Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?

[ShaMan]

Most atheists I know argue they are 100% sure there is no intelligent design, no influencing entities...

[JesusHChrist]

SS, you don't even seem to understand the difference between "agnostic" (a position of knowledge) vs. atheism (a position of belief).

A person can be both, simultaneously.

How do I know? I iz one: an agnostic atheist.

Back to my model -- you're demonstrating unconscious incompetence. Again and again.

[Simon Moon]

I have been researching at a graduate level using peer reviewed sources.

What university, if you don't mind me asking?

Despite your claim, many respected scientists are agnostic.

Never said they weren't. Atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive.

The vast majority of atheists 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.

No scientist completely denies the possibility of ID! They just don't believe it because there is a lack of evidence for it.

Scientists, as you should know, are not dogmatic. They follow where the evidence leads.

I just listened to a lecture by Jerry Coyne, leading evolutionary biologist, world's expert on speciation, and atheist. One of the first things he mentions in his lecture is that he is opened to evidence of ID. He is not unique in this.

[sswhateverlove]

SS, you don't even seem to understand the difference between "agnostic" (a position of knowledge) vs. atheism (a position of belief).

A person can be both, simultaneously.

How do I know? I iz one: an agnostic atheist.

Back to my model -- you're demonstrating unconscious incompetence. Again and again.

Is there a reason why you (and many of the other posters) insist on being insulting when it would do just well to respectfully clarify where you think I might misunderstand something? That's why I am here, to get feedback with regard to other people's opinions, not to be insulted.

---

I have been researching at a graduate level using peer reviewed sources.

What university, if you don't mind me asking?

Despite your claim, many respected scientists are agnostic.

Never said they weren't. Atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive.

The vast majority of atheists 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.

No scientist completely denies the possibility of ID! They just don't believe it because there is a lack of evidence for it.

Scientists, as you should know, are not dogmatic. They follow where the evidence leads.

I just listened to a lecture by Jerry Coyne, leading evolutionary biologist, world's expert on speciation, and atheist. One of the first things he mentions in his lecture is that he is opened to evidence of ID. He is not unique in this.

Ok, I respect that. So, I've posted different things that I've been finding with regard to scientific evidence regarding reality and I've given my opinion and asked for others. How about addressing that vs attacking me for assuming that you've ruled out the possibility of ID?

[ShaMan]

That's why I am here, to get feedback with regard to other people's opinions, not to be insulted.

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.

[Cato]

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.

[Esquilax]

Is there a reason why you (and many of the other posters) insist on being insulting when it would do just well to respectfully clarify where you think I might misunderstand something? That's why I am here, to get feedback with regard to other people's opinions, not to be insulted.

Do you not think it's equally insulting to come barging into someone else's community and, without even bothering to introduce yourself, demand to them what they believe and continue to do so even when told otherwise?

When it would be just as easy to simply ask us what we believe in the first place, instead of presuming you know before you've even talked to us?

That's not rude, but us getting irritated at the same old persistent strawmen is?

[DramaQueen]

This thread shows why I prefer calling myself agnostic instead of atheist even though I'm both.

[JesusHChrist]

Is there a reason why you (and many of the other posters) insist on being insulting when it would do just well to respectfully clarify where you think I might misunderstand something? That's why I am here, to get feedback with regard to other people's opinions, not to be insulted.

Perhaps, if you are serious about being here and not simply using us as a vehicle to regurgitate what appears to be mindless ID tropes, start over and take a different approach? You might actually learn something.

The room (not just me) is giving you feedback but so far, this feedback has been bouncing off your head. You entered here with a lack of humility, telling us what we believe and repeating strawman arguments we've heard many times and then tell us we're rude. Dude....

[sswhateverlove]

That's why I am here, to get feedback with regard to other people's opinions, not to be insulted.

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?