When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Do you actually think that quibbling over labels constitutes some real victory over what we as atheists actually believe?

Not necessarily a victory. But I think it points out the self-deception atheists engage in. 

And intellectually responsible atheists care about not engaging in self-deception.

Please read and educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o...robability

Realistically, I'm a 6.999 on the atheism scale, and since the balance has to be something, agnosticism is what naturally follows. I would not be calling myself an agnostic unless I considered the question to be wide open, which is not the case. I'm an atheist because of what I do not believe, not because I have any beliefs which preclude any possible reality of a god or your god outside the minds of the believers. Not precluding the existence of any god, or even your god means I do not have the belief that no god is possible. It's possible, but I see the chances of this possibility as extremely unlikely. This is something which a pure agnostic would probably not say, which is why I am agnostic by only the smallest conceivable percentage. I don't see any significant probability that any supernatural being does or ever had anything to do with our existence, and then the claims made by other humans on gods of their culture or cults are even less probable, but none of the above which I've said constitutes absolute dismissal, therefore call me 6.999, not 7.0 - that sort of claim would be unfalsifiable, therefore too much like those made by religious believers!

There's also the very nasty question of how would your own perceptions of a god have to change if it was discovered to be real, becoming available for our observation just like everything else which can be observed in this universe? I'm positively doubtless that such a discovery would murder it's mystique in any context by which it has been regarded as a god - especially when observations reveal that the reality isn't quite everything which was believed of it before said discovery. This only brings me much closer to completely ruling out any possibility of anyone's claim to knowing an eternal, perfect, and necessarily mysterious god having any basis in reality. Any solid establishment of facts regarding your claim would be disastrous for faith, so isn't it best to keep the nature of your claims mysterious, never to become proven in any way factual? Mystery works for those who want it, you wouldn't want them to go running away scared by reality when they now occupy your church pews in their efforts to avoid their daily realities, nor would you want them to go drifting away bored when fact makes a god no longer such a big deal. Point is that the human motivation for claims on knowing any mysterious god is much too obvious, and that only makes it having any basis in reality that much more doubtful.

Besides the desire to keep my own assertions scientific, the other reason I still won't go the rest of the way over to 7.0 on the scale is that I believe the believers, even insulting dicks such as you deserve the chance to make your case, if you have one which you can present by the rules of rational discourse. So if you can do that, then have at it, otherwise you should learn the difference, keep your eyes open, and mouth shut until you find the evidence which is required. To do otherwise, as all of you do every time, is nothing other than dishonest!