The stumbling block for atheists.

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see the difference between the twain. Care to explain?

Atheism is the position of disbelief of theistic claims.

Materialism is the position that the physical is all there is and that every single phenomena is the result of material interaction.

No, they are not the same thing.

 

[Radrook]

What part of "if this, then that" is tripping you up?

The part where you claim that ID isn't testable in any way manner or form.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For the millionth time, I am not arguing against theistic evolution.

Intelligent Design IS an argument against evolution (theistic or otherwise).

So unless you invented your own concept of "intelligent design" (in which case I'm going to ask you to detail that concept and explain how it's different from Behe's model), then that is exactly what you are doing.

And considering the dropping of terms like "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity" and the references to bacterial flagellums etc.... those are word-for-word repeats of the "intelligent design" concept put out by the discovery institute.

The more you talk about this topic, the less clear it becomes what your actual position is.

You claim that your model of ID is "different" then that of the Discovery Institute, but everything you say about it is indistinguishable from the ID of the discovery institute.

 

[Skreeper]

Atheism is the position of disbelief of theistic claims.

Materialism is the position that the physical is all there is and that every single phenomena is the result of material interaction.

No, they are not the same thing.

True. Not every atheist subscribes to materialism. There are also atheists who believe in spirituality or the supernatural, no god required.
Buddhists for the most part are considered atheistic because they don't strictly believe in a god but in spirituality.

 

[Radrook]

Atheism is the position of disbelief of theistic claims.

Materialism is the position that the physical is all there is and that every single phenomena is the result of material interaction.

No, they are not the same thing.

I don't see how they are mutually exclusive. since either is impossible without the other. If indeed they are possible without each other, explain how.

 

[dysert]

I don't see the difference between the twain. Care to explain?

An atheist does not believe in the existence of God or gods (though they may believe in other immaterial things). A materialist believes that nothing exists except matter. A subtle difference, but they aren't synonymous.

The more basic point I'd like to make is that there is evidence of God all around us (in creation). The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means. Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.

 

[Radrook]

Intelligent Design IS an argument against evolution (theistic or otherwise).

So unless you invented your own concept of "intelligent design" (in which case I'm going to ask you to detail that concept and explain how it's different from Behe's model), then that is exactly what you are doing.

And considering the dropping of terms like "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity" and the references to bacterial flagellums etc.... those are word-for-word repeats of the "intelligent design" concept put out by the discovery institute.

The more you talk about this topic, the less clear it becomes what your actual position is.

You claim that your model of ID is "different" then that of the Discovery Institute, but everything you say about it is indistinguishable from the ID of the discovery institute.

Well, then I guess my concept of intelligent design isn't the same as the Discovery Institute's if that is the case since I am not arguing against theistic evolution.

 

[Skreeper]

...
The more basic point I'd like to make is that there is evidence of God all around us (in creation). The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means. Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.

There is a problem with this view: When we (for the sake of the argument) allow the existence of the supernatural that doesn't get us to a specific god. One could as well claim that universe-creating pixies are responsible since this would be a supernatural event.

But the point is, we don't just claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. We have the problem that science is at the moment incapable of investigating supernatural causation. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism with which we can investigate the supernatural, it is by definition irrational to say it definitely exists. Existence has to be demonstrated.

 

[Radrook]

An atheist does not believe in the existence of God or gods (though they may believe in other immaterial things). A materialist believes that nothing exists except matter. A subtle difference, but they aren't synonymous.

The more basic point I'd like to make is that there is evidence of God all around us (in creation). The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means. Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.

But you cannot be an atheist without being a materialist and you cannot be a materialist without being an atheist. If the only things you accept as real must by default be material, then you automatically rule out the supernatural and without the supernatural you cannot accept God since God, by default, from a religious perspective, is supernatural.

Similarly, if you are an atheist of the type that doesn't claim to be partially agnostic, then you MUST accept only the material and reject the supernatural which means that you reject God. I still don't see the difference.

 

[Radrook]

There is a problem with this view: When we (for the sake of the argument) allow the existence of the supernatural that doesn't get us to a specific god. One could as well claim that universe-creating pixies are responsible since this would be a supernatural event.

But the point is, we don't just claim that the supernatural doesn't exist. We have the problem that science is at the moment incapable of investigating supernatural causation. Unless someone comes up with a mechanism with which we can investigate the supernatural, it is by definition irrational to say it definitely exists. Existence has to be demonstrated.

You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The part where you claim that ID isn't testable in any way manner or form.

Yes, that is my understanding.

If I'm wrong about that, then all it takes to rectify that error is for you to explain how it's testable.

So why don't you?

 

[Radrook]

Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.

I agree 100% with that assessment.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, that is my understanding.

If I'm wrong about that, then all it takes to rectify that error is for you to explain how it's testable.

So why don't you?

Already done dozens of times. The response of inability to see is all I get. So why keep perpetually and incessantly asking for a repeat?

 

[Skreeper]

You are placing limits on the term-"demonstration" in order to avoid the very demonstration you demand.

Alright, please use the scientific method to show/demonstrate that the supernatural exists. Maybe you should let the scientific community know that you made one of the biggest discoveries ever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't see how they are mutually exclusive

Nobody said they are mutually exclusive.
But not being mutually exclusive doesn't mean that they are the exact same thing, which is what you were implying by saying that you don't see the difference between both.

. since either is impossible without the other.

That is simply not true.

If indeed they are possible without each other, explain how.

Buddhists are technically atheists.
But they aren't materialists.

And right out the gates, not buying into the claims of theism doesn't mean that one holds a belief that the physical is all there is.

There's a reason why the 2 words exists. It's because they mean different things.
Materialism and atheism are not synonyms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that someone with an a priori disbelief in the supernatural will misinterpret this evidence as coming from totally natural means

That is simply not true.

Whereas if someone allows for the existence of the supernatural, they may come to believe that God created the evidence instead of the evidence creating itself.

To allow for / be open to the existence of the supernatural, doesn't in any way mean that it is accepted as actually existing.

I, for example, am open to it. But I have not been given sufficient reason to accept it as true. So I don't.

 

[Radrook]

. Existence has to be demonstrated.

Of course that's the kicker. You don't accept demonstrations that lead to a conclusion that contradicts your view that things mindlessly designed themselves. Your modus operandi doesn't allow it because you illogically equate it with the supernatural. That is your primary stumbling block right there in a nutshell.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, then I guess my concept of intelligent design isn't the same as the Discovery Institute's if that is the case since I am not arguing against theistic evolution.

As I said, then you're going to have to explain what your model is all about. And perhaps invent another name for it as well, to avoid further confusion.

 

[Skreeper]

Of course that's the kicker. You don't accept demonstrations that lead to a conclusion that contradicts your view that things mindlessly designed themselves.

No such thing has happened. I love learning new things and so do scientists. But so far you only give excuses but don't show the SCIENCE where the supernatural has been demonstrated to exist.

 

[Radrook]

No such thing has happened. I love learning new things and so do scientists. But so far you only give excuses but don't show the SCIENCE where the supernatural has been demonstrated to exist.

AGAIN! I am not proposing the supernatural! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing for it to sink in?