Anyone here a Category 7?

[The Grand Nudger]

.........?

Hardly, it's a discussion regarding knowledge..and specifically in response to comments about what we can or can't know.

"I don't know even the tiniest bit one way or another but I don't believe" is just as -atheist- as "I know for sure, and no". Explaining why your objection to my knowing that there is no god is inconsistent with what you, yourself, are comfortable with knowing.. isn't a comment on whether or not you or anyone else is "atheist enough".

[Whateverist]

Oh good, then I can count on retaining my status as a true atheist. That is a relief.

[The Grand Nudger]

Obviously subject to keeping up on your dues with the collective and putting in your share of the work towards the NWO agenda.    

[Whateverist]

Obviously. Check's in the mail.

[Angrboda]

In the past I've represented myself as a 7, but that depended on making certain things clear.  When people speak of knowing something, they typically embrace the idea that it is known with absolute certainty.  I liked Mathilda's point about the contextual nature of the meaning of "to know" but I would go even further and suggest that except in certain contexts, such as the question of God, the sense in which absolute certainty is required is never employed.  Not in science.  Not in everyday life.  We don't even ultimately have a firm grasp on what even makes something knowledge.  It's a very divisive philosophical issue.  However, seeing that most people assume the sense of knowing with absolute certainty when discussing the existence of God, and I do hold that my beliefs could be in error, I incline toward a softer stance on the question if I'm not going to fully qualify my remarks as I have done here.  Ultimately it's less a stance about our knowledge of God's non-existence as it is a concession to reasonable dialogue based on shared assumptions.

All good points.  There is almost no other question about which we require absolute certainty to say we know.  But there is another way we could split this question up.  

1)  Are you certain enough that God does not exist that you don't ever wonder if you could be wrong?

2)  Are you certain enough that God does not exist that you would feel justified to insist to a believer that there can be no justification for their belief?

I'd answer yes to 1 but no to 2.  I'm not satisfied that there is a simple explanation for why people believe in God which amounts to their simply being mistaken.  Some people admit to believing in God as a choice, admit they could be mistaken but still choose to live their lives as if God exists.  

Plus, like Boru, I place a great deal of stock in treating others with respect.  If another adult tells me  they find reason enough to believe in God I simply don't feel it is my place to tell them they are wrong.  That doesn't mean that I myself harbor any doubts about dismissing everything supernatural.  But then I myself have faith that the natural world is robust enough to account for everything we may experience.

I don't explain people believing in God as just being mistaken. We're neurologically built to do certain things. An unintended side of those mechanism results in Gods and religion. It's not simply being mistaken, anymore than believing our eyes when they deceive us is a matter of just being mistaken. They are being mislead by the ordinary abilities of the mind.

I certainly occasionally wonder if I should be less certain than I am. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong. I would never claim that there could be no justification for belief in God. Matter of fact, I think many are adequately justified by the things they believe otherwise, such as the historicity of the bible, or the improbability of their experience under naturalistic assumptions. I don't doubt that one can construct a plausible case for God. I just don't find that any that have been presented to me hold up under scrutiny. But I don't know what I don't know. It's certainly possible there's good evidence that I am simply unaware of.

At a recent meeting of my "Does God Exist?" meetup group, a fellow atheist took me to task for saying that I thought that atheists are just as intransigent as theists. His counter-example was that for some theists, they don't think anything could change their minds. His point was that atheists have a lower bar. They are simply looking for evidence. To my mind, that stance doesn't lead them to be any more likely to change their minds. We can always find something wrong with this or that piece of evidence. My belief is that we all are basically oriented in one direction or another by our biases and native inclinations. If you're oriented toward disbelieving, you're unlikely to change that orientation on account of evidence, whatever that evidence is. Skepticism can always be justified. And personally speaking, I don't know what would convince me that God exists. His traits, omnipotence and omniscience, can't really be proven by any finite demonstration. So even if a booming voice speaks from the clouds, how do I know that this booming voice satisfies those criteria?

[Anomalocaris]

[

....  His counter-example was that for some theists, they don't think anything could change their minds.  His point was that atheists have a lower bar.  They are simply looking for evidence.  To my mind, that stance doesn't lead them to be any more likely to change their minds.....

Do you think they are no more likely to change their minds because
1) conceivable adaquate evidence that should change their minds appear practically impossible to obtain, or
2) their minds would not be changed by conceivable adaquate evidence, or
3) they so define god as to make it impossible for any conceivable evidence to be adequate?

[EgoDeath]

I know for sure that there is no god of the Abrahamic variety. Maybe some sort of impersonal force that created everything but there's still no reason to even believe that. For that reason I consider myself a 7. I also know for sure that unicorns don't exist. I'm a 7 on that scale too.

[robvalue]

I came across some fascinating ideas today that I'd never heard of, to do with the bicameral mind. Apparently ancient man used to run as a combination of a kind of automaton (left side of the brain) and an authorative inner voice (right side). This voice "allowed" actions to be taken, and was understandably mistaken for some sort of external power giving directions. This could have a lot to do with how religion came about.

[Angrboda]

I came across some fascinating ideas today that I'd never heard of, to do with the bicameral mind. Apparently ancient man used to run as a combination of a kind of automaton (left side of the brain) and an authorative inner voice (right side). This voice "allowed" actions to be taken, and was understandably mistaken for some sort of external power giving directions. This could have a lot to do with how religion came about.

Well, Jaynes' views are certainly one theory, but I wouldn't regard them as having been proven. It's an interesting argument, but it's not clear that it's true.

[Fireball]

I read that book back when it came out. Definitely an interesting proposition.