One more thing. What is your agenda ? Is it your hope to plant doubt as to the non-existence of God into the minds of people who are members of an atheist coalition ? Did you mark yourself as a nontheist just to get into this group ? I have an agenda, and I'll tell you what it is. To help rid the world of all God belief, because it is dangerous and leads to extremism. When believers get angry they bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion providers. When an atheist gets angry they write books and blogs and join groups like Atheist Nexus.
My agenda is to learn by discussing difficult issues with others of similar intellectual capability. I had hoped that this forum would provide such challenge. I'll compose a new topic to explain all this and my departure.
I have no desire to discuss at length the probable existence of a god because it's so extremely unlikely that it's a waste of my time. Time that I could be using in more enjoyable and profitable pursuits. It may also give hope to the religious person that reads it, and be instrumental in continuing his delusions.
I myself prefer to view reality through the lens of rationalism.
How long must you peer through the "lens of rationalism" before you except the reality that there is no evidence - zero - nada for the existence of an entity that functions outside of the laws of physics and influences human development. Does your "lens" consider the folly of human societies operating on the unfounded belief that a magic guy in the sky plays a tangible role in human affairs?
One plus one equals two ... or 10Base2 if you want to get fussy. Ohm's Law is pretty reliable, too, as it comes to absolutes; the relationship between current, voltage and resistance seems pretty stable as well. There are other certainties which could be cited, but I think the point is made here.
But then, I'm a pragmatist. I don't give much of a rip about philosophy. I care about what works, in my own service and in the service of those I serve. The circuits I troubleshoot and teach others to understand have rules which govern their behavior, and if those circuits don't work as advertised, it's because something has gone wrong, something which can be traced and identified and corrected (presuming you have the parts).
Maybe that's not "absolute" as you define it, but it's close enough for me.
Yes, mathematical theorems ARE provable. And yes, there really is such a thing as "confident enough to act on". I am, for all practical purposes, confident in the nonexistence of any deity. My point is pretty picayune: that I am not omniscient nor possessed of perfect knowledge.
You do not have to know that there is no God to be certain that there is no God. The word certain simply means free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure. I can say with complete confidence that, to my own satisfaction, I am one million percent certain that there is no God or gods whatsoever. I am as certain that there are no God(s) as I am certain that there are fish in the sea and birds in the air. I am free from the slightest doubt as to the non-existence of God or gods.
OK, your knowledge of the universe is perfect, and you are omniscient. I do not consider myself so elevated.
I'm a strong atheist and a strong anti-theist.
I'm in total agreement with Sentient Biped: "The harm of religion in the modern world is inexcusable."
I'm in the strong Atheist crowd. I would put the probability of a deity at a quintillion to one against, so that puts me extremely close to a 7 on the Dawkins' scale.
The comparison I like is that the odds of a deity existing is about the same as the odds of your refrigerator coming to life and flying around the kitchen at night while you're asleep.
I'm also strongly anti-theist.
I think I would fall under the category of strong atheist (a 7 on the Dawkins scale). But, I can't discount that the universe that we can perceive might have been the result of a particle experiment done in a universe that is scaled analogous to the subatomic scale compared to us. It may be possible to to setup parameters for how a new universe operates. There is just too much that we don't know about our universe at present to really answer the question of our universe's beginning. As we develop more mathematics, we have a richer language to describe our universe. But every description will always fall short of actually holding or experiencing the object. From an information perspective, I don't think there can be an omniscient or omnipotent being that is contained within the framework of where its power resides. It would always be subject to natural laws outside of its control, and thus, it can not be a god.
I am definitely a strong atheist and will leave it at that.