'There Is No God', or 'I Believe There Is No God'?

[widdershins]

If we aren't talking logic, how are we speaking of proof?  Empirical demonstration is different (especially is defined broadly rather than "current philosophy of science).  I wasn't saying that we can claim any miracles ... I was only looking at the common fallacy.

An example of the other vali form of reasoning ...
If A, then B ... turns out A is true ... then we can conclude B is true.
That is a common logical fallacy, though. 

To give an example ...
If gods, then miracles ... turns out there are gods .. therefore we can conclude that there are miracles.

That is a non sequitur fallacy, though.  Gods are not defined as beings which necessarily produce miracles.  If I proved the existence of a disinterested god who does not interfere in our universe I have somehow proved that he performs miracles?  Of course not.  That is why I am saying that proving gods and proving miracle are two entirely different arguments.  You could have gods without miracles.  You could have miracles without gods.  Miracles are normally attributed to gods, but that being the case does not determine that something I hold to be miraculous was necessarily produced by any god at all, much less the particular god I attribute it to.

This doesn't touch on whether the syllogism is correct per empirical demonstration ... perfect logic produces perfect falsehood, if the axioms are false (either the conditional or the affirmation of the prior of the denial of the posterior.

Don't try to deny my posterior, I can prove it is real ;-)

Haha, you said "gism".

[drunkenshoe]

"Does god exist?" is not a valid question. It would be valid, only if there was a completely different concept(s) of god in human history without any mutual ground -human-god-, which there isn't, they are all the same concept of god and exist in the same category of human values, needs and fears.

Nobody would need to prove that it doesn't exist, because applying falsifiability to theology and myth is not rational, not to mention just a belief. Which is something equal to "I know Unicorns doesn't exist, but I can't prove it, therefore I should be agnostic about its existence for the sake of scientific method and 'rationality'." Unicorn is always the same mythical animal, doesn't matter which myth it appears in. It is a horse with a horn on his forehead, doesn't matter what colour it is or if it farts rainbow or not. Vampires do not exist. Doesn't matter if they are artsy fartsy and philosophical as Anne Rice's vampires or ridiculous as Stphenie Meyers' or good in bed as Charlene Harris'.

And also for the same reasons, nobody actually belives in any god. Because it is impossible to believe in any god. Humans believe in themselves and what they created; they survived to this point because of religion and belief; fantasy; design. This is one of the main reasons why we invaded and dominated the planet and became the most successful species on it.

[widdershins]

"Does god exist?" is not a valid question. It would be valid, only if there was a completely different concept(s) of god in human history without any mutual ground -human-god-, which there isn't, they are all the same concept of god and exist in the same category of human values, needs and fears.

Nobody would need to prove that it doesn't exist, because applying falsifiability to theology and myth is not rational, not to mention just a belief. Which is something equal to "I know Unicorns doesn't exist, but I can't prove it, therefore I should be agnostic about its existence for the sake of scientific method and 'rationality'." Unicorn is always the same mythical animal, doesn't matter which myth it appears in. It is a horse with a horn on his forehead, doesn't matter what colour it is or if it farts rainbow or not. Vampires do not exist. Doesn't matter if they are artsy fartsy and philosophical as Anne Rice's vampires or ridiculous as Stphenie Meyers' or good in bed as Charlene Harris'.

And also for the same reasons, nobody actually belives in any god. Because it is impossible to believe in any god. Humans believe in themselves and what they created; they survived to this point because of religion and belief; fantasy; design. This is one of the main reasons why we invaded and dominated the planet and became the most successful species on it.

I actually agree with most of that and I am in no way claiming that anyone needs to prove any particular god or gods in general do not exist.  All I am saying is that the claim, "There are no gods" is not provable and, since there are those who believe one or more gods exist, it is not productive.  What is the point in making that definitive declaration?  Basically, to piss someone off.  If an argument isn't productive it's pointless.

[drunkenshoe]

I actually agree with most of that and I am in no way claiming that anyone needs to prove any particular god or gods in general do not exist.  All I am saying is that the claim, "There are no gods" is not provable and, since there are those who believe one or more gods exist, it is not productive.  What is the point in making that definitive declaration?  Basically, to piss someone off.  If an argument isn't productive it's pointless.

Yes. That makes sense in a way. But at least from my point of view, I am just writing my opinions like thinking out loud and trying to dig the ones offered to the bottom when I am interested in I guess. Generally not productive. Taken as opinionated by the most people. Perhaps it is.

[Baruch]

My regrets and pride,  my hopes and fears may be subjective, but they are real anyway.  And quite a bit more relevant than the Higgs boson.  Typical Platonism ... only thoughts matter, and the higher the better ... emotions are for barbarians, not true Greeks.  I will take Homer's fictional Odysseus and Hector any day ... over any fictional character (mostly fictional Socrates) that Plato ever created.

If one can get two good science teams together, to objectively bracket the true mass of an electron at rest (but it increases as soon as it isn't at rest) ... big deal.  Plato was the original Geek, not the original Greek.  Pythagoras was so annoying they burned him out of house and home even after he ran away to Italy.  Socrates got a fair trial, and got what was coming to him (mostly being too close to aristocrats in general, and Alcibiades in particular).

[trdsf]

It's getting a little unwieldy to respond to all points, so I'm going to have to start picking and choosing, especially since I think we agree on more than we disagree.

The problem is that in any debate you have to start with several facts which both sides agree on.  You have to have a starting point.  Some simple examples in a debate with a theist would be that the universe exists and that it has not existed in its current form for an eternity.  Those are very basic, but each debate is different with each side willing to start with an acceptance of various facts.  That one position or the other should be the "default" position is a premise of the argument neither side is likely to accept from the other.  What that means is that by making this a premise of your argument you are setting up your argument to fail to have any effect (if the intention of your argument is to sway the other person, that is).  So what is the point of making the argument?  Do you just want to piss the theist off?  Then it's a great argument.  Do you want to have an intelligent debate, already a problem when debating theists?  That's not any more likely to happen by setting a default in your favor than it is when they try to set a default in their favor.  What's more, as an argument style, it's utterly dishonest.  It's "cheating" and it's lazy.  You're setting up the argument so that you never actually have to do any work to prove any point, only shoot down anything that comes at you.  In this case you, and theists arguing the same, are making the argument "The default is that I am right and if you can't prove I'm not then I win".  You wouldn't accept that as a valid premise from them.  Why should you expect them to accept it from you?

I would describe my position more as "This is what we currently know to be the case, what reason or evidence do you have to add this invisible layer that's not called for by any current observations?" and if they can't provide evidence or even a valid chain of reasoning, I am under no obligation to accept their claim even provisionally.  The only thing I assert is that the universe exists as we observe it -- one would hope we could agree at least on that point, although there might be a problem there debating a Buddhist.

I agree with all of that.  However, in this case the claim would be, "There is no intelligent life on the other side of the galaxy -- prove there is or I'm right!"  By adding that single word and making it a negative am I then allowed that claim?  Is this valid because I do not need to demonstrate that I cannot see what I have not seen?  Of course not.  In this case EITHER claim would be either spectacularly ignorant or fantastically informed.

Actually, I would with some caveats agree with that assertion, since there's not one shred of evidence to demonstrate there is, in fact, intelligent life on the other side of the galaxy.  And in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's going to be true: life-bearing planets will not have produced intelligent life, or at best not yet.  So far as we yet know, there is no intelligent life elsewhere in this galaxy, either on the other side of it, or right next door.

And when I do assert the existence of other intelligences -- and make no mistake, I do -- I do it on the following bases: that their existence is not inconsistent with what we know about biology, geology, astronomy and any other relevant science; that given the potential number of habitats not only in the galaxy but in the universe that it is more probable than not unless there's some impediment to the evolution of intelligence that we do not yet know; and that it is only a proposal and not proven and I could well be wrong.  One may be persuaded by the argument, or one may not.

I should like to think I'm right, but I know perfectly well that it's just a series of unsupported inferences that make sense, and that I think is fairly well reasoned, but outside of a mathematical proof, reasoning is not evidence.

This is entirely not what belief is to a religious person, to whom the mere assertion is sufficient to make the claim of 'proof' or 'knowledge', and the assertion that they make is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works.  It neither has the solidity of being based in factual extrapolation, nor the humility to come with the "but I could be wrong", nor the decency to not demand it be accepted by others just on its own assertion.

So I think I stand on the more solid ground, logically.

I agree wholeheartedly.  I have looked into many, many claims of the supernatural variety.  I have spent years of my life looking into Christianity, alone.  Years more looking into ghosts, magic, UFOs, etc.  Never have I seen the slightest evidence to suggest there was anything to any such claims.  I now do dismiss them outright.  If you don't have proof, you are wrong.  And I do often claim that there is no such thing as magic, which, when you get down to it, is really no different than claiming outright there are no gods.  So it's not like I am not, myself, guilty of doing exactly what I am arguing against here.  The fact that "magic" is less accepted as a reality is no excuse for allowing myself more latitude.  But to be fair, when I make the claim that there is no such thing as magic, I am usually referring to what theists prefer I call "miracles".  In this case I am very much taking a jab.  I'm not debating a position and my intention is not to sway, my intention is to annoy.  So I guess, in that sense, if your intention is to annoy rather than sway, saying "There are no gods" is no different.

I'm still not sure how one would differentiate between a god and an extremely advanced ETI anyway.

The flying saucer case is interesting, and relevant.

Digression here: I greatly mislike 'UFO' as a term for alien spaceships, because UFO is universally assumed to mean just that, an alien spaceship.  And that's an identified flying object, not an unidentified one.

Anyway.  Have you noticed that flying saucer sightings and photos and videos are on the wane, and that the main thrust of that movement is about personal abductions and encounters?

And the reason for that is that there are now cameras everywhere -- and all of a sudden the classic claims have largely dried up and it's shifted to a more "mystical" kind of encounter.

I mean, think about all the really good, really clear images of the Chelyabinsk bolide when almost the entire astronomical community was looking the other way at the now largely-forgotten 367943 Duende, which was to make a near pass later that same day.  There's essentially complete coverage from its entry into the atmosphere to its detonation, to even security camera footage of its fragments splashing down into a small frozen lake.  For an unpredictable event that no one was looking for.  And the data from the images was so good, astronomers could reverse-engineer its orbit.

As imaging technology became more ubiquitous, the nature of the claims changed to those which were largely proof against the new technology.

This is precisely analogous to what has been going on for thousands of years in the debate between rationalists and religionists.

[Baruch]

It was revealed on television recently, that much of the UFO stuff in NM/CO was USAF special ops, making fools out of UFO enthusiasts, so that nobody would believe them, when they actually reported something real.  The real being top secret military activity within the US Southwest.  Those cattle mutilations were dreamed up by the USAF.  They flew actual black helicopters with Hollywood Christmas lights to simulate UFO sightings at night.  Of course some will claim that I saw that TV show (and not Alex Jones) earlier this week.  One UFO guy they let go insane over what he thought he had seen, just for the fun of it.  Counter-intell for keeps back in the Cold War.  And sorry, no alien technology.

[trdsf]

It was revealed on television recently, that much of the UFO stuff in NM/CO was USAF special ops, making fools out of UFO enthusiasts, so that nobody would believe them, when they actually reported something real.  The real being top secret military activity within the US Southwest.  Those cattle mutilations were dreamed up by the USAF.  They flew actual black helicopters with Hollywood Christmas lights to simulate UFO sightings at night.  Of course some will claim that I saw that TV show (and not Alex Jones) earlier this week.  One UFO guy they let go insane over what he thought he had seen, just for the fun of it.  Counter-intell for keeps back in the Cold War.  And sorry, no alien technology.

Well, that's at least a real-world, rational explanation rather than claiming extraterrestrials.

Cattle mutilations, it turns out, were invented by one person trying to sell books to the credulous and are in fact regular dead cattle that died in a particular environment and were consumed by bacteria that preferentially eat certain parts of the cow first, and after a couple weeks it tends to look like a 'cattle mutilation' when it's actually perfectly natural.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the default would be to say neither. I seldom find it necessary to make a positive statement about BigFeets.

[widdershins]

It's getting a little unwieldy to respond to all points, so I'm going to have to start picking and choosing, especially since I think we agree on more than we disagree.

Certainly understandable.  I will help a little by quoting only the parts from you I am responding to and try not to respond to every little thing.

I would describe my position more as "This is what we currently know to be the case, what reason or evidence do you have to add this invisible layer that's not called for by any current observations?" and if they can't provide evidence or even a valid chain of reasoning, I am under no obligation to accept their claim even provisionally.  The only thing I assert is that the universe exists as we observe it -- one would hope we could agree at least on that point, although there might be a problem there debating a Buddhist.
Actually, I would with some caveats agree with that assertion, since there's not one shred of evidence to demonstrate there is, in fact, intelligent life on the other side of the galaxy.  And in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's going to be true: life-bearing planets will not have produced intelligent life, or at best not yet.  So far as we yet know, there is no intelligent life elsewhere in this galaxy, either on the other side of it, or right next door.

Absolutely you are under no obligation to accept the wild claim out of the blue that some particular deity exists.  And so long as you don't make the counter-claim that said deity doesn't exist the theist starts the conversation on the offensive, having to provide evidence which doesn't exist for a claim which is clearly false.  But we can't prove it's false.  In my early days as an atheist I tried many times to logic God away.  It was my fellow atheists who pointed out that I had not accomplished it and could not.  I can claim fairies don't exist with impunity only because I am unlikely to be talking to a person who actually believes in fairies when I make that claim.  They are likely to agree with me, not call me on it and demand I prove it.  But Christians, especially, like to ask the impossible.  How many times have we heard the claim that because science doesn't know X that proves God is real, where X is some thing beyond our current technological ability to know?  Asking that we do something they know to be impossible is a favorite go-to for rabid theists who love to argue.  Of course any argument style is going to fail when dealing with unreasonable people, but making a claim opposite theirs only gives even the more reasonable ammunition.  To the theist, "Prove God doesn't exist" is a perfectly reasonable request.  Critical thought, remember, is not their strong suit.  So I ask again, what would be the purpose of stating absolutely, "There are no gods"?  So far as I can see, only to take a jab.

This is entirely not what belief is to a religious person, to whom the mere assertion is sufficient to make the claim of 'proof' or 'knowledge', and the assertion that they make is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works.  It neither has the solidity of being based in factual extrapolation, nor the humility to come with the "but I could be wrong", nor the decency to not demand it be accepted by others just on its own assertion.

Frigging absolutely true!  Their claim NEVER comes with "but I may be wrong"!  And that is the very reason they have trouble automatically understanding that this is part of every scientific claim.  When they read about evolution they believe that science is making an absolute claim that this IS how it happened and you cannot question it!  In fact, Mr. Buttfuck Stein makes that assertion repeatedly in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  He asserts that science is hostile to intelligent design, not because it is a stupid pseudoscience which is significantly responsible for the dumbing down of America and the birth of a frightening mistrust and rejection of many fields of science which has reached even medical science in the form of rejection of inoculations for our very children, but because there is some secret conspiracy among evil sciences to force people to accept evolution as some absolute truth.

It is for this very reason that we need to separate ourselves from this argument style.  I think it is very important the the public actually learn what a theory is and what it means; that it in no way says, "This IS how it is, THE END, FUCKERS!"  Science has the intellectual high ground by a long shot.  It is "unfounded claim asserted as absolute truth which cannot be questioned" verses "evidence based explanation open for debate always and forever".  I think it's important to always, always stress that difference as it is a very important difference.  One is open minded, the other is stupid.

Digression here: I greatly mislike 'UFO' as a term for alien spaceships, because UFO is universally assumed to mean just that, an alien spaceship.  And that's an identified flying object, not an unidentified one.

We are of a kind here.  I used to frequent UFO forums but finally had to quit because I simply could no longer subject myself to the mental gymnastics these people use to maintain belief.  One of the things they do is use the term "UFO" to mean "alien spacecraft".  The reason they do this is so that they can back out of a claim at any second.  When called on something they can say, "I never said it was an alien space ship!  I said it was an UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object".  The use of the acronym UFO as a generic term meaning far more than something unidentified is by design.

Anyway.  Have you noticed that flying saucer sightings and photos and videos are on the wane, and that the main thrust of that movement is about personal abductions and encounters?

I have not looked into this in years, but I do know that, at least with crop circles, the stories run in cycles.  More news coverage ALWAYS equals more crop circles.

And the reason for that is that there are now cameras everywhere -- and all of a sudden the classic claims have largely dried up and it's shifted to a more "mystical" kind of encounter.

This evolution of belief is one of the things that made me give up looking into the supernatural altogether.  I had a "ghost hunter" explain to me what ectoplasm was and how they had hoped to get a sample.  I looked it up and found that what it is today is not what it always was.  What it was originally was something you could easily get a sample of.  Houdini was famous for outing mediums and their tricks and it wasn't long before they were all uncovered as frauds or stopped putting on their shows so publicly.  After this time ectoplasm went from being a mysterious substance which emanated from the bodies of mediums in physical from to something more the consistence of spider webs which you could "feel" as you passed through them, but always seemed to mysteriously evade the Petri dish.

As far as I'm concerned if the nature of a thing evolves over time that is pretty solid evidence that thing simply never existed.

I think fundamentally we agree on pretty much every point with the single exception of whether it is proper to say, "There are no gods" or "There is no <particular deity>".  And I'm half with you on that, too.  There are no deities.  I am as certain of that as one can be.  However, one cannot be 100% certain ever as our knowledge is limited.  Here I can make that absolute claim and nobody will bat an eye.  You all understand that I am not claiming to have proof that this is an absolute certainty which is unquestionable.  But the mind of a theist is a broken, barely functional thing incapable of even processing the idea that an absolute claim cannot be made.  They live in a black and white world where there are only two possible answers to the question of deities and magic, yes it's real or no it's not real.  To them, "I don't know" or "We can't know" is a division by zero.  It's the answer of a stupid person.  It's an admission that we are not as smart as them because we have no answer and they do.  That is why I think it is important to ALWAYS say, "We can't know" and explain why.  We need to grease the rusty wheels of their brains in the hopes of getting them turning again.  Because simply having the argument, that's pointless.  You will never win.  They will never see reason.  All you can do is plant the seed of reason, grease those wheels in the hopes that one day they will begin turning again and the ability to think critically and rationally will return, the long disused parts of the brain firing up once again.

You're never going to win the argument.  Neither are they.  The ONLY thing you can do is plant a seed; TRY to get them to understand your position, even if they don't accept it; give them a new way to think.  If you're lucky they will start using that new way of thinking to try to improve their argument and slowly come to the realization that their argument is stupid.  This is what I hope for most of the time.  Once they begin to annoy me, however, THAT is when I start making the absolute claim that I know will piss them off.

[trdsf]

Certainly understandable.  I will help a little by quoting only the parts from you I am responding to and try not to respond to every little thing.
Absolutely you are under no obligation to accept the wild claim out of the blue that some particular deity exists.  And so long as you don't make the counter-claim that said deity doesn't exist the theist starts the conversation on the offensive, having to provide evidence which doesn't exist for a claim which is clearly false.  But we can't prove it's false.  In my early days as an atheist I tried many times to logic God away.  It was my fellow atheists who pointed out that I had not accomplished it and could not.  I can claim fairies don't exist with impunity only because I am unlikely to be talking to a person who actually believes in fairies when I make that claim.  They are likely to agree with me, not call me on it and demand I prove it.  But Christians, especially, like to ask the impossible.  How many times have we heard the claim that because science doesn't know X that proves God is real, where X is some thing beyond our current technological ability to know?  Asking that we do something they know to be impossible is a favorite go-to for rabid theists who love to argue.  Of course any argument style is going to fail when dealing with unreasonable people, but making a claim opposite theirs only gives even the more reasonable ammunition.  To the theist, "Prove God doesn't exist" is a perfectly reasonable request.  Critical thought, remember, is not their strong suit.  So I ask again, what would be the purpose of stating absolutely, "There are no gods"?  So far as I can see, only to take a jab.

I don't consider it to be taking a jab as such; certainly no more so than their assertion that there 'definitely' is one.  I think it's more intellectually honest to say "Based on the available evidence, there's none to indicate there is any god and claims that there is need to be proven" than "Based on the complete lack of evidence, there is one and you can't prove there isn't".

Whether or not the position is contentious and how it's responded to by those who disagree has no bearing on whether or not it's a proper -- that is to say, evidence-based with the burden of proof pointing in the right direction -- assertion to make.

In full, the assertion I would make is this: "The universe is as we observe it and operates to laws, some of which we have discovered and/or approximated and some of which we're still figuring out, and quite probably some of which have not yet been encountered because we haven't been able to observe on a level detailed or extreme enough.  There are no rigorous, repeatable observations that require the presence of a supernatural entity to explain.  Such claims of the existence of a supernatural entity require evidence."  In short, it comes down to 'the universe is what it is', although that functionally subsumes 'there are no gods' since the universe is considered as a basically self-contained object.

Frigging absolutely true!  Their claim NEVER comes with "but I may be wrong"!  And that is the very reason they have trouble automatically understanding that this is part of every scientific claim.  When they read about evolution they believe that science is making an absolute claim that this IS how it happened and you cannot question it!  In fact, Mr. Buttfuck Stein makes that assertion repeatedly in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  He asserts that science is hostile to intelligent design, not because it is a stupid pseudoscience which is significantly responsible for the dumbing down of America and the birth of a frightening mistrust and rejection of many fields of science which has reached even medical science in the form of rejection of inoculations for our very children, but because there is some secret conspiracy among evil sciences to force people to accept evolution as some absolute truth.

I think this is a part of the scientific method that can be explained, and should be.  Absolutes are for mathematics; science is about looking for the places where you don't know for sure what's going to happen, not just stopping when you're happy with the result (a good definition of the religious position, I think).

And it's not just the IDiots and other creationists.  I have as little sympathy for opposition to the Mauna Kea observatories on the basis that it's "sacred" ground, or for those that want the Kennewick Man handed over to tribal authorities for a proper burial, rather than researched so we can actually learn something about paleo-America.

It is for this very reason that we need to separate ourselves from this argument style.  I think it is very important the the public actually learn what a theory is and what it means; that it in no way says, "This IS how it is, THE END, FUCKERS!"  Science has the intellectual high ground by a long shot.  It is "unfounded claim asserted as absolute truth which cannot be questioned" verses "evidence based explanation open for debate always and forever".  I think it's important to always, always stress that difference as it is a very important difference.  One is open minded, the other is stupid.

I think one can stake out a position and remain open minded.  I mean, show me some evidence, sure, but until then, there isn't a reason (literally or figuratively) to abandon my position.  I do admit that it could happen, although I am doubtful of the odds of it happening.

This evolution of belief is one of the things that made me give up looking into the supernatural altogether.  I had a "ghost hunter" explain to me what ectoplasm was and how they had hoped to get a sample.  I looked it up and found that what it is today is not what it always was.  What it was originally was something you could easily get a sample of.  Houdini was famous for outing mediums and their tricks and it wasn't long before they were all uncovered as frauds or stopped putting on their shows so publicly.  After this time ectoplasm went from being a mysterious substance which emanated from the bodies of mediums in physical from to something more the consistence of spider webs which you could "feel" as you passed through them, but always seemed to mysteriously evade the Petri dish.

As far as I'm concerned if the nature of a thing evolves over time that is pretty solid evidence that thing simply never existed.

I think fundamentally we agree on pretty much every point with the single exception of whether it is proper to say, "There are no gods" or "There is no <particular deity>".  And I'm half with you on that, too.  There are no deities.  I am as certain of that as one can be.  However, one cannot be 100% certain ever as our knowledge is limited.  Here I can make that absolute claim and nobody will bat an eye.  You all understand that I am not claiming to have proof that this is an absolute certainty which is unquestionable.  But the mind of a theist is a broken, barely functional thing incapable of even processing the idea that an absolute claim cannot be made.  They live in a black and white world where there are only two possible answers to the question of deities and magic, yes it's real or no it's not real.  To them, "I don't know" or "We can't know" is a division by zero.  It's the answer of a stupid person.  It's an admission that we are not as smart as them because we have no answer and they do.  That is why I think it is important to ALWAYS say, "We can't know" and explain why.  We need to grease the rusty wheels of their brains in the hopes of getting them turning again.  Because simply having the argument, that's pointless.  You will never win.  They will never see reason.  All you can do is plant the seed of reason, grease those wheels in the hopes that one day they will begin turning again and the ability to think critically and rationally will return, the long disused parts of the brain firing up once again.

You're never going to win the argument.  Neither are they.  The ONLY thing you can do is plant a seed; TRY to get them to understand your position, even if they don't accept it; give them a new way to think.  If you're lucky they will start using that new way of thinking to try to improve their argument and slowly come to the realization that their argument is stupid.  This is what I hope for most of the time.  Once they begin to annoy me, however, THAT is when I start making the absolute claim that I know will piss them off.

(emphasis added)
I think that's a useful place from which to teach what it means to 'know' something, in a scientific context, that it's always pending further observations and subject to scrutiny -- but that it is also a legitimate assertion to be made based on the available evidence.  I 'know' gravity is the warping of space (I'm not so convinced about the exchange of gravitons), but it might not be, it may need to be quantized or it may never be fully unified with the strong-electro-weak force, and that's why we do research.  It might prove to be a mechanism we don't suspect yet.

And still, even not knowing for certain how it works, I do know that it works and how it affects me.  I know that if I step out of my bedroom window, about one second later I will be in a heap on the lawn arriving with an approximate force of one kilonewton, and probably not enjoying the situation.  And no matter what I might believe about antigravity and how much I believe it, that will have considerably less impact than my body would on the grass.

I've also found that if you're careful, you can usually lead a theist somewhere they really didn't expect to be and they will walk away with at least part of their mind lit up.  When I used to hang out with the gamers at the University of Toledo, there was an active contingent of the Campus Crusaders that eventually learned to leave me alone after I logic-chopped one into admitting that referring to god strictly as 'he' was imposing a human limitation on that which was not to be limited by humans, and that 'she', 'it' and 'they' were necessarily equally acceptable (full disclosure: I was still an active Wiccan at that time).  But even though that encounter was theist meeting theist, I did nudge him towards thinking in a less restricted manner.  What it meant to him long-term, I have no idea.

I was just pleased I was avoided by the Crusaders after that.  :)

[widdershins]

I don't consider it to be taking a jab as such; certainly no more so than their assertion that there 'definitely' is one.  I think it's more intellectually honest to say "Based on the available evidence, there's none to indicate there is any god and claims that there is need to be proven" than "Based on the complete lack of evidence, there is one and you can't prove there isn't".

I don't know if you've ever been religious, but I was a fundamentalist Pentecostal zealot at one time.  When they make the claim that it is definitely true, they are not taking a jab at you.  They are trying to assure themselves.  Jesus is coming back at any second now and if your soul isn't absolutely immaculate when he does, you burn for all eternity.  If Jesus had come back at the moment I doubted by soul would have been lost for all eternity.  There is no room for doubt.  There is no room for critical thinking.  Eternity is at stake.  Yes, I did get angry at people who didn't agree with me, but not because they didn't agree with me.  It was because that what they said could cause doubt and, being the lowly scum I was, it would serve me right to be caught sinning just as Jesus came back because I was such a worthless piece of shit who sinned all the time.  Most of the time I didn't consider myself worthy of Heaven anyway.  Who the hell can live up to the standards of perfection?  So no, it's not a jab, it's a knee-jerk reflex.  At least from my experience.

And there is a huge difference between, "Based on the available evidence..." and "There is no God".  I don't have a problem with the statement if you take the extra time to explain that you are not stating an absolute certainty but rather stating that this is what the evidence says.  There is no reason whatsoever to shield the believer from the reality that the only reason they believe is because someone told them they should.

Whether or not the position is contentious and how it's responded to by those who disagree has no bearing on whether or not it's a proper -- that is to say, evidence-based with the burden of proof pointing in the right direction -- assertion to make.

In full, the assertion I would make is this: "The universe is as we observe it and operates to laws, some of which we have discovered and/or approximated and some of which we're still figuring out, and quite probably some of which have not yet been encountered because we haven't been able to observe on a level detailed or extreme enough.  There are no rigorous, repeatable observations that require the presence of a supernatural entity to explain.  Such claims of the existence of a supernatural entity require evidence."  In short, it comes down to 'the universe is what it is', although that functionally subsumes 'there are no gods' since the universe is considered as a basically self-contained object.
I think this is a part of the scientific method that can be explained, and should be.  Absolutes are for mathematics; science is about looking for the places where you don't know for sure what's going to happen, not just stopping when you're happy with the result (a good definition of the religious position, I think).

Beautifully said.

And it's not just the IDiots and other creationists.  I have as little sympathy for opposition to the Mauna Kea observatories on the basis that it's "sacred" ground, or for those that want the Kennewick Man handed over to tribal authorities for a proper burial, rather than researched so we can actually learn something about paleo-America.
I think one can stake out a position and remain open minded.  I mean, show me some evidence, sure, but until then, there isn't a reason (literally or figuratively) to abandon my position.  I do admit that it could happen, although I am doubtful of the odds of it happening.
(emphasis added)
I think that's a useful place from which to teach what it means to 'know' something, in a scientific context, that it's always pending further observations and subject to scrutiny -- but that it is also a legitimate assertion to be made based on the available evidence.  I 'know' gravity is the warping of space (I'm not so convinced about the exchange of gravitons), but it might not be, it may need to be quantized or it may never be fully unified with the strong-electro-weak force, and that's why we do research.  It might prove to be a mechanism we don't suspect yet.

Gravity doesn't exist.  We'll have a beer some time and I'll tell you all about the fanciful ideas of this armchair physicist.  If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, at least, it's really quite fascinating.  If you're a physicist, however, it's probably more along the "laughable" line.

And still, even not knowing for certain how it works, I do know that it works and how it affects me.  I know that if I step out of my bedroom window, about one second later I will be in a heap on the lawn arriving with an approximate force of one kilonewton, and probably not enjoying the situation.  And no matter what I might believe about antigravity and how much I believe it, that will have considerably less impact than my body would on the grass.

I've also found that if you're careful, you can usually lead a theist somewhere they really didn't expect to be and they will walk away with at least part of their mind lit up.  When I used to hang out with the gamers at the University of Toledo, there was an active contingent of the Campus Crusaders that eventually learned to leave me alone after I logic-chopped one into admitting that referring to god strictly as 'he' was imposing a human limitation on that which was not to be limited by humans, and that 'she', 'it' and 'they' were necessarily equally acceptable (full disclosure: I was still an active Wiccan at that time).  But even though that encounter was theist meeting theist, I did nudge him towards thinking in a less restricted manner.  What it meant to him long-term, I have no idea.

I was just pleased I was avoided by the Crusaders after that.  :)

Knowledge trumps assumption every time.  I do not disagree.  I would rather actually know that I don't know something than to believe that I know something which is wrong.

[trdsf]

I don't know if you've ever been religious, but I was a fundamentalist Pentecostal zealot at one time.  When they make the claim that it is definitely true, they are not taking a jab at you.  They are trying to assure themselves.  Jesus is coming back at any second now and if your soul isn't absolutely immaculate when he does, you burn for all eternity.  If Jesus had come back at the moment I doubted by soul would have been lost for all eternity.  There is no room for doubt.  There is no room for critical thinking.  Eternity is at stake.  Yes, I did get angry at people who didn't agree with me, but not because they didn't agree with me.  It was because that what they said could cause doubt and, being the lowly scum I was, it would serve me right to be caught sinning just as Jesus came back because I was such a worthless piece of shit who sinned all the time.  Most of the time I didn't consider myself worthy of Heaven anyway.  Who the hell can live up to the standards of perfection?  So no, it's not a jab, it's a knee-jerk reflex.  At least from my experience.

Oh, I was the devoutest little Catholic until I was about 16, altar boy, lector, even toyed with the idea of going to seminary rather than regular high school, and still considered myself nominally Catholic until I was 18 or 19.  And after my 'religious experience' that made a Wiccan out of me, I was quite the devout polytheist for a good twenty years or thereabouts.

But even in both those forms, I was always aware that my 'knowledge' of the existence of the divine was not the same as my knowledge of what happens when you drop two different weights from a height.  I was aware that I did not know, I only believed, and even though I believed a whole lot, to the point where I was convinced of the truth of it, I knew it was not something that could be independently demonstrated.  I actually did take care to refer to my own religious experiences as not evidentiary to anyone but myself, since they were not shared experiences with anyone else and could not be attested to independently.  And yes, I considered this a virtue, to have had the experience but not demand others just take my word for it -- though I did expect that they would respect my own choice to accept those experiences as meaningful to myself.

So I was comfortable in my lack of absolute knowledge.  I suppose I was pre-primed to eventually move to a rationalist view of reality, on that basis.

And there is a huge difference between, "Based on the available evidence..." and "There is no God".  I don't have a problem with the statement if you take the extra time to explain that you are not stating an absolute certainty but rather stating that this is what the evidence says.  There is no reason whatsoever to shield the believer from the reality that the only reason they believe is because someone told them they should.

And I don't mind taking the extra time, if they're at least willing to hear me out.  Alas, so few are.

Knowledge trumps assumption every time.  I do not disagree.  I would rather actually know that I don't know something than to believe that I know something which is wrong.

Hear hear.

[widdershins]

Oh, I was the devoutest little Catholic until I was about 16, altar boy, lector, even toyed with the idea of going to seminary rather than regular high school, and still considered myself nominally Catholic until I was 18 or 19.  And after my 'religious experience' that made a Wiccan out of me, I was quite the devout polytheist for a good twenty years or thereabouts.

But even in both those forms, I was always aware that my 'knowledge' of the existence of the divine was not the same as my knowledge of what happens when you drop two different weights from a height.  I was aware that I did not know, I only believed, and even though I believed a whole lot, to the point where I was convinced of the truth of it, I knew it was not something that could be independently demonstrated.  I actually did take care to refer to my own religious experiences as not evidentiary to anyone but myself, since they were not shared experiences with anyone else and could not be attested to independently.  And yes, I considered this a virtue, to have had the experience but not demand others just take my word for it -- though I did expect that they would respect my own choice to accept those experiences as meaningful to myself.

So I was comfortable in my lack of absolute knowledge.  I suppose I was pre-primed to eventually move to a rationalist view of reality, on that basis.
And I don't mind taking the extra time, if they're at least willing to hear me out.  Alas, so few are.
Hear hear.

And with that our differences are reconciled, not that they were extreme to begin with.  Thank you for a most enlightening and enjoyable conversation.

[trdsf]

And with that our differences are reconciled, not that they were extreme to begin with.  Thank you for a most enlightening and enjoyable conversation.

And you!  More or less exactly what I was hoping for.  :)