Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Darat]

C'mon, that's not what ID proponents claim. They may be lying, but their arguments are far different from that. ...snip....

They are lying, their arguments are lies, their position is simply that "god created everything therefore evolution is false". That is the beginning and end of ID. They are opposed to evolution as it conflicts with their theology, not because of any science.

 

[Leumas]

C'mon, that's not what ID proponents claim. They may be lying,

It is very evident just from this thread alone that they are... no maybe about... outright perfidy.

Here is Behe's explanation of ID:

Behe is a mendacious pathetic peddler for Jesus... so are his cultists.

 

[Leumas]

Why? You obviously don't know what you are talking about but that doesn't stop you.

I think the reason you think that is because it is in fact you who does not know what they are talking about... they are correct and factual... you are mistaken and in error... it will behoove you tremendously to actually read well and understand what they said.

 

[Steve]

Or as in the case of ID, this is what happened

God created everything
Therefore evolution is untrue

But that isn't science was the criticism, so they used search and replace and produced this


Intelligent designer created everything
Therefore evolution is untrue

Renaming it did not make it scientific.

God/intelligent designer created evolution ......

 

[Darat]

God/intelligent designer created evolution ......

That's the smoke and mirrors approach which churches such as the RCC try and use to square the circle, but it is all a misdirection in the end as their answer for anything is of course "god did it <cough>except some of the bits that he didn't do, not that he couldn't but he wanted to give you a chance to be damned for eternity".

 

[acbytesla]

Since "afterlife" has long gone out the window, I will add a couple of observations about ID.

The problem with saying that "ID" is not falsifiable is that "not ID" is equally unfalsifiable.

"Not ID" would be the claim that no intelligence is involved with evolution. It all happens via the actions of random forces. However, the existence of random forces can't be tested. Statistical models assume that the outcomes of certain trials are determined by "random forces" (rather than the laws of physics) which side steps the problem of identifying and measuring all of the physical forces involved with a trial.

Although assuming that random forces are at work can produce remarkably accurate results, that is not proof that the random forces are real. A mathematical model is only as good as the behaviour it fails to predict.

So if "ID" is not suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal then "not ID" is equally unsuitable.

No it is not a problem. That is if it is not a problem that no one can disprove the existence of Sasquatches, fairies, leprechauns or any other make believe idea. Existential claims must be proven not disproven.

 

[acbytesla]

If there are no "random forces" then there must be "intelligent forces".

No. Random means entirely unpredictable. There may not be anything entirely unpredictable.

But "Not A" does not mean "B." This is a basic principle of logic. That forces can be predictable does not mean there is some intelligent force behind them.

Even if one could prove that evolution is wrong does not mean a wizard is responsible.

 

[Steve]

That's the smoke and mirrors approach which churches such as the RCC try and use to square the circle, but it is all a misdirection in the end as their answer for anything is of course "god did it <cough>except some of the bits that he didn't do, not that he couldn't but he wanted to give you a chance to be damned for eternity".

Of course. The "pro's" have an answer for everything, to keep the gullible in line.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I repeat. "Well maybe God did it with magic we can never understand" is not an answer, nor a hypothesis, nor a even a guess. It's nothing.

 

[bruto]

The issue of "ID or not ID" comes down to whether anything ever can be known. "Not ID" is anything and everything else, forever. It puts ID on an equal footing with any and every explanation that might ever be put forward, from now until the heat death of the universe, as long as it cannot be explicitly disproved.

If you counter the statement that you can't disprove ID with the observation that it's a wash because you can't disprove anything else, you are left with the mystic's favorite dodge: that all unproven notions, no matter how preposterous, are equally worth pondering.

There's an eponymous philosophical term, "Meinong's jungle," which occurs when we think of the ability to conceive of something as investing it with being. Here the elves and fairies flit, and the invisible pink unicorns bellow their songs of mournful ecstasy. God is there too. See him over there, rolling his dice.

 

[Olmstead]

Since "afterlife" has long gone out the window, I will add a couple of observations about ID.

The problem with saying that "ID" is not falsifiable is that "not ID" is equally unfalsifiable.

"Not ID" would be the claim that no intelligence is involved with evolution. It all happens via the actions of random forces. However, the existence of random forces can't be tested. Statistical models assume that the outcomes of certain trials are determined by "random forces" (rather than the laws of physics) which side steps the problem of identifying and measuring all of the physical forces involved with a trial.

Although assuming that random forces are at work can produce remarkably accurate results, that is not proof that the random forces are real. A mathematical model is only as good as the behaviour it fails to predict.

So if "ID" is not suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal then "not ID" is equally unsuitable.

That's swell. What is your point again?

Is your entire schtick to point out that god and god adjacent things are unfalsifiable, nebulously comment on how this relates to the definition of atheism, and then run away?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is your entire schtick to point out that god and god adjacent things are unfalsifiable, nebulously comment on how this relates to the definition of atheism, and then run away?

Yes. Sometimes he gets huffy while doing it.

He's been running around the board for years going "OOOH lookit this big on chip on my shoulder I've got about atheism, dare anyone to knock it off."

 

[Leumas]

I defy anyone to disprove that the pink invisible dragon with a unicorn on its head in my garage is not the Intelligent Designer of everything.

This is my scientific theory...

Had I enough money accumulated over millennia of rapine and plunder and pillaging and fleecing morons and cajoling and hoaxing and forcing victims you would all be trying to disprove it right now to an army all over the internet pretending to be a-pink-dragonists but are concerned to make sure that you are not haughty about your disbelief in the special and useful idea that helped the western civilization find science and morality and get out of the benighted eras of ignorance.

Lest you object that history and reality go against what I said, I will remind you that you are biased and misinformed nasty new-a-pink-dragonists and you need to tone down that anger and hate and disrespect for those poor simpletons who still believe fully in a real pink-dragon and instead consider my dragon in my ivory tower instead of that silly pink one in a garage.

Can you disprove the ivory tower dragon?

No? Ah well then huzzah!! my Intelligently Designed Dragon (IDD) scientific theory is proven!!!


There!!!

 

[bruto]

I defy anyone to disprove that the pink invisible dragon with a unicorn on its head in my garage is not the Intelligent Designer of everything.

This is my scientific theory...

Had I enough money accumulated over millennia of rapine and plunder and pillaging and fleecing morons and cajoling and hoaxing and forcing victims you would all be trying to disprove it right now to an army all over the internet pretending to be a-pink-dragonists but are concerned to make sure that you are not haughty about your disbelief in the special and useful idea that helped the western civilization find science and morality and get out of the benighted eras of ignorance.

Lest you object that history and reality go against what I said, I will remind you that you are biased and misinformed nasty new-a-pink-dragonists and you need to tone that anger and hate and disrespect for those poor simpletons who still believe fully in a real pink-dragon and instead consider my dragon in my ivory tower instead of that silly pink one in a garage.

Can you disprove the ivory tower dragon?

No? Ah well then huzzah!! my Intelligently Designed Dragon (IDD) scientific theory is proven!!!


There!!!

Just look both ways when you step out of that ivory tower. There may be a frumious bandersnatch hiding behind the tree of knowledge and though I cannot guarantee that he is chortling at the prospect of dining on your liver, I cannot, of course, guarantee that he is not!

 

[Chanakya]

Every single drop of rain that falls into the stream near the top of the mountain ends up at the bottom. I mean, what are the odds against that? It can't possibly be random chance. Therefore there must be some conscious, intelligent force which deliberately guides them there. Stands to reason.

Great analogy. Maybe those who apparently cannot understand this simple reasoning when directly applied to evolution, might understand it when put in these stark terms. Except of course, they won't, that's almost certainly a given.


(Not to forget that other angle: After the first day's labor, God rolled off of the snoring Ghost --- with the Son fast asleep in his little cot in the corner --- and went to take a leak, and, before going back to sleep, shouted out "Let there be gravity!" And earned a kick in the nuts from a furious Ghost, woken up with all this midnight shouting. But that explains why apples fall on their heads when people who're called Newton sit under trees. The rest is just detail.)

 

[acbytesla]

Since "afterlife" has long gone out the window, I will add a couple of observations about ID.

The problem with saying that "ID" is not falsifiable is that "not ID" is equally unfalsifiable.

"Not ID" would be the claim that no intelligence is involved with evolution. It all happens via the actions of random forces. However, the existence of random forces can't be tested. Statistical models assume that the outcomes of certain trials are determined by "random forces" (rather than the laws of physics) which side steps the problem of identifying and measuring all of the physical forces involved with a trial.

Although assuming that random forces are at work can produce remarkably accurate results, that is not proof that the random forces are real. A mathematical model is only as good as the behaviour it fails to predict.

So if "ID" is not suitable for publication in a peer reviewed journal then "not ID" is equally unsuitable.

Well at least Psion isn't arguing against evolution. But why would or could anyone argue against a null statement Psion?

I don't know of any evidence of an intelligence outside of an organic brain or silicon cpu. So why would we consider that, planets, stars, galaxies or life were the result of an intelligence? How would we test for that Psion?

 

[acbytesla]

If there are no "random forces" then there must be "intelligent forces".

False dichotomy.

The absence of one doesn't even suggest the latter. Energy, gravity, matter, chemicals, life and their interactions are often predictable. But that doesn’t demonstrates a sentient intelligence controlling any of it.

 

[Leumas]

Just look both ways when you step out of that ivory tower. There may be a frumious bandersnatch hiding behind the tree of knowledge and though I cannot guarantee that he is chortling at the prospect of dining on your liver, I cannot, of course, guarantee that he is not!

And therein lies the rub of your scientific hypothesis my dear fellow... what!!

Why in the name of Jove IDD would I do that... hey!!

 

[GDon]

C'mon, that's not what ID proponents claim. They may be lying, but their arguments are far different from that. ...snip....

They are lying, their arguments are lies, their position is simply that "god created everything therefore evolution is false". That is the beginning and end of ID. They are opposed to evolution as it conflicts with their theology, not because of any science.

Fair enough. I disagree that the ID proponents are lying about their claims. I guess we've reached "irreducible confliction". I'll leave it there.

 

[Leumas]

Fair enough. I disagree that the ID proponents are lying about their claims. I guess we've reached "irreducible confliction". I'll leave it there.

Behe and his minions have lied and spread perfidy throughout their push for Imbecilic Design... and worse than their duped lying cult followers is that Behe and his minions in fact knew jolly well they were lying right from the get go.

One of the telltale indicators of PROFESSIONAL liars is that they never stop incessantly repeating the same lies despite the proof of the mendacity of the lies being shown and exposed... they know there is a fool born every minute who will be snared by their perfidy if only they just carry on thumping and hawking their hoaxes as if they have never been rebutted... while doing the utmost their coffers can fund to malign and undermine the truth and their debunkers.

Falsehood will fly, as it were, on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps, though sure, are slow and solemn, and she has neither vigour nor activity enough to pursue and overtake her enemy

Another telltale of liars is that they refuse to hear or read or see anything that opposes their lies... so they refuse to look at evidence and even block and ban people from their sites and twitter and facebook etc.