In the OP’s universe, skeptic = strawman.
AKA apatheism.
Either God’s dead or my watch has stopped.
Nah, agnosticism is just a form of theistic special pleading. It treats the question of God’s existence as somehow different from any other question, requiring a different standard of proof. “You can’t be CERTAIN God doesn’t exist!” the agnostic claims. Well, yeah. I’m not CERTAIN that the sun rose this morning. Every bit of evidence I have suggests that it did, but there are many ways that evidence could be faked or misinterpreted. I believe that the sun rose because that that’s the best fit for the evidence I have, and I don’t believe that God exists for the same reason.
Should I go around worrying that maybe my provisional understanding of the sun is incorrect? Of course not. That would be silly. I just go with the best explanation and get on with life. So why make a big deal out of your similar lack of absolute proof for the non-existence of God? You should just go with the best explanation for your evidence and get on with your life.
In fact, agnosticism is profoundly unscientific because it rests upon faulty epistemological assumptions that science rejects. Scientists never PROVE anything. Instead they build explanatory models that correlate with the data at hand and modify those models if the data changes. Since there is no evidence for God, the only scientific answer is to say that God doesn’t exist until such evidence is forthcoming. The only reason agnosticism is a thing is so people can appear to be reasonable without giving up theism entirely.
science doesn’t prove stuff.
Drive by witnessing.
Nothing to see here.
“Nuh-uh!”
It’s not that I see no evidence in the sense that there are possible experiences that would count as evidence and I haven’t had those experiences.
Rather, it’s that I see no evidence in the sense that there is no possible experience that could count as evidence for the claim. Nothing that could happen could indicate in any way that an omnipotent creature created the universe and sends people to hell if they don’t believe in him.
For any possible experience, there would always be a more probable explanation than that.
I’m glad we finally have a thread about this subject. This should settle the issue once and for all.
Does this happen on religious forums? Are there people who visit there once to post ‘GOD DUZ NOT EXIST!!!1! YUR ALL STUPIDHEDS!!!1111!’?
It seems to me that very few people here are responding to what the OP actually said.
If I understand correctly, the OP’s main point is that atheism is not a scientific claim because it is not falsifiable.
[QUOTE=Rational Wiki]
Falsifiability is the ability of a theory—a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena—to be disproved by an experiment or observation. The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific.
[/QUOTE]
And I think he’s correct about that.
No such evidence is conceivable. A sufficiently powerful being could do those things, and still not be God.
Another problem is that there is no sufficiently precise definition of “God” to admit of scientific falsification even in theory.
Only if we’re defining atheism as an affirmative position that god/s do not exist.
If he has a starship, that’s pretty much proof he’s not.
What does God need with a starship, anyway? 
As an atheist, when you state that there is no God, you are making a claim. If you keep your mouth shut, you are not making a claim of any sort. But when you assert that there is no God, you are making a claim. A burden of proof is taken on if someone joins the discussion and doesn’t agree.
Suppose you believe that the moon is comprised of basalt rock. But you keep it to yourself. You do not take on a burden of proof. A man talking to a child says “the moon is made of green cheese”. You interrupt this traditional fairy tale and say “no, Mister Daddy, it is made of basalt.” Both you and Mister Daddy have the burden of proving to the little girl your assertion.
Whitehead and Russell tried to “prove” all the fundamental basics of mathematics, by, among other things, demonstrating that 1 + 1 = 2. They could not do so without making some basic assumptions and spent three volumes trying. In the absence of presumptions, you cannot prove anything and you carry the burden of proof. This is a basic issue of philosophy, and not just in the god/atheist debate. There must be some agreements to start. Atheism starts with an assumption about science. Fundamentalist theists won’t give you even that as a starting point. That is why if you get in a debate about atheism you want to do it with someone who does not believe the bible (or belief) is literally a true transcript. A non-fundamentalist believer (such as myself) accepts that the bible is a series of stories written down by people with varying levels of thoughtfulness and historicity and in some instances outright horrific acts. We ignore the parts that are obviously immoral (kill all the Amalakites) and focus on the parables that offer actual wisdom.
Damn good take down of the fence sitters except that from a philosophical point of view, you can’t prove it one way or another. “I don’t know” is the correct philosophical answer, and if agnostics join the “God exists”/“god doesn’t exist” debate they can correctly argue that they “do not know” and “can’t carry a burden of proof”.
[Beep] We’re sorry no one is here to answer your unsupported claim at this time. Please check back later, and one of our cadre of skeptics will be glad to debate with you. Have a nice day.[Beep]
I think an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god is disproven by the world’s problems. I don’t think it disproves a weaker, stupider, and/or douchier god though.
You can kinda see this in wretched hive of villainy that is the Religion And Spirituality section of Yahoo Answers.
As an atheist, I do not say “there is no god.” I say “I have seen no empirical support that persuades me of the existence of Osiris/Kdapt/Big Juju/YHWH/Finagle/Muad’dib.”
You’re right; anyone who says “there is no god” is making an affirmative claim. Few people in my experience do this.
.
But you can’t prove ANY general fact about the universe one way or another. “Proof” is a concept that only applies to self-contained formal systems. Using it to discuss our knowledge of reality is a category error.
So it’s silly to come up with a word – “agnostic” – that makes a big deal out of the fact that you can’t prove facts about God. Why? I can’t PROVE facts about cars, squirrels, or bacon, either, but there aren’t special words for those types of uncertainty. The only reason “agnostic” exists as a concept is because people have this sense that facts about God are somehow different than facts about everything else. Which is weak theism.
I know (and respect) a lot of atheists that say “there is no god” and do not bother with empirical evidence. The only ones I know that talk about empirical evidence are the ones on SDMB and the internet (Hitchens, Dawkins).
As for atheists stating “there is no god”, they do exist. You can set your watch by some SDMB posters making this affirmative claim in appropriate (and sometimes inappropriate) threads.
Cartesian-ism is the philosophical school that requires formal proof about the universe. It was the dominant philosophical way of thought for several centuries and is still vastly influential. There are emerging schools of philosophy that use informal logic and probability to come to answers that are most likely correct. This is what lay persons have been doing for thousands of years, but it is now being studied again with some rigor.