I think most of us here are “agnostic atheists”, or a 6/7 on the Dawkins scale. We don’t believe in any gods, but we don’t make the positive claim “there are no gods”, but rather we reject the positive claim “gods exist”. The burden of proof lies with the theists here, not us.

I understand that position, and I currently identify with it. It’s logically sound and difficult to counter. But lately I've been thinking we should go farther. Why not make the positive claim “gods do not exist” and take on a burden of proof? We’re tough and smart; we can handle it! The position in the first paragraph, while strong, is starting to look more and more like a cop out to me. We’re atheists, god damnit! We’re supposed to have balls! So, I say we abandon the 6/7 “weak atheist” approach and put forth arguments for the non-existence of deities.

It’s often said that you can’t disprove a negative statement, or you can’t prove that something doesn't exist. I’m starting to think that is also incorrect. You can disprove things that are logically inconstant. For example, I can assert that “there is no such thing as a triangle with four sides”. Such a thing, by definition, cannot exist. So why can’t I assert that “there is no such thing as a loving deity that would willingly have people burned forever”? Of course that argument would only apply to Christianity or Islam or whatever, but there are other arguments for non-existence. Occam’s Razor is the best one that comes to mind right now. Maybe you guys can help here

Can’t we also label ourselves as a 7/7 on the Dawkins scale for things like leprechauns? I would be reluctant to say I’m a 6/7 as far as the Flying Pink Invisible Unicorn is concerned or a 6/7 for the existence of Spider Man. I think we can all say we’re 7/7’s for Spider Man, so why not for gods?

Lastly, I think that claiming to be a 7/7 doesn't imply that we can't change our minds based on new evidence. I'd say I'm a 1/7 for evolution or plate tectonics or gravity [that is, certain that they exist], but I'd still change my opinion based on new or better evidence. So saying you're a 7/7 doesn't mean you're an un-compromising hard-head. It just means your'e sure...for now.

TL;DR:

Changing my avatar to 7/7.

(May 7, 2014 at 4:38 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Why not make the positive claim “gods do not exist”

I already do. I am quite the militant anti-theist.

No... I'm just not comfortable with that. I'm not even comfortable stating "invisible pink unicorns do not exist".

(May 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: No... I'm just not comfortable with that. I'm not even comfortable stating "invisible pink unicorns do not exist".

I'm actually legitimately curious. Why not??

(May 7, 2014 at 4:38 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: Why not make the positive claim “gods do not exist” and take on a burden of proof?

We’re tough and smart; we can handle it!

Humans have come up with many different concepts of God/the Divine/Supreme Reality.

Brahman - The Universal Self -The Highest God Of Hinduism

Quote:He is the incomprehensible, unapproachable radiant being whom the ordinary senses and ordinary intellect cannot fathom grasp or able to describe even with partial success. He is the mysterious Being totally out of the reach of all sensory activity, rationale effort and mere intellectual, decorative and pompous endeavor.

I wouldn't know where to start if I had to prove that this concept doesn't exist.

Quote:Though impassioned and above the ordinary feelings of the mind, the masters of the Upanishads some times could not suppress the glory, the emotion, the passion and the poetry that accompanied the vast and utterly delightful , inner experience of His vast vision.

It seems that he exists as a subjective experience so over to neuroscience - Andrew Newberg - Research

Quote:Is God only in our brain?

Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer. For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.

Not very helpful so I had a look around for something else - How Your Brain Creates God - Great article in the latest New Scientist (04 February 2009):

Fascinating stuff but not very helpful when it comes to this -

Quote:So if religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work, where does that leave god? All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods: as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it.

(May 7, 2014 at 4:38 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: The position in the first paragraph, while strong, is starting to look more and more like a cop out to me.

Sorry and all that but I'm staying with the cop out and leaving the burden of proof to the theists.

(May 7, 2014 at 4:57 pm)ThePinsir Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 4:49 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: No... I'm just not comfortable with that. I'm not even comfortable stating "invisible pink unicorns do not exist".

I'm actually legitimately curious. Why not??

I don't think the question "is there a god?" can be answered, positively or negatively, with any honesty, and same goes for more specific gods. Granted, they're highly unlikely, and highly improbable- and believe me, I leave no room for them- but I'm not a fan of absolutes when I can't know absolutely.

If you claim to know for sure there's no god without any actual physical tangible proof, you're just doing exactly what Christians do for the opposite side. I'm not comfortable doing that.

Part of what makes atheism and science so much "better" than religion is our ability to keep an open mind and adapt to new information as it comes along. I don't believe any gods exist, and I think the idea is completely stupid. But there is literally no way to prove they do or don't, so you can't say you definitively do or don't know it exists.

I do not make the claim that gods don't exist because I don't think absolute certainty is possible.

Our brains evolved on the plains of Africa with avoiding death from lions as priority one, and as a mechanism for sexual selection.

Our brains did not evolve to understand the universe. If they were, quantum mechanics would be common sense.

That being said, to make a claim of certainty about the nonexistence of something that could qualify to be a god, I believe may be permanently beyond our capability to understand.

Deep down in my gut, I am positive that there are no such things as gods, and I feel like I know that to be true.

The problem is that it is not a logically consistent position to take up, it is at the same level as gnostic theism. I have nothing to 'prove' my knowledge other than a gut feeling and some philosophical tongue twisters, so it is not a position I wish to align myself with, even if it aligns with my true, deep down, gut feelings.

(May 7, 2014 at 6:31 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(May 7, 2014 at 4:57 pm)ThePinsir Wrote: I'm actually legitimately curious. Why not??

I don't think the question "is there a god?" can be answered, positively or negatively, with any honesty, and same goes for more specific gods. Granted, they're highly unlikely, and highly improbable- and believe me, I leave no room for them- but I'm not a fan of absolutes when I can't know absolutely.

I agree with this. It's part of the reason I call myself an agnostic atheist. I can't prove there isn't a god, or gods, despite the lack of evidence there is for any and the fact that the concept defies logic. Therefore I won't make a difinitive statement.