i challenge you to watch this entire video and then respond

[shiftbmw]

The world is evidence for the laws of physics as we know them to be true, that is all.

A fingerprint is proof that an individual was there, no interpretation is needed to state that. Your comparing it to the world as evidence for creation is pathetic. You have to go to such extremes to postulate that, that it is simply unlikely.

I think you missed the point on the fingerprint analogy. You're right, a fingerprint means the individual was there, but depending on the nature of the fingerprint(its location for instance), a detective could be lead to believe or disbelieve that the individual committed the crime at hand.

And who created you to create that fish pond, someone did? Is it more likely for a vastly more complex creation to exist before a much simpler one, ie. a creator before it's creation? I'd wager no. There was causation yes, but assuming it's an intelligent conciousness is pretty bold.

I think assuming anything is pretty bold.

[cale]

I think you missed the point on the fingerprint analogy. You're right, a fingerprint means the individual was there, but depending on the nature of the fingerprint(its location for instance), a detective could be lead to believe or disbelieve that the individual committed the crime at hand.

And I think you missed my point, that there is no definitive "fingerprint" to support intelligent design. You've placed the cart before the horse.

I think assuming anything is pretty bold.

We both admit we do not know, but you go one step further with the proposition of design whereas I choose to stop at I don't know. So you need to concede your claims of believing ID to be a reasonable theory are bold. Glad we're on the same page.

[mrsleeve]

Then your stupidity is genuine and not executable as cult behavior, sad.

Where have I demonstrated this stupidity you speak of??

yes I am a conservative, that does not mean I am a a believer in some from of deity.

You focussed in on the least important part of his post and ignored the rest. You're doing a great job of defending your pathetic argument here.

Whos post are you talking about. I am just reaffirming my observations, and the fact the condition has not changed, and not really making an attempt to argue anything one way or another. I have made my position clear on this or so I thought

[Cliche Guevara]

In the realm of the unknown, all claims are positive. What is ignorant about saying "I don't know?" Don't confuse my argument with "We don't know, so god."

Argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. It's saying "I don't know, therefor x." You said that science does not yet have an explanation for the universe pre-Big Bang, therefore you believe in a god.

Again, we both have the same evidence to interpret. The world/universe and the laws that govern them. When you view the universe, you say "seems like a system that is a product of chance" whereas I say "seems like a system that is the product of design." The evidence is the same for either side of the argument, it is only our interpretation that differs.

I'm simply saying that I believe in things with evidence, not simply things that can't be disproved. There is no evidence for a god, that is something you can't get around.

And I don't rule them out, although I'd prefer if they were lime green.

You're tacitly admitting, then, that your belief in a god carries the same legitimacy as a belief in pink unicorns on Jupiter.

Sure I can. The modern science of today will become "archaic methods they used to understand the universe hundreds of years ago" in hundreds of years. Flat earth a bad example? I'm sure you can think of a few good ones...doesn't change my point.

I'm referring to the scientific method. That's something that just wasn't around for most of human existence. As far as our understanding of the universe, the big things won't change. Things like the big bang and evolution, which are two of the strongest, best supported theories, aren't going away. We'll certainly gain a more nuanced understanding of their details, possibly develop a theory linking general relativity with quantum mechanics, etc, but modern science will not be looked at in future generations in the same light that we look at the "science" of the past.

[cale]

Where have I demonstrated this stupidity you speak of??

Right about here...

Militant Atheists remain militant

A militant atheist would be going door-to-door forcing his opinions down your throat, protesting organized religion for the sake of it, basically talking shit about religion at every possible opportunity and trying to force you to pay attention.

This thread, the speaker in the video and the vast majority of atheists present their views in a way that you the viewer have to go out of your own way to be exposed to them, how the fuck is that the least bit militant? By your standards, nearly any group that gathers is militant.

Like I said, stupid.

but modern science will not be looked at in future generations in the same light that we look at the "science" of the past.

Something that is lost on so so many as they try to discredit modern science due to the ignorance postulated by those in the past. The standards by which we gauge and measure what is true from false are damned precise now, we're no longer stuck to theoretical models.

From this point on, please no one refer to the oh-so-common flat earth argument bullshit. Not only was that theory so prevalent because it was pushed by the church, but some scientists knew long before it was generally accepted that the earth was indeed round. The horse is dead, leave it be.

[Kershaw]

Again, we both have the same evidence to interpret. The world/universe and the laws that govern them. When you view the universe, you say "seems like a system that is a product of chance" whereas I say "seems like a system that is the product of design." The evidence is the same for either side of the argument, it is only our interpretation that differs.

we have had 14 billion years of naturally occurring events (chance if you want.) the evidence is not the same.

i dont understand how you can toss 14 billion years of evidence out the window.

[Cliche Guevara]

Who's post are you talking about. I am just reaffirming my observations, and the fact the condition has not changed, and not really making an attempt to argue anything one way or another. I have made my position clear on this or so I thought

Cale's, the post you seemed to be replying to. Granted, it would be nice to see you try and address my point as well. If you aren't going to contribute anything to the discussion beyond calling us "militant atheists" every once in a while then you shouldn't post here. It's a retarded assessment that's completely divorced from reality.

[frankenbeemer]

A fingerprint is proof that an individual was there, no interpretation is needed to state that.

A fingerprint is not proof an individual was there, it's not even proof that an individual's finger was there. It's just evidence.

[mrsleeve]

We have several people on here that go way outta their way to bash anyone with a religious view, and tell them how fucked up it is. Yet dont like it when the thumpers do the same to them.

I am just pointing out the double standard is all

[Cliche Guevara]

We have several people on here that go way outta their way to bash anyone with a religious view, and tell them how fucked up it is. Yet dont like it when the thumpers do the same to them.

I am just pointing out the double standard is all

So, what, arguing=bashing now? Alrighty then.

[Fusion]

The worst thing is that religion slows down the scientific process, or its "public acceptance" if you will. All religious explinations are told so vaguely, they are easily accepted by millions because each individual can bend them in his/her own way, whereas science requires you to atleast understand the basic elements (math, physics, etc.).
But I think sometimes we look to far to get answers, like the Mars rovers, when we may actually have many answers right here on Earth, though they're shadowed by religion and scientific research is considered out of bounds, probably because more and more religious beliefs would be proven false.

[Vedubin01]

with Scientific Method please explain how/where it all started?

[shiftbmw]

Guys, I don't have enough time(or care enough) to keep up with three people. I'll summarize my position once more, and you can either understand my viewpoint or not.

The fact is, we don't know. We can only guess. If you claim to know, you're lying to yourself. To say the burden of proof is on the other guy is cowardly. It's on all of us.

We all have the same evidence to interpret. This is the universe, the laws that govern it, its history...all 14 billion years worth, etc. I'm not discarding any science here or ignoring any facts. EVERYTHING that we know today or have ever known falls within my definition of "evidence." This evidence alone is neither in support or in opposition of a creator without subsequent interpretation.

From this evidence, one can draw different conclusions, much like someone can go to an art museum and come to differing conclusions about the meaning of a painting.

Do not confuse my argument with "We don't know, so god." When I look at our universe, I see a series of systems designed to work in concert with one another. Only after I formed this view did I think to myself: "Maybe this was all created." This is merely my interpretation. Disagree? Cool. I'm not going to tell you you are stupid or ignorant, because I recognize I don't know and neither do you. But don't tell me I am either. To call me illogical means that you simply don't understand my position.

I urge you all to analyze the question of whether there is a creator from a perspective that is outside the confines of normal old "religion." Look at it philosophically, and you may understand my view.

That's all I have to contribute I'm afraid. Google "agnostic theism" if you would like to understand more about my position.

Lastly, I steal this ven diagram from wikipedia, because I think it is interesting food for thought:

[mrsleeve]

So, what, arguing=bashing now? Alrighty then.

if you fail to see my point then thats on you .

[cale]

We have several people on here that go way outta their way to bash anyone with a religious view, and tell them how fucked up it is. Yet dont like it when the thumpers do the same to them.

I am just pointing out the double standard is all

Out of their way how? This is a discussion forum, if you want a circle jerk of like minded individuals telling their like minded opinions you'd end up with a one page thread, a few high fives and nothing more. We do exactly what this place is designed to host, and discussions come from both sides. The only time people are going out of their way is when they choose to check out these particular forums, after that it's business as intended. If ya can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

with Scientific Method please explain how/where it all started?

Do you know what the scientific method is? Please first explain how we are going to build experiments to test a hypothesis. "we don't know" works great here, it'd be nice if the theists adopted that reasonable response too.

The origins of the universe at this point is purely speculation, the work of nerdling's with a touch of science fiction. Nothing exists which can be construed as evidence to give a solid idea of what came before the big bang, certainly nothing which can be tested ( a fundamental step in the scientific method).