Evidence. Can't go there due to a prior committment

[Minimalist]

To explain those 'big questions' with god, you need to provide evidence for that god first, or such an explanation is just vacuous...

The do always seem to leave that part of it out of the equation, L/P.

[The Grand Nudger]

Love the opportunity to plaster cartoons on the forums over and over.

[Fred]

If something can't be explained, it is much more intellectually honest to say, "I don't know" rather than declare that it somehow must be due to the existence of god.

Yes, it certainly is. Matter of fact, you can stop after "due to." How lovely it would be to see more of that from the "it's merely" chorus.

There seems to be a common misconception that atheists have determined all of the answers to important questions about life with science and declared anything unanswered to be unimportant.

I'll say. I see that over and over and it just makes me scratch my head. Expecially since it's invariably atheists themselves making the mistake.

In fact, atheists are quite content with not being able to answer a question, but never will we explain the unexplainable with god.

If I can't speak for atheists as a whole about anything other than them not believing in God, neither can you. Unless there's a secret handshake or some shit. Regardless, instead of explaining it with god, you will either explain it away or hand out materialist promissory notes by the bushel. "One day we will know" has replaced "take it on faith" as the get out of jail free card. One day we will know many more things, yes, but chief amongst them will be how true "holy shit, there's so much we still don't know" still is.

---

It has always been the practice of the faithful to shore up their knowledge by invoking deity towards the unknown.

Maybe, but it's curious how the idea that materialism an a priori stance hasn't caused a flutter of denial or even been mentioned. By the great god Apologia, that is not a miracle, but still of note.

As the gaps in our knowledge decrease so to does the power and purvey of god.

Uh, let me know when those gaps start decreasing. Pretty fucking wide vistas as far as I can see, but maybe your view is different.

Except when people subscribe to a faith which amounts to nothing more than a snapshot in time from a less informed era.

Heh. Powdered wigs are more modern than mitres, I'll give ya that. Hardly cutting edge.

---

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of This man had a profound misconception about both our history (and the quality and brevity of our lives before science) and the basic mechanics of scientific understanding.

Holy shit. Did you really just accuse Richard Lewontin of having a profound misconception of history and the basic mechanics of scientific understanding? By golly, I believe you did. That takes sack, I'll give ya that.

[Epimethean]

Did you just side with a pundit who criticized Daniel Dennett's thinking regarding consciousness?

[Fred]

Did you just side with a pundit who criticized Daniel Dennett's thinking regarding consciousness?

Uh, I don't know did I? But if so, well put him in the pile with the rest of the folks doing so. Is that not allowed or something?

[Epimethean]

LOL. It's a fun time when a theist comes in suggesting that evidence for the divine exists but finds the work of one of the great modern thinkers on consciousness dubious.

[Fred]

LOL. It's a fun time when a theist comes in suggesting that evidence for the divine exists but finds the work of one of the great modern thinkers on consciousness dubious.

I'll say. I'm having a swimmingly good time. Again, are you somehow imagining that Dennet's views are somehow sacrosanct or something? That's going to be news to a hell of a lot of people.

[Epimethean]

Nope, but backed by current scientific theory and evidence.


All you have to go on so far is your imagination. Is that sacrosanct, DD?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, I did say that, on the weight of that statement alone. I don't know anything else about the man, and his work in other areas may be brilliant. That, however, was a completely ignorant statement, pure hyperbole. Try to quantify that. Show me a point in time where magic kept people healthier, and alive longer. That our aspirations exceeded our ability? Is that the criticism buried in that mess of a statement? Lah-ti-fucking dah. The coloseum should have been three feet higher :hakes fist::

As far as gaps. Is there much room left for Zues to throw lightning, or for the heavens and all the world to fall from Tiamats belly? Does Wakan Tanka make the buffalo run? No. Have you ever taken the time to delve into the breadth and scope of our collective superstitions? There was once, as Carl Sagan put it best, "a dryad for every tree". Where are they now?

If we are incorrect about the material world you need only point out the thing which we have misunderstood. We've been doing this a long time in fact. That's how we end up where we are, constantly refining our body of knowledge based upon simple principles, tests that can be run over and over. Sticking to one set of rules, instead of waffling about all over the board. If we hadn't done this, we'd be a bunch of ignorant migratory predators, cowering under a rock from the sound of thunder, and staring in awe at the god of fire. But hey, if we're wrong, you need only show us where.

Appealing to the great unknown is fine, as long as you don't feel that any opinion you hold is more valid than anyone else's. The problem is when aspects of the "great unknown" don't square up with the known. Then it's safe to call BS, and I do.

[Fred]

Yes, I did say that, on the weight of that statement alone. I don't know anything else about the man, and his work in other areas may be brilliant.

Dude. He's a fucking evolutionary biologist and geneticist. He's flagrantly qualified to chime in on his own field. But, hey, do you have the same bitch about Dawkins? Whatever his talents as a biologist, as has been pointed out over and over, he's woefully deficient in his understanding of religion as a whole, and when called on that fact, he not only doesn't deny the fact, but revels in it. Quips about leprachaunology do not carry the day outside the choir room.

That, however, was a completely ignorant statement, pure hyperbole.

The admission that materialism was an a priori stance is neither ignorant nor hyperbole. You still haven't touched on that, seemingly having tripped over the bit about science not living up to its extraordinary claims sub-statement in order to avoid the main point because it refutes your initial assertion about conclusions following observation.

Try to quantify that. Show me a point in time where magic kept people healthier, and alive longer.

Nobody asserted such in the least, so what is your point? I don't have time for strawmen.

That our aspirations exceeded our ability? Is that the criticism buried in that mess of a statement? Lah-ti-fucking dah. The coloseum should have been three feet higher :hakes fist::

No, that's not the point. Go back and check it again. Try and keep your emotion out of it while you do.

As far as gaps. Is there much room left for Zues to throw lightning, or for the heavens and all the world to fall from Tiamats belly? Does Wakan Tanka make the buffalo run? No. Have you ever taken the time to delve into the breadth and scope of our collective superstitions? There was once, as Carl Sagan put it best, "a dryad for every tree". Where are they now?

Again, leave your strawmen at home, please. You are missing the forest because you have your face pressed up against this particular tree and it's getting old.

If we are incorrect about the material world you need only point out the thing which we have misunderstood.

Go check out that Pinocchio article and get back to me with something of substance that refutes it.