GuitarBizarre

I'm an atheist. I simply think there are far too many compelling arguments that explain the belief in god as a human coping mechanism or behavioural oddity.

Also, burden of proof states that the one making the positive claim carries the larger responsibility to prove their point. In this case, the religious make the claim that god does exist and carry the responsibility to prove that. Bearing in mind that holy scripture is not proof, and that 'miracles' have often been explained to be mundane, no religious person has any empirical evidence to rely on regarding their claims

I make the claim that god absolutely does not exist, citing explanations that portray belief as a human concern that would exist independent of the actuality of a god. For me this makes the positive claim that humans made the whole damned shebang up in order to explain what they couldn't explain. I think thats reasonable, and the notions presented in most religions are continually challenged bit by bit by scientific discoveries regarding what was once considered 'miracles' or 'omens'. Shooting stars, fire, lightning, eclipses, all of those things were once integral parts of belief systems and have subsequently been explained away by science, convincingly and with empirical proof. As science continues down the road it will, I have every confidence it will eventually, providing we don't go extinct, prove the mundanity of every miracle portrayed in modern religion and also provide compelling and practically irrefutable arguments for the idea that gods existence is a human invention in its entirety.

__________________