Let us all get to know each other, atheists. I'll start.

I am a Indian on Earth, a science student and an atheist. From my childhood I was interested in science and ceased being religious when I realized how infinitely less we know about even the existence of Gods such as those we, if I may be allowed to say, blindly and ignorantly worship and even kill people/divide our society over. If provided verifiable and reproducible proof of a God I shall gladly give up atheism. I am interested in astrophysics and strongly support space exploration and interplanetary habitation, and I am hopeful that Asgardia will be, but a first step for future space endeavours.

So, isn't that your behavior more represented by agnosticism?
I mean, as far as I know, an "atheist" is not one who "refuses to believe/worship a God/Goddess which can't be proven existence" (which is the fundation of the faith), that's an agnostic, an atheist is one who tells there is no God/Goddess at all.
So, please, if you have some proof there is no God/Goddes... show them. ;-)

I'll reuse the Stephen Fry as an argument (not proof, but compelling nontheless).

• Bone cancer in young children:
• Option A: this is part of a divine plan. In which case, what sort of sadistic, maniacal diety would afflict innocent children with such an illness?
• Option B: a test of faith. In which case, what sort of all knowing and all powerful diety would allow a child to suffer with this ilness for the sake of testing someone's faith.
• Option C: for want of a better phrase, "shit happens". There is no divine influence / test, but just an unfortunate combination of genetics and environment.

Which sound more compelling?

@Elwe Thor, I didn't mention whether I was a gnostic or an agnostic. 

I brought up the point about proof, because I think that a person unwilling to change his/her opinion after verifiable, reproducible, and logical evidence has been found (which has not been found, yet) is violating one of the core tenets of science, upon which much of our research is based (i.e. making and later proving hypotheses, before explicitly accepting them).

The onus probandi of proving whether a God exists is upon theists. One cannot be expected to disprove what hasn't been proven yet. Moreover, the assumption that God exists has been made by the guys who originally wrote the scriptures. Hence, it is up to them/their followers to prove the existence before expecting proof of non-existence.

Which is why I would accept any evidence for a Creator provided it meets the expectations of science. But that is a pretty long shot. In my opinion the concept of a God (as the Biblical, or Islamic or Hindu etc interpretation) is very vague and somewhat a hunch. Hence, it would be very difficult to prove such a god.

In any case, unreliable second-hand empiricism by evangelists/charlatans is not acceptable as proof.

PS: how do you reference someone in this forum using hypertext?

@Scarbs, I like that argument. Succint, yet powerful.

I personally am quite fond of Neil deGrasse Tyson's argument about how God is relegated to unknown phenomena which have no explanations at the time but as knowledge about that grows, the supernatural explanation is abandoned. Thus, God becomes a perpetually shrinking bubble of ignorance and "the unknown". 

I'd attach a link to that video, but I cannot find it at this time.

"The god of the ever shrinking bubble of scientific ignorance" - yes I like that one too.

Elwe Thor, as an atheist I disagree that what the original poster calls atheism, you call agnosticism. 

The distinction to me comes down to two words, belief and your use of the word is. 

Atheism is about ones belief, or rather the lack of belief in a or many gods. It does not itself go to the existence of god(s). Though many atheists are happy to make that extension themselves. These are often classed as hard atheists. 

As an illustrative example, lets assume that Scarbs Option A is in fact the case. This deity manifests itself openly, obviously, and with displayed powers generally classed as supernatural such as clairvoyance, telepathy and the ability to cause or cure disease. As an atheist, I would acknowledge this being's existence, but I wouldn't give it the value of my belief in it as god or divine or worthy of worship. My belief in its claims of supernatural worthiness would be non-existent while not denying its existence.

As an atheist I express it as I'm not currently aware of any God I would worship. I don't believe in anything that would merit the title of God as currently propounded.  Agnostics are undecided on the existence of God(s). Atheists are decided about the belief in the claimed God(s). I would happily consider evidence for God, but I do not think any yet claimed God in the history of humanity actually exists based on the available evidence. And so I am an atheist rather than an agnostic. I have decided for the available claims and evidence even though I'm open to new claims and evidence. 

I just asked for evidences that God(s)/Godness(es) doesn't exist: as you are "atheist" you "have to" give an evidence, if you wish to stay on chat (or not give anything at all, if you just like to be an atheist, which is sure not forbidden by current Constitutional draft).

I'm "agnostic", so I don't need to proof anything, as my start is "I can't proof God(s)/Godness(es) are existent, the same as I can't proof they're unexistent".

That apart, I pretty know that all these chats where to "proof" un/existence are a waste of time so, forgive me to have asked and continue being... atheists.

What would be proof? My problem is the lack of evidence. While it is often said that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, the things once posited as proof are being rapidly explained, leaving only the God of the Gaps argument above. At some point, the lack of evidence constitutes a failure to present a provable case. For my purposes as a philosophical evidentialist, the available material is enough to make a reasonable decision. 

Not to overcomplicate things, but a counter-proof to God's existence must be preceded by proof of existence. The onus lies on the person who first posited the existence without any proof, and by proxy, on the believers.

I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic. I thought I would drop by to say "hi" anyway.

Hi.

I am slightly concerned about the loose restrictions put on religion in the draft resolution, but what is one to do?

Hey Xaphyr,

I wholeheartedly agree with your suggestions here:

https://asgardia.space/en/forum/forum/constitution-132/topic/discussion-of-the-declaration-of-unity-4549/?post=21364#21364

I believe that to accommodate as many people as possible (which is the cornerstone of Asgardia), such restraints are not being put in place. However, we should be looking to emulate an ideal society as closely as possible - and compromising integrity doesn't seem like the way to fly. Medieval beliefs should not overshadow human progress.

@Scarbs(Asgardian) on 4 June 2017, 12:19 p.m.

That's a good one :) Granted, I would still be fundamentally opposed to "believing" in that either, but I like the name haha.

BloodyClean

I used to be athiest, but then turned agnostic.

Really, a good analogy is that each of us can be represented as a plant. The question, therefore, is if we are in a garden (under the care of a gardener commonly referred to as a god), or in the wild (with no divine involvement).

With the garden concept, our individual lives are not of great consequence to the gardener, just as a gardener rarely takes an active interest in every plant and seed in the garden (I recognize there are exceptions, and I am certain sometimes exceptions are made). Their purpose, therefore, is to be part of a greater whole that we, as individuals, can neither perceive nor contemplate. It promotes working together, collectively, for the greater good rather than only working for our own self-interests, being a flower. These are the agnostics.

If, however, we are in the wilds, not only is there no gardener, there is no bigger picture. The entire purpose as individuals is to stave off death as long as possible to make certain our genes get spread, as the best and most dominant organism, to the next generation. In the end, this viewpoint promotes selfish and self-serving behavior. It makes being a weed the best 'plant'.

Thus, in considering the two options, I prefer to think of myself as a lovely flower instead of a weed.

MCU

My inner elf likes your comparison with gardens and forests, @Phicksur. ;-)
From a purely biological view, we should be a forest, as cells have one duty only: "to survive", there is no other at their level.
We're formed by cells, but our mind (result of cells activity's organisation, via electricity and chemistry) is trying to go one step forward, we can say: from the wild forest to the garden.

To do that, we don't need any "God" (or Godness) and the results of our efforts are not overseen by anyone, who is lurking from over the clouds: we'll just succeed or not, and the whole Universe will go on anyway.
As an agnostic, my mind is open to both possibilities: if someone will find sort of "final proof" Gods/Godnesses don't exist I'll accept it, if some God or Godness will come saying "ehy... are you sure your proof was really that final?" I'll say "welcome!". :-D

I greatly doubt that any scientist will claim about a "final" proof as, in science, nothing is "final", never.
In my humble opinion, "Gods and Godnesses" are a matter of faith only, so there even can't be proofs, as any proof will disrupt the faith concept at it's roots. With faith you can declare everything and no one can tell (or proof) you're wrong.