Atheist

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok I painted Atheist with a broad brush but I'd argue that most are anti-God.

Why would an agnostic be anti-God? Agnostics don't hold a position on the topic. They think there might be something to intelligent design they just aren't sure.

You example sucks!

Because I don't support a certain group of people makes me a bigot? Then what does that say for people like you who say we're bigoted because we don't agree with your abominable lifestyle? Wouldn't that make you a bigot also?

Agnosticism is a label for those who aren't convinced that there is a supreme being or isn't. It is the only rational position because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. To go from insufficient evidence to a decision that there is or is not a supreme being requires something else and that something else is not rational. It is emotional, or delusional, or some other thing, but it is not rational. Agnostics are anti-religious, sometimes, because faith requires that one disregard logic, evidence, reason, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and sometimes even humanitarian morality. They don't tend to be anti-atheist (to mean here as one who has faith that there is no supreme being) because in one way we are united. I disapprove of beliefs that concern absolute "T"ruth. No one knows what absolute Truth is.

Intolerance for people for who they are is unjust and bigotry. Intolerance of intolerance is just.

I tolerate religious people. I will not tolerate religious people seeking official favoritism for their beliefs, usurping science in school, shaping social policy with unfounded religious beliefs such as relegating homosexuals to second class citizens or in any other way encoding their beliefs into law and thereby forcing all others, religious or not or of different religions, to conform to their religion. Christians don't want Sharia law in this country, agnostics don't want biblical law in this country. Either would violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Religious people can pray and worship wherever they want except in government because it gives the appearance of official favoritism to religion. There are no nonbeliever organizations who are attempting to do what religious organizations are: encoding discrimination into law.

Religious people in government can't pray and worship? I'm not sure what part of "congress shall make no law" refers to ground level Federal, State, Municipal etc employees practicing their religion.

The entire concept of the separation of Church and State was that the State never adopt an official religion and force it on the people. Some dude praying at work doesn't force shit on anyone. There's nothing in the Constitution that ever gave me the idea that the Founders were really just trying to make sure nonbelievers weren't -offended-. I believe oppression is what they were avoiding, and some dude praying at work doesn't equal oppression.

You're really not very tolerant.

On top of that, I'm gathering by your reference to humanitarianism that you have no problem with that religion being forced down our throats. As long as there's no God at its head, right? Then it doesn't hurt anybody's feelings, and that is of paramount importance! Moral oppression is okay as long as the moral particulars aren't offensive.

Sorry. I should've been more specific: government officials shouldn't pray in an official act. They can pray all the want unofficially.

Humanitarian-ism is a religion I've never heard of. If you mean humanism, that is just a philosophy that religious people can adopt along with their religious philosophy, if they so wished. Humanitarian morality is a term I was using that would base itself on human rights. I wouldn't think anyone is against human rights, right?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok I painted Atheist with a broad brush but I'd argue that most are anti-God.

Why would an agnostic be anti-God? Agnostics don't hold a position on the topic. They think there might be something to intelligent design they just aren't sure.

You example sucks!

Because I don't support a certain group of people makes me a bigot? Then what does that say for people like you who say we're bigoted because we don't agree with your abominable lifestyle? Wouldn't that make you a bigot also?

Agnosticism is a label for those who aren't convinced that there is a supreme being or isn't. It is the only rational position because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. To go from insufficient evidence to a decision that there is or is not a supreme being requires something else and that something else is not rational. It is emotional, or delusional, or some other thing, but it is not rational. Agnostics are anti-religious, sometimes, because faith requires that one disregard logic, evidence, reason, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and sometimes even humanitarian morality. They don't tend to be anti-atheist (to mean here as one who has faith that there is no supreme being) because in one way we are united. I disapprove of beliefs that concern absolute "T"ruth. No one knows what absolute Truth is.

Intolerance for people for who they are is unjust and bigotry. Intolerance of intolerance is just.

I tolerate religious people. I will not tolerate religious people seeking official favoritism for their beliefs, usurping science in school, shaping social policy with unfounded religious beliefs such as relegating homosexuals to second class citizens or in any other way encoding their beliefs into law and thereby forcing all others, religious or not or of different religions, to conform to their religion. Christians don't want Sharia law in this country, agnostics don't want biblical law in this country. Either would violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Religious people can pray and worship wherever they want except in government because it gives the appearance of official favoritism to religion. There are no nonbeliever organizations who are attempting to do what religious organizations are: encoding discrimination into law.

I disagree. It's one of two rational positions.

The other one is if you have personal experience with God.

Say God stands before you, shows you He is God and proves it to you. Is it then rational to continue being agnostic and say that you don't know God exists?

I would not be sure that God was not a hallucination. What was your experience?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Ok I painted Atheist with a broad brush but I'd argue that most are anti-God.

Why would an agnostic be anti-God? Agnostics don't hold a position on the topic. They think there might be something to intelligent design they just aren't sure.

You example sucks!

Because I don't support a certain group of people makes me a bigot? Then what does that say for people like you who say we're bigoted because we don't agree with your abominable lifestyle? Wouldn't that make you a bigot also?

Agnosticism is a label for those who aren't convinced that there is a supreme being or isn't. It is the only rational position because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. To go from insufficient evidence to a decision that there is or is not a supreme being requires something else and that something else is not rational. It is emotional, or delusional, or some other thing, but it is not rational. Agnostics are anti-religious, sometimes, because faith requires that one disregard logic, evidence, reason, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and sometimes even humanitarian morality. They don't tend to be anti-atheist (to mean here as one who has faith that there is no supreme being) because in one way we are united. I disapprove of beliefs that concern absolute "T"ruth. No one knows what absolute Truth is.

Intolerance for people for who they are is unjust and bigotry. Intolerance of intolerance is just.

I tolerate religious people. I will not tolerate religious people seeking official favoritism for their beliefs, usurping science in school, shaping social policy with unfounded religious beliefs such as relegating homosexuals to second class citizens or in any other way encoding their beliefs into law and thereby forcing all others, religious or not or of different religions, to conform to their religion. Christians don't want Sharia law in this country, agnostics don't want biblical law in this country. Either would violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Religious people can pray and worship wherever they want except in government because it gives the appearance of official favoritism to religion. There are no nonbeliever organizations who are attempting to do what religious organizations are: encoding discrimination into law.

Have you considered that there will probably never be more evidence of the existence God than there is today, at least not until God decides to reveal himself. Scientific knowledge will continue to grow at an ever increasing pace but it seems pretty unlike that science will uncover definitive evidence of the existence of God. The existence of God will always be a matter faith. You either believe or you don't.

Yes, I have considered that. And in regards to faith, read my sig. Desire to believe is not grounds to believe. Because there is no conclusive evidence for God right now, I do not believe in God right now. Because I have not been convinced that there is a God, I do not believe in God. Yet, maybe never.

 

[Flopper]

If in the future, you do believe, I would bet it will be because of a change within, not a change in exterior world.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.

Why is that?

Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?

These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.

What’s nonsense is the ignorance and hate you and others on the right exhibit toward those free from faith, and others who aren’t Christian, such as Muslims.

For those free from faith the issue has nothing to do with a ‘god,’ as it clearly doesn’t exist; it has to do with the arrogance common to a significant number of Christians.

This thread is proof of that ignorance, hate, and arrogance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok I painted Atheist with a broad brush but I'd argue that most are anti-God.

Why would an agnostic be anti-God? Agnostics don't hold a position on the topic. They think there might be something to intelligent design they just aren't sure.

You example sucks!

Because I don't support a certain group of people makes me a bigot? Then what does that say for people like you who say we're bigoted because we don't agree with your abominable lifestyle? Wouldn't that make you a bigot also?

Agnosticism is a label for those who aren't convinced that there is a supreme being or isn't. It is the only rational position because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. To go from insufficient evidence to a decision that there is or is not a supreme being requires something else and that something else is not rational. It is emotional, or delusional, or some other thing, but it is not rational. Agnostics are anti-religious, sometimes, because faith requires that one disregard logic, evidence, reason, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and sometimes even humanitarian morality. They don't tend to be anti-atheist (to mean here as one who has faith that there is no supreme being) because in one way we are united. I disapprove of beliefs that concern absolute "T"ruth. No one knows what absolute Truth is.

Intolerance for people for who they are is unjust and bigotry. Intolerance of intolerance is just.

I tolerate religious people. I will not tolerate religious people seeking official favoritism for their beliefs, usurping science in school, shaping social policy with unfounded religious beliefs such as relegating homosexuals to second class citizens or in any other way encoding their beliefs into law and thereby forcing all others, religious or not or of different religions, to conform to their religion. Christians don't want Sharia law in this country, agnostics don't want biblical law in this country. Either would violate our 1st Amendment rights.

Religious people can pray and worship wherever they want except in government because it gives the appearance of official favoritism to religion. There are no nonbeliever organizations who are attempting to do what religious organizations are: encoding discrimination into law.

I disagree. It's one of two rational positions.

The other one is if you have personal experience with God.

Say God stands before you, shows you He is God and proves it to you. Is it then rational to continue being agnostic and say that you don't know God exists?

Of course you disagree, you’re a theist and lack objectivity.

It is a fact that there are no nonbeliever organizations seeking to do what many religious organizations seek to do: codify their religious dogma into secular law, dogma that is indeed often discriminatory – the Christian right’s efforts to deny gay Americans their civil liberties is evidence of that.

 

[Disir]

Atheist sure put a lot of time, money and effort in denouncing a God they claim doesn't exist.

Why is that?

Why does something that's believed to be nonsense get these people so worked up?

These people are the epitome of cowardice IMO. They seem to only go after Christians. I've yet to see them challenge the Muslims on their beliefs.

I don't. I don't have a problem with it providing that it does not come into laws or what we call the public sphere as in courts or education. Furthermore, I do not want anyone attempting to convert my kid. Don't come near him with that intent until he is an adult. I am an atheist. I am not an agnostic. It is not my job to prove that a deity exists. There is no argument for me to prove that he doesn't. The onus is not on me.

Do you understand the nature of an assertion? If you say God does not exist, even though the statement is a negative, you have still made an assertion. When you make an assertion, the onus is most definitely on you to prove it.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. If you're going to argue for absence, you need to provide evidence, not simply a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't prove shit either way.

Thus, only the agnostic has no assertion to prove.

BS.

There is not one shred of physical evidence on earth that a God exists or existed here. Not one. The OP is directed at atheists. He actually directed it towards organizations but attempted to wrap everyone else into it. I am an atheist. I make no bones about it.

Now, we don't have a problem until you cross the lines of the aforementioned. We don't have a problem until someone attempts to play the persecution complex. We don't have a problem until it becomes the rational for legislation. The source that is used stems from a book that is fiction. It was pulled together by a group of men seeking to control others and increase their own power.

The establishment clause means something.

 

[Disir]

I believe in the Big Bang. I don't get your point. You do know that the term was one of derision given the Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and astrophysicist. The "consensus" of the day was a steady state universe and they thought he was trying to fit his beliefs of a creation into science.

It doesn't require faith. That was the point. Observational evidence.

Actually, there have been times when the Catholic church has embraced science-historically. Other times, not so much. Not sure where you are going with that.

I'm guessing you're not one of the physicists that discovered this evidence?

Have you ever seen this evidence, or are you simply willing to believe that a "scientific consensus" exists saying that this evidence exists and is verified?

No offense, but just because you can attach the word "science" to it and are willing to make the assumption that these guys are reading whatever evidence that is correctly (and I'm willing to bet that, without posting a wiki article, you probably can't tell me much about what that evidence even consists of or how it was gathered) doesn't mean that what you are spewing is knowledge and not faith.

You take on faith that this evidence you've heard of actually exists and they aren't making it up.

You take on faith that these scientists are drawing the right conclusions from this evidence.

I'm guessing you didn't administer the college courses or tests that resulted in any of these scientists' degrees, either, so you're also taking it on faith that anybody you've heard about on this topic is even qualified to assume shit about it.

You, like everyone who believes they have a handle on how the universe came to be, are a faith-based creature. Get over it.

I have evidence. You do not. Get over it. Watching you run around in circles attempting to make yourselves feel better is lame.

 

[rightwinger]

He's right. You believe nothing exploded and everything happened. And on its' own. That's more faith than I can ever muster up. Regardless, it takes faith to believe in theism or an unknown secular cause so you do have faith but for some reason atheists can't accept that. What's wrong with saying you have faith that it's all natural?

Faith means you believe something in the absence of evidence

There is ample scientific evidence of a big bang

Have you seen this evidence first-hand, and are you able to say conclusively that it is real and that the conclusions drawn upon it are correct?

Faith doesn't have to be the -complete- absence of evidence, it's simply belief without conclusive evidence.

There is ample scientific evidence of a big bang that has not been refuted. scientific measurements are consistent across a broad spectrum.

There is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of God. None

That is why you rely on faith

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If in the future, you do believe, I would bet it will be because of a change within, not a change in exterior world.

Sure. I would agree. And, like you say above, albeit implying something else, I would be disregarding external reality.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is not one shred of physical evidence on earth that a God exists or existed here. Not one. The OP is directed at atheists. He actually directed it towards organizations but attempted to wrap everyone else into it. I am an atheist. I make no bones about it.

Now, we don't have a problem until you cross the lines of the aforementioned. We don't have a problem until someone attempts to play the persecution complex. We don't have a problem until it becomes the rational for legislation. The source that is used stems from a book that is fiction. It was pulled together by a group of men seeking to control others and increase their own power.

The establishment clause means something.

Others believe the proof is everywhere. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I believe in the Big Bang. I don't get your point. You do know that the term was one of derision given the Georges Lemaitre, a Roman Catholic priest and astrophysicist. The "consensus" of the day was a steady state universe and they thought he was trying to fit his beliefs of a creation into science.

It doesn't require faith. That was the point. Observational evidence.

Actually, there have been times when the Catholic church has embraced science-historically. Other times, not so much. Not sure where you are going with that.

I'm guessing you're not one of the physicists that discovered this evidence?

Have you ever seen this evidence, or are you simply willing to believe that a "scientific consensus" exists saying that this evidence exists and is verified?

No offense, but just because you can attach the word "science" to it and are willing to make the assumption that these guys are reading whatever evidence that is correctly (and I'm willing to bet that, without posting a wiki article, you probably can't tell me much about what that evidence even consists of or how it was gathered) doesn't mean that what you are spewing is knowledge and not faith.

You take on faith that this evidence you've heard of actually exists and they aren't making it up.

You take on faith that these scientists are drawing the right conclusions from this evidence.

I'm guessing you didn't administer the college courses or tests that resulted in any of these scientists' degrees, either, so you're also taking it on faith that anybody you've heard about on this topic is even qualified to assume shit about it.

You, like everyone who believes they have a handle on how the universe came to be, are a faith-based creature. Get over it.

This is where the definition of faith is vague enough that it can be used in lieu of other words to try and undermine scientific rationalism.

I do not have faith that science is doing what it is supposed to. For me to believe that all scientists are lying about the data requires faith whereas just simply trusting them because, like me, they are curious about the universe and want to know more actually makes sense and requires no faith just trust in a fellow human being.

Also, they include their methodology when submitting new discoveries. I can actually see how they came to their conclusion. Other scientists have or will verify the results. I trust them to do this because they are people.

Science allows for human error and fallibility, because at some point someone will find the error and benefit from finding thr error. Science is simply a method to maintain objectivity despite human bias and error. The scientists who use this method are more trustworthy than the people who don't i.e. Ken Hamm, Michael Behe, etc. of the intelligent design/fundamentalist creationist bent.

Most importantly, unlike faith based beliefs, I can change my mind when exposed to new informstion. Faith does not allow one to change their mind based on new information because information isn't the reason for faith - it is its lack that requires one to take that leap.

 

[Iceweasel]

This is where the definition of faith is vague enough that it can be used in lieu of other words to try and undermine scientific rationalism.

No, the word has a meaning, it doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean. It is simply the belief in something without evidence.

I do not have faith that science is doing what it is supposed to. For me to believe that all scientists are lying about the data requires faith whereas just simply trusting them because, like me, they are curious about the universe and want to know more actually makes sense and requires no faith just trust in a fellow human being.

That has nothing to do with anything. Almost half of scientists are theists so you've created some wierd this or that scenario in your mind.

Also, they include their methodology when submitting new discoveries. I can actually see how they came to their conclusion. Other scientists have or will verify the results. I trust them to do this because they are people.

Science allows for human error and fallibility, because at some point someone will find the error and benefit from finding thr error. Science is simply a method to maintain objectivity despite human bias and error. The scientists who use this method are more trustworthy than the people who don't i.e. Ken Hamm, Michael Behe, etc. of the intelligent design/fundamentalist creationist bent.

Of course. The "real" scientists agree with you. How could it be otherwise. Smearing people doesn't make your position look better, it's poor form, unscientific and unscholarly.

Most importantly, unlike faith based beliefs, I can change my mind when exposed to new informstion. Faith does not allow one to change their mind based on new information because information isn't the reason for faith - it is its lack that requires one to take that leap.

That depends on the faith. I used to be religious and I changed my mind quite a lot over the years. You apparently have no clue what you're talking about and sound much more like the people you scorn.

 

[Flopper]

There is not one shred of physical evidence on earth that a God exists or existed here. Not one. The OP is directed at atheists. He actually directed it towards organizations but attempted to wrap everyone else into it. I am an atheist. I make no bones about it.

Now, we don't have a problem until you cross the lines of the aforementioned. We don't have a problem until someone attempts to play the persecution complex. We don't have a problem until it becomes the rational for legislation. The source that is used stems from a book that is fiction. It was pulled together by a group of men seeking to control others and increase their own power.

The establishment clause means something.

Others believe the proof is everywhere. Complex things don't just happen on their own. Parts don't assemble themselves. Inorganic matter doesn't just form into a highly complex "simple" cell and reproduce itself. Proof is in the mind of the beholder, that would be more of a preponderance of the evidence than a direct laboratory repeatable test of God.

There can be no such test. Ever. Even if "magic" happened one can always say it was an alien superior life force but not God. Even so, the theist admits he believes by faith by what he sees and experiences. The atheist has the dishonest position by stating there is no God since there is no proof. For him there is no proof because he believes in anything BUT God. That is faith. You bring up the biased conclusion by assuming God equals religion, and the Bible specifically. Criticizing the Bible, Christianity or any religion doesn't further the argument one way or another, it's just a mechanism for you to feel better a little better about your faith.

The more we learn of the natural world and universe, the less we attribute to God. Before we learned the rotation of earth was responsible for the movement of the sun across the sky, we believed the Greek god of the sun rose each morning to ride across the sky lighting the world. Disease was punishment for sin. Crops failed because a God was displeased. On and on, whatever man did not understand it was attributed to God.

If science could answer the basic questions such as, what existed before the big bang and how was it created and how life came to be then man would no longer need a belief in God. However, before those questions are answered, man's brief existence in the universe will probably come to an end.

 

[Iceweasel]

The more we learn of the natural world and universe, the less we attribute to God. Before we learned the rotation of earth was responsible for the movement of the sun across the sky, we believed the Greek god of the sun rose each morning to ride across the sky lighting the world. Disease was punishment for sin. Crops failed because a God was displeased. On and on, whatever man did not understand it was attributed to God.

If science could answer the basic questions such as, what existed before the big bang and how was it created and how life came to be then man would no longer need a belief in God. However, before those questions are answered, man's brief existence in the universe will probably come to an end.

If it's your assumption that there is a secular cause whether we find the answers or not, that's a belief, not science.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This is where the definition of faith is vague enough that it can be used in lieu of other words to try and undermine scientific rationalism.

No, the word has a meaning, it doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean. It is simply the belief in something without evidence.

I do not have faith that science is doing what it is supposed to. For me to believe that all scientists are lying about the data requires faith whereas just simply trusting them because, like me, they are curious about the universe and want to know more actually makes sense and requires no faith just trust in a fellow human being.

That has nothing to do with anything. Almost half of scientists are theists so you've created some wierd this or that scenario in your mind.

Also, they include their methodology when submitting new discoveries. I can actually see how they came to their conclusion. Other scientists have or will verify the results. I trust them to do this because they are people.

Science allows for human error and fallibility, because at some point someone will find the error and benefit from finding thr error. Science is simply a method to maintain objectivity despite human bias and error. The scientists who use this method are more trustworthy than the people who don't i.e. Ken Hamm, Michael Behe, etc. of the intelligent design/fundamentalist creationist bent.

Of course. The "real" scientists agree with you. How could it be otherwise. Smearing people doesn't make your position look better, it's poor form, unscientific and unscholarly.

Most importantly, unlike faith based beliefs, I can change my mind when exposed to new informstion. Faith does not allow one to change their mind based on new information because information isn't the reason for faith - it is its lack that requires one to take that leap.

That depends on the faith. I used to be religious and I changed my mind quite a lot over the years. You apparently have no clue what you're talking about and sound much more like the people you scorn.

I understand that faith has a definition - it has several, in fact - and some people use it to mean the same thing that the word trust means i.e. "having faith in scientists" is the same as "to have trust in scientists". That was what I was addressing in my first paragraph. Why you accused me of using faith however I want, I don't understand.

My second point was that science is not faith based. I trust the scientists when I don't have first person experience with the data or findings. I don't have faith in the data or the scientists. I don't accept their findings on authority but on trust in them as human beings with whom and as one, I do have first person experience.

Whether or not the scientists are theists or not is irrelevant as long as they follow the tenets of science. I don't understand why you brought up that some scientists are theists and the "weird this or that scenario" as nothing I wrote dealt with your reply.

What Ken Hamm and Michael Behe, and ID and creationism do is not science. It isn't because it cannot be falsified, tested, repeated, there is no conclusive evidence, and there are no predictions. What they do undermines the credibility of science and it isn't trustworthy, credible, or scientific. You seem to be taking that personally...

I have more than a clue about what I'm talking about. It's philosophy of science and how reason and logic are better tools for discerning external reality than is faith, which you admit is believing without evidence. Considering your irrelevant replies and seeming confusion about my post, I would suggest that rather it being me, it is you who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Iceweasel]

I understand that faith has a definition - it has several, in fact - and some people use it to mean the same thing that the word trust means i.e. "having faith in scientists" is the same as "to have trust in scientists". That was what I was addressing in my first paragraph. Why you accused me of using faith however I want, I don't understand.

Those mean the same thing, they aren't different definitions, just different ways of explaining it. It isn't undermining the scientific method, you made that up.

My second point was that science is not faith based. I trust the scientists when I don't have first person experience with the data or findings. I don't have faith in the data or the scientists. I don't accept their findings on authority but on trust in them as human beings with whom and as one, I do have first person experience.

Faith doesn't mean religion. If you trust that the data is true then you have faith in it. It's simple. No one said science was faith based, I said the opposite.

Whether or not the scientists are theists or not is irrelevant as long as they follow the tenets of science. I don't understand why you brought up that some scientists are theists and the "weird this or that scenario" as nothing I wrote dealt with your reply.

Not some, but about half. We are discussion God here so many scientists do admit to having faith. The atheists among them lie to themselves or others since there is no scientific method they can use to exclude God.

What Ken Hamm and Michael Behe, and ID and creationism do is not science. It isn't because it cannot be falsified, tested, repeated, there is no conclusive evidence, and there are no predictions. What they do undermines the credibility of science and it isn't trustworthy, credible, or scientific. You seem to be taking that personally...

You seem to assume a lot and bring shit into a conversation in order to change the issue. I don't care how you feel about somebody else. Get it?

I have more than a clue about what I'm talking about. It's philosophy of science and how reason and logic are better tools for discerning external reality than is faith, which you admit is believing without evidence. Considering your irrelevant replies and seeming confusion about my post, I would suggest that rather it being me, it is you who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

You're full of shit. How did Behe enter into the discussion? It's you who are lost and bringing in irrelevance. The point is simple, you can't use science to say God doesn't exist. If you make the statement then you do so on faith, trust or any other word you prefer to use that says the same thing. Many scientists are theists so quite obviously they do not share your narrow world view that science has all the answers. And they are honest in having faith.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I understand that faith has a definition - it has several, in fact - and some people use it to mean the same thing that the word trust means i.e. "having faith in scientists" is the same as "to have trust in scientists". That was what I was addressing in my first paragraph. Why you accused me of using faith however I want, I don't understand.

Those mean the same thing, they aren't different definitions, just different ways of explaining it. It isn't undermining the scientific method, you made that up.

My second point was that science is not faith based. I trust the scientists when I don't have first person experience with the data or findings. I don't have faith in the data or the scientists. I don't accept their findings on authority but on trust in them as human beings with whom and as one, I do have first person experience.

Faith doesn't mean religion. If you trust that the data is true then you have faith in it. It's simple. No one said science was faith based, I said the opposite.
Not some, but about half. We are discussion God here so many scientists do admit to having faith. The atheists among them lie to themselves or others since there is no scientific method they can use to exclude God.

What Ken Hamm and Michael Behe, and ID and creationism do is not science. It isn't because it cannot be falsified, tested, repeated, there is no conclusive evidence, and there are no predictions. What they do undermines the credibility of science and it isn't trustworthy, credible, or scientific. You seem to be taking that personally...

You seem to assume a lot and bring shit into a conversation in order to change the issue. I don't care how you feel about somebody else. Get it?

I have more than a clue about what I'm talking about. It's philosophy of science and how reason and logic are better tools for discerning external reality than is faith, which you admit is believing without evidence. Considering your irrelevant replies and seeming confusion about my post, I would suggest that rather it being me, it is you who doesn't know what I'm talking about.

You're full of shit. How did Behe enter into the discussion? It's you who are lost and bringing in irrelevance. The point is simple, you can't use science to say God doesn't exist. If you make the statement then you do so on faith, trust or any other word you prefer to use that says the same thing. Many scientists are theists so quite obviously they do not share your narrow world view that science has all the answers. And they are honest in having faith.

Dude, I don't think I am who you think I am. I'm an agnostic. I don't have a belief one way or the other. Read my earlier posts if you think I'm arguing that there is no God. I'm not. That was an argument you were having with someone else.

 

[Iceweasel]

Dude, I don't think I am who you think I am. I'm an agnostic. I don't have a belief one way or the other. Read my earlier posts if you think I'm arguing that there is no God. I'm not. That was an argument you were having with someone else.

I responded to your earlier post. You said:
"I do not have faith that science is doing what it is supposed to. For me to believe that all scientists are lying about the data requires faith whereas just simply trusting them because, like me, they are curious about the universe and want to know more actually makes sense and requires no faith just trust in a fellow human being."

That makes it a either/or scenario. Not all scientists agree with one another, what data would they be lying about? And trusting people, scientists or not, does require faith.

 

[Flopper]

The more we learn of the natural world and universe, the less we attribute to God. Before we learned the rotation of earth was responsible for the movement of the sun across the sky, we believed the Greek god of the sun rose each morning to ride across the sky lighting the world. Disease was punishment for sin. Crops failed because a God was displeased. On and on, whatever man did not understand it was attributed to God.

If science could answer the basic questions such as, what existed before the big bang and how was it created and how life came to be then man would no longer need a belief in God. However, before those questions are answered, man's brief existence in the universe will probably come to an end.

If it's your assumption that there is a secular cause whether we find the answers or not, that's a belief, not science.

Could be that God's greatest creation is not man, but the Big Bang which resulted in the creation the heavens and the earth and whole ball of wax.