- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:29 pm to GRTiger
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:29 pm to GRTiger
quote:
That's like if I asked why you voted for Kamala and you said "because I hate Trump."
It's actually not like that at all.
It's like saying that Trump has this one really good policy that I like and that all the people who have tried to convince me to vote Kamala have failed to convince me she is worth my vote.
quote:
What are you not taking on faith to believe in spontaneous life from gasses?
It's my best guess at explaining the existence of life, it's not something I claim to know for sure or accept as truth. No faith required. It's just a "hrm, that seems most likely based on what I know right now".
1
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is as irrelevant as Dawkins' chosen self-identification. If, as I suspect he is, Dawkins is founding his holdings solely upon what would be ascribed as falsifiable assertions, he is by definition agnostic. If however, he goes beyond that, and makes positive assertions that there is no God, he would rate as an atheist, and that would speak to faith, not science.
You're back to making mere assertions about definitions.
You're free to use words however you want. Unfortunately for you, though, you're in an extreme minority. Dawkins et all are considered by society as being atheists, and, in the spirit/intent of language, I am going to use their verbage/terms to cut down on confusion.
You're more than welcome to dig your heels in and keep muddying the water/derailing conversations with your atypical definitions though.
Also, as a parting post.
A=without
Theism=belief in god
Atheism = without belief in god.
Notice that's "without belief in god" not "belief there is no god".
Have a nice day.
This post was edited on 2/21/26 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:33 pm to Azkiger
quote:
It's my best guess
How did you get there? How does one hear "there was nothing, then there were gasses, then yada yada, intelligent life" and think yea that sounds right?
I hope you answer honestly isntead of harping on my simplification of it. I honestly have tried but nothing makes sense except magic and God.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:34 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
I'm not sure how reliable someone's critical thinking abilities are if they still believe complex life was birthed from a single cell organism in a primordial soup somewhere on earth 4 billion years ago.
Yep. Intelligent design is the only intelligent explanation.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:36 pm to GRTiger
quote:
How did you get there?
I've explained. Lots of planets and time, and I don't find arguments for God all that believable.
So, if I were to rank order likeliness, and just focus on naturalism and Christianity, I'm going to rank abiogenesis above Christianity.
There doesn't mean that I'm sure that abiogenesis occurred. It just means I find it to be more likely than the Christian explanation.
Many atheists have a similar thought process, especially the "famous" ones.
So, where is the "faith" in any of that?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:37 pm to Azkiger
quote:
So, where is the "faith" in any of that?
This is literally you describing a belief:
quote:
I find it to be more likely than the Christian explanation.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:39 pm to Azkiger
quote:
So, where is the "faith" in any of that?
There is no faith required with agnostics, which is what you're describing. I'm speaking to atheism, which is a firm belief that there is no God.
Atheists necessarily have as much faith in their opinions as theists have in theirs, from your point of view.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:41 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This is literally you describing a belief:
Nope.
You might as well be arguing that a jury that votes not guilty is voting that the person is innocent.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:42 pm to GRTiger
quote:
I'm speaking to atheism, which is a firm belief that there is no God.
That's not atheism, though.
Society disagrees, the root words disagree.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:44 pm to Azkiger
What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:52 pm to Azkiger
Fair. You said society disagrees with the colloquial definitions of the two, though. I can't get onboard with that, going back to my commoners take. I would bet you a lot of money if we polled a million people, the vast majority would say what I'm saying they would.
Are there any examples of abiogenesis we can observe? Beyond the main one.
Eta
The author of that started thinking like you 4 years ago, btw. When did you?
Are there any examples of abiogenesis we can observe? Beyond the main one.
Eta
quote:
Let me walk through what I’ve come to understand
The author of that started thinking like you 4 years ago, btw. When did you?
This post was edited on 2/21/26 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:54 pm to Azkiger
quote:I addressed "their verbiage/terms" earlier, at least in terms of Hitchens. You're certainly free to disregard his considered ascription and attach your own if it makes you feel better.
in the spirit/intent of language, I am going to use their verbage/terms
Posted on 2/21/26 at 3:55 pm to Azkiger
quote:Of course it is!
atheism, which is a firm belief that there is no God.
That's not atheism, though.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:01 pm to GRTiger
quote:
The author of that started thinking like you 4 years ago, btw. When did you?
On this specific distinction?
I'd say about 15-20 years ago. I couldn't tell you where I read it, but I suspect it was either from Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, or Dennett as those were the only atheist authors I read.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:17 pm to GRTiger
quote:Actually, no it isn't.
Fair.
We are addressing a binary question.
Factually, we know the answer is one or the other.
Affirmatively eliminating one of the two choices is, by definition, a choice in and of itself.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:29 pm to NC_Tigah
Invoking etymology is fair imo. Doesn't mean much in context, but I acknowledge the technical accuracy.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:32 pm to GRTiger
quote:As do I. That is the point.
I acknowledge the technical accuracy.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:34 pm to NC_Tigah
I don't think we are apart here. We just came at it from different angles.
Posted on 2/21/26 at 4:43 pm to FooManChoo
quote:That’s a fair distinction, and I don’t disagree that if God exists and intervenes, that wouldn’t automatically be something science could detect or fully comprehend. Science operates within the natural world by design. That’s a methodological boundary, not necessarily a metaphysical claim.
And here is the problem. If God exists (I believe He does) and He has intervened in the natural world (I believe He has), then that is not something we can identify and comprehend scientifically. And yet it would still be true.
Science is limited to the natural world, which is why those who make science their god typically reject claims of supernaturalism. They also typically only function within the philosophical framework of materialism and the epistemological framework of empiricism.
At the end of the day, they potentially reject the truth (and I believe they actually do) because of the type of evidence they accept in their worldview.
Where I’d gently push back is this: evolutionary biology doesn’t require philosophical materialism to function. It simply studies observable mechanisms of biological change. It doesn’t make a claim about whether God exists. It asks how populations change over time given the mechanisms we can measure.
If someone believes God ultimately grounds or sustains those processes, that’s a theological interpretation layered on top of the biology. It doesn’t negate the genetic evidence, fossil record, or observed mutation rates. It just assigns ultimate causation differently.
So my point isn’t to rule out the supernatural. It’s to clarify that evolutionary theory, as a scientific model, explains biological change using testable mechanisms. Questions about divine intervention are philosophical or theological. They’re not refutations of the biological framework itself.
Page 14 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News