Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?

[FatAndFaithless]

Perhaps you perceive certain responses to be insulting due to your rigid position. You've been corrected on your fallacious assertions and you refuse to yield. Most obstinate people take offense easily.

MY rigid position? I've simply been pointing out that much of what the scientific community and public opinion thought to be "truth" is now being challenged by new scientific revelations. As a result, I'm saying my opinion is that it's worth reconsidering what was previously considered possible or impossible with regard to the nature of reality. How is that rigid?

Heyguesswhat that's how science works, and the more evidence that is uncovered, the more our ideas will change. Still don't know why the hell you brought atheism into the discussion at all.

[Cato]

MY rigid position? I've simply been pointing out that much of what the scientific community and public opinion thought to be "truth" is now being challenged by new scientific revelations.

You have done no such thing. In fact, some few post ago I completely dismantled one of your claims with evidence directly from the source. You are either fabricating your claims or simply gullibly passing along the fabrications of others. Try addressing my facts.

[sswhateverlove]

I have been researching at a graduate level using peer reviewed sources. Despite your claim, many respected scientists are agnostic. Tyson actually did a lecture on intelligent design where he encouraged people to spend more time focusing on why some (25% he claims) of the most respected scientist are not completely denying the possibility of intelligent design, because that's where things are getting very interesting.

The correct figure that NDT cites is 7%. And it's belief in a personal god, not intelligent design. You are also confused about what NDT's messages are.

Your post indicates that you are stripping this misinformation from a secondary (likely ID) source. Here's the video. You watch and tell me if you still hold to the 25% and if anything NDT says supports your above claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA

By the way, this is what is called providing evidence.

This is what I was referring to... I am reviewing it to check my statistics, I could be wrong, but I do know I'm getting his message correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASmQmYX-71Q

[rexbeccarox]

Mod Hat On:

OP, your strawmen constitutes trolling, which is against the rules. Please acknowledge that you understand that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, or risk disciplinary action.

Mod Hat Off

We do not take kindly to people telling us what we believe, and then sticking their fingers in their ears when we correct them.

[sswhateverlove]

Mod Hat On:

OP, your strawmen constitutes trolling, which is against the rules. Please acknowledge that you understand that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, or risk disciplinary action.

Mod Hat Off

We do not take kindly to people telling us what we believe, and then sticking their fingers in their ears when we correct them.

I have acknowledged that numerous times. Can we now discuss the scientific observations I'm referring to?

---

The correct figure that NDT cites is 7%. And it's belief in a personal god, not intelligent design. You are also confused about what NDT's messages are.

Your post indicates that you are stripping this misinformation from a secondary (likely ID) source. Here's the video. You watch and tell me if you still hold to the 25% and if anything NDT says supports your above claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xvILvxYbFA

By the way, this is what is called providing evidence.

This is what I was referring to... I am reviewing it to check my statistics, I could be wrong, but I do know I'm getting his message correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASmQmYX-71Q

I stand corrected, the statistic is actually 15%, not 25%. The part I'm referring to starts at 12:30

---

MY rigid position? I've simply been pointing out that much of what the scientific community and public opinion thought to be "truth" is now being challenged by new scientific revelations. As a result, I'm saying my opinion is that it's worth reconsidering what was previously considered possible or impossible with regard to the nature of reality. How is that rigid?

Heyguesswhat that's how science works, and the more evidence that is uncovered, the more our ideas will change. Still don't know why the hell you brought atheism into the discussion at all.

Because I'm interested in how certain revelations influence the atheist perspective. Am I not allow to wonder that?

[FatAndFaithless]

Mod Hat On:

OP, your strawmen constitutes trolling, which is against the rules. Please acknowledge that you understand that atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, or risk disciplinary action.

Mod Hat Off

We do not take kindly to people telling us what we believe, and then sticking their fingers in their ears when we correct them.

I have acknowledged that numerous times. Can we now discuss the scientific observations I'm referring to?

---

This is what I was referring to... I am reviewing it to check my statistics, I could be wrong, but I do know I'm getting his message correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASmQmYX-71Q

I stand corrected, the statistic is actually 15%, not 25%. The part I'm referring to starts at 12:30

---

Heyguesswhat that's how science works, and the more evidence that is uncovered, the more our ideas will change. Still don't know why the hell you brought atheism into the discussion at all.

Because I'm interesting in how certain revelations influence the atheist perspective. Am I not allow to wonder that?

You can wonder whatever the hell you want, it's irrelevant. You still don't seem to understand the simple fact that we've tried to hammer home. There is no "atheist perspective" on cosmology astronomy or any field of science for that matter.

---

Good lord the formatting took a shit in my last post.

[sswhateverlove]

I have acknowledged that numerous times. Can we now discuss the scientific observations I'm referring to?

---

I stand corrected, the statistic is actually 15%, not 25%. The part I'm referring to starts at 12:30

---

Because I'm interesting in how certain revelations influence the atheist perspective. Am I not allow to wonder that?

You can wonder whatever the hell you want, it's irrelevant. You still don't seem to understand the simple fact that we've tried to hammer home. There is no "atheist perspective" on cosmology astronomy or any field of science for that matter.

---

Good lord the formatting took a shit in my last post.

Ok, so you're saying that I'm generalizing by assuming that most atheists believe there is no evidence that would support questioning the possibility of intelligent design and influence? Can you please clarify how I'm misunderstanding the perspective?

[FatAndFaithless]

Ok, so you're saying that I'm generalizing by assuming that most atheists believe there is no evidence that would support questioning the possibility of intelligent design and influence? Can you please clarify how I'm misunderstanding the perspective?

I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.

[Cato]

This is what I was referring to... I am reviewing it to check my statistics, I could be wrong, but I do know I'm getting his message correct.

I stand corrected, the statistic is actually 15%, not 25%. The part I'm referring to starts at 12:30

You are misrepresenting what is being said:

1. The percent references the number of members of the National Academy of Science that believe in a personal god. This says absolutely nothing about intelligent design, which was your claim. Flatly disingenuous.

2. NDT is not providing the statistic to demonstrate the validity of god claims. His point is to stress that a solution to the religion problem is not simply a matter of more science education for the general public.

[Esquilax]

Ok, so you're saying that I'm generalizing by assuming that most atheists believe there is no evidence that would support questioning the possibility of intelligent design and influence? Can you please clarify how I'm misunderstanding the perspective?

The "atheist position," encompasses exactly one position. Just one. A single position. And that single, one position, is disbelief (not denial of!) god claims.

Atheism is not a worldview, it's a position on a single issue, the proposed existence of god. Any other belief is on the table. That's the problem: you're throwing us all these questions about biology and cosmology and so on, and assuming that we'll all have a unified "atheist cosmology" position or whatever, but that's simply not the case.