Lack of belief? You do not believe in God, therefore, you believe he does not exists. Isn't that a belief in itself? Every human believes in something. They believe something about the universe. Everything we have is a belief system until it has been proven, and then, you no longer believe, you know.

Christian's are commonly asked to defend their own beliefs. I find this somewhat interesting, considering that atheism is also a belief in itself. Atheists hardly get the chance to justify their beliefs because Christians are always so busy justifying their own beliefs. So I would like to allow the atheists their time to speak.

Why are you so adamant that God does not exist? And how does this make your life a more positive and enlightening experience?

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money."

I feel more in control. I don't need to submit to a higher authority or feel helpless.

To Sakari: if you don't believe God exists, but don't necessarily believe God doesn't exist that technically makes you agnostic as opposed to atheist. Just sayin. 

the ones I've met on this forum have definitely changed my mind.

Oh well, I still think that equates you to Agnostic, but I guess it depends on which definition you're going with.   Anyways, Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Buddist, Muslim, are all labels and inhibit the potential for agreement, in my mind. I've noticed that you seem to only equate God with a specifically Christian, man in the sky sorting all of the world's prroblems. There are other interpretations of God that aren't really theologically based. You are free to come to any conclusion you wish. In my case I had to shake off all associations and allow for Ne.

O.K., one LAST entry on the topic, because Sakari, it matters not what you believe. You seem like a great person and so it's really inconsequential. Same goes to all other posters here. But there are soooo many associations and defintions of the words we are throwing around ( Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, never mind God ), that it's hard to have a conversation that acknowledges our genuine beliefs. And ultimately, what does it matter?

Asking why people need to believe in God (the last thread) is kind of like asking why people need to cry. You'll find several theories, lots of people with strong opinions or gut instincts, others refuting these opinions, theories or gut instincts, or some people saying "I'm not sure, but maybe it's.... " or " I have no idea." Or some people that don't find it necessary at all. It's an unknown, so we fill in the blanks with the information, value systems, intuition we have at hand at the time. This may change over time. So in my mind, I just let people fill in the blanks however they choose ( as long as they're not being oppressive or mean spirited ). I don't have the answers, just some personal beliefs, so who am I to judge someone else's personal beliefs?

We're all just grappling humans. Broad interrpretations and tolerance within reason seem to be key.

Sure, there might be a god--but I don't believe in him.

Southern baptists make me want to stab a knife in my ears.

I don't have the answers, just some personal beliefs, so who am I to judge someone else's personal beliefs?

Well, my definition of agnostic = still seeking/open to proof, whereas I'm pretty solid in my lack of belief? It's kind of like...to a Christian, why don't they believe in Allah? Or Odin? Or Zeus? Everybody is atheist about all the gods except the one[s] they worship [unless you're pantheistic], I just happen to take it a step further. I reject the idea of God, but I don't go so far as to claim he doesn't exist, because in order to do so, I would have to have proofs, and I've argued ceaselessly with people about this--my proofs do not satisfy them, and thus I take the weaker atheist stance in order to avoid conflict. The "might-be" is a simple concession to the idea, because of course we don't know, but I choose not to believe in the "might-be," or even consider adopting it myself.

I agree that labels inhibit things, but may be necessary in order to distinguish things? However, there are varying faiths, and it's necessary that they require a name, but of course, stereotypes are going to prevail. I dunno.

I think my "vision" of God is influenced by geographical features--I live in the South, therefore it's going to be the primary thing I draw off of. However, my idea and subsequent rejection of an omnipotent God extends to the three major monotheistic faiths--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. [Although Judaism can also be considered more of a culture? I dunno.] My primary "belief" is in myself, and in the actions and consequences of humans, and the fact that there is no prevailing, sentient force that creates them or controls them.

And yes, I do agree that there are different ideas, different rationale for believing in a God--the purpose of my thread was to understand as many of them as I could. And it really changed my thinking. I think if you define God as "belief that there is something beyond the individual," then I equate God to human love and human consciousness. I just disagree with the idea that there needs to be a manifestation of purpose, that it needs to take a "form"--it feels like taking a thread from a beautiful tapestry and saying, "This is the center of the entire thing, this is what is most important." Or taking a story and saying, "This is all that it is about." I don't think meaning is found that way. I dunno.

And yes, I do agree that there are different ideas, different rationale for believing in a God--the purpose of my thread was to understand as many of them as I could. And it really changed my thinking. I think if you define God as "belief that there is something beyond the individual," then I equate God to human love and human consciousness. I just disagree with the idea that there needs to be a manifestation of purpose, that it needs to take a "form"--it feels like taking a thread from a beautiful tapestry and saying, "This is the center of the entire thing, this is what is most important." Or taking a story and saying, "This is all that it is about." I don't think meaning is found that way. I dunno.

Short version:

Not believing in gods is not a belief.
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. God exists=claim.
I am not adamant in my disbelief in gods. I simply want to know the truth and theists have failed to convince me so far.