Support NeoGAF

[piddledy]

Ahh I see. Even if I or others don't think so, agnosticism and atheism is the same for you. So you didn't really change at all or made any jump or cognitive leap. Your rationalisation was that it's practically the same thing.

I doubt you could find an atheist who would actually say there is, or ever will be, a way to acquire irrefutable proof about God's existence or nonexistence.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

ID and creationism are one and the same.

Creationism delves into theological and philosophical questions while ID never treads beyond the realm of science. If you want to argue that it's a weak scientific argument or that the implications it carries with it are intentional and disingenuous then that's an entirely different approach but I think it is quite fallacious to simply equate the two.

Here is a response to the question, "Is Intelligent Design the same as Creationism?" from the Discovery Institute:

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

Thoughts?

 

[Log4Girlz]

Creationism delves into theological and philosophical questions while ID never treads beyond the realm of science. If you want to argue that it's a weak scientific argument or that the implications it carries with it are intentional and disingenuous then that's an entirely different approach but I think it is quite fallacious to simply equate the two.

Here is a response to the question, "Is Intelligent Design the same as Creationism?" from the Discovery Institute:


Thoughts?

Intelligent design has as much in common with true science as creationism does.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Intelligent design has as much in common with true science as creationism does.

ID starts with the scientific method, creationism starts with a religious text. I would be interested in seeing you provide some evidence counter to that statement.

Full disclosure --- I don't know much about the ID movement so I'm basing my thoughts off of some limited reading and a few podcasts. I'm genuinely curious to see what kind of material is out there, both for and against ID.

Also, Orayn, just wanted to say thanks for starting this thread. I have no idea how successful this will be in terms of breeding meaningful discussion but it's incredibly refreshing to see someone make a legitimate attempt at it, especially someone who is atheist (I think you are, right?). So thanks for that!

 

[Raist]

Creationism delves into theological and philosophical questions while ID never treads beyond the realm of science. If you want to argue that it's a weak scientific argument or that the implications it carries with it are intentional and disingenuous then that's an entirely different approach but I think it is quite fallacious to simply equate the two.

ID is a mere rebranding of creationism after creationism has been ruled out by court. I mean they're distributing books which have been around for decades and replaced all instances of "creation" (and derivatives such as creator etc) by "design". That's all.
So they try to make it pass as "science" (or more accurately "not religion") but the reality is that it's exactly the same thing.

And it's not that it's weak science, it's not science at all, because it provides an hypothesis which cannot be empirically tested. Moreover, some ideas proposed by IDers (such as irreducible complexity) have been proven time and time again to be complete BS.

Here is a response to the question, "Is Intelligent Design the same as Creationism?" from the Discovery Institute:


Thoughts?

As for everything coming out of the discovery institute, it's 100% shit.

 

[Orayn]

ID starts with the scientific method, creationism starts with a religious text. I would be interested in seeing you provide some evidence counter to that statement.

This isn't necessarily the case... Positing the existence of some higher intelligence requires more new assumptions, so other evidence supporting the existence of that intelligence is necessary. As it stands, ID proponents haven't really made much progress toward that goal, and instead focus on the concept of "irreducible complexity," which is similarly lacking in scientific support.

Also, Orayn, just wanted to say thanks for starting this thread. I have no idea how successful this will be in terms of breeding meaningful discussion but it's incredibly refreshing to see someone make a legitimate attempt at it, especially someone who is atheist (I think you are, right?). So thanks for that!

You're welcome! I hope it'll be successful as well.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

ID is a mere rebranding of creationism after creationism has been ruled out by court. I mean they're distributing books which have been around for decades and replaced all instances of "creation" (and derivatives such as creator etc) by "design". That's all.
So they try to make it pass as "science" (or more accurately "not religion") but the reality is that it's exactly the same thing.

And it's not that it's weak science, it's not science at all, because it provides an hypothesis which cannot be empirically tested. Moreover, some ideas proposed by IDers (such as irreducible complexity) have been proven time and time again to be complete BS.



As for everything coming out of the discovery institute, it's 100% shit.

Anywhere I can read up on some of the stuff you're claiming? I'm interested in learning more about the argument from both sides.

 

[Ashes]

I doubt you could find an atheist who would actually say there is, or ever will be, a way to acquire irrefutable proof about God's existence or nonexistence.

are you saying now that its more honest to call your self agnostic? if you are, why are you calling your self an Athiest? For the badge?

 

[Log4Girlz]

ID starts with the scientific method, creationism starts with a religious text. I would be interested in seeing you provide some evidence counter to that statement.

Full disclosure --- I don't know much about the ID movement so I'm basing my thoughts off of some limited reading and a few podcasts. I'm genuinely curious to see what kind of material is out there, both for and against ID.

Also, Orayn, just wanted to say thanks for starting this thread. I have no idea how successful this will be in terms of breeding meaningful discussion but it's incredibly refreshing to see someone make a legitimate attempt at it, especially someone who is atheist (I think you are, right?). So thanks for that!

I have never seen any articles whatsoever in any peer reviewed scientific journals that support intelligent design. Typically, anything with a leg to stand on would have some backing by notable scientists...I have never seen any for ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[Kurdel]

are you saying now that its more honest to call your self agnostic? if you are, why are you calling your self an Athiest? For the badge?

You see, comfused.

Here is a primer on the terms you are incorrectly using.

 

[Ashes]

@post above: Is that new athiesm?

edit: How can I be incorrectly using the term, if there is not a universally agreed definition?
edit: And yeah, as I said before, I was confused.

 

[Kurdel]

Anywhere I can read up on some of the stuff you're claiming? I'm interested in learning more about the argument from both sides.

Stupid design, by Niel Degrasse Tyson. is my favorite look at ID.

Is that new athiesm?

No, it is the use of the english language to describe one's beliefs.

Richard Dawkins goes at length about this in the God Delusion, and even denounces strong atheism, which claims 100% sure there is no possibility of a God.

Nothing new here.

 

[Raist]

Anywhere I can read up on some of the stuff you're claiming? I'm interested in learning more about the argument from both sides.

Excerpt from the book before creationism was kindly asked to fuck off from schools

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

Same excerpt after the 1987 trial.

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

This particular example is funny because they didn't edit it properly, leading to the "cdesign proponentsists" typo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Is that new athiesm?

edit: How can I be incorrectly using the term, if there is not a universally agreed definition?
edit: And yeah, as I said be before, I was confused.

There is an agreed upon definition, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Most agnostics are atheists unless they follow a certain religion without thinking it to be true or certain.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Stupid design, by Niel Degrasse Tyson. is my favorite look at ID.

I don't have speakers on this computer but I'll check this out when I get a chance. Thanks!

Excerpt from the book before creationism was kindly asked to fuck off from schools



Same excerpt after the 1987 trial.



This particular example is funny because they didn't edit it properly, leading to the "cdesign proponentsists" typo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

In that instance it makes perfect sense for the terms to be interchangeable. ID, as far as I understand it, entails many of the same implications as Creationism, it's just that the method for arriving at or addressing those implications is different.

 

[JGS]

Q: In terms of what you consider good and bad, what are humans naturally inclined to be, if we're naturally inclined toward anything at all?

I think we are inclined to do what we like and usually that has nothing to do with evil intent against another. Natural inclination doesn't have much to do with expectations though. We have always needed some kind of rule set for society as a whole for a level of civility since natural inclinations could lead to violent/unhealthy outcomes.

What exactly is intelligent design anyway? The idea that there is a god, but he let the natural world develop as science defines it? I know its not pure creationism.

Intelligent design is a diverse topic. To me, at its most basic it means that a higher intelligence was instrumental in starting life.

It is not necessarily linked to what is written since it's what the brain, not the writing, naturally gravitates to. The writings are just what we accept to reconcile with the belief. It fills in the blanks.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Stupid design, by Niel Degrasse Tyson.

Oh I love that video.

 

[Ashes]

There is an agreed upon definition, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Most agnostics are atheists unless they follow a certain religion without thinking it to be true or certain.

so what's that table about?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

This isn't necessarily the case... Positing the existence of some higher intelligence requires more new assumptions, so other evidence supporting the existence of that intelligence is necessary. As it stands, ID proponents haven't really made much progress toward that goal, and instead focus on the concept of "irreducible complexity," which is similarly lacking in scientific support.

That's a good point. I wonder if Behe or any other ID supporters have ever responded to this particular criticism? It looks like I have some reading to do...

 

[Raist]

so what's that table about?

Well in theory, you can make dinstinctions. In practice, when it comes to concepts like god(s), gnosticism is a bad position to have either way. And what he said isn't correct, most agnostics aren't atheists. Most atheists are agnostics, though.

 

[Orayn]

That's a good point. I wonder if Behe or any other ID supporters have ever responded to this particular criticism? It looks like I have some reading to do...

Behe both launched and sunk the "irreducible complexity" ship when he attempted to cite the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex in a court case, only to be informed that it's only a hop, skip, and a jump away from teeny-tiny "stingers" used by microorganisms, and that a flexible whip instead of a rigid barb is the only change necessary to turn one into the other.

 

[Ashes]

Well in theory, you can make dinstinctions. In practice, when it comes to concepts like god(s), gnosticism is a bad position to have either way. And what he said isn't correct, most agnostics aren't atheists. Most atheists are agnostics, though.

I think this made the most sense to me. cheers.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

so what's that table about?

It's showing you that agnosticism only pertains to whether or not you think the belief you hold can be proven with certainty, not the belief itself.

 

[Raist]

In that instance it makes perfect sense for the terms to be interchangeable. ID, as far as I understand it, entails many of the same implications as Creationism, it's just that the method for arriving at or addressing those implications is different.

The WHOLE book has been edited that way. ID is disguised creationism, period. It's so blatantly obvious and been ruled by court in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

Well in theory, you can make dinstinctions. In practice, when it comes to concepts like god(s), gnosticism is a bad position to have either way. And what he said isn't correct, most agnostics aren't atheists. Most atheists are agnostics, though.

most self proclaimed agnostics are.

 

[Kurdel]

so what's that table about?

I think it's about dispelling the myth that strict Agnosticism exists.

You cannot give equal possibility to the existance of God and it's non-existance.

Anyone who claims to have this position are most likely an Agnostic theist, or just never took the time to really think about it.

 

[Ashes]

Just for clarity's sake, this was the original question:

@atheists: to those who did so, what made you jump from agnosticism to atheism?

So far I've got, (and I think all of these though different have their own merits), they're the same; they are not the same; no, most atheists are agnostic; no, most agnostics are atheists.

 

[Daft_Cat]

I think it's about dispelling the myth that strict Agnosticism exists.

You cannot give equal possibility to the existance of God and it's non-existance.

Anyone who claims to have this position are most likely an Agnostic theist, or just never took the time to really think about it.

This is right; but isn't that obvious to begin with?

I'm an agnostic atheist. I tend to think there's no God, but I cant say for sure. There's also many different conceptions of God that are totally different from the modern judeo-christian monotheistic figure. I don't know if you've read Spinoza..but he makes a good case for "God as the natural world". I've never seen anything I'd accept over the relative certainty of current scientific conclusions or inferences..but I'm also open to the possibility that the human mind can't fully comprehend certain facts about the universe without certain experiences to expand upon scientific principles.

There's so many different theories and conceptions, that I'm not confident in making a complete metaphysical conclusion..even though I definitely fall more towards one side or the other.

Someone who is strict in the sense that they are indifferent to either possibility would be an apathetic agnostic...and even then..their indifference is only defined in so far as they don't really care either way...and that's not a very intelligent position.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Behe both launched and sunk the "irreducible complexity" ship when he attempted to cite the bacterial flagellum as irreducibly complex in a court case, only to be informed that it's only a hop, skip, and a jump away from teeny-tiny "stingers" used by microorganisms, and that a flexible whip instead of a rigid barb is the only change necessary to turn one into the other.

Is there somewhere I can read about this? Sorry to keep whining about sources but I really am interested in the topic.

The WHOLE book has been edited that way. ID is disguised creationism, period. It's so blatantly obvious and been ruled by court in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case.

The judge in the Dover case adopted a definition of ID that requires a supernatural creator, didn't he? That is the distinction that ID attempts to make and it seems like he ignored it. The nature of the creator is beyond the scope of the theory.

I found a response from Behe here about the Dover case that I'm reading now.

 

[JGS]

Christians:

1) Were you indoctrinated by this religion since birth because your parents follow this religion, or did you become a Christian later in life?

Good parents indoctrinate their belief to the kids. Given the hopes that their religion offers, it would be irresponsible not to unless one didn't believe in them. That doesn't mean they stick to it. It's impossible to force faith.

With that said, I stayed with my parents brand of Christianity until I decided to be agnostic (I guess) and then went to another Christian denomination once that didn't work.

2) If you were born in ancient Greece, do you think you would believe in Zeus with the same fervor you believe in God or would you be more or less critical?

It would depend on if Zeus was all I knew and if the probability existed to prove Zeus didn't exist. At the end of the day, it wouldn't matter based on that particular belief system.

When new religions are introduced, it is not unusual for the popuation to switch to those religions.

3) Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God (ie it's perfect, infallible, exactly how it should be, not just written by man)?

I do but that's not quite the same thing as what's in the parenthesis to describe it. For example, it can be God;'s word and written by a fallible man.

4) Do you believe that some or more of the detailed stories in the Bible (Adam and Eve, Noah, etc) are metaphorical or do you believe all are literal?

The bible explains when it is being metaphorical. Good rule of thumb is if the people of the time believed it to be real, then the Bible meant for it to be real. However, this doesn't mean that the people knew everything.

5) If you think some are metaphorical, how do you determine which are metaphorical and which are literal? How do you reconcile the two?

The Bible explains it.

6) If they are metaphorical, then why do you follow it as an actual religion and not just fables or stories meant to teach a moral lesson?

The parts that are metaphorical are meant to teach a moral lesson within the actual religion. Actually, the parts that are real are meant to do that as well.

7) Have you ever seriously sat down by yourself and critically thought about your religion and why you believe it?

Of course. In fact, I've sat down and critically thought about being an atheist.

 

[Kurdel]

ID could mean we were made by scientifically advanced aliens but that just pushes the problem further down the timeline, seeing we cannot explain their genesis.

But of course, ID proponents talk about a single, intelligent being, designing the world, instead of the aliens theory.

 

[Raist]

The judge in the Dover case adopted a definition of ID that requires a supernatural creator, didn't he? That is the distinction that ID attempts to make and it seems like he ignored it. The nature of the creator is beyond the scope of the theory.

He ignored it because it's bullshit and he knew it, please. What the hell would an "intelligent designer", a concept made up by a bunch of people rebranding creationism and all being christians, be if it's not god? hmm?

 

[JGS]

He ignored it because it's bullshit and he knew it, please. What the hell would an "intelligent designer", a concept made up by a bunch of people rebranding creationism and all being christians, be if it's not god? hmm?

Hmmm, what would it be called if it was discovered Alf created humans?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

ID could mean we were made by scientifically advanced aliens but that just pushes the problem further down the timeline, seeing we cannot explain their genesis.

But of course, ID proponents talk about a single, intelligent being, designing the world, instead of the aliens theory.

Whatever ID proponents believe about the nature of the creator is outside of the scope of ID. I think you are completely right in that the intelligent life-form could be aliens if we are looking purely at the ID argument and nothing else. I don't think ID proponents would dispute that claim. The point is that ID doesn't attempt to answer that question because it isn't a scientific one.

He ignored it because it's bullshit and he knew it, please. What the hell would an "intelligent designer", a concept made up by a bunch of people rebranding creationism and all being christians, be if it's not god? hmm?

It doesn't matter because it is outside of the scope of the theory. The implications of the theory are irrelevant to its viability, just as they are with something like the Big Bang Theory.

 

[IpsoFacto]

If you guys don't mind me asking and this is a general question for the topic, but I'll start with some proper context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All physical bodies on this universe, be it humans, animals, plants and other phenomenons being weather, metamorphisis and other movements are governed by a series of chemical, physical, evolutionary laws. A body simply cannot disobey the law of gravity under any circumstances.

But when we gaze into the human mind and thought, there seems to be an interesting twist. We humans, as a functioning society, have our own rules, restraints and laws, however, if we are supossed to behave in accordance to these laws, then why are we allowed to break them?

If murder is agreed by many as wrong, then why so many people do it anyway? Theft is wrong, according to the law, but it doesn't stop someone from doing so. Trespassing is wrong. A certain behavious seems to be expected from us, from time to time, but we are allowed to break it. Why can humans lie?

Regardless of where we came from, I have no problem with seein' the whole universe as series of phenomenons that have occured which created our solar system and produced creatures like us. If you are a non-theist, then even if you understand how everything works and assume that this universe as existed as it always has, the question is still this: why? Why does the universe exist? And does it have any meaning or purpose?

 

[Buckethead]

Q: Atheist-GAF what comprises morality? Is moral truth objective or relative?

Q: Anyone - do you believe in either the Silver Rule or Golden Rule?

I believe all good actions are driven by selfish motives, even selfless acts.

You do good because it makes you feel good even if there are no other direct benifits for yourself

I see your point and understand it but personally speaking a lot of things I don't do are because I don't want to contribute to the "badness" of society.
I see how fucked up certain things are and never want to do them, even if it isn't easy for me to do so.

So the negative motivates me.

I see the negative consequences of pride, therefore I do my best to not be prideful.

I think to an extent you cannot escape contributing to "badness" in one aspect or another.
The capitalistic game is rigged. But I'm always striving to do good as well as avoid bad.

 

[Slightly Live]

If you guys don't mind me asking and this is a general question for the topic, but I'll start with some proper context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All physical bodies on this universe, be it humans, animals, plants and other phenomenons being weather, metamorphisis and other movements are governed by a series of chemical, physical, evolutionary laws. A body simply cannot disobey the law of gravity under any circumstances.

But when we gaze into the human mind and thought, there seems to be an interesting twist. We humans, as a functioning society, have our own rules, restraints and laws, however, if we are supossed to behave in accordance to these laws, then why are we allowed to break them?

If murder is agreed by many as wrong, then why so many people do it anyway? Theft is wrong, according to the law, but it doesn't stop someone from doing so. Trespassing is wrong. A certain behavious seems to be expected from us, from time to time, but we are allowed to break it. Why can humans lie?

Regardless of where we came from, I have no problem with seein' the whole universe as series of phenomenons that have occured which created our solar system and produced creatures like us. If you are a non-theist, then even if you understand how everything works and assume that this universe as existed as it always has, the question is still this: why? Why does the universe exist? And does it have any meaning or purpose?

Are you equating breaking the laws of gravity with breaking human laws of murder? Wat?

 

[Kurdel]

If you guys don't mind me asking and this is a general question for the topic, but I'll start with some proper context.

Social psychology, sociology, psychology, biology and astro physics have been attempting to answer these questions for decades now.

Social pressure to conform to a specific culture and evolutionary sociology can come up with satifactory answers to your questions. You could probably read up on the subject, you seem pretty interest!

Ending your post with "Why?" implies everything has meaning. That is a pretty huge assumption, if you ask me.

 

[Salacious Crumb]

If you guys don't mind me asking and this is a general question for the topic, but I'll start with some proper context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All physical bodies on this universe, be it humans, animals, plants and other phenomenons being weather, metamorphisis and other movements are governed by a series of chemical, physical, evolutionary laws. A body simply cannot disobey the law of gravity under any circumstances.

But when we gaze into the human mind and thought, there seems to be an interesting twist. We humans, as a functioning society, have our own rules, restraints and laws, however, if we are supossed to behave in accordance to these laws, then why are we allowed to break them?

If murder is agreed by many as wrong, then why so many people do it anyway? Theft is wrong, according to the law, but it doesn't stop someone from doing so. Trespassing is wrong. A certain behavious seems to be expected from us, from time to time, but we are allowed to break it. Why can humans lie?

Regardless of where we came from, I have no problem with seein' the whole universe as series of phenomenons that have occured which created our solar system and produced creatures like us. If you are a non-theist, then even if you understand how everything works and assume that this universe as existed as it always has, the question is still this: why? Why does the universe exist? And does it have any meaning or purpose?

First we need to know how before we can answer why.

 

[Tawpgun]

@atheists: to those who did so, what made you jump from agnosticism to atheism?

Didn't feel like living in an absurd middle ground. I read Life of Pi and that sort of pushed me over the edge. Great book that deals with religious aspects btw.

I also agree that agnostics are either former religious people who are having trouble making the final jump or people trying to seem more open minded.

Atheism was just more credible and stable. If you're an agnostic because you recognize the POSSIBILITY of a God then you will always remain an agnonstic because a higher being God figure is impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[JGS]

What makes atheism more credible or stable?

What's wrong with middle ground on an unproveable concept?

 

[Kurdel]

What makes atheism more credible or stable?

What's wrong with middle ground on an unproveable concept?

You cannot give 50% chance to each possibilty and be intellectualy honest, seeing the incredible leap one requires.

 

[The Technomancer]

What makes atheism more credible or stable?

What's wrong with middle ground on an unproveable concept?

Agnostic atheism is the position of the unprovable concept. Gnostic atheism, the claim that there is no God, is just as incredible and unstable as the claim that there is.

All claims without evidence are considered to have a low plausibility until evidence is presented that makes them more plausible. We treat pretty much everything else in life this way, I see no reason for God to be exempt.

 

[Orayn]

What makes atheism more credible or stable?

What's wrong with middle ground on an unproveable concept?

It's stable because it doesn't require any new assumptions. At present, the scientific view of the universe functions without a god. This does not rule out the possibility of one existing, it just means that our understanding of how things work doesn't have any "god-shaped holes" in it, so to speak.

In this sense, agnostic atheism is the middle ground because it reverts to the null hypothesis of, "No evidence currently exists that supports the existence of a god or something like one." That's it. No sweeping declarations, no making fun of believers, just a dry, scientific statement.

@The Darkest Red: The PBS series NOVA has a good special called "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial." You can watch the whole thing online.

 

[Zaptruder]

What makes atheism more credible or stable?

What's wrong with middle ground on an unproveable concept?

So what's the middle ground between a unicorn and nothing?

 

[Raist]

It doesn't matter because it is outside of the scope of the theory. The implications of the theory are irrelevant to its viability, just as they are with something like the Big Bang Theory.

The motives behind it do matter.
And it's not a "theory". It can't be tested, and all arguments they had for this idea have been debunked.

Anyway, I suggest you to watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

And in case you miss it while watching, Ken Miller is catholic.

What makes atheism more credible or stable?

What's wrong with middle ground on an unproveable concept?

It's completely useless? Especially since you can make up thousands of equally unprovable concepts.

 

[JGS]

You cannot give 50% chance to each possibilty and be intellectualy honest, seeing the incredible leap one requires.

Middle ground isn't really a stat. It's more along the lines of an acceptance that either one of them could be possible even if you don't believe it. Being an atheist doesn't change the possiblity that [insert deity] exists, only our belief of it.

Agnostic atheism is the position of the unprovable concept.

To me this is middle ground.

All claims without evidence are considered to have a low plausibility until evidence is presented that makes them more plausible. We treat pretty much everything else in life this way, I see no reason for God to be exempt.

Acceptance of God has never has been exempt even in the Bible and it seems pretty clear that the "scientific" version of how life started is far more accepted now although the plausibilty is just as low.

It's stable because it doesn't require any new assumptions. At present, the scientific view of the universe functions without a god. This does not rule out the possibility of one existing, it just means that our understanding of how things work doesn't have any god-shaped holes in it, so to speak.

But the view always changes because science is not static and some theories don't hold up. Further, the universe functions with God in view too so the two aren't really related.

In this sense, agnostic atheism is the middle ground because it reverts to the null hypothesis of, "No evidence currently exists that supports the existence of a god or something like one." That's it. No sweeping declarations, no making fun of believers, just a dry, scientific statement.

this is fine although being religious I have to add that no evidence exists for anything regarding how life started (The primary point that matters with the existence of [insert deity] and the scientific world as we know it doesn't contradict the existence of a God.

So what's the middle ground between a unicorn and nothing?

A unicorn isn't a concept. Plus we know the origins of the unicorn and can indeed explain where they came from - imaginary versions or not.

 

[The Technomancer]

Acceptance of God has never has been exempt even in the Bible and it seems pretty clear that the "scientific" version of how life started is far more accepted now although the plausibilty is just as low.

Huh? There's no good scientific answer to "how life started". Its a very contentious area and none of the theories are given anywhere near the plausibility of something like the theory of gravity precisely because of the amount of evidence involved.

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

It's stable because it doesn't require any new assumptions. At present, the scientific view of the universe functions without a god. This does not rule out the possibility of one existing, it just means that our understanding of how things work doesn't have any "god-shaped holes" in it, so to speak.

Isn't there an assumption required regarding the origin of the universe?

In this sense, agnostic atheism is the middle ground because it reverts to the null hypothesis of, "No evidence currently exists that supports the existence of a god or something like one." That's it. No sweeping declarations, no making fun of believers, just a dry, scientific statement.

I've always found the claim that there is no evidence for the existence of a god to be quite interesting. What is the point in using a process (the scientific method) that was created for the sole purpose of learning more about our physical surroundings to answer a question that is purely metaphysical in nature? The existence of God (at least, the God of the Bible) is not a scientific question, so why would we expect his existence to be proven scientifically?

Science is an incredibly useful tool and I am continually impressed and amazed by its findings, but I feel like sometimes we forget that it has its limits.

@The Darkest Red: The PBS series NOVA has a good special called "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial." You can watch the whole thing online.

Thanks, I'll check this out when I get the chance.

 

[Zaptruder]

A unicorn isn't a concept. Plus we know the origins of the unicorn and can indeed explain where they came from - imaginary versions or not.

Why isn't a unicorn a concept? It seems to me as though its the concept of a magical horse with a horn on its head.

And what does our ability to explain the origins of a unicorn (which I'm quite doubtful of; because there are many conceptions of unicorns, some of which do not have a defined origin), imaginary or not have to do with finding the middle point between unicorns and nothing?