand of religion and spiritual belief, which is that spirituality deals almost exclusively with existential dilemmas, emphasising what I stated above about God being outside of scientific scrutiny. When reading spiritual scriptures or religious books, one has to be conscious of the literary narrative being employed in these writings and to read them accordingly. In conclusion, your comparative argument would really only be applicable to the most pig-headed, most wilfully ignorant religious person.
It is obvious you missed the entire point of my analogy. Obviously me having a chicken at home that lays golden eggs, and there being a supreme being that created and controls everything have different ramifications for everyone involved. This however does not excuse a deity from the same critique that would apply to my chicken in terms of "is it real or not". If anything, the huge implications of a deity existing or not existing make it even more responsible for managing to substantiate its claim in something realistic. I.e. proof. You say "your golden chicken doesn't provide or answer any major questions concerning human life or human nature." You are absolutely right. Neither does a notion for god devoid of proof and proudly based on faith.
This question is coming from a confirmed, 21 year old Catholic man. But I'm just curious, why don't you believe in God?!
Personally, I don't believe in God because I don't need to. I have never seen any proof for the existence of a God. I'm happy with my life and am ok with the fact that nothing happens when we die. I don't need a God for guidance, support or for moral guidelines. I get guidance and support from my fellow man and my morals come from common sense and the ability to feel empathy for fellow human beings. I don't need a 2000 year old book to tell me that it's bad to kill other people or steal. Why do you believe in your Catholic God? What real reasons do you have besides the fact that you were born into a catholic family instead of a Hindu, Islamic or Jewish one?
Whether one chooses "atheism" and/or "atheist", an atheist cannot account for the fact that he/she/it wouldn't have such a grasp were it not for "theism" and/or "theist". A question is pointless.
The only reason I can say I don't believe in your fairy tale is because there is a fairy tale to begin with? By that logic the only reason you get to not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is because others do. You are assuming theism as the default position, and then atheists are created when they go against it. When clearly, the default position is no god, until one is indoctrinated into it, usually at a young age. This is plainly demonstrated by the fact that which deity one chooses to believe in is almost absolutely defined by the region and time one happens to be born in. As such, theists are exposed to a world with a god at a much earlier age than when they finally encounter atheism in their teens or adulthood.
That isn't even an accurate analogy because you've not only changed the OP's definition of terms but have only attacked / disregarded / discarded the original meaning. The OP states clearly "beliefs", not assumptions. Then there are your dangling prepositions, the inability to communicate correctly in the language; and the flawed logic that 'no deity' is 'deity'. When it comes to being a lawyer, as the saying goes, 'don't quit your day job'..
As to being a 'mature' atheist (as used here), that is only embracing the original confusion. This shows what the mature atheist actually is today :