Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

Atheism isn't taking itself to have evidence of the nonexistence of god.

It is about saying that in the complete and total absence of any kind of genuine evidence of god, it makes rational sense to assume the nonexistence of god.

Put more succinctly by logic professor Irving Copi - "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."


Religion, makes the direct claim that not just "something" but a specific, defined something, with defined properties and identifiable characteristics of which we are already aware, DOES exist, and that that thing is responsible for literally the entirety of the universe. That's a very much more bold claim than can be taken under the axiom "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" - That position wouldn't apply to something so vast and completely self-evident that it could create the universe.


As a result, we're left with the burden of proof - Many Atheists, myself included, take the position that to prove the nonexistence of something like god would require, in itself, god-like or even god-exceeding, knowledge of the entire universe, sufficient to be able to say without room for error, that god was not present within it.

That's a much bigger task than a religious person making a bold claim, then being asked before we treat this claim credulously, that he provide valid evidence to back that claim up.



To use an analogy - if I am told that a glass jar contains a liquid indistinguishable from air, by virtue of having the same refractive index and colour, then I cannot be sure of this statement. Air is far more likely to be in there than some obscure chemical creation, so I will probably take the position that this is poppycock unless the person making the claim can show me evidence of this liquid. This would be easily done by that person say, wetting a tissue with that liquid. Being possessed of evidence, then I could logically change my position and be at no fault.

The problem with the argument for god, is that this evidence seems to be impossible to provide. So until this evidence is provided, I will take the position that the observed universe, having yet to provide any evidence of god, probably does not contain one.