Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Jacob(smooth)]

There are no arguments for ID. ID is merely conceptual polyfiller for things we don't understand. If you can't explain something any other way, "goddidit" is a useful stock answer.

Arguments for ID are merely unwillingness to admit ignorance of stuff we are ignorant about

4000 years ago, divine action was the best available explanation for lightning. Now we know better. The problem is if you find God in the gaps, those gaps keep shrinking.

[fr0d0]

conceptual polyfiller

4000 years ago

The problem is if you find God in the gaps, those gaps keep shrinking.

Conceptual polyfiller haha! +1

Citation needed :p

QFT

[Tonus]

So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.

That's a curious way to word the question, but perhaps it's the more accurate way as well. I think that "intriguing evidence" is probably a placeholder for "emotion." I find that the argument from design is more emotional than rational, and given to the sort of sloppy and hopeful arguments that you've been putting forth in the various topics you've started.

So no, I don't find that there is any "intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design." I am more likely to be swayed by a rational or logical argument than by an emotional one. But even that might only reduce the certainty by a few points, unless you have an argument or evidence that is compelling enough to overturn everything I happen to know or understand. You don't seem to, and "but what if this" is not compelling.

[bennyboy]

So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.

Usually, ID is talking about cosmogony-- why the universe exists. But I've seen it used to discuss other issues-- the existence of species, the existence of sentient beings, etc.

You've equivocated a bit, if I recall, by claiming that ID could be design by superior space aliens, etc. But that doesn't mean much-- either those aliens would have evolved, or whatever made them, and so on.

So if you will tell me exactly what you mean by ID in this thread, right here right now, then I will give you a % figure reflecting my honest opinion.

[RobbyPants]

So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.

What is "intriguing" evidence?

Logically speaking, it's impossible to say "there is no evidence". We can only speak to what has currently been presented. That being said I can comfortably say I have seen no evidence that would require an intelligent creator to explain.

None.

[JesusHChrist]

I think there is just as much "intriguing" evidence the Egyptian pyramids were created by space aliens as there is for ID.

[Cyberman]

There are no arguments for ID. ID is merely conceptual polyfiller for things we don't understand. If you can't explain something any other way, "goddidit" is a useful stock answer.

Arguments for ID are merely unwillingness to admit ignorance of stuff we are ignorant about

More than that, arguments 'for' ID are actually, once the garnish is scraped off, arguments against naturalistic explanations, couched in pseudo-scientific language. Stir in a few cherry-picked real scientific concepts, being careful to remove any citations first of course, add a dash of carefully pruned quotes from actual scientists for colour - you can use ready made ones from a holy book, but sparingly otherwise the mixture becomes glaringly stodgy and turgid - and you are one step away from the perfect proselytising soufflé. Plus all the lucrative pundit contracts and theme park profits that go with it.

Just don't poke at it too much, or the whole thing collapses.

[Jacob(smooth)]

There are no arguments for ID. ID is merely conceptual polyfiller for things we don't understand. If you can't explain something any other way, "goddidit" is a useful stock answer.

Arguments for ID are merely unwillingness to admit ignorance of stuff we are ignorant about

More than that, arguments 'for' ID are actually, once the garnish is scraped off, arguments against naturalistic explanations, couched in pseudo-scientific language. Stir in a few cherry-picked real scientific concepts, being careful to remove any citations first of course, add a dash of carefully pruned quotes from actual scientists for colour - you can use ready made ones from a holy book, but sparingly otherwise the mixture becomes glaringly stodgy and turgid - and you are one step away from the perfect proselytising soufflé. Plus all the lucrative pundit contracts and theme park profits that go with it.

Just don't poke at it too much, or the whole thing collapses.

Now thats good eatin'.

[Mister Agenda]

So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.

If you want to conduct a poll, there's a way to do that.

Honestly, I am not convinced that any of you were justified in saying I was strawmanning.

Are the people who thought you were strawmanning and the people who said they were 100% certain the same people?

I don't think I was misjudging at all what it is that you think.

Because of your sample size of two out of hundreds?

In fact, the assumption I was making (and the comparison I made to my atheist friends) seems to be quite accurate at this point.

It seems to be highly important to you to have been right in the first place.

I have not had a single one of those that shamed me respond that something they have experienced, read, heard, etc has made them question the possibility of ID.

Now you're 'moving the goalposts'. When did we have to experience, read, or hear something to make us question the possibility of ID? Of course it's possible. It just doesn't seem to match the facts of what's the case here on earth. I expect if we ever colonize Mars, there will be plenty of evidence of ID there, because we'll be doing the ID-ing, as we've done all the ID-ing thus far discovered (until the robots take over ID-ing from us).

I feel lied to at this point.

You HAVE demonstrated a penchant for the melodramatic. Two people give the answers you expect, and all the people who objected to your characterisation of them must have lied to you.

Like I said, I'm 80% confident in ID based on my observations and the opinions I've formed of them. I don't care if what I shared does not sway your opinion. I wasn't trying to.

Fair enough. You 're entitled to your opinion. I tend to focus on facts, but I'm not everyone here.

They're my thoughts and ideas and I was hoping to discuss them with people who do not fit the definition of that "strawman".

If you were a little less determined to 'discover' that your strawman is made of bricks, it might be easier to get that discussion.

If I was right, thanks a lot for convincing me that it was possible to get the discussion I was looking for. Sucks to be shamed and lied to at the same time.

I hope you come back and read this again when you're a little older. I bet you'll lrealize you've learned a lot since now.

A bit of advice for the future, drop the "strawman", "strawman" shaming game at times when what's being said is true. It's misleading.

A bit of advice for the future: don't jump to conclusions about a whole community based on two data points.

---

conceptual polyfiller

4000 years ago

The problem is if you find God in the gaps, those gaps keep shrinking.

Conceptual polyfiller haha! +1

Citation needed :p

QFT

You quote yourself for truth? Really?

[fr0d0]

You quote yourself for truth? Really?

Eh?

No I quoted Jacob