Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[riley2112]

So, what you're saying is that you look around and see design in the world and therefor it was designed? And if I were to tell you that when I look around I don't see design therfor it wasn't designed, our arguments are the same. And they're both filled with logical fallacies. This is a terrible way to deduce design or non-design. .

With that I completely agree with you. You ask me what made me think that way , I told you.

Why does it matter what richard dawkins says? He is not convinced that design or purpose is the result.

What does it matter what he says? well I would guess that he is better educated and seems to have put in a lot of research on the subject, plus you are right , he is not convinced one way or the other. Hell , he is worst off than either of us, at least we believe one way or the other. I am just assuming that you believe in natural process. Forgive me if I presume to much.

 

[Tristesse]

With that I completely agree with you. You ask me what made me think that way , I told you.


What does it matter what he says? well I would guess that he is better educated and seems to have put in a lot of research on the subject, plus you are right , he is not convinced one way or the other. Hell , he is worst off than either of us, at least we believe one way or the other. I am just assuming that you believe in natural process. Forgive me if I presume to much.

What I meant when I said what does it matter what richard thinks, is that you're posting a quote from a man who disagrees with your preconcieved notion, to boost up your argument. It would be like me quoting william lane craig to demonstarte that a non-designed universe is more accurate.

Of course I believe that natural processes occur, you don't? Humans are the product of natural processes along with all living creatures and along with the universe. And Richard does in fact have a side on the issue and it's the side of nature over magic.

 

[riley2112]

What I meant when I said what does it matter what richard thinks, is that you're posting a quote from a man who disagrees with your preconcieved notion, to boost up your argument. It would be like me quoting william lane craig to demonstarte that a non-designed universe is more accurate. .

The reason I quoted him is that he said that it looked like intelligent design. That to me would show that he may have some doubt of his own findings. Which would not be surprising.

Of course I believe that natural processes occur, you don't? Humans are the product of natural processes along with all living creatures and along with the universe. And Richard does in fact have a side on the issue and it's the side of nature over magic.

And yes , I guess in a way I do believe that natural process occurs. I think it was designed that way.
Magic? is that a way of saying you think I am foolish? :sarcastic

 

[riley2112]

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

 

[Tristesse]

The reason I quoted him is that he said that it looked like intelligent design. That to me would show that he may have some doubt of his own findings. Which would not be surprising.

His greater point, which seems to have been missed, is that, things can have an appearance of design without actually being designed. Sand Dunes in the desert appear to be designed, but we know it's the wind that causes them. Nature can produce amazing things.

And yes , I guess in a way I do believe that natural process occurs. I think it was designed that way.
Magic? is that a way of saying you think I am foolish?:sarcastic

On this one subject, yes, I do think you're being foolish. That doesn't mean that I think you are entirely foolish. I think it's foolish to have a position that isn't based on evidence.

 

[Tristesse]

The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.

Wow, this is not the thread for this, but if you start a new thread I will be more than happy to tell you how unscientific and faulty the reasoning is behind intelligent design.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So have we all defined just what close mindedness is? Is Dawkins close minded?

 

[riley2112]

On this one subject, yes, I do think you're being foolish. That doesn't mean that I think you are entirely foolish. I think it's foolish to have a position that isn't based on evidence.

You really don't think that the universe shows any signs of intelligent design? The way every thing seem to fit together like a puzzle.
I am not the only one that thinks that intelligent design is fact or at least a theory.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

The very idea that there is this much study and debate on the subject would seem to indicate that it has some aspect of being true. So I am not being foolish alone.

 

[riley2112]

So have we all defined just what close mindedness is? Is Dawkins close minded?

I don't think his mind is closed , however if you keep telling the same story enough times you could start believing your own misconceptions. And besides , even if he found evidence that he was wrong,(and I am not saying he is. Intelligent design does not mean that natural process in wrong. I think both are correct to a point) he may hide it for the reason of looking, foolish.

 

[Tristesse]

You really don't think that the universe shows any signs of intelligent design? The way every thing seem to fit together like a puzzle.

No, I don't. Like a puzzle? You mean the way that planets colide and black holes form and how 99.999999% of the universe is hostile towards life etc... To me, this shows a lack of intelligence. But regardless, intelligence has to be demonstrated and not asserted as I said before.

I am not the only one that thinks that intelligent design is fact or at least a theory.

Intelligent design is neither fact nor theory. It barely qualifies as a hypothesis.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

The very idea that there is this much study and debate on the subject would seem to indicate that it has some aspect of being true. So I am not being foolish alone.

Well, your last statement is somewhat false, because the truth of the matter is that there isn't very much debate on this issue at all, the vast majority of biologist are in agreement that natural selection is the best explanation for diversity of life. Thats why the ID movement isn't providing evidence, they're lobbying.

Putting that aside. Intelligent design is one big argument from ignorance. "I can't think of how a structure this complicated could have arisen by purely natural means, therefor some unidentified intelligence is responsible." This is the type of reasoning that made us think that the sun revolved around the earth or that the earth was flat. Your ignorance is not evidence that a claim is true. But again, this is not the thread for that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hell , he is worst off than either of us, at least we believe one way or the other.

I think the wisest person is the one who doesn't know.

 

[Tristesse]

So have we all defined just what close mindedness is? Is Dawkins close minded?

No, I don't think he is. What most atheists are looking for is evidence to change their mind, not faith or anyother unreliable way for determining truth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So have we all defined just what close mindedness is? Is Dawkins close minded?

It's answering the question "Is it possible that..." with an emphatic No.

 

[riley2112]

No, I don't. Like a puzzle? You mean the way that planets colide and black holes form and how 99.999999% of the universe is hostile towards life etc... To me, this shows a lack of intelligence. But regardless, intelligence has to be demonstrated and not asserted as I said before.



Intelligent design is neither fact nor theory. It barely qualifies as a hypothesis.



Well, your last statement is somewhat false, because the truth of the matter is that there isn't very much debate on this issue at all, the vast majority of biologist are in agreement that natural selection is the best explanation for diversity of life. Thats why the ID movement isn't providing evidence, they're lobbying.

Putting that aside. Intelligent design is one big argument from ignorance. "I can't think of how a structure this complicated could have arisen by purely natural means, therefor some unidentified intelligence is responsible." This is the type of reasoning that made us think that the sun revolved around the earth or that the earth was flat. Your ignorance is not evidence that a claim is true. But again, this is not the thread for that.

No it is not the thread for this, But it sure would make an interesting thread.

 

[Tristesse]

No it is not the thread for this, But it sure would make an interesting thread.

It would. But there are many threads on this subject so far. But if you want to start a new one, I would not be opposed to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So have we all defined just what close mindedness is? Is Dawkins close minded?

I'm not sure we have defined it. I'd say that closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to have one's mind changed when confronted with new information; it seems like you've defined it so that anyone who's come to a conclusion is closed-minded.

 

[riley2112]

It would. But there are many threads on this subject so far. But if you want to start a new one, I would not be opposed to it.

I think it would be interesting ,

 

[riley2112]

I'm not sure we have defined it. I'd say that closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to have one's mind changed when confronted with new information; it seems like you've defined it so that anyone who's come to a conclusion is closed-minded.

I am not sure that would be correct, The new information would have to be pretty solid in order for anyone to think it would change someones mind, but if that be the fact then, yes I would then agree .

 

[Reverend Rick]

I'm not sure we have defined it. I'd say that closed-mindedness is an unwillingness to have one's mind changed when confronted with new information; it seems like you've defined it so that anyone who's come to a conclusion is closed-minded.

In this instance as far as beliving in God, I am pretty sure Atheists are not about to change their mind without proof positive.

Even a closed minded person cannot deny proof positive can they?

Short of proof positive, what would they even consider?

These folks might be open minded in general, but not when it concerns religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this instance as far as beliving in God, I am pretty sure Atheists are not about to change their mind without proof positive.

Even a closed minded person cannot deny proof positive can they?

Short of proof positive, what would they even consider?

Dunno. Just that God existing is more consistent with what we experience than God not existing would be. It seems to me that you're confusing rational decision-making with closed-mindedness

These folks might be open minded in general, but not when it concerns religion.

See... I come at things from a different point of view. I think that there are many people who are quite happy to be rational and thoughtful in general, but give their religion a pass on normal critical evaluation.

Also, while I'm sure there are some unreasonable atheists out there, I think that in general, the failure of atheists to accept religious claims says more about the poor quality of the support for those claims than it does about the unreasonableness of atheists. In a large part, when I look at the reasons why theists believe what they believe, IMO, it usually comes down to reasons other than rational evaluation of the facts... IOW, it comes down to factors where rejecting the basis for their decision isn't really a matter of being closed-minded.