Atheism Undermines Knowledge

[Esquilax]

How do I figure you're not open to possibilities? You're believing in something for which you have no evidence to the exclusion of things you do, is how. Faith isn't a pathway to truth.

What precisely am I excluding? And how is acknowledging truth not dealing fully with a problem where your willful blindness is?

Willful blindness? I've expressed repeatedly that I will believe in something when there is evidence that it exists, and not a second before. There's nothing blind about that, and if you have a problem with the fact that I'm not yet a theist while holding that belief, take it up with the formulators of all the unconvincing theistic apologetics I've been exposed to over the years.

I have plenty of evidence. Not impossible, illogical evidence that would be empirical, no. Evidence enough for your mind to make a clear and informed decision, yes.

Don't give me that shit about empirical evidence for god being impossible. Do you believe in an interventionist god who does stuff in the world? Then he leaves empirical traces of having done so. If you don't, then why the fuck should anyone care about a god that doesn't exist in the universe?

When dragons will fly. That kind of thing you mean?

Do you see the fantastical requirements you set for yourself? Would you dare to call yourself a realist?

I... wasn't setting requirements. I just observed that, in all of recorded history, nothing that people have claimed was magical or supernatural has ever borne out as anything other than mundane. Thus, on balance, one is justified in expecting a natural solution to any claim that happens to come along.

It's hardly our fault that you and your ilk are determined to force your god into a null hypothesis while still seeing him as an intervening deity; if you're going to make two contradictory claims, don't be surprised when people call bullshit.

You're trying too hard to draw a distinction where none exists. You may well have literalist fundies sewn up there. But us people with real rationalised beliefs remain untouched.

Real rationalized beliefs that more often than not fly directly in the face of the words, printed in black and white, in the book you claim to follow. That's cool, keep calling me a fundie for pointing out how nonsensical it is to call yourself a christian while ignoring whatever you like from the one book of rules you guys have. It makes you seem entirely rational, believe me.

'Yet' lol. So let me get this straight... You think that an object defined as supernatural is possible to detect naturally.

The better question is, why do you feel justified in believing in an object that, by your own admission, you can't possibly detect?

Science of the gaps. I think I have you guys classified.

Well, hold on: you made a claim, namely that science can never explain some things. How the hell did you determine that? This isn't anything of the gaps, it's not plugging a hole in knowledge with science, it's asking a very legitimate question: how are you making a determination that the holes we have in our knowledge are beyond the reach of science?