I have some questions for the posters here.

[Frank Apisa]

Boru: You assert that no gods exist…and that you KNOW that none exist…but that you are not asserting that it is impossible for gods to exist.
 
I question that you actually KNOW that no gods exist, but I would love for you to tell me more about how you KNOW. It sounds to me that you “know” the way some theist explain how they “know” their god exists. Can you flesh you “know” out a bit?

Be happy to. 

I’m using ‘know’ in the more pedestrian sense, in that I can’t reasonably doubt that gods don’t exist - the evidence is not there and the arguments are unconvincing. I find this very, very different from theists ‘knowing’ that gods exist, so they do so in spite of unconvincing arguments and paucity of evidence. Let’s try a non-theistic example of what I mean:

I know that the Earth isn’t flat. Not only is there no evidence to support the idea, but the arguments fabricated by Flat Earthers are so unconvincing as to be laughable. Be the Flatties, despite massive evidence and irrefutable arguments to the contrary, still insist that the rest of us have got it wrong.

Do I have an epistemological certitude that gods don’t exist? No. But I can’t doubt that they don’t.

Boru

Of course you can. All you have to do is to doubt it.

It seems you actually are saying that you do not KNOW (in a pedestrian sense or in a more rigorous, formal sense) if any gods exist or not. What problem do you have with leaving it at that?
Obviously there are things that we (you and I) do NOT know. Is it really that difficult to simply acknowledge that we do not?

---

This guy:
gods exist. In the land of fairy tales and daydreams.

Newb bewb:
No one…you sound as though you are saying that no gods exist, but you did not explicitly say so. Any chance you want to expand on your comments?

gods                    exist.                     In                     the                     land                     of                     fairy                     tales                     and                                       daydreams.


Is that better?

Not at all.

We both KNOW that gods exist in the land of fairy tales and daydreams. But that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing whether or not they exist in the REALITY.

Why not address that?

If you are saying "They do not exist in the REALITY...say it.

[onlinebiker]

Be happy to. 

I’m using ‘know’ in the more pedestrian sense, in that I can’t reasonably doubt that gods don’t exist - the evidence is not there and the arguments are unconvincing. I find this very, very different from theists ‘knowing’ that gods exist, so they do so in spite of unconvincing arguments and paucity of evidence. Let’s try a non-theistic example of what I mean:

I know that the Earth isn’t flat. Not only is there no evidence to support the idea, but the arguments fabricated by Flat Earthers are so unconvincing as to be laughable. Be the Flatties, despite massive evidence and irrefutable arguments to the contrary, still insist that the rest of us have got it wrong.

Do I have an epistemological certitude that gods don’t exist? No. But I can’t doubt that they don’t.

Boru

Of course you can. All you have to do is to doubt it.

It seems you actually are saying that you do not KNOW (in a pedestrian sense or in a more rigorous, formal sense) if any gods exist or not. What problem do you have with leaving it at that?
Obviously there are things that we (you and I) do NOT know. Is it really that difficult to simply acknowledge that we do not?

---

This guy:
gods exist. In the land of fairy tales and daydreams.

Newb bewb:
No one…you sound as though you are saying that no gods exist, but you did not explicitly say so. Any chance you want to expand on your comments?

gods                    exist.                     In                     the                     land                     of                     fairy                     tales                     and                                       daydreams.


Is that better?

Not at all.

We both KNOW that gods exist in the land of fairy tales and daydreams. But that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing whether or not they exist in the REALITY.

Why not address that?

If you are saying "They do not exist in the REALITY...say it.

It.

[no one]

Did your parents have any kids that lived, Frank?

[Frank Apisa]

Hi Frank, welcome to the forum. Thanks for turning off the font. Word is probably not your friend in that respect. If you need to use it then you can go into the BBCode and strip the formatting as I have done below.

You Wrote: Fair enough, and what you know determines whether you are gnostic or agnostic, a fairly useless label IMO. Every time you use it you have to qualify it with the concept that you are being gnostic/agnostic about. But what do you believe?
 
RESPONSE:  I do not use labels. I am not labelling myself an agnostic. (Except that in order to join this forum, I had to answer that descriptor question.) My take has been presented. I’ve live with that. The use of descriptors sucks in my opinion…so I try to stay away from it.
 
As for what I “believe”…I have been participating in Internet forums for over 20 years now…and except for one item, I have never said, “I believe…ANYTHING.”
 
I do not do “believing.” If I make a guess, I call it a guess; if I make an estimate, I call it an estimate; of I offer an opinion, I call it an opinion.
 
Lots of people make guesses. People who call themselves theists guess that there is a god; people who call themselves atheists often guess there are no gods. They tend to call those things “beliefs.” I call them guesses.
 
You wrote: I'll let you decide. My stance is that all deities are either:
- Incoherent. The Abrahamic god that's a confusion of mythologies and painfully laden with tribalism and bigotry.
- Inconsistent. A god that is self-refuting by virtue of having characteristics that are contradictory.
- Ineffable. A god that could conceivably exist but cannot be apprehended by mortal minds.
- Irrelevant. A god that is indistinguishable from natural phenomena in every way, shape and form.
- Insufficient. A god that we can't discuss properly because it lacks definition.

On a good day you can manage to hit all five of those in one go.
 
RESPONSE:  My guess: You are guessing there are no gods.
 
You wrote:  It's a good start but this falls to insufficiency. This is a statement of a single act, not a proper definition. I'm not trying to be picky here, but what you have outlined could describe any of a number of very different deities. One theist might believe in a deity who wound up the universe and let it go and then buggered off into the void never to be heard from ever again. Their neighbour might believe in a deity that created the universe but is an active, personal god that demands the sacrifice of our firstborn child. Without further information how can we debate the merits of chucking little Timmy into the volcano? Yes, that's a deliberately silly example to highlight the fact that you need to flesh out your definition. Start with power, knowledge, and intent. Those are the big ones that commonly trip deities up.
 
RESPONSE:  I appreciate your position and I thank you for sharing it. However, I will stick with I said. When I use the word "god" I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF THERE IS SUCH AN ENTITY." Some people may be unwilling to have discussions with me because of this...and I will lives with that.

---

I don’t assert any of your three bullet points.

Thank you, LFC. I appreciate that.

---

I was not upset when you pointed it out...although I realized it had happened without your assistance. I thank you for it anyway.

Two completely different things. Sorry you do not see that. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that there is no sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...but that does not = no sentient beings on any of those planets. That is not a reading comprehension problem...it is a logic problem.

Don't lose your cool yet. We've got a long way to go..

I don't have to supply evidence of no sentient life or god, I'm not making the claim.

Argumentum ex Silentio: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/EN...lacies.htm

---

Good looking dog you've got there.

---

Pink Unicorns with gills and 3 dicks may exist as well, but they don't.

And you point is???

[brewer]

I don't have to supply evidence of no sentient life or god, I'm not making the claim.

Argumentum ex Silentio: http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/EN...lacies.htm

---

Good looking dog you've got there.

Thanks.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, you make guesses, give estimates, and have opinions. Cool. Do you ever state a fact? Is there any particular reason that you guess, estimate, or are of the opinion that atheists are guessing?

[Ranjr]

The creator may not even be the almighty god, but some lesser being that learned a few tricks.  So I need a better definition.

Under the given scenario, if there is a god, he's ashamed to show his face.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Be happy to. 

I’m using ‘know’ in the more pedestrian sense, in that I can’t reasonably doubt that gods don’t exist - the evidence is not there and the arguments are unconvincing. I find this very, very different from theists ‘knowing’ that gods exist, so they do so in spite of unconvincing arguments and paucity of evidence. Let’s try a non-theistic example of what I mean:

I know that the Earth isn’t flat. Not only is there no evidence to support the idea, but the arguments fabricated by Flat Earthers are so unconvincing as to be laughable. Be the Flatties, despite massive evidence and irrefutable arguments to the contrary, still insist that the rest of us have got it wrong.

Do I have an epistemological certitude that gods don’t exist? No. But I can’t doubt that they don’t.

Boru

Of course you can. All you have to do is to doubt it.

It seems you actually are saying that you do not KNOW (in a pedestrian sense or in a more rigorous, formal sense) if any gods exist or not. What problem do you have with leaving it at that?
Obviously there are things that we (you and I) do NOT know. Is it really that difficult to simply acknowledge that we do not?

---

Can you doubt that the Earth is a spheroid? Can you doubt that France exists? Of course you can’t, because the arguments and evidence for these are overwhelming.

Doubt is a very useful tool, but unrestrained skepticism is intellectually perverse.

Boru

[no one]

Brewer was right, you absolutely have a comprehension issue.

[possibletarian]

We have no reason to introduce the concept of a god to any discussion, unless it carries some kind of proof with it.