Not having access to the relevant facts leads to arguments from ignorance, this much should be clear.. the well-known logical argument from evil is a textbook example, as the premise "There is no good reason for God not to prevent all evil" can't be proven at all, unless one knows all the true propositions about God and evil. And still, many very abled philosophers tried this argument, and this alone is very shocking. I mean, what were they thinking? Obviously, no one can prove than God should or shouldn't do x or prevent x, precisely because no one can have access to all the relevant facts. You need to be omniscient in order to assess the actions of an omniscient being, the same way one needs to be a surgeon to understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut chests open.
But sure, we don't need to know everything to form an argument. this implies however that the argument will necessarily have a modest conclusion, not the kind of conclusions that atheists usually have in mind: like God doesn't exist, nature explains everything, etc.
As for comparing beliefs to flavors of icecream... I don't think that's fair -I don't think you think it's fair, either-. Choosing a bad or unusual flavor doesn't have any implications, unlike belief systems that people adhere to, sometimes very strongly.
But sure, we don't need to know everything to form an argument. this implies however that the argument will necessarily have a modest conclusion, not the kind of conclusions that atheists usually have in mind: like God doesn't exist, nature explains everything, etc.
As for comparing beliefs to flavors of icecream... I don't think that's fair -I don't think you think it's fair, either-. Choosing a bad or unusual flavor doesn't have any implications, unlike belief systems that people adhere to, sometimes very strongly.
