"Atheism is a superstition."

[Skeptic Ginger]

This was a stupid answer, and is not deserving of a response.

Actually, the answer had merit and was valid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I asked that, because someone said "there is evidence that God is not real," paraphrased.

There is. There is evidence gods are fictional beings people invented.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again, I say:

There is evidence that God is not real? I would like to know where, and who proposed or found this evidence.

Anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and the rest of the physical science scientists that have debunked individual god myths with scientific evidence can take credit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You say that religions cause all kinds of strife in the world. There are PLENTY of examples of non-theists causing all sorts of strife as well.

Therefore, the argument that religion causes strife is a moot point to make. Because anyone can use any excuse to cause any sort of crimes against humanity.

I do agree with you here that much of the time religion is used to motivate soldiers while the leaders would be fighting a war regardless. And I have no doubt that Falwell, Dobson and Robertson would be horrible selfish creatures even if they were atheists.

However, religion can be the very source of the strife.

 

[Nihilianth]

There is evidence that God is not real: the lack of evidence provided by believers supporting their claim.

The lack of evidence isn't evidence for or against anything. It is just merely "the lack of evidence."

 

[Lowpro]

The lack of evidence isn't evidence for or against anything. It is just merely "the lack of evidence."

The lack of evidence when it's expected to be there means that there is a lack of evidence FOR God if you're looking for where it should be.

 

[Nihilianth]

Except that non theist starting strife are not doing it because they are non theist they have otehr reasons (which are as bad granted , but they don't do it because of their atheist or in the name of their atheism, even the communist were not purging people around because of atheism, and IIRC they even had initially support of the orthodox church).

Right. And that's sort of my point. Brutal dictatorships and monarchies don't necessarily need the excuse of religion, or lack of religion to act in the manner in which they do. Some rulers have happened to have found it convenient to use religion as an excuse to garner more support and power. But you don't necessarily need "religion" in order to do so. It is just as erroneous, I think, to blame religion on human strife and suffering on religion, as it is to blame it on atheism. Rather, I think the blame should be shifted more towards greed, envy, racism, intolerance, and so forth. For religion has also caused a lot of good throughout the world as well, which is undeniable.

So, using the theory that religion...let's say Christianity....is the "cause" of strife, what about on the one hand, Christianity is also the cause for a lot of good? Wouldn't that rather say a lot more about the individuals who happen to practice the religion, rather than the religion itself?

If one use a holy book (not only the bible there are more religion than Christianity) to attempt to prove the existence of gods, it is perfectly fine to use the same way to falsify the evidence.

True that. I can completely agree. But that kind of argument won't work on someone like me. I do believe in the Christian God. I do have faith in Jesus Christ. What I don't believe, is a literal interpretation of the OT, especially of the Creation story in Genesis.

And when arguing against an atheist who uses science, I cannot point to the Bible and say "Jesus is real, and he rose from the dead, because the Bible says so!" No. The only response I have is: "I just believe that Jesus is real, that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that he rose from the dead three days after dying on the cross."

That said , I don't see evidence against the existence of gods, I see a lot of evidence that their existence (gods) is not necessary to explain anything whatsoever.

Here's where I disagree. Would it somehow be against the laws of nature if God did exist? I'm not sure that is even answerable in any meaningful way. If God were real, that would mean he caused the laws of physics to work they do. Therefore, God is entirely necessary. I know science certainly cannot explain the very....uuhhh...."moment?"....before time and the Universe began. I know it cannot explain the every moment it did begin. I find the concept of the "creation" or "beginning" of the Universe without the involvement of an Intelligent Designer incredibly fascinating. If only because I rather think this is the one True fallacy of science. Or rather, the fallacy of pure atheists who are also scientists.

I know the best and brightest of physicists, such as Einstein, Hawking, Kaku, and...what-his-name that had that show back in the 80s, don't ever seem to actually come out and definitively say they are 100% "atheists." I find that sort of remarkable.

 

[Nihilianth]

A very simple rule in this debate.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof" (Christopher Hitchens).

The other point I wish to make is, do believers deserve the right NOT to be offended?

I say, no more than non-believers.

I agree. Nobody has the right "NOT" to be offended. But I do believe that everybody has the right to be treated with some sort of dignity, and respect. I have every right to be treated with respect by anyone I meet or come in contact with. I also have the right to expect to be treated with that respect. I should also have the responsibility to treat others with the same respect I want in return.

That doesn't mean you don't have the right to disrespect me, and I have the right to not be offended. But at that point is when all true communication and learning comes to a complete halt.

As has been said above, it is not belief in the supernatural that is often the problem for non-believers, it is the underseved deference and priviledges that are afforded to it by the state, our laws, and in education. Some examples of this has already been mentioned above.

Religion deserves to be protected, as much as atheists deserve to be protected from religion, insofar as the government is concerned. That doesn't mean the government should step in and tell theists they cannot preach out on the streets. They also have free-speech rights along with the right to practice a religion freely.

snip (No need for this to be here, as nobody, I don;t think, would object to this part)

What is not fine, is to indoctrinate their and other's children with their beliefs,

So, you don't think parents should have the right to educate their own children how they see fit? I would find that to be a GROSS violation of parents' rights, and religious practices. I like your choice word of "indoctrinate," too.

to teach that biblical accounts are factual in schools,

What about Catholic schools? I went to Catholic school, and they taught such things as Earth science in one class, and the very next class, was Religion.

(I assume you mean public school, and I do see that you had mentioned they shouldn't teach Biblical accounts as factual. I find this rather hopeful. Being one of the most important historical books in all of human history, I don;t think it would do our education system justice if we didn't at least offer an elective course or two on theology in general. Not necessarily Christian religion, or the Bible specifically. But some sort of theology class that sort of covers all the different types of religions and/or other belief systems.)

enjoy special treatment that exempts them from certain laws, and expect deference from others in their daily lives.

This has to be brought up in almost every single thread. Of course theists should be treated no differently when it comes to slaying another human being, for instance.

When we reach that scenario, then the conflict between science and religious belief will be over. However, it still seems we have a long way to go from where I am standing.

If we even "get to that point." I would think it would be a rather dull world in which we would find ourselves in if we didn't have such a variety of religious or other beliefs and ideas.

 

[Nihilianth]

If you can't define god then how do you know that the entity you call god is god?

I honestly have no idea how to even begin to answer this question, except to say that of course we do not know the mind of God, and we should never make the claim that we do. I think, rather, that GWIMW is sort of apt.

How can a finite human, with finite knowledge and imperfection ever understand a being that is perfect, omnicscient, and knowledgeable in every conceivable way?

 

[dafydd]

I honestly have no idea how to even begin to answer this question, except to say that of course we do not know the mind of God, and we should never make the claim that we do. I think, rather, that GWIMW is sort of apt.

How can a finite human, with finite knowledge and imperfection ever understand a being that is perfect, omnicscient, and knowledgeable in every conceivable way?

Prove to me that this being exists.

 

[Nihilianth]

No, it isn't. The story doesn't hold up.

Uh, let's look clsoely at this dumb little line of conversation for a minute:
/////////////////////////////////////

Using the Bible to argue the non-existence of God is just as stupid as using the Bible to argue the existence of God.

DIRECT repsonse:

No, it isn't. The story doesn't hold up.

Sooooo......what you are saying is, using the Bible to argue whether or not God is real is not stupid? I am quite perplexed.

I think, in conclusion, you are being argumentative, just for the sake of not wanting to ever agree with anything a theist has to say about anything whatsoever. Therefore, it seems any and all conversation with you is completely moot, as you will just disagree with anything I say out of hand by default as a knee-jerk reaction.

That was the very first time, and probably the ONLY time, I will ever see any atheist ever say something like that.

(Unless I am terribly confused, due to you being completely unclear as to what you may have meant to say.)

 

[Nihilianth]

The lack of evidence when it's expected to be there means that there is a lack of evidence FOR God if you're looking for where it should be.

The lack of evidence for something, doesn't mean it IS evidence that something is not real.

You cannot say "the lack of evidence that you killed someone, is evidence that you didn't kill someone." That is redundant. It just simply means there is a lack of evidence. It neither means that you did, nor does it mean you didn't kill someone.

Western countries have the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." That doesn't mean a person is not, in fact, a murderer. It doesn't mean someone "can't" be accused of murder. If that were the case, there would never be any charges of murder brought against anyone. It wold mean there would be no investigation, at the very least.

Now, the difference is, you can actually prove whether someone is a murderer or not, for we live and die by the very laws of nature. Since God created the Universe and the laws of nature, He sort of "lives outside" of those laws. Therefore, there is no possible way to prove or disprove anything. I just happen to believe in God, and you happen to not believe in Him.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I have never heard of religion described quite in that way.



Nazism, Communism, and Maoism are not at all "religions." Religion is the belief in the supernatural. Nazism is the belief that Caucasians are superior to all other races. Communism is a specific form of organizing society that has failed miserably (i.e., society is supposed to be "classless.") Maoism is just another form of Communism.

What Nazism, Communism, and all of Communism's various forms, such as Maoism and Marxism, have in common, are that they are generally ruled by brutal fascist dictators, whose sole purpose is to gain as much power unto themselves. They will use any and all means in order to whip people up into a frenzy of support.

There is no "religion" anywhere in there.

There are many examples throughout history in which religion was used as an excuse to achieve much the same results. And like fascism, all those examples were miserable failures.

I also wouldn't say the belief in....say....Christianity is stagnation of anything. Or rather, not necessarily so. When it comes to "The Big Questions," such as "where did the Universe come from?" and "What caused the Big Bang?" and "How did we ACTUALLY go from non-life to life?" I think it is just as stagnant for atheists to completely do away with any possibility whatsoever for an Intelligent Designer.

Now, I am pretty sure I know what you are going to say in regards to how we go from non-life to life. You are going to say about how RNA is the perfect replicator for organizing a bunch of different components of proteins and so forth to join together for simple-celled "organisms," in which they began to finally evolve. Great. But how does it and when does it actually become "alive?"

As great as science is, and as much as we have discovered, there are still far too many unanswered questions, many of which will only remain unanswerable. The more we discover and find out about the Universe, the stranger a place it becomes, and the more questions get revealed.

As great and wondrous as the Universe is, I find it pretty foolish and stagnant to discount the possibility for anything, even an ultimate Creator.

You seem to just ignore the fact that these regimes replaced their religion with the same basic frame work, replacing deity with politician, the state, and philosophy. Dissent was unacceptable in these regimes, it was just another species of religion. The same basic social meme in a new niche the 18th century seeded and the 20th century cultivated.

Unquestionable dogma that does not welcome scrutiny. If you want to argue the literal definition of a religion, you're missing the point I made.

The idea that belief leads to stagnation is an old saying. You're ignoring what the point is there.

When you believe something, you stop questioning it. You decide what you believe, otherwise, you don't believe it.

This is when the mind metaphorically stagnates, a pool no longer churned by inquiry and skepticism. Certainly one can find pleasure and relish in the false answers and stagnation belief provides, much as one can find in the most stepped on and tainted bag of heroin one can find in the local slum. But it's false and ultimately will lead to conflicts unless you pretend there are barriers and fences for what one can be skeptical and inquire about and what one cannot, leaving it off limits. One cannot believe and doubt at the same time. But it's actually a great way to think, if you can get past valuing things like faith and belief and untangle them from concepts like hope and idealism.

Dogma and doctrine are the enemy of humanity, you're lost in tunnel vision trying to focus on selfishness and greed and human sin and the reasons why people are mean to each other.
The answer to our woes is rational thinking, open inquiry, and an education that does not tolerate emotional appeals and logical fallacy as legitimate arguments. If you want to say this leads to Communist Regimes and Maoism, then I say, how dare you? People generally are decent to each other, and the sooner we move away from ideas like "original sin" and the flawed nature of man, the better.

 

[Bad vibe]

I honestly have no idea how to even begin to answer this question, except to say that of course we do not know the mind of God, and we should never make the claim that we do. I think, rather, that GWIMW is sort of apt.

How can a finite human, with finite knowledge and imperfection ever understand a being that is perfect, omnicscient, and knowledgeable in every conceivable way?

So this entity is "perfect,omnicscient, and knowledeable in every concievable way" how do you know? did it submit some kind of resume? You cannot claim it beyond human comprehension and then define it.

 

[Bad vibe]

You seem to just ignore the fact that these regimes replaced their religion with the same basic frame work, replacing deity with politician, the state, and philosophy. Dissent was unacceptable in these regimes, it was just another species of religion. The same basic social meme in a new niche the 18th century seeded and the 20th century cultivated.

Unquestionable dogma that does not welcome scrutiny. If you want to argue the literal definition of a religion, you're missing the point I made.

The idea that belief leads to stagnation is an old saying. You're ignoring what the point is there.

When you believe something, you stop questioning it. You decide what you believe, otherwise, you don't believe it.

This is when the mind metaphorically stagnates, a pool no longer churned by inquiry and skepticism. Certainly one can find pleasure and relish in the false answers and stagnation belief provides, much as one can find in the most stepped on and tainted bag of heroin one can find in the local slum. But it's false and ultimately will lead to conflicts unless you pretend there are barriers and fences for what one can be skeptical and inquire about and what one cannot, leaving it off limits. One cannot believe and doubt at the same time. But it's actually a great way to think, if you can get past valuing things like faith and belief and untangle them from concepts like hope and idealism.

Dogma and doctrine are the enemy of humanity, you're lost in tunnel vision trying to focus on selfishness and greed and human sin and the reasons why people are mean to each other.
The answer to our woes is rational thinking, open inquiry, and an education that does not tolerate emotional appeals and logical fallacy as legitimate arguments. If you want to say this leads to Communist Regimes and Maoism, then I say, how dare you? People generally are decent to each other, and the sooner we move away from ideas like "original sin" and the flawed nature of man, the better.

very well put

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The lack of evidence isn't evidence for or against anything. It is just merely "the lack of evidence."

We don't have a lack of evidence. We have overwhelming evidence people make up god myths and no evidence gods are anything but made up human fiction. It walks like a myth, talks like a myth, it's a myth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The lack of evidence when it's expected to be there means that there is a lack of evidence FOR God if you're looking for where it should be.

There's that too.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Look, all I know is 'tide comes in, tide goes out.'

 

[Nihilianth]

You seem to just ignore the fact that these regimes replaced their religion with the same basic frame work, replacing deity with politician, the state, and philosophy. Dissent was unacceptable in these regimes, it was just another species of religion. The same basic social meme in a new niche the 18th century seeded and the 20th century cultivated.

Are politicians supernatural beings? Is the state a supernatural place? Is philosophy a supernatural phenomenon?

Let's look at the actual definition of "relgion" for a minute, and for a litmus test real quick:

–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.

Since we can all agree that neither politicians, the state, nor philosophy are supernatural in any way (though "philosophy may be considered a debate ABOUT the supernatural,) definition number one does not fit.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Here is the closest we come to passing our little litmus test. However, I would like to ask you: What are/were some of the "fundamental beliefs of Nazism," as an example? I'll list a few, just for argument's sake:

1. Caucasians are a superior race to all others. Does this belief mean Nazism is a religion? If you answer "yes," then I submit that science is a religion in it's own right. I am sure you believe that no other creature on the planet is as superior as....say.....your wife, or your kids. In other words, I am probably making a pretty safe assumption that you probably value human life over any other species.

2. Eugenics. The Nazis believed that if a person has any infirmities, they should not reproduce, for they would be a drag on society. This is pretty much along the lines of number one, except to say they believe that society is perhaps greater than the individual. Not exactly having anything to do with the super natural, and again, science could also be considered a "religion" under the same definition. Scientists discover things to benefit the human race. They use lab rats to create medications, and to to test various different viruses, and what not. Clearly, scientists feel as though human society is more important than any other species. They use rats, because it is "unethical" to use individual humans to test such things.

3. Unity. Again, a very basic naturally-occurring human phenomenon. Hitler wanted to unify Europe. Not exactly an ideology that is necessarily "religious" in nature. I am sure you feel some "unity" among your peers and countrymen.

Finally, you have the little matter of the examples given by definition two: The Christian religion, and the Buddhist religion. (Although, even Buddhism is not strictly a "religion" either. It's more of an Eastern philosophy.)

3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Again, Nazism cannot really be considered a religion here, unless you are willing to concede that science is also a religion. Science can also be considered "a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." The scientific method is adhered to pretty strictly by scientists. And it is a definable set of practices. Peer-reviewing is a sort of "world council" of scientists who decide to review each others' works.

But that is a bit of a stretch to say all of that, due to the first definition.

Further, I submit the entry of "religion" on Wikipedia:

Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in that it has a public aspect. Most religions have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.

Unquestionable dogma that does not welcome scrutiny. If you want to argue the literal definition of a religion, you're missing the point I made.

If I were not to argue the literal definition of "religion," that gives you free-rein to just use the word however you want to use it, in order to give a wholly negative perception on the subject. That would be dishonest on your part, and naive on my own.

"Religion" is not the only thing that has "unquestionable dogma that does not welcome scrutiny." Nazism and Communism (fascism in general) are two prime examples of this. As is a monarchy.

The idea that belief leads to stagnation is an old saying. You're ignoring what the point is there.

Just because it is an old saying, doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

When you believe something, you stop questioning it. You decide what you believe, otherwise, you don't believe it.

Also not necessarily true. I am sure you can look around the forums here, and find PLENTY of examples of individuals who have previously believed in something, and have since changed their minds.

People are prone to change their minds, ya know. Just because you believe something, doesn't mean you are totally unmovable from that position. In any case, you could also say the same about the lack of belief in something. If you absolutely do NOT believe in God, that means you are not allowing for any possibility for there to be a God. I know. There is no evidence, therefore, there is no reason to believe in such a magical, mythical being. But since there is no evidence whatsoever that shows the Universe even began, then there is no reason to believe that the Universe actually exists, if there is no evidence that it began.

This is when the mind metaphorically stagnates, a pool no longer churned by inquiry and skepticism. Certainly one can find pleasure and relish in the false answers and stagnation belief provides, much as one can find in the most stepped on and tainted bag of heroin one can find in the local slum. But it's false and ultimately will lead to conflicts unless you pretend there are barriers and fences for what one can be skeptical and inquire about and what one cannot, leaving it off limits. One cannot believe and doubt at the same time. But it's actually a great way to think, if you can get past valuing things like faith and belief and untangle them from concepts like hope and idealism.

Do I have doubt that God exists? Not at all. I have faith in him. Do I have doubt that what science says is true? Again, not at all. If there is evidence that the Earth is round, and 4.5 billions years old, I am inclined to believe it over an old book. The only thing I remain immovable on, is my faith in Jesus Christ, that he died, came back from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and that God made it all happen. Does this fly in the face of the laws of nature? Well, I don't really see how (except for the whole rising from the dead and ascending into heaven thing. But if God made the laws of nature, they are subject to change whenever He feels the need in order to do so. It may sound strange to you, and I'll probably be made fun of saying this, but who cares? Whose it hurt? Nobody. not even myself, for I have a lovely wife, and two great sons, living in a decent house, and we both have well-paying jobs. At the age of 27 and 25 respectively. She even has a Master's in dental hygiene.)

Dogma and doctrine are the enemy of humanity, you're lost in tunnel vision trying to focus on selfishness and greed and human sin and the reasons why people are mean to each other.

"Dogma and doctrine" are not the "enemy of humanity." The US and other Western nations have this little "dogma" of human rights, and they are all spelled out very clearly in the US Constitution, and the European Human Rights Commission. "Doctrine" is what keeps order, a la laws passed by government in order to protect basic human rights....to protect the weak from the strong, and to keep order to society.

It is when brutal dictators use the powers of government to violate these tenets that we hold dear. Just like when they use religion to further their own agendas. Hitler rose to power, not through religion. But rather through political wrangling, and all manner of "German Pride." He rose to power on the heels of greed and envy. He used the pride of the German people to breed an envious society. They were envious of the Allied powers from World War I, after we defeated them. They were envious of our position of strength and prosperity. Hitler used this envy, and turned it to greed. He easily convinced the German people to become greedy enough to seek prosperity through their own means and to unite themselves against the rest of the world, especially the Jews. In order to achieve these goals, they invaded country after country, and they devastated whole populations of people in their death camps.

All of that, and no religion needed. None.

The answer to our woes is rational thinking, open inquiry, and an education that does not tolerate emotional appeals and logical fallacy as legitimate arguments. If you want to say this leads to Communist Regimes and Maoism, then I say, how dare you? People generally are decent to each other, and the sooner we move away from ideas like "original sin" and the flawed nature of man, the better.

I am not saying, nor have I ever stated, that these ideas will ever lead down the road of another Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia. Rather, I am saying the exact same thing you just now stated, only IRT religion, rather than skepticism. If you want to say the belief and faith in a religion leads to Communist Regimes and Maoism, then I say to you, "how dare you?" People are varying faiths are decent to each other, regardless of whether we ever move away from ideas like "original sin."

It is still a fact that man does have a flawed nature. How can you possibly say otherwise? If we didn't have a flawed nature, there would never have been such a thing as war to begin with. There would be no such thing as extreme greed and envy. (I suppose you could say those are "survival traits" from way back when. But I don't buy that. People had a much easier time surviving when they shared the fruits of their labor. Fighting each other over resources only weakens you in an unforgiving natural world. If humans were truly not flawed, they would find a way to increase limited resources, and so we have over the years. Case in point: Farming, as opposed to subsistence living and survival by hunting.)

 

[tsig]

Right. And that's sort of my point. Brutal dictatorships and monarchies don't necessarily need the excuse of religion, or lack of religion to act in the manner in which they do. Some rulers have happened to have found it convenient to use religion as an excuse to garner more support and power. But you don't necessarily need "religion" in order to do so. It is just as erroneous, I think, to blame religion on human strife and suffering on religion, as it is to blame it on atheism. Rather, I think the blame should be shifted more towards greed, envy, racism, intolerance, and so forth. For religion has also caused a lot of good throughout the world as well, which is undeniable.

So, using the theory that religion...let's say Christianity....is the "cause" of strife, what about on the one hand, Christianity is also the cause for a lot of good? Wouldn't that rather say a lot more about the individuals who happen to practice the religion, rather than the religion itself?





True that. I can completely agree. But that kind of argument won't work on someone like me. I do believe in the Christian God. I do have faith in Jesus Christ. What I don't believe, is a literal interpretation of the OT, especially of the Creation story in Genesis.

And when arguing against an atheist who uses science, I cannot point to the Bible and say "Jesus is real, and he rose from the dead, because the Bible says so!" No. The only response I have is: "I just believe that Jesus is real, that he is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that he rose from the dead three days after dying on the cross."



Here's where I disagree. Would it somehow be against the laws of nature if God did exist? I'm not sure that is even answerable in any meaningful way. If God were real, that would mean he caused the laws of physics to work they do. Therefore, God is entirely necessary. I know science certainly cannot explain the very....uuhhh...."moment?"....before time and the Universe began. I know it cannot explain the every moment it did begin. I find the concept of the "creation" or "beginning" of the Universe without the involvement of an Intelligent Designer incredibly fascinating. If only because I rather think this is the one True fallacy of science. Or rather, the fallacy of pure atheists who are also scientists.

I know the best and brightest of physicists, such as Einstein, Hawking, Kaku, and...what-his-name that had that show back in the 80s, don't ever seem to actually come out and definitively say they are 100% "atheists." I find that sort of remarkable.

I honestly have no idea how to even begin to answer this question, except to say that of course we do not know the mind of God, and we should never make the claim that we do. I think, rather, that GWIMW is sort of apt.

How can a finite human, with finite knowledge and imperfection ever understand a being that is perfect, omnicscient, and knowledgeable in every conceivable way?

Yet to believe in Jesus you have to claim to know a lot about god. You believe that god created mankind and that mankind fell from gods' grace and needed to be saved by Jesus.

You are simultaneously claiming that god is impossible to understand and that you understand gods' plan.