Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Getting back to Francis Collins, who I referenced earlier in this thread, I think this video on faith is a good place to start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbPZd2DXlE
He is not against science. He used to be an atheist but is now a believer and quotes the Scriptures. He tells why atheism is not logical and that agnosticism is more fair but even that has problems.
Getting back to Francis Collins, who I referenced earlier in this thread, I think this video on faith is a good place to start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfbPZd2DXlE
He is not against science. He used to be an atheist but is now a believer and quotes the Scriptures. He tells why atheism is not logical and that agnosticism is more fair but even that has problems.
Yeah he trots out the same tired mischaracterization of what atheism and agnosticism are. Just as you did, he tries to suggest that agnosticism is some sort of rational middle ground between having faith and the misconception that atheism asserts knowledge that there is no god. Neither of these descriptions are accepted by the vast majority of self-described atheists yet here we have yet another theist making the fallacious argument.
Once again....we are all (I'll take the liberty to include you but feel free to correct me if this is not accurate) agnostics in the absolute as that is a position of knowledge. What one can know. The proposition of god-belief is not the same thing which is why we have the term theist...the belief in god (s). The lack of holding that belief makes you atheist...regardless of whether you believe there are no gods or simply don't buy into the theist claim of god(s).
Getting back to Francis Collins, who I referenced earlier in this thread, I think this video on faith is a good place to start ... He is not against science. He used to be an atheist but is now a believer and quotes the Scriptures. He tells why atheism is not logical and that agnosticism is more fair but even that has problems.
Yes but he also believes evolution is indisputably correct and does not subscribe to YEC or ID. He promotes theistic evolution under some new name he has invented for it. He decries "god of the gaps" to explain the unknown.
So if you are going to hold him up as a credible apologist (even though he has no original arguments) then I can only assume he is like the cosmological argument, an attempt to wedge in a generic god in hopes that you can sneak your preferred one in later. But no matter, saying "Francis Collins, therefore god" is beside the point anyway; it is simply an argument from authority. Collins is a scientist who believes in god, you seem to say, therefore belief in god is scientific. Nope, he just has compartmentalized ideas about god that have no more basis than anyone else's. He's a geneticist, not a philosopher.
I haven't read anything here...just the title, so.
It just made me laugh...science...
It reminded me of the frog that lives only in the well, never
having seen the Ocean others have come back to tell him about.
He is using only the tools in the well to prove or disprove the Ocean..
perpetuating the myth that only the well exists...do you see?
Very funny.
Using the tools of the limited to prove or disprove the infinite...do ya get it?
Funny stuff.
Yeah he trots out the same tired mischaracterization of what atheism and agnosticism are. Just as you did, he tries to suggest that agnosticism is some sort of rational middle ground between having faith and the misconception that atheism asserts knowledge that there is no god. Neither of these descriptions are accepted by the vast majority of self-described atheists yet here we have yet another theist making the fallacious argument.
Once again....we are all (I'll take the liberty to include you but feel free to correct me if this is not accurate) agnostics in the absolute as that is a position of knowledge. What one can know. The proposition of god-belief is not the same thing which is why we have the term theist...the belief in god (s). The lack of holding that belief makes you atheist...regardless of whether you believe there are no gods or simply don't buy into the theist claim of god(s).
You might want to take that up with Richard Dawkins. Here is a critique of his book:
Robert Steward gives a critique of Dawkins "The God Delusion" here: Review - The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Dawkins describes an atheist as someone who believes in nothing beyond the natural, physical world. There is no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe. If we ever do discover something beyond the natural universe then Dawkins hopes it would be something that could eventually be understood using science and embraced as natural.
Chapter 2 - The God Hypothesis
Dawkins starts this chapter by saying that there is no point poking fun at the ridiculousness of the God described in the Bible. Instead, he just wants to debunk the idea of a supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.
Under the heading "The Poverty of Agnosticism" Dawkins states:
"He then splits agnostics into two groups, those who won't commit yet for lack of evidence, and those who believe it is impossible to know. The difference between the two is whether the question of God's existence can ever be answered using science. Dawkins claims that it can be."
I think Dawkins just admitted that science can prove God does not exist.
Under the heading "The argument from admired religions scientists" it is stated:
"While Dawkins confidently claims that almost all true intellectuals are atheists, he blows his credibility by forgetting to mention the percentage of scientists who might be agnostics. In fact, he seems to label as an atheist anyone who does not believe in a personal God."
Under the heading "The anthropic principle: cosmological version"
"At this point Dawkins says that we can completely dismiss the existence of God and shake our heads disappointingly at anyone who is too blind to see the logic of his argument.
Under the heading "Dawkins looks for someone to argue with" it is stated:
"Dawkins rests his case in chapter four by saying that "although we don't have the answer yet, we have a hint that at some time in the future we might have a scientific theory that explains our existence. Dawkins suggests that a hint of a theory is good enough to have faith in."
You might want to take that up with Richard Dawkins.
Why would I want to take it up with that blowhard? We're taking it up with YOU. We're discussing what you and I and Martin and others HERE think. We aren't trying to appeal to Dawkins or Collins or some other authority or champion that we've drafted to support our position. We're trying to discuss actual positions (if any) that each of US holds.
I see both Collins and Dawkins as reputable in their own fields but largely out of their depth in others. Celebrity does not convey expertise outside of genetics for Collins or outside of evolutionary biology for Dawkins.
The only reason you brought Collins into it was because I asked for an example of a qualified scientist in a relevant field who has scientific hypotheses to advance about ID who is being "ignored" -- and Collins is who you brought up. A man who embraces evolution and rejects god of the gaps.
No one here to my knowledge held up Dawkins, other than Arq poking fun at the notion that folks like you think he's some sort of "evolutionist pope". Maybe you imagine him to be someone that we unquestioningly line up behind but that is your imagination, not reality.
I'll discuss it with him at the next human sacrifice convention.
In the meantime he can posit whatever he likes. And he can also feel free to (pun only partially intended) evolve his position to a more rational one.
But he does not believe in god. And thats the only similar characteristic an atheist would reliably be expected to have.
I fully agree. But scientifically and philosophically, for someone to say "God does not exist" is an untenable and improper position since no one can know for sure God does not exist.
Now atheists can tap dance around the phrase "God does not exist" and exclaim: "That is not what an atheist says!" or "You don't know Atheism!" or any number of things.
From the American Atheists web site, they have a page called "What is Atheism?" They state:
"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."
So an Atheist has "a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings." Now then, if an Atheist claims there is not enough evidence to believe in gods and supernatural beings, then, in my book, that would make them an Agnostic.
I think the non-Atheist has found the Achilles heal of the Atheist (when they used to say "God does not exist) and so the Atheist has decided they need to morph their main tenet into something which can't easily be attacked.
Furthermore, stating that an Atheist has a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings is that they have no belief in God or gods or supernatural beings. Which still brings us back to the original premise that "God does not exist" since they have a lack of belief that God exists. It is a shell game.
Why would I want to take it up with that blowhard? We're taking it up with YOU. We're discussing what you and I and Martin and others HERE think. We aren't trying to appeal to Dawkins or Collins or some other authority or champion that we've drafted to support our position. We're trying to discuss actual positions (if any) that each of US holds.
I see both Collins and Dawkins as reputable in their own fields but largely out of their depth in others. Celebrity does not convey expertise outside of genetics for Collins or outside of evolutionary biology for Dawkins.
The only reason you brought Collins into it was because I asked for an example of a qualified scientist in a relevant field who has scientific hypotheses to advance about ID who is being "ignored" -- and Collins is who you brought up. A man who embraces evolution and rejects god of the gaps.
No one here to my knowledge held up Dawkins, other than Arq poking fun at the notion that folks like you think he's some sort of "evolutionist pope". Maybe you imagine him to be someone that we unquestioningly line up behind but that is your imagination, not reality.
I'm glad you perceive Dawkins to be a blowhard. He seems to be a frustrated man who has very little patience with people who believe the Bible.
But I wasn't asking you to take it up with Dawkins but rather Martin. Martin said he would talk to Dawkins at the next human sacrifice convention. Maybe you and Martin can catch a ride together? Maybe one of you could take one of your children along too? Oh, my bad. LOL
I fully agree. But scientifically and philosophically, for someone to say "God does not exist" is an untenable and improper position since no one can know for sure God does not exist.
I know you feel like you are onto some great revelation here but I would suggest it's not the one you think it is.
I can't say it's impossible for anybody to know that god does not exist in the absolute sense...which is what you are (perhaps unknowingly) stating. I can only say that i lack sufficient information to state that. In practical terms, I can say I believe it is impossible to know, which carries a natural caveat and deference to information I don't have awareness of. That's because I can't know that 500 years from now we won't discover and explain what happened before the big bang, or that there are multiverses with different physics, or that we might just find a planet with sentient life which has many more answers we don't have today. I can't know any of that will happen or not happen. That's the agnostic position...a knowledge position.
What Dawkins is talking about is in relation to his field of expertise. He believes he can prove that the "god of creationists" does not exist by proving no intelligent designer is necessary. I'm not convinced he can "prove" the negative here beyond demonstrating that a god is unnecessary to start life. That would be good evidence for rationally justified disbelief but theists will find some other reason to cling to in my view.
Quote:
Now atheists can tap dance around the phrase "God does not exist" and exclaim: "That is not what an atheist says!" or "You don't know Atheism!" or any number of things.
From the American Atheists web site, they have a page called "What is Atheism?" They state:
"The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings."
So an Atheist has "a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings." Now then, if an Atheist claims there is not enough evidence to believe in gods and supernatural beings, then, in my book, that would make them an Agnostic.
I think the non-Atheist has found the Achilles heal of the Atheist (when they used to say "God does not exist) and so the Atheist has decided they need to morph their main tenet into something which can't easily be attacked.
Furthermore, stating that an Atheist has a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings is that they have no belief in God or gods or supernatural beings. Which still brings us back to the original premise that "God does not exist" since they have a lack of belief that God exists. It is a shell game.
The problem with stating god does not exist is that you get some pantheist like Deepak Chopra who comes in playing word salad games and redefines other words to mean god...so therefore god exists.
For example...god is love. If love exists, then God exists. Or the universe is god...the universe exists, therefore god exists. Its useless word salad "proofs". That's why the atheist position of disbelief has to account for such nonsense.
I assure you most atheists have no trouble defending the disbelief in the Abrahamic god-claims. It comes down to "what are you calling god?"
And it's not a new thing either. The atheist position has been represented that way for centuries, even if not all self-described atheists represent it that way. Only the last few decades have you seen any semblance of organization to atheist positions and arguments.
That's because many people who would have self-identified as agnostic and preferred to remain out of such matters started to see the rise in luddite religiosity invading areas of society where it doesn't belong, and actively works to hold society back. You wouldn't see it that way of course, but that's of course why it's important to debunk with reason...as its adherents don't even realize the harms that are done in the name of their theology...let alone themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe one of you could take one of your children along too? Oh, my bad. LOL