Failing to answer the question does not change the answer. Either you believe a claim or you don’t. @TheMiddleWay

The claim is made, the jesus, Ra, Odin, those are the claims. Atheists do not believe that these claims are reality. When I say I’m an agnostic atheist, it means that I don’t know (I could be wrong), but do not believe the claims (jesus/Ra/Odin)
As to an unknown entity, unproclaimed in the depths of the universe, I still don’t know but I also don’t believe something is out there. Belief is taking something for granted with no quantifiable reason to do so. @TheMiddleWay

Atheist because I believe? What? @TheMiddleWay

No. It isn’t a belief that they don’t exist. It is ‘not believing the claims’. Not ‘I believe there is no god’. @TheMiddleWay

Lol.

@TheMiddleWay - Bollocks. I'm not here to discuss pseudo-philosophies I've already rejected. I'm so not interested in the "points of view" of religious people - surely we're on this site because we've heard them all before???

@TheMiddleWay - agnostics and atheists are not religious. You have hundreds of sites where religiots with discuss your lack of faith ad infinitum, so let's not do it here. My tag is pure laziness, as I explained in "why did you choose your user name". Don't believe everything you read.

I'm not judging you, but to contribute to the conversation...

I believe that if a god were to provide evidence, they'd be immediately part of the ruleset they are supposed to be beyond and therefor not gods. If a big booming voice came from the sky it would have vibrated air molecules and those are bound by laws, thus a big booming voice from the sky immediately becomes a "natural phenomenon that we don't understand." In this way, I am 100% certain there are no gods. If we attribute the booming voice from the sky to godliness, it would be no different than humanizing lightning or earthquakes. Even if there was a sentient being that produced the voice, by interacting with the air they become observable measurable phenomenon that we can begin to understand.

I may be dense, but that makes absolutely no sense to me.

When mankind had no better explanation, thunder and lightning were proof. As we learned to understand those things, they ceased to be proof. They were supernatural and then ceased to be. All I am saying is that whatever proof could be offered becomes the next thing we study, therefore proof becomes literally impossible. Even a literal voice from the sky speaking in English is therefore not proof. I propose that god doesn’t exist because he couldn’t interact with nature unless he was part of it.

@TheMiddleWay The primary axiom is basic causality or the principle that there is a connection between cause and effect. So long as there is a connection, there is room to question and ultimately understand, even if that understanding would in the best case take longer than we expect the human race to survive. We may encounter beings that have powers like Superman and the Greek gods, but they would not be capable of “omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence” because causality requires them to resolve simple paradoxes like “can he make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it.” My big booming voice example is basically that. Either sound or air or energy and our knowledge of them is wrong, or whatever interacts with them is bound by the rules of interacting with such. In either case, “godlike” is an impossibility. Superman is not “godlike” and encountering him should be met with science and reason, not worship and terror.

If we were to say that these beings could violate simple causality, then we’d be saying causality isn’t real and then the animal mind is incapable of understanding anything, for nothing could ever have rules or meaning.

@TheMiddleWay That would be proof we are incapable of understanding anything. Proof couldn't imply anything because causality is broken. Proof only works as long as causality exists.

@DJVJ311 - No, we can't "use that as proof that those beings are gods"; that would just be proof that we hadn't worked out a new aspect ofl physics yet.

@Agnostic1 That's exactly what I've been saying

@TheMiddleWay you are pointing to the limits of our understanding and saying that it can be proof of god. I am saying that if there was a god that could violate every law, we must conclude that all laws can be violated at the whim of whatever and therefore don't really mean anything.100 years from now, quantum entanglement may be taught in 6th grade the way earthquakes are now.