A negative cannot be proven, what you can say is that to this point you have seen no evidence for a god, not can you find a reason one would exist. It is not needed to get the Universe to the point it has not reached.

Your position is fair. And agnostics or ignostics for all practical purposes follow the same line.
Agnosticism or ignosticism only differ in the logical/philosophical way.
There will never be any evidence pro or against a claim that is not falsifiable, becaus ethat is the definition of a non falsifiable argument.
So saying you are an agnostic does not mean simply "I don't know". It means " it is impossible to know, thus it is an useless discussion".

Ignostic goes one step ahead. "I can't even look for evidence or evaluate it becaus ethe question itself makes no sense as you can't properly define the concept god"
By not defining the concept anything and nothing is the god, depending what the person wants.
All powerfull, control everything in the minimum details. But hunger and war is not his fault (for example of a contradicition very common)

@dalefvictor I cannot ask for evidence because I do not know what evidence it would take to convince me that there is a god, especially an interactive one.

I say that I have no reason to believe any gods exist because science shows us that no god is necessary for the universe to behave as it does. It does not show us that there is no god, or cannot be a god--only that one is not needed.

I refer to Occam's Razor; and the simplest answer is that potential energy/energy has always existed. Energy becomes matter (sometimes that matter becomes life and even self-aware life) and matter returns to an energy state.

There is no reason to insert a creator god, or a universal consciousness, with will/volition; and to give it human attributes only complicates things further-so why insert one? I find no reason to.

Is that a choice? It's only porridge if you're out of bacon and eggs

Not exactly sure, but now I kind of would like a country fried steak scrambled eggs and home fries.

@oldFloyd piss off, you're making me hungry

@Cyklone yeah, I know how that feels.

Really? I am not making any claim there, just discussing concepts. How can I show an evidence for the concept of claim?

@Pedrohbds "Atheist says that the answer to the existence question is NO, for any given god. The claim is false." I call bullshit

@Mofo1953

Well, what part of this sentence is wrong?
In which claim are you calling bulshit?
Do atheists think the claim of the existence of a god is true?
Do atheists answer the question about existence with yes?
What is the bulshit?
Seems to me that you are reading the sentence "The claim is false" as an isolated sentence and not in the context that it is inserted.
See I am not talking about the claim itself, I am talking about the opinion of a group on the claim.

It is like I say "For christians, god exists" and then you attack me saying that god does not exist, when the sentence is not talking about my opinion, but about some other group opinion.

@Pedrohbds this part: "Really? I am not making any claim there, just discussing concepts." Because You did ake that unsubstantiated claim. Be a man and own your crap dude.

@Mofo1953 what claim? that atheists don't believe in the existence of god? Because that is the only information that I use in the sentence you copied.
Tell me what claim, just because the word claim is there does not mean that I made a claim.
"The claim" in my text means "existence of some god".

That is why I don't understand what are you talking, why I lost you in "the claim is false"? am telling that atheists tells that the claim that god exist is false.
See I am not saying god exist ot not. I am just reporting what atheists say. Is this wrong? Do atheists accept the claim that god exists?

And why do you have this pathological necessity to end all answers with some offensive statement? Get out of the war dude, relax, i am not your enemy. You probably just misread some sentence and now is making a big case of it.

@Pedrohbds right, you don't do crap, it is not you, it's others. You wrote claim but that is not a claim. Brilliant dude. Do you work for the Trump administration? You are ripe for its alternative reality.

@Mofo1953 so tell me what was the claim, talk to me instead of keeping repeating the same thing without atb last considering what i am saying.
Calm down this will to fight

@Pedrohbds it's up there in black and white, you wrote it. you keep repeating the same bullshit that I am angry or upset, you probably mistake my raw language as wanting to fight, that is just asinine.

@Mofo1953 i write something about a claim, you said that is bulshit and quoted me saying that atheists says that the claim of gods existence is false.
So iyour opinion is: that saying that atheists think that the claim that God exist is false is bulshit?
Because the thing that you quoted is saying this.

@Pedrohbds give it a rest already, you know what you wrote and trying to rationalize the idiotic stuff you wrote to somehow validate your lack of sense is pathetic and even digs you deeper in the shit you want to avoid, but it is too late, own your bullshit..

@Mofo1953 at this point you are a troll or too dumb to read and understand a build up of an argument.
A typical person that can't understand an information that is build up on more than a sentence.
Your incapacity to tell me what is the error and resort to just name calling when i make a simple question shows that you have nothing but a reading .

That is it, you can create many claims with or without meaning. The point of Ignosticism is saying that asking about existence of something that makes no sense has no meaning.

Define god and then I can start thinking if I have some knowledge or evidence

@Pedrohbds what a WEASEL reply!

@Pedrohbds So, which of the well over 30+ million Gods, Goddesses/Supreme Deities recorded throughout human history would you like 'defined?'

@Triphid that is the point of ignosticism, out of those (insert any big number here) gods proposed or they are easily proven false (there is no gods palace on the top of mount Olympus) so end of discussion, or the definition of the god doesn't even make sense, so if a definition does not make sense, why would one bother with existence or not when the definition is self contradictory?

This is the point of ignosticism, if you can't come up with a viable definition, you can't even ask if it exists because the question has no meaning.

@Pedrohbds
Supreme being or creator gods. Do you have any knowledge? Do you believe in any god(s)?

@xenoview no

@Pedrohbds But, does not the 'Holey Babble' TRY hard to give many and varied descriptions of its God?
Did not each of the ancient systems of belief also have very distinct descriptions of all of their Deities?

@Triphid but do they really have a valid concept? Does this concept is really at list internally consistent without self contradictions?
This is the ignostiv point. It is not about believing, is about the theists can't even give me a concept that is viable. That does not bring self contradiction.
It is like i ask you if you believe in the parallel lines that cross in an euclidian space.
Os life i ask if you believe that someone found a 1 that equals to 2.

@Pedrohbds Agnostic, Atheist, Ignostic or what ever you wish to call us and others are merely words and labels are they not?
As was once written, "A rose is a Rose by any other name it will still smell the same," ergo, imo, you are merely using pedantry as a tool to promote your own personal stance.

@Pedrohbds
If you answer no to both questions then you are an atheist also.

@Triphid I was always fond of Baal, myself. And ISIS, in a different life.....Zeus however was a Playah, and nasty......

@xenoview depends on the definition, but for all practical purposes yes. They are different only when you go on the logical precision of the discusion. Not on the "how you act".

it is not about the label, it is about the ideas, the label is just a name to summarize that. Immagine if you are from Spain for example and instead of having a name for it you must describe the place you are from, would not be practical...

@AnneWimsey that is the point, you name things to make it easy, imagine if you have to describe everything instead of just giving a name. Seems that the intent of the post completely lost you.

@Pedrohbds I am atheist. Period. Anything else IMO is mealy-mouthed waffling. Hedging yer bets, so to speak. Despite your totally uncalled for snide-ness, nothing on here is"lost"on me, it sounds like you are storing up apologies/misdirection in case St. Pete questions you, and practicing your shuffle on me.
If I actually run into St Pete, or his boss, i have a bunch of pointed questions I badly want answers to, like Biafra Babies, and predatory pedophiles.......you?

@AnneWimsey

@Pedrohbds except your post doesn't have a point, except boring semantics...i like to give back what I am given.......

@TheMiddleWay ummmm, @MiddleWay is a declared Believer......

@TheMiddleWay but according to the OP, that isn't possible.....

@TheMiddleWay you try to support him but undercut him......?

@AnneWimsey

Yes the post is about meaning, is about a concept and logic, is not about existence or believing... That is why I am saying you missed the point.

you come to the section called Philosophy & Meaning and complain that the discussion is to philosophical and semantic...

@Pedrohbds there is healthy debate, and there is pedantic BS

But is worthy. Or to get out of the subjectivety.

Can you hope to find anything when investigating a concept that has no internal coherence or full of self contradictions. From the logical perspective?

@Pedrohbds We'll never know. We just live and deal with what we find. And hope for the best. And even that in and of its self seems a little subjective.

it is not about the label, it is about the idea. Is more a discussion about meaning applied to religion. As I say, philosophical and logical shenanigans if you are into it.

I cannot (nor can anyone) prove the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So, I guess I’m pastaatheist but that’s irrelevant because pastafarians don’t try to make laws or govern society.