Would you regard this statement as "a claim" or is it simply being open to a strong possibility?
"All of the Gods every to be believed in by humanity, may very well not exist"
Note that I am not saying "definitely does not exist", or "absolutely does not exist", or "in fact does not exist". The emphasis is on "may very well ..."
Is this a fair statement to make, since there is actually no demonstrable evidence to prove the existence of any deity? I just don't feel comfortable making claims I cannot back up, even if the claim is in opposition to the most outlandish of beliefs.
While we may never be certain that there is no god, the odds are in favor of god NOT existing. And if one were to employ Occam's razor, which states to take the simpler of two likely explainations, then No god is much easier to explain than where god comes from.
Hi guys, say we look at this in a different way,all religions are based on fear starting with the thunder god,then add another 9ooo gods to that as well as demons star trek etc zombies vampires and all this rakes in heaps of money and power for the few over the many, so where does the non believers stand, usually hated despised by the many and the few as the deep religious fear has little effect on the non believers. It may come down to who has the most H bombs to win.
That seems to me to be a rather confusing, ambiguous, and wishy-washy statement of agnosticism.
Don't let yourself be put into (and certainly don't put yourself into)the position of defending skepticism in any sort of affirmative manner.
If you say you don't believe gods exist, that isn't an affirmative statement requiring a defense or supporting arguments. It is in itself a simple statement of fact regarding an inner state, assuming you aren't lying.
It's a statement they can't reasonably deny, whereas their beliefs are not about their inner states but make claims about external reality. THEY are the ones who are on the defensive.
Gods don't exist as anything other than narrative elements. Even if some 'super powerful entity' is eventually discovered, and even if such an entity brought this cosmos into existence - it would have nothing to do with any of the thousands of god claims that humans have made. Just look up the Gettier problems of justified knowledge in epistemology.
If the interpretation of gods, as given to us by the religious is anything to go by, then gods are able to verify the claims of their existance. If all the "miracles" are attributed to them, then surely they are able to put our doubts at ease and appear to all humans. Since that has never happened, it is safe to stand on the CLAIM that gods do not exist. As most free thinkers and atheist will say; the burden of proof is not on those who say gods do not exist, but on those who claim the contrary. Until gods stop making fool of themselves and start existing the ranks of free thinkers and atheists will be swelling to the banks, as it continues to happen.
I do not so much stand on the claim that 'gods do not exist' as I stand on the claim that all god claims are epistemologically unjustified and are therefore justifiably disregarded out of hand. When people make god-claims that are falsifiable, I have found they are easily falsified - only to have the theist alter their claim, which I refuse to further engage. The day that someone actually makes a god-claim that is falsifiable, and doesn't alter their claim upon testing.....well, I expect that I will actually see Jesus float down from the clouds before that ever happens.