No - the god argument isn't 50-50.

It is quite true that the existence or non-existence of god cannot be proven, but that doesn't mean that both sides of the argument have equal merit or equal evidence.

To believe in god you must also believe in many other things - such as the 'magical' properties of 'divine power', 'mystical communication' of prayer, and so on, which demand effects to occur without any known or testable means for them to occur - and that makes the concept of god inherently at odds with observable and testable evidence.

So while god cannot be proven not to exist, there is still a vast array of evidence that strongly implies he does not.

@ToakReon Does god existence have equal merit for or against? It depends on who you are talking to and what they think is evidence. There is no evidence either way. Did the prophet fly to heaven on a winged horse? Show me evidence of a winged horse. Believers think they have evidence but gods still cannot be proven.

@DenoPenno Oh, but there is, indeed, EVIDENCE. Evidence and proof are different concepts.

There is a great deal of valid evidence that god is an absurd concept, just not PROOF that he is.

@DenoPenno But, there is plenty of evidence that shows that the universe behaves just as it would without a god/consciousness controlling it. There is zero need to insert a god.

Consciousness, will, volition is just not necessary; and if you insert one, it only complicates things as you then have to explain how a consciousness, complicated enough to purposely create everything, came into existence.

@TheMiddleWay Fair enough - if you speak of 'gods' that are actually claimed to do nothing of significance at all - but which are they and are they, in any meaningful sense, gods at all?

@Joanne Be damned if you people don't act like you think I believe in god. If you think so you are mistaken.

@TheMiddleWay No! Evidence does not require to be proof.

A bank is robbed by masked, armed robbers. A suspect man's finger prints are identified on a gun the police later find, and ballistics show the gun was discharged at the robbery. That is EVIDENCE that the man was PROBABLY involved, but by no means PROOF that he was.

The fingerprints could, for example, have been cunningly lifted from some other object and transfered to the gun to deliberately frame him - but that is less likely than the scenario of him actually handling the gun, so the evidence is not proof but still strongly suggestive.

@TheMiddleWay, @DenoPenno I don't think you believe a god exists. My statement was against the line of thinking that an argument for the existence of a god is equally as persuasive as the argument against (again, not that I think that you personally think this.) I think the argument that no god is necessary and, therefore, no need to insert one, is stronger than than the argument that there is, or likely is, one.

@TheMiddleWay Science can explain how things work and can, and does, say that a consciousness is not necessary for it to behave as it does and there is no need to insert one.

@TheMiddleWay Well, strictly, no. Just because everything heavy we've seen has fallen for the last five thousand years doesn't actually prove gravity is real - the next time you release a hammer from shoulder height COULD be the occasion it doesn't fall and floats in front of you. Insanely unlikely - but the possibility remains.

What the millions of tests do is make if more and more unlikely the idea is wrong, to the point that it becomes absurd to believe otherwise - and this is where 'scientific proof' differs from 'rigorous, mathematical proof'.

This is why you must keep re-assessing even the most fundamental things, occasionally forcing yourself to ask 'Can I still be SURE this is valid?'

It's all probabilities, on a continuous scale.

Newtons 2nd law - 99.99999% likely to be true.

Theory of evolution (though, admittedly, there might be subtle variations in the theory as new discoveries are made) - 95% likely.

And so on, down to:

The possibility that god (or the stereotypical fairy at the bottom of my garden) exists - 1% (or probably less).

And as we learn, as we think, as we question, the items on that list shift position.

@TheMiddleWay The 0.1% comes from the fact that the religious will always find a way to explain why you CAN'T test and confirm - it's tiny, because it's ridiculous, but it is not actually zero because the fact that it cannot be confirmed either way means there is a chance, an insanely small one to be true, but it's still there, that the christian bullshit might actually have some validity.

And regarding Newton's second law, you test is a thousand times. You test it a million times. You test it a thousand billion times. Every time you test it, and it 'works', you edge the certainty closer to 100%. 99.9, 99.99, 99.999, 99.9999999999999.

Keep testing, and you get as close as you like to 100% - but technically the NEXT TEST might just be the one that doesn't work. So you get ever closer to absolute certainty, but you never QUITE get to the point where no other option is possible.

@TheMiddleWay I know that science does not care one way or another as to the existence of a god/consciousness and makes no certain claims either way. Science simply wants evidence. And, from what I have learned (yes, as a lay person) there is no scientific evidence for such a being/force---nor is there any need to insert a god/consciousness in order to explain things. And, when one inserts a god, it actually complicates things as you have to then explain its origins.

Science can provide evidence for how things work without the need to insert a god. Does this mean that something we would call a god cannot exist? No, it doesn't. It just shows that, as of now, there is simply no reason to insert any being, or force, with will, intent, volition; and, I don't foresee there ever being a need to do so.

@TheMiddleWay

My heart has beaten, I calculate, over a million times in my 55 years. That doesn't mean it will beat forever.

Yet if you were using me as an example, with no other information available to you, you'd claim a million successful beats in a row, and therefore my heart beating is an absolute certainty?

I do a test on 'something' - the test is successful. I do it a hundred times. All successful. I do it a thousand times. Ten thousand times. ALL successful.

We conclude, even without further information, that that test VERY NEARLY ALWAYS is successful - but can we be sure, from this, that the figure is actually 100%?

No, we cannot - and rightly so.

My 'test' is to throw 25 coins, a 'successful' outcome is to end up with a mixture of heads and tails. Every attempt that doesn't result in 25 heads or 25 tails is successful - but does that mean 25 heads or 25 tails is impossible?

No it does not.

'It has always worked, every time we try' is a powerful indication of truth - but that, in itself, does not prove that it is absolute and ALWAYS works.

@TheMiddleWay No, f=ma isn't certain, it's just vastly more likely. Instead of a million tests, or a billion tests, it can be 10 to the power of 50 tests - and what that shows is that it happened 10 to the power of 50 times in a row, from which we conclude that the next time we try the chance of failure is probably less than 1 in 10 to the power of 50. Less than 1 in 1 with 50 zeroes. That is unbelieveably low, and it would be ridiculous to believe it a meaningful possibility - but the possibility is still not actually zero.

You get it ever closer to zero with repeated tests, but it never actually hits zero.

And my example re my heartbeats said 'with no other information available to you' - so in my example you DO NOT know there is a limit to the number of heartbeats. That is exactly what you are trying to determine from there having already been one million 'tests'.

@TheMiddleWay What we're talking about is assessment of probabilities.

And no, as a 'working scientist', you don't 'take into account' the 0.00000001% chance that f=ma is not true, because that chance is so absurdly small it's not something you consider. Just as when you flip a coin, you do not consider the chance of it landing on it's edge - and the chance of f=ma failing is many, many orders of magnitude lower than the coin on the edge.

Of course it's not going to ACTUALLY HAPPEN. Of course f=ma is true in every, conceivable meaningful sense - but this is the difference between 'scientific proof' (the chance of being wrong is so small, that to grant that possibility any credance makes no sense) and 'mathematical proof' (there is NO chance of being wrong).

Proofs based on observational tests alone can never be 100%, though by continuing the test you get ever closer to that point - and with many things 'very close to 100%' means 'yes, we accept this as true'.

If things are unknown, all that means is that our tests are less conclusive. With religion there's a hell of a hot of howling bullshit - which means that the 'does god exist' conclusion cannot be conclusive.

This is why Richard Dawkins, one of the most vociferous advocates of atheism there is, declares himself not 100% certain. He understands the concept of experimental confirmation of fact.

@TheMiddleWay

No, because you can test f=ma you can see it work every time you test it. Because it has been tested billions of times, you can conclude that it the chance of it working the NEXT time you test it is billions to one in favour. Because, in billions of tests, it has never failed to work, you can conclude that the chance of it failing is less than one in those billions. You can conclude further that the chance of failure is so ridiculously small that it's not worth bothering with.

However testing it has worked only shows that ON THOSE OCCASIONS IT WAS TESTED it worked. It also gives a valid reason to estimate the maximum possible chance of it NOT working next time.

The more you test, the CLOSER to absolute certainty you get - but you never actually get to absolute certainty.

Regarding 'quantifiable' and 'non quantifiable' - all that declares is our level of ignorance. That which we know little of is unquantifiable, that which we know more of of more quantifiable. How quantifiable something is defines how precice our probability calculations can be. If we have to estimate things, then that means our final deduction of probability cannot be precise.

Not having a 'quantifiable' way of CALCULATING a probability does not mean the probability just 'disappears' - only that we have no way to assess that probability without estimation, and estimation makes our assessment less precise and reliable.

@TheMiddleWay

No I'm not being contradictory.

The chance of f=ma failing is so small it it completely justifiable to ignore it (so I say 'Of course it' s not going to happen' ).

This is exactly like you going to the Sahara desert and choosing a single grain of sand before discarding it among all the others - then I go to the Sahara and choose a single grain of sand.

Might I, by pure luck, happen to choose exactly the same grain of sand you did?

Oh come on! The chance is so absurdly small that it is perfectly justified to say 'Never going to happen!'

But, you know what? The chance isn't zero. We COULD happen, by pure chance, to pick the same grain of sand out of the Sahara - but while it is possible, believing it is in any way a MEANINGFUL possibility is nonsense.

@TheMiddleWay

'That is the nature of science: same set up, same experiment, same result'

REALLY?

Throw a dice - get a four.

Same experiment, same set up, you're going to get four again?

No, that is not science. Science is same set up, same experiment, same PROBABILITIES. And by throwing that dice over and over again you get a more and more precise figure for what those probabilities are.

But guess what? Do you find EXACT probabilities? EVER?

Even if we assume the dice is fair, do that test 10,000 times and your figures may suggest you get four 1 time in 6.004, rather than 1 time in 6. So you pop on your 'practical spectacles' and say 'yes, it's obviously 1 in 6, that makes sense, and my tests confirm it' - and you work on the basis. Good!

THAT'S what being a scientist is all about - looking at the evidence, looking at the results, and saying 'the chance of being wrong is too small to consider credible - so we will work on the basis that we are right'. That does not, however, mean the chance of being wrong is ZERO - just that it's so close to zero that you ignore it, and rightly so.

'Practical' spectacles - of course f=ma works. 'Absolute truth' spectacles - well, actually there's a CHANCE a future test will fail! 'Practical' spectacles back on - yeah, there's also a chance I might win the lottery, despite not ever doing it, 'cause a relative of mine, as a joke, buys me a lottery ticket without my knowlegde! 'Absolute truth' spectacles - well, yes, and in reality the chance of f=ma failing is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than winning the lottery. 'Practical' spectacles - so we ignore this absurdly small chance, don't we? 'Absolute truth' spectacles - well... yes... I guess so, but there's still A CHANCE, it isn't ACTUALLY ZERO.

@TheMiddleWay

'there is no merit in thinking that f=ma is anything but certain' (might not be your exact words - sorry).

TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY agree with you. No merit at all.

The chances of f=ma being 'wrong' are so small that there is no merit at all in giving the concept any credence - EXCEPT in the sense that if you start declaring 'one in billions' chances to ACTUALLY BE zero chance, that is not a true statement.

And sorry, if you make a statement that I know to be untrue, my 'inner pedant' wakes up!

@TheMiddleWay

'But if there are zero failures it's impossible to calculate what that chance of failure might be' (again, might not be your precise words)

Absolutely - so we, from experiment, can work out what the MAXIMUM chance of future failure might be. We know that the MINIMUM chance is zero (of course). So we have a 'range of possibilities' from zero, up to a finite (though very small) non-zero figure.

In the absense of other information, can you refine the figure? No, you can't.

But neither can you declare the 'absolute truth' to be one end of that scale (zero) rather than the other, or anywhere between.

@TheMiddleWay

'Consider that it you truly believe this about f=ma...' (etc)

Yes, of course there's a CHANCE prayer might work. The chance is so small that I don't give it any credance at all - as I say to door knocking Jehova's Witness each time they knock. Certainly I have no inclination to pray, just as I have no inclination to do the national lottery - for both the chance of 'benefit' is too small to bother with.

@TheMiddleWay

You need very little information indeed to start calculating probabilities.

'Something' started happenning an hour ago. You have no idea what it is, but that's when it started happening. So, can we estimate how long it will continue for? Just on that? No further information at all?

Actually, yes we can. This 'something' isn't continuous (there was after all a time before it was happening) so it's reasonable to assume it will stop happening some time.

So it will have a finite 'period of happening', though we don't know how long. THIS MOMENT is a point during that finite period of happening.

So, consider that 'period of happening' and divide it into quarters. The middle two quarters together represent half of the total 'period of happening', and a random point in that 'period of happening' has a 50-50 chance of being somewhere in those middle two quarters.

From this we can conclude that there is a 50-50 chance that NOW is within the middle two quarters of this unspecified 'period of happening' - which means there is a 50% chance that whatever is happenning will STOP happening somewhere between 1/3 of the time it's already been happening for (20 minutes) and three times the time it has already been happening for (3 hours).

That is a very imprecise calculation, based on NO INFORMATION AT ALL except that whatever it was started happening an hour ago and is still happening now - yet the calculation of probability remains valid, even though it is imprecise.

Get more information about whatever 'it' is that's happening, and you can calculate with greater precision.

The undefined qualities of the 'god concept' doesn't mean we can't do sums about him! It doesn't mean we can't use valid methods to calculate probabilities about him! All it means is that our sums and our conclusions will not be precise.

@TheMiddleWay

OK - I give up.

There's no point in continuing this discussion, it just wastes both of our time.

@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.