The problem is twofold: proving something DOESN'T exist is often difficult, especially a moving target like "god" (meaning that there are so many concepts of god, we need to define exactly what god we mean before even starting to discuss it). This isn't an argument FOR god any more than it's an argument for invisible unicorns, which nobody believes in but also can't be disproven.

Also, the theist is the one making the positive claim, and an extraordinary one at that; therefore he should supply evidence of his claims.

Now, I can make certain arguments against a specific god - for example, we can discuss biblical contradictions. But again, that only matters if the theist accepts an inerrant view of the bible. So let's define a specific theology first.

I got a better idea, I'll assume you don't believe in Farzedelies (if you do we'll have to find a different example).

You present evidence that Farzedelies don't exist, and I'll watch.

Yeah defining god would be the first step, in some cases I think we might be able to offer why it can't exist first. However if indeed it doesn't exist the way in which we would disprove it would be the same way in which you would disprove the existance of a square circle or dark light.

To ask us to disprove something you need to define it. Maybe you thought we all thought of god in the same context, but as Kemono pointed out, "different religions and sects believe in different kinds of gods."

Ok, so god is infinity and it exists. Great! We're both theists now.

Now we just need to find a dictionary to actually agree with our new definition.

Oh, I'm gonna just accept that infinity exists based on the fact that we can conceive it, but can you point me to a place where I can witness infinity occurring? It would make me feel better about my new found theism. Oh and does infinity do anything or have any properties, or is it merely a byproduct of the big bang?

Wait a second, he didn't say anything about supernatural! I thought we were talking about infinity!

KornyAtheist,
Faith in that which is unseen does not mean it is illogical. You believe in the wind, correct? You don't see the wind. But you observe events and processes that give you reasonable evidence that the wind exists. Again, I say you cannot seperate faith from reason, anyone who tries to is not being logical. Just because it "happens all the time" doesn't mean that it's a characteristic of faith itself. I did look it up, and my dictionary says nothing about faith having no evidence.

Sapient,
-I love sarcasm, and can point it out fairly easily. I do not mind it, however, please use with caution. You would not want to break your own rules to be, "civil, polite, understanding, and caring for your fellow human."
-Why must god now be infinity? I did not describe god to be a number with no exact value.
-To be honest, I don't know what a "Farzedelie" is. I tried searching it online and couldn't find any results. I suppose that would be my first evidence that it may not exist.
-Let's use Fairies, for example. I can present evidence that fairies most likely do not exist. 1) I've never seen one. 2) I've never met anyone who has claimed to have seen one. 3) As far as I know there is no record of anyone finding magical dust and concluded it might've been from a fairy. 4) As far as I know there is no record of anyone discovering tiny clothes and concluding it was a fairies. 5) As far as I know there is no credible record of a fairy having revealed itself to anyone. 6) The few people in the world that may truly believe in fairies may either be small children or adults with a large imagination, unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, mentally handicapped, or superstitous. Ultimately, this minority would not be a very reliable source. 7) However, I also realize that I am not all-knowing. I have not been to every geographical place at every moment in time, nor have I met every person, nor have I read every testimony to see if there are any reliable evidences that fairies exist. As of now, I can conclude that I have not seen enough evidence to persuade me of fairies existing. However, if I do eventually find that evidence, I would be obligated to believe. In my quest for truth, to deny a true beings existence would be a major offense, and contradictory to my self proclaimed "quest for truth."

Kemono,
Your definition of god does not work for me. First of all, I am not attributing any detailed characteristics to god yet. if a god does exist, he would have to reveal himself for us to know anything about his "personality." For as you all agree, we cannot see/find him on our own. I am not proposing that he is personal, nor interested in human affairs. He may or may not be at this point. We need to find out if he exists first before we can even discuss that. Is this god even a "he"?

Let me expound a little. We all have the idea of a 'god'. the idea exists in every person's mind. we have these pre-supposed idea's about this god's personality. whether it be that he is all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, transcending time and space, etc. According to these ideas, this being would certainly be the greatest being in existence. We do not attribute those qualities to any other being. I believe it is greater for something to exist both in the mind and reality, rather than in the mind alone. So, if this being does not exist, then we certainly could imagine something greater than it (which would be namely, one that exists in both mind and reality.) But, this cannot be possible because our idea of god is "that which a greater cannot be thought." Therefore, I think that is the starting point to discover who this being is and what is it's purpose? Or, if it doesnt exist, why do we all have the idea of it in our minds?

Does it? I think it is a meme that has only become ubiqutous in the last few centuries. Take Japan, for example. Spirits known as kami (usually translated into English as 'gods') have apparently been worshipped for millenia, but they are nothing like the "supreme being" of monotheistic religions and they are definitely not "that which a greater cannot be thought", as you put it. As far as I know, the idea of a supreme being has only become a part of Japanese discourse after Westerners introduced it into the Japanese meme pool.

The concept of "that which a greater cannot be thought" sounds to me counterintuitive, strange and of little value. If the idea can be said to inhabit my brain it is only because you just put it there.

I am not going to argue for or against the existence of "that which a greater cannot be thought". I do not care either way, because the question is nothing but a playground for empty sophistry. It is like asking "does the number two exist".

Let me present my thesis: "We should make our social and ethical decisions without relying on a god hypothesis. There is no god that needs be taken into consideration when making these decisions." If you disagree, I shall listen to your argument. If you agree, it does not matter to me whether you believe in a god or not.

Sapient,
I still don't buy into the infinity connection. I know who Hodge is and I don't necessarily favor his theological ideas. Besides, he is referring to "the greatest thing that could ever be conceived of" to a place in time, not a god-like being. The definition really doesnt connect.

And actually, you are wrong about my evidence against fary analogy. If i replace the word "fary" with "god", i come up with outrageous lies. Because, I do know people who claim to have seen god, there are numerous records of a god revealing himself to man, and theists are a majority in the world, not a minority. Those who believe in a god are not only small children or adults with a large imagination, unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, mentally handicapped, or superstitous. There are many smart, philosophical, intellectual and logical people through-out the ages that have believed in god. They are not all suffering from insanity. If you are actually claiming that to be fact, then you are being highly irrational and down right arrogant. I'd like to see you try to win an atheist/theist debate against Descartes, Einstein, CS Lewis, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, or Kierkegaard. My bets would be on them. They are considered very reliable men of science and philosophy. These few claims alone give us enough possible evidence for the existence of god.

Also, what about number 7? Have you, Sapient, been to every geographical place at every moment in time, met every person, or read every testimony to see if there are any reliable evidences that god exist? I doubt you have.

Tell me, do you believe in logical absolutes?

Kemono,
You bring up an interesting subject that I'd like to talk about. "We should make our social and ethical decisions without relying on a god hypothesis." If you will include moral issues into the category of decisions as well, then I would have to disagree. If i'm out of line to make it a moral issue, then please correct me.

I'd like to just ask you an easy question, one that you can probably answer without thinking about it: if there is no god hypothesis that we rely on for our morals and ethics, then where do we get the morals from?

Sure, I do include moral issues in that category. I hope you now see my point about the definition of "god": for the existence or non-existence of a god to be of much interest, the word "god" must mean something that, if real, would have an impact on how we should live our lives.

The prevalence of certain moral principles in all human societies suggests that some moral tendencies are hard-wired into our brains by natural selection: some mores are inherently more attractive to us than others. For example, the rule "be nice to everyone unless he is hostile to you" has a better chance of propagating in the meme pool than the rule "beat the living daylights out of everyone you meet on a Wednesday".

The are good Darwinian reasons why this should be so. The capacity to cooperate is extremely useful for an individual, which means that genes inhabiting bodies that cooperate with other bodies have a better chance of making it to the next generation. This means that a gene that makes the individual more inclined to cooperate can spread in the gene pool.

However, it is clear that there is much variation in mores from culture to culture. That variation is not genetic but memetic.

Some memes spread better than others, but which mores come to predominate is sometimes down to factors that can be described as random. This meme got there first, or that meme was initially burdened with an association to some other meme... etc.

So to answer your question: we get our morals from an interplay between our innate (=genetic) tendencies and millenia of cultural (=memetic) evolution.

Of course, now that we know where our moral intuitions come from, we can essentially hijack them from our genes (metaphorically speaking, that is!) and make them work for the good of all mankind by being even nicer to each other than our genes "want" (again, metaphorically speaking) us to be.

I didn't. You gave great reasons for not believing in fairies, if you are to be HONEST with yourself, you'll see the same reasons apply to god belief.

Visit your nearest mental institution to meet someone who believes they've met fairies (or any other similar nonsense). The biggest difference between the god believer and the fairy believer is their environment, the fairy believer is in the mental hospital.

You're describing yourself and the rest of the theist population here.

Again you're falling prey to a logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Appeal to majority fallacy. There were plenty of logical and rational human beings that believed the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat, however the beliefs of many "logical and rational" people did nothing to validate their claim.

A belief does not gain truth as it gains followers.

Now you're appealing to authority, yet another logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_authority

1. Point out where I said all theists are un-reliable, inability to do so would demonstrate dishonesty on your part.

2. I assert god belief is irrational as there is no reasonable and logical (let alone falsifiable) reason for believing so.

1. Point out where I said I am certain no gods exist, inability to do so would demonstrate dishonesty on your part.

2. I assert god belief is irrational, therefore the only position left is disbelief, it's a default position you are born to. I didn't choose to be atheist, it's simply what I am since I realize that theists claims are not logically sound.

No, I am an agnostic atheist. Someone who lacks belief in a god (atheist) who claims that a first cause is unknown or unknowable (agnostic).

been here, done this. there are no moral absolutes. in some cultures rape is not considered wrong.
murder and rape are conducive to both, human happiness and unhappiness. it just depends on whose happiness you're concerned with. morality is completely subjective, in the eye of the beholder, and non-absolute. it is not possible for everyone to be happy all of the time.

Sure there are many people who are sane in other aspects of their lives outside of god belief however I posit that God belief is irrational in every theist, yes I labeled them mentally handicapped.

You are free to your opinion that I am wrong. That doesn't bother me.

Plenty of theists have been proven wrong about a God. I can prove Yahweh/Allah contradictory and invalid, of course not many believers accept the evidence. Irrationality apparently consumes them and they are often impenetrable to reason. Now, if you want to talk deism or something similar like a "first causer" these beliefs can still be looked at as irrational.

Claiming belief in a god is a belief based on no evidence, it's not reasonable or rational to do so. The burden of proof rests on you to prove the belief to be true. You're simply making something up, not much different than a child that has an imaginary friend, except you never outgrew it.

Let me ask you, how many other beliefs do you hold to be true that you have no evidence for? This is a very serious question, the most important one I will ask. Show me a precedent, show me how many beliefs you hold with no evidence, let's see if there is a rational basis for beliefs without evidence.

What? Please don't be dishonest, especially in this forum. I never claimed to believe in any version of god, feel free to prove me wrong by quoting where I did.

I never said every theist is mentally retarded. You are being dishonest yet again. I am very careful to never say something like that. What I said is EVERY THEIST IS IRRATIONAL. If you want that qualified for your own sanity feel free to add "pertaining to god belief" at the end of it.

Actually, your failure to stay consistent demonstrates lack of stability on your part. Just scroll up and read many of your responses to my comments. In response to my fary analogy, you said just change the word 'fairy' to 'god' and i would have what atheists believe. Therefore, you were saying that most people who believe in a god were either "small children or adults with a large imagination, mentally handicapped, or unable to tell the difference between fiction and reality. This minority is unreliable."