Sure by definition thats what it means. But look around at all the atheists in this forum. They constantly ridicule religion because they think they know it all already. There is no need to speculate.
Perhaps they ridicule religion, not because they "know it all," not only because adherence to superstition is silly, but also because asserting your superstition as fact to the point that it forces others to accept your superstition is complete and utter poppycock.
I disagree, atheists claim to have the answers for everything.
Then, please, back this fallacious assertion up with data. Show us the data that demonstrate that atheists, in general, claim to have the answers for everything. That would mean that you would have to cite at least 50% of the atheists in this forum who have claimed to "know everything." But I'll let you off the hook if you can just cite a post where I've claimed to "know everything." That's just one atheist, Vital. Surely, if your assertion holds any water, you can back it up by showing where I, a single atheist, has made this claim.
But atheists, they're different. They know it all already, science is 100% true and accurate to them.
Clear evidence that you haven't a good understanding of science and the scientific method. And for atheists that believe that "science is 100% true and accurate" (I don't know a single one, but perhaps they exist), they're simply deluded. But this perspective of atheism by theists is a common misconception and evident of their misunderstanding of science.
Really, then why is it that atheists constantly ridicule religion?
See my answer above. It is a non sequitur to believe that because atheists ridicule superstition, they must believe they know everything.
If that were true atheists would wonder about things beyond our current scientific knowledge, instead they constantly say "there's no evidence" thats all I hear from atheists.
Then you don't get out much. You should actually try an education on for size, since much of the best science and discovery is being done by atheists who are completely turned on by "the wonder about things beyond our current scientific knowledge." Most scientists are atheist, agnostic and completely non-religious (it is, of course, the logical result of critical and unbiased thought), yet they never tire of discovery. Try reading works by Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Diane Fossey, Brian Fagan, or Stephen J. Gould. Each of these authors are scientists motivated by discovery and the unknown; that which science has yet to explain.
If science were able to offer explanations for all, it wouldn't be called science. It would be called history. You hear from skeptics "there's no evidence" because superstitious people are making claims of fact when there simply is no evidence to support the claims. It wouldn't be so bad if these were just a few kooks on the internet, but these kooks are influencing policy and becoming a hinderence to discovery.
Real discovery is being affected by superstitious beliefs in the field of stem cell science;
real discovery is being impeded by degraded quality in science education by nutters that claim the world is only 10,000 years old and ignore the facts of evolution.
So, yes, religious nutters get ridiculed. And rightfully so.
They hardly ever wonder about a soul, afterlife, God, or anything beyond scientific knowledge.
If its "beyond scientific knowledge" then that implies one of two things: science hasn't been able to discover anything about it as yet; or, science is incapable of observing it. Until such time as neuroscience is able to completely understand the brain and the nature of consciousness, concepts of soul and afterlife remain speculation. And fine speculations they are. But to make policy on how science should proceed based on baseless speculation is wrong, and this is what religious nutters do because of their superstitions. Silly ideas of magical beings that know-all, see-all are baseless superstitions and are being used to impede
real discovery and
real education.
So, yes, atheists and skeptics ridicule religious nutjobs that go on and on about how their superstitions are correct and impede
real discovery based on superstition. These nutters rely on their arguments from personal incredulity to keep science from progressing, and I expect replies from others that will single the things that science has yet to fully understand as proof of their magical/mystical/supernatural/ poppycock, such as the unknown qualities of what it means to be "conscious" or aware. Their argument is that, because science cannot explain them, science must therefore be inadequate: but the rub is they can only
claim that their superstition is able to explain such notions. When asked for the evidence of their claims, they beg the question by pointing out that science can't be right because science can't explain it either. An argument from personal incredulity.
Complete and utter poppycock.
Why is it ignorant? Its not ignorant, its just true. Atheists have the answers for all.
If it were true, there would not be a thing called science. There would only be
history.
However atheists must know it all already which is why they ridicule religion. Look at almost every post in here it has an atheists ridiculing religion because they think they know it all...
Again, atheists ridicule religion because its adherents use their superstitions to interfere with science and discovery and attempt to impose their superstitions on others. Religion
requires ridicule, criticism and inquiry.
lol
