BTW, if you study the Humanist Manifesto, you will find that the Religious Humanists have been involved in all 3 of them (excluding the 2000, which is exclusively Secular). Religious Humanists ministers signed all 3 of them and while they are non-theists they still have cultural ties and what have you to religion, yet they are atheists.

Why is it we should not say “There is no God”?

If you think there is no God, then you are going to end up having to prove it, which is not only going to be near impossible, but also completely unnecessary. If you merely reject the claims about there being a God, no burden of proof falls on you in the first place.

When I see no evidence of food in my fridge (unfortunately), I often remark, “There is no food.” Should I not say this for some reason?

Comparing the existence truth value of a discrete object in a known space to god claims is ridiculously inapt. God claims are “cleverly” different from situations like the one you describe: that doesn’t, as theists think, make them stronger, but it does mean that you have to deal with them in a different way.

Is it because I cannot prove a negative?

If you couldn’t prove a negative, then you couldn’t prove that you couldn’t.

Well, if you want to get technical, you can’t prove a positive, either–so long as you are utilizing empirical facts as your premises, there is always room for doubt.

So… isn’t empiricism great? Why just throw it out the window then?

Or is it because this is somehow offensive to people who really, really want there to be food in there? I’m confused.

No, it’s because of what’s intellectually supportable, and what’s overreaching. God claims aren’t like refrigerator claims: they are ultimately more like brain in jar claims. Their absurdity is in their untestability and, ironically, in their lack of imagination.

It’s not about convincing anyone, it’s a way of becoming visible.

I’m already plenty visible. And I don’t need to make myself into a liar to remain so. In my case, that’s what I would be if I ran around yelling that there is no God. That’s intellectually sloppy and misleading.

It’s also a way of insulating yourselves by spending most of your time surrounded by those who agree with you.

That might make for good therapy, but it’s not very healthy in the long run.

But still, the amount of acceptance they have gained in the last ten years is impressive, and they didn’t do it by being shy, self-effacing, and apologetic.

Again, this is a complete false dilemma. Nothing about being blunt and outspoken and provocative requires one to claims things that aren’t so.

Here’s the problem with Greg’s stance–he wants to create a “union” between theists and nontheists, but he is apparently ignorant to the cause of the schism. It makes absolutely no sense to identify as an atheist if one is not making a stand against a particular brand of theism. This is why, obviousl, there are no people identifying themselves as “a-unicornists”. Frankly, it isn’t necessary, because people who DO believe in unicorns are not a threat to the way of life of those who do not.

Atheism is ultimately a retaliation against various sorts of theism. Granted, there is a big distinction between a liberal christian and a fundamentalist–but the strongest weapon against fundamentalism is to simply show that their “God” most likely does not exist. The fact that this criticism also applies to religious moderates is a shame, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. In the end, what distinguishes moderates from fundamentalists is their moral sentiments, and it simply will not do to have atheists bickering over morality, which is a pretty huge leap away from the very issue that made us atheists in the first place–the lacking evidence of God’s existence! So let’s all stop arguing about which brand of religion is the most “evil” or “bad”. Something can be evil and true. We need to focus on the simple fact that it is NOT TRUE. Whether it is good or bad hardly matters after that.

When I see no evidence of food in my fridge (unfortunately), I often remark, “There is no food.” Should I not say this for some reason? Is it because I cannot prove a negative? Well, if you want to get technical, you can’t prove a positive, either–so long as you are utilizing empirical facts as your premises, there is always room for doubt. Or is it because this is somehow offensive to people who really, really want there to be food in there? I’m confused.

While it is important to address the misconceptions of Creationism, for example, it is key to express where you intend to take the world. If you don’t know, then you must think and venture ideas.

Here’s a question: are atheists/agnostics necessarily humanists?