How I Feel About Atheists

[Altfish]

Withholding belief is irrelevant to this conversation because it's not atheism. Atheism rejects the possibility that gods exist apart from the imagined entities in the human mind.
Again, "withholding belief" is irrelevant. Atheism is not the "withholding of belief". Atheism is an irrational and unnecessary rejection of the possibility that God/gods exist.

Yes, atheism rejects the idea that a god exists.
But it is not an irrational decision, it is a decision based on evidence or to be precise the total lack of evidence.
Give me evidence, I will reconsider.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it doesn't. Not logically. Logically a "lack of belief" , or "withheld belief". is called "skepticism", not "atheism".

So the singular basis for all your criticism of atheists
is that you reject a common dictionary definition?

I'll illustrate the problem with such an approach with
an old joke.....
If I call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

Spoiler: Answer

A dog has 4 legs.
This is because a tail is not a leg.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You still haven't answered me. I answered your question, can you answer mine ? Do you at least agree that it is reasonable to believe in a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator ? I apologize if you did answer and I just missed it.

It is reasonable to believe in the the possibility of a god or gods, but to believe in the actual existence of them requires taking a leap of faith off of the cliff of reason, faith being unjustified belief.

That's pretty much the antithesis of reason or reasonable.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic that chooses to trust in an idea of "God" (as determined by me) whether "God" exists apart from my idea of it or not. I feel that atheism a pointless rejection of possibility based on nothing but an anti-religious, materialist bias. This seems to have 'riled' some of the atheists, here, such that they feel the need to defend themselves. It's unnecessary, of course, and so far has been completely ineffective at changing my opinion of atheism if that was their intent. If anything, their various objections have only reinforced my opinion.

To be clear, atheism is the philosophical (theology being a sub-category of philosophy) position that gods do not exist except as imaginary intities in the minds of some humans. It is not mere "unbelief".

Okay. Thanks for telling me your view point. I very much respect it and find it to be very reasonable. And I totally agree with your view on atheists.
Also, when I speak of a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator possibility , I am not speaking of any religious matters. It seems many equate ID and Creationism with having to be religious when it certainly does not have to have anything to do with religion, although it may for some. Not for me.
I can respect anyone's beliefs or world views as that is for them to decide . It is their life experience to hold whatever they deem to be true.
What I don't respect is those who try to dissuade or negate other's world views based on nothing other than they don't agree. When people use phrases like "your view is illogical" or "no, your viewpoint is wrong." I find that to be ignorant, shallow, narrow-minded, egotistical. and just low intelligence and lack of understanding. I know atheism is the lack of belief in any type of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer , but don't they understand that that is just their belief. It is not provable nor is it illogical to believe in a God/Creator/ID. And vice versa. It is not provable nor illogical to not believe in a God/Creator/ID. Obviously no one knows . That isn't the point. Both possibilities exist, among many others, and someone who claims that these possibilities don't exist is unintelligent and ignorant in my view.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Okay. Thanks for telling me your view point. I very much respect it and find it to be very reasonable. And I totally agree with your view on atheists.
Also, when I speak of a God/Intelligent Designer/Creator possibility , I am not speaking of any religious matters. It seems many equate ID and Creationism with having to be religious when it certainly does not have to have anything to do with religion, although it may for some. Not for me.
I can respect anyone's beliefs or world views as that is for them to decide . It is their life experience to hold whatever they deem to be true. The one and only view I do not respect and find pointless is those who claim that these possibilities can't exist , like they have any proof or knowledge of that.
What I don't respect is those who try to dissuade or negate other's world views based on nothing other than they don't agree. When people use phrases like "your view is illogical" or "no, your viewpoint is wrong." I find that to be ignorant, shallow, narrow-minded, egotistical. and just low intelligence and lack of understanding. I know atheism is the lack of belief in any type of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer , but don't they understand that that is just their belief. It is not provable nor is it illogical to believe in a God/Creator/ID. And vice versa. It is not provable nor illogical to not believe in a God/Creator/ID. Obviously no one knows . That isn't the point. Both possibilities exist, among many others, and someone who claims that these possibilities don't exist is unintelligent and ignorant in my view.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods. I have told you that I do not reject the possibility of a god or gods existing. Are you going to tell me that that doesn't qualify as atheism to you? If not, perhaps you should reexamine your definition.

But whatever you choose, you won't be able to get the definition I just gave you out of the dictionaries or out of common usage. You won't stop agnostic atheists like me from calling ourselves atheists. So perhaps you should allow atheists to define themselves rather than telling them what they must believe to call themselves atheists.

You are 100% correct and nailed it right on the head.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Intelligent design theory is a scientific theory

This is false. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. What finding could falsify ID?

Also, a scientific theory is the result of examining evidence, accounting for it with an overarching narrative, and verifying its accuracy by seeking and finding the unexpected implications predicted by the theory. ID begins with a faith based premise and then looks for evidence for it through a faith based confirmation bias. The result has been to keep seeing irreducible complexity that is claimed then debunked. That's not science at all.

Religion is a way of knowing using faith

Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth given that any idea or its opposite can be believed by faith, and at least one of them will be wrong. I guess you can call that a way of knowing, but not if you want to know facts.

Intelligent design theory tells us (i.e. "knows") that life was designed by using the scientific method and uses no reliance upon faith or divine revelation.

ID knows no such thing. It's claims are all faith based.

Something is religion or science based upon the methods it uses to make its claims, not based on the claims it makes

ID uses the religious method, which is to simply believe something by faith. It is probably an incorrect belief given its fruitlessness. That is the sine qua non of a wrong idea - it can't be used the way a right idea can to predict outcomes. Astrology is a faith based that is probably wrong given its uselessness. It's predictions are worthless. Astronomy is its reason and evidence based counterpart, and has been productive.

intelligent design theory makes the claim that life was designed purely through the scientific method

When ID people use the scientific method, they often make contributions to the body of science, but not to the ID hypothesis. It's just a little more biology or whatever.

You may be aware that at the Kitzmiller trial, ID was shown to be pseudoscience and repackaged creationism. Behe was disgraced by his definition of a scientific theory, which he admitted would include astrology as a scientific theory.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

As well you should. It is a waste of time to attempt to discuss such matters with the variety of so-called argument that you have employed so far.

It is best not to waste anyone's time any further.

You are a walking contradiction and an ignorant person, and you display a low form of intelligence, reasoning , and the inability to accept that which you can't comprehend. You obviously have low social skills and an ego that you must feed with combative comments to bolster your insecurities. And what kind of Buddhism do you adhere to ? Everything you posted to me is completely anti-Buddhism. You are the complete opposite. There are definitely some personality disorders going on with you. And I don't employ arguments, I have no reason or desire to argue.I don't need to argue. I am secure in my beliefs , reasoning, and thoughts. Arguments only cause negativity , anger, and disrespect. They didn't teach you that in Buddhist school ? I know many Buddhists and you are the antithesis of one. Of course someone like you needs to argue, it is all you have to reaffirm your ignorance, insecurities, and whatever other hangups you have in life.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

This is false. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. What finding could falsify ID?

Also, a scientific theory is the result of examining evidence, accounting for it with an overarching narrative, and verifying its accuracy by seeking and finding the unexpected implications predicted by the theory. ID begins with a faith based premise and then looks for evidence for it through a faith based confirmation bias. The result has been to keep seeing irreducible complexity that is claimed then debunked. That's not science at all.



Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth given that any idea or its opposite can be believed by faith, and at least one of them will be wrong. I guess you can call that a way of knowing, but not if you want to know facts.



ID knows no such thing. It's claims are all faith based.



ID uses the religious method, which is to simply believe something by faith. It is probably an incorrect belief given its fruitlessness. That is the sine qua non of a wrong idea - it can't be used the way a right idea can to predict outcomes. Astrology is a faith based that is probably wrong given its uselessness. It's predictions are worthless. Astronomy is its reason and evidence based counterpart, and has been productive.



When ID people use the scientific method, they often make contributions to the body of science, but not to the ID hypothesis. It's just a little more biology or whatever.

You may be aware that at the Kitzmiller trial, ID was shown to be pseudoscience and repackaged creationism. Behe was disgraced by his definition of a scientific theory, which he admitted would include astrology as a scientific theory.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

They're all facts. Evolution is a fact. Fossils exist. Human beings are apes.



The theory of evolution has no flaws or inconsistencies. The problem arises when trying to decide which creatures were ancestral to which and the timeline of evolution. For example, there are challenges to the out-of-Africa hypothesis and the dates for the earliest humans appearing. We also don't know just which creatures were our ancestors and which were branches from our line that produced cousin species now extinct.

But none of that is a challenge to Darwin's theory that all life on earth extant and extinct derived from a single common ancestral replicator due to natural selection working on phenotypical variation across generations over deep time. That idea will not likely be overturned.

Have you ever stopped to consider the implications of a finding that falsified the theory of evolution? We'd still have all of the evidence that preceded that finding and which so compellingly implied that the theory was correct. A new hypothesis would have to account for it all, and apart from
ideas like last Thursdayism or brain-in-a-vat, I can only think of one idea that could do that: Trickster intelligent designers that went to great pains seeding the earth with strata that placed simpler forms below more complex ones complete with adding radioisotopes in ways to make the deeper ones appear older, scattered ring species around the world, and designed the bodies, physiology, biochemistry and genetics of all life in nested hierarchies.

Why did they leave a pre-cambrian rabbit or whatever for us to find and give them away? Maybe as a lark, perhaps in error.

I don't expect any of that to come to pass. A much more reasonable and parsimonious hypothesis is that the scientists are as correct with this theory as they are with their other theories also derived by the scientific method.



The fossil evidence is exactly what we would expect if species were evolving.



There is the fact of evolution and the theory to explain it. The test of the theory is that its predictions be accurate and that it can be used to improve the human condition. Darwin's theory passes both tests.



We don't need 100% certainty. What we need is empirical adequacy, that is, that whatever it says about the observable aspects of the world that it addresses is true. It's enough that the idea work.



It's actually reducing the role an intelligent designer would have in matters. Science keep showing us that ours is the kind of universe we would expect were it godless. It's on autopilot. The parts interact without Apollo's help moving the sun through the sky or angels to push the planets around. The first wave of scientists showed us a clockwork universe. We don't need a ruler god. From that, deism was born

The second wave of scentists like Darwin and the cosmologists gave us the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory demonstrating that our universe could assemble itself from seeds such as the earliest universe and the first living replicator. It turns out that we don't need a builder god, either.

That doesn't mean that no gods exist or existed, just that there is no evidence for any, and no need to posit one, and really no job except to create those seeds. We have naturalistic hypotheses for the origins of both the early universe and the first life.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

This is false. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. What finding could falsify ID?

Also, a scientific theory is the result of examining evidence, accounting for it with an overarching narrative, and verifying its accuracy by seeking and finding the unexpected implications predicted by the theory. ID begins with a faith based premise and then looks for evidence for it through a faith based confirmation bias. The result has been to keep seeing irreducible complexity that is claimed then debunked. That's not science at all.



Faith cannot possibly be a path to truth given that any idea or its opposite can be believed by faith, and at least one of them will be wrong. I guess you can call that a way of knowing, but not if you want to know facts.



ID knows no such thing. It's claims are all faith based.



ID uses the religious method, which is to simply believe something by faith. It is probably an incorrect belief given its fruitlessness. That is the sine qua non of a wrong idea - it can't be used the way a right idea can to predict outcomes. Astrology is a faith based that is probably wrong given its uselessness. It's predictions are worthless. Astronomy is its reason and evidence based counterpart, and has been productive.



When ID people use the scientific method, they often make contributions to the body of science, but not to the ID hypothesis. It's just a little more biology or whatever.

You may be aware that at the Kitzmiller trial, ID was shown to be pseudoscience and repackaged creationism. Behe was disgraced by his definition of a scientific theory, which he admitted would include astrology as a scientific theory.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

PEER-REVIEWED INTELLIGENT DESIGN RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC PAPERS PUBLISHED IN SCIENCE JOURNALS

Which of those papers do you think supports the intelligent design hypothesis? I looked at the titles and supplied text of about a half dozen of them and didn't see anything about intelligent design. Some challenge evolution, but which found evidence of an intelligent designer?

Notice that that is the approach of most Christian apologetics. Rather that find and present evidence that affirms the existence of an intelligent designer, they try to find fault with the naturalisitic alternatives.

But this is still not helpful to Christian creationists. If evolutionary theory is ever overturned, it would lend support for the idea of a trickster designer, not the god of their Bible, which describes a god that wants to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped, not one that would go out of its way to deceptively make it seem as if life evolved and diversified naturalistically.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

ItAin't NecessarilySo ;

I appreciate your insight and thoughts, I really do. But I just disagree with most of them, concerning this topic.
I'm not going to expand my thoughts, reasons, beliefs, etc...any further . You know what I believe and I understand what you believe.
We just disagree. Also, there are many words and ideas you use that are not purely objective but are subjective and open to interpretation. I can't go through all of these. It would be pointless. You have your reasons to believe what you do and I have mine. You seem reasonable enough and intelligent enough to accept and understand that everything you believe is not necessarily what is "fact" or set in stone. It may be, but not necessarily. Your name would imply this : It Ain't Necessarily So. That title applies to your world views and framework as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are (...)

... uninterested in your prejudices.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design : Article : Nature

Regarding that paper from Meyer:

"The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the pseudo-scientific concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

"One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals. On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor. The position of editor was unpaid and voluntary, and Sternberg had put in his resignation from it six months earlier. Sternberg disputes the Council's statement and asserts that the paper was appropriately peer reviewed by three biologists who "concluded that [the paper] warranted publication".

"The same statement from the Council vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which states that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. On September 18, the Discovery Institute issued a statement praising the publication of Meyer's paper in a peer-reviewed journal and chastising the National Center for Science Education for stating that the paper should not have been published. The Biological Society of Washington's president, Roy McDiarmid called Sternberg's decision to publish Meyer's article "a really bad judgment call on the editor's part" and said it was doubtful whether the three scientists who peer reviewed the article and recommended it for publication were evolutionary biologists."

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia

Where is the peer review in that?

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure that it amounts to "rejection of the possibility," but there are so many possibilities that one might wonder why someone would simply settle for one such possibility and declare it to be a "true religion" when there are so many other possibilities.

If one accepts the possibility, one would naturally then consider for themselves what such a possibility might entail. They would not immediately and actively negate any characterization of such a possibility being offered by anyone else, while refusing to honestly contemplate such a possibility, themselves. Which is what atheists, even the ones proclaiming themselves to be "undecided", do. Clearly indicating to me that they are not undecided at all. They have chosen a position and they are actively defending it.

Declaring the possible existence of a creator might be premature, since humans don't really have a clear idea as to "what," exactly, was created (if it was "created"). Many people assume that there must have been some sort of "creator" or "intelligent designer," but we can't even assume that. Our universe and existence could be nothing more than a side effect of an experiment that went awry.

We can "assume" anything we want, except that our assumptions are proven truth. We assume that we will be alive, tomorrow, and there's nothing wrong in our doing so. But we become dishonest and self-deluded if we assume that this is the unassailable, undoubtable, and inevitable truth. We can assume that there are gods, or that there are no gods, and we can trust in either of these assumptions with our actions. What we cannot do is prove either assumption to be true or false. All we can do is adopt the assumption, act accordingly, and see what results. If we deem the resuilts valuable, then we can persist. If not, we can change our assumptions.

There is no truth to be had, here. There are only choices, and the functional results of trusting in the choices we make.

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Which of those papers do you think supports the intelligent design hypothesis? I looked at the titles and supplied text of about a half dozen of them and didn't see anything about intelligent design. Some challenge evolution, but which found evidence of an intelligent designer?

Notice that that is the approach of most Christian apologetics. Rather that find and present evidence that affirms the existence of an intelligent designer, they try to find fault with the naturalisitic alternatives.

But this is still not helpful to Christian creationists. If evolutionary theory is ever overturned, it would lend support for the idea of a trickster designer, not the god of their Bible, which describes a god that wants to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped, not one that would go out of its way to deceptively make it seem as if life evolved and diversified naturalistically.

I am not interested in religion or anything related to Christianity or the Bible in the ID hypothesis. I don't rely on a religion in regards to my view.
I'm interested in the science that can reasonably point to the possibility of an ID , whose nature or mind we may not comprehend , at this present time at least,or possibly never. All naturalistic elements can still have an ID behind its processes. Why could it not ? An ID could have created all nature in such a manner....We must comprehend things differently because what I read supports the ID hypothesis. And although I believe in science and that science can lead to the possibility of an ID, why does science have to be the only formula to do so ?

 

[NoRightOrWrong]

Regarding that paper from Meyer:

"The Sternberg peer review controversy concerns the conflict arising from the publication of an article supporting the pseudo-scientific concept of intelligent design in a scientific journal, and the subsequent questions of whether proper editorial procedures had been followed and whether it was properly peer reviewed.

"One of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals. On 4 August 2004, an article by Stephen C. Meyer (Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture) titled "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories", appeared in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. Meyer's article was a literature review article, and contained no new primary scholarship itself on the topic of intelligent design. The following month, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article and stating that their former editor Richard M. Sternberg had, in an unusual manner, handled the entire review process without consultation or review from an associate editor. The position of editor was unpaid and voluntary, and Sternberg had put in his resignation from it six months earlier. Sternberg disputes the Council's statement and asserts that the paper was appropriately peer reviewed by three biologists who "concluded that [the paper] warranted publication".

"The same statement from the Council vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which states that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting intelligent design. On September 18, the Discovery Institute issued a statement praising the publication of Meyer's paper in a peer-reviewed journal and chastising the National Center for Science Education for stating that the paper should not have been published. The Biological Society of Washington's president, Roy McDiarmid called Sternberg's decision to publish Meyer's article "a really bad judgment call on the editor's part" and said it was doubtful whether the three scientists who peer reviewed the article and recommended it for publication were evolutionary biologists."

Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia

Where is the peer review in that?

You're correct on this particular one. Mistake on my part.

 

[Polymath257]

Polymath....You asked for the research so I really hope you read these few examples. I'm not here to argue or convince anyone of anything. You seem intelligent and a to be a promoter of science. ID and Creationism also promote science often. I just hope you are open to further research and not content with only current or accepted concepts in science. New scientific discoveries have always evolved and continue to expand. When a scientist doesn't question ideas and concepts any longer, I find that to be counter productive to all science stands for. Not everything is set in stone as we have been led to believe or in what we have concluded for ourselves. There is always room for new alternative ideas based on science or some that aren't based on science that are also found to be of truth. There is much we don't know. So we must always be thinking and learning and evolving. I just wouldn't be so quick to accept everything as definite. It doesn't always work out like that. Things are definitely not always what they seem to be on the surface. Science itself has told us this and proven this many times.

Well, you made a good try, I have to admit, although I suspect you got the list from a creationist/ID website. The problem is that you don't answer my request. I asked for a *journal* that supports ID that is refereed and considered reliable. What you gave was a few articles criticizing some aspects of the current theory (which is quite fair), a complaint that refereed journals are biased against ID (they aren't), and some propaganda from the Discovery Institute, which is quite far from being a reliable source. Anything from DI should be considered vanity press and not science.

I'd point out that Behe (one of the originators of the ID line of propaganda) stated in court he didn't have a *single* example of an irreducibly complex situation in nature. When asked for *any* scientific evidence for ID, he could not present any.

Are there questions that still need to be asked and answered in evolutionary biology? Of course! Does the ID hypothesis serve to answer such questions or to come up with workable paths to new ones? Not even close. That doesn't mean we have to consider current knowledge as final and definite. But it does mean we don't go back to geocentrism when criticizing astronomy. neither do we go back to creationism/ID when discussing biology.

 

[Polymath257]

Which of those papers do you think supports the intelligent design hypothesis? I looked at the titles and supplied text of about a half dozen of them and didn't see anything about intelligent design. Some challenge evolution, but which found evidence of an intelligent designer?

Notice that that is the approach of most Christian apologetics. Rather that find and present evidence that affirms the existence of an intelligent designer, they try to find fault with the naturalisitic alternatives.

But this is still not helpful to Christian creationists. If evolutionary theory is ever overturned, it would lend support for the idea of a trickster designer, not the god of their Bible, which describes a god that wants to be known, loved, believed, and worshiped, not one that would go out of its way to deceptively make it seem as if life evolved and diversified naturalistically.

I also looked over a number of the articles and found none that supported ID. Yes, they criticized various aspects of our current understanding, but they provided no evidence for ID.

A hint: even if the current thoery of evolution is found to be wrong, that *isn't* evidence for ID or creationism.