ARE ASanta Claus, Atoothfairy, ACelestial Teapot, AZeus, Aastrology, ABuhdism, Apixies also Religions? You can never Disprove a Negative absolutely. Say you have a Box and you can't look inside, X-Ray or use any device to determine it's contents, you can't touch it or shake it. How would you prove it was empty or contained something? You could only say "I don't know" Now supposed you were allowed to shake it, weigh it and compare it to another similar box. You could infer that it was empty Yes. Now supposed you open the box and found that it was indeed empty, How would you go about proving it was empty? I can see that it is empty! How would you prove it to a blind person? Have them feel around every square inch of the box. How would you go about proving there is no Air in the box or a single photon in the box? At some point I can conclude that for all intents and purposes it IS empty. Until I have enough evidence to conclude otherwise, I will continue to say the box is empty even if it isn't absolute!

1. You cannot "prove" a negative.
   However, you can use your brain to notice that Gawd, any of them, as described by believers, is doing a piss-poor job of keeping "his eye on the sparrow" and/ or starving children.

If I do not believe in gods and that is the pure tenent in question where is the religion?

No, it does not. Atheism is ‘not believing the claims that people make about deities’. It is not ‘the belief that there are no deities’. That’s is asinine.

I consider atheism to be a stupid word. A theist makes claims without proof and call people who don't believe in their absurdity atheists as the "a" symbolizes the opposite of. However, if you are operating without, the opposite would be with so an atheist would make claims with proof. If you have proof, there is no need to make a claim.

Before I attempt to answer this could I get your defintion of God?

Maybe you should check the definition of religion.

The burden of proof is for the Christian not the atheist. I will however try to prove that there is no God.
When a religious person comes across something that cannot be explained, they bring in the supernatural in a desperate attempt at clarification. Many times this as happened, only for science to come up with an explanation. 'The sun orbiting the Earth' was one of the worst. If the world was ruled by one religion with its opposed views to reality it would destroy that which an intelligent species cannot survive without. 'Purpose' The intelligent mind needs variant intelligences and that is why there will always be many religions. The pattern they serve is dictated by the laws of nature. Evolution
This proves that religion is man-made. There is no God!

atheism isn't a religion and it doesn't state anything at all. atheism is the state of either believing there are no gods or not believing there are any gods. it is a personal thing and makes no statement beyond "i believe there are not gods" or "i do not believe there are any gods." that doesn't make it a religion... not even close. there is no scientific proof that there is no god. there also is no scientific proof that there is no tooth fairy. there is no scientific proof that there is no one-eyed, one-armed flying purple people eater. are you an agnostic regarding the tooth fairy or the people-eater or only a god, or would that be all gods? and why would you waste your time waiting for proof (of a negative, yet!) anyway? don't you have better things to do? since atheism isn't a religion, there is no organization of atheists dying to get you to "convert." you wanna be an agnostic? go ahead. be an agnostic. no skin off my nose. i don't belong to some club that wants (or doesn't want) you as a member. atheist is just a word describing a person in one of the two states i mentioned. you may as well make liking broccoli a religion. no one is trying to prove broccoli tastes good or bad, or convert you to a lover or hater of broccoli.

g

Jim is totally bald. What color is Jim's hair?
Bald is not a hair color.

You try to persuade Jim and he is unmoved, saying he doesn't follow.
What is his direction?

You describe a concept to a scientist. The scientist proposes a test to refute your concept. If the test works, then the scientist may believe you. If the test fails and the concept is entirely refuted, will you continue to grasp it?
Belief is not faith.

A philosopher finds a way to propose many things that admittedly cannot be tested, proven or refuted. I choose to believe that All such subjects are unreal. Is that faith?

Atheists have one less god than monotheists.
The absence of worship is not a religion.

Many religious believers have described their God to such an extent that we can refute the existence of That God, if not all variations of belief in some other god(s).

I easily refute all god(s) that are: jealous, needing worship, commanding unethical acts, causing calamities, causing miracles, suspending or bypassing fundamental Laws such as Conservation of Momentum or Symmetry.

Abide

Every time science figures out anything it’s proof of no God. If somebody tells me that an airplane flies because of magic and then I explain to them the science behind lift and thrust and they still choose to believe it was magic my work is done and the rest of the work is theirs, should they choose to do it. If they choose instead to have faith and claim that my proof is not proof that’s fine, enjoy any delusion that comforts, I’m not offended. But keep it out of science, schools and politics until you prove God exists, scientifically and without it requiring faith. Evolution proves that we are an advanced species of primate.. We’re just a bunch of monkeys that became advanced enough to destroy the world and we are doing a damn good job of it.

It is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, just as it's equally impossible to prove that he/she/it does exist.

The postulation of a God involves a shift in logic which makes communication between believers and non-believers difficult. Words have different connotations in different logical settings.

There is none.

Basically, understanding the world as a series of physical processes as science has shown it to be, leads us to not see the hand of god in any of it. Learning about the world gives no reason whatsoever to postulate a god, there is no reason to assume such a being exists other than cultural conditioning.

Being agnostic is a highly problematic position, because you have to be agnostic about a whole range of other things as well. If someone asks you to believe in a god and you say, I’m agnostic about that, then what if someone asks you to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? All of a sudden you find you’re agnostic about everything that you don’t categorically know not to exist? There is such a thing as making reasonable guesses about the world, and the extension of that process should tell you there is no god.

If you’re not too scared of offending the Christians that is.

You will always be waiting. You will never get scientific proof one way or the other. You cannot get material proof of an immaterial object. Can't put God in a test tube.

Its a bogus question. For us to prove there is NOT a god we would have to be and have to demonstrate omniscience. Now, maybe a fairer question is how can we tell real from fictional claims of gods, the supernatural, etc?

As of yet, there is no demonstrably true claim for anything related to these data points. Which is exactly what we would expect from fiction. Which is what we expect given the propensity of people to believe these kinds of things and spread them as true.

None of it is consistent with any being have any kind of relationship or expectations of us.

Which is why I am a skeptic, an atheist, and agnostic, because there is nothing about my stance that would not change with objective proof.

Necessity and sufficiency are the to conditions that have to exist in order to prove or disprove anything.
Proving based on the obvious is the only way of learning.
Believes need no proving.
The notion of God or god(s) is neither necessary nor sufficient in explaining of the physical reality and of the moral philosophy.
The opposite is denying the facts.

good for you - end of?

There are several misconceptions in this comment.
First, atheism is a conclusion, not a belief system.
Second, most non-theists I know, and I've been at it for mny years, avoid evern making a broad statement that there is no God, preferring something like "There is not a single iota of evidence there are any gods.
Third, reasonsble people understand that trying to prove a negative is something of a fool's errand. Proving there is no god is usually a red herring used by religionists to distract and side track a discussion when they begin to realize their pro-deity arguments are very shaky.
Finally, in general, mature atheists have no desire to prove there is no god, it is the person that is making the assertion that there is a sky fairy who needs to provide what ought to be extroadinary proof of their fantasic claims. Atheists do not care what someone else believes. To us worshipping Baal, Schiva or Jesus is equally futile, just as foolish as seeking divine intercession to have your favorite football team win a game. Stheists are not evangelical, they know that to beome an athiest requires a great amount of inward speculation and research, usually (Or at least quite often.) seeking the answer by trying to fit into more thsn one belief system and only come to the non-deity conclusion after much thought. There is no ritual. no sprimkling to calf's blood , no trimming back of a foreskin, no magical incantation, that makes a person non-theist, they must do the reasoning themselves.
Charlie

I agree! There is ZERO proof to support the existince, or nonexistence of "god"! Therefore, Atheism is actually a belief system, in the same way that religion is! I believe that science, and history are showing me that there is less likelyhood of "god's" existence, than the opposite! I remain convinced that, IF, there is a "superior being/race" in existence, that such entities would be nothing like the god named Jehovah, and wouldn't neccesarily be our "creators"! I think Atheists are convinced that there are no other sentient beings of any type in existence but man, so please, Atheists, correct me if i'm wrong!

First, the proofs of God:

1. The intricate colored mandala I see that develops when I take psilocin.
2. How the rows of the Periodic Table increase in number of members as 2N^2. Okay, maybe that one is just evidence.

The disproofs:

1. The depth of hatred within people disproves God generally, and the facile hatred of believers disproves their individual Gods specifically (Jesus, Allah, etc.). The rationalizations for hatred are simply not believable.
2. The utter lack of any kind or sort of evidence for God implies that God is a sneaky trickster. This notion, AKA the Loki Hypothesis, can never rise above being a laughable rationalization.

Proof of God: The Law of Teleology. Teleology is the study of design or purpose in natural phenomena. This law of science essentially means that when an object reflects a purpose, goal, or design, it must have had a designer. Simply put, things do not design themselves. This holds true for the things in the universe, which proves that it had to have a Designer.

For example, the earth in orbiting the sun departs from a straight line by only one-ninth of an inch every 18 miles—a very straight line in human terms. If the orbit changed by one-tenth of an inch every 18 miles, it would be vastly larger and we would all freeze to death. If it changed by one-eighth of an inch, we would be incinerated. The sun is burning at approximately 20 million degrees Celsius at its interior. If the earth was moved 10% farther away, we would soon freeze to death. If it was moved 10% closer, we would be reduced to ashes. Are we to believe that such precision “just happened”? Think about it: the sun is poised at 93 million miles from Earth, which happens to be just right. Did this happen by chance or by design? It’s no small wonder that the psalmist alludes to God as the grand designer: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. . . . [The sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other” what do you say ?

Fine!