"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[RiddledWithFear]

A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.

[Minimalist]

There is no evidence at all for any of the bullshit gods humanity has invented throughout our period as sentient beings on this earth.

Call it what you will.  But fucking jesus is no more real than Q'uq'umatz of the Maya.


Should anyone produce evidence I will evaluate it and, if found valid, re-consider my position.  But right now, the matter is closed.  God is a waste of fucking time.

[brewer]

Fantasies exist, but only in the mind. god is a man made fantasy delusion.

[Magilla]

A little while ago I was debating about the term "God doesn't exist" and someone said that one says it because it's easier, instead of saying something completely unneeded like, "Due to complete lack of evidence, a god concept should be thought of as highly improbable and therefore should be exist. That got me thinking. Would the "claim" "God doesn't exist" be thought of as more of a conclusion that God doesn't exist, i.e. "Due to lack of evidence, one can safely conclude that a theistic God shouldn't exist," which would be shortened to, "God doesn't exist"? Thanks in advance.

I'd say: " I have no reason to think that any gods exist".

[Simon Moon]

I do not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

But the only place that my lack of absolute certainty resides is:

I do not believe that we can be absolutely certainty about anything, except maybe esoteric concepts, like: I am certain that I exist, or I am certain that I am not omniscient.

But my certainty with regards to a generic deistic god is pretty close to certainty. Even closer with regards to man made gods (Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, Et Al).

But when it comes to debate, the claim that gods do not exist, does not have to be defended, so I really don't worry about it. All that has to be defended is the fact that the case for the existence of gods has never met its burden of proof.

It's not my fault that theists, have lowered the basketball hoop to 8', then brag about how well they can dunk.

[Neo-Scholastic]

1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.
What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

[Simon Moon]

1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.
What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

How about:

Proposition 1 has not met its burden of proof. So, I do not know if it is untrue, but I have no reasons to believe that it is true.

Just because I have not been convinced of proposition 1, does not mean that my default position becomes the counter positive.

Seems you are setting up a scenario where both horns of a dilemma are being addressed simultaneously.

[robvalue]

Well, I'd say that "Gods such as Yahweh and Allah don't exist" is a (probabilistic) conclusion I'm happy to make. It's based on the vast number of assumptions that would have to be made to allow for such things to be possible, the highly specific and suspiciously human-like nature of the claimed beings, and the total lack of credible evidence for their existence.

To me, the phrase "Gods don't exist" in general doesn't mean anything, since "God" doesn't mean anything. It needs clarification in all cases. If God simply means "intelligent creator", then they may well exist, because we create virtual realities all the time which have the potential to manifest somehow.

[chimp3]

1: That God(s) exist is true.
2: Proposition 1 is not true.

Someone who considers proposition 1 true is a theist.
What do you call someone who considers proposition 2 true?

I consider someone who considers Proposition 1 gullible.

Proposition 2 a skeptic.

[Casca]

"God doesn't exist" isn't a claim.

"God exists" is a claim.

You need evidence to back up a claim; saying something doesn't exist is because of a lack of evidence supporting it.

The burden of proof rests with those who make the claim (theists), not the other way around.