I will say strongly that I do not believe there is an invisible, 70-foot-tall, green monster standing right behind me right now. I can't prove a negative, you're right about that, but since I have exactly zero evidence for this thing's existence, I'm going to take a shortcut and say it doesn't exist.

One can be forgiven for not having stumbled across these arguments before. We all had to read them for the first time at some point. But I'll just say that this is well-travelled territory.

That shortcut is why, for thousands of years, humans believed in things like the 4 elements, a flat earth, geocentricism, and so on. Taking the path that "feels right" despite a lack of evidence is wholly unscientific, and, occasionally, will prove wrong. So beware of that monster. :)

The fact is there is no reason to state god does or doesn't exist. There are more important things to think about. Things that actually make a difference.

"The fact is there is no reason to state god does or doesn't exist. There are more important things to think about. Things that actually make a difference."

According to the bible, the consequences for non-believers are very dire. If the bible is true, then this is a very important thing to think about.

Weak agnostic or strong atheist, we're all going to hell.

I contend that there's little difference between a weak agnostic or a strong atheist. If you're not scared of hell, then you're living your life as if you believe that God doesn't exist.

As in most things in life, it's what you do that matters, not what you say.

There are many religions now and in the past that have dire consequences for non believers and doom to those who do not follow the religious laws dictated by the particular god of that religion. My question to you is which one should we follow? To be safe should we follow all of them? and what about the many religions that forbid other gods? what do we do at that avenue? In case you reply "Christian, of course!" Which sect? Which version of the bible? From what I can see, we will have to cycle through all the hells, or possibly none. Can someone tell me the best hell to shoot for?

In front of you there is a glass of water. You see it, you can touch it, you can drink it. You know it is there. You believe it is there.

You are wrong! In fact, the water does not exist, the glass does not exist. You do not exist.

Could this be? No, you say, I have proof that the water exists: "I can drink it". Not really. You think you can drink it. But you are not there. The water is not there. Maybe you are in the matrix.

Just like that, any kind of rational discussion is impossible. "Hard water believing", believing that the water exists just because you think you can drink it, is not rational - after all, it could not exist.

Should science work like this? Should science explain, when stating any theory, that it could be that all stated facts are maybe not real? Obviously not. Science only cares about falsifiable theories: theories which can be disproved. The rest, from the point of view of science, does not exist.

From the point of view of science, the water exists and god does not exist. Neither do the golden unicorn, or the green monster. God believers, and water deniers, when using those believes in the realm science, are making science a disservice, since they are allowing for non-rational conversation - and thus destroying any kind of rational discourse.