What's wrong with saying "we don't know"?

[Radrook]

What ? You mean it's atheists who claim to know about the existence of god(s), an afterlife, heaven and hell, reincarnation, and suchlike ?

you're lucky ridicule doesn't kill anymore ...

Sigh! Now you are messing up the subject via misrepresenting what I said. Please read again to see if this time you can understand what I posted. It is written in plain English.

As for ridicule, true, it doesn't kill-it just gets ignored.

 

[fuelair]

Well, here is what is wrong with it from the atheist side:

Atheists avoid the I don't know, response when faced with the patently unknown because they see such an admission as a defeat. You see, if they admit ignorance about things beyond what science can know, then they feel that they have admitted to the possibility of God.

For example, if the present ignorance about other dimensions, their laws, or other possible universes is mentioned-they become uncomfortable and change the subject or don't reply. Of course that is understandable since a consideration of this subject requires the inevitable conclusion and would demand the admission of "I don't know!" in reference to what exists, or can exist in those realms.

This, in turn, they rightfully perceive, must include the admission that they don't really know if there is indeed a being in one of those realms which are presently beyond scientific reach who meets all the criteria qualifying that being as God.

So perhaps their educational background also causes this?

BTW
The distaste and subsequent avoidance among some atheists to the "I don't know!" admission is so strong that some here on this forum have seemed to have argued along the lines that that there is nothing which science doesn't know. Which is of course and obviously untrue.

No true Scotsman? I am an atheist (last I checked) and I do say I don't know -if that knowledge is not available - it would be stupid not to. But if I do not know, it is pretty certain the creationist/religious or troofer doesn't either. In all fairness, I would need to see quotes on that "nothing science doesn't know" thing because I would have responded to that myself if I saw it. Science is no better than the minds and tools available to it. There are still things beyond those minds and tools. BUT evidence is necessary for scientists, religionists, creationists and troofers. The last 3 groups tend to want to do without it and/or suffer from the belief that philosophy is evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Wow! Project much?

That's exactly what theists do. You get to the limits of science and declare "There be god(s) here".

The point is that you people are doing exactly what you criticize theists of doing-assuming that you know!

 

[Jimbo07]

You see, if they admit ignorance about things beyond what science can know, then they feel that they have admitted to the possibility of God.

Part of the problem is that we don't know what science can and cannot know. Historically, science has provided the best way of knowing anything. The evidence is in the machine you're posting on. That doesn't make it a default that science will allow us to know everything, it just raises the question: do you have a better method for knowing stuff?

For example, if the present ignorance about other dimensions, their laws, or other possible universes is mentioned-they become uncomfortable and change the subject or don't reply.

What other dimensions, laws or possible universes would those be exactly? Do you have any tangible evidence of their existence whatsoever? Never mind a fully detailed analysis published in a scientific journal. Just provide some imminent practical evidence! You don't need a thorough data analysis to show that a hammer drives a nail, but their interactions are governed by physical principles.

Of course that is understandable since a consideration of this subject requires the inevitable conclusion and would demand the admission of "I don't know!" in reference to what exists, or can exist in those realms.

No. "I don't know," is a perfectly acceptable answer to questions requiring real knowledge. "I don't know," is the start of learning. It does not apply to science fiction and other fairy tales for which no evidence has been provided.

This, in turn, they rightfully perceive, must include the admission that they don't really know if there is indeed a being in one of those realms which are presently

We don't know that these other realms even exist, but your utter lack of evidence suggests that it is fair to work as if they do not.

beyond scientific reach who meets all the criteria qualifying that being as God.

If I don't know what is beyond scientific reach, you certainly do not.

So perhaps their educational background also causes this?

Stoopid skoolin'... gettin' in the ways of reel learnin'

BTW
The distaste and subsequent avoidance among some atheists to the "I don't know!" admission is so strong that some here on this forum have seemed to have argued along the lines that that there is nothing which science doesn't know. Which is of course and obviously untrue.

Yes, your statements are obviously untrue. I'm not an atheist and I know that you have miserably mischaracterized some of the posters here. These last lines go beyond strawman into outright dishonesty. No scientist, not even the Victorian examples (like Kelvin), have attributable quotes in which they say that, "there is nothing which science doesn't know."

It won't mean anything to you, but the wonder, glory and attraction of science is the unknown...

 

[Flo]

Sigh! Now you are messing up the subject via misrepresenting what I said. Please read again to see if this time you can understand what I posted. It is written in plain English.

Yes, you wrote in plain English that you ascribed to atheists what theists (and religionists in general) are doing all the time by claiming to know what things there are outside the possibilities that science points at.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Neither is there a reason to claim that you know what lies beyond the reach of science and yet that is exactly what atheists presumpuously and unscientifically do.

No, Radrook (I know you will not respond, but others can read my posts and will see me responding to your claims followed by your failure to defend them), atheists do not presume to know what lies beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. That is why they do not assume that there is a god hiding in the gaps. The vast majority of atheists that I know do not say "I am certain that there are no gods", they say "I see no evidence of god any more than I see evidence of fairies".

And yet you presumptuously and unscientifically claim to know what lies beyond the reach of science. Tell us, which "being who meets all the criteria qualifying that being as God" do you believe in? What are those criteria? How do you determine that differing criteria for establishing god are invalid? If you believe in the god of Abraham but not in the god Wotan then are you not presumptuously and unscientifically claiming to know what lies beyond the reach of science?

 

[Radrook]

No Member, apart from you, has posted that in this thread that I can see - I may be being post blind can you quote the post so I can see it?

What I meant to say was that I used his terminology. He did use the word "creation "along with "atheist".

But atheists are just people who do not believe in any form of theism they don't have any other belief or non-belief in common, certainly "atheism" has nothing to do with any belief or non-belief about how the universe was or was not created.

Yes, I know that non-belief in gods or a God is what artheists have in common and that theyt might differ in views on how the universe came into existence as proposed by science.

So what do you mean by "full awareness of what atheists believe"?

For example I don't believe in any of the forms of theism I have ever heard or read about so I can be described as an "atheist" and I certainly have no belief about how the universe came about (if indeed it ever did or even if the question is in any sense meaningful).

I agree with your definition.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Sigh! Now you are messing up the subject via misrepresenting what I said. Please read again to see if this time you can understand what I posted. It is written in plain English.

As for ridicule, true, it doesn't kill-it just gets ignored.

Ooh! I think I know who Radrook will say "Goodbye" to next. [Looks at Flo holding bouquet]

 

[Foster Zygote]

The point is that you people are doing exactly what you criticize theists of doing-assuming that you know!

I'm sorry, I missed that, what with the deafening roar of the irony and all.

 

[Furi]

The point is that you people are doing exactly what you criticize theists of doing-assuming that you know!

Luckily though atheists are not limited by any self imposed rulings not to stray outside the bounds, so we can actually further our knowledge, we do not have an archaic tome of comittee minutes telling us our sum knowledge of the universe.

Just because we haven't found the sum knowledge of the universe doesn't stop us from filling in the gaps from existing physical models, Atheists have we don't know or theoretical constructs, theists just tend to slap some of their special "No Need For Brains, God Sealing Gel" over it.

 

[fishbob]

Well, here is what is wrong with it from the atheist side:

Atheists avoid the I don't know, response when faced with the patently unknown because they see such an admission as a defeat. You see, if they admit ignorance about things beyond what science can know, then they feel that they have admitted to the possibility of God.

For example, if the present ignorance about other dimensions, their laws, or other possible universes is mentioned-they become uncomfortable and change the subject or don't reply. Of course that is understandable since a consideration of this subject requires the inevitable conclusion and would demand the admission of "I don't know!" in reference to what exists, or can exist in those realms.

This, in turn, they rightfully perceive, must include the admission that they don't really know if there is indeed a being in one of those realms which are presently beyond scientific reach who meets all the criteria qualifying that being as God.

So perhaps their educational background also causes this?

BTW
The distaste and subsequent avoidance among some atheists to the "I don't know!" admission is so strong that some here on this forum have seemed to have argued along the lines that that there is nothing which science doesn't know. Which is of course and obviously untrue.

See above for a prime example of complete and utter horse hockey.
'I don't know' is one of my favorite phrases - right up there with with 'I don't know yet', 'I'm working on it', and 'complete and utter horse hockey'.

 

[Tanstaafl]

The point is that you people are doing exactly what you criticize theists of doing-assuming that you know!

What exactly am I assuming that I know? Not believing in an invisible and unprovable entity somehow means I'm claiming to know something?

 

[fishbob]

I went along with his terminology in full awareness of what aheists believe. Thanx for the feedback.

I don't know, but I think you might be wrong about that.

 

[Radrook]

No true Scotsman? I am an atheist (last I checked) and I do say I don't know-if that knowledge is not available - it would be stupid not to. But if I do not know, it is pretty certain the creationist/religious or troofer doesn't either.

Certain? How do you know?

In all fairness, I would need to see quotes on that "nothing science doesn't know" thing because I would have responded to that myself if I saw it.

Sorry! I assumed that everyone knew that science has limits. But obviously I was wrong in assuming that. So let me give you an example in order to clarify. Let's consider the electron.
Scientists have striven to pinpoint the exact location of electrons as they move around the atomic nucleus but to no avail. Why? Well, because to their astonishment, the electrons seem to disappear and reappear at unpredictable random locations. Which raised the question where they were disappearing to and where they were reappearing from. This unknown
required an explanation. So scientists came up with the theory that these electrons were disappearing into other dimensions where they were also functioning as electrons and then reappearing in ours in order to function here. Now, this is just a theory, but astonishingly they found that such a theory helped them to hypothesis mathematically about what happened prior to the Big Bang. Something they had hitherto been unable to do. Two dimensions clashed, they concluded, and resulting in the "creation" of our universe.

This is the latest explanation for the disappearance and reappearance of the electrons. Yet, it is just a theory requiring, if I remember correctly, twelve dimensions. Which mathematically turns out satisfactorily from their viewpoint. This theory has taken the place of the previous string theory which was said previously to accurately represent the very fiber of our universe. But that other theory proved limited and left many questions unanswered while this present theory doesn't leave as many that way.

Science is no better than the minds and tools available to it. There are still things beyond those minds and tools. BUT evidence is necessary for scientists, religionists, creationists and troofers. The last 3 groups tend to want to do without it and/or suffer from the belief that philosophy is evidence.

I don't think that philosophy alone is evidence. Neither do millions of other theists. We look about, see organic machines functioning and displaying all the characteristic of forethought and purpose of design and conclude a creator or designer just as you do when and if you find a complex machine displaying what you consider planning and forethought. Actually, scientists do that all the time with simple arrowheads and chipped stones. That we do so with the intricate computer called the human brain, for example, is far more justifiable. From our viewpoint-of course.

 

[Radrook]

I don't know, but I think you might be wrong about that.

In what way?

 

[Tanstaafl]

That's a beautiful synthesis of bits of real science with imagination and wild guesses. You should try being a science fiction writer. Seriously!

 

[Radrook]

What exactly am I assuming that I know? Not believing in an invisible and unprovable entity somehow means I'm claiming to know something?

Of course you are claiming to know. You are claiming to know tat such a being doesn't exist. Do you realize the significance of what you are saying? You are saying that you know for a certainty that no matter what the vastness real nature of our universe or of ultimate reality might be-even if it composed of infinite dimensions as some physicists postulate,
or an infinite number of multi universes which some astronomers such as Carl Sagan have speculated, that in all this vastness where our laws might not apply, that YOU know there isn't somewhere even the slightest possibility of a being we call God.

Do you realize how unscientific and illogical that sounds?

BTW
You are also saying that you know for a certainty that all the sense impressions you receive are coming from an exterior world. Or that ultimate reaslity is exactly as you are perceivng bit. Something you cannot prove. In short, you are applying skeptisism here but not there.

 

[Irony]

Of course you are claiming to know. You are claiming to know tat such a being doesn't exist.
Do you realize the significance of what you are saying? You are saying that you know for a certainty that no matter what the vastness real nature of our universe or of ultimate reality might be-even if it composed of infinite dimensions as some physicists postulate,
or an infinite number of multi universes which some astronomers such as Carl Sagan have speculated, that in all this vastness where our laws might not apply, that YOU know there isn't somewhere even the slightest possibility of a being we call God.

Do you realize how unscientific and illogical that sounds?

You're projecting again.

 

[Radrook]

That's a beautiful synthesis of bits of real science with imagination and wild guesses. You should try being a science fiction writer. Seriously!

A wild guess is saying that you know for a certainty what encompasses all reality whenyou are stuck here without any means to justify that statement via observation not limited by your fallible human senses. Now that's the mother of all wild guesses.

BTW
There is no need to evade the issue via irrelevant responses. That just clutters the board with and adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[Radrook]

You're projecting again.

Sigh! Another response evading the issue. If you have nothing of significance to add, or consider the subject too disturbing, why not just simply bow out and participate in another thread?