Oh atheists, teach me there is no God and I will be free.

There is no god. Fly, little one, and be free.

Heh heh heh heh . . .

Try to observe what you call you call "self". It has no unity. Some facets may be mutually coexistent and coextensive with a 'God' concept and some may not. 'Freedom' starts with recognition of that.

You have always been free chap, unless you chose not to be.

Sus, the apodictical existential pantheist replies, "Suppose She is It, All. Now we don't have many of the answers, while our language is too dualistic for immediate change, but She's a natural phenom that has existed forever and eventually it will be suggested that Her existence or not is merely a matter of definition

Under these circumstances it's perfectly okay to assert Her existence

Our entire legal system presupposes your freedom. So become a lawyer; get elected to public office and do whatever the heck you want.

One disordered attempt, none of the arguments are original:
The only reason to be religious or believe in a god is because someone is telling you to or because you want reality to be a certain way. That is to say there is no reason even by common sense standards (you wanting something to be is no reason for saying something is so). All religions are creations by humans, their origins are in ignorance about the natural world, and there are many other mistakes and arbitrary elements as well, just the same as in other human history or politics, or literature, and many other things.

"God" is irrelevant to knowledge, to being a good human. Knowledge is come by its own requirements (what else?), and it's no different to being a good human.

The only way that a "god" cannot be disproven is because you can't prove a negative. That is a formal reason (you could actually theoretically progressively disprove god being at any one point). But you can prove that everything surrounding that element is irrelevant or wrong, or merely human (psychological, sociological reasons: living itself; plain normality), and that every version is equally absurd (though theoretically here and there more reasonable, but this is dangerous stuff, and not really that important), and ultimately the origins of that element are nothing else than the same circumstances as those irrelevant, wrong, or quotidian things, and also that this "god", whatever it's supposed to be, doesn't fit the true nature of things, the same as any fairy-tale, or is too restrictive and parochial to hold onto as a "theory", and the reason for doing so would probably be purely personal and have purely personal effects in life, and is so once again without real reason (see above) and have no relevance to the question of knowledge and explanations or even how one "has to" live. ...

Are you sure about that?

Welcome to a2k. I'm sure you will find many retreads here. We're all just a little bit, batty, I guessYeah. They could all be wrong. And God may be laughing at our superciliousness.

The dichotomy between atheism and theism is rather too strict. In truth, there are many variations on belief. It is one thing to doubt the existence of a divine creature, and quite another to not believe in anything. Now Christian mysticism, for example that of Meister Eckhart, often falls into the second form of disbelief. There is quite simply nothing, in Eckhart's view. All there is is God, yet he defines "God" as being a Nothingness even more empty than the world. You will find more information on atheism/disbelief Moderator Edit: (Link and advertising removed)

What kind of God you want to free yourself from ? You see most of them are easy to get rid of... and the one you might end up stuck with probably wont suit you very much unless you love maths and abstract objects...

...also isn't wanting to be free a paradox ? A "free spirit" whatever that means to convey does doesn't want. "Wanting" is a cage on itself...

Welcome to a2k.

My eyes glazed over with the sheer volume of your profound erudition and I have no idea what you said.

Would you be so kind as to provide one or two sentences in summation? Think of it as a research abstract.

Wrong ! Try actually observing yourself. You were not conscious of the weight of your body on your chair until I brought it to your attention with this sentence. We are rarely conscious of our bodies except when learning a bodily skill like riding a bike. After the learning is over we don't give the body a second thought.
That glaring mistake precludes me from reading the rest of your post.

Huh...what we have here is...

...one guy pretending to know...

...telling another guy pretending to know...

..."you do not know that."

Mirror, mirror on the wall....

No, what we have here now is a third person. A moron with nothing to say about human experience, who resents anybody who does.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Fresco. You may be a pain...but you are not a moron...and neither is anyone else participating here.

We all have things to say about the human experience (or human predicament)...I perhaps more than most. If it bothers you that I share so much about the human experience...I am sorry to hear it, but I will continue to do so.

Mathematically speaking you can prove a negative. For example, I can prove that an even prime number greater than 2 doesn't exist.

Heck... I can even prove a double negative.

That sorta was my point, Max.

Felix had said you cannot prove a negative. I was disagreeing by asking if he was sure.

A negative can be proven...although with something as universal as the existence or non-existence of gods...it would be very, very, very, very, very difficult. (Add lots more "very's")

And being able to prove a negative is not limited only to math.

Being able to prove anything is math.