Rationalists/Atheists: Don’t Too Readily Dismiss the Believer

[DarkWizard12]

Wrong. God is omnipotent. He could have easily used some sort of mind control deterrent to keep the Philistines from resorting to violence. Instead, he slaughtered people by the thousands.

Can't. It would have impeded free will. :roll:

If your going to discuss this with me, don't use "could" arguements. The Bible is NOT ABOUT what God COULD/SHOULD/WOULD've done, its about what God DID do.

The only thing we can do is ask WHY he did what he did.

So God is no better than savages... Got it. Again, there are peaceful alternatives that God could have resorted to if he is, in fact, all powerful.

Like what. Not create Adam? Gotcha.

So why doesn't God just mindlessly slaughter people now? Oh that's right, He took some Prozac and is all about love these days. Always convenient that the majority of unbelievable things that occur in the Bible are never seen again or recorded outside of it.

Who said he "mindlessly" slaughter people? Oh yea, thats right, your ignorance.

 

[Graffight]

Wrong. God is omnipotent. He could have easily used some sort of mind control deterrent to keep the Philistines from resorting to violence. Instead, he slaughtered people by the thousands.

Dark Wizard got to it first but i'll answer as well...If god would have wanted to control our minds he would have done that from the start, and you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking, but like you and me he would rather love not be forced, but freely given to him.

So God is no better than savages... Got it. Again, there are peaceful alternatives that God could have resorted to if he is, in fact, all powerful.

God was dealing with savages, and could only deal with them on a level that they could comprehend. why give a caveman a spaceship? God wanted evolution to run it's course, he wanted people to learn from their mistakes, and he wanted the people who worshiped him to be better off than others so he helped those people along a little more...

So why doesn't God just mindlessly slaughter people now? Oh that's right, He took some Prozac and is all about love these days. Always convenient that the majority of unbelievable things that occur in the Bible are never seen again or recorded outside of it.

He no longer slaughter's people A) because there is no need to function on that level anymore and B) he has made it possible for ALL people to be his children, not just the chosen ones....

and sure they are seen now a days, it's just that there are more ways than one to get the results. God gave man the ability to do anything he put's his mind to...if we think it we can do it, it's part of how God built us. God didn't stop the Babylonians from building the tower for no reason...he stopped them because they would have done it. This is even addressed in the new testament when i think peter says that you cannot get to heaven by works alone. meaning ANYONE can do good works and anyone can be a good person...it's just not the way to heaven. The problem is that when Christians say to you God made such and such possible for me you refute it by saying...that can happen to anyone...so it's not that these things aren't recorded you just don't accept them.

 

[moe]

Incorrect. Merely because no one explicitly stated it does not mean it was not introduced.

Or are you again trying to ignore how you argued that scourge's atheism was wrong because it can't explain certain events?

Strawmen, lies, deception and dishonesty. All traits of creationism.

Are you referring to this post by me?
*

As opposed to the intelligent blanket statements made by atheists concerning Christians everyday in this forum? Well any way

a·the·ist (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Am I missing something here when I claim Atheist idea's of origin of live is based on nothing did it?

Nothing produces everything
Non life produces life
Randomness produces fine tuning
Chaos produces information
Unconsciousness produces consciousness
Non Reason produces reason.
Moe

If you will go back and read the posts you will see that this was not an attack on "His Atheism" It was an attack on the arrogance of , not just him, but others who post saying Christians are ignorant for believing in Creation when the opposing side has never really produced any solid substantial evidence to answer these important questions. By substantial I mean evidence that fulfills the long recognized steps of the scientific method.

1.Observation
2.Hypothesis formulation
3.Prediction
4.Testing of predictions

Way to fail on learning what a hypothesis is. Hypothesis are always meant to be repeatively tested. They are never meant to be "solutions" in themselves. No scientist presents a hypothesis as an answer to a problem and leaves it at that. A hypothesis is a proposed solution or explanation that is tentative based on experimentation.

Your own definition states it is tentative!

Or do you not know what tentative means?

That definition is in reply to a false claim scourge made.

Strawman. Scientific claims never propose a solution without support.

And is not a hypothesis a PROPOSED UNSUPPORTED SOLUTION because it needs testing see if it is valid? Do you deny that on any given forum that has a religious section that there is not going to be an atheist/Christian debate where atheists take the position of nothing produces everything claiming "scientific support" for their position when in truth it really just a PROPOSED UNSUPPORTED hypothesis?

Apparently you keep pretending that you never made arguments. Not surprisingly. I've seen creationists do this on a regular basis.

I did make arguments. But they were AFTER this point. And as I stated you actually started attacking those arguments before I even posted them. Stating the obvious that Evolution researchers have not yet answered the above questions concerning natural processes being responsible for all that we see around us today is not an argument. It is a fact.

Do you reject that you attacked atheism on the basis that it cannot explain certain things?

In the broad sense of the issue no I do not reject it. The narrower focus of the so called "attack" up to that point though had been against the high mindedness and arrogance of the atheist attacks on Christians as in these examples......................

How dare you question an omnipotent omniscient being!!

No, I'm serious. Its a futile effort to question the actions, mindset, virtue, etc, of such a proposed being.

EG, if it "makes sense" then its God's love/will. If it doesn't make sense then you are just ignorant to God's plan.

Its a win/win or lose/lose situation, depending on your perspective. Don't waste your life.

You mean the one who appears to have undergone a complete personality change from one book to another?
Kill them all with extreme prejudice! Rip open the bellies of pregnant women and dash the unborn upon rocks!""Love everyone! Kumbayah!"

lol

The joys of simple thinking. You should see creationists. Don't know = Goddidit. :2wave:

Not on atheism in and of itself.

As to atheism in and of itself. There is still to much we do not know for any side in the matter to claim victory. Until conclusive evidence either way is actually found whether you like it or not all our various positions are based on faith. Now I am sure that you will say we have science!!! But scientific method is not always the best way to investigate the evidence. There is also the Historical Method which is a much better method to investigate the Bible considering the Bible is actually a history book itself and not a science book.

Furthermore, you are again arguing from positions of ignorance. Several major phyla were in existence prior to the "explosion" including sponges, corals, echinoderms and mollusks.

Which I agreed to in a post to you in another thread. But you do not seem to understand what "fully formed" means. it is believed that the first simple Prokaryotic cells first appeared 3.5 billion years ago and from these arose complex Eukaryotic cells first appeared 1.5 billion years ago. Life although complex in the scientific sense of eukaryotic cells was still a simple form of life in the general sense. And then all of a sudden "Bang" fully formed advanced animals suddenly in the sense of geological evolutionary time appear with no signs of any intermediate transitional forms. And that is the great mystery of the Cambrian Explosion. And as to your sponges, corals, echinoderms and mollusks. Today, Sponges are still sponges, Corals are still corals, Echinoderms are still Echinoderms[ star fish sea urchins etc] and Mollusks are still shell fish.

 

[moe]

Way to change your argument. You now state that RE is taking apart something to learn how it works.

I did not change my argument. In fact I have been saying that continuously.In Post 193 is where I first mentioned reverse engineering.......

Do you really believe that science never starts with the answer and then works backwards to unravel the question as to why something is the way it is? No reverse engineering?

You are no longer using it as an example as you did in the past. As stated before, RE starts with the outcome we know, it is how we get there that is in question. We know the outcome. It is merely getting it to do what we already know what it should do. Try again failtrain.

As shown above I have never changed my position on reverse engineering. I clearly stated it is common practice start with what we believe are the answers and work backwards through the question. You are the one who quantitatively denied that reverse engineering is not science

You're calling reverse engineering science? Reverse engineering is nothing more then taking something you know about and recreating it from a set of pieces.

Are you changing your position now?

Regardless, I think you should take a real close look at your above definition. You do say reverse engineering is taking something that we already know about and recreating from a set of pieces. Do YOU still hold to your original position on this?

How do you thinks we do scientific research in medicine?

Personalized Medicine via Predictive Medicine by Cytomics (flow cytometry, individualized medicine)
g. Disease inducing molecular pathways can then be explored by a retrograde molecular analysis strategy (molecular reverse engineering) of molecular cell phenotype differentials at the cell systems level. The pathways can be mathematically modeled (biomedical cell systems biology) to further increase the predictive capacity. It is likely that new target molecules and lead structures for drug discovery will be detected by the hypothesis-free data pattern classification due to its capacity to open and penetrate unknown molecular knowledge spaces. In this sense cytomics represent an entry to biomedical cell systems biology within the larger framework of molecular cell systems biology.

This statement from the above quote should be self explanatory. penetrate unknown molecular knowledge spaces. They are not using reverse engineering to reconstruct what they already know but rather to explore areas they do not know about. They start from a position of expected results, It is likely that new target molecules and lead structures for drug discovery will be detected But they will not know for sure until they finish their process of reverse engineering.



As a second example,

Thematic review series: systems biology approaches...[J Lipid Res. 2007] - PubMed Result
Thematic review series: systems biology approaches to metabolic and cardiovascular disorders. Multi-organ whole-genome measurements and reverse engineering to uncover gene networks underlying complex traits.

Tegnér J, Skogsberg J, Björkegren J.

The CoCenter for Molecular Medicine, King Gustaf V Research Institute, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, SE-171 76 Stockholm, Sweden.

Together with computational analysis and modeling, the development of whole-genome measurement technologies holds the potential to fundamentally change research on complex disorders such as coronary artery disease. With these tools, the stage has been set to reveal the full repertoire of biological components (genes, proteins, and metabolites) in complex diseases and their interplay in modules and networks. Here we review how network identification based on reverse engineering, as applied to whole-genome datasets from simpler organisms, is now being adapted to more complex settings such as datasets from human cell lines and organs in relation to physiological and pathological states. Our focus is on the use of a systems biological approach to identify gene networks in coronary atherosclerosis. We also address how gene networks will probably play a key role in the development of early diagnostics and treatments for complex disorders in the coming era of individualized medicine.

Again an example of the researchers stating the respected results [answers] using reverse engineering as process of not reconstruction but of discovery [investigate the questions] to confirm what they believe to be true. So why would I change my position when I have been right from the beginning?

Have you fabricated more arguments to suit your poorly devised responses? I never argued no one did. In fact I made that point to highlight the problems with denying macro while accepting micro. A billion tiny changes to you results in no major change. Therefore the piece of paper is still white despite a million crayon marks.

Does it result in a major change of species? Such as Vendian star fish becoming modern zebra's? Or if you prefer to stay in the water, A tuna?

How does that prove I'm wrong? Explain to me how an article discussing what is essentially the tracking of genes through populations by the associated traits disproves my claim. Explain to me where in that article they were talking about making new species? Where did they try to use genetic mutations in fly populations to produce an entirely new species?

Did you read the article I posted? It is specifically about Macroevolution.

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.”

Further on,

Their specific objection to the idea of macroevolutionary change in animals is summed up in a disclaimer that the Oklahoma State Textbook Committee voted in November, 1999 to include in that state’s biology textbooks:

and further,

Evolution may also refer to the change of one living thing into another, such as reptiles and birds. This process, called macroevolution, has never been observed and should be considered a theory.”

As can be seen above they allude to reptiles becoming birds.This experiment was conducted to show that macroevolution maybe responsible for that type of transition and was conducted using via hox genes.

The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox,

This experiment is not dealing with gene transmission with in species [microevolution] but rather across species [macroevolution]. So I am afraid that really do not know exactly what your complaint is with the article

Come again, So you're saying the mainstream creationist belief that God created all life as we see it today is wrong?

No. I am simply saying that we have a differing view of who or what the common ancestor is.

What the hell? You said i was wrong about saying creationists start with the answer they want and then you stated they do that. C'mon.

I never said you were wrong and in fact here is where I first replied to you concerning this item.

Your "always starts with the answer" only applies to Creationists??? Do you really believe that science never starts with the answer and then works backwards to unravel the question as to why something is the way it is?

As can be plainly seen, I did not say you were wrong that Christians start with the answers. I said that you were wrong in making it appear that Christians are the only ones who start with the answers.

Moe

 

[obvious Child]

Although I do general disagree with his assessment. In his defense, isn't murder the UNLAWFUL killing? Back then, it wasn't really unlawful untill the law was laid down and God's promise of..."nationhood" fulfilled.

Fair enough. It doesn't change the fact that God ordered the killing of innocent unborn children.

The entire notion that if God says to kill innocent people, that's okay disturbs me and that people will go along without thinking.

 

[First Thought]

Can't. It would have impeded free will. :roll:

Which God has the power to do. He's changed his mind before.

If your going to discuss this with me, don't use "could" arguements. The Bible is NOT ABOUT what God COULD/SHOULD/WOULD've done, its about what God DID do.

According to the Bible, which is not a historical document. So I guess it would be more of a "what God MIGHT have done".

Like what. Not create Adam? Gotcha.

The point I'm making is that your God is full of human emotions. Thus, the argument that God was created in man's image, not the other way around.

Who said he "mindlessly" slaughter people? Oh yea, thats right, your ignorance.

No need to get emotional. I realize that your grasping for straws here, but getting upset isn't going to get you anywhere in a debate.

I guess it was more of Moses who was the mindless one when God ordered him and his men to murder thousands of innocent people for idolatry in Genesis. We all know what a heinous and dangerous crime idolatry can be. :roll:

Or, in 2 Kings, when Elisha curses some kids for calling him a "baldhead" God sends bears to murder 42 of children. Talk about benevolent.

 

[scourge99]

Do you deny that ... atheists take the position of nothing produces everything claiming "scientific support" for their position when in truth it really just a PROPOSED UNSUPPORTED hypothesis?

strawman.

1) Atheists do not have any unified beliefs except a disbelief in God. Thus atheists may or may not believe that nothing produces something.

2)The belief that "nothing produces something" is an unsupported claim. There is no empirically supported "scientific support" of such.

Not on atheism in and of itself.

As to atheism in and of itself. There is still to much we do not know for any side in the matter to claim victory.

Correct. We are not absolutely sure, BUT if we were forced to make a decision, IE to have a belief, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no god because there is zero evidence for such a being.

Until conclusive evidence either way is actually found whether you like it or not all our various positions are based on faith.

Wrong. Faith is not required to be based on ANY evidence. However, theories, laws, and principles are. That is, the scientific method is provably a reliable method of ascertaining truth as compared to "guessing" or "having faith".

Now I am sure that you will say we have science!!! But scientific method is not always the best way to investigate the evidence. There is also the Historical Method which is a much better method to investigate the Bible considering the Bible is actually a history book itself and not a science book.

And whats this "historical method" say about the Bible?

 

[obvious Child]

Scourge give it up. This thread is pointless as moe is massively dishonest. Discussions where one side takes great measures to ignore honesty and the truth are not worth participating in.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Which God has the power to do. He's changed his mind before.

lol, really? He gives everyone a decision to follow him. Sometimes we don't like the decisions and our hearts harden. Its exactly what happened to pharoah.

According to the Bible, which is not a historical document. So I guess it would be more of a "what God MIGHT have done".

You, my friend, are the most ignorant person I have ever met. I refuse to discuss this with you untill you get out of your little "bliss" because quite frankly, your blind statement here just shows both your lack of common sense, as well as lack of knowledge. May I prescribe the "Phoenician stone" as a remedy for your ignorance?

 

[moe]

strawman.

1) Atheists do not have any unified beliefs except a disbelief in God. Thus atheists may or may not believe that nothing produces something.

This appears to be less of a definition of diversity but rather more of a human shield strategy. Thus nobody can make really make claims against atheists because "atheists may or may not believe that nothing produces something." Very convenient. But still is it not true that most people who hold to a "disbelief in God or gods" hold that to be true because they do not believe in creation but rather a process of natural occurrences [Random Chance] even though they may say" we do not know? still what ever is not known is still believed to be caused by natural process's because there is no God? I can not recall any time in the past ever hearing an atheist state" well yes that is strange and maybe God did do it." Do you think authors like.

Atheism: The Case Against God
by George H. Smith - Atheism - Prometheus Books*(1989) - Paperback - 355 pages
Aims to demolish a myth devised by man - the concept of a supreme being. This book examines, dissects, and refutes the myriad "proofs" offered by theists - the defenses of ...

Or

Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam
by Michel Onfray - Religion - Arcade Publishing*(2008) - Paperback - 246 pages
Not since Nietzsche has a work so groundbreaking and explosive appeared, to question the role of the world's three major monotheistic religions. If Nietzsche proclaimed the ...

Would such people truly in their heart of hearts believe that what "we do not know" may be a product of creation? Or would it be more correct to assume that though they "do not know", the one thing they do know for sure is that God is not responsible. Truth is Christianity is much more diversified than atheism. So every time we see an atheist post " You Christians believe" we should jump up and say Straw Man! And you can not say Ahhhh but ALL Christians believe God did it because there are actually Christians who do not believe in God. They believe that Jesus was not holy or divine or from God but rather that he was another great teacher such as Buddha or Confucius and they do consider themselves Christians.

Correct. We are not absolutely sure, BUT if we were forced to make a decision, IE to have a belief, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no god because there is zero evidence for such a being.

I agree. The Bible does not teach that there is a God but rather later in time he became God. In the beginning before the fall in the garden there were no churches temples doctrines etc. Man and God communed and walked together as friends. The bible teaches that man drifted away from what we today call God and began worshiping nature. In so doing man basically devolved. The being we call God reached out to certain individuals in the past. In fact concerning Abraham the Bible states that the relationship was not one of worshiper and God but a relationship based on friendship.

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

The same is said concerning Moses.

Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Jesus said to his disciples.

Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Jesus also said,

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

They did not even realize who he truly was. They walked with him in friendship. They learned from him, shared food with him shared times good and hard with him and not once did he command them to bow and worship him nor did he teach them religious rites and rituals.

But he did teach, To respect the creator not the created. unselfish responsibility to self and society, obedience to law, etc, He actually condemned religion because of the hypocrisy involved. The Mosaic Law and Jewish religion are one and the same.

Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Notice he does not claim it as his or our law but your law.
As far as what Jesus taught as religion James the brother of Jesus sums it up rather well,

Jas 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's RELIGION is vain.
Jas 1:27 Pure RELIGION and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction

Nothing about building temples churches altars bowing down bending over crawling naked through a mile of broken glass.

the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no god because there is zero evidence for such a being.

Examples of this overwhelming evidence?

Wrong. Faith is not required to be based on ANY evidence. However, theories, laws, and principles are. That is, the scientific method is provably a reliable method of ascertaining truth as compared to "guessing" or "having faith".

Where the evidence ends faith begins. This is as true in science as it is in religion. You start with a hypothesis that you believe to be true. That is faith. You gather evidence and find enough to support your hypothesis, After you feel you have properly tested your hypothesis you now believe your peers will accept your results. Do you know they will? No. You have faith that the results of your research will prove itself causing your peers to have faith in it also. It is accepted by your peers and it is very popular. There is now a communal faith in you and your work.

Somebody else develops a competing hypothesis. It is better supported and proves your work wrong. All your peers lose faith in your work and jump over to the new knowledge. It is unusual for science to completely discard a theory. Generally older theories are absorbed into newer theories until as time passes the older theory in is no longer distinguishable thus dying a quite dignified death.

But some are just cast aside because there is no longer any evidence for them

WikiAnswers - What scientific laws or theories have been proven wrong

And whats this "historical method" say about the Bible?

Much. It is not so much the person who discovers the latest pyramid that really adds to the historical content of the bible. It is the people unheard of who decipher cuneiform tablets, find shards of pottery, dig in common tombs and dwellings etc. The big finds are obviously important. But the small finds tell us the customs of the time such as Taxes, Covenants, Laws, Marriage Business practices religious beliefs was the harvest good or was there famines etc. It gives proper names used at the time, locations and names of cities and personal names etc. All these things add support to the biblical narrative.

It was believed at one time that the bible was in error because it mentioned the Hittite empire and no body had ever heard of it,
Hittites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hittites

In Dawkins God Delusion he several times refers to information from the Book of Acts Because he believes it is an unreliable book. This was part of the 19th century Tubingen school of bible criticism. In fact the believed unreliability of the Book of Acts was a center piece of Tubingen criticism.

Apparently unbeknownst to Dawkins the Tubingen view regarding Acts was disproved almost 100 years ago by a man reputed to be one of the greatest archaeologists who has ever lived.

The Book of Acts: The Church Begins > The Good News : September/October 2000
About a century ago British scholar William Ramsay focused on the book of Acts to try to show it was rife with geographical and archaeological errors. After all, many scholars of his day, equipped with the tools of textual criticism and archaeology, had exposed many errors in other classic writings. This eminent humanity professor diligently prepared himself by studying archaeology and geography before departing for the Middle East and Asia Minor in his quest to prove Luke's history of the early Church was mostly myth...............

...............
After decades of examining the historical and geographical details mentioned in the book, Ramsay concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy, he is possessed of the true historic sense ... In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians" (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1953, p. 80).

He went on to write many books about Acts and the epistles of Paul. Ultimately Ramsay was knighted for his contributions to the study of archaeology and geography.

The above scholar started as a man who believed the Tubingen criticisms. After 30 years of researching Acts and Paul he became a Christian himself because of the evidence.

It was once believed and apparently still is believed that the New Testament writings were written in the 2nd and even 3rd centuries ad. This was a major component of the critics who claimed that the writings of Christ had been embellished to appear that he was more than what he really was. Today due to new discoveries even the most liberal late dating is 90 ad for the Book of Revelation. All the gospels are now known to have be written before Revelation.


Ancient NT Manuscripts

Until 1994 critics stated that the biblical stories concerning King David were mythical. A find in 1994 provides evidence that King David may very well have been real after all
Tel Dan Stele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is lots of stuff. Whole books of stuff.

Moe

 

[First Thought]

lol, really? He gives everyone a decision to follow him. Sometimes we don't like the decisions and our hearts harden. Its exactly what happened to pharoah.

What does this have to do with God somehow protecting the Isrealites rather than slaughtering their opponents?

You, my friend, are the most ignorant person I have ever met. I refuse to discuss this with you untill you get out of your little "bliss" because quite frankly, your blind statement here just shows both your lack of common sense, as well as lack of knowledge. May I prescribe the "Phoenician stone" as a remedy for your ignorance?

Again, your emotions run rampant. If you want to throw a tantrum, rather than formulate a coherent response, that's fine. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 

[DarkWizard12]

What does this have to do with God somehow protecting the Isrealites rather than slaughtering their opponents?



Again, your emotions run rampant. If you want to throw a tantrum, rather than formulate a coherent response, that's fine. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

No, just rational. The bible is a historical events that, most of which, have been proven for a fact. Again, the phoenician stone, for example. Its not like a coherent response is needed when there is evidence you know.

 

[First Thought]

No, just rational. The bible is a historical events that, most of which, have been proven for a fact. Again, the phoenician stone, for example. Its not like a coherent response is needed when there is evidence you know.

Yeah, like the historical evidence for the Creation, the Exodus, the Flood, the Resurrection... Oh, wait... :roll:

 

[DarkWizard12]

Yeah, like the historical evidence for the Creation, the Exodus, the Flood, the Resurrection... Oh, wait... :roll:

You think those are the ONLY things that happened in the Bible? Are you THAT ignorant? the Bible has very DETAILED record of how the israelites conquered canaan, and guess what, almost all of that is proven correct. Paul's journey in the New Testament is also proven. You think the Bible was written yesterday? What?

 

[First Thought]

You think those are the ONLY things that happened in the Bible? Are you THAT ignorant? the Bible has very DETAILED record of how the israelites conquered canaan, and guess what, almost all of that is proven correct. Paul's journey in the New Testament is also proven. You think the Bible was written yesterday? What?

You failed to prove me wrong about the events listed. If the Bible is such a historical document, why is there no evidence of the Flood or Exodus? Let's try to do it this time without the name calling and whining.

Also, you ignored my comment about God slaughtering the opponents of the Israelites rather than protecting the Israelites from harm, a peaceful solution.

 

[DarkWizard12]

You failed to prove me wrong about the events listed. If the Bible is such a historical document, why is there no evidence of the Flood or Exodus? Let's try to do it this time without the name calling and whining.

No one is whining here. sorry.:2wave:

(see bold) because there doesn't NEED to be. The only arguments that concern the atheist debate on the bible is its reliability as a historical document. for somehting to be classified as "historical" is not up to you and, quite frankly, I'm not sure all those people that study ancient texts would be too happy by you calling them "liars".

you, however, let your ignorance run wild like a pack of wolves on the unseen individual. you deliberatly go out on a limb to say the bible is not a historical document on the only criteria that not ALL of it has been proven yet. If this is the case, then the Iliad, the Odyssey, and shakespeare's plays are not historical documents either.

either way, here is the cold-hard facts of why the Bible is a "historical document".

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?

Also, you ignored my comment about God slaughtering the opponents of the Israelites rather than protecting the Israelites from harm, a peaceful solution.

Because I refuse to debate with you untill you get out of your shell that "the bible is not a historic document. such ignorance cannot be debated, rather, it can only be let loose so that others may see an example.

 

[First Thought]

No one is whining here. sorry.:2wave:

(see bold) because there doesn't NEED to be. The only arguments that concern the atheist debate on the bible is its reliability as a historical document. for somehting to be classified as "historical" is not up to you and, quite frankly, I'm not sure all those people that study ancient texts would be too happy by you calling them "liars".

you, however, let your ignorance run wild like a pack of wolves on the unseen individual. you deliberatly go out on a limb to say the bible is not a historical document on the only criteria that not ALL of it has been proven yet. If this is the case, then the Iliad, the Odyssey, and shakespeare's plays are not historical documents either.

either way, here is the cold-hard facts of why the Bible is a "historical document".

Can we trust the New Testament as a historical document?

So you've no shown that it is sometimes a factual document. Again, this does nothing to strengthen your argument. By your logic, any movie that is based on a true story should be accepted as fact since parts of the film actually occurred.

Because I refuse to debate with you untill you get out of your shell that "the bible is not a historic document. such ignorance cannot be debated, rather, it can only be let loose so that others may see an example.

You can call me ignorant all you want. You have yet to refute my argument. Not that I'm surprised. I'll take this post as admittance of defeat.

:coffeepap

 

[DarkWizard12]

So you've no shown that it is sometimes a factual document. Again, this does nothing to strengthen your argument. By your logic, any movie that is based on a true story should be accepted as fact since parts of the film actually occurred.

So the Iliad is not a historical document?

You can call me ignorant all you want. You have yet to refute my argument. Not that I'm surprised. I'll take this post as admittance of defeat.

:coffeepap

I just did. By all needed criterion, the bible is upheld as a historical document. It was written thousands of years in the past, about thousands of years of history, and more accurately than any other historical document of its kind discovered.

the standard you use to destroy the Bible's claim as a historical document, would render thousands, perhaps millions, of other verified historical documents inaccurate. INCLUDING the United States Declaration of Independence. By the standard you use, you also brand all archaeologists, geologists, and all the other "gists" as liars.

your argument needs no refuting. It has already virtually been refuted.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So you've no shown that it is sometimes a factual document. Again, this does nothing to strengthen your argument. By your logic, any movie that is based on a true story should be accepted as fact since parts of the film actually occurred.

So the Iliad is not a historical document?

You can call me ignorant all you want. You have yet to refute my argument. Not that I'm surprised. I'll take this post as admittance of defeat.

:coffeepap

I just did. By all needed criterion, the bible is upheld as a historical document. It was written thousands of years in the past, about thousands of years of history, and more accurately than any other historical document of its kind discovered.

the standard you use to destroy the Bible's claim as a historical document, would render thousands, perhaps millions, of other verified historical documents inaccurate. INCLUDING the United States Declaration of Independence. By the standard you use, you also brand all archaeologists, geologists, and all the other "gists" as liars.

your argument needs no refuting. It has already virtually been refuted.

 

[First Thought]

So the Iliad is not a historical document?

I just did. By all needed criterion, the bible is upheld as a historical document. It was written thousands of years in the past, about thousands of years of history, and more accurately than any other historical document of its kind discovered.

the standard you use to destroy the Bible's claim as a historical document, would render thousands, perhaps millions, of other verified historical documents inaccurate. INCLUDING the United States Declaration of Independence. By the standard you use, you also brand all archaeologists, geologists, and all the other "gists" as liars.

your argument needs no refuting. It has already virtually been refuted.

Sigh... :sarcasticclap

To anyone who would like to actually answer my question, rather than spend multiple posts calling me names...

Why would God slaughter the Israelites enemies rather than simply protect the Israelites from their attacks?

 

[moe]

Sigh... :sarcasticclap

To anyone who would like to actually answer my question, rather than spend multiple posts calling me names...

Why would God slaughter the Israelites enemies rather than simply protect the Israelites from their attacks?

I know you have heard this ad nauseam but, free will. If you look at how it all began from a scriptural point of view man as a social being did not evolve he devolved.The first taking of another human life was not by Gods hand but by mans hand. God knew what Cain was going to do and God did confront him but he did not stop him

Ge 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. Ge 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth ? and why is thy countenance fallen ?
Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God would not interfere with Cain's free will choice. After the act was committed, God judged and punished Cain but he did not take his life. It was not until after the flood that God established a death penalty for man if he murders another human being. After Cain things went from bad to worse. This is what led to the first destruction involving Noah.

Ge 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

You talked about emotions in another post claiming Gods emotions are human. I counter that mans emotions are like Gods. Considering that we are created in his image why should that surprise us? As much as the church constantly says Gods love Gods patience are limitless that is not really a biblical truth. His patience does have limits. If we go by biblical genealogies we can assume at least 2,000 years of time had passed. But the genealogies were never meant as time keeping devices. But that is a different topic. My point being is the pre flood age could have been thousands of years longer than 2,000 years. This is the first time we see God break out in anger at man. But still rather than interfere with mans free will and making him at worst a mindless slave and at best a loyal dog God would rather destroy him. God did not strike with out warning. God first notified Noah of his intent 120 years before God acted. Noah is the first biblically recorded evangelist. He tried to warn people. They did not believe him.

This sudden violent behavior shows a drastic departure from how God dealt with man previously. It is the beginning of God using his destructive power against man and he has begun establishing laws. The first established law was murder is punishable by death Gen 9:6. From that point forward is all the blood and killing that upsets people today about the God of the OT. But the OT does show that it did not start that way. It was our choice not Gods. After the flood man again began to head his own direction. As time went on idol worship and human sacrifices arise. I remember reading somewhere long ago that there were peaceful peoples living in those days but eventually they were all killed by the warrior tribes that eventually became the early empires.

So God begins to interact as a counter force among all this war and violence. But he has tied his own hands. He can not force his will upon you. You have to discover the evidence and come willingly. This is why God does not just appear and say look this is how it is and this is how it's going to be. There is no real free will in that. You do not come into it by reason or knowledge but by force. Thus the creation of Israel. Israel is Gods Proxy. All these nations believed that their gods gave them strength and power. Israel claimed the same. And with in a relatively short period of time a once rag tag disorganized homeless stateless group of slaves untrained in war conquered the most vicious of the warrior states the Canaanites. The war served two purposes. To show that there was some kind of unusual force to be reckoned with in Israel and as God stated in Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

God has almost always used man as a proxy for his goals. That is because it makes others sit back and think what the heck is going on over there? Even to this day the survival of the Jews is a modern miracle. They should not be here, What ever societies they migrated to during the almost 2000 year Diaspora by all reasons should have assimilated them. There should be no Israel today. In May of 1948 as soon as Israel became a state the Arabs attacked. They are still there. In 1973 the Arabs tried a sneak attack during Yom Kippur. A holy day when Israeli defenses were down and relaxed. It did not work. They are still there. Since the Exodus until this very day the Jews have suffered hard ship and oppression from king after king and regime after regime trying to exterminate them. From the early Philistines to Hitler and Stalin and today's present day on going war with Iran through Iran's proxy terrorist groups. And they are still here. Intact with customs language and culture and today even their own state.

It is my belief the reason they are still here is because God has protected and preserved them.

Moe

 

[Graffight]

Sigh... :sarcasticclap

To anyone who would like to actually answer my question, rather than spend multiple posts calling me names...

Why would God slaughter the Israelites enemies rather than simply protect the Israelites from their attacks?

God wanted it to be known beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was God who did it. If he would have simply protected them they could have said "we got lucky". Something had to happen...something that was so unlikely, and so against the odds that they had no choice but to give God the credit....does that answer your question?

If a bully were to bother you and all i wanted was for the bully to leave you alone then i could go up to the bully and say...leave that dude alone or i'll beat you into oblivion....but what would you know, you may just think, hey that bully got tired of picking on me, you may even venture to think...maybe i scared him off...BUT....if i was to wait until the bully was picking on you and gave you some super sterroid i know how to fight really good potion right before and you beat him up, you would have no choice but to think...I gave you the potion and it's because of me that you were able to win the fight...

 

[scourge99]

This appears to be less of a definition of diversity but rather more of a human shield strategy. Thus nobody can make really make claims against atheists because "atheists may or may not believe that nothing produces something." Very convenient.

You mistakenly think atheism says WHY there is a disbelief. Please educate yourself. I can't spoon feed the basics to you.

Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists; Answers to Questions & Mistakes

But still is it not true that most people who hold to a "disbelief in God or gods" hold that to be true because they do not believe in creation but rather a process of natural occurrences [Random Chance] even though they may say" we do not know?

WRONG. Stop thinking atheism is the opposite to Christianity or some other religion or group of religions. Atheism is the opposite of theism.

If I say someone is a theist I don't presume that "Oh you must believe in God because Jesus died on the cross". Why? Because being a theist ONLY means you believe in God(s). NOTHING ELSE!

If you can't understand this simple concept then I'm through debating you.

Correct. We are not absolutely sure, BUT if we were forced to make a decision, IE to have a belief, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no god because there is zero evidence for such a being.

Would such people truly in their heart of hearts believe that what "we do not know" may be a product of creation? Or would it be more correct to assume that though they "do not know", the one thing they do know for sure is that God is not responsible. Truth is Christianity is much more diversified than atheism. So every time we see an atheist post " You Christians believe" we should jump up and say Straw Man! And you can not say Ahhhh but ALL Christians believe God did it because there are actually Christians who do not believe in God. They believe that Jesus was not holy or divine or from God but rather that he was another great teacher such as Buddha or Confucius and they do consider themselves Christians.

Was there a point to this? I can't make sense of this at all? How does it address what you quoted from me in the slightest?

Correct. We are not absolutely sure, BUT if we were forced to make a decision, IE to have a belief, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no god because there is zero evidence for such a being.

I agree. The Bible does not teach that there is a God but rather later in time he became God. In the beginning before the fall in the garden there were no churches temples doctrines etc. Man and God communed and walked together as friends. The bible teaches that man drifted away from what we today call God and began worshiping nature. In so doing man basically devolved. The being we call God reached out to certain individuals in the past. In fact concerning Abraham the Bible states that the relationship was not one of worshiper and God but a relationship based on friendship.

Isa 41:8 But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

The same is said concerning Moses.

Ex 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.

Jesus said to his disciples.

Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Jesus also said,

Joh 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

They did not even realize who he truly was. They walked with him in friendship. They learned from him, shared food with him shared times good and hard with him and not once did he command them to bow and worship him nor did he teach them religious rites and rituals.

But he did teach, To respect the creator not the created. unselfish responsibility to self and society, obedience to law, etc, He actually condemned religion because of the hypocrisy involved. The Mosaic Law and Jewish religion are one and the same.

Joh 8:17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.

Notice he does not claim it as his or our law but your law.
As far as what Jesus taught as religion James the brother of Jesus sums it up rather well,

Jas 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's RELIGION is vain.
Jas 1:27 Pure RELIGION and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction

Nothing about building temples churches altars bowing down bending over crawling naked through a mile of broken glass.

I don't see how any of this addresses what you quoted from me. red herring?

Examples of this overwhelming evidence?

I must correct myself. There is no overwhelming evidence of the nonexistence of God. That is, there is no positive evidence against the existence of God. There simply isn't ANY evidence for him. Thus this suggests that God does not exist or we simply haven't found evidence for him yet. The same goes for unicorns and leprechauns.

Where the evidence ends faith begins.

Thought-terminating cliché - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is as true in science as it is in religion. You start with a hypothesis that you believe to be true. That is faith. You gather evidence and find enough to support your hypothesis, After you feel you have properly tested your hypothesis you now believe your peers will accept your results. Do you know they will? No. You have faith that the results of your research will prove itself causing your peers to have faith in it also. It is accepted by your peers and it is very popular. There is now a communal faith in you and your work.
Somebody else develops a competing hypothesis. It is better supported and proves your work wrong. All your peers lose faith in your work and jump over to the new knowledge. It is unusual for science to completely discard a theory. Generally older theories are absorbed into newer theories until as time passes the older theory in is no longer distinguishable thus dying a quite dignified death.

But some are just cast aside because there is no longer any evidence for them

WikiAnswers - What scientific laws or theories have been proven wrong

You, like many others, have a terrible misunderstanding of the scientific method and what a theory, hypothesis, law, and principle actually is. There is no "faith" in science. Sorry.

 

[moe]

You mistakenly think atheism says WHY there is a disbelief. Please educate yourself. I can't spoon feed the basics to you.

Atheism 101: Introduction to Atheism & Atheists; Answers to Questions & Mistakes

I think you are misunderstanding what I meant. Lets see if we can get a common ground here. This is your original statement.

1) Atheists do not have any unified beliefs except a disbelief in God. Thus atheists may or may not believe that nothing produces something.

That was in reply to my statement.

atheists take the position of nothing produces everything claiming "scientific support" for their position when in truth it really just a PROPOSED UNSUPPORTED hypothesis?

From your statement I see atheists are unified in one belief. A disbelief in God. My question to you to help clear this up is, and I am asking you and not atheists as a group, If the universe is not the product of Intelligent Design then do you believe it came to being through a series of as yet unexplainable natural process's ?

WRONG. Stop thinking atheism is the opposite to Christianity or some other religion or group of religions. Atheism is the opposite of theism.

If I say someone is a theist I don't presume that "Oh you must believe in God because Jesus died on the cross". Why? Because being a theist ONLY means you believe in God(s). NOTHING ELSE!

I am sorry but this statement makes no sense to me. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity or some other religion or group of religions, Atheism is the opposite of theistic beliefs and yet Christianity is a theistic belief as is these other religions you mention. I do understand that Theism is all encompassing, Any belief including Hinduism etc. To me, It would be more proper to define your position as " Not only is Atheism the opposite of Christianity we are the opposite of any other belief system that has any God or gods as it's foundation.

It seems that your main intentions in this thread are defending atheism in the sense of understanding what atheism really is as whole. Am I correct in that? If so then that may be where we are having problems communicating. But even at that may be you can explain something from your link. And I am not being critical. It is just the below statement is another statement that appears to really make little sense.

There are a lot of misunderstandings about who atheists are, what they believe, and what they don’t believe. People become atheists for many different reasons. Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism, it’s a consequence of what one knows and how one reasons. Atheists are not all angry, they aren’t in denial about gods, and they aren’t atheists to avoid taking responsibility for their acts. It’s not necessary to be afraid of hell and there are advantages to being an atheist.

You do not chose to be an atheist? You are not willfully an atheist? If two people have the same body of evidence and after examining one person believes it has substance and is true and the other person believes it has no substance and is not true then how is it the one who rejects the evidence had no free will choice and the one who accepts did?

If at a future time person one after more reflection and personal experience decides they were originally mistaken concerning the evidence and now rejects it and person two also after more reflection and experience decides the opposite and now accepts it then how is it that one of these people has no choice or will?????

Was there a point to this? I can't make sense of this at all? How does it address what you quoted from me in the slightest?

You state that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no God [later modified]. My point is the atheist holds that at least as far as Christians are concerned God did it. Why does not the belief in natural process doing what is still not explained also equal to Nature did it? Basically, if God in the creative sense had part in any of it then he has a part in all of it.
Even what we do not yet know.

If the reverse is true. There is no God and if natural process is responsible for any of it then natural process is responsible for all of it. Even what we do not yet know. So when you say we do not know, you still believe that it is the result of an as yet unknown natural process. You just do yet understand the mechanics involved in that process.

I don't see how any of this addresses what you quoted from me. red herring?

You claim the evidence shows there is no God. I agree. And I showed you why I agree using the bible to show it does not really teach there is a God either.
What it does teach is that there is an infinitely superior intelligent being that is responsible for all we see and all we know and that being is concerned in our affairs.

As would be expected of any high form of intelligence, It has established rules concerning it's own involvement as to how it can and will deal with the beings it created in the process of guiding those beings to a discovery of himself.

I must correct myself. There is no overwhelming evidence of the nonexistence of God. That is, there is no positive evidence against the existence of God. There simply isn't ANY evidence for him. Thus this suggests that God does not exist or we simply haven't found evidence for him yet. The same goes for unicorns and leprechauns.

That's alright. You are entitled to that belief. But where you see natural process others see something different. Including some scientists. Like you believe I do not know what an atheist is also I believe you do not really know what Intelligent design is. In fact there are atheists, very few agreed, that also support intelligent design.

An atheist in support of ID | Overwhelming Evidence

The discovery of an uber mind behind all of creation would not prove any religion nor would it prove the bible true. Nor life after death or any such thing. It would only prove that the universe was designed, No more no less. The only reasons Theists jump on board such thinking is because they believe it will give their own belief systems more traction.

Thought-terminating cliché - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You, like many others, have a terrible misunderstanding of the scientific method and what a theory, hypothesis, law, and principle actually is. There is no "faith" in science. Sorry.

You are talking about science as a field. I am talking about the individual scientist who work in the field, The human factor. Because with out the human factor there would be no science. Will you categorically deny that no scientist has faith in their work? No faith in their yet unproved ideas? Faith that even after years of failures that further testing will not someday prove their results.

Cancer research? Aids Research? How many years and how many failures? What do you think pushes them on? Skepticism? If the Wright brothers did not have faith in their design at Kitty Hawk we would all be riding busses.

I may be wrong but it seems that any time that faith is mentioned you automatically assume religious faith. There is more than one kind of faith. But only one definition.

the evidence of things not seen.

Moe

 

[scourge99]

From your statement I see atheists are unified in one belief. A disbelief in God. My question to you to help clear this up is, and I am asking you and not atheists as a group, If the universe is not the product of Intelligent Design then do you believe it came to being through a series of as yet unexplainable natural process's ?

That would be my best guess. The problem is you are asking me something I just don't know. If I brought you a box and said " I know you don't know whats in the box but I want you to tell me whats in here" how would you reply?

I am sorry but this statement makes no sense to me. Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity or some other religion or group of religions, Atheism is the opposite of theistic beliefs and yet Christianity is a theistic belief as is these other religions you mention. I do understand that Theism is all encompassing, Any belief including Hinduism etc. To me, It would be more proper to define your position as " Not only is Atheism the opposite of Christianity we are the opposite of any other belief system that has any God or gods as it's foundation.

That is what I was saying. People such as yourself like to attribute characteristics to atheists that just don't make sense with the definition of atheism. People like to say "Atheists believe that God doesn't exist because of X". That is just silly because its like saying "all theists believe in God because of Y". In other words, not all atheists disbelieve in God(s) for the same reason likewise not all theists believe in God for the same reason.

It seems that your main intentions in this thread are defending atheism in the sense of understanding what atheism really is as whole. Am I correct in that? If so then that may be where we are having problems communicating. But even at that may be you can explain something from your link. And I am not being critical. It is just the below statement is another statement that appears to really make little sense.

I see nothing wrong with that other than it presumes that atheism and theism are arrived to by reason and personal knowledge. I suppose there may a few cases where this isn't true like the insane but for the most part its pretty solid explanation.

You do not chose to be an atheist? You are not willfully an atheist? If two people have the same body of evidence and after examining one person believes it has substance and is true and the other person believes it has no substance and is not true then how is it the one who rejects the evidence had no free will choice and the one who accepts did?

If at a future time person one after more reflection and personal experience decides they were originally mistaken concerning the evidence and now rejects it and person two also after more reflection and experience decides the opposite and now accepts it then how is it that one of these people has no choice or will?????

Wat that statement is saying is that atheists, like theists arrive at their beliefs because of their reasoning and knowledge. "Reasoning" and "knowledge" are pretty vague terms to use. Don't over think it. Read it again with those words used in a broad sense and you'll see its not really saying anything profound.

You state that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that there is no God [later modified]. My point is the atheist holds that at least as far as Christians are concerned God did it. Why does not the belief in natural process doing what is still not explained also equal to Nature did it?

Who presumes to know what or how things we don't know work? Based on what we know now it would be a safe bet to say its natural just like everything else we know. If it turns out that God did do something then I would instantly change my beliefs. As of now I see no reason to.

If the reverse is true. There is no God and if natural process is responsible for any of it then natural process is responsible for all of it. Even what we do not yet know. So when you say we do not know, you still believe that it is the result of an as yet unknown natural process. You just do yet understand the mechanics involved in that process.

I don't know what type of process it is"natural" or "unnatural". I can't have knowledge of things I don't know.

You claim the evidence shows there is no God. I agree. And I showed you why I agree using the bible to show it does not really teach there is a God either.
What it does teach is that there is an infinitely superior intelligent being that is responsible for all we see and all we know and that being is concerned in our affairs.

As would be expected of any high form of intelligence, It has established rules concerning it's own involvement as to how it can and will deal with the beings it created in the process of guiding those beings to a discovery of himself.

Well feel free to believe what you want. I see no reason (evidence) to.

That's alright. You are entitled to that belief. But where you see natural process others see something different. Including some scientists. Like you believe I do not know what an atheist is also I believe you do not really know what Intelligent design is. In fact there are atheists, very few agreed, that also support intelligent design.

An atheist in support of ID | Overwhelming Evidence

The discovery of an uber mind behind all of creation would not prove any religion nor would it prove the bible true. Nor life after death or any such thing. It would only prove that the universe was designed, No more no less. The only reasons Theists jump on board such thinking is because they believe it will give their own belief systems more traction.

ID isn't science. What is ID's hypothesis and how would one test it? Can't test it then its not science.

You are talking about science as a field. I am talking about the individual scientist who work in the field, The human factor. Because with out the human factor there would be no science. Will you categorically deny that no scientist has faith in their work? No faith in their yet unproved ideas? Faith that even after years of failures that further testing will not someday prove their results.

Cancer research? Aids Research? How many years and how many failures? What do you think pushes them on? Skepticism? If the Wright brothers did not have faith in their design at Kitty Hawk we would all be riding busses.

I may be wrong but it seems that any time that faith is mentioned you automatically assume religious faith. There is more than one kind of faith. But only one definition.

the evidence of things not seen.

Moe

This is the typical strategy of many who don't understand what science is. They want to equate hypotheses and theories to "faith".:roll: