So my understanding is that the reason Atheists don’t believe in God, and the reason why Agnostic-Atheists lean towards there being no God, is because there is no conclusive proof that God exists.
I respect and understand that.
Except…I know Atheists and Agnostic- Atheists who believe that believe that you are born with your sexuality, and there’s no conclusive proof of that either.
I know Atheists and Agnostic-Atheists who believe that there is or most likely is life in the universe besides us, and there’s no conclusive proof of that either.
So what I’m wondering is: if you don’t accept one thing because there’s no conclusive proof, why is it okay to accept these other things for which there is also no conclusive proof?
And don’t get me wrong: I believe that you’re born with your sexuality and that aliens most likely exist too, but I also believe in God (in a spiritual deist kind of way), which is why I’m wondering what exactly the Atheist rational is for picking and choosing what is and isn’t okay to believe when lacking conclusive evidence.
Someone else already answered on the evidence behind being born with your sexuality. As to space and aliens, if an atheist holds “certainly” that there is life on other planets other than earth, they are probably being optimistic. You are right. There IS no conclusive proof that life exists beyond our pretty blue rock. And while we have ideas, we really don’t know how difficult it is for life to form in the first place. We know it happened once. The optimism exists in that, given a universe’s almost unimaginable size, it seems almost inconceivable that this is the only place with life. There is currently no evidence for it though, so I would have to say that I’m an agnostic believer that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Until we either find this life, or figure out how likely it is for life to form in the first place, we have no way of saying how much, if any, of this life is out there.
One more thing. While I am an agnostic atheist, I will say that I tend to be a more pessimistic one. It is commonly said that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This isn’t, however, true in instances where evidence for the thing in question would be expected.
Let us take the god of Abraham, for example. The Bible gives several specific actions performed by this god that we should be able to find evidence for in the real world. There is, however, no evidence for the creation story. Indeed, all the evidence points directly away from it. There is no evidence that all of civilization lived in one city and was scattered from this city suddenly all speaking different languages. Language theory doesn’t work that way
There is no evidence of a world engulfing flood that destroyed all life a mere 3 to 6 thousand years ago, and the evidence for something of that magnitude should be ample. Indeed, we find civilizations that seem to have continued without interruption through the time period that this global flood should have taken place.
And there is no evidence of the Exodus and the seeking of promised land. The Bible mentions 600,000 men (call it more than a million actual people) escaping Egyptian slavery. There is no evidence that the Egyptians ever had Jewish slaves. There is no evidence of more than a million people traipsing through the wilderness for 40 years. With that many people, and with so many wars and significant events, one should very much expect to see evidence for it. Absence of evidence, therefore, strongly suggests that it never happened.
And these are really the top things on this particular god’s resume. If there is no evidence for ANY of these things, then there is strong evidence to believe that this god never existed at all.
So while I am an agnostic atheist with regard to a god in general, I am very much a gnostic atheist with regard to Abraham’s god. I am quite confident that this god is not now nor has ever been real.
I agree with basically everything skepticalavenger has said. I do want to add though for saccharinandsour that as far as I’m aware, most people that refer to themselves as an atheist (agnostic or otherwise) are typically referring to a theistic God, as presented in any major religion, for precisely the reasons skepticalavenger has laid out. It seems pretty damning that there is no written record mentioning Jesus until many, many years after his supposed death, given the things he’s supposedly done. Most atheists that I’m aware of have no issue with deists. Most atheists that I’m aware of are perfectly okay with one having spiritual beliefs as long as you aren’t trying to influence politics and governance with them.