Is atheism a scientific perspective?

[Simon Moon]

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world. 

Sure sounds like argument from ignorance, or argument from personal incredulity to me.

Please let us know how you eliminated every possible natural mechanism...

[AAA]

So I'm seriously late to the game here... was busy celebrating a hallmark holiday. I only read the first and last page (cause I'm seriously lazy) but it seems to morph into a bigger battle than the OP was meant for. On one hand I noticed right off the bat that indeed some people were being a little harsh. I know that every time a religious person comes in here making threads its the same thing and we keep doing these battles until we are frustrated and mean to the new Xian but that really was a little harsh.

On the other hand I did roll my eyes and sigh after reading the post... can we just get a disclaimer banner that tells xians that we have been there argued that already?

Also just because I came here to comment on the actual subject I will say that the reason atheists make it seem like what we believe goes hand in hand with science is because thus far science agrees with us. You don't really see scientists that are religious because it breaks all common sense so they wouldn't be a very good scientist if they are just believing in things with no proof. And no sweetie the proof you have mentioned is not real scientific proof to any real scientists. Just because something is old doesn't mean it wasn't fake to begin with. (sorry if all this was discussed in the pages I didn't read... I reckon I should stop being lazy and go read them)

Just so you know...this is like the 5th time we've been around and around with this guy over ID in the past year or so.  He's not new here, which I think can explain much of the scorn you are seeing here.  

I'm not really bothered or surprised by the hateful nature of the comments. I'm disappointed that the hateful comments are basically what you come to when you don't want to address the argument. Specifically you LadyforCamus just insult. You have never attempted to deal with the argument. It's hard to argue with atheists considering that so many of you are unwilling to consider anyone else worthy of your precious intellect.

---

I never asserted that there has to be an intelligence. It's that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing some features of the natural world. 

Sure sounds like argument from ignorance, or argument from personal incredulity to me.

Please let us know how you eliminated every possible natural mechanism...

That's what the word known is there for.

[Simon Moon]

Sure sounds like argument from ignorance, or argument from personal incredulity to me.

Please let us know how you eliminated every possible natural mechanism...

That's what the word known is there for.

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

[LadyForCamus]

Just so you know...this is like the 5th time we've been around and around with this guy over ID in the past year or so.  He's not new here, which I think can explain much of the scorn you are seeing here.  

I'm not really bothered or surprised by the hateful nature of the comments. I'm disappointed that the hateful comments are basically what you come to when you don't want to address the argument. Specifically you LadyforCamus just insult. You have never attempted to deal with the argument. It's hard to argue with atheists considering that so many of you are unwilling to consider anyone else worthy of your precious intellect.

---

Sure sounds like argument from ignorance, or argument from personal incredulity to me.

Please let us know how you eliminated every possible natural mechanism...

That's what the word known is there for.

Oh, I most certainly have! As I said...go back and re-read through the endless pages of your own past threads, and perhaps refresh your memory.

It's as I said before: the ID "argument" is NOT an argument. You have never once produced a shred of evidence demonstrating the mechanisms by which your designer has accomplished his design, not to mention an explanation for who or what this designer is, and by what facts and evidence you came to those conclusions. When you can bring those things to the table, you have an argument for which I may choose to participate in. Until then, I'm not going to waste time pointing out fallacies that have been pointed out to you time and time again.

[RoadRunner79]

That's what the word known is there for.

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

    You want him to eliminate the unknown now....



The argument from ignorance, is assuming ones position, until it is shown to be false.  (which I might add, appears to be what your are doing).  It is a form of shifting the burden of proof.

I.D. does give positive reasons, why choice; and therefore an intelligent designer better explains the evidence.  It is not just, we don't know, therefore it must be designed!  It is relying on what we do know to make an inference.

[LadyForCamus]

Figures it was only a matter of time before RR threw his hat in the ring, lol. Coming to AF near you: Another 100 pages of willfully misunderstanding evolutionary biology while simultaneously failing to make a positive case for god; YAY! At least the creationists are good at multitasking.

*popcorn*

[Astreja]

What would convince you of a designing intelligence? If God spoke to you right now, you would accept that you were hallucinating rather than deviate from your bais.

If a god spoke to me, hopefully it would be for the purpose of telling me something more useful than "Hi, I'm a god."  I would take it seriously if and only if it made testable, falsifiable predictions --

-- like evolutionary biology does.

[brewer]

Textbook definition of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

How does it feel to base your ID belief on an ever receding pocket of ignorance?

    You want him to eliminate the unknown now....



The argument from ignorance, is assuming ones position, until it is shown to be false.  (which I might add, appears to be what your are doing).  It is a form of shifting the burden of proof.

I.D. does give positive reasons, why choice; and therefore an intelligent designer better explains the evidence.  It is not just, we don't know, therefore it must be designed!  It is relying on what we do know to make an inference.

bold mine

And the inference? We don't know enough, therefore design. We are uncomfortable with we don't know, therefore design. I can't think for myself, therefore design.

Oh, wait, fantasy delusion can explain anything and everything. OOOOhhhhh baby, now that's the stuff!

[Astreja]

I don't believe you.  Show that there *is* an agent, rather than spouting unsubstantiated arguments from incredulity.

Are you saying, that making an inference is an argument from incredulity?  How would you categorize the inferences made in light of evolution then?

An inference based on a probably mythological entity, with no supporting evidence, is indeed an argument from incredulity.

The inferences made in light of evolution are based on testable physical evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

    You want him to eliminate the unknown now....



The argument from ignorance, is assuming ones position, until it is shown to be false.  (which I might add, appears to be what your are doing).  It is a form of shifting the burden of proof.

I.D. does give positive reasons, why choice; and therefore an intelligent designer better explains the evidence.  It is not just, we don't know, therefore it must be designed!  It is relying on what we do know to make an inference.

bold mine

And the inference? We don't know enough, therefore design. We are uncomfortable with we don't know, therefore design. I can't think for myself, therefore design.

Oh, wait, fantasy delusion can explain anything and everything. OOOOhhhhh baby, now that's the stuff!

Is this a strawman... or just self reflection?

---

Are you saying, that making an inference is an argument from incredulity?  How would you categorize the inferences made in light of evolution then?

An inference based on a probably mythological entity, with no supporting evidence, is indeed an argument from incredulity.

The inferences made in light of evolution are based on testable physical evidence.

Ok... thanks, You don't seem to be describing what I believe, or the way I.D. reasons, but I just wanted to make sure, that you where not saying that making an inference from the evidence to the cause was not an argument from ignorance.