From this I a conclude that you are either disingenuous or a moron. You are criticizing people for not being open to the possibility of “something” that you can not describe. Essentially what you are saying is that there may be something that you can not describe the characteristics of, is not directly observable, and the indirect effects of their existence are not observable, but yet is worthy of spending time thinking about. And people who do not believe that this undefined, unobservable thing exists are arrogant.
If we define ‘elf’ as a ‘supernatural being not subject to the usual requirements of life as we know it and with an ability to avoid conventional detection’, then sure. Maybe there are such things as ghosts, too. I don’t believe in them, myself, but I’m not going to say that I’m 100% certain there’s no such thing.
When it comes to the generic supernatural stuff, though - I’m 99.99% certain of a rational, ordered universe that does not contain supernatural elements. The only reason generic divinities get a pass for me is that they’d likely be something that exists outside the system of the universe.
But we’re not forming a hypothesis about how something happened or how something works. We’re not really forming a hypothesis at all. We’re not saying the Big Bang happened because generic god willed the universe into being. So there are no consequences to the scientific theory at large.
That all involve those entities doing things or tampering with the real world.
You seem to think I talk about it as if it were meaningful. As for the last bit - I suspect I was misusing the term ‘metaphysics’ then. Please substitute instead ‘Philosophy of stuff that has no bearing on the real world’ or other appropriate terminology.
It’s absolutely arrogant from the other camp. I never said it wasn’t. But that’s not what this thread is about, and tu quoque is a weak argument.
Yes.
I don’t agree, mainly because of the word ‘absolute’.
Several things:
(1) How many atheists do you meet who really claim to be CERTAIN that there is no God, in the sense that they have proven it with 100% logically rigorous certainty? (And there’s an important distinction between “certain” meaning “I have made up my mind and am certain that this is the position I hold” and “certain” meaning “100% proven case closed”.)
I’m “certain” that I am an atheist, in the sense that I’ve thought about the issue enough that I am happy with, and confident in the reasonableness of, the position that I hold; that position being that there is no evidence for any God, thus I do not believe in the existence of any God. In other words, the same belief I hold with respect to any number of supernatural phenomena, none of which I have PROVEN do not exist, but all of which I’m happy to state with confidence I have no belief in.
(2)
False dichotomy. Or rather, false trichotomy. You’re missing out on “no evidence of any Gods exist, so assumption is made, and life is lived under this assumption, that no Gods exist.”, which is clearly distinct from any of your choices, and which is imho obviously the best choice, being the one I adopt 
(And there are other positions such as “no evidence for God exists, so I choose to believe because of X Y or Z despite acknowledging that my belief can not be proven”, etc.)
(3) It pretty much goes without saying that some atheists, including some in this very thread, are condescending douchebag assholes. Would it make any difference to anyone if random atheists like me decried and denounced them? My guess is not really…
You statement contains an incorrect assumption. I’m sensing a pattern. And the final sentence is a blatant misstatement of my position - going so far as to be a deliberate contradiction of what I wrote. I don’t have time to waste on the intellectually dishonest.
That’s a #3 in my system. I just wrote #3 with a specific slant towards some previously-used terminology.
You refuse to define what god you’re talking about, but you have very clearly defined what gods you’re NOT talking about. For one thing you’re talking about a god that either has no powers, or doesn’t want to be believed in. You’re also not talking about a god that can be seen, nor are you talking about a god that can be indirectly observed (for example by actions or creations). As far as I can tell that rules out all current permutations of theism except possibly some form of deism.
Knowledge, and thus truth, comes from perception. I know that if I hit myself in the head, it’s going to hurt, it’s going to form a lump, I may get a concussion, and I’m an idiot for doing it. I know this because I’ve been hit on the head (by someone else), it hurt, it formed a lump, and I didn’t get a concussion. It is logical to conclude, based on prior experience in a very similar situation, that even without doing it, if I do the same thing to myself, the same results will occur, plus I’d be an idiot. Likewise, I know that the same will happen if I hit someone else in the head, plus I’d be an asshole.
I know this for absolute fact because there is abundant related evidence to prove its veracity.
On the other hand, Yuri Gellar has consistently maintained that he possesses powers of telekinesis, even going so far as to try and sue his detractors, and yet he has consistently failed to give a single shred of evidence that he does apart from tricks he won’t let anyone scrutinize. And he’s not the only one – lots of people have made such claims and none of them have proven true. James Randi even invited one such person on national TV in the 70s to demonstrate his abilities, and then went on to prove them nothing more than trickery.
Thus, owing to an utter and complete lack of evidence to prove the existence of telekinesis – or any other supernatural power --I would feel confident in the declaration that telekinesis does not exist.
I don’t see why God should be any different. To declare any of these statements as patently untrue, regardless whether any of them have even the most remote possibility of proving me wrong, is simply to declare that all knowledge is patently untrue because we cannot know anything, and that’s absurd.
Since you attempted to bold it, I’ll assume the incorrect assumption is: “but yet is worthy of spending time thinking about.”
But in a previous post you said:
How odd, people get hit in the head without forming lumps all the time. Not very absolute, that fact…
Hopefully you recognize the gulf between confidence and certainty.
Amen.
What kind of smug, superior asshole should I be?
Presumeably the kind that’s filled with false uncertainty?
Aren’t you the fuckwad that shit all over my Lynyrd Skynyrd memorial thread? That pretty much tells me all I want or need to know about you, asswipe.
Does it make me a horrible person that the words “Lynyrd Skynyrd memorial thread” invoke in me an irrepressible chortle?
Gets you on my permanent shit list, if that’s what you wanted.
O boy, this thread is going places.
Skynyrd sucks! Truly, their success was proof of no benevolent God.
Oh yeah…run in to take a cheap shot at me by bashing members of a band that died in a plane crash. Stay classy like that.