Atheists claim to know nothing about god.
But how is that even possible?
So what do you know about god? Do you know what you cannot even begin to fathom nor define? Can you explain the unexplainable or imagine the unimaginable? Can you defy the limits of humanity and knowledge? If yes, then how?
There are advantages to a purposeful ignorance. It is possible to take risks in life and death.
The question is, "how can an atheist proclaim the non-existence of that which he will not define.?"
The vast majority of atheists were raised in religion. Few if any claim to know nothing about god/s. I also see most give their definition of god/s and it inevitably is unacceptable to religious.
I was raised in a religious home, I just do not believe in religion’s versions of god/s. And my ego is such that if such an arrogant being exists it does not deserve devotion.
Our ability to give and accept love is probably the best argument for a loving god.
we can give and accept love without a god…that is what the humanist says…it is our nature…
So can we, in all honesty, tell how our nature came about? I’m not a humanist in the sense you describe. I believe in the god experience, a situation in which I feel at One with all that is. It’s a positive and loving experience. You don’t have to call it god in order to feel its comfort.
I once had an argument with a man who said ‘god lives in the trenches’ and that I wouldn’t be able to understand it unless I found myself in a situation where I was about to die. It doesn’t sound like a positive and loving experience to me. 
Define God in some asinine way, and what you’ve defined can be dismissed as asinine. You know, he’s an “uncaused cause”, or he’s “all good, all knowing, all powerful”. Stupid shit, fabricated by bored intellectuals.
If you think of gods as occasionally detectable super-beings who are part of the natural world, you’ve at least got a good story. And who knows, maybe such beings exist.
this god thing is almost like a game…who gets the highest score
I almost used that exact word - “game”.
God; must be infinite or is less than infinite reality, and therefore is assumedly not ‘god’.
Infinity may contain no limits [that’s what it means], so there is nothing to define god nor anything else other than the limitless and stateless.
The “game” aspect is important because “god” is often just a rhetorical device. It’s done in (bad) apologetics and agnosticism all the time. Things like /r/atheism are no less awful, but the critiques against post-Christianity basically align “god” with “ineffable”.
What the fuck does that mean? Limits of my language are the limits of my world, bitch. Saying, “God is what I cannot describe” is the same as saying “I want God to exist, so I’m defining him in such a way as I can’t be wrong.” I mean, to me, that is dumber than saying that God is some human looking dude chilling on a throne with his son (who is also himself) sitting at his right with an emination that manifests itself as a dove also in the mix. I mean, on the face of it, that description of god is fucking insane. But I can talk about why and how it is insane. I’d like to say that allows me to engage in a good-faith argument about god’s existence . . . that isn’t entirely true since I’m not approaching the issue from a value neutral-perspective. But I’d like to think that given a good enough argument I’d be willing to at least consider whether such a being existed or not, or at least have a truckload of cognitive-dissonance. I’ve got multitudes, so I can afford some more cognitive-dissonance but it would at least add an extra wrinkle into the mix.
In order to have this discussion, I need to know what is meant by “god”. Without that, it is just people talking “around” and, more likely, “at” each other. I’m all for yelling at strangers, but is that really where we want to go?
I mean, just to take a crazy example of a god we all know is a god but none of us recognize as such:
I know that god was born on December 23rd, 1938 and is the 125th god since Jimmu fucked the sun . . . or something like that. I’ll admit, I don’t know much about that part, so if you’d like to fill me in on what happened there with god, I’d be very grateful. But I do know that god married in 1959. Bonus points, he married a mere commoner (surely a sign of god’s grace). Together they have three children. In 2006 a major theological crisis was averted, since god’s children produced a male heir to the mantle of godhood. That is a bonus.
I don’t think that an experience of god necessarily has to be a positive and loving experience.
In the New Testament, Paul of Tarsus met god in fear when he was thrown off of his horse. Not a good experience at all.
Did you ask that man to explain what he meant - what his experience was, Pandora?
Does that argument become refuted in light of our inability to give and accept love - In light of man’s inhumanity to man?
I “know” absolutely nothing about god and I very much doubt that we are made in a god’s image and likeness at all.
But I do know that we have made a god into our own image and likeness.
What do I know about God, and I mean know, as in, actually know for sure, is, absolutely nothing. And even if I did I wouldn’t have a standard to measure it with, nor anything to compare it with. And words would be useless.
And arcturus also claims to know nothing about god at all, except, we are made in god’s likeness.
So this is a simple contradiction. Know nothing, yet, know humans are likeness of god?
deleted
Limitlessness doesn’t necessarily mean statelessness.
And to answer this question, - since I’m here anyway, - I could claim to know nothing yet still use the scientific method when doing research on something. This doesn’t mean I accept the truth of anything as being real, - only that humans have created observable mental constructs that have stood the test of time.