When atheists have doubts!

[RandomGuyOnCouch]

It's 100% not factually true, this I know because observed reality tells me so.
I do not see how saying this makes me anywhere near as irrational as a fundamentalist religious person.

Impossible. This is not allowing for any error on the part of your reasoning or observations. That is, you are putting absolute faith in your ability to discern reality and any kind of absolute faith in anything, without acknowledging any probability for error, however insignificant, is irrational.

I have no problem saying I'm 100% negative that Jehovah Made the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and then spoke directly to Abraham, Moses and a few others; knocked up a teen girl to make a son which was also Him, whom he had executed to appease his own wrath and allow whoever buys into all that crap to live forever after they die.

It almost certainly did not happen this way, but even an infinitesimal chance that it did is still greater than a 0% chance that it did.

Incidentally, you can actually use fancy math to prove that infinitesimal = zero, but I feel like you understand my point regarding (in)significance.

What does Observed reality tell us about a deity? Well, so far it has told us that nothing we have encountered has ever needed a divine explanation or origin. On the evidence we have, a solid conclusion is viable. I am 100% conclusive on the issue because there is nothing anywhere to suggest any other conclusion.

The same has doubtless been said about the Earth being round, orbiting the sun, magnetism, subatomic particles, et cetera. Hell, even dark matter is entirely made up and hypothetical, but I don't think you're 100% certain it doesn't exist.

[Trolldor]

Except that Dark Matter has theoretical support. A deity does not.

[RandomGuyOnCouch]

Except that Dark Matter has theoretical support. A deity does not.

You prefer string theory as an example?

[Robert_S]

It's 100% not factually true, this I know because observed reality tells me so.
I do not see how saying this makes me anywhere near as irrational as a fundamentalist religious person.

Impossible. This is not allowing for any error on the part of your reasoning or observations. That is, you are putting absolute faith in your ability to discern reality and any kind of absolute faith in anything, without acknowledging any probability for error, however insignificant, is irrational.

I have no problem saying I'm 100% negative that Jehovah Made the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and then spoke directly to Abraham, Moses and a few others; knocked up a teen girl to make a son which was also Him, whom he had executed to appease his own wrath and allow whoever buys into all that crap to live forever after they die.

It almost certainly did not happen this way, but even an infinitesimal chance that it did is still greater than a 0% chance that it did.

Incidentally, you can actually use fancy math to prove that infinitesimal = zero, but I feel like you understand my point regarding (in)significance.

What does Observed reality tell us about a deity? Well, so far it has told us that nothing we have encountered has ever needed a divine explanation or origin. On the evidence we have, a solid conclusion is viable. I am 100% conclusive on the issue because there is nothing anywhere to suggest any other conclusion.

The same has doubtless been said about the Earth being round, orbiting the sun, magnetism, subatomic particles, et cetera. Hell, even dark matter is entirely made up and hypothetical, but I don't think you're 100% certain it doesn't exist.

Ever so slightly irrational it may be, my 100% disbelief in the Life Everlasting, the Keebler elves and the 6 day creations, but not enough to justify a an equivalence with believers.

[Robert_S]

It's 100% not factually true, this I know because observed reality tells me so.
I do not see how saying this makes me anywhere near as irrational as a fundamentalist religious person.

Impossible. This is not allowing for any error on the part of your reasoning or observations. That is, you are putting absolute faith in your ability to discern reality and any kind of absolute faith in anything, without acknowledging any probability for error, however insignificant, is irrational.

I have no problem saying I'm 100% negative that Jehovah Made the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and then spoke directly to Abraham, Moses and a few others; knocked up a teen girl to make a son which was also Him, whom he had executed to appease his own wrath and allow whoever buys into all that crap to live forever after they die.

It almost certainly did not happen this way, but even an infinitesimal chance that it did is still greater than a 0% chance that it did.

Incidentally, you can actually use fancy math to prove that infinitesimal = zero, but I feel like you understand my point regarding (in)significance.

What does Observed reality tell us about a deity? Well, so far it has told us that nothing we have encountered has ever needed a divine explanation or origin. On the evidence we have, a solid conclusion is viable. I am 100% conclusive on the issue because there is nothing anywhere to suggest any other conclusion.

The same has doubtless been said about the Earth being round, orbiting the sun, magnetism, subatomic particles, et cetera. Hell, even dark matter is entirely made up and hypothetical, but I don't think you're 100% certain it doesn't exist.

Ever so slightly irrational it may be; my 100% disbelief in the Life Everlasting, the Keebler elves and the 6 day creations; but not enough to justify a an equivalence with believers.

[Trolldor]

Except that Dark Matter has theoretical support. A deity does not.

You prefer string theory as an example?

Ditto. It may not be accepted in lieu of other, better models, but it has theory.

A deity, by contrast, has only assertion.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I used to have a few doubts. Just a few. Nothing but tiny, babyish doubtlets really.

I tried to ignore them. Didn't feed them or anything, just hoped they'd die or wander off. But the fuckers hung around!

After a while, more of them turned up, until I reached the point where I couldn't really tell what was true, what was doubt and what was delusion anymore. All I knew was that I wanted certain things to be true - so I accepted that it was. Of course, eventually, I began to doubt what I wanted as well. By this point, I was pretty screwed up, belief-wise!

Shortly after this, I came to the slow realisation that my doubts outnumbered my beliefs, my knowledge and my assumptions combined. I really didn't have a choice at this point. I could only accept the inevitable. My doubts were the only truth - the only real truth - that I would ever know! I didn't become an atheist at this point. I simply realised that I was an atheist. I doubt I could be anything else.

Doubting atheism itself, doubting the absence of deity, doubting every word I hear and every word I say is as natural to me as breathing. The difference is that now, now that I have accepted doubt as my natural state, my assumptions are based as much upon my doubts as anything else.

I have no doubt that this is a far healthier state than actually believing in shit!

[Rum]

A very wise position to tale in my view!

[RandomGuyOnCouch]

Except that Dark Matter has theoretical support. A deity does not.

You prefer string theory as an example?

Ditto. It may not be accepted in lieu of other, better models, but it has theory.

A deity, by contrast, has only assertion.

How so? The definition of science that includes string theory also includes intelligent design.

Ever so slightly irrational it may be; my 100% disbelief in the Life Everlasting, the Keebler elves and the 6 day creations; but not enough to justify a an equivalence with believers.

I fail to see the usefulness in establishing degrees of irrationality, particularly when one could simply be rational by acknowledging a chance for error.

[Tigger]

Except that Dark Matter has theoretical support. A deity does not.

You prefer string theory as an example?

Ditto. It may not be accepted in lieu of other, better models, but it has theory.

A deity, by contrast, has only assertion.

How so? The definition of science that includes string theory also includes intelligent design.

Ever so slightly irrational it may be; my 100% disbelief in the Life Everlasting, the Keebler elves and the 6 day creations; but not enough to justify a an equivalence with believers.

I fail to see the usefulness in establishing degrees of irrationality, particularly when one could simply be rational by acknowledging a chance for error.

Wut?

[Robert_S]

Ever so slightly irrational it may be; my 100% disbelief in the Life Everlasting, the Keebler elves and the 6 day creations; but not enough to justify a an equivalence with believers.

I fail to see the usefulness in establishing degrees of irrationality, particularly when one could simply be rational by acknowledging a chance for error.

He did not bake your cookies.

What I'm really on about is not the half a quarks worth of doubt I neglect to have about the sentence above, it is the equivocation with the wildly improbable and firmly held religious beliefs and the misleading use of the word "fundamentaist".

The fundamentals of science > the fundamentals of revelation.

[charlou]

The Universe is too big for a god.

I like this.

[Feck]

I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.
Aleister Crowley

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I doubt we're going to agree on anything.

[Twoflower]

I doubt we're going to agree on anything.

Do we ever?

I never had doubts, I alway knew god was a fairy tale.