I Know That God Does Not Exist

You are. You're claiming that because we have not found it, it doesn't exist.

True. This doesn't make the search rational either, though.The search's rationality does not depend on anything found or not.
The search's rationality depends on the reasoning to do the search.If you do a search simply because "I want to find something" - this is irrational. There is no link to reality from the imagination.
If you do a search because some fact leads you to believe you'll find something - this is rational.Example:1. "If God exists, He exists everywhere and therefore is in the next room."
2. "Let's search the next room!"
3. *searches next room*You cannot say this is "rational" or "irrational."
It all depends on what part you look at.Searching the next room is rational if you accept the premise of #1.
Of course, with no link to reality - premise #1 is irrational in itself.Therefore, it's both depending on context:
The search is rational - based upon accepting the premise and logically following from there.
The search is irrational - based upon noting that the premise it's based upon is irrational to consider it's validity in the first place (there's no link from the imagination of this premise to reality.)You seem to be focusing on the search being rational because one accepts the premise.
To this - I say: who cares? Almost everything becomes rational if you make up the right premise for it.
I'm caring about a search being rationally done based upon whatever-you're-looking-for actually being a part of reality.Without a link-to-reality for the idea of God existing... this search is irrational (in the only meaningful context.)You cannot avoid the fact that "to be rational" God requires a link from imagination to reality.
This includes searches for God, and findings of God.
(One can imagine the possibility of finding God during an irrational search... if such an idea gains a link to reality... then I'll have to change my position - regardless of the search itself being irrational.)

Ah - you've just been wrong on my position this whole time. That explains a lot.Here, I'll spell it out again:I'm not claiming that because we have not found God - therefore God does not exist.
I am claiming that I know God does not exist.Here's the argument in a nutshell again:-all knowledge is tentative
-all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us
-things we know not to exist do not have a link from imagination to reality
-within the information available to us, we do not have a link from the imagination of God to reality
-Therefore, based on the information we have available to us the tentative conclusion is that "I know God does not exist."
-Because all knowledge is tentative, and all knowledge is based on the information we have available to us: we can remove this text as it is redundant.
-Therefore, "I know God does not exist."

You said "You shoot down one tiny idea about one tiny god ..." But it was more than that, of course. It was the monotheistic gods and religions (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, etc.) that compose a big chunk of the religiously observant on this planet, in addition to the polytheistic types I also showed were irrational.You are agreeing, aren't you, that all those are irrational? You did write that I shot them down, didn't you?Or are you going to try another dodge...

Why do you keep refusing to read and respond to my posts?1. ______________.
2. ______________.
3. ______________.

Good for you!

You know zip about any of this. I guess Ayn Rand didn't either. There should be no enmity between Christians and those of other persuasions, certainly not based on OUR beliefs. So no I am not "encouraging enmity" nor is any other Christian. Christianity is tolerant. Islam is not. Neither is Catholicism. Neither is Hinduism apparently. I thought Buddhism was but there seem to be some varieties of it that are not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The more "tolerant" a religion is, the less religious it is. That's the reason the Sufis, for instance, get in less trouble than the hard line Salafists. Or the boring, watered-down Episcopalians and Congregationalists are less worrying than the fire-and-brimstone Baptists.Better to just get rid of all this superstition, all this unreason.Why do you disagree with Ayn Rand? Or, presumably, you're disagreeing with the character John Galt's words in Atlas Shrugged?

As I said, you know absolutely zip about any of this.it was true Christianity that was the basis for the principle of religious tolerance, not liberal "Christianity."

It's the watered-down Christianity that's willing to live and let live.The hard-line ones, the bible-thumpers, Christian Identity, screaming televangelists and abortion-clinic bombers are the ones you've got to worry about. Watch your back when the prayer meetings break up, and cross to the other side of the street.By the way, you say, "you know absolutely zip about any of this." If that were true, you'd be writing reams and reams of stuff to try to get me to know where you're coming from. But you're not.

That's what I've been saying all along. There doesn't need to be a link before you do the search. The whole point of the search is to see if there is a link. Not at all. I've said the exact opposite: The reasoning does not depend on the premises being true. That's not a fact. Rationality does not depend on reality.I can say that if A is true then B must be true. There is nothing irrational about that statement even if A has no connection to reality.

That's just lame schoolboy semantics.

...Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Before you can decide whether or not there is a deity, you have to decide what a deity is.If you worship Elvis Presley, then hey, there is a deity.