Why aren’t the words “I don’t know” ever good enough for any theist or believer in any discussion about religion or the existence of a god? Why as a species do we have to think that we know everything about anything relating to a god or what happens when we die? I’m convinced that no god or gods exist now or at any time in the brief history of mankind as we know it.
I’m a huge fan of the writings of H.P. LOVECRAFT and believe in his thoughts on how tiny and insignificant the human race is in the entirety of the cosmos. We don’t even register as existing in the time scale of the beginning of the universe to this point in time. As a species we mean absolutely nothing to the universe, we’re meaningless.
But according to theists and theologists, we were created in the image of an all powerful creator-god and we hold a special place on the earth that is just temporary, until we die, then the real fun starts. We get to spend all of eternity with him in his kingdom. Maybe he’ll explain what the point of doing all of this was in the first place.
I personally think it’s all bullshit and that we’ve all been lied too ever since someone figured out that by promising us life after our pathetic deaths is a good way to control large numbers of people. Only the dead know the truth, and so far, they aren’t saying much.
So for me personally, I DON’T KNOW is good enough until we actually see some proof, and what would prove the existence of a god, I DON’T KNOW.
The discussion of the evidence for the existence of “some” God can go on indefinitely, and we will always be talking about a mere generic concept, not about God itself. However, proof of THIS God (the Christian one, at least) can be obtained by the scientific study of his ACTION IN THE WORLD, especially by the critical history of miracles and prophecies. The proof of the existence of the TRUE GOD is a scientific-experimental problem, not a problem of mere logic.
At every moment we see new academic discussions about “the existence of God”, which are increasingly sophisticated and meticulous. But not one is seen about miracles and prophecies. Why such an eagerness to prove IN ABSTRACT the existence of Someone who could more easily be known and proven by his CONCRETE ACTIONS in the real world? Is it not because the academic public wants only the “God of philosophers” instead of the God of Abraham? Just think about it.
I think you’ve confused Spiderman or Superman - they’ve caused as much “action” in this world as your god idea…
Really? As far as we know, a human brain is the only example of matter in the universe that has achieved awareness. We are the universe looking at itself.
That’s pretty significant.
Name one.
This is just a filler sentence used to reach the minimum post limit.
I accept your point. I was thinking about this the other day, and our “Industrial, Technological, Information ages” are nothing on the vast timescale of the universe let alone the human species evolution…which registers as a blip.
Other species brains 
cannot be discounted from this statement. Some display self-awareness. I assume you mean self-awareness. The measurement of whether this is an achievement or not is purely subjective and bias from a human POV
Edited to add:
Deepity.
That’s why I said “as far as we know”.
Well it’s literally true unless you believe that we have souls that are outside of the physical universe, which I don’t. We are in and of the universe, and we are able to look at it and think about it.
Ah, yes. Searching for the god of the gaps in the continually shrinking gaps of our knowledge about Nature. And to fit a god into the gaps that still are not closed (yet), the sophistication of the arguments have to increase to also account for our knowledge of the non-gaps. How is that search going? How many gods have been proven recently? 
First, you can show us real miracles and real prophecies and then prove they are just that – miraculous and prophetic.
A quick question for you. How is… “I am convinced that no god exists.” different from “I am convinced god exists.”? As tiny and insignificant as we are and as little as we know about the universe around us, there is nothing out there or beyond that can possibly be equated to a god, and you are certain of this? Do you have any evidence at all to support your claim?
I would agree that the people who have asserted that there is a god out there have lied to me. They are basing their assertions on the same bullshit you are basing your assertion on. If they are lying because they have not presented sufficient facts or evidence to support their claim… um… shouldn’t you be held to the same standard?
Frankly, I am just going to sit here and enjoy the fireworks while you guys battle it out as you both argue over completely unfalsifiable claims. The time to believe a proposition is when there is evidence sufficient to support that proposition and not before. The God hypothesis has never stood its ground against critical inquiry so why in the world would one even attempt a non-god hypothesis?
Okay… If you are speaking of a specific god, I get it. A god, for example, that exists beyond time and space. Now there is a silly idea. A god that exists for no time and in no space? Existence is temporal. If it exists for no time, it is not there. If it exists in no space, it is not there. So, to argue against a specific god proposition, I can see saying something like a God that exists beyond time and space does not exist. Now that makes sense. A god that is all merciful and just, equally, does not exist. Mercy, by definition is the suspension of justice. A God would then be, either merciful or just but not both. If he shows mercy, mercy to even one person, he is no longer acting justly. If he is always just, he must never show mercy. A god who is “All merciful and just, can not exist.” This makes sense. Your statement,
is indefensible. If you get anything else off this site, get that.
‘I don’t know’ is simply the honest reply to most questions we may be asked.
I don’t know about the existence of god, so I say so. Neither does anyone else. The majority of people on earth have faith based beliefs about the existence of god(s). What they do not have is knowledge.
The hard atheist opines “There is no god/ I believe there is no god” These are affirming claims and attract the burden of proof. I’ve yet to see any claim about any god(s) demonstrated with empirical evidence.
More on “I don’t know”: This position is called ‘agnosticism’ , from the Greek a-not and gnosis-knowledge.: ‘without knowledge’.
Although being agnostic is used to describe a religious position, it is not limited to religion. It may be used to describe any subject. I can claim I know a bit about relatively few things. However, I am agnostic about literally millions of other things, as is every human being.
It’s a good question, I’ve often thought about it. I don’t know for sure why “I don’t know” isn’t good enough for believers. Imo all it demonstrates is stunning arrogance and porcine ignorance or perhaps that possibly the majority of believers suffer from cognitive dissonance.
In my experience most believers I’ve known are perfectly rational when it comes to practical things needed to live. They just have this one area in which they are irrational to the point of sometime being mentally unwell. Such people turn up here with distressing regularity. It makes a bloke despair about the future of our species.
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((90)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
That I exist, even for the blink of a cosmological eye, is absolutely significant and deeply important, to me . Apart from that, taken as a part of all that is, not so much.
An argument from absence is often used to claim no other self aware intelligence exists. Given the miniscule portion of even our own solar system we’ve explored, I consider that a very arrogant statement. I can’t argue probability. I argue that the non existence of other self aware beings has not been demonstrated. Probably never will be.
On the question of alien sentience I remain agnostic and largely indifferent . That’s because believers in such creatures tend to make the unfounded claim that such will be benign. The might be, they might not be.
Because they know the mind of god.
That’s a blatant lie…
You seem unaware that you’ve answered your own question?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
Theres a clue for you…
Please quote anyone here showing such eagerness.
That notion is the antithesis of my own position. I do not believe that God can be argued into or out of existence. No one has managed either so far in recorded history.
I’m an atheist. That means I do not believe in god(s) due to a lack of empirical evidence. Nothingelse about me is implied or may be inferred.
A materialist, I demand empirical evidence [one way or t’other] on the existence of god. So far, every claim made about gods is unfalsifiable.IE it cannot be shown to be true or false.
You seem to have fallen into a nasty habit of insisting on posting ignorant and wrong headed notions about atheism and atheists.
So, once again: An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in gods. Atheism is not a philosophy, a political ideology, a club or association such as say Rotary. Nor is it gender based or an indicator of sexual preference… Atheists may not be spoken of as a group in any meaningful way.
So do have go at getting it right, there’s a good chap. I don’t mean to be unkind, but you’ve really become quite tedious.
The poor love, like so many others before him, is miffed because his golden words of enlightenment have fall short of the forums standards for debate.
Like most of his ilk he underestimates the number and quality of the members here and when confronted with the evident swiss cheese appearance of his cherished word salads and attempts to logic his god of choice into existence, naturally he becomes petulant.
Very shortly we will get the “I expected better of you”, or the “you demonstrated you don’t have the intellectual capacity” post as the door hits his precious little arse on the way out.
Well, there is a middle way. I see no convincing evidence in favor of the existence of a god. Also, what I, and the wider spectrum of scientists and science in general, know about Nature and how things work, make – in my opinion – the existence of a god or a pantheon of gods very unlikely (or, it makes them and their workings at the very least extremely low profile, next to invisible), and I cannot see what part they could take to contribute to the larger functioning of Nature and the universe as a whole. Thus, I see no reason to believe there are any gods. And if there is a god or a set of gods, I do not consider invisibility an argument for worship. This stops just short of making that positive assertion of “there is/are no god/gods”. However, to tick religious people off, I have happened to make that assertion, just for fun and for the shock effect 
But you are doing the Theists work for them. In making the assertion that there are no Gods, you are defining what you will accept as God. You are defining the “God thing” and then rejecting it as well. This is … well… silly. Leave the God claim to the theists. Let them demonstrate the existence of their god.
As I said above, it is enough that specific god claims can be debunked. I gave two. When the theist clearly identifies the God that he or she believes in, that specific God can nearly always be shown, empirically, to either “not exist” or “not matter.” A god that does not matter, is the same thing as a god that does not exist.
When you assert “God” does not exist, you must define what you are talking about. By doing so, you allow the theist way too much wriggle room. “Oh, that’s not the God I mean.” It’s just … silly… to go there… completely unnecessary.
Probably the only worthwhile reason to go there.
There is no ‘eagerness’ to prove or disprove here.
You, on the other hand, like most visiting theists, come eagerly insisting that your god “is more easily known and proven by CONCRETE ACTIONS in the real world.”
I reject that notion. I have in my own way explored parts of the real world. I have studied the behaviour of animals, insects, and fauna, in some detail, in their own habitats, in seas, on land, in the air. I’ve witnessed and recorded the physical and chemical interactions of the natural elements and forces and often contemplated the immensity of the universe and the profound nature of light and quantum physics.
Like Laplace, I have never found the idea of a god within or even necessary to the physical realm. There is simply no advantage or need in including it.
Whenever I do think about the idea of a god I fail to reconcile the notion of an omnipotency needing to interact with mundane physical beings to the point of punitively marshalling to infinitely ridiculous degrees their relatively unimportant thoughts, insignificant activities, unreliable desires and stunted thought processes or the value of demanding blind contractual obediance of them.
The ineffable god I cannot beleive it is much grander than the one you eagerly and concretely insist exists, but the fact remains that there is not and never has been any possible means to concretely prove either does.
I can llve with that. That you can not, is your unnecessary struggle. There is no shame or sin in just honestly admitting that you just don’t know.
I return to appreciating this life and this death and wish you the best with your struggle, with the suggestion you at least keep it honest without resorting to further acts of plagiarism.
@nessahanalita is obviously yet another theist trying to pass off unevidenced claims as evidence.
That’s a claim, and I’ll bet my house if you ever respond to requests to demonstrate evidence to support it, you will start offering up more unevidenced assumptions.
I’m willing to bet my house that you can not demonstrate one single action any god has taken in this world. Show me the action and then connect it directly to a god. I can’t wait.