I'm not sure its possible to prove a negative.

Agnostic= knowing there is no proof of god(s)
Atheism= believing there is no proof of god(s) no belief in god(s)

Therefore a person can be an agnostic atheist.

Religion=the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods.

You simply have a case of incorrect definitions. Always go back to the basics and you'll see that atheism is, by definition, not a religion. We especially don't worship anything lol

There can be no proof of the nonexistence of a thing.
Atheism states no such thing, as you say. It deals with belief, whether one believes in god claims or not. Agnosticism is undecided on whether to believe, ya or nay. I, as an atheist do not find arguments or evidence for any god claim I have ever heard convincing and do not expect to hear one. It is not some article of faith that one must not believe in god claims. If Atheism is a religion, Then so is Vegetarianism. *lol

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It’s that simple.
We don’t have to prove there is no god, because we’re not making the claim.
If you are making an extraordinary claim (like gods exist), you must provide the evidence.

Atheism is not a religion. There is no belief of faith involved. If there was evidence for a god, I’d stop being an atheist.

Here is a proof that ‘God’ does not exist. (This is a practical proof: absolute proofs are only possible within a formal system of logic, such as mathematics.)

First we must define the term ‘God’. It necessarily refers solely to a theistic god, (that is, one that interferes in human affairs). A deistic god doesn’t cut the mustard; it would be, with our present level of scientific understanding, indistinguishable from the unknown process that begat the laws of nature. The same goes for a pantheistic god, (that is, god as nature). So, we are therefore concerned with gods such as the Abrahamic god, Brahma, Gitche-Manitou, Wotan, Zeus, and many others.

The first question to be addressed is whether or not these are one and the same supernatural being. From what I have heard, many of the followers of these gods would have it that they are not the same. This notion is reinforced by the consideration that, if they were the same god, then it wouldn’t reveal itself in different guises, not when that leads to warfare between opposing followers, and the appallingly sadistic treatment of those well-meaning folk accused of heresy. And it surely wouldn't fail to reveal itself to all those folks who are, or were, followers of animistic religions, or who are just plain atheists. That just wouldn't be fair when rewards in an 'afterlife' are held to be available to true believers, and sometimes, punishment for the unbelievers, whose only ‘crimes’ are being unaware of a revelation, or being rational, and truthful to themselves.

The bottom line is that the various gods are deemed to have particular qualities, such as omniscience and omnipotence, if they are monotheistic. If they are, supposedly, members of a pantheon, (that is to say, polytheistic), then their attributes are more human-like, although to a superhuman degree. It is therefore safe to conclude that the list of names quoted above, and thousands more that I did not name, refer to different gods. Now, it is obvious that they can’t all be running human affairs, (although there was a time when it was commonly believed that local gods were trying to do just that, and were competing against each other). Ba’al and Yahweh and Moloch were supposed to be heavily involved in the human politics of Mesopotamia and other regions of the Middle East. But our modern understanding of physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, geography, history, and psychology, now preclude that sort of scenario. The evidence, as now interpreted, clearly rules out the existence of a host of competing gods, so we are able to conclude that there is either only one god, (or one group of related gods, which is effectively the same thing), or else there are none at all.

To determine whether or not there is a theistic god, the believer has either to point to its effects upon the World and the affairs of man, or define it as an ontological necessity. The former course is not tenable since Darwin clearly showed that the complexity and apparent design in living organisms is possible due to the effects of natural selection. Cosmology has shown us a universe of incomprehensible size and age; our sun one amongst hundreds of billions in our galaxy, itself one of trillions in the observable universe. And simply claiming that there is a god, according to a believer’s definition, no matter how theologically convoluted that might be, is no proof that such a being exists. Historically, all such attempts have failed. The devotee’s feeling of the immanence of such a being is also no proof, because that is merely a psychological state of theirs. The fact of the universe's existence, that there is something rather than nothing, does not require a god. After all, a god would be a something too, and a very complex one at that, compared to hydrogen and helium atoms, bathed in energy. It is sufficient to say we do not presently understand why there is something rather than nothing, but we will try to find out.

Another consideration is that the existence of a god entails an additional type of substance in the universe, namely ‘spirit’, in addition to matter and energy. Otherwise, any gods would simply be part of the natural universe, and wouldn’t be supernatural at all. There is, of course, no evidence of such a substance. Occam’s razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic, but it does suggest that explanations of the universe that specify the existence of a god, when such an entity isn’t necessary to explain what we observe, should be abandoned in favour of a less complex explanation. The godless explanation is actually more reasonable too, being more in accord with the Universe as we find it, that is to say, completely indifferent to the aspirations of man, or to anything else we know of.

Another consideration is that any god, worthy of the name, ought to behave ethically. The random horrors of our world, "acts of god" such as earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, etc., killing and injuring indiscriminately, are hardly the providence of a loving god. And what of disease, now known to be caused by microorganisms or faulty metabolism, being the work of a conscious supernatural being? And what of parasites and predators causing their hosts often-grisly deaths, or extended periods of affliction? Surely, a god, as envisaged by the monotheists or polytheists, would not allow such tragedy and suffering? It would be a sadist. But evolution by natural selection does explain such horrors.

It therefore follows that there is no evidence for the agency of any god that a theist might posit. A host of gods have been proposed, so, obviously gods are created by man, not man by god. From this it follows that there is no reason to believe that there are theistic gods that accord to anyone’s definition. It’s no good claiming that the deity is a trickster god, because that’s not what the faithful believe in. Admittedly, the polytheists’ gods were capable of trickery: consider, also, the minor god Satan in the Christian religion. But the boss god was supposed to maintain order, by being the most powerful.

Primitive man, unable in his ignorance to derive naturalistic explanations for the phenomena of the world around him, necessarily resorted to supernatural explanations. Such explanations similarly appeal to the child, who is unable, in his untutored ignorance, to understand naturalistic explanations. That is how primitive superstition is transmitted to the modern world, in the name of religion. We may therefore safely conclude that there is no "God". This is as strong a claim as that made for the non-existence of faeries at the bottom of the garden, which is as robust a claim as can possibly be made.

                                                              Richard Harris.    2017-06-27

I saw a definition for religion as this: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal god or gods. A particular system of faith and worship. So I don't think of atheism as a religion. Maybe an anti-religion. I don't think the burden is on the atheist to prove that there isn't a god. It falls to the theist since they are making the claim. The atheist just requires proof of a god's existence.

This may be splitting hairs but I think you're confusing atheism with anti-theism. It's the difference between an agnostic atheist and a gnostic atheist. The problem with this question is the intent. Proving a negative can't be done, hence the Russels' teapot argument. However the absence of evidence in my case is evidence of absence therefore I am an atheist. Actual physical scientific proof would change my viewpoint but I remain skeptical that there ever will be any.

First of all you can't prove the negative. I can't prove there is no god any more than I can prove there is no tooth fairy, unicorns or bigfoot. Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy, unicorns or bigfoot? Are you skeptical about the existence of Zeus or Odin, or all the other gods and deities that some have or do believe in? The modern Chistian god is just as much a fiction as all these other beings. The very fact that Christians can't even agree about the nature of their god makes it pretty clear that he/she/it exists only in their minds.

Quote:
I consider atheism to be a religion just as christianity because it states unequivocably that there is no god

No, in fact, atheism is only a lack of belief. It makes no factual claims either way. However, if you don't believe there is a god of some kind, you are already an atheist, one who thinks the label has negative connotations.

Someone once said that if religions were TV channels, atheism would be "off." I agree.

The difference between an atheist and a christian is that the christian believes in exactly one more god than the atheist. Both already believe none of the other "gods" existed, i.e. zeus, Thor, Venus, or Mayan gods or HIndu or Buddhist "gods".

If atheism were a religion, then list the tennents: The ideology: The deity. You can't because there aren't any.

For as long as history existed, religion was the default human belief. This stie exists as a rare place where we change the default to "oh, HELL, no!" No one is required to prove the lack of anything: Only the claimant that something exists must back up that claim. For instance, no one can insist that you prove that fairies, unicorns, santa or flying monkeys don't exist. It's actually impossible. But, if you claim there is a god, and want the validation of others, you must provide proof, and no one ever has.

I'm an atheist because the evidence as of now shows that there is no god. What we have learned through anthropology and history is that the god concept is man made. All religions are man made. If there is evidence that appears that tells me something different, then yes I am willing to change. Atheism is based on evidence. Faith is holding onto a belief despite the evidence. That is a big difference

Extraordinarily claims require extraordinary evidence Carl Sagen

There are two ways you can explain the existence

1. Someone created it i.e God - Now define God? Whose God?
2. We don't know how we came into being but let's figure it out i.e Science (Theory of evolution makes more sense, there is evidence of ancient humans, neantherdels, which to some extent support the theory of evolution.

Humans just 600 years ago were so naive that when told that evidence suggests that the world is round, were persecuted for challenging the popular belief.

Stephen Hawkings did some really amazing work in Physics describing how universe came into existence on it's own. How? I'm not a physicist but his theories are well respected among physicists.

Why are the internal organs and structures so similar in mammals?? How is brain learning different skills? How can dogs be trained? Human has the highest brain to body weight ration among all the living creatures! No wonder we are intelligent.

Humans invented writing, a way of transferring knowledge and look where we are now. We do not completely rely on our genetic memory to learn.

When someone tells you to obey their god, the god that talks to them! Don't be fooled, they want you to obey them unconditionally without coming into the picture. And what you are doing in the process is empowering the other person, now you are under his/her influence. There were and are some really influential people in the world.

There might be a God but organized religion is pure evil.

But there is no God, no evidence presented up until now by anyone claiming the existence of God. It's a matter of faith. It is soothing, very soothing to know that there is someone powerful out there who is looking after you, but is there? Faith is calming but to stay calm, would you choose to be ignorant?

The very question of proof of the non-existence is plain stupid.

Show me proof that there is a tiny tea pot circling the earth. Show me proof of hobgoblins, trolls, or dragons. Better yet, read the bible. Almost nothing in there matches history. The Romans kept track of almost everything. Even minor things. No Roman record of Pilot putting a hit on Christ. That would have been significant! Not one person that wrote the bible ever met Jesus. The only person that "did" was Josephous, which has been proven to be a forgery for 100's of years. Christ is not a name. It's a title. Last names were basically non existant at the time. Christ comes from Christos, meaning the holy or annoined one. He would have been known as something like Joshua son of Josef. Read I believe it's Gennisis chapters 1 & 3. You will read two different creation stories. What's worse is that there was a commite that voted on what's on there! That book, at best is just exagerations of events that happened. Yes my keyboard sticks. sorry for the typos.

why mention Christianity , theres a whole lot more religions , which fucks the argument from the start

You will never get proof that something does not exist. It is simply impossible. You can not prove the flying spagheti monster doesn't exist. You cannot prove that Unicorns do not exist. You cannot prove that ghosts and magic do not exist. You cannot prove that we are not simply an atom in the finger of a super huge giant or that there is not an entire universe in the atoms of your fingers. However that does not mean you have to equivicate and allow the possibility that the spaghetti monster, Unicorns, ghosts or magic are real or even have a chance of being real. Or that you have to accept that it is possible that we exist in an atom of a super huge giant being or that there may be an entire universe in an atom of our fingers. That would just be allowing your mind to be mush. Just like allowing for the possibility that there may be a god. Get off the fence and make a stand. Is there a single shread of evidence that a god exist? NO! Then the simplest answer is that it does not exist.

You don't need proof of nonexistence. Nonexistence is the default setting of the universe. The only reason that daytime exists on planet Earth is because we're close enough to a star for it to not look like all the rest of the stars in the sky.

Is NOT collecting stamps considered a hobby?

You can't have a religion if you believe in no magical beings. And atheists don't say there is no god. They say there is no proof for any gods. And you can't prove that something doesn't exist. Until there is proof of any gods, we have no reason to think there are any. And if the Jewish/Christian god were as described in the bronze-age bible, who would want to worship a cruel thug?

I consider atheism to be a religion

That is your right, but is obviously and demonstrably based on a different definition to any theological, etymological or lexicographical definition in current common parlence.

• just as Christianity*

No, atheism is nothing like Christianity, it has no founder, doctrines, dogmas holy books or promises dependent upon adherence.

because it states unequivocally that there is no god,

Incorrect, the definition of the word atheism is the lack of a theological concept of a deity, nothing else.

• just as Christianity insists there is a god. *

Christianity acknowledges one a particular god to the exclusion of all others. As far as all other deities Christianity is as atheist as the most ardent of none believers in all gods. Christianity is the title for a form of atheism with a solitary exception.

I would like to know the scientific proof that there is no god;

The scientific method is used to establish, the true nature of an object, method or phenomena, their form of existence effect and purpose or use.
You can't establish the non-existence of anything; you can only construe non-existence by a lack of evidence, effect and/or perception until such time as one or more of these assumptions is proven incorrect.

otherwise, I remain a skeptic and an agnostic waiting for proof one way or the other.

Your choice of scepticism is admirable, however your reason for simply not accepting the default position non-belief indicates an underlying tendency toward theism rather than agnosticism.

Your initial post is therefore flawed and unanswerable

So the Loch Ness monster exists, simply because there is no proof that it doesn't - merely a huge amount of evidence that would imply its non-existence? Certainly, the bible's tale of the creation cannot be correct, purely on the grounds of "who was there at the time God created light, then the stars, etc."
Science cannot be absolutely accurate, for much the same reason, but at least it has maths, physics, etc. to create a far more plausible explanation - AND SCIENCE IS WILLING TO CHANGE on presentation of good research. Atheism is therefore not a religion, since it has no rigid dogma. It is a belief system however.

I thought this way many years ago. A man at work told me his wife was an atheist and I made a similar comment about it being the flip side of the same coin. One says there is a God, the other says there is no God.

My definition was incorrect and to this day I have no idea what her position was because I didn't seek clarification and he didn't offer any.

I don't like using the atheist label for myself because of the potential misconception and also why take a label of disbelief. I don't believe unicorns exist and I don't call myself an aunicornist. But I also don't join communities organised around the lack of belief in unicorns.

Until the day when theists are the minority I'll remain an atheist in the simplest sense. I don't see any evidence for any God. I don't make my own claims about the lack of God.

You're asking for proof of a negative; a logical fallacy to which the correct answer, in this case, is Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The FSM, sauce be apon him, is alleged not to exist. However there is no proof of his non-existence. Hence to logically follow that path you must be agnostic with regard to the FSM (sbah), as well as Krishna, Invisible Pink Unicorns, Odin, Hades, Hecate, Papa Legaba, Iktomi, Jitta Jitta, etc. et.al.

Nowhere does atheism state anything. Atheism is simply not believing in gods.

Atheism has no doctrine, no dogma, and no clergy. It doesn't have anything that defines a religion.

There's no way to prove the nonexistence of anything. If you could people wouldn't believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, or chupa cabras.

As an atheist, I would absolutely reconsider my stance if presented with evidence of a god. Religious people would consider it a test of faith if proof of god's nonexistence came to light, and would continue on ignoring it.

I don't care for proof or looking for it. id rather just get on with living.