(October 2, 2013 at 8:58 am)Tortino Wrote: 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 "

And if you have ever actually tried that, you would realize that there is no evidence for intelligent design. Just looking at an animal and thinking 'hmmm that looks like it must be designed', is not evidnece. In fact there is plenty of evidence to contradict intelligent design quite thoroughly.

""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 ""

No - it isn't. Sorry. You are simply wrong here:

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

"Intelligent design (ID) is a form of anti-evolution creationism[1][2] presented by its proponents as the theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4] The leading proponents of this version of the argument are all associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2][5][n 3] The concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity propose that certain biological features are too complex and improbable to be the result of evolutionary processes, and conclude that these features are evidence of design.[n 4]"

Also see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where a judge declared Intelligent Design as "a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

(October 2, 2013 at 8:51 am)Tortino Wrote: Intelligent design is the philosophy of scientific findings. For example, the finding of the complexity of cells via scientific discovery, is it designed? This is a philosophical conclusion rather than scientific. Furthermore, what is wrong in looking at alternative views?

Um, no. Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism disguised with sciency-sounding language to try to make it sound legitimate. But it's still just creationism with a different bent, and it works basically like this:

The entire universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God as spelled out in Genesis in the bible.
Things in the universe kind of look like they were designed, so they were definitely made by the Judeo-Christian God.
Evolution is false because of ______, so that means that biblical creationism must be true.

Oh and to answer your original question, we wouldn't be talking about your god or religion so much if it weren't for the religious coming here to try to show us how wrong we are, or the religious trying to force religion into schools or government.

But you wouldn't begrudge us a place to come and bitch about religion, would you? I visit several different forums but this is the only one I discuss religion on. And religion isn't the only thing we talk about here.

(October 2, 2013 at 9:08 am)Rationalman Wrote: Religion, particularly the christian one, has caused millions of deaths and pain throughout history. It is a poison that corrupts everything it touches. To a christian, the truth of their beliefs don't matter, its whether they feel good. Otherwise you tortino, would be fine with slavery, rape, murder, genocide, infanticide, stoning. (I'm assuming you aren't fine with those)

Well, we have seen , an absence of religious belief has been the biggest destruction in terms of killings in human history.

Joseph Stalin killed over 20 million people
Mao Zedong killed 45 million...
Pol Pot killed around 1.7 million.

I am sorry, but the atrocities in the name of religion pale significantly when compared to people who killed when they had the absence of religious belief. Did their lack of belief cause them to kill? Who knows, but no direct link can be made. However, how can the teachings of Jesus be reconciled to killing someone? Killing and then attributing it to the teachings of Christianity is as non sequitur as me killing someone and saying I am doing it in the name of the New York Yankees.

And then the arrogance of the intolerance of religion. Doesn't the bible say to kill non-believers? And then they try and dictate the way I live my life, based on their cherry picked version of their religion. Thats why we debate the existence of god, the idea of god is dangerous. Its also intellectually lazy, just saying goddit has no explanatory power at all. They locked a man in his house for years because his new ideas conflicted with theirs. If the world had stayed as religious as it was during the middle ages, we would not have developed at all. We would be standing in our own waste, disease ridden, living in huts and dying at the ripe old age of 40.

No, the bible does not tell us to kill non believers. I am not sure where you got that from. Who is dictating how you should live? I never say "God did it". As I said, Under Theism, God gave is brains so we can study the natural world. Some of the greatest scientists have been Theists. As I said, science is built on the foundation of Christianity. Science owes a lot to Christianity.

---

(October 2, 2013 at 9:11 am)Darwinian Wrote: Back to the O.P.

Q. Why do atheists spend so much time debating the existence of God?

A. They don't!

looking through this forum and several hundred others (evidence) says otherwise.

---

(October 2, 2013 at 9:14 am)Rationalman Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 8:58 am)Tortino Wrote: 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 "

And if you have ever actually tried that, you would realize that there is no evidence for intelligent design. Just looking at an animal and thinking 'hmmm that looks like it must be designed', is not evidnece. In fact there is plenty of evidence to contradict intelligent design quite thoroughly.

Who determines if something designed? Is that a scientific question or a philosophical question? How do you prove if something is designed?

It's possible to believe in an afterlife but no god.

Not all atheists do spend a lot of time debating the existence of god.

I do spend probably more time than the average person debating the existence of god because I find it interesting, it isn't the bible or the quran I find interesting but the total illogical though processes of a lot of religious people.

Let's see: why would atheists spend so much time discussing religious matters (not specifically the existence of god/s - that's what makes us atheists) - on an atheist forum? Gee, I have no idea.

On another forum run by and for Dalek builders - yes, there really are such people, thousands of them around the world in fact - everyone seems to spend their whole time talking about various aspects of Dalek design and history etc. Why would that happen on a forum dedicated to the subject?

Oh, and I've never yet met a single Atheist, unless they come at the start of a sentence. Knowing this lot, they'd probably come [The rest of this sentence has been relocated to Area 69, pending legal review.]

(October 2, 2013 at 9:22 am)max-greece Wrote: ""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 ""

No - it isn't. Sorry. You are simply wrong here:

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

"Intelligent design (ID) is a form of anti-evolution creationism[1][2] presented by its proponents as the theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4] The leading proponents of this version of the argument are all associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2][5][n 3] The concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity propose that certain biological features are too complex and improbable to be the result of evolutionary processes, and conclude that these features are evidence of design.[n 4]"

Also see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where a judge declared Intelligent Design as "a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

You have it twisted. Advocates of intelligent design and opponents of intelligent design look at the SAME EVIDENCE. It is the conclusion which differs.

Furthermore, who determines if something is designed or not? What are the parameters of determining if something is designed? Is it a scientific question or a philosophical one?

(October 2, 2013 at 8:29 am)Tortino Wrote: This to me, borders on the height of irrationality. Let me give my views, look at some common responses, and answer to those.

By definition, under Atheism, this is the ONLY life we have, therefore, every second is precious. Why would you waste precious time debating about a being you don't believe exists? Isnt it a real waste of your life?

I have been told that under Atheism, the meaning of life is subjective. That is, you give your own meaning to your own life. If playing the piano gives meaning to the pianist, then so be it. If playing baseball gives someone meaning, then good luck to them. If helping friends and family gives you meaning in life, then good luck to them. We cannot tell them it is wrong. It is subjective and gives them meaning. If Christianity gives people meaning in their lives, then who is anyone to tell them no? Why spend time arguing something that gives people meaning in their life?

Now, here are some of the common objections I get.

"Religious get tax breaks, they shouldn't." , Well, a major function of the Christian Church is charitable works. Like every other charity, why shouldn't the Christian church also get tax breaks as a major function of their work is charity.

"Because they impact on policy". Well, I agree church and state should be separated, however, why just like every other person, don't Christians also have the right to voice their opinion? Aren't people all for freedom of speech? Doesn't everyone have a right to voice their opinion? However, once this goes to govt, it becomes more of a question of politics rather than philosophy/theology.

"Religion stuns scientific thought / discovery", well some of our greatest scientists have been Theists. Science is the study of the natural world. The gospels do not tell us that we should not observe the world. Under Theology, God gave us rational minds to observe the universe. Science is built on the very foundation of Christianity. Dr Francis Collins was the director of the genome project to find cures for disease.

These are just a few.

Why? Um look at what the Republican party is trying to do to women's rights and voting rights in America. Look at what has been done in the name of the Christian god to blacks and native Americans and women and gays. And what do you think happens to atheists like me?

Why? For the same reason both you and I are affected by the beliefs of Islamic nuts who blow themselves up and slam planes into buildings.

I really would like to not give a shit, but when the "parties of God", as Christopher Hitchens put it, use the only planet I live on for their childish game of capture the flag, with deadly results, DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT I care. You think it is "irrational" to care about how others can affect you?

This is merely another stupid argument to avoid any challenge to your belief.

If the fans of all three death cults could find another planet to live on, I wouldn't have to give a shit. But all three mix weapons and religion and put me in the middle of their pissing contest.

(October 2, 2013 at 9:26 am)Doubting Thomas Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 8:51 am)Tortino Wrote: Intelligent design is the philosophy of scientific findings. For example, the finding of the complexity of cells via scientific discovery, is it designed? This is a philosophical conclusion rather than scientific. Furthermore, what is wrong in looking at alternative views?

Um, no. Intelligent Design is nothing more than creationism disguised with sciency-sounding language to try to make it sound legitimate. But it's still just creationism with a different bent, and it works basically like this:

The entire universe was created by the Judeo-Christian God as spelled out in Genesis in the bible.

Was the universe created? did it always exist? Is their a cause of the universe?

Things in the universe kind of look like they were designed, so they were definitely made by the Judeo-Christian God.

Who determines if something is designed or not?

Evolution is false because of ______, so that means that biblical creationism must be true.

Christianity and Evolution are compatible. Even Richard Dawkins accepts this.

Oh and to answer your original question, we wouldn't be talking about your god or religion so much if it weren't for the religious coming here to try to show us how wrong we are, or the religious trying to force religion into schools or government.

What is the name of the website?

But you wouldn't begrudge us a place to come and bitch about religion, would you? I visit several different forums but this is the only one I discuss religion on. And religion isn't the only thing we talk about here.

Sounds like a waste of valuable time to me (the religious section for Atheists).

(October 2, 2013 at 9:42 am)Tortino Wrote:

(October 2, 2013 at 9:22 am)max-greece Wrote: ""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 ""

No - it isn't. Sorry. You are simply wrong here:

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

"Intelligent design (ID) is a form of anti-evolution creationism[1][2] presented by its proponents as the theory that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[3] It is a version of the theological argument from design for the existence of God that proponents present as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[n 1][4] The leading proponents of this version of the argument are all associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2][5][n 3] The concepts of irreducible complexity and specified complexity propose that certain biological features are too complex and improbable to be the result of evolutionary processes, and conclude that these features are evidence of design.[n 4]"

Also see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District where a judge declared Intelligent Design as "a form of creationism, and that the school board policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

You have it twisted. Advocates of intelligent design and opponents of intelligent design look at the SAME EVIDENCE. It is the conclusion which differs.

Furthermore, who determines if something is designed or not? What are the parameters of determining if something is designed? Is it a scientific question or a philosophical one?

No - I haven't twisted anything - you just read the finding of the judge of the above case.

Intelligent Design was a sneak attack which attempted to get creationism into the science curriculum. Fortunately for all, it failed.

Read the Judges full comments - they are available on line.