I have some questions for the posters here.

[Frank Apisa]

Are you sure?

Surely you have not looked everywhere in "this world"...and done it all at the same moment?

I've looked everywhere I need to know to answer the question.  It's not as if a person has to know everything to know anything - I wouldn't know my own name by that standard.

No problem. I agree with you.

Although some of the stories suck, big time. That god of Abraham is one cruel bastard in my opinion. I'd sooner worship Loki than that god. Although I would much rather not do any of that worshiping stuff.

Then there we have it, we have a mutually exclusive claim to what gods are.  If what you just agreed to is true, that appears to be an answer to the question of their existence posed as a comment beyond the confines of those stories.

I would never do that. 

But if you are saying "There are no gods" (I'm not entirely sure if you are or not) then I am incredulous. 

Should I not be?

-ah, but that's exactly what you've done.  A fairy by any name.  Ask yourself this, though, would the claim I know that there is no -tinkerbell- that particular fairy, be different?  Why should it be.  What planned objection do you have for the possible existence of a god that I could not also apply to tinkerbell, and what assertion of the impossibility of knowledge could I not also apply to my own name?

So, here we have a fairly routine and not at all difficult question.  Are the characters in these myths real?  The answer is no, as a matter of fact.  I get that you might split the baby here, but I don't.  The notion of a theistic god, any theistic god....the entire set, the whole genre, literally is a myth that we tell children.

C'mon, Nudger. My guess: You have not looked nearly enough to make the assertion "no theistic world creators in our world."
But, you are an atheist...and you are going to insist you have.
Fine with me. 
Theists are that way, too. Can't budge them from their guesses about the REALITY either.
Kinda fun to discuss it though.[/quote]

---

Here is my opinion on the properties usually associated with gods:

1) The universe requires a prime mover, and that is God.
A) No, it isn't clear that there needs to a be a prime-mover.  It doesn't solve the infinite regress problem.  Positing an infinitely-complex cause for the universe just increases complexity.  If there is a prime-mover (which I think unlikely), there is no reason to think it is intelligent or would fit anyone's definition of a god.

2) The universe has laws, which requires a law-giver, and that is God
A) No, what we call laws are simply logical patterns.  That patterns exist (as opposed to no patterns) is not something I need a god to cause (which would have to exist as part of infinitely more complex patterns).

3) Some omni-everything intelligence created your soul and loves you.
A) Huh?  Why is that a requirement of the universe, what the heck is a soul, and where is the evidence that any cosmic sky daddy loves me?

Therefore I don't believe in any gods.  If you define some different type of god, I'll consider it (as god can mean anything), but at present I don't believe in any gods, and I obviously don't currently believe in things I've never heard of.

The universe does not require a prime mover. I agree. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The universe has laws...and no gods are required. But there might be one or more anyway...no matter that we agree it is not a requirement.

The "god loves you" bullshit sickens me. But there might be a god anyway.

I also do not "believe" any gods exist...just as I do not "believe" there are no gods.

---

(Bold mine)

Corrected this misconception in your other thread.

Boru

Are you actually saying that there are not many people who use atheist as a descriptor...WHO DO NOT "BELIEVE" THERE ARE NO GODS?

C'mon!