Hi Bohm,
1. Absolute denial would only have a legitimate place in science if there is absolute proof that something does not exist. There is no such proof for God's nonexistence, not even close, therefeor absolute denial of the possibility to God's existence is in no way "scientific" but purely an expression of faith based belief and personal bias. As you say, to do this goes against good science.
2. Bohm said: "The word believe, as in "I believe in X", can carry the meaning "i think X is true with high probability"
It certainly does so for many rational Theists, who on questioning would concede that although they feel they have compelling evidence for God's existence, there is not absolute proof and so they bridge the gap in their minds with a degree of Faith. As for the "statement "it is highly probable that God does not exist" (or suchlike), this is basically the same statement as that made by the aforementioned Theist, except that it is dishonest. It is quite impossible to measure the probability of God's existence because the factors determining probability are unknown. There is no consensus because of this. Many have tried, all failed. Therefore if anyone invokes probability when dismissing God they are essentially lying, invoking scientific data that does not exist, and attempting to hide personal faith based belief and bias behind terms they have no business using.
3. If any scientists used 3 in relation to God, they are frauds, and are revealing an approach almost identical to the Theist, except that it is also dishonest. The Theist admits his faith, at least.
4. If a scientist says "I believe there is no God" then his statement is not scientific, no matter which definition of believe is used and he is merely expressing personal bias and belief just as a Theist does. If he is using "believe" as an absolute, 1, this is so. If he uses believe to refer to supposed probability, as in 2, this is so, because he cannot demonstrate probability and is therefore invoking probability fraudulently, in order to misrepresent an ordinary personal belief as a data based conclusion.
It's interesting that you say you have never met an atheist who absolutely denies God. I'd suggest that you probably have, even in this thread and have even praised their posts. The thing is many atheists who absolutely deny God try, much like the 'scientist' in option 2, to hide their certainty to some degree, because they are aware it is actually unwarranted. They hold the belief, but hypocritically don't want to be held accountable for it in the way they hold Theists accountable.
I asked Caedes to explicitly assign a probability of existence to three things which mentioned as examples and said should be accounted as exactly as likely to exist as each other. There has been no reply. I'll be interested to hear what probability he assigns to these three things of his: Santa, THe Easter Bunny, and God. His previous posts lead me to suspect that he considers each as equally impossible.
Someone who assigns a probability of zero to something is absolutely, unqualifiedly denying the possibility of it's existence. They are making an 'Atheist 1' statement, couched in deceptive and unwarranted scientific language.
Atheist 1's are not as rare as you would like to believe, Bohm.
But we'll see what Caedes response is.
