you clearly don't understand what you speak of lmfao.

Hobbits are real. Haven’t you seen the lord of the rings documentary?

That's a really good way of describing it. I've taken to call myself and ignostic to remove myself from the tug of war between the two.

Why should you have to prove god doesn’t exist? They can’t prove he does.

@Shouldbefishing On one hand there was the need to identify with a term that was apparently used by many in this forum to mean something not quite accurate. On the other hand there is an opportunity now to differentiate. It's impossible to justify atheism because there is no way to prove something does not exist.

@Hathacat No one can force you to explain a thing. However if you want people to accept that there is no god based entirely on faith alone, are you not then part of a faith based religion of atheism? Hypothesis and theories and correlations are not enough to establish something as being true. If your belief is not backed up with evidence, it's just faith-based and therefore no different than all the other religions.

@vinceway I have no faith, so why would I use that? "Proving it" based on faith is ludcrous.

@Shouldbefishing It appears that we are forced to use one of two labels, Agnostic or Atheist. I would like to have a new and clever label that is more specific to what concerns me. I don't want to have to prove that a god does not exist and therefore being called an atheist doesn't really suit me. Being an agnostic implies that I am on the fence about their being a god and doesn't really get into the underlying distain I feel about religion. I want a label that identifies me as a person who hates religion. I don't care if a person wants to live inside their delusions. It's their obsessive urge to get everyone else to join them in their fantasy that upsets me. A belief in a god should be a personal choice and left at that. Why do they need others to inhabit their made up fake reality?

@Shouldbefishing, @motrubl4u How would a person even go about proving that a thing does not exist? Even if every atom, subatomic particle, energy field were examined, those who believe in the existence of a god will establish another standard of proof. There is no way to win that argument.

@Shouldbefishing You proved my point. A simple and straight forward conversation concerning a belief in the existence of god is now devolved into a 'Bill Barr' interpretation of the meaning of each and every word. You know as well as anyone that when I said that a person is forced into choosing one label over another it did not mean that actual force is being used. I was referring to how each of the two terms, Agnostic and Atheistic is generally understood by the general public. Also, being skeptical is not in question nor any other word in your list of other things I can,with your permission call myself.

A person who believes in god or gods is considered a theist. So, therefore a person who is atheist or anti-theist is a person who does not believe in the person who believes in a god or gods. Doesn't make sense. Does it?

A person who admits they don't know if there is a god or gods is generally considered agnostic. I don't give a rat's behind if the rest of the world knows that I don't know. So, pinning the term Agnostic on my name tag gets me nowhere.

It is not my life's goal to change or enhance the meaning of the two generally used terms, agnostic or atheist.

Also, explaining this to anyone, ad nauseum is not on my bucket list. I'm old and don't have time to suffer fools. I am already past my expiration and use by dates.

Thanks for the list of terms none of which describe the thing I laboriously typed in my last comment. I would like to see a label that is easily and universally understood to mean, "All religions are bad".

By the way, what in the world does,within the scope of the constitution, have to do with it? The constitution doesn't limit a person's brain. The constitutions tries to prevent intrusion of religion. The key word here is 'Religion'.

Realize that "knowing" implies proof Otherwise, that "knowledge" is based on faith.

@PBuck0145 You can know something without proof and it’s not faith. Like, I know what I’m thinking, but I can’t prove it.

@indirect76 Can you "know" what you are NOT thinking? Don't think of a pink elephant.
Can you "know" the God does NOT exist?

These are the definitions utilized in the context of contemporary discourse, which differ from the more traditional definitions. Knowledge, in this case, refers to knowledge claims. This topic has been beaten to death in virtually every forum I have witnessed.

Oh no. Now I have to look up erudite.

Get a little excited do u?

@Duckman No, not really, more like a wee bit of 'passionate' in my comments when it comes to comments, etc, made by the Faithfools who repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance, etc, when preaching to or at me.

No, you're wrong: I KNOW FOR A FACT you don't have a dragon in your garage. But you don't KNOW god--by some definition anyway--doesn't exist. This is the kind of inductive reasoning, using false equivalency, people employ all the time to build premises.designed to bolster preconceptions, upon which they "prove"...nothing.
I'm not an atheist, because I don't believe IN anything, including the nonexistence of god. You insist on using loaded words like "Christian" and "dieties," so as to narrow your definition to your "straw men" and then shoot them down.
But our understanding of the physical world is so limited we barely comprehend anything at all, a miniscule fraction of what's there. If there is something we could refer to as "god," we have not the slightest idea what that might be. So for you to stand there and smugly say you know for a FACT there is no such thing is laughable.
There is a huge difference between agnostics and atheists. I wish you and others would get that through your heads.

@Storm1752 Isn’t it easy to refute arguments when you completely misrepresent those arguments? I started my second paragraph with this phrase: “I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but…” And yet part of your reply was this:
“If there is something we could refer to as "god," we have not the slightest idea what that might be. So for you to stand there and smugly say you know for a FACT there is no such thing is laughable.”
What is laughable is that you completely misrepresented my post. Did you read all of it?

Despite your comment “our understanding of the physical world is so limited we barely comprehend anything at all,” you claim to KNOW what does and what does not exist in my garage. Apparently others cannot prove a negative, but you allow yourself that ability. Where is your proof?

What is also laughable is your logic, not to mention your condescending attitude. The tone of your reply implies that you know everything you know for sure, and us others are in the dark, as when you state “I wish you and others would get that through your heads.”

Get over yourself.

proof of no god no one can see it no one has proven it exsists no can find it even they have tried forthousands of years

@benhmiller That is opinion, not proof.

I say I can't believe in gods

@benhmiller I understand.

Oh ha ha ha ha. Your funny

Yup