What is up atheist?

evidence pretty much shows that gods were human constructs not the other way around. The development and evolution of gods and spirits was a natural occurence in our species advance of self awareness and the unknown. As the unknown gets pushed further back, the roles of gods have had to be heavily modified by clergy.
Notice that the concept that personal gods are being displaced byv trascendental gods , although going back to the Greeks, is more of a popular item today where we no longer have many physical conditions that we can even blame on deities fuckin with us.

It isnt that evidence supports the concept of there being no gods, instead, its more that no evidence supports their existence

The guy who started this is basing his schtick on the "can't prove it's not" method.

I agree with this, Farmerman. There seems to be almost no unambiguous evidence that gods exist...and there certainly is plenty of inferential evidence that gods, even as a concept, are human made concepts.



I certainly does seem that way to me also. If forced to guess, I would certainly guess that all the gods that have so far been proposed by humans are merely inventions of the human mind...and that some are farcical.



Indeed. In fact, not only by clergy, but by the common person also. There most definitely seems to be less reason to trend toward explanations like "gods" these days to explain things.

Yes, that is why the question is aimed at atheist, I know how an agnostic would answer it.

Personally, as an agnostic, I am guessing, based on the lack of evidence, that either his character is based on a real person, who had great charisma, incredible goodness of heart, and who was probably a good magician, or is just a creation of the oral tradition.

Now way in the future, say some sufficient evidence is excavated to prove that Jesus was a real historical man, like Gandhi, or MLK, that I think will sit fine with atheists. Because his existence doesn't necessarily have to mean that God exists, because it's almost impossible to know his divinity.


It's also interesting how some of you guys brought up the existence of God. I was interested in Jesus as a human, not whether on the subject of the divinity of Jesus. That's a whole another ball game

That quote is interesting, although it still confuses me still.

To help me understand it, I'm rewording it as so:
It isn't evidence that supports existence, instead it is a lack of evidence that supports existence.

So do you mean absence of evidence as in:
It isn't that evidence supports the concept of there being no gods, instead, it's more that absence of evidence does not supports God's existence.

So are you saying that absence of evidence for something is evidence of its absence?

Please clarify for me when you have time.