Men, Women, Religion, and Arguments

[daddy1gringo]

By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, are you saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God?

I'm describing the production process and logic of choice regarding religion, baby.

You can insert the "because God" claim as a given. Let's jam that baby into the "before the beginning of time" input. Sure, that can't be verified, which to me is pointless to pursue, so we'll stick with the logic of choice by examining people's incentives to produce and accept a religion.

So is that a "no"?
Or a "yes"?
Or a "maybe"?
Or a "Gaaaa don't ask me that because I got caught with my foot stuck in my mouth!"?
If you are not claiming to be able to test, prove, verify, or falsify that claim, then what are you claiming to be able to be able to test, prove, verify or falsify?

[BigBallinStalin]

By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, are you saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God?

I'm describing the production process and logic of choice regarding religion, baby.

You can insert the "because God" claim as a given. Let's jam that baby into the "before the beginning of time" input. Sure, that can't be verified, which to me is pointless to pursue, so we'll stick with the logic of choice by examining people's incentives to produce and accept a religion.

So is that a "no"?
Or a "yes"?
Or a "maybe"?
Or a "Gaaaa don't ask me that because I got caught with my foot stuck in my mouth!"?
If you are not claiming to be able to test, prove, verify, or falsify that claim, then what are you claiming to be able to be able to test, prove, verify or falsify?

Okay. If you accept my "market of religions/production process of religion" argument as true, then it's possible that Christianity was created through the same means. The incentives were there, the demand was there, and people mentally recorded and wrote the book.

You can argue, "God inspired them," but that claim is unfalsifiable; the production process isn't--it can even take the "ultimate god input" as given. The pattern which you should recognize is that nearly all religious texts are always backed by the "divine inspiration" claim; however, the religious good differs. The outcomes are not the same, so the religions contradict each other (even if god is the ultimate cause). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Are you beginning to see how this pattern unfolds?

[kentington]

Well, that's what I've been saying IIRC. If god didn't exist, then we'd just make him up. Then I explain the market of religion and how that works. Then some people got upset because I describe religion as a "good," or as a product of human creativity.

To me, the original source doesn't matter. Let's call it a given: "the ultimate god-input." People perceive the ultimate god-input as true, thus heightening the value of that religion. Sure, we'll accept that as given.

Still, at one point in the production process, people wrote down the Bible. If you claim that God transcribed it through their hands, then that can't be shown (thus is unfalsifiable). However, what can be shown in this actual world is that people write religious texts or produce religious explanations with their mouths. They claim "divine inspiration" which makes their products unfalsifiable. Are you starting to get it?

You say I have a weird definition of free will. Ok, range of choices. That still doesn't disprove my argument about God putting a desire to know Him in us. We would still have free will. My point is that you still have a choice. It is not pre-determined.

Yes, we have free will regardless of the thoughts God puts into our heads. That doesn't make sense. If I put into your head, the desire to lick linoleum floors whenever you see them, is my act granting you free will? Or have I forced you to behave a certain way?

Ok ok. I didn't realize you had said if (deity) didn't exist. My bad. Insert foot in mouth.

You have not forced me if I still have a choice. Do you see atheists? Then people still have free will. He isn't forcing you to believe and follow Him. Should I say a desire to search Him out? Does that make more sense? Whether you find Him or choose not to believe is a different matter.

[JJM]

I heard a long time ago about Men and Women arguing. During an argument men keep going further and further into logic, reason, facts, and examples. The women keep going further and further into feelings, emotions, fairness. This is why the arguments rarely get settled.

This got me thinking about religious arguments. You can't argue with religious people, because they aren't logical. Religion by definition isn't based in logic, reason, examination, or common sense. It is based on Faith. Faith is "belief that is not based on proof." If religions weren't based on Faith, and were instead based on logic, reason, examination etc, they would be called Science.

Thus, Religion is illogical, and does nothing more than to deprive people of the ability to think and learn on their own. It hinders growth, expansion and progress, and keeps people stupid and living in the dark ages.

The essence of Christianity is told to us in the Garden of Eden history. The fruit that was forbidden was on the Tree of Knowledge. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you wanted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your fucking mouth shut and hadn't asked any questions.

When you say that we are not logical. I say to you that we have many reasons. Amazing events such as Washington's men surviving a great winter, and the landing on the Hudson. The Bible also predicted that Isreal would once again become a nation. Do you really think that so many people would have followed Jesus and became christians if he had not done something? Also I have noticed that most athiests are frequently mad and unhappy people who always want to argue, while most who are religous lead very happy lives.

[daddy1gringo]

By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, are you saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God?

I'm describing the production process and logic of choice regarding religion, baby.

You can insert the "because God" claim as a given. Let's jam that baby into the "before the beginning of time" input. Sure, that can't be verified, which to me is pointless to pursue, so we'll stick with the logic of choice by examining people's incentives to produce and accept a religion.

So is that a "no"?
Or a "yes"?
Or a "maybe"?
Or a "Gaaaa don't ask me that because I got caught with my foot stuck in my mouth!"?
If you are not claiming to be able to test, prove, verify, or falsify that claim, then what are you claiming to be able to be able to test, prove, verify or falsify?

Okay. If you accept my "market of religions/production process of religion" argument as true, then it's possible that Christianity was created through the same means. The incentives were there, the demand was there, and people mentally recorded and wrote the book.

You can argue, "God inspired them," but that claim is unfalsifiable; the production process isn't--it can even take the "ultimate god input" as given. The pattern which you should recognize is that nearly all religious texts are always backed by the "divine inspiration" claim; however, the religious good differs. The outcomes are not the same, so the religions contradict each other (even if god is the ultimate cause). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Are you beginning to see how this pattern unfolds?

A. To answer your questions, 1. No that doesn't strike me as strange at all. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you will see that my scenario accounts perfectly for the similarities and the differences of different religions. inb4 "falsifiable" -- it is irrelevant whether it is falsifiable or not. It is consistent with the facts about the similarities and differences of different religions, and therefore disproves your objection that it should "strike [me] as strange" translated: that it creates a problem or speaks against what I believe. For somebody who uses the language of logic, you appear to have no idea how to proceed logically. I AM NOT CLAIMING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROVE TO YOU BY THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE -- FOR THE 100TH TIME. yes, I "see how the pattern unfolds". I understood this idea long before I ever heard of you (probably before you were born) and if I didn't, you have re-stated it several times now and I have answered accordingly, showing that I understand it.

B. You dodged the question....again. I'll answer it for you. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, you are not openly "saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God." You are saying that my supposition could fit within the framework of yours, but if one does so, various inconsistencies emerge. I have answered you. There is no such inconsistency.

[daddy1gringo]

BBS, Your whole previous post was based on the false premise that I was claiming to prove the truth of my beliefs in my post. I specifically and categorically stated otherwise.

How do I explain it? Now remember, I'm not claiming to prove any of this at this point; you asked for how I explain it, and this, grossly oversimplified, is it:

Since you insisted that what I had said previously was irrelevant to your question, in this post I restricted myself to literally and specifically answering your question: "How do you explain the similarities...?" and the implication that those similarities were inconsistent with my beliefs, and therefore a rationale for believing that it was all made up.

I set out to show that the existence of various "god(s) stories" and other religious traditions throughout the world, with various similarities, was entirely consistent with belief in the God of the Bible, nothing more. Your statement that my post did not prove that my beliefs, rather than something else (Islam, spaghetti monster, etc) are indeed the truth, is irrelevant; I never claimed or intended to prove that with what I said there.

You continue to prove [my](edited) point by giving as your argument a scenario based on the premise that there is no God and that there is not one truth that he is trying to communicate to us. Now I, quite openly, was doing the same thing: expounding a scenario based on the premise that both those things do exist. The difference between us is that I am not trying to pretend that it is something else. My goal was to answer your specific question. One thing at a time.

Do you believe you have the ability to prove your belief's are true?

That's a good question, and I intend to answer it, but my answer is not a simple one, so please have patience. I just wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring or dodging it. (and to bump this post to make it easier to find)

[PLAYER57832]

Do you believe you have the ability to prove your belief's are true?

If you could prove it, it would not be belief, it would be fact.

However, everyone tends to see evidence that they belief leads credence to some ideas over others. The conflict comes not in that difference, but insisting that only those who see the same track are sensible or intelligent. We all have differing experiences and ways of viewing the world. Accepting those differences is part of what makes our society strong. Continually insisting that others must feel as you on anything outside of actual fact is what leads to division and ultimately to fanaticism and strife. Becuase, when you decide that other people lack sense, are not reasonable (as opposed to just seeing thing differently) and see compromise as something harmful, then you have no option but more narrowness of thinking.

[BigBallinStalin]

By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, are you saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God?

I'm describing the production process and logic of choice regarding religion, baby.

You can insert the "because God" claim as a given. Let's jam that baby into the "before the beginning of time" input. Sure, that can't be verified, which to me is pointless to pursue, so we'll stick with the logic of choice by examining people's incentives to produce and accept a religion.

So is that a "no"?
Or a "yes"?
Or a "maybe"?
Or a "Gaaaa don't ask me that because I got caught with my foot stuck in my mouth!"?
If you are not claiming to be able to test, prove, verify, or falsify that claim, then what are you claiming to be able to be able to test, prove, verify or falsify?

Okay. If you accept my "market of religions/production process of religion" argument as true, then it's possible that Christianity was created through the same means. The incentives were there, the demand was there, and people mentally recorded and wrote the book.

You can argue, "God inspired them," but that claim is unfalsifiable; the production process isn't--it can even take the "ultimate god input" as given. The pattern which you should recognize is that nearly all religious texts are always backed by the "divine inspiration" claim; however, the religious good differs. The outcomes are not the same, so the religions contradict each other (even if god is the ultimate cause). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Are you beginning to see how this pattern unfolds?

A. To answer your questions, 1. No that doesn't strike me as strange at all. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you will see that my scenario accounts perfectly for the similarities and the differences of different religions. inb4 "falsifiable" -- it is irrelevant whether it is falsifiable or not.

I see that you have departed from the world of reason and have entered into the world of faith. We can't attain mutual understanding when you stomp your feet and say, "unfalsifiable?! IRRELEVANT!" <shrugs> Have fun worshiping the Flying Gnomes.

[JJM]

I see that you have departed from the world of reason and have entered into the world of faith. We can't attain mutual understanding when you stomp your feet and say, "unfalsifiable?! IRRELEVANT!" <shrugs> Have fun worshiping the Flying Gnomes.

I offered up reason, but it appears to have been ignored.

[BigBallinStalin]

I see that you have departed from the world of reason and have entered into the world of faith. We can't attain mutual understanding when you stomp your feet and say, "unfalsifiable?! IRRELEVANT!" <shrugs> Have fun worshiping the Flying Gnomes.

I offered up reason, but it appears to have been ignored.

File a complaint with bedub.

[daddy1gringo]

You conveniently left out the rest of the post where I attempted to reason with you according to what you were saying.

It is consistent with the facts about the similarities and differences of different religions, and therefore disproves your objection that it should "strike [me] as strange" translated: that it creates a problem or speaks against what I believe. For somebody who uses the language of logic, you appear to have no idea how to proceed logically. I AM NOT CLAIMING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROVE TO YOU BY THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE -- FOR THE 100TH TIME. yes, I "see how the pattern unfolds". I understood this idea long before I ever heard of you (probably before you were born) and if I didn't, you have re-stated it several times now and I have answered accordingly, showing that I understand it.

B. You dodged the question....again. I'll answer it for you. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, you are not openly "saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God." You are saying that my supposition could fit within the framework of yours, but if one does so, various inconsistencies emerge. I have answered you. There is no such inconsistency.

No one is stomping their feet, shouting that the other's statements are irrelevant without giving reasons for saying so, and avoiding reasoning but you.

[Symmetry]

D1G is not, by any stretch of imagination, a foot-stomper. Dude goes out of his way to answer questions on his faith, and tolerates a fair bit on this forum- I know, I've criticised him on a fair number of issues. D1G is probably one of the most level-headed and level footed posters you'll come across. Ask him a question, and he will explain. When it comes to Christian belief, dude lives it, so you may as well be asking for his life story. It ain't exactly a "yes" or "no" thing. I like his nuanced answers, and careful thought.

[daddy1gringo]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. As somebody who is on BBS's side of this issue, maybe he'll listen to you. Can you help sort out the confusion? Each of us apparently thinks the other is not dealing with what we're talking about. Or am I just wasting my time?

[JJM]

You conveniently left out the rest of the post where I attempted to reason with you according to what you were saying.

It is consistent with the facts about the similarities and differences of different religions, and therefore disproves your objection that it should "strike [me] as strange" translated: that it creates a problem or speaks against what I believe. For somebody who uses the language of logic, you appear to have no idea how to proceed logically. I AM NOT CLAIMING OR ATTEMPTING TO PROVE TO YOU BY THIS PARTICULAR STATEMENT THAT WHAT I SAY IS TRUE -- FOR THE 100TH TIME. yes, I "see how the pattern unfolds". I understood this idea long before I ever heard of you (probably before you were born) and if I didn't, you have re-stated it several times now and I have answered accordingly, showing that I understand it.

B. You dodged the question....again. I'll answer it for you. By saying that your statement is falsifiable, and that you can test it, you are not openly "saying that you can prove that what I believe (I’m not talking about just any teaching ever invented and called “Christian” by its inventor) is invented by human beings as opposed to being actual truth given by an actually-existing God." You are saying that my supposition could fit within the framework of yours, but if one does so, various inconsistencies emerge. I have answered you. There is no such inconsistency.

No one is stomping their feet, shouting that the other's statements are irrelevant without giving reasons for saying so, and avoiding reasoning but you.

I agree. When you mention similarities between religions, it is worth noteing that just about every religion has a flood story. Another intersting tidbit is that the Odyssey mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours when Odysseus returned home, while the Bible also mentions a day that lasted more than 24 hours during the lifetime of Joshua. To be clear I do not believe everything in the Odyssey, I think that Odysseus existed but that the events during his return home are ficticous, but it is worth mentioning that two different sources include the same event.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. As somebody who is on BBS's side of this issue, maybe he'll listen to you. Can you help sort out the confusion? Each of us apparently thinks the other is not dealing with what we're talking about. Or am I just wasting my time?

Nah, you're not. For you, the ultimate cause is God. For me, the ultimate cause is much more likely to be humans, given the incentives for providing religious goods.

Now here's my point: Even when I try to be unbiased and treat our conclusions equally, I still come up with that we both look at the same facts and draw a conclusion that is in accord with our preference. You that there is no (G)god and people made up the stories, and I that there is one and he is communicating. Frankly, I think any decent detective would have to choose mine as making more sense: if there is a commonality to the stories, it is because there is something to them, and specifically something to the parts they have in common.

This is where we come to a standstill.

Here's a correlation. You posit, "god did it," which can't be falsified. (It could equally be possible that Flying Gnomes did it, so it depends on how one wishes to define "God", which is why I'll give deists a break).

What's more likely is that humans did it. We're ingrained with a desire to know and to understand, so we'll come up with explanations. When some of the explanations are placed into the realm of the unfalsiable, they can't be countered. God did it, Flying Gnomes did--there's no way to know which did which.

What is incorrect about stating that humans created the idea of "God"? Humans have written the books and have created the oral stories. That's evident--it can be seen and tested. If you posit, "god guided their hands," then that can't be shown--that's just faith talking.

[BigBallinStalin]

Over the centuries, religious explanations have been discarded with the rise of more sophisticated sciences and philosophies. Religion has slowly retreated into the realm of the unfalsifiable, or faith-based claims. It used to cover much more. More people took the Book literally, but not so much these days. For a long time, people believed the world was 6000 years old, but today not as many believe that. This is due to advances in non-religious fields. That can't be denied, can it? If you agree, then you'd have to admit that philosophy and science have become more sophisticated .

RE: underlined, sure, but not as many unanswered questions. Religion has largely been eased into the region of faith and the unfalsifiable.

...which explains why people like Neoteny and I are going to opt for the non-religious substitutes. Back in the day, we'd be much less likely to, given the significantly lower quality of the non-religious substitutes.

Okay, let's say I agree (because I do agree and have agreed all along).

This goes back to the question of whether people are religious to help explain the unexplainable or whether they are religious for other reasons. As I've contended in other threads, I think people are religious for other reasons. I also contend that most religions do not (generally) ignore science, especially in the modern area. So one can have their unanswered questions answered by science and still be religious. I know one example off the top of my head - me.

Sure, some questions remain--like the unfalsifiable claims, which science can't deal with. Pick your religious explanation on that one, and have fun, I guess. There's plenty of religious explanations to choose from, so pick whichever garners the most benefits for you.

[PLAYER57832]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. As somebody who is on BBS's side of this issue, maybe he'll listen to you. Can you help sort out the confusion? Each of us apparently thinks the other is not dealing with what we're talking about. Or am I just wasting my time?

For the "record", my post was not to infer you confused the distinction. Rather, I think many criticizers attempt to do so. They accuse us of being "biased", and "not logical", whilst completely ignoring that their (ultimate) positions lack evidence, too.

The division between belief and fact is not "do I agree", its "can it be proven without bias". Complicating this is that many beliefs can be stated as fact... as in "Christians belief in Christ" or "atheists believe there is no God" are factual statements, even though the ideas encompassed are not. Simplistic example, but a distinction that too often gets blurred when the debate gets complicated and/or just heated.

[john9blue]

hey i've got a question for the atheists in here

suppose i live my life as if god doesn't exist, but once a year i tell a random stranger on the street "god doesn't exist". am i a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

what if i do it once a week instead of once a year. am i a strong or weak atheist? how about once a day? several times a day?

what if i raise my voice so that a few people around me can hear. am i a strong or weak atheist? what if i scream it at the top of my lungs? what if i use a megaphone, or start putting up signs around the city?

finally, answer me this: what is the fundamental difference between strong and weak atheism? if your answers to the above questions are not all the same, why did you choose the transition point that you did?

[BigBallinStalin]

hey i've got a question for the atheists in here

suppose i live my life as if god doesn't exist, but once a year i tell a random stranger on the street "god doesn't exist". am i a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

How much can you bench?

what if i do it once a week instead of once a year. am i a strong or weak atheist? how about once a day? several times a day?

How much can you bench?

what if i raise my voice so that a few people around me can hear. am i a strong or weak atheist? what if i scream it at the top of my lungs? what if i use a megaphone, or start putting up signs around the city?

How much can you bench?

finally, answer me this: what is the fundamental difference between strong and weak atheism? if your answers to the above questions are not all the same, why did you choose the transition point that you did?

How much can you bench?

[Lootifer]

I cant even bench my own body weight /cry

[john9blue]

hey i've got a question for the atheists in here

suppose i live my life as if god doesn't exist, but once a year i tell a random stranger on the street "god doesn't exist". am i a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

How much can you bench?

what if i do it once a week instead of once a year. am i a strong or weak atheist? how about once a day? several times a day?

How much can you bench?

what if i raise my voice so that a few people around me can hear. am i a strong or weak atheist? what if i scream it at the top of my lungs? what if i use a megaphone, or start putting up signs around the city?

How much can you bench?

finally, answer me this: what is the fundamental difference between strong and weak atheism? if your answers to the above questions are not all the same, why did you choose the transition point that you did?

How much can you bench?

i'll bench YOU

[BigBallinStalin]

I cant even bench my own body weight /cry

You're a weak atheist.

hey i've got a question for the atheists in here

suppose i live my life as if god doesn't exist, but once a year i tell a random stranger on the street "god doesn't exist". am i a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

How much can you bench?

what if i do it once a week instead of once a year. am i a strong or weak atheist? how about once a day? several times a day?

How much can you bench?

what if i raise my voice so that a few people around me can hear. am i a strong or weak atheist? what if i scream it at the top of my lungs? what if i use a megaphone, or start putting up signs around the city?

How much can you bench?

finally, answer me this: what is the fundamental difference between strong and weak atheism? if your answers to the above questions are not all the same, why did you choose the transition point that you did?

How much can you bench?

i'll bench YOU

Based on your response, you're a militant atheist--trying to violate my rights and stuff!

[Haggis_McMutton]

hey i've got a question for the atheists in here

suppose i live my life as if god doesn't exist, but once a year i tell a random stranger on the street "god doesn't exist". am i a strong atheist or a weak atheist?

what if i do it once a week instead of once a year. am i a strong or weak atheist? how about once a day? several times a day?

what if i raise my voice so that a few people around me can hear. am i a strong or weak atheist? what if i scream it at the top of my lungs? what if i use a megaphone, or start putting up signs around the city?

finally, answer me this: what is the fundamental difference between strong and weak atheism? if your answers to the above questions are not all the same, why did you choose the transition point that you did?

None of those questions are relevant, strong/weak atheism has nothing to do with how militant you are.

strong atheism = non-agnostic atheism = asserting god doesn't exist
weak atheism = agnostic atheism = believing god doesn't exist (or not believing god exists, whatever), without asserting any absolute knowledge on the matter.

Also, it's possible to be a weak atheist regards to some general god, but a strong one in regards to more specific gods.(i.e. you assert that the abrahamic god literally cannot exist for some reason or another).

[john9blue]

None of those questions are relevant, strong/weak atheism has nothing to do with how militant you are.

strong atheism = non-agnostic atheism = asserting god doesn't exist
weak atheism = agnostic atheism = believing god doesn't exist (or not believing god exists, whatever), without asserting any absolute knowledge on the matter.

Also, it's possible to be a weak atheist regards to some general god, but a strong one in regards to more specific gods.(i.e. you assert that the abrahamic god literally cannot exist for some reason or another).

nobody "knows" that god does or doesn't exist.

when a "strong atheist" says "i know god doesn't exist" they are just saying that they strongly believe it. there is never any absolute knowledge on the matter. it is ALWAYS possible for someone to change their mind.

i'll ask another question, then: how sure does someone have to be that "god doesn't exist" to be classified as a strong atheist?

someone who is 1% sure is a weak atheist, and someone who is 99% sure is a strong atheist. what % is the transition point from weak to strong, and why?

(nobody can be 100% sure, for reasons stated above)

[Haggis_McMutton]

None of those questions are relevant, strong/weak atheism has nothing to do with how militant you are.

strong atheism = non-agnostic atheism = asserting god doesn't exist
weak atheism = agnostic atheism = believing god doesn't exist (or not believing god exists, whatever), without asserting any absolute knowledge on the matter.

Also, it's possible to be a weak atheist regards to some general god, but a strong one in regards to more specific gods.(i.e. you assert that the abrahamic god literally cannot exist for some reason or another).

nobody "knows" that god does or doesn't exist.

when a "strong atheist" says "i know god doesn't exist" they are just saying that they strongly believe it. there is never any absolute knowledge on the matter. it is ALWAYS possible for someone to change their mind.

i'll ask another question, then: how sure does someone have to be that "god doesn't exist" to be classified as a strong atheist?

someone who is 1% sure is a weak atheist, and someone who is 99% sure is a strong atheist. what % is the transition point from weak to strong, and why?

(nobody can be 100% sure, for reasons stated above)

Some people do believe that they know for a fact god does/doesn't exist. Ask jay or NS if you need further evidence on this matter. (actually, I believe jay's exact words were "I'm 120% sure god exists").

I agree that in general this claim of knowledge is irrational. I suppose if it could be shown that a gods definition is internally inconsistent or something like that a claim of knowledge might be reasonable, but that's debatable as well.

I would say that fundamentally the difference is between those who do think they have perfect knowledge and those who realise they don't.