Every culture has a belief about the intrinsic value of human life beyond rationality, which could be described as a faith.

I think most objections against experiments of this nature stem from the fear that this could change. It might, but also due to different factors like ecologic degradation and over population.

But if outrageous atrocities are inevitable, why would you stop here?

It's not irrational to hold an opinion. I like watermelon more than grapefruit. Nothing irrational about that, just subjective.

Comparing that to faith makes no sense to me. Faith is a willful suspension if disbelief, against all evidence. That's not an opinion.

I am so certain that atheists exist.

I am one. A valued friend is also. We are intelligent and emotionally aware people. Both of us know and value people who believe in God. Speaking for myself, I see no disconnect.

Regarding your "they claim the unknowable": if an atheist is claiming the unknowable, so is the theist. Yes, I do experience great emotions and experiences. I do not attribute these to God. If you do, that is great and please enjoy that. I will have mine as I shall.

My point is that if you insist that I am at best an agnostic, so are you. Pascal's Wager. We just are placing opposing bets in Las Vegas.

This is a perverse level of precision to insist on. Yes, people cannot hope to have 100% certainty that no gods exist. No, that should not be the threshold, unless you would call yourself agnostic on whether leprechauns exist. And nobody (except a few people more interested in proving a point than in discussing how people actually talk) does that.

I'm not sure I understand what it means to be the reciprocal of agnostic, but I very much believe that the entire concept of deities is nonsense. People who call themselves agnostic tend to disagree, and people that call themselves atheist tend to agree. I'll continue to call my self an atheist so that I can actually be understood.

Is this purposefully contrived to confuse?

You seem unaware of the fact that agnosticism and atheism are perfectly compatible with each other. Agnostic atheists are still atheists.

>1) Atheists do exist.

Duh?

I'm super confused if my tongue-in-cheek comment went over your head or not. I do mention setting a house on fire to get someone's attention. I figured that's more than enough info to declare not to take the entire comment seriously.

I think it was the part about "deep down" questioning whether gods are real. Many people are happy to question it, nothing deep down about it. I assume that was what they meant by atheists do exist.

They way you wrote it made it sounds as if you were saying that everyone at the surface believes gods are real, but only deep down do they perhaps, maybe question it. It sounds as if you were taking it for granted that everyone obviously believes gods are real, which is of course not true, whether you meant that or not.

Gods aren't real. The point of the very witty comment is that people are subconsciously still always arguing about them: "If God is real, would he let me do this!?"

Or, "If God is real, surely this will flush him out."

God is questioning wether she exist all the time.

Wow... I mean... I get you're trying to understand where the misunderstanding is. But, this smells like people not understanding the difference between figurative and literal. Like right there, do I actually think this gives off a smell of some sort, no and the fact I now have to clarify that means I literally believe humanity is already fucking doomed. This is just one large example of, "Chill out, it was a joke."