Yep of course, we are all ignorant about something, nay, most things. It’s fun rectifying that position however, alas I doubt we will ever find out if Thor exists. Which is a pity.
Or possibly a shoggoth.
I don’t think he does. I guess I’m an Athorist.
:rolleyes:
I’ll admit to both if I’m guilty of it. I repeatedly state that my conclusions are my own and that other people (namely theists) can come to other conclusions and I’d still consider them rational. The conclusions I come to with regard to religion are often tentative, not conclusive.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
What if the question is, “Is there a god?” Do atheists answer differently from agnostics? Is it fair to limit answers to ‘yes’ or ‘no’?
Well, we can say that about anything. That’s my point. There’s always a “possible” alternative explanation. It doesn’t mean any of them are likely to be true. Like myself and others have said, we know very well through neuroscience that our brain is dumb-stupid when it comes to filling in the gaps of certain scenarios. It happens all the time, so the fact that someone might have “spiritual experiences” frequently is not convincing to skeptics. It usually means that individual is honing in on confirmation bias or simply making things up, which has been shown, again, countless times.
I always found this argument to be funny. Atheists aren’t arrogant or closeminded or frail just because they aren’t going to blindly accept your faith, which is ultimately what you’re asking for. That which can be affirmed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, which is why atheists don’t rely on faith. Most atheists are completely OK with ignorance, because some ignorance is simply unavoidable. Right now, we’re all completely ignorant about where the universe came from. We’re completely ignorant about the details of dark matter/dark energy. There’s a lot out there we don’t know, and as scientists, skeptics, and atheists, you have to be comfortable with being on the forefront of ignorance. You need to be OK with saying “I don’t know, you don’t know, and nobody else knows, either.”
I rarely hear such words from a theist. Nay, a theist claims to KNOW he/she is correct and that everyone else is closeminded for not accepting their say-so. To me, that’s the very essence of inhumility and arrogance.
Again, most atheists ARE agnostics, so they’d typically answer the question the same way.
That’s a different question - if asked, I’d say ‘I don’t know’. Some atheists would presumably answer ‘no’, others - perhaps most - would say what I said.
Most atheists ARE agnostics.
Technically speaking I flit between agnostic atheism and ignosticism. The difference being that if you asked me ‘Is there a God’ and I was in more of an ignostic state of mind I’d say “a what?”.
‘Probably Not’ is my philosophical answer, but I live my life as if the answer to that question is ‘No’ which is more important.
All agnostics, by definition, will answer that question ‘I don’t, indeed can’t, know’. Atheists will say either the same or just No.
I’d agree that this is how most atheists handle such a question. We’re a-thing-ist about everything we don’t believe in. We are aLeprechaunist, aFlyingSpaghettiMonsterist, ateapotist, atoothfairyist, abigfootist, aZeusist, etc. There are an infinite number of things we don’t believe in. So we live our lives as if those things don’t exist… until we can be shown otherwise.
Does the Tooth Fairy exist? Probably not. The evidence against her is pretty overwhelming. But as a scientist, you have to “keep the possibility open” even if it’s an infinitesimally small possibility. It doesn’t mean we have to care about it or investigate it. For all intents and purposes, I’m pretty darn certain there’s no Tooth Fairy. But I’m not going to claim I’m absolutely right, because there are inherent limits on what I can claim to know in terms of epistemology, science, and empiricism.
Then why are you so cocksure in your atheism? Shouldn’t you be able to not be right?
Yes, we are able to “not be right.” That’s sort of the point. If undeniable proof of God’s existence showed up right now, I would change my views in an instant, and I’m certain most atheists would, too.
The problem with saying this, though, is that theists misinterpret what that means, and take a mile when given an inch. Just because atheists claim they “can be wrong” doesn’t mean a theist is right or even very likely to be right. For all intents and purposes, I am pretty darn confident there’s no God just like I’m pretty darn confident there’s no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or Thor, etc.
I could be wrong about ANY of those things. Doesn’t mean any of them are even remotely true by any stretch of probability.
I’m with you on that one, Meatros! 
So in other words, you’re not wrong about anything. If other people took a mile when you intended to give only an inch, you’d be robbed of your “right-ness” in the eyes of men. I understand what you’ve communicated here.
I feel like you’re not even reading what I am saying to you. You’re putting words in my mouth. Where on earth did you read “I’m not wrong about anything?”
Did you not see this explicit quote:
So are you hard of reading or just another lame troll?
I’m an atheist.
I’ll admit that I don’t know for SURE that God doesn’t exist.
Now it’s your turn. Will you admit that you don’t know for SURE that God exists? How open-minded are you to the possibility that your faith may be wrong?
What is “being communicated” is that religion is so blatantly silly, so obviously wrong that “religion is wrong” is about as close to a certain statement as one can make. Much like the statement “there is no Santa Claus”. Taking religion seriously, treating it like it’s not a ridiculous belief is an unreasonable position.
No I didn’t have to exist (although I’m happy that I do). I’m not clear on what basis you exclude self-conscious life from being inevitable, yet are willing to concede that planets are inevitable. Isn’t it fairly certain that given the predominance of solar systems across the Universe that chances are greater that life will develop simply because this Universe is such that it supports such an outcome? You give me the starting conditions of this Universe plus a few billion years of matter and energy interacting and I’ll bet life will sooner or later pop up and develop more or less along the lines that it has on our planet.
I’m not hard of reading or a troll, but thatnks for the warning.
So you don’t even acknowledge the blatant contradiction you just made?
Alright, so you’re a troll.
I think you are confusing the neural pattern with what caused the neural pattern. If my visual receptors fire in a certain patter when I see a red ball, and you then put in a lab, hook me up to electrodes that then cause the same pattern of visual receptors to fire, you can’t equate the two absolutely - even though you can stipulate the mental event is the same, the external cause is clearly different.