Grypho, on 17 June 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:
By way of preface, I am an agnostic. All the way. No hard-core conclusions, negative or positive, in the absence of convincing evidence either way. That, to me, is the only valid scientific position to take. In other words, don't be a Lord Kelvin and proclaim X-Rays are a hoax. Better to say that you're unconvinced that they exist.
Fundamentalists (the only 'creationists' claiming all of the above you listed, and more) are the easiest to debunk and ridicule, because science really has shown convincingly that all of the literal interpretations fall fatally short as scientific explanations.
However, I do have several scientist colleagues who are more of the "Intelligent Design" stripe of creationists, who don't invoke or believe in literal biblical references, and some of whom don't have any affiliation with any religion. Unlike me, they are not agnostics, but have concluded positively (for themselves) that there must/may/could be intelligence and a purpose to both life and the universe. They aren't theists or activists, and don't argue or publish their personal conclusions, as from a scientific basis. They know it would be nothing but speculation anyway, far more philosophical than scientific in nature -- like trying to determine what, if anything, is beyond the physical boundaries of the known universe (if such a boundary even exists as anything but a theoretical construct - given that space itself appears to be a product of time, energy and matter).
The Richard Dawkins "Flying-Spaghetti-Monster argument-by-ridicule" type atheists look as silly to me as any fundamentalist, since they only argue with the most vocal and least intelligent denominators, without realizing or acknowledging that they are engaging in many of the same logical fallacies as the believers. In other words, they're deliberately picking on the tards in the class. Most importantly, to me, is the adage, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, I don't find either side's arguments very convincing one way or the other. But I remain open to the larger question, examining and debunking if possible every hard core conclusion I hear, pro or con.
I'm one of those argument by ridicule atheists that must look so silly to you. Your post made me chuckle at the silliness in it.
First you assume that just because we pick on the vocal, more evidently stupid minority means we're some cowards who can't handle an intelligent discussion? (I won't say reasoned as there is no such thing when it comes to the topic of god.)
Scientifically, god will never come up. It is entirely a figment of imagination, like unicorns and goblins, that has no roots in reality. Science will never observe an omnipotent creator or some such, and if you think it will, think of the implications it will bring. Something that few theists these days consider me thinks is implications. Try asking a Christian what he'd do if he saw a talking snake/burning bush/parting sea/guy saying he's Jesus and raises the dead.
It's ludicrous to say "I remain unconvinced" if you're pretending to have done some looking. I mean, you really remain unconvinced whether what, an almighty creator like in the Bible created man and universe and blah blah blah or whether it was really theories that we've proven correct for decades and use to predict future events? Give me a break, you want to prance around like an agnostic, touting your "I don't know and I don't care" horn, be my guest, but don't pretend to be some beacon of reason. Your position is of either ignorance or... you're full of sh!t. I hope for the latter, but the latter would also imply the former, so you're SOL.
And we ridicule the theists because it's frustrating watching them leave in silence and in faith because they can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag, yet won't concede their ridiculous beliefs; it isn't because we're malicious SOBs (although I may be on a bad day).
Oh, and I call bullsh!t on your scientific colleagues who are of the ID stripe. What's their science, theology? Talk about shot credibility.
Edited by Homo Sapiens' Sapience, 17 June 2011 - 11:28 PM.