Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[The Grand Nudger]

If it's Shakespeare and christianity we're talkin then you can't ignore Aaron.  

If there be devils, would I were a devil, ... So I might have your company in hell, But to torment you with my bitter tongue!

1. Just as atheists tend to say theist apply god in everything so to might a theist say atheist apply atheism in everything.
 -but neither statement would be true, eh? -thankfully, I might add.



2. Just as atheists call a theist bias for applying one set of requirements for god and another for not god so to might theist call atheists bias.
-biased...for?......seems like you dropped off on that one at the end.


3. Just as atheists will not accept a theist answer of because for belief in god so to might a theist not accept because for atheists disbelief.
-I'd take that answer twice on tuesday.  Why do you believe in god? "Because."  Because what?  "Just, because" - ah..okay, fair enough.



4. Just as atheists will critique theist reasons for belief by application to non-theist entities so might a theist do the same for atheist disbelief.
-I've got a jar of home-made vinigrette in my fridge - goes well with salad.   

[Anima]

If it's Shakespeare and christianity we're talkin then you can't ignore Aaron.  

Titus Andronicus.  I love that play!!!

1. Just as atheists tend to say theist apply god in everything so to might a theist say atheist apply atheism in everything.
 -but neither statement would be true, eh? -thankfully, I might add.

Thankfully not.

2. Just as atheists call a theist bias for applying one set of requirements for god and another for not god so to might theist call atheists bias.
-biased...for?......seems like you dropped off on that one at the end.

Did not drop off. If one party is bias for applying different requirements than so to would the other party be bias for doing the same.

3. Just as atheists will not accept a theist answer of because for belief in god so to might a theist not accept because for atheists disbelief.
-I'd take that answer twice on tuesday.  Why do you believe in god? "Because."  Because what?  "Just, because" - ah..okay, fair enough.

Ha ha. Exactly. Though I have run into a surprising amount of people who keep trying to tell me that Atheism is nothing more than a no answer to the question of whether they believe in good. If it is literally nothing more than that then any further inquiry is answered with because.

4. Just as atheists will critique theist reasons for belief by application to non-theist entities so might a theist do the same for atheist disbelief.
-I've got a jar of home-made vinigrette in my fridge - goes well with salad.   

Prove it!!

---

Disbelief in god claims. Not disbelief in everything. You really are making heavy weather of this.

Once again. If I ask why you do not believe god claims your answer would be unjustified in saying because. So the common answer has been "lack of proof". To which my response is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite you should not believe any claims which fail to meet that standard of proof. Then when asked what standard of proof the general answer is direct explicit empirical proof. To which I respond that only tautologies shall meet such a level of proof. Nothing else reasoned or experienced will meet such a threshold of proof.

I recognize that the intention of Atheism is not to disbelieve everything. The intention is to only disbelieve god. But the result of the argument upon which the disbelief is founded (lack of proof) has the result of requiring disbelief in everything in order to avoid hypocrisy or bias.

While many theists would like to use the argument of intelligent design to prove the existence of god, the argument becomes untenable as they are not justified at stopping at the point they intended to reach. (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god) They, just as atheist, are to follow the argument to its logical conclusion (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god. God is order as if made by something that is intelligent god of god, god of god is order as if made by something more intelligent god of god of god, etcetera). Thereby the argument is invalid due to infinite regression.

If I am not to let the theist stop when they want (and believe me I will not) than I am not to let the atheist stop when they want. Otherwise I am permitted only to consider the information they provide in the manner they provide it to the extend that they provide. Needless to say each is going to exclude by manner and extent what does not favor their argument .

[The Grand Nudger]

Prove it?  Psh, your worldview doesn't make sense unless there's dressing in my fridge.  The dressing in my fridge provides the very framework from which reason is derived.  If it weren't for the dressing in my fridge, why.....you couldn't explain the existence and efficacy of reason at all!  You know...you only doubt the existence of The Deliciousness because you're a dirty sinner.    

[Anima]

Prove it?  Psh, your worldview doesn't make sense unless there's dressing in my fridge.  The dressing in my fridge provides the very framework from which reason is derived.  If it weren't for the dressing in my fridge, why.....you couldn't explain the existence and efficacy of reason at all!  You know...you only doubt the existence of The Deliciousness because you're a dirty sinner.    

WE ARE NOT A MONOLITH!!

https://youtu.be/G2tLyqfJd54

[The Grand Nudger]

That -is- all that people are expressing to you, when they tell you that atheism is a only a no answer regarding their status of belief in gods (not whatever other things you might be tempted to attach..like "darwinism" or "scientism" or even skepticism......)  It's useful to remind people of this, because we see no end of statement such as:

"Atheism can't be true, because I've never found a crocoduck in my peanut butter jar!"
-not atheism (just in case you were wondering)

[nihilistcat]

1.  We are rather agreed on point one as by your argument of indoctrination we may say that the socioeconomic system that people are indoctrinated into from birth takes part of the blame as well (if not the bulk of said blame).

2.  The third link was specifically in regards to scientist who chose to be catholic clerics and were no simply catholic because everyone was some religion at the time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists).  What it does show is that the church has a history of highly educated people.  I now the desire is to focus on the uneducated portion and I would agree with such focus if the church commanded or compelled them to be uneducated.  However, the church does not do so.  To this day there are many education centers maintained and established by the church. Believers are encouraged to attend catechism and learn the theology of the faith as well as attend higher institutions of learning.  The general catholic belief being that truth supports truth and god maybe further understood in the understanding of his creation (which includes our person).

3.  Establishments of Universities (hospitals and orphanages) by the church (most of which are still in existence today) is to serve as proof of the churches efforts to educate people throughout history.  Prior to most institutions created by the church education was private and only paid for the elite by the elite.  The church is the first formal institution to promote the education of laypersons and the education of women.  The history just does not support your assertion that religion endeavors to keep people ignorant as a common way to get a free education was to join the church, because the church wanted its clergy educated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...1600_AD.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_...es#History

4.  Regarding your argument of Rome.  It is one of the constructive fallacies.  It appears that you are doing the fallacy of composition.  Which is to say that a condition of a part of the whole is the condition of the whole.  Because the teeth in the emoticon are white this emoticon is white    It also seems you believe a purely atheistic society would be far from brutal or imperialistic (which I take you to mean top down oppressive).  Again history is not on your side for this argument as exhibited by the various atheistic communist nations which have existed throughout the world (which I do not think you would consider bastions of freedom, understanding, and pacifism).

I was arguing by analogy (it wasn't a fallacy of composition). My point was, just because something can lay claim to some good accomplishments, it doesn't necessarily imply that its good (in its totality) or that the good outweighs the bad. Sure, the catholic church built universities, hospitals, and pretty churches. I suppose these are good things (although we can debate whether or not these things would have eventually happened anyway, although it's not a great debate, because postulating a counterfactual is always conjecture). 

We live in a reactionary world. Our military intervention in the mid east is driven by resource domination (petroleum). What type of reaction to our intervention could we expect if religion were removed from the picture? Would we see secular forms of terrorism instead of religious based terrorism? In the absence of a catholic church, would something like the inquisition have occurred anyway (cruelty certainly doesn't require a religious motivation)? All questions which are impossible to answer, nonetheless, I don't see much use in arguing on behalf of atheism based on the historical flaws and atrocities of religion. So that is not the thrust of my argument. 

My gripe with religion begins with the fact that it's bullshit. So we have billions of people, including the vast majority of Americans, basing decisions, public policies, even decisions concerning academic training and investments in scientific research, on bullshit. Does this hold back our potential? I believe it most certainly does. As a biologist, I see so much potential (from curing cancer to extending lifespan to developing more advanced viral therapies, manufacturing organs instead of relying on transplants, stem cell therapies that have almost limitless potential, and so on), and even though we're an extremely wealthy society, we don't invest nearly enough in these things, and I believe part of the reason is religiosity (where we divert and waste so much energy and resources). 

To what extent are people influenced by a belief that they'll be whisked away to a celestial theme park when they die, instead of the far more likely reality (decomposition and then worm food). Imagine a world with no religion. Imagine how attitudes would be different concerning everything ranging from scientific research to global warming to space exploration and teaching science to our kids? Does religion make people more prone to manipulation? I'd say if you're willing to believe something as far fetched as the fantastic legends contained in most holy books, then you're almost certainly more gullible than those who take a more skeptical view towards these claims. And gullibility has real political consequences. 

And of course religion, particularly more fundamentalist brands of religion, have to be hostile towards education. A truly well educated population will be a less religious population (there is a strong positive correlation between religious skepticism and academic accomplishment). Religion holds us back in so many ways, and I'd say in ways that far outweigh the good religion does throughout the world. Catholic charities has been in places like Africa for decades, but beyond providing some acute relief, they really haven't accomplished anything (the poverty and malnutrition rates are still terrible, and it's compounded by the fact that the catholic church refuses to promote safe sexual practices in an environment where one of the primary public health problems is sexually transmitted disease, because of its bizarre views towards human sexuality). 

And hey, who needs science when we have a magician in the sky who will come to our rescue? Of course, there is no magician in the sky, there is no god, it doesn't matter how loving or all powerful or whatever we paint this bullshit, it's still bullshit. It doesn't matter how many times we repeat it to ourselves, it's still bullshit, and not only bullshit, but considering all we know about the natural world today, it's bullshit of the most absurd proportions. And billions of people world wide base serious life decisions on this bullshit. If we want to live longer, healthier, reduce hunger and global warming, cure diseases and understand natural disasters better, witch doctors, priests, pastors, rabbi's, etc., will not help us. Only science can help us accomplish these things, and religion is the opposite of science. It's bullshit enforced by giant institutions (like the catholic church) or more dispersed (but still very powerful) protestant organizations, who all have a very profound self-interest in sustaining this ridiculous bullshit. 

So IMO, even though we have amazing potential, the human race hasn't even matured very much from our primordial state. Our science is so far ahead of every other aspect of our culture and thinking and sociopolitical structure .... that it creates a lot of unnecessary instability, and religion is a huge part of that. 

[Jenny A]

Once again.  If I ask why you do not believe god claims your answer would be unjustified in saying because.  So the common answer has been "lack of proof".  To which my response is that in order to avoid being a hypocrite you should not believe any claims which fail to meet that standard of proof. Then when asked what standard of proof the general answer is direct explicit empirical proof.  To which I respond that only tautologies shall meet such a level of proof.  Nothing else reasoned or experienced will meet such a threshold of proof.

I recognize that the intention of Atheism is not to disbelieve everything.  The intention is to only disbelieve god.  But the result of the argument upon which the disbelief is founded (lack of proof) has the result of requiring disbelief in everything in order to avoid hypocrisy or bias.

First of all, not believing in god is not necessarily an intention. I never have believed in god, at least not that I can remember.  What I do remember is sitting in church during a sermon based on Cain and Abel, and thinking "why do grown-ups believe this?"

I don't go around subjecting all possible beliefs to a hard core standard of proof.  I don't think this is hypocritical, just practical.  The amount of proof I require before believing a claim has to do with the likelihood of the claim, and it's importance.

If a friend tells me she had lunch yesterday I don't subject that to excruciating proof.  It's common, and relatively unimportant.  Other claims are generally proved by daily experience over and over: the electric appliances in my house work, bridges stay up, the net works and so on.  Other claims are tested by adversaries.  Most of science fits this catagory.

Some claims are statistically unlikely, but always happen to someone somewhere.  Winning the lottery fits this pattern.  If my neighbor claims to have won, I'm likely to believe them.  He wants to sell me his ticket, I'm going to do some investigation.

Other claims lack evidence:  unicorns, UFOs, elves, etc.  I don't believe those.

Other claims not only lack evidence  contradict general experience.  Ghosts, miracles, esp, and god fit in this catagory.  These are extraordinary claims and I would require extraordinary proof in order to believe in them.  But the proof offered is less than that I'd accept before I'd buy my neighbor's winning lottery ticket.  So, I don't believe them.

There are even more unlikely claims.  These are extraordinary claims for which the proponents suggest you have to be in the right frame of mind, or can't be skeptical about or the evidence will hide.  God, messages from the dead, and ghosts or frequent examples.  These are untenable.

Finally there are claims for which the proponents simply say proof is impossible, you must have faith.  This is the most absurd of all.  God is often offered in this light.

I recognize that the intention of Atheism is not to disbelieve everything.  The intention is to only disbelieve god.  But the result of the argument upon which the disbelief is founded (lack of proof) has the result of requiring disbelief in everything in order to avoid hypocrisy or bias.

It's not an intention, it a state of being. I don't believe and never have.  It takes no intent or effort.  Faith takes intent.

While many theists would like to use the argument of intelligent design to prove the existence of god, the argument becomes untenable as they are not justified at stopping at the point they intended to reach.  (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god)  They, just as atheist, are to follow the argument to its logical conclusion (universe is order as if made by something intelligent that is god.  God is order as if made by something that is intelligent god of god,  god of god is order as if made by something more intelligent god of god of god, etcetera).  Thereby the argument is invalid due to infinite regression.

Indeed.  Not to mention that the universe doesn't really appear to be intelligently designed in the first place.  

If I am not to let the theist stop when they want (and believe me I will not) than I am not to let the atheist stop when they want.  Otherwise I am permitted only to consider the information they provide in the manner they provide it to the extend that they provide.  Needless to say each is going to exclude by manner and extent what does not favor their argument .

It isn't really an argument until someone offers some proof of god.  Until that point, which is where we are now, it's just a naked claim that god exists.

[Anima]

That -is- all that people are expressing to you, when they tell you that atheism is a only a no answer regarding their status of belief in gods (not whatever other things you might be tempted to attach..like "darwinism" or "scientism" or even skepticism......)  It's useful to remind people of this, because we see no end of statement such as:

"Atheism can't be true, because I've never found a crocoduck in my peanut butter jar!"
-not atheism (just in case you were wondering)

As stated, I have a very difficult time believe that "no" answer is not predicated on anything and is simply a no because. Now if you wish to stress it is a simple no because, then so be it as long as you are willing to accept a yes because.

---

I was arguing by analogy (it wasn't a fallacy of composition). My point was, just because something can lay claim to some good accomplishments, it doesn't necessarily imply that its good (in its totality) or that the good outweighs the bad. Sure, the catholic church built universities, hospitals, and pretty churches. I suppose these are good things (although we can debate whether or not these things would have eventually happened anyway, although it's not a great debate, because postulating a counterfactual is always conjecture). 

I understand you were arguing by analogy. I also understand you argument to be a logical fallacy of composition, (particularly in regards to Rome which by nearly every measure is considered to have been great for humanity overall even with atrocities). As you reiterate in your claim that just because something did good does not mean the good outweighed the bad. To which I may say just because something has done bad does not mean the bad has out weighted the good and be as justified as you are in your claim. I am sure that by most objective measure the Catholic church and religion has done far more good for humanity than harm. (Kudos on not arguing the conjecture).

My gripe with religion begins with the fact that it's bullshit. So we have billions of people, including the vast majority of Americans, basing decisions, public policies, even decisions concerning academic training and investments in scientific research, on bullshit. Does this hold back our potential? I believe it most certainly does. As a biologist, I see so much potential (from curing cancer to extending lifespan to developing more advanced viral therapies, manufacturing organs instead of relying on transplants, stem cell therapies that have almost limitless potential, and so on), and even though we're an extremely wealthy society, we don't invest nearly enough in these things, and I believe part of the reason is religiosity (where we divert and waste so much energy and resources). 

And I do not think we invest nearly enough of these things because we live in a relativistic consumer society that advocates the self more than humanity and ownership of the latest toy and easy money over education and hard work. That and people general disposition to eat them selves to a heart attack and distract themselves with twitter, facebook, and the internet in general. So should I condemn Secularism? Capitalism? Consumerism? Individualism? Nope it has to be Religions fault. Because it is not like people would have any other excuse for not spending money to help people or that religion somehow promotes an idea of social charity.

To what extent are people influenced by a belief that they'll be whisked away to a celestial theme park when they die, instead of the far more likely reality (decomposition and then worm food). Imagine a world with no religion. Imagine how attitudes would be different concerning everything ranging from scientific research to global warming to space exploration and teaching science to our kids? Does religion make people more prone to manipulation? I'd say if you're willing to believe something as far fetched as the fantastic legends contained in most holy books, then you're almost certainly more gullible than those who take a more skeptical view towards these claims. And gullibility has real political consequences. 

As I said in an early post, history does not bear out your utopia of nonreligion. Communism shares your argument regarding manipulation of the masses by religion. History shoes religion commonly served the roll of social advocate for the people. Societies with out religion have historically tend to be more authoritarian, less free, and less advance. History shows that humanity has progressed the most scientifically, artistically, and socially under islamic and christian rule.

And of course religion, particularly more fundamentalist brands of religion, have to be hostile towards education. A truly well educated population will be a less religious population (there is a strong positive correlation between religious skepticism and academic accomplishment). Religion holds us back in so many ways, and I'd say in ways that far outweigh the good religion does throughout the world. Catholic charities has been in places like Africa for decades, but beyond providing some acute relief, they really haven't accomplished anything (the poverty and malnutrition rates are still terrible, and it's compounded by the fact that the catholic church refuses to promote safe sexual practices in an environment where one of the primary public health problems is sexually transmitted disease, because of its bizarre views towards human sexuality). 

Again history does not support this claim of religions hostility to education. I do have to say I find it funny that you are saying religion constrains people, argues people constrain their sexual desires, and is at fault for not encouraging people in a way to act without constraint. If sex is that dangerous the church should not need to tell anyone to restrain themselves, they should do it of their own volition. It is not like the church is hiding the data on STDs from the people. In fact the church is trying to educate the people as much as possible about the STDs and the best way to avoid them which is to control ones self!! Now people are free, and not so constrained by the church as to have it our way. Which is why they freely engage in dangerous conduct, in contradiction to advice and information provided, and risk getting a sexually transmitted disease. So do you want us to let them be free or to police their conduct entirely. If they are free they are free to not listen.

And hey, who needs science when we have a magician in the sky who will come to our rescue? Of course, there is no magician in the sky, there is no god, it doesn't matter how loving or all powerful or whatever we paint this bullshit, it's still bullshit. It doesn't matter how many times we repeat it to ourselves, it's still bullshit, and not only bullshit, but considering all we know about the natural world today, it's bullshit of the most absurd proportions. And billions of people world wide base serious life decisions on this bullshit. If we want to live longer, healthier, reduce hunger and global warming, cure diseases and understand natural disasters better, witch doctors, priests, pastors, rabbi's, etc., will not help us. Only science can help us accomplish these things, and religion is the opposite of science. It's bullshit enforced by giant institutions (like the catholic church) or more dispersed (but still very powerful) protestant organizations, who all have a very profound self-interest in sustaining this ridiculous bullshit. 

Hey who have been the staunches advocates of science and education as illustrated by the various links I already provided you. The church!! Those religions bastards. Have we forgotten that already? Hmm... Perhaps you should study the history of science more. I think you will find the amount of contribution by religionous organizations and clergy to be rather shocking. I have already provided the several links in this thread. Feel free to peruse.

So IMO, even though we have amazing potential, the human race hasn't even matured very much from our primordial state. Our science is so far ahead of every other aspect of our culture and thinking and sociopolitical structure .... that it creates a lot of unnecessary instability, and religion is a huge part of that. 

Feel better? I would say individualism and consumerism are a far bigger part of that IMO.

[Mudhammam]

Nestor; let me apologize for the delayed reply.  I was not in a rush as several of the points you have brought up are already covered in the other pages of this thread.  Nonetheless I will try to give sufficient response to save you the trouble of reading through everything again.

No need to apologize, sir. I'm not under the impression that spending one's time on an internet forum warrants high priority considering the brevity of a day.

Regarding the self contradiction of subjective morality we made reference to the Subject A lying for their own benefit to Subject B.  Under subjective morality the moral quality is to be determined according to that of Subject A.  As such the action of lying for ones own benefit is held as moral.  Now if we are to continue to view the situation from the perspective of Subject A, but swap the actors to Subject B lying for their own benefit to Subject A.  From the perspective of Subject A the action would be immoral.  So in the same respect (moral quality of lying for personal benefit) as perceived by same person (Subject A) the action is both moral and immoral at the same time (since the act is not designated as time dependent and may be held at anytime).  

So, you're saying that according to Subject A, lying would be considered immoral when it is done by Subject B to the detriment of A, but it would not be viewed by A as immoral when done by his being against others, such as B? That's not a self-contradiction because it is not in the same respect. Subject A is simply modifying the "moral quality of lying for personal benefit" when it's an action performed by him against others rather than others against his own person. It may be a terribly inconsistent position as it constantly changes with respect to who is lying and who is being deceived, i.e. who is benefiting from the lie, but that's not really how anyone, at least among those I've come across, understands subjective morality. It's subjective only because Subject A values certain facts that may differ from Subject B, not because Subject A believes certain actions under similar circumstances and with regards to different persons changes the moral quality of what it is he values.

Two this there are two responses:
1.  Regarding the measure necessity or even utility of the "God" concept there are indeed any number of works which will far exceed anything I could write in a forum by men of far greater than intellect.  Nearly every philosopher that is not trying to arguing God does not exists comes to the conclusion of the necessity of utility of God as at least a concept or the philosophical God.
2.  As an atheist I expect the argument to the objective existence of God (I sort of wonder why you attempted the linquistic path you embarked upon).  As stated repeatedly throughout this thread it is taken that by proof you mean direct explicit empirical proof rather than circumstantial implicit proof.  I readily admit that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of God.  However, I must further stress that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of anything which is not tautological (see the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant for greater explanation of actual and synthetic apriori and aposteriori).  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

1. If you have in mind the likes of Blaise Pascal or William James, I must say that while I admire their deeply felt need for postulating God as a means for creating a definition of meaning or novelty in the universe that really appears meaningful or novel to them, I'm not in the least bit persuaded that they've accomplished anything... well... particular meaningful or novel. 
2. While Kant's Critique is a masterful dissection of reason that demonstrates the limits of our ability to ascertain infallible knowledge, I don't really know what conclusions you think can be drawn from it that are relevant here. You seem to imply that if something like positivism is unsustainable than we are required to accept claims that fail to meet a criteria of demonstration which is both logically valid and empirically sound, and I think history is a museum of colossal mistakes that has proven such clumsy grubbing wrong time and time again. I'm not under the impression that everything we think we know about the world can be demonstrated, but given that, I also don't think we should put forward dogmatic assertions that deny others admitted justification for rejecting them... and lack of any evidence (explicit or implicit) or clarity of definition certainly satisfies that justification as far as I'm concerned.

I recognize that you did not deny the existence of consciousness.  However, in accordance with the general Atheistic threshold of proof, what is your direct explicit empirical proof of consciousness?  As I said several posts earlier, arguing a threshold of direct explicit empirical proof allows you to state that God does not exists for lack of proof, but it also negates the existence of everything you hold as proven to exist.  You win the battle (god does not exist), but you lose the war (nothing exists).

What could be more direct than experience? That's all consciousness is... what it is to experience something. Indirect empirical evidence would be a threshold we define in terms of third-person observation that coincides with expected behaviors analogous to our own experiences and like-behaviors which ensue. Less indirect evidence would be the capability to translate brain patterns into a language that allows an experimenter to read the subject's thoughts and feelings back to them before they were able to verbally inform anyone as to what it is they were actually experiencing... an experiment that, due to the annual exponential growth of technology, no longer appears destined to forever be relegated to the realms of science fiction. Surely you're aware of the Turing test? That's a rough start for determining whether or not a body possesses consciousness. One can reject the existence of deity for lack of empirical evidence, as well as the internally inconsistent logic of definitions put forth for god, without losing the ability to claim positive, albeit perhaps at best probable, knowledge of... anything??? Your claim to the contrary is nothing but a non-sequitur. We must admit that our knowledge is only such in the paradigm we have to go on... BUT even if that paradigm itself must to some extent be taken for granted (such as the assumption that I'm not a brain in a vat), it doesn't require that we view others as equally valid or fruitful, or that all other claims within that paradigm are equally justified.

There is ample circumstantial implicit empirical proof of consciousness; like the phenomena of experience (change in brain activity is not indicative of consciousness, though it is indicative of physiological response to stimuli.)  But as stated just above, circumstantial implicit empirical proof is not sufficient proof of the existence of a thing.

Even if I were to agree that all we have for asserting the existence of consciousness is "circumstantial implicit empirical proof"---which I'm not sure I do as that is a mouthful which I'm not entirely sure I understand in the context you seem to be using it in---why wouldn't that be sufficient for positing something as probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended, with the qualifier that more research is required and that our future knowledge of it is likely to require a change in our current perspective?

Ha ha!!  As compelled by the Atheistic threshold of proof: "What proof do you have that the environment contains others capable of thought and communication?" other than reactionary meat responding to stimuli in a manner that implies thought and communication.

What you rudimentarily call "reactionary meat responding to stimuli" is exactly what is meant by a more refined definition of beings which exhibit conscious behavior. You can try to change the meaning of words so as to always retain an appearance of mysteriousness for certain dearly held concepts, but it won't make them any less unintelligible or useless in discussion.

 "And hopefully someone will eventually discover"...You whipping out the faith card?  Do you "believe" the day will come?

"All these things, then, we feel: but the heaven has a nature which is incomprehensible, and it has never conveyed to us any distinct indication by which we can understand its nature; for what can we say? that it is solid ice, as some persons have chosen to assert? or that it is the purest fire? or that it is a fifth body, moving in a circle having no participation in any of the four elements? For what can we say? Has that most remote sphere of the fixed stars any density in an upward direction? or is it merely a superficies devoid of all depth, something like a plane figure? And what are the stars? Are they masses of earth full of fire? For some persons have said that they are hills, and valleys, and thickets, men who are worthy of a prison and a treadmill, or of any place where there are instruments proper for the punishment of impious persons; or are they, as some one has defined them, a continuous and dense harmony, the closely packed, indissoluble mass of aether? Again, are they animated and intelligent? or are they destitute alike of mind and vitality? Have they their motions in consequence of any choice of their own? or merely because they are compulsory? What, again, are we to say of the moon? Does she show us a light of her own, or a borrowed and illegitimate one, only reflected from the rays of the sun? or is neither of these things true, but has she something mixed, as it were, so as to be a sort of combination of her own light and of that which belongs to some other body? For all these things, and others like them, belonging to the fourth and most excellent of the bodies in the world, namely, the heaven, are uncertain and incomprehensible, and are spoken of in accordance with conjectures and guesses, and not with the solid, certain reasoning of truth, so that a person might venture to swear that no mortal man will ever be able to comprehend any one of these matters clearly." - Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE - 50 CE)

(bold mine)
If history has taught us anything, one lesson should most definitely be not to underestimate the ingenuity of human beings.

[robvalue]

Here are some of my thoughts, for anyone who is interested

Disbelief is not a choice. If my brain does not believe a statement, that is a matter of fact. Maybe I am able to give rational reasons which my brain disbelieves it, maybe I can't. Maybe I don't even know why. Brains are complex things. But remember disbelief does not automatically equal belief in the contrary.

Even if I couldn't defend my disbelief, that would not automatically change my mind and make me start believing. It may make me evaluate things again, but if nothing else has changed, it's not likely my brain will just suddenly start believing something it didn't before.

As it happens, it's rather easy to defend. But any given atheist may disbelieve for any reason and they have no responsibility to explain why, or to even know why. Neither do theists. I do heartily encourage critical thinking and analysis of all your beliefs, though. I would hope people care that their reasons are sound and they are in touch with these reasons, but really that is up to them to decide.

And as people so often forget, saying "I haven't come to a belief about whether there is a god or not" makes you an atheist, and surely you wouldn't ask for reasons why someone is as yet undecided. Not every atheist makes their own claims of belief that the presented claim is in fact false. This is the default, sensible position to approach any claim with. And your position may remain that way indefinitely.

It is rather obvious that the existence of any sort of god, whatever the fuck it's meant to mean, is not obvious.