furthermore i don't have to prove that god doesn't exist for me to be an agnostic. This is a stupid argument used so many times. I can't just say something exists and you are wrong unless you can prove it doesn't exist. It's very difficult to prove the non-existence of something.

Why say "God is love" when we have a perfectly good word for love. Love is love.

You do realize plenty of people don't have access to that text through no fault of their own? Thus that does nothing to counter my point that many people don't have the opportunity to learn that love is God.

As for claiming that God is just a synonym for love, conscience, an indescribable "presence", or whatever you want to call it; It's meaningless because we already have adequate words in existence. There's no reason to use another word, especially one which has much greater implications and connotations - it just makes things unnecessarily complicated. It's unreasonable because almost every interpretation of God assigns characteristics far beyond merely "love" or "conscience", such as omnipotence, consciousness, physically creating the universe, etc. 

I consider interpretations of God meaningful when they at least describe an entity which isn't already described using another ordinary word. If someone said God is a pencil, I would call that interpretation meaningless. If someone said God is another word for "presence", I would call that interpretation meaningless. If someone said God is an omnipotence, omniscient, omnibeloved, eternal, etc. presence, then I would call that a meaningful interpretation; since not only is it not already accurately described by another word, but this interpretation of God implies that God is something we should actually pay attention to and discuss.

If God was just another word for "presence" or some other word, then why should we treat it any differently than the already existing word?

In your whole comment I can't seem to find sources or proof that disprove my points. And why do you state Im trying to be God, or that I'm referring to only Christians and that I call them stupid. You're just copy-pasting standard arguments and say it to people like me who dare to come up with facts.

Based on what we know (I'm doing a scientific study and learn new stuff every day that disproves the theory of God or question it) it is far from reasonable that something like God exists. People use the concept of God to give themself hope and to be motivated to be a good person, but even this is proven by science to be a mechanism in the brain based on hormones and neurotransmitters. ''God'' can be found in the brain and is evolutionary proven to be a good survivalstrategy in the past, go look it up on Google or w/e. If  you can't deal with facts like this, please go away. People who aren't aware of facts that are necessary for your view of life aren't allowed to say others what they have to do or what to believe, like what has been done to me.

And I'm not trying to be God, I'm just coming with facts we as a species have discovered over the past 2000 years. I actually can't stand the 'we don't know everything-argument' because we are actually USING laws of physics and science WE KNOW (that disprove the existance of God) in society for the progress of humanity. Yes, we USE evolution,physics and hormones to produce products like medicines/medical treatments, airplanes/computers and food. You're right when stating we don't know everything about the universe, we don't know a LOT and some things we will never know because our intelligence is compromised by evolution that is again compromised by other non-influenceable factors like physics. But we actually do know enough to make statements about something like God. Until we actually meet people who don't think God is a wizard in the sky and is a consciousness being that can be ''''''angry'''''' with you, but think 'God' is a source of pure energy based on theories that actually DO correlate with important facts we KNOW and USE, to make a universe possible, then we can discuss in a more logical manner.

Also, everyone has a different view of what God actually is. Ask two people in the same family with the same religion what God actually is and they will give different answers. There is only one truth.

Science is not about proving things to be 100% correct. It is about disproving things, thus the existence on the null hypothesis. All these laws and such, many of them are only theories. That's what they are. Theories. Because they cannot be proven to work in 100% of all cases, as many situations cannot be tested by us. Some of our "laws"aren't even apply directly to the real world, many of them such as the laws of motion have absurd prerequisites (in a perfect airless, frictionless environment, etc)
Anyway, science is about disproving things in attempt to make the reality clearer to see or predict. The existence of a God is something science will never be able to disprove; it is too abstract and cannot be tested.

You are confusing me completely on what you are trying to say here. I said the human race is the closest to the concept of God that we have. Not that it is God. But, arrogant is thinking we are special enough that he would come to us and give us this book and tell us what to do and what would happen if we dont, aswell as revealing the existance of 2 planes like heaven and hell. Arrogant is thinking we are special because we were chosen. My "special" is one we are creating ourselves with hard work. Theres nothing arrogant about it.

Also i think that you are confusing the atoms that make us come from the same object like they were all one. That isnt quite right. It was the one fenomemon that created and is still creating them. You can look at it like a rift between matter and anti-matter that matter is winning so new matter is continuously beeing produced and let into the universe. Its not all come from the same object. The big bang isnt an object and it not all coming from one single object. Its a continuous battle of elements that continuously "bleeds" matter out.

The matter that composes me and the matter that composes you didnt come from the same object, though it came through to be matter through the same event that is still happening. Not at the same time, but at different times.

Yup.

I don't follow the argument, I get stuck on "Some human persons are non-resistantly unaware that God exists". What does that exactly mean?

I'm not sure on it because who is god anyway? People claim to believe in it but the whole religion could of easily been made up like Mormonism was. And if god really does exist, i think it could really only be one thing, the Earth. God is something that is really in all of our heads and probably don't exist for real.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed.

3. I'm sorry what? Is non-resistantly unaware == ignorance?

4. 3 needs clarification

5. This seems clear enough.

6. Yes.

7. Ok.

I'm following everything fine, but could you just make #3 more clear so I can comment properly?

I like these kind of things. *looks at thread* Too bad there are peasants who just can't stomach this type of rigidity.