I meant that without outright proof you can't claim an emphatic refutation of belief/faith in God's existence.
Not for no reason. It is hard to wrap one's head around the idea that the this ball of matter appeared for no reason at all and exploded. While there is scant evidence to prove that God exists there is no evidence to suggest otherwise either - so unless you can provide the evidence you spoke can you claim to not beleive in God? Or would claim to be agnostic?
I swear, I just need to make a journal with this in it, and link people to it over and over.
You can't prove existential negatives. You can't "prove" that God doesn't exist... but neither can you prove that SANTA doesn't exist. That doesn't mean it's reasonable or logical to believe in God, any more than it is to do so in Santa. Negatives are assumed until positives are evidenced. It's the rational way.
Furthermore, there's no difference between "I do not believe that there is a god" and "I do believe that there is not a god," aka "I don't believe in God." They're the same thing. There's no difference between not believing and believing not. As far as you can tell, it just ain't true. God is not a testable scientific hypothesis one can disprove. There's no actual evidence, so it's not reasonable to believe in God.
A "ball of matter" didn't just appear, and nothing actually exploded, by the way.
I am not yet born, console me.
I fear that the human race may with tall walls wall me,
with strong drugs dope me, with wise lies lure me,
on black racks rack me, in blood-baths roll me.