What Is The Positive Evidence For Atheism?

That is correct. My point is that he used the phrase "the Genesis type of creationism". I'm just saying that the a proper reading of the "Genesis type of creationism" does not contradict evolution.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

GDR, aren't you a cdesign proponentist?

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Like I said, I wasn't trying to pass a judgement because I didn't see what you had said, just commenting on what an argument from ignorance is. Since you state here that you don't claim certainty then I don't see that there's any problem.However... just a nitpick... I would question if you can be AS certain that there are no Gods as that there's no milk in your fridge.The reason being that your fridge is in one finite place and so is the milk carton. You can open both and run complete tests on the total available area where the milk might be... and indeed know what milk is defined as.The scope of human "vision" into the entire area that these Gods might be, much less our understanding of how we'd have to test for them or what they are defined as, is terribly minute and limited in comparison.So I think you can reach a much greater certainty on the presence of milk than whether Gods are around... though for all practical purposes there might as well not be any Gods. At least you know where to go when you need milk, whether you're out of it or not.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

quote:

---

Where have I ever said that my view represented any proof of God's existence.

---

Every time you say something like, "Just the fact that we have curiosity about X seems to indicate that God exists.", or "It just makes more sense, if X is a certain way, that God exists.", it certainly appears as though you are attempting to argume that your view represents an attempt to provide evidence for God's existence.How else are we meant to take such a statement, other than that you are stating your reasons, which you think are good and sound arguments, for thinking God exists?It is a bit precious for you to make such statements repeatedly, but then say that you aren't trying to present "a case".

quote:

---

I did not say that it requires it, I just believe that it makes more sense than anything else.

---

Why does it make more sense than anything else?Which is more sensical?:1) That many people have observed suffering and wish to alleviate it in their fellow humans, simply because we are capable of empathy, which is a product of our brains and evolved just like all other brain functions, or2) Your particular conception of god exists, and magicked into those people the thought that we should be kind to each other.Seriously, which one passes the rationality test?

Since my wife goes grocery shopping too, and likes different milk than I do, I can't possibly know what the "milk in my fridge" will be, if it's even there. It could be present as one of many different things. 2%. Skim. Whole with Vitamin D. Cotton-candy flavored. (We have access to weird milk around here.) I can hardly limit "milk" to one specific definition.And while the fridge represents a finite volume, it hardly represents a volume that I turn upside-down looking for milk. It's hardly necessary for me to check every single inch of the fridge to find some milk. A cursory examination of the places where milk should be, if there is some, is sufficient to justifiably conclude whether or not there is milk.Same with God. I hardly have to turn the universe upside down looking for God; I just have to look in the places God would have to be, if God existed. Easily for me, God is defined as being everywhere, so finding even one place where God is not disproves the existence of God. Nope. If something exists that can be called "God", then it would be every bit as detectable as the milk in my fridge. That which can exist without any trace or indication that it does so really can't be called a god in any coherent way.

This is the first that I've heard of it. I googled it and it appears to be another forum, but I have no idea what it's about.

Presenting circumstances about the way the world is or was can in my view give evidence that may or may not suggest that God exists. I have never claimed that it represented a proof of my beliefs. If there is no Divine intervention then it means that this little group of nomads that are forever being dominated by and enslaved by their powerful pagan neighbours on thir own came to an entirely different view of the world than did these neighbours. It also meant additional hardship in many cases and in many cases meant death for many of them. I agree that it only makes sense if you agree that divine inspiration is possible. If you do believe that it is, then I suggest 2 makes more sense, if you don't then the obvious answer is 1.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Uh... bleh. I think you're pretty much right about the milk, but then again you might say to your wife "we're out", she might just say "are you suuuuurrrre?" and she'd be right in demanding you search the whole fridge for absolute certainty... and with milk that's something you CAN deliver.With Gods it doesn't seem to be so easy. We still don't have an ability to find all the minute and massive particles in the nonsupernatural concept of the universe. Heck, dark matter and energy (if they are real) suggest that the range of our detection capabilities (for all real things) are still very limited.But then again, I guess you can always say you can't find Gods in your corner of the fridge of life... heheheh.By the way have you heard of apatheism. I heard of it from... Bill Maher I think. I think its more accurate for many "atheists" since it captures the "I don't know of any Gods" part with a side of "I don't really care".

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

In your view, Holmes, who has the right to demand that I substantiate my position?Why isn't it that person's obligation to provide the positive evidence for their belief that God exists? God is hardly a particle. In fact, it seems like the only time God is described in any terms besides how vast and large and omnipresent he is, is when believers are trying to convince us that God is so small and tiny that we'll simply overlook him if we're not careful.Convenient, that, that God seems to instantly deflate the instant someone looks at him hard. So long as the believers are willing to kill each other, and the rest of us, over their delusions, I don't think apathy is wise. There's a gigantic hole in the middle of Manhattan that testifies to the power of faith. I don't see that as something to be blase about.

Wait, let's make this clear. I am not criticizing your position of doubt regarding Gods. I was simply nitpicking on the statement that doubt was as certain as knowing you're out of milk.I agree that if someone is asserting they exist, they need to show something. But there is the logical possibility either way, and the universe is pretty enormous... way beyond our current detection limits. That means we're still in for lots of surprises. I think that's what makes science pretty fun.Maybe a God or two will fall out at some point.Of course the more people try to prove a specific pantheon exists, with defined characteristics, the easier it is to put it under a microscope. I think that's why we end up with the mushy presence you described. Sort of tells they don't know what they're talking about. Heheheh... yeah but they're GODs didn't do it! So I can still be apathetic about Gods. Now theists... I can't be apathetic about them.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Well, to be sure, I head out to the store well short of absolute certainty that there's no milk. Wow, I guess that's one more thing we take the exact opposite stance on. I think theists are good people with bad ideas, so I blame the ideas.

I meant to say I can't be apathetic about THEIR EXISTENCE. Unlike their Gods, I do believe they exist and I do care they are out there. Not that I think all of them are bad or something. Many of them are very nice and helpful.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Panda's Thumb was originally written as a creationist argument. When they realized they couldn't put religion into the science classroom, they changed all the words 'creation' and 'creationist' to 'intelligent design' and 'design proponent'. I guess they were in a hurry, because they did a sloppy job on one of them. At one instance, it was 'cdesign proponentist'. This issue came up in the trial over Dover School District fiasco. So, you could literally say they found a missing link, a transitional fossil that linked creationism and intelligent design.We were discussing a PBS series on this issue in this thread.I could have sworn you're an IDist.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

Sigh. Is it even possible for you not to be mendacious about even the little things?

It seems that people keep co-opting terms. Yos I believe in ID but I don't believe that it is scientific.They only way I believe that ID should be taught in a science or biology class is in conjunction with the statement that the TofE is agnostic, in that it is neither theistic or atheistic. This holds true for all science. Any time you go beyond that statement you are outside the realm of science IMHO.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.