I dunno, don't wanna investigate, therefore GOD.

You mean like that?

that's just one example. but in general if someone says there's more to objective reality than what science can investigate then i want to ask them what method they use to investigate that aspect of reality. if it is by definition not empirically verifiable then to me it's like they could just make up any old bull****.

I feel atheists ain't that different to the religious. Both claim to know something they do not. To insist the Gods are real, are false, which is sillier? Who knows.

:laughing:

Theism is distinct from gnosticism. One can be either atheist agnostic, theist agnostic, atheist agnostic, or theist agnostic. Your claim that the both claim to know something they do not is only true of the gnostics (whether theist or atheist). But atheists (and theists) can also be agnostic.

For clarity:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...itions.svg.png

Though, even between two agnostics in a discussion/argument (one theist, and one atheist) I agree with Hermione's analysis:

"But that's - I'm sorry but that's completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn't exist? Do you expect me to get hold of - of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody proved it doesn't exist!").

You're basically saying here "How can you be so sure there isn't something science can't explain?", which is entirely the wrong question, since science is perfectly alright with not knowing everything - what it's unhappy with is the idea you can not know something, yet not WANT to know it. Science makes the point that the first and most simple explanation provided to most problems is usually proven to be incorrect later on - for example the idea of there only being 4 elements was proven false by the discovery of the elements we know today, which could potentially be proven to be false tomorrow and replaced wholesale.

It therefore advocates the constant questioning of any established belief, in order to maintain a healthy scepticism of the idea we already have the correct answer for a complicated, or even not so complicated, question.

Science, for example, has yet to answer why animals need sleep. We know the effects of not sleeping, but we don't have any idea what it is about sleeping itself that prevents those effects from manifesting if we get some shuteye.

That, to science, is a mystery for which they will accept an answer if one is provided that can be reconciled with available hard evidence.

The reason science subsequently tends not to accept god, is because no religion has yet posited a god whose existence reconciles with available evidence.

Very interesting.

I agree with your general point, but just to nitpick, it's not quite that we have no idea about sleep; there are theories with evidence behind them. The most notable is the maintenance theory, for which evidence recently was published in Science:

Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain

Interestingly, the day I posted this, the other proposed function of sleep (in memory and learning) gained some ground in terms of evidence, too:

Sleep promotes branch-specific formation of dendritic spines after learning

Fair.