@electroncapture

"I'm not generalizing here but it seems to me that a lot of atheists are adamant that God doesn't exist.'

Well, yair, I think that counts as an unfounded generalisation , most certainly among members here. Be interested in learning the basis for your misunderstanding .

Most atheists I've run across share my position: I do not believe in gods because of a lack of proof, but I do not claim to know. That makes me an agnostic atheist. This is an important distinction. I make no claims, so do not attract the burden of proof. That honour belongs to those who claim'"there is a god" or "I believe there is a god" Or indeed to the atheist who claims "there is no god"or I believe there is no god" :

"Why is it then that atheists shun any religion that they come upon"

I don't actively shun religion so much as ignore them. As far as I can tell, every religion is based on one basic, unfounded and unfalsifiable claim ;the existence of a god or gods.

There are some 30 THOUSAND religions, and Hinduism alone has 15 MILLION gods. In reality, I simply disbelieve in one more more god than you.

But, I must be honest ;in my opinion, organised religions are the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on the human race, and I despise them. The religion we call christianity is simply one of the last in a long line of frauds , tracing back to the Egyptian priests of Amun Ra 5000 years ago and the shamans of prehistory.

I do NOT despise spiritual beliefs per se. Some kind of spiritual beliefs are universal. It is my opinion that such beliefs meet some very important human needs.The academic model for my opinion is called structural functionalism. There are other models. Consequently I make no truth claims but simply explain my position.

My world view is confirmed once again. Yet another theist apologist who seems to think that ignorance and bluster trumps actually doing any background reading of even a few posts on our forum. It's both reassuring and tedious.

Thought for today: "Religion: Man's attempt to communicate with the weather" (Graffito, Cambridge England, 2000)

@op:
The reason why I personally dont believe in a god, is because there has not been sufficient evidence presented to support the claim that a god exists. I am not saying that it is not possible for a deity of some sort to exist, however I find no reason to believe in one without evidence to support it.

Now if a plausible scientific theory is ever postulated that stands up to scrutiny that suggests that a god is more likely than not, I may be prepared to change my mind if enough evidence & data supports the theory.

However even if the evidence pointed to a god being more likely than not, you still then have to be able to prove that the particular god of the particular religion that you believe in, is the same god that the evidence points to.

Most theists not only claim that a god exists, they also claim that the god they believe in, is the god that matches their particular religion. Even if you could prove a god, it isn't going to prove your religion. You would still have muslims claiming the god is allah, jews claiming the god is yaweh, & christians claiming the god is a trinity of yaweh, jesus & the holy spirit, along with competing claims from all the other religions. You will still be no closer to proving that the particular religion that you believe in, is the correct religion.

@electroncapture: The seven point scale is just wrong. Dawkins either does not or did not have a clear distinction between agnosticism and atheism when he wrote the scale. (You can safely ignore Dawkins' silliness.)

RE: Why is it then that atheists shun any religion that they come upon and appear to be absolutely certain that there is no God?

You are confused. Atheists are not the acting agents on religion. Religions are the acting agents on Atheists. Religions tell the atheists, you must behave this way, you must believe as we believe, there is a supernatural world, our gods are real, etc..... Atheism is a REACTION to the false claims made by religions. Atheists do not shun religion. They listen to the religious claims and simply call "BULLSHIT." You are putting the active agent in the wrong place.

Atheists, you know, the non-believers, the heathen, the sinners, those bound for hell, the apostates, the godless, the profane, the immoral without god, those worthy of eternal damnation, the irreligious, those in need of salvation, the skeptics, infidel, agnostics and atheists. WHY IN THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT RESPOND NEGATIVELY TO YOUR FUCKING BULLSHIT!

PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS OR GO THE FUCK AWAY!

@electroncapture:

RE: "I'm not generalizing here."
1. Why do atheists feel that there is no God?
2. "a lot of atheists are adamant that God doesn't exist."
3. "it seems to me that a lot of the more scientific atheists are around about a
6.5."
4. Why is it then that atheists shun any religion that they come upon and
appear to be absolutely certain that there is no God?

REMEMBER "NOT GENERALIZING!" JUST WRITING LIKE A FUCKING IDIOT!

I'm not generalizing here

O RLY?

but it seems to me that a lot of atheists are adamant that God doesn't exist.

What is this, other than a generalisation of the very sort you asserted above you were purportedly avoiding?

I've looked at things such as the 7-point scale and it seems to me that a lot of the more scientific atheists are around about a 6.5.
Why is it then that atheists shun any religion that they come upon and appear to be absolutely certain that there is no God?

Oh dear. Congratulations upon missing the point by several light years. I'll introduce you to the elementary concepts step by step, as it's manifestly obvious you need the requisite education.

Step one. Religions are based upon the treatment of unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact. Said process not only being fatuous, but a direct violation of the proper rules of discourse (for an introduction thereto, see this post of mine). On this basis alone, religions are discardable.

Step two. No one here who treats the subject matter seriously, and with due attention to rigour, rejects out of hand the idea that some sort of god type entity might exist. However, we treat the assertion that such an entity exists, as safely discardable for the present as long as there is no evidence for such an entity. There is a subtle difference here between summary dismissal, and merely treating a statement as safely discardable for the present. The latter approach, in short, can be summarised as "we don't think this statement is true at the moment, but we'll revise this view the moment relevant data tells us to". That's the essential difference.

As a corollary, those of us who treat the matter with care and diligence, are the ones here who are genuinely open minded. The moment new data tells us that we need to rethink a given postulate arrives, we duly rethink that postulate. On the other hand, mythology fanboys of various species, are on public record as asserting that no amount of data will sway them from their mythology fanboyism. Which provides another cogent reason for treating religion with deep suspicion.

That past post of mine I linked to above, also provides a neat exposition of my own approach to this matter. Which consists of "I don't know if a god type entity in the most general sense exists, but I do know that the cartoon candidates for the role, asserted to be thus in mythologies, can be ruled out". These can be ruled out because they are replete with internal contradiction, paradox and absurdity, and are defined to be thus in the requisite mythologies. Indeed, I've also written a fair amount here on the epistemological unreliability of the whole genre labelled "mythology", which at bottom consists of the presentation of laundry lists of unsupported blind assertions, frequently using obscurantist prose, with the intent that said laundry lists of assertions be treated uncritically as fact, regardless of any observational data pointing in the opposite direction. Furthermore, I've noted that I and others here, if we possessed the gifts of intellect and action to occupy the "god role", would act substantively differently than the asserted cartoon gods of mythologies. One major departure being, that we wouldn't use mythology as a vehicle for any "message" we had, for any intelligent life forms that put in an appearance somewhere in the universe, and we'd discard mythology as a tool for dissemination of genuine knowledge precisely because of its unreliability.

You'll also discover, if you read that linked post of mine, that I'm on public record here (and elsewhere for that matter) as welcoming evidence for any genuine god type entity that does happen to exist, because that evidence will toss all of our pre-scientific mythologies into the bin.

Oh, and finally, all of the above has nothing to do with "feeling", but instead is the product of thinking, a process that we see precious little of from mythology fanboys.

@Cognostic
"@electroncapture: The seven point scale is just wrong. Dawkins either does not or did not have a clear distinction between agnosticism and atheism when he wrote the scale. (You can safely ignore Dawkins' silliness.)"

Just so.

Why is that people continue to insist Richard Dawkins is a philosopher or that he in any way is a spokesperson for atheists?.

This atheist has always seen him as a polemicist, albeit perhaps not as bigoted as his late compatriot Chris Hitchens.

I've gathered that he is also a competent evolutionary biologist, although not a leader in his field as has been claimed. I DID enjoy seeing him demolish some irreducible complexity nitwit with a lucid explanation of the evolution of the human eye. (so far)

@electronrature"

----- and I call that cause God"

Well no actually. That claim is based on one of the many common logical fallacies about god. It's called "the god of the gaps"

We may not claim ''we don't know, therefore god,/aliens/fairies " about anything.

There is another flaw in your reasoning

" I think it's fair to say there must have been a cause for this to happen"

Well no ,it is neither fair nor reasonable. That is an unfounded assumption . We do NOT know for a fact that there must be a cause for everything. As far as I know, It's usually accepted by physicists for the sake of argument, but not as established fact.

I hope you can forgive other members for being rude to you. Unfortunately ,they lack my phlegmatic disposition . That means they become quite frustrated when a person posts the same quite silly arguments each of us here has seen ad nauseum . (look it up)

To finish .It is my opinion that god cannot be argued into or out of existence. That is because claims about the existence of god are as metaphysical claims tend to be, unfalsifiable. That means that {so far} not one person in recorded history has managed to prove or disprove the claim. THAT is why I am an atheist .There is no proof for the existence of god(s) .None.

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0_0)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Using the notion that it is better to light a single candle than to curse the dark, some information about "god of the gaps"

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term "gaps" was initially used by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1][2]

The full Wikipedia article is strongly recommended.