Atheism vs. God's Existence

[robvalue]

Well someone likes assertions. It isn't a fact in any sense of the word. And don't tell me that I'm going to do poorly in my biology classes, I have done very well and I still have a 4.0 science GPA. I know you won't believe that (because you don't want it to be true), but it's true.

So I'm curious: if a fact is not something that has been borne out by observations across multiple fields of study over a span of time of 150 years or more, surmounting every new discovery and new technology capable of testing it, not to mention intense scrutiny from ideologues with a bias against it, then what exactly is a fact to you? What could possibly qualify, if evolution does not?

As always:

Scepticism against science when it conflicts with religous book: Infinite

Scepticism against religious book: Zero

He still thinks ID is a better explanation even though it's unfalsifiable and therefor not science, and evolution is falsifiable and has mountains of evidence? If that's not a closed mind, I don't know what is.

Smart theists accept evolution but then convince themselves that an intelligence was still behind the whole thing, somehow. Which may be the case; there's just no reason to think that it is the case. But refusing to accept the fact of evolution at all...

[robvalue]

Well, good old science doesn't stop being valid no matter who refuses to accept it. Unlike gods who disappear in a puff of smoke as soon as their followers get bored of them.

[rexbeccarox]

I'm not defining it that way; that is the definition.

Maybe you should think of another word, and maybe you should go ahead and chuck your belief in... wait... what was that called? Intelligent Design? If you can't name the designer, you're missing a pretty serious step in proving design.

Also, you should quit bitching about the theological part of the "debate" in a thread titled "Atheism vs. God's Existence" in which you're asserting design.

Read your second definition

Yes. And? How does that go against what I said? How do purpose, planning, or intent indicate anything other than intelligence?

"purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object."

[Jackalope]

I seem to recall bringing up this very issue some back and at the time ack-ack did not appear to dispute it.

I would seem that he now wants to pretend that isn't a thing.

Well I disagree with that definition. So does the definition #2 that theEmpress gave.

2.
purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"
synonyms: intention, aim, purpose, plan, intent, objective, object, goal, end, target; More
verb

The definition #2 that she gave most certainly does not. Do causes not backed with intelligence act with purpose, planning, or intent? I think not.

If you're going to claim that design doesn't require intelligence, I can't help you. I can also not help noting that since your design agent is the Christian god - as you admitted yourself - that you're not actually arguing for an unintelligent designer.

[Ravenshire]

Bullshit. ID is the creation of believers like yourself. But, if you want to go down tjat road, what is you intelligent design agent? Really, there can be no further meaningful dialog until that is defined.

I think it was the Christian God, but not all ID proponents do. Some even buy into panspermia, and the idea that a higher civilization helped engineer life.

Don't care about some other alleged ID proponents. They're not here making the argument, you are.

Your argument is, essentially, the the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent designer designed beings with inherent flaws that would have been trivial for it to correct before implementation. Is that right?

What the intelligent designing agent is, is key to the argument. Of course, if you posit a designer, it's up to you to provide evidence of said designer.

[IATIA]

Are you suggesting that there were people dressing like Jesus trying to fool people back then?

Like a bunch of long-haired men dressed in tattered robes? Nah.

[Ravenshire]

Well someone likes assertions. It isn't a fact in any sense of the word. And don't tell me that I'm going to do poorly in my biology classes, I have done very well and I still have a 4.0 science GPA. I know you won't believe that (because you don't want it to be true), but it's true.

So I'm curious: if a fact is not something that has been borne out by observations across multiple fields of study over a span of time of 150 years or more, surmounting every new discovery and new technology capable of testing it, not to mention intense scrutiny from ideologues with a bias against it, then what exactly is a fact to you? What could possibly qualify, if evolution does not?

Facts are whatever his local shaman says they are.

[IATIA]

Facts are whatever his local shaman says they are.

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! -- Homer Simpson

[Gemini]

With an argument that you yourself acknowledge experts in the relevant field would ignore, you bet it's near impossible to convince a skeptic.

Again, you cut out the core of the argument to make it look like I'm saying something different than I said. You really like to quote mine and cherry pick information. While I think most would ignore it, I think that the theory behind why it is acceptable still stands. And why are you so skeptical of design, but not skeptical of evolution? You ought to read a primary article on the evolution of some biological system and see how speculative and non-empirical it is.

There was a physics professor who was confounded by relativity denialists. They would come up to him in the halls of university agitating for their skepticism of Einstein's theories, they would sent him letters, invite him to debates, etc. One day he said to a colleague, "What is about relativity that brings these nuts out of the woodworks?"

His colleague replied, "Nothing. They're everywhere. There are chemistry denialists."

The reason I'm not skeptical of evolution is that one should believe that there exist some scientific discoveries that are true. If I adjust my epistemology of testimony to throw out the theory of evolution--despite the fact that an overwhelming consensus of experts support it--then I must literally disbelieve every scientific fact ever discovered. 

Because for any scientific discovery, from heliocentricity to relativity to chemistry to the germ theory of disease to evolution--there exist of clutch of eccentric skeptics who are committed to denying it.

[Ben Davis]

Well someone likes assertions. It isn't a fact in any sense of the word.

I'm not making any assertions, I'm informing you of reality as you seem to be failing to see what's pragmatically manifest to almost everyone who's observed the effects of reproduction-with-variation. Evolution is a fact. The facts of evolution are best explained by the current Theory. It's as simple as that.

And don't tell me that I'm going to do poorly in my biology classes, I have done very well and I still have a 4.0 science GPA.

Do you feel the cognitive dissonance yet? If you continue, you'll find yourself facing the situation of having to learn and act on facts that sit in direct opposition to your current beliefs. What are you going to do then?

I know you won't believe that (because you don't want it to be true)

Well, I only have your word for it. My scepticism arises from the fact that you continue to tout misinformation when you've already been corrected and your handling of some of the other conversations in this thread has been borderline devious, with the intention of winning arguments rather than learning and sharing. For the sake of argument and since I have no knowledge of your level of education, I'm prepared to take your comments at face-value.

, but it's true.

...currently. I'll take MisterAgenda's point as a caveat. I don't wish you any lack of success, I simply find it disturbing, pseudo-psychopathic even, that you can continue in your studies on subjects that are so diametrically opposed to your supernaturalist world-view.