What are an atheist's assumptions?

[Mystic_Banana]

True. I try to keep mine open and upfront. I’m engaged in a search for ideas about the cause of those things which exist, and if those causes include an intelligent entity, its motivations. I’m writing a book which expresses my own ideas on the subject, to which a couple of CAF members have already supported with their forthright criticism.

In the process I’ve learned much about how people think, or evade thought. Thanks to the excellent CAF moderators, I’m learning to express my ideas appropriately, or not at all.

Ultimately, my agenda is that the people on this planet quit squabbling about which religion is right, or if there is a God or not, and figure out the truth of the matter. There is a reality, or truth, or whatever one chooses to label it. Our job is to find it, and despite the assertions of religious people and atheists, it is within our grasp. I believe that if my ideas, or even better ideas which integrate the idea of a Creator with physical science, were widely adopted, science and religion would be working together for the development of the human mind and elevation of the human spirit.

This is a pretty stupid and pointless agenda, since I’ve already learned that believers just want to believe whatever they’ve decided upon, whether they be religionists or atheists. But there are some first-rate minds who show up on this channel, and I appreciate the opportunity to exchange ideas with them.

I’m fairly Cartesian/Fortean in this respect. I understand this, of course, reflects not wholly positively on the Church (especially the Forteanism element), but I find precious little outside it that doesn’t end up, in teh end, bowing down to materialism

If you’ve worked in science, you’d have more reasons to be skeptical of various scientific opinions. You would not be inspired by the amount of invented material.

Science is strongly dependent upon faith, but most of these beliefs are not known to the non-scientist. For example, there is the belief that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, and at all times. (Except,of course, during the Big Bang.)

There is the belief that the velocity of light is the same everywhere in the universe, and has been the same even in the past (except in the aftermath of the Big Bang).

First rate scientists are aware of these elements of their faith. (It is from such men that I learned them, since beliefs do not overtly appear in textbooks.)

Comparing the ideas about the beginnings of things, it would seem that fine Christian minds have proven that the universe must have been the creation of an extraordinarily intelligent entity. When given their turn, brilliant atheistic minds have shown that belief in God is illogical. In effect, both sides have proven one another to be wrong.

Why not believe them both, accept their excellent work with gratitude, admit that both atheism and current religions have failed to adequately explain the reasons for existence, and then, freed of beliefs which once showed promise, discover a set of ideas which correctly explain the nature and purpose of man and of everything else?

Let us find a concept of God which is consistent with the understandings and facts our sciences have discovered, and with a purpose sufficient to make sense of the existence of human beings. That’s my agenda.

I apologize for having been sucked into an irrelevant topic and wasting valuable words discussing it. The hour was late and I must have been tired. And I sure hope that you don’t find a mid-day postmark on the relevant post.

And, if the answer is appropriate to this thread, what is your agenda?

When I read the Bible, I turned agnostic, essentially, and looked to science. When I started reading up on science, I found assumption piled on positivism, on assumption (etc.) - and realised this is not the way I had been taught to understand it - all my life. The extent to which Science obfuscates these elements, and uses the false pretense of objectivism as a weapon against all other belief systems, appalls me.

Once this ‘revelation’ hit me, I re-read the Bible, with my skepticism turned against those who ultimately turned me skeptic (not least that good old proto-Nazi Lovecraft)… and found it somewhat less wanting than previously.

In the battle of dogmas, I find the materialistic/scientismic faith the most dangerous, for it does not realises itself as such, and gains authority from this unrecognised faith in itself. The blindest, most oppressive, least rational faith of all is one that does not realise or admit it is one!

I suppose, to expose and oppose the delusions of scientism is my primary goal, on most of my contributions :knight2:

 

[greylorn]

I’m fairly Cartesian/Fortean in this respect. I understand this, of course, reflects not wholly positively on the Church (especially the Forteanism element), but I find precious little outside it that doesn’t end up, in teh end, bowing down to materialism

The Church of today is clearly not the same organization which might have unappreciated Charles Fort in his day. Remember, the Church formally apologized to Galileo just 17 years ago. Not that it did him any good, but it was good for the Church. I don’t know that the Church has formally commented on the writings of Charles Fort, so am inclined to give It the benefit of positive doubt, that It would declare them “interesting.”

Descartes is another beast entirely. You could hardly have chosen a richer contrast.

His ideas about mind-body dualism, plus his connection with math and physics, inspired me to investigate the relationship between religion and science and devise a unique resolution of their centuries old conflict, which proponents of both sides have decided pretty much stinks.

I’ve never checked out the Church’s position on Cartesian Dualism, and my old impression that the Church never fully understood it was reinforced by a quick Google search. The most interesting hit to my query came from, of all places, the CAF, a year old but still current thread titled, Rene Descartes: Mind-Body Dualism

By the time I discovered this thread it appeared to have been taken over by dogmatists, and offered little of interest, so I stayed off despite temptations.

When I read the Bible, I turned agnostic, essentially, and looked to science. When I started reading up on science, I found assumption piled on positivism, on assumption (etc.) - and realised this is not the way I had been taught to understand it - all my life. The extent to which Science obfuscates these elements, and uses the false pretense of objectivism as a weapon against all other belief systems, appalls me.

Once this ‘revelation’ hit me, I re-read the Bible, with my skepticism turned against those who ultimately turned me skeptic (not least that good old proto-Nazi Lovecraft)… and found it somewhat less wanting than previously.

In the battle of dogmas, I find the materialistic/scientismic faith the most dangerous, for it does not realises itself as such, and gains authority from this unrecognised faith in itself. The blindest, most oppressive, least rational faith of all is one that does not realise or admit it is one!

I suppose, to expose and oppose the delusions of scientism is my primary goal, on most of my contributions :knight2:

This seems a worthy enough goal, although limited.

Not a formal philosopher, I did not know what “scientism” meant until you described it here. I agree with you that it is bad news. I’ve complained about it and used to argue it with scientific co-workers, without ever giving that general approach a formal name. Do you mind if I paraphrase your elucidation for my book without attributing it to “mystic banana”?

Nice that you’ve recognized the “battle of dogmas.”

Years ago I attended a formal debate between Creationists and Darwinists, in the packed auditorium of a Catholic Church. Each team of debaters, populated by bright and opinionated Ph.d’s, successfully proved the other side to be wrong.

During the ensuing Q & A, someone pointed this simple fact out, and suggested that we all proceed to find some alternatives which actually made sense. Imagine the response.

While your desire to prove scientism wrong is admirable (because it is wrong) you will not succeed. You must prove that, in the matter of fundamental ideas about the beginnings of things, science itself is wrong. Unfortunately, you cannot successfully do this within an environment in which religious ideas have negligible credibility to science’s camp followers. That is because some aspects of science, notably physics, chemistry, and biochemistry have established a high level of credibility by putting ideas into successful practice, and other fields of study with dubious value have learned to ride their coat-tails by the simple expedient of declaring themselves to be a science.

If you are successful in disproving scientism, what do you gain?

Proving that a widely accepted idea is wrong does not create a desire on the part of its proponents to find a better idea. At best, they will ignore you. If you don’t believe me, try out your ideas in a major university and try to get tenure. If you need to know the penalty for thinking correctly, go teach in Islamabad.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I don’t know that the Church has formally commented on the writings of Charles Fort, so am inclined to give It the benefit of positive doubt, that It would declare them “interesting.”

Funnily enough, given their tendency to go for fairly Fortean criticisms of Evolutionism, Young-Earth Creationists are probably bigger fans! Of course, they presumably ignore his similiar criticisms of theologic dogmatism, which would also put Fort out of favour with the Catholic Church, if they examined his writings. I’d say Fort probably wouldn’t be so popular with them

But, who knows?

Descartes is another beast entirely. You could hardly have chosen a richer contrast…

I think Carteesian thought was reasonably popular with the Catholic Church, and he was
accused of heresy, which at the time was dished out far more readily than today… I think he was accused of such by a Protestant denomination, however

It’s the idea of his universal doubt I quite like - which is similar to Forteanism. He ultimately invents the Scientific Method, only to denounce it’s ultimate efficacy…

Then again, this is just his discourse on method. I’ve read the meditations, and find it somewhat more wanting - the Ontological proof of God, for example, was always weaker than the Cosmological and teleological, as far as I’m concerned

This seems a worthy enough goal, although limited.

Not a formal philosopher, I did not know what “scientism” meant until you described it here. I agree with you that it is bad news. I’ve complained about it and used to argue it with scientific co-workers, without ever giving that general approach a formal name. Do you mind if I paraphrase your elucidation for my book without attributing it to “mystic banana”?

Oh go on, attribute it to me, by my pseudonym! You know you want to… lamenting over my embarrassingly supercilious nom-de-plume, perhaps…

While your desire to prove scientism wrong is admirable (because it is wrong) you will not succeed.

I will succeed, indeed, on a rational basis, I think I already have, as have many - but I find that those who subscribe to Scientism are as blindly dogmatic as any other fundamentalist. And, in the West, this is a startlingly large number of people, to some degree or other. As I think we’ve agreed on, Science simply doesn’t know half of what it thinks it does, but people have such faith in it because of what it does appear to know, and of the fruit of scientific investigation (mixed in benefits as they often are) that it is easy for them, I think, to assume the woolier areas of orthodox science are simply ‘in need of fine tuning’ rather than wholly theoretical, and potentially completely wrong

If you are successful in disproving scientism, what do you gain?.

I know - I see a danger that those who subscribe to “the God delusion” as it’s assume to be, may already be conceived of as modern heretics! I think I already have disproved the efficacy of Scientism - I think Fort did it 100 years ago, or whatever, and Descartes before him did so (perhaps against his greater wishes) while inventing modern scientific method in the first place! The strength of Scientism, perhaps moreso than any other religion, is that it allows complete revision, even of those doctrines it would previously argue are irrefutable fact.

The biggest example of this recently has been regarding environmentalism. For years, orthodox science rejected the claims of environmentalists as being those of heretical wacko’s. The Earth was held to be becoming colder, not warmer. The rainforests were held to provide sufficient oxygen all by themselves, pollution was held to be absorbable without difficulty… population growth was even considered to be less than entirely problematic, through the use of synthetic foods now regarded with suspicion. The incredible fait accompli of scientism is to take the position of it’s opponents, make it their own in the popular imagination, blame religion for it (as Hitchens does), where the greatest error religions ever managed in this area is to believe mainstream science knew what the hell it was talking about in the first place!

It’s all down to the marketing. I saw a thrilling clip of Charlie Brooker recently dismssing those who believe in religion as as being “Sheeple” who accept recieved information about fairy stories without question. If only he’d be made to look at his own faith in the same light, the bigoted Dawkinist may realise he’s guilty of no less… but who’s going to make him do that in the current climate? I can try… but I have no power and influence. But I like to think my contributions here may work towards the suspicion in such dogmas that have effectively limited the power of scientism before, and will hopefully do so again

Science lends itself to Scientism, and even those who are religious are bound to tend towards it, I think, at least in their own areas of study - such faith stengthens the faith in likelihood of success. But it is this faith in itself which leads science to scientism, to periodic (occasionally catastrophic) error - science should be more cautious, and a removal of such implaccable faith would encourage that - to the benefit of us all, I should think

Often, I feel as if I am fighting Science as a whole, but that’s not true. It’s this assumption, incaution and dogma of scientism which is distorting and endangering the objectivity of science I oppose - but it’s hard to differentiate the 2, for others, as I argue, and sometimes even for myself! These things promote strong emotions…

 

[NAMO]

An atheist simply does not believe in god because he finds no answers to his problems.

 

[tonyrey]

An atheist simply does not believe in god because he finds no answers to his problems.

Which problems?

 

[greylorn]

Which problems?

Tonyrey,
Do you really care? Forgive me if this comment offends you, but I would expect a mind of your quality to engage this conversation at a more interesting level.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey,
Do you really care?

If I didn’t care I wouldn’t bother to respond…

.Forgive me if this comment offends you, but I would expect a mind of your quality to engage this conversation at a more interesting level.

Why should I be offended? I simply think you’re being unrealistic. If you’re confronted out of the blue with a question by a newcomer on the forum aren’t you entitled to ask for clarification? How would you answer that question?

 

[Oreoracle]

An atheist simply does not believe in god because he finds no answers to his problems.

Actually, I’m going to side with Tony for once. It would be beneficial to know which problems you’re talking about. If you mean that saying “God did it” isn’t a satisfactory answer to the “big questions” then I agree. God, as he is defined, truly doesn’t answer any of our questions, and therefore is a superfluous entity.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Actually, I’m going to side with Tony for once. It would be beneficial to know which problems you’re talking about. If you mean that saying “God did it” isn’t a satisfactory answer to the “big questions” then I agree. God, as he is defined, truly doesn’t answer any of our questions, and therefore is a superfluous entity.

Talk about ambiguity! I thought he meant about “why doesn’t God make life what we want it to be - even when we ask him to”

Isn’t satisfactory for some, I’d say - obviously, yourself included. I’d say, in a number of different ways, God answers questions left right and centre, and atheists are often those who don’t like any of the answers

 

[Oreoracle]

Talk about ambiguity! I thought he meant about “why doesn’t God make life what we want it to be - even when we ask him to”

That’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The typical “well, we wouldn’t have free will” answer fails for several reasons, but I won’t elaborate here.

Isn’t satisfactory for some, I’d say - obviously, yourself included. I’d say, in a number of different ways, God answers questions left right and centre, and atheists are often those who don’t like any of the answers

I’m talking about the big questions. Like so:

Atheist: “I don’t know how the universe began. Do you?”

Theist: “Sure! I have faith, after all.”

Atheist: “Let’s hear it, then.”

Theist: “Well, God created everything. He has a purpose for his creations, too. This purpose would be obvious, but man has taken every sinful opportunity to obscure it.”

Atheist: “Okay, so how did he create everything if there was nothing to create with from the start?”

Theist: “Oh silly, God created everything ex nihilo. He doesn’t need materials to create, even though us mortals do.”

Atheist: “Err…that idea sort of goes against everything we’ve experienced as a race throughout history. At the very least, it goes against everything I’ve seen. How did God create something with nothing?”

Theist: “Don’t you have faith? Do you think that I’m wrong because my answer explains nothing? You must be a naturalist/materialist/physicalist!! Admit it!”

And that, my friend, is how the typical theist answers just one of the big questions. Satisfactory? Not a bit.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Years ago I attended a formal debate between Creationists and Darwinists, in the packed auditorium of a Catholic Church. Each team of debaters, populated by bright and opinionated Ph.d’s, successfully proved the other side to be wrong.

Genius! And altogether unsurprising, really. Is there an online record of it? Or have you a reference I can explore?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

That’s a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The typical “well, we wouldn’t have free will” answer fails for several reasons, but I won’t elaborate here.

I’m talking about the big questions. Like so:

Atheist: “I don’t know how the universe began. Do you?”

Theist: “Sure! I have faith, after all.”

Atheist: “Let’s hear it, then.”

Theist: “Well, God created everything. He has a purpose for his creations, too. This purpose would be obvious, but man has taken every sinful opportunity to obscure it.”

Atheist: “Okay, so how did he create everything if there was nothing to create with from the start?”

Theist: “Oh silly, God created everything ex nihilo. He doesn’t need materials to create, even though us mortals do.”

Atheist: “Err…that idea sort of goes against everything we’ve experienced as a race throughout history. At the very least, it goes against everything I’ve seen. How did God create something with nothing?”

Theist: “Don’t you have faith? Do you think that I’m wrong because my answer explains nothing? You must be a naturalist/materialist/physicalist!! Admit it!”

And that, my friend, is how the typical theist answers just one of the big questions. Satisfactory? Not a bit.

Like your stereotypical thicko theist arguing against the cool, calm logician of an atheist every atheist supremacist likes to think they are, but very rarely is, in my experience - shows you possess a bit of self-righteous bigotry - nice!

About as satisfactory as any other explanation I’ve ever heard - what came first? It’s what it all boils down to.

Anyway, most atheists, in my experience, do have faith - in the power of science, and only science, to explain all. If only it could… for real!

 

[greylorn]

If I didn’t care I wouldn’t bother to respond…Why should I be offended? I simply think you’re being unrealistic. If you’re confronted out of the blue with a question by a newcomer on the forum aren’t you entitled to ask for clarification? How would you answer that question?

There was no question, just a statement.

I answered it like I answer an “Eat at Bennie’s” sign, by ignoring it.

Of course you are entitled to do the same, or to pretend that there was a question and that it was worthy of your reply, and create one.

I’m simply, but genuinely curious as to why a simplistic statement got your attention, knowing your abilities. I’m trying to figure out how people think, and why they turn their minds one way rather than another which often seems to me better suited to their qualifications. Clearly, the matter is more a function of disposition than qualification. .

I apologize in advance for an off-topic reply.

 

[greylorn]

Genius! And altogether unsurprising, really. Is there an online record of it? Or have you a reference I can explore?

None that I would know how to obtain w/o considerable effort. It occurred at a Catholic Church in Tucson Arizona well over 20 years ago. The Univ. of Arizona provided the Darwinists, opposed by three of equal weight from (if memory serves me correctly) the Institute for Creation Research. I presume that they made a tape.

If interested in this kind of material, may I recommend that you find a copy of an old but interesting symposium held at the U. of Pennsylvania way back in 1966. Here’s a link.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/20hist12.htm.

What was particularly remarkable about this symposium was its published form, which was printed without significant edits. It contained a lot of plain talk. Its participants were biologists, and pitted against them were mathematicians, physicists, and engineers, so the “plain talk” was at a high level. Good engineers and their like all have a fine, if sometimes quirky, sense of humor, which makes the paper as entertaining as it was elucidating.

I do not know how to obtain a copy of these symposium proceeds, because, despite demand, the Wistar Institute Press refuses to reprint it. I made the error of loaning my copy to a trusted friend, so if you can find a source, legal or otherwise, please get one for me.

To clarify— the symposium does not deal with Creationism. It was not the topic. It dealt entirely with neo_darwinism, and the hard-science guys had a field day showing how absurd current evolutionary theory had become. It has not improved in the ensuing 43 years.

I recommend that every intelligent Catholic who seriously wants to engage the issues of creation vs. science must read and probably re-read Michael Behe’s two major books. With luck, in another year I’ll be recommending that they read my book and website. I can make other recommendations if you find these useful to you.

 

[greylorn]

Like your stereotypical thicko theist arguing against the cool, calm logician of an atheist every atheist supremacist likes to think they are, but very rarely is, in my experience - shows you possess a bit of self-righteous bigotry - nice!

About as satisfactory as any other explanation I’ve ever heard - what came first? It’s what it all boils down to.

Anyway, most atheists, in my experience, do have faith - in the power of science, and only science, to explain all. If only it could… for real!

MB,
You’ve gotten sucked into taking an argument even slightly personal. Whenever that happens to me, I make it a point to polish off a fifth of cheap whiskey so as to clear my head before writing my cogent and objectively rational reply.

It really doesn’t work to argue theism vs. science, because you’ll be throwing rocks uphill, and on top of that hill they’ve got some .50 cal.sniper rifles. Like it or not, science is high ground. Competently defended high ground. Religious beliefs, I regret to say, are not defended with the same level of competency.

I admire your desire to defend your faith. I did the same, while I had it, and continue to defend the few ideas that I believe are worth furthering. I advise you (and all serious, courageous Catholics) to acquire more weapons and practice their use. You seem to have actually begun that process. Consider this quote of yours, from Post #118…

When I read the Bible, I turned agnostic, essentially, and looked to science. When I started reading up on science, I found assumption piled on positivism, on assumption (etc.) - and realised this is not the way I had been taught to understand it - all my life. The extent to which Science obfuscates these elements, and uses the false pretense of objectivism as a weapon against all other belief systems, appalls me.

Your “reading up” on science probably meant (correct me if wrong) subscribing to Scientific American and watching History Channel “The Universe” segments. This crxp is not science—it is a distillation of science for the rubes. The turkeys telling you what’s so in science, in these low-level media, are a bunch of pinheads who paid for their obligatory and worthless Ph.d, but could not figure out how to actually use it in the field. (Carl Sagan, for example, was regarded by real astronomers as— “not someone you’d want to spend two nights in a telescope dome with.” )

Pop-sci outlets will tell you as much about science as the White House press secretary will tell you about core level discussions within the oval office.

It is to your credit that you went away unimpressed. But there is no point in arguing with someone like Oreo who knows no more real science than you do, but who came away from his Sci.Am articles and H.Chan. presentations impressed.

 

[greylorn]

Actually, I’m going to side with Tony for once. It would be beneficial to know which problems you’re talking about. If you mean that saying “God did it” isn’t a satisfactory answer to the “big questions” then I agree. God, as he is defined, truly doesn’t answer any of our questions, and therefore is a superfluous entity.

If I reworded your last sentence to read—

‘The current definition of God does not provide answers to our questions about how and why the universe, and mankind, came into existence, and is therefore an unsatisfying and possibly ill-conceived definition,’

would you agree that this correctly states your position?

 

[Oreoracle]

If I reworded your last sentence to read—

‘The current definition of God does not provide answers to our questions about how and why the universe, and mankind, came into existence, and is therefore an unsatisfying and possibly ill-conceived definition,’

would you agree that this correctly states your position?

Mostly, but I have two problems: a) We don’t know if there’s a reason “why” the universe exists, I’m just looking for the “how” at this point. b) I’m not sure what you mean by “ill-conceived definition.” The definitions of God that describe him as the “uncaused cause/prime mover” and those that attribute the omni- qualities to him certainly fail to explain his abilities and how he exercises them. But even though we can’t prove that such a being exists or that he is necessary for an explanation, the definition wouldn’t be “ill-conceived” it just wouldn’t be applicable to any entity in reality. “God” is kind of like “perfect circle” in that regard.

 

[greylorn]

Mostly, but I have two problems: a) We don’t know if there’s a reason “why” the universe exists, I’m just looking for the “how” at this point. b) I’m not sure what you mean by “ill-conceived definition.” The definitions of God that describe him as the “uncaused cause/prime mover” and those that attribute the omni- qualities to him certainly fail to explain his abilities and how he exercises them. But even though we can’t prove that such a being exists or that he is necessary for an explanation, the definition wouldn’t be “ill-conceived” it just wouldn’t be applicable to any entity in reality. “God” is kind of like “perfect circle” in that regard.

This will probably be our last conversation, since I do not get the sense that you are actually looking for useful concepts. Which is okay with me, but not interesting.

There is only a “why” if the universe is the product of conscious intelligence. The details of the “why” can only be known if the source of the aforementioned conscious intelligence is limited by some rules of logic, physics, and common sense— otherwise any fool can invent any reason for creation and make people believe it if his army is nasty enough.

You cannot find the “how” you claim to be seeking unless you first conceive of some fundamental sources of creation which interact. You should be studying big bang theory, which will give you a different set of non-answers. It will not answer your questions, because that theory is functionally identical to classical creationism.

Big bang theory and the omnipotent God theory each hypothesize the existence of a single thing or entity at the beginning. If you investigate the application of the “how” question to reality, you’ll find that it involves at least two forces.

There is no explanation for “how” anything happened which does not involve at least two opposing forces.

Therefore you cannot find a “how” explanation for the beginnings of things in the context of either classical religion or current science. That is because each operates from the belief that the universe began with a single thing or entity.

If you read your own words back to yourself, you’ll answer your own question.

“…the definition wouldn’t be “ill-conceived” it just wouldn’t be applicable to any entity in reality.”

It appears to me that you’ve just come up with a perfect definition of “ill-conceived.” But then, I’m an engineer by trade. An ill-conceived idea is one which, although it might seem brilliant at the time of its theoretical inception, does not work in the real world. You could benefit from a dose of engineering school.

The term “ill-conceived” is never used in formal engineering practice, but certainly has been used after hours, over a few beers, and typically with (little) respect to management. .

Engineers prefer to use esoteric jargon— high level engineering terms such as, idiotic, stupid, or pinheaded. One lab I worked with passed around a “Blinding Flash Award,” which stayed at the bench of the last engineer or technician who produced one.

There are no such awards in the world of philosophy, where all ideas are to be respected, no matter how idiotic, where the cretin whose father endowed the university with a million bucks declares that maybe, on another planet, 2+2=3, gets an award.

I invite you to take at least a week to consider, then reconsider and ultimately understand this, before replying. I know that you could reach that understanding in a few milliseconds, but I’ll be gone for a week or so.

Thank you for having thoughts, opinions, and the courage to express them in a potentially hostile environment.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m simply, but genuinely curious as to why a simplistic statement got your attention, knowing your abilities.

I am genuinely curious to know which particular problems caused him/her to reject theism. Homo sum: humani nil alienum a me puto…

 

[Oreoracle]

It is to your credit that you went away unimpressed. But there is no point in arguing with someone like Oreo who knows no more real science than you do, but who came away from his Sci.Am articles and H.Chan. presentations impressed.

I’m not sure what you mean, nor do I know why you insist on bashing me in this post and in your response to me. Maybe all engineers are this presumptuous. That’s just another reason for me to steer clear of that sort of career.

I wasn’t arguing about science, I’m just saying that “God did it” explains diddly. “The magical unicorns did it” explains just as much. Until you know how God did it, I’ll remain unimpressed.