Positive Atheism

[Eilonnwy]

I didn't say that you specifically stated that. I said that that is what it "sounds" like you are saying. If you were not really saying that I was giving you the opportunity to clarify. Maybe you need to read these posts more carefully.

I believe I've been quite clear.

You might want to go back and read what I said again or quote me because I do not think I said that I simply dismiss or ignore evidence. I may very well not accept it with reasons but that is quite different from dismissing or ignoring.

You have stated, quite clearly, that you do not accept evidence that contradicts the Bible because you have decided it's true. That is dismissing/ignoring evidence as far as I'm concerned. If you say you don't accept something because you have contradictory evidence that you feel better supports your position, that's great. But all you have is a book that is not evidence in any demonstrable way about the origins of life. It's 100% wrong and demonstrably so.

You say that as if there is only ever one possible conclusion given a body of evidence. That is seldom the case, especially when one is considering historical science as it pertains to origins where conclusions are always made based on evidence and some assumptions/presuppositions because history is not repeatable or testable in the same way as is done in operational science.

You're assuming I mean that there is 1 possible conclusion, which I have not said. I have said that your conclusion should be based on evidence, I'm not specifically stating what the conclusion should be. (There are many things in science that are controversial based on the evidence, but guess what, evolution is not one of them!) When you make statements that you don't accept evidence if it contradicts the Bible, then you are not doing that. There's no if ands or buts there, you have a premise that you have accepted uncritically and will ignore and accept evidence as long as it fits your world view. That's not honest inquiry.

And assumptions/presuppositions when we are talking about historical science as it pertains to origins.

I don't even know what you're talking about here? Are you trying to say science is prone to the same dogmatic principles of religion? Because that is hardly the case. Science is the most adaptive, the most willing to change based on better evidence. What we know of origins is based on good reliable scientific inquiry.

I think the question applies equally well to you.

Nice try, but no. I'm quite willing to change my mind if the right amount of evidence is there. Yes, I'm an atheist, however I haven't decided that I won't accept good reliable, scientifically tested evidence if it fucks with my world view. I can tell you exactly what it would take for me to change deeply held beliefs, and I have. I go where the evidence leads me.

In view of the fact that you sound so authoritative in making such a statement I must ask: On what basis have you concluded that science cited on the wiki article is "good" and "reliable"? Did you carry out the science? Did you read all the articles cited? Even if you read them, did you understand them?

Given that you have admitted to not understanding any more than basic physics and that the kind of science in that article probably involves quite advanced physics, I would guess that you did not carry out the science, you did not even read all the articles cited, and even if you read them, you did not understand them (other than possibly the conclusions made). If I am correct, then I doubt you are qualified to make the statement that the science is "good" and "reliable". If that is true then at best you seem qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it. Now I do not think there is anything wrong with that if that is the case. In fact, I think that is where most of us are on most issues. But I do think if that is the case, i.e., that you are only really qualified to say that you read it and it makes sense to you so you believe it, you should be honest about it and say so instead of portraying yourself as some sort of authority on such issues.

TheVoid responded to this sufficiently, I have nothing to add.