I don't believe there are any. "Lack of evidence for God" refers to theism's lack of arguments on offense. This isn't itself an argument that God doesn't exist. Pointing out how beliefs in a deity have been formed throughout history to invalidate or make it less likely that any particular defintion of God exists is a genetic fallacy.
There are no good arguments for atheism
If there was a totally solid argument for atheism there'd be nothing to argue about.
True for the most part. Flat earthers seem to think there are no solid arguments for a spherical earth.
Flat earthers often think they can prove the earth is flat.
I am atheist but I don't claim I can prove there is no god. I can list the reasons that convince me, but they fall short of being a mathematical theorem.
In maths a 'proof' must be absolute and allow of no other possibility whatsoever. In a law court proof only has to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In science proof is the latter type.
Theists and atheists are forever demanding 'maths type' rigorous proofs from their opponents while offering at best only 'law type' proofs themselves. it's not game I enjoy much.
Mankind has been inventing gods for about as long as we have walked this planet ergo gods are the invention of mankind's imagination, they aren't real.
I agree. For 200,000+ years 'Gods' has been the best/only explantion for things we could have. I'd say that ceased to be the case in 1859.
With you keith there is always a significance, I just can't find it in 1859. Help!
Lack of evidence?
"Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!"
It is foolish to even doubt that God exists.
Really there is nothing to argue about, because atheist arguments don't deserve to be taken seriously.
"Even when writing On the Origin of Species in the 1850s he was still inclined to theism, but his views gradually changed to agnosticism:
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt–can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic
1859 - Origin of Species was published.
Did you notice the sentence in the quote:
"Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."
CD recognised faith was more a matter of psychology than logic.
Skepticism is the default position.
Your definition leads to deism at best and deism.does not support the Christian god over any other god concept.
Oh my goodness, I'll be flung into Darwinian hell.
He held that in mind but nevertheless never considered himself an atheist. The father of evolution was an agnostic with theistic inclinations.
Mere non-belief (which is neither belief nor disbelief) is the default position. Skepticism is an epistemic approach. I encourage skepticism, but be skeptical of both sides.
Skepticism puts the burden of proof on the one making a claim not the one denying said claim. It falls to you as the one claiming there is a transcendent supernatural force/conciousness to demonstrate said conciousness. If I were claiming certainty that such a thing were logically impossible then I too would shoulder a burden of proof but I am only stating that there is no sufficient testable physical evidence to suggest that there is a transcendent supernatural force/conciousness. I asked you in another thread what method you suggest we use in testing for such a thing and you have yet to suggest one.
Let's pull this apart first.
(1) There is no burden of proof on the person who denies a claim.
This is untrue. Probably the simplest way to show you this is if someone were making the claim "God does not exist." There would be no burden of proof on somebody who denies this?
"No god(s) exist" would be a claim and would require a burden of proof. "There is no reason to think that any god(s) exist" is the denial of a claim. In the same way "some god(s) must exist" is a claim while "there is no evidence against god(s)" is merely the denial of a claim.
It is impossible to prove a negative so if no god(s) exist there can be no proof either way. If any god(s) exist we might reasonably expect that some proof would be in evidence. The only sensible position is skepticism of a proposition that we would expect proof of for which none exists.
Protestantism and all the little offshoots of it leads to secularism.
You say The Ultimate Reality leads to deism at best because you think you know everything. Well, I already know you are going to deny that, because really you argue from the position of a nihilist, which means you don't really believe in reality you just say whatever is convenient.
That is really your mentality. That is where your education has brought you.
It's wrong though. You don't believe in wrong though, because like depression, your nihilism is self perpetuating.
Logically your tautoligical definition (If we even accept it) only supports a belief in deism.
I don't agree with your usage of the term "denial' because what you really mean is that the claim won't be accepted as true nor rejected as untrue until further evidence is provided. You are merely non-acceptant of the claim pending further evidence.
"It is impossible to prove a negative" is false. There's not a 1,000,000 square foot building in my front pocket.
You don't even believe in logic, you're a nihilist. You simply don't have a working sense of discernment.
Your appeal to rationality is absurd.
The Ultimate Reality is The Truth. You say this only supports deism? You say this is The Truth when you yourself don't even really believe The Truth.
You also don't even really believe in Deism. You are being disingenuous.
When did I say that I do not believe in logic or that I am a nihilist? I think you may be mistaking me for another poster. You are correct however that I don't really believe in deism but I find it more rationally plausible than I find the idea that some interactive conciousness exists precisely because if one existed we would logically expect some observable physical evidence of these interactions would be observable and directly testable. If you want to call reality (whatever that turns out to be) god that's fine but reality is not observably conscious and so your god is observably deistic in nature (set up the universe by whatever means followed by an apparent non interventionist policy). To argue more would require that you demonstrate more.