Proof for God's Non-existance?

And: To you, ancient texts with lots of magic in them should be viewed as historical. Not, as I would think, a mixture of history and myth. So you would perhaps consider Homer's Odyssey (700 BC aprox.) to be true, magic, Gods, and all. Troy and Ithica existed, after all.Or do Jewish myths, for some reason (or lack thereof), get special status in your mind? And if so, why? Could blind faith and desire be distorting your view?

What underlying evidence. Why do you reject the Gods of the Greeks, Gods that they wrote about, and accept the God of the Jews on the basis of their writings?

Of course it's racist. More than a bit. The God of the Bible favours his chosen tribe, and chooses to communicate with them to the exclusion of all others, and helps them in conflicts with their enemies.Don't blame me. I didn't invent him, and I don't believe in him.

Racism is certainly carried on by people, and if you'd thought about it, I'd hardly be likely to claim that it's literally carried on by an entity that I don't believe exists, would I?Tribal racists, like Moses, would push the idea of the racist God that existed in their minds. When Moses wants his people to commit genocide, the victim tribe is described as having "offended God", for example.In reality, the incident may well have been about grabbing land from other people. The fictional God would, of course, have promised the land to the tribe who invented him.

Not this one. I would say I don't believe in any Gods. Not I, particularly, unless perhaps the theist claims to have proof and I'm curious or want a good laugh, but intelligent theists don't claim to have proof. I sometimes ask people why they believe in specific, described Gods, like the Abrahamic God, but that's not the same as asking them for proof. Practice your version of what we preach, you mean. We're a broad church, anyway. I think it would be rare for an atheist to claim proof of no God. Many might claim that absence of evidence for a God is evidence of absence, but the words "evidence" and "proof" aren't the same, are they?There's absence of evidence for the existence of elves, but no-one has proof of their non-existence. There are several billion mono-theists on this planet, all believing in Gods, so which one of the several billion Gods are you referring to?Did you mean "proof that there's no God of any kind"?If so, then it's the same as for the elves mentioned above, so obviously impossible to prove that one wonders why someone would bother to ask such a question. And now you're talking about evidence, not proof. If you're referring to the type of non-interventionist creator Deity who just creates the universe as it is, however that is, then the only evidence against such an entity is the absence of evidence for it, meaning that, to present human knowledge, we can give this God about the same status of likelihood of existence as the undefined elves I mentioned above.On the other extreme, silly Gods like the God of the flat-earthers, who created this planet flat, can effectively be disproved, but I don't think that's the type of God you meant.Anything in between the two, then the more specific and described the God gets, the more evidence there tends to be against it.

Did you miss the "either or" in the first sentence, and not read the second? I sometimes call myself a non-theist.A simple definition like "atheism affirms the nonexistence of Gods" is the type of thing that theists and agnostics like when they want to pretend that atheism is a faith, which seems to be what you're aiming at. For me, the absence of belief in deities, wiki's broad definition, is the most appropriate. If you don't believe in any deities at this moment, Jon, you are an atheist of sorts, and a non-theist.Have any of the self-described atheists who've answered your post claimed that they could prove no-God? By your logic, a Goddess with red hair who created you as a nine foot tall women with wings cannot be disproven, either. If we're sure that you're not a nine foot tall women with wings, there could still be plenty of non-disproven Goddesses with red hair, but that particular one is non-existent.

I replied directly to your O.P. in order to point out that atheists don't think that they can prove no-God. If you wanted only atheists who fit your preferred definition to participate, you should've stated that in the O.P., not further down the thread.Essentially, it seems that you want to define atheists as morons who think they can prove no-God, in order to prove that they're morons who think that they can prove no-God. What you're doing is just re-defining people like Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and all other well known atheists as agnostics, against the common usage, meaning that all non-believers would end up described as agnostics, leaving no room for differences in emphasis.As you say, this is not about definitions, so enjoy yourself with the atheists who think that they can prove "no-God", and I'll leave you on your own intellectual level.

James Bond is in lots of books, as well, so we have good written evidence for his existence. If it's written in a book, it's evidence, as you know. Anyway, how could we have won the cold war if he didn't exist?

He's described several times in the Bible as being invisible, which might explain his apparent absence from your fridge.On one occasion, Moses sees the invisible, which is a pretty impressive feat on his part, IMO.Not being Moses, you could always look for his footprints in the butter, I suppose.

Too right. He walked into that one. In fact, he said "atoms" plural, which you can see, otherwise all would be darkness in the universe!