@TheMiddleWay Please tell me how we prove non-existence. NOTE: PROVE, not demonstrate.
False equivalency. Atomic theory developed over a great deal of time and by a great deal of observation and theorizing, but NOT over thousands of years. Claims of God and gods have existed for as long as humans have had speech but NO valid evidence has been presented in all that time. Furthermore, there is NO valid evidence of ANYTHING supernatural, let alone some supreme being. If you're going to make comparisons, make valid ones. So yes, thousands of years of claims with zero evidence to support them is sufficient for reasonable minds to make the judgement that the claim is false.

@TheMiddleWay Oh, and there was abundant evidence of atoms, we just weren't able to correctly interpret it because we lacked the observational abilities and the rest of the knowledge base to adequately develop and test the needed hypotheses. We had to be able to say 'I don't know' but be willing to keep trying, not just give up and say 'God' for every explanation.

@TheMiddleWay You and I are absolutely on the same page,

@TheMiddleWay
Making a coin disappear in a magic trick proves nothing save you can make a coin seem to vanish. As for the dodo, they did exist and you have evidence to support that. You've demonstrated that they did exist at one time. Show me a skeleton of any god or gods. As for Aether, you demonstrated that your hypothesis was incorrect. Your comment about saying 'atoms didn't exist' just because we didn't understand is pure sophistry. If I asked you what is the tallest mountain on the land masses of earth before we discovered Mount Everest, the answer would still be Mount Everest, even if we did not know it at the time.

"Everything that is natural today was supernatural at some point. To believe otherwise is to believe that science explains everything now and in the future and that is simply not true."

Totally incorrect. You cannot name one thing that has been explained by anything supernatural. Just because we don't understand it yet does not put it out of the realm of nature, since it can be observed and studied. Supernatural events are not subject to study, are not repeatable, and have no demonstrable evidence of veracity. The essence of science is to observe, hypothesize, test, and adjust hypothesis to fit the facts. Science says 'I don't know everything but I'll keep working to understand more.'

"We had to be able to say 'I don't know' but be willing to keep trying, not just give up and say 'God' for every explanation."
I agree. But as we don't make god for every explanation because we don't know, likewise we cannot dismiss god from some explanations exactly because we don't know.

Yes, we can, because you cannot define, observe, test and potentially falsify the claim of the existence of any god. Again, in science a hypothesis must be potentially falsifiable and be repeatable to be considered valid.

@TheMiddleWay
"Making a coin disappear in a magic trick proves nothing save you can make a coin seem to vanish. "
Even with a magic trick the coin is not in your hand. Hence the non-existence of the coin in your hand is easily proven by simply opening up and showing your hands.

Again, you've made the coin seem to disappear. It could be in your pocket or any number of places. You've proven nothing with this slight of hand. You seem to have no concept of evidence or logic.

"As for the dodo, they did exist and you have evidence to support that. You've demonstrated that they did exist at one time. Show me a skeleton of any god or gods. "
Proving the non-existence of god(s) is problematic for the reason you mention: we've no fossils or bones of them. But then I would remind you that there must be thousands if not millions of extinct creatures for which we have no bones or fossils yet existed. Hence, we can't prove non-existence of god(s) by this procedure but my point wasn't that we could... merely that proving the non-existence of something is possible, contrary to your initial statement that it's impossible.

Since there has NEVER been any evidence of gods and none has cropped up despite all the new ways we have to examine the universe, I will operate under the assumption that none exist unless new evidence is presented.

'As for Aether, you demonstrated that your hypothesis was incorrect."
That hypothesis being "the aether exists". Again, my point in these examples is not that they prove god(s) or can be used to prove/disprove god(s)... merely addressing that proving non-existence can be done and is done all the time in physics.

You comment is still false because you were trying to demonstrate your Aether existed but could not. Your hypothesis, founded in no facts, was invalid on its face. You've demonstrated nothing.

"Your comment about saying 'atoms didn't exist' just because we didn't understand is pure sophistry. If I asked you what is the tallest mountain on the land masses of earth before we discovered Mount Everest, the answer would still be Mount Everest, even if we did not know it at the time."
If I asked which gods exist, the answer would still be whatever gods exist even if we did not know it at the time. So if my statement about atoms is sophistry, then so to must any statement about god(s) for the same reason.

Again, no, because atoms do exist and have been demonstrated end even visualized by various means. There is still, despite all the protestations and legends and stories, not one iota of hard evidence of the existence of any god or gods.

"Just because we don't understand it yet does not put it out of the realm of nature, since it can be observed and studied."
That is exactly what supernatural means: to be outside the realm of current scientific understanding. The fact that it can be observed and studied is irrelevant if said observation and study puts it beyond the realm of current scientific understanding. For example, the currently accelerating expansion of the universe is supernatural: it is currently outside the realm of scientific understanding. Doesn't need to remain in that realm but until we have a viable, proven mechanism to explain it, there is remain.

You fail to grasp the point. We can observe the expansion of the universe, study it, hypothesize about it. There is NOTHING to observe about the supernatural as it is not part of the natural order. It obeys no laws, has no consistent parameters, and cannot be reliably reproduced in any shape, way, form or fashion. They are totally different matters that you are conflating. We will not agree here since you seem set on ignoring these differences so I bid you good day, sir.

Dawkins is a scientist and they tend to quantify as many things as they can. I disagree that he is "self-appointed". He is a philosopher (one of the four horsemen) and has written numerous books. He is a master in his fields of biology, evolution, and atheist/religious philosophy. He sounds arrogant at times but actually has a great deal of humility. Just saying.

@Grecio I am aware of his credentials and am in no way demeaning his scientific knowledge and intellect, to which I give due deference. I do think however, that his manner can sometimes be quite evangelical in his “preaching” against religion. I regard him as a militant atheist, one who almost mirrors the religious in their fervour, and it’s not the type of atheism which I was raised on. I beg to differ regarding the humility, I believe you are mistaking his extremely polite manner for humility, whereas In fact that politeness masks his overweening self belief. I believe he is sometimes polite to the point of actually verging on being patronising in his manner. Being British I have had the advantage of seeing and listening to him for many years on TV and in print, from long before he became one of the so called Four Horsemen, and became an international icon of atheism.

I stop before calling religion evil but, it is CERTAINLY used for evil purposes.

@BirdMan1 It's done more evil than good, as far as I'm concerned.

But true...I guess that means some things can be stupid but true!

@Storm1752 No, it is not true, a) you don't need to and cannot prove a negative, B) if you do require proof for a negative then by default everything exists that has not been proven not to, so every god, every unicorn, every elf, pixie and any other bloody stupid thing you can think of.
What the fuck is happening to this site, these days I spend more time pointing out the obvious to new age bullshiters than I do to the religious.

Well, as a negative cannot be proven, yes.

@LenHazell53 lotta stupid out there, use short words & repeat as necessary.......pretend you are trying to tell drump something.

@LenHazell53 My dear, close friend, it IS true that science cannot prove god does not exist.
BUT science cannot prove god DOES exist, either.
I'm sure you didn't mean to imply all Agnostics are "New Age bullshitters," right? RIGHT?
I didn't think so, because otherwise I'd have to lump you together with all the other Atheists on here, who think just that: all New Age thinkers, to name one maligned group, are bullshitters. That there's only one way to deny the existence of Pink Unicorns and Purple Dragons...
Did you know most if not all New Agers are firmly in the no-Purple-Dragons camp?
It's true.
Help me out: to be 'okay,' should you have rejected not only the Abrahamic gods (and all other gods), and be left with NO beliefs whatsoever, or is it allowed to believe IN the right to think about the nature of existence AT ALL?
Or is the only acceptable attitude the whole thing is just one big colossal joke?
Just wondering.
Atheists aren't REALLY just a bunch of (figuratively speaking of course) old, depressed men telling the kids to stay off their lawn, are they?
I didn't think so.

@LenHazell53 Dude, please go easy on the name-calling. Just saying.

@TheMiddleWay "something won't move or act the way we predict." that is falsification of a hypothesis not proof of a negative.
Out side of quantum mechanics your other assertions are false as the negative is not proven true the assertion is proven false.
Saying I don't have enough money to purchase something is not proving a negative it is simply stating a fact.

"The default is the state of being unproven, not its state of existence."
THAT'S MY POINT
Jesus man at your level of education you should know these things.

@Grecio
Sorry but when someone takes out and uses a tired old chestnut like "You cannot prove god does not exist" that has been utterly and completely debunked and shown to be a farcical contention SO MANY TIMES that it is on a level with saying "If santa does not exist who feed the reindeer?" I'm gonna call it out as Stoopid!

@SanDiegoAirport - You are right - he does not like labels - yet he does not believe in any god or gods without evidence and he is the #1 skeptic and that is good enough for me...

Obviously you haven't read any of my posts!

Agreed. 7 levels isn't enough resolution. I can see him not picking the boundary to forestall the inevitable pedant complaints.
But 6 out of 7 is just a little over 85%. I'm much more atheist than that.

Not to butt in--I don't want to start another atheist-agnostic war here--but there is, it seems to me, the technical definition of atheism, and the common definition.

When you say it's a 'lack of belief,' that is not what most people think of (including me, an Agnosticist).

Rather to us it's someone who proactively BELIEVES 'god'--by that they mean a supreme being, not a 'prime cause,' or a 'univeral, collective unconsciousness,' or whatever--though many if not all atheists dismiss that, too) does NOT exist.

That is, it is not a LACK of belief, but rather active hostility to the very notion ANY kind of god is real---no matter HOW you define the word, and DESPITE the fact there is no evidence it doesn't exist. I'm talking about DIS-belief to the point of absolute certainty.
You may say, 'no, that's not what atheism is,' but so then explain to me what all these '7s' mean.
And explain to me, then, what really IS the difference between the two?
After all, if you admit a lack of knowledge you are also admitting a lack of belief. There doesn't seem to be any difference, and to me, as an Agnosticist, there isn't.

So in my opinion the real difference is, an atheist claims it as a SURETY there is no god, period.
If there is doubt (which there HAS to be if one is rational) he or she is agnostic.

In other words (and I'll wrap this up because I know in my heart there is no end to this argument), the only possible distinction between an atheist and an agnostic is null and void UNLESS the very definition of 'atheist' is flawed, not Dawkins' scale.
In other words (Really, I'm just finishing up) the common understanding of what 'atheism' is SHOULD be the working definition, and atheist should stop pretending to only "lack belief," but admit they DO believe, in the NON-existence of god.
PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong.

P.S. 99.9999% is the same as 100%.
P.S.S. I'm a 7 supreme-being-wise, too. That's NOT what I'm talking about, just in case you risk confusing me with a troll.

@Storm1752 There's always a tension between various "common" and "technical" definitions. At some point, whether I like it or not, if enough people subscribe to the common definition then the language has morphed (which it tends to do anyway) and my pedantic definition ceases to matter.

The reason I haven't let go of my definitions of agnosticism and atheism are strategic.

My definition of "agnostic" reflects what the originator of the term (Huxley) meant by it and I think that the more colloquial meaning of "I'm uncertain" rather than "I'm unable to stake a knowledge claim due to lack of evidence" has further morphed into "I'm open minded [and by implication, you're not]" or "I'm above the fray", which is inherently cowardly to me. These muddled definitions have also been misused by theists to avoid engaging in good faith with any actual argument. If they can portray agnostics as waffling or confused or misunderstanding -- basically, anything but making a reasonable point -- then they have sort of won by default.

My definition of "atheist" addresses a similar concern, the trope of the "arrogant atheist" who stakes a belief claim that isn't justified since god can't be disproven. Therefore my approach is not to claim god is disproven and in fact to acknowledge that he is non-falsifiable. In light of that however, the only intellectually consistent position is one where I don't profess any active belief OR unbelief.

Now ... all these things are equally true of the existence of ghosts or leprechauns or garden fairies or orbiting teapots or any number of other things and it's a perfectly reasonable semantic shortcut in almost any other context but god(s), to say "I don't believe in those things" and no one starts splitting hairs with you. This is probably because the stakes are much lower. Most people aren't that invested in, say, bigfoot, so we can talk about bigfoot in terms of whether we have any beliefs concerning bigfoot that make us act as if bigfoot is real, rather than splitting philosophical hairs. On the other hand if I act as if god isn't real, believers get so butthurt about it and their inability to convince me that they have to deflect into other realms. So they say I have a closed mind, I desire free reign to pillage and rape without consequence, I am angry, hateful and/or rebellious toward god / faith / Christians, I simply don't understand their arguments, etc. That is something they can handle, but what they can't handle is me not taking their faith seriously and dismissing it for considered reasons which they are then obliged to debate but have no convincing arguments or evidence to present.