Or false of course, if it were in fact false, which is the very definition of unfalsifiable. The most you can say is that it is epistemically possible, which is to say we don’t know whether it is possible or not.
As you say, why would anyone invest belief based on not knowing, indeed, what would one’s criteria for disbelief be then, without simply using bias for or against other unfalsifiable ideas.
Please don’t hijack this thread. Start a different one with this line of discussion.
My apologies, I was responding to a point raised, but I understand - I will shift it to a new thread instead.
I have no regrets for how or why I became an Atheist. Christianity in my opinion is a miserable belief system.
“To be an atheist is a pretty bold stance-- I’m curious for the atheists on the forum, what is your story? How did you become one?”
I reached my views on God (or lack thereof) after a lot of self reflection and intelligent skepticism.
Please consider:
If God created the Universe, then where does God come from? If God has always existed, then why not skip a step and say that the Universe has always existed? Or if God’s origin is an unanswerable question, then why not decide that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question?
I have never understood why people have such a hard time accepting that the Universe may exist into the infinite past, yet accept an eternal God without question.
Can’t religious people see this as a double-standard?
Because of all of the vile, horrible, evil shit that’s done for religious reasons, questioning the existence of God is something that one must do just to be a decent human being.
Theists seem to throw out Pasqal’s Wager a lot . . . but without critically examining the reasoning (if we want to call it that) behind Pasqal’s Wager.
Basically, if you believe in God and God exists, then you go to paradise when you die, but if God doesn’t exist, then you’ve lived life as a good person and you don’t lose anything when you die.
If–however–you don’t believe in God and God does exist, then you burn in hell for eternity. If you don’t believe in God and God doesn’t exist, then you don’t lose anything when you die.
So, we conclude that believing in God is the smart bet.
There is so much wrong with Pasqal’s Wager that it’s actually difficult to figure out where to begin.
Why assume the Christian God? Pasqal’s Wager could equally apply to Thor, Zeus, Vishnu, or Osiris. Almost every religion (and yes, there are exceptions) says that the followers of all the other religions are going to hell, so even if I became very piously religious tomorrow, I will almost definitely choose the wrong religion (40,000 to choose from), so I would probably go to hell anyway.
Even if I choose the “correct” faith, I think God would perceive the difference between honest faith and me simply hedging my bets, so I don’t think that religion from Pasqal’s Wager is very sincere.
Atheism is the smart bet when we consider these points.
“A watch implies a watchmaker” is another chestnut thrown out be theists, so we have arguments about how the complexity of living things makes it seem unlikely that everything came from chance.
Again, there are so many things wrong with this argument that I could write a 20 page college paper on how wrong this argument actually is.
This idea ignores “exaptation,” which is how parts of living organisms can be repurposed into other roles. As an example, the inner ear in humans also helps control balance. As another example, snake venom helps the viper digest food, yet this venom can also be used for self-defense.
Exaptation is a big part of how things like the eye and the bacterial flagella came into existence, and we do see many “missing links” in the fossil record.
And so on. I hope you respond.
I was a born again Christian for about 2 years in highschool and decided it was not for me. Ruth Hurmence Green’s book The Born Again SKEPTICS Guide To The Bible was my first introduction to atheism. Now, some 25 books later, I am a confirmed antitheist. But I have to admit that I find a lot of atheists confrontational rather than as a group that wants to stick together for the cause of atheism. If we wish to further atheism’s cause, we have to stick together rather than continuously argue with each other. It’s getting rediculous folks.
What in the wide, wide world of sports is the atheism cause?
The “atheism cause” is a belief by theists that there is a form of “organized atheism” (like organized religion) that exists solely for the purpose of undermining Christianity and destroying “vital societal values” like heterosexual marriage, female subjugation, patriarchal norms, and so forth.
Below, see an example of a book that touches on this subject:
I purchased it out of morbid curiosity, as this book was endorsed by Charlie Kirk, and he also wrote the introduction.
This is because all atheists are groomers trying to get people away from Christianity.
I assume he means for “Freedom From Religion”?
There are religious people who support the FFRF
Assuming it actually is a thing, I will suggest that it is to encourage people to start thinking critically, and not to blindly follow the flock’s leading sheep. Think for yourself-ism…Think F-YOU? 
I completely disagree that there is an actual atheism cause.
IMO, the only thing to atheism is a lack of beliefs in any gods/esses.
That being said, there are atheISTS who may have a cause and there are organizations made up of atheists that promote causes.
There are a lot of folks who identify as atheist who do not have a habit of thinking critically. Some of those actually are or have been regular posters here. 
You are kicking at open doors. I was just pondering the hypothetical that with
I know it’s a long shot, but one can hope
Anything involving humans is a long shot. But the only alternative to that is to give up hope and become passive and fatalistic and cynical.
Why is it a bold stance? It’s not like there’s any validatable evidence for any of the thousands of gods mankind has devised… to my mind that means that those claiming there is a god have many, many more questions to answer than those who don’t.
UK Atheist
I have to agree. Not since Madelyn Marie Ohare was alive or when she had prayer taken out of public schools and encouraged Atheists to come out of hiding.
Her organization (American Atheists, IIRC) still exists today and has 10 or 20,000 active members, which is a teensy percentage of all the atheists in America. Mostly we are like herding cats and aren’t joiners.
Not being convinced that a god or gods exist, is no more bold for me, than not being convinced: bigfoot, Jinn, ghosts, Loch Ness monster, (or any other of the many other unevidenced, unsupported supernatural claims), exists.
I used to be a theist.
But after studying the evidence, studying logic, philosophy, and what good standards of evidence are, I came to the conclusion, I had no good reasons to believe. I was forced by my intellectual honesty, to drop my unsupported theistic beliefs.
I had a short period where I was a pantheist, but then I came to the conclusion that I was just calling the universe “god”.
Let me add, that my atheism is a purely provisional position, not a dogmatic one. As long as theists continue to fail to meet their burden of proof to support their claim that a god or gods exist, my atheism will continue.
If you know anything about Darwin and evolution, it’s pretty easy to be an atheist!
If you know anything about Darwin and evolution, it’s pretty easy to be an atheist!
My atheism is not at all impacted by evolution being true.
Even if the theory of evolution were demonstrated to be wrong tomorrow, I would still have no good reasons to believe in a god or gods.
The existence of a god or gods is not impacted on evolution being true.
There are plenty of theists that fully accept the facts and theory of evolution.
Dr. Francis Collins, ex head of the Human Genome Project, is an evangelical Christian, who has stated several times, that the DNA evidence alone is enough to prove common descent. Even without fossil evidence.
