In this instance, this should suffice as the truth.

Robert, can you cite one Intelligent Design proponent who does not believe that the so-called "designer" is the Christian God?

No, that does not suffice. Any theory--evolves. This was once the truth at that time. It is no longer what is thought.

There are many Faiths in this one nation called The United States of America. To teach of one Christian God when in fact all the theory teaches is that there is a Causal Agent would be indoctrinating a child.

Good schooling requires 'Good parenting'.

Good parenting is the basis. There's a bond between parent and child and the child trusts in that bond, so it's the parent's task to not abnegate that trust and give the child a good background and a strong personality, self-confident that is.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

In this instance, this should suffice as the truth.

Robert, can you cite one Intelligent Design proponent who does not believe that the so-called "designer" is the Christian God?

No, that does not suffice. Any theory--evolves. This was once the truth at that time. It is no longer what is thought.

There are many Faiths in this one nation called The United States of America. To teach of one Christian God when in fact all the theory teaches is that there is a Causal Agent would be indoctrinating a child.

Good schooling requires 'Good parenting'.

Good parenting is the basis. There's a bond between parent and child and the child trusts in that bond, so it's the parent's task to not abnegate that trust and give the child a good background and a strong personality, self-confident that is.

No doubt, agreed.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

In this instance, this should suffice as the truth.

Robert, can you cite one Intelligent Design proponent who does not believe that the so-called "designer" is the Christian God?

No, that does not suffice. Any theory--evolves. This was once the truth at that time. It is no longer what is thought.

There are many Faiths in this one nation called The United States of America. To teach of one Christian God when in fact all the theory teaches is that there is a Causal Agent would be indoctrinating a child.

Good schooling requires 'Good parenting'.

Theories evolve because evidence has shown that a theory needs adjustment. ID theory changes because the Cerationists are as stealthy as a flyweight boxer and refuse to show evidence for their changes. They clearly change to suit a result instead of presented evidence

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

In this instance, this should suffice as the truth.

Robert, can you cite one Intelligent Design proponent who does not believe that the so-called "designer" is the Christian God?

I first came across this Intelligent Design nonsense from a Muslim source, and I've had Muslim friends tell me that a lot of scientific discoveries were predicted in the Koran. I can't remember is ID is claiming to be a Christian or a Muslim, but both religions lay claim to Intelligent Design as proof of God.

Atheism should be taught in schools, and so should ALL religions as part of comparative religion courses. I was very surprised when I found out that students in the US are not required to learn about other religions in school. What a way to promote ignorance and bigotry.

Teach it all in the correct context and let the students figure out what suits them for themselves. If your religion really is the 'correct' one it will stand up to comparison and scrutiny. Of course if someone's religion really is the right one then they wouldn't need to make up fake science to try and prove it.

Religion belongs in Religious education classes. Not science classes. Atheism is also irrelevant to science because your belief or lack of belief is irrelevant to science. Science doesn't care what you believe because its based on evidence.

---

Reality Internet Personality

If one sees no reason to believe, it follows that it should be OK to state affirmatively that such a thing doesn't exist. In my example given, very few people would have a problem if an non-believer stated affirmatively that a giant iron skillet is indeed not orbiting the Earth, so it shouldn't be much different for them to state a lack of belief in a deity. Similarly, most people wouldn't bawk at someone stating affirmatively that Sasquatch doesn't exist due to lack of evidence. Or Unicorns. Or the Loch ness Monster. We don't look upon those denying the existence of the aforementioned items/beings as "religious" or faithful in their non-belief. Stating the same for a deity shouldn't be viewed any differently. Yet some people choose to incorrectly label it as such.

No, by stating that something does not exist, you are making a claim, and claims require evidence that back them up. Sadly, the lack of of convincing evidence to prove that God is real is not evidence for its non existence. To claim otherwise is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Also, there are a few things wrong with your iron skillet example. Or unicorns or sasquatches. Claims about their non existence only make sense if you bind them to a location. Unicorns do not exist on Earth because indeed, we searched and we never found one anywhere. But who says they cannot exist on another planet? To make, at this point in time with our very limited knowledge of the rest of the universe, a claim that unicorns do not exist anywhere, is unreasonable. The same is true for your iron skillet example. Sure, if we cannot observe one floating around in earths orbit it is reasonable to state that there are no iron skillets floating around in our orbit. But to say that there are no iron skillets floating around in other planets orbit? Nope, you'd have to physically check every planet in existence to prove that.

This is the problem with inferential logic. Making generalizing statements based on a number of observation does not result in truth, merely in some approximation of truth. Lets take another example. Swans. Say you are from Europe in the 15th century. You see some swans and you note that they are white. Then you see some more swans and again note they are white. You do that a hundred times and after the hundredth time you state 'all swans Ive observed are white, therefor all swans are white'. Quite frankly, you have very little reason to believe in this case that Swans are of any other color than white right, so this is a very reasonable statement. Then explorers find Australia and behold, they find swans that are black. Boom, your entirely reasonable observations and statement are turned into factually wrong nonsense.

Hell, this is the forum for SETI, so far we have not discovered a single piece of evidence that there is any other intelligent life form out there based on a whole range of observations. According to you, the logical thing to do at this moment already would be to say that well, aliens aren't real because we haven't been able to observe them, so we might as well quit and do something else with our time. So, why are you here?

If one sees no reason to believe, it follows that it should be OK to state affirmatively that such a thing doesn't exist. In my example given, very few people would have a problem if an non-believer stated affirmatively that a giant iron skillet is indeed not orbiting the Earth, so it shouldn't be much different for them to state a lack of belief in a deity. Similarly, most people wouldn't bawk at someone stating affirmatively that Sasquatch doesn't exist due to lack of evidence. Or Unicorns. Or the Loch ness Monster. We don't look upon those denying the existence of the aforementioned items/beings as "religious" or faithful in their non-belief. Stating the same for a deity shouldn't be viewed any differently. Yet some people choose to incorrectly label it as such.

No, by stating that something does not exist, you are making a claim, and claims require evidence that back them up. Sadly, the lack of of convincing evidence to prove that God is real is not evidence for its non existence. To claim otherwise is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Also, there are a few things wrong with your iron skillet example. Or unicorns or sasquatches. Claims about their non existence only make sense if you bind them to a location. Unicorns do not exist on Earth because indeed, we searched and we never found one anywhere. But who says they cannot exist on another planet? To make, at this point in time with our very limited knowledge of the rest of the universe, a claim that unicorns do not exist anywhere, is unreasonable. The same is true for your iron skillet example. Sure, if we cannot observe one floating around in earths orbit it is reasonable to state that there are no iron skillets floating around in our orbit. But to say that there are no iron skillets floating around in other planets orbit? Nope, you'd have to physically check every planet in existence to prove that.

This is the problem with inferential logic. Making generalizing statements based on a number of observation does not result in truth, merely in some approximation of truth. Lets take another example. Swans. Say you are from Europe in the 15th century. You see some swans and you note that they are white. Then you see some more swans and again note they are white. You do that a hundred times and after the hundredth time you state 'all swans Ive observed are white, therefor all swans are white'. Quite frankly, you have very little reason to believe in this case that Swans are of any other color than white right, so this is a very reasonable statement. Then explorers find Australia and behold, they find swans that are black. Boom, your entirely reasonable observations and statement are turned into factually wrong nonsense.

Hell, this is the forum for SETI, so far we have not discovered a single piece of evidence that there is any other intelligent life form out there based on a whole range of observations. According to you, the logical thing to do at this moment already would be to say that well, aliens aren't real because we haven't been able to observe them, so we might as well quit and do something else with our time. So, why are you here?

This is why the flying spaghetti monster is the 'unofficial symbol' of non-belief.

You can't prove he doesn't exist, and there is as much evidence for it as there is any human made god.

You are absolutely right in everything you've said here. It just doesn't make much of an argument for god, if he is on the same level as unicorns, sasquatches, and a purposely made up deity made of pasta.

This is the problem with inferential logic. Making generalizing statements based on a number of observation does not result in truth, merely in some approximation of truth. Lets take another example. Swans. Say you are from Europe in the 15th century. You see some swans and you note that they are white. Then you see some more swans and again note they are white. You do that a hundred times and after the hundredth time you state 'all swans Ive observed are white, therefor all swans are white'. Quite frankly, you have very little reason to believe in this case that Swans are of any other color than white right, so this is a very reasonable statement. Then explorers find Australia and behold, they find swans that are black. Boom, your entirely reasonable observations and statement are turned into factually wrong nonsense.

I'm not quite sure which side you're on from that, but running with the example.
Following the discovery of black swans science adjusts its statements to read 'some swans are white and some are black, based on this new found evidence'.
A religion continues to state that 'all swans are white, for that is as it is written, swans have always been white, will always be white, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic and will burn.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

This is the problem with inferential logic. Making generalizing statements based on a number of observation does not result in truth, merely in some approximation of truth. Lets take another example. Swans. Say you are from Europe in the 15th century. You see some swans and you note that they are white. Then you see some more swans and again note they are white. You do that a hundred times and after the hundredth time you state 'all swans Ive observed are white, therefor all swans are white'. Quite frankly, you have very little reason to believe in this case that Swans are of any other color than white right, so this is a very reasonable statement. Then explorers find Australia and behold, they find swans that are black. Boom, your entirely reasonable observations and statement are turned into factually wrong nonsense.

I'm not quite sure which side you're on from that, but running with the example.
Following the discovery of black swans science adjusts its statements to read 'some swans are white and some are black, based on this new found evidence'.
A religion continues to state that 'all swans are white, for that is as it is written, swans have always been white, will always be white, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic and will burn.

Brilliant!

++++1!

---

Reality Internet Personality

So lets just agree to let religion teach about GOD and let schools teach about science and let the individual make up his or her mind about what They want to believe in.

Beating each other over the head saying your wrong only leads to more strife, angst and wars.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Hell, this is the forum for SETI, so far we have not discovered a single piece of evidence that there is any other intelligent life form out there based on a whole range of observations. According to you, the logical thing to do at this moment already would be to say that well, aliens aren't real because we haven't been able to observe them, so we might as well quit and do something else with our time.

I don't think people visit these forums just for the search of extraterrestrial intelligence. People who are interested in astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology,... visit the forums as well.

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

No, by stating that something does not exist, you are making a claim, and claims require evidence that back them up. Sadly, the lack of of convincing evidence to prove that God is real is not evidence for its non existence. To claim otherwise is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Incorrect. By stating that something doesn't exist simply means you haven't found a means to believe it does. Fortunately, your second statement is not how science works. We don't use "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence", rather, we use observation based on the physical world.

Also, there are a few things wrong with your iron skillet example. Or unicorns or sasquatches. Claims about their non existence only make sense if you bind them to a location. Unicorns do not exist on Earth because indeed, we searched and we never found one anywhere. But who says they cannot exist on another planet? To make, at this point in time with our very limited knowledge of the rest of the universe, a claim that unicorns do not exist anywhere, is unreasonable. The same is true for your iron skillet example. Sure, if we cannot observe one floating around in earths orbit it is reasonable to state that there are no iron skillets floating around in our orbit. But to say that there are no iron skillets floating around in other planets orbit? Nope, you'd have to physically check every planet in existence to prove that.

You are correct that we cannot say that an iron skillet isn't orbiting somewhere, or Unicorns don't exist on another planet.

But what we can say is that, here, on this planet, given the claims about Unicorns existing, we've observed no evidence that they ever existed. We've never seen a giant orbiting iron skillet our planet, so it's safe to say that one is not there. This is how science and observation work to answer things empirically.

The difference that you are not seeing is between approaching the question from a philosophical viewpoint and an empirical viewpoint. By being completely agnostic about Unicorns and iron skillets, saying they could exist somewhere, you are merely avoiding the question and answering it only with philosophy.

By refusing to infer a conclusion of any kind only shows an unwillingness and a fear to be wrong. Sure, it is possible that we could find Unicorns on another planet, and if/when we do, we then have reason to change the conclusion.

This is the problem with inferential logic. Making generalizing statements based on a number of observation does not result in truth, merely in some approximation of truth.

Agreed. But can we know truth? Must we be afraid to conclude and be incorrect? Our constant need to search, gather data, compile it, and categorize it means that every observation brings us one step closer to the truth, but it will always be an approximation. Thus is the nature of our existence and our reality.

Lets take another example. Swans. Say you are from Europe in the 15th century. You see some swans and you note that they are white. Then you see some more swans and again note they are white. You do that a hundred times and after the hundredth time you state 'all swans Ive observed are white, therefor all swans are white'. Quite frankly, you have very little reason to believe in this case that Swans are of any other color than white right, so this is a very reasonable statement. Then explorers find Australia and behold, they find swans that are black. Boom, your entirely reasonable observations and statement are turned into factually wrong nonsense.

I fully agree with your example here, except for the conclusion. Rather than "turned into factually wrong nonsense", it was the best conclusion based upon the available data, and it turned out to be incorrect. The "nonsense" commentary is purely an opinionated and judgmental view once hindsight becomes 20/20.

Hell, this is the forum for SETI, so far we have not discovered a single piece of evidence that there is any other intelligent life form out there based on a whole range of observations. According to you, the logical thing to do at this moment already would be to say that well, aliens aren't real because we haven't been able to observe them, so we might as well quit and do something else with our time. So, why are you here?

You fell into your own trap of using inferential logic to draw conclusion about me and my opinions.

When did I ever say that we shouldn't look for any of the above? Where did I say that one couldn't search for God? Where did I say that one couldn't search for Unicorns on another planet? Where did I saw that people couldn't search other planets for orbiting skillets? And where did I say that we shouldn't look for ETI?

If someone wants to spend their lives searching for more data about any of the above, I have no problems with it. People have a right to pursue their own searches with whatever means they have. I draw the line when religious dogma interferes with science's attempt to discover the Universe unfettered and unimpeded.

You have incorrectly inferred from a small discussion here on a message board my entire philosophical approach. You think that by stating a lack of believe of the existence of something, that we mustn't waste our time on it. Quite the contrary, even when we think we know something, we should always double-check our work. It's no surprise that most major discoveries are completely by accident, and so it will continue to be that way while we search for the truth.

This is why the flying spaghetti monster is the 'unofficial symbol' of non-belief.

You can't prove he doesn't exist, and there is as much evidence for it as there is any human made god.

You are absolutely right in everything you've said here. It just doesn't make much of an argument for god, if he is on the same level as unicorns, sasquatches, and a purposely made up deity made of pasta.

He's right up to a point, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster ideal is an attempt to show why inferential logic is the logic of choice for scientists. Any other logic impedes progress of our unending quest for truth. Otherwise, pure Agnosticism, or an unwillingness to state anything affirmatively, simply makes one look foolish and indecisive.

This is the problem with inferential logic. Making generalizing statements based on a number of observation does not result in truth, merely in some approximation of truth. Lets take another example. Swans. Say you are from Europe in the 15th century. You see some swans and you note that they are white. Then you see some more swans and again note they are white. You do that a hundred times and after the hundredth time you state 'all swans Ive observed are white, therefor all swans are white'. Quite frankly, you have very little reason to believe in this case that Swans are of any other color than white right, so this is a very reasonable statement. Then explorers find Australia and behold, they find swans that are black. Boom, your entirely reasonable observations and statement are turned into factually wrong nonsense.

I'm not quite sure which side you're on from that, but running with the example.
Following the discovery of black swans science adjusts its statements to read 'some swans are white and some are black, based on this new found evidence'.
A religion continues to state that 'all swans are white, for that is as it is written, swans have always been white, will always be white, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic and will burn.

Precisely!. With science, we can adjust our conclusions based upon available evidence.

Hell, this is the forum for SETI, so far we have not discovered a single piece of evidence that there is any other intelligent life form out there based on a whole range of observations. According to you, the logical thing to do at this moment already would be to say that well, aliens aren't real because we haven't been able to observe them, so we might as well quit and do something else with our time.

I don't think people visit these forums just for the search of extraterrestrial intelligence. People who are interested in astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology,... visit the forums as well.

Lest I ever be questioned so rudely again (not by you Julie), I am here because I believe in the search. I've made it known on these forums that I do not believe aliens from another planet have ever visited ours, now or in the past. I state this conclusively, and willing to be wrong if new evidence is found, but until then I stand by the available data.

But not believing that aliens have ever visited our planet does not mean that I cannot be a part of the search to find them "out there". Likewise, by stating that I do not believe God exists does not mean I wouldn't change my mind based upon new evidence, but given the extraordinary claim and implications of a deity, the evidence must be just as extraordinary and convincing.

We cn still be skeptical but also vigilant in our searc.h. We just have to make sure that we are undergoing this search in the proper way

When did I ever say that we shouldn't look for any of the above? Where did I say that one couldn't search for God? Where did I say that one couldn't search for Unicorns on another planet? Where did I saw that people couldn't search other planets for orbiting skillets? And where did I say that we shouldn't look for ETI?

And when did I ever say science and evolution are wrong?

Interesting... I wasn't responding to you and yet you responded like this. Come on! :-) You're opening yourself up for another multiple account accusation. :-P

But to answer your question, I never said you claimed science or evolution were wrong. All I defended was the Atheist view which states that due to lack of evidence, there is no materialistic reason or evidence to support the idea, hence I feel it is OK to say there is no god.

Likewise, by stating that I do not believe God exists does not mean I wouldn't change my mind based upon new evidence, but given the extraordinary claim and implications of a deity, the evidence must be just as extraordinary and convincing.

Some of us, like Julie has mentioned, have experienced things which are extraordinary and convincing. Our problem is, we cannot repeat it for others to see.

I, too, have experienced something similar to what Julie describes. My girlfriend, Michele, also had a similar experience when she was in a terrible car accident.

No offense meant to anyone who has come to a different conclusion than we have, but we sought out an explanation for our experiences and found that they were not spiritual at all. There's plenty of evidence that shows the mind does funny things when it goes through a traumatic experience. But if other people want to believe this is proof of something more, I can only point them in the direction of a more natural explanation. It's up to them to make up their own minds.

This is why the flying spaghetti monster is the 'unofficial symbol' of non-belief.

You can't prove he doesn't exist, and there is as much evidence for it as there is any human made god.

You are absolutely right in everything you've said here. It just doesn't make much of an argument for god, if he is on the same level as unicorns, sasquatches, and a purposely made up deity made of pasta.

Agreed, but this argument was never meant to be an argument in favor of the existence of God. It is simply an argument against people who state in rather absolute terms that God does not exist. But it only takes a little bit of rephrasing and you have an argument against people who state in rather absolute terms that God does exist. So in essence, this is an argument against absolute statements in the whole Atheism-Theism debate.

I'm not quite sure which side you're on from that, but running with the example.
Following the discovery of black swans science adjusts its statements to read 'some swans are white and some are black, based on this new found evidence'.
A religion continues to state that 'all swans are white, for that is as it is written, swans have always been white, will always be white, and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic and will burn.

The problem with that is that the core of any religion, the existence of God, has not been disproven. They can keep saying that all Swans are white because they have not discovered any evidence that suggests the opposite. Hence there is no need for them to adapt their message. And do note that quite a number of religions have actually adapted to real scientific discoveries. The Catholic church holds evolution as the 'correct' explanation in how the world got where it is today. The whole Genesis story is not considered to be factually accurate by the Church. Of course, the church is significantly slower than science when it comes to accepting that the previous explanation is wrong, but to state that they never change is not entirely accurate.