Strong Atheism

[Coffee Jesus]

---

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.

---

The law of excluded middle states that a proposition is either true or false, but I only accept this when the proposition is unambiguous. The question "Do one or more of those exist?" is essentially the question "Is there anything that can be considered one of those?", and in this case, set membership is ambiguous. It's like asking...

Is A an empty set?
A = { x | x is existent and very powerful, grandiose, awe inspiring, and extraordinary}