In many practical aspects, atheism is a religion. "How can you say that, Cowboy Bob? Atheism is a lack of belief in gods". Yeah, sure. That's the cop-out redefinition, not the real definition . Except not all atheists got the memo , and some are confused. As I was saying, in many practical aspects, atheism is a religion . It is a philosophy of life and conduct, and has many of the trappings of organized religion. Although atheists will tell you that they believe in "reason", they actually have a religion that is based on faith. A lot of it. I can't go there, Girlfriend. In the United States, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that atheism is a religion The US Supreme Court ruled that atheism is a religion . Secular Humanism (a masque for atheism), received comments from the US Supreme Court that it is a religion (one of these groups wanted tax-exempt status as a religion) Atheists adore their religious leaders like Richard "...
Comments
Someone who advocates reason only when it's convenient is someone who rejects reason.
Or did I misunderstand your comment?
Lets ignore the problems with defining and identifying design, for the moment; they're significant problems, but I don't want that to prevent me from answering your question:
Yes, logic dictates that design implies a designer.
At that point, logic starts to work against the Creationist's idea of their deity, though, and that's what I was trying to point out. If everything logically needs a creator, The Creator needs one as well.
If He is the exception to the rule, then there's no standing to claim there can't be other exceptions.
You might find quantum fluctuation to be an interesting read. It's a physical fact that particles can actually spring from nothing. The details get complicated, involving matter and energy moving forward and backward through time.
I'm not trying to tell you that we have an infallible understanding of how the universe came into being. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that some of the things you're incredulous of are actually real and can be demonstrated in a lab.
The problem is that Tony appeals to logic when he claims that design --> designer. That same finite mind, who's not at all shy about trying to explain the infinite, then claims logic has no explanatory power to resolve the conundrum (re. who created the Creator?).
It's like me telling you that math is used to answer questions like "what is 2+3?", but when asked "what's the ratio of a circle's circumference to its area?", I answer "math can't be trusted".
It is illogical to try to resolve conundrums (re. 'who created the creator?') by appealing to faith.
For the most part, I agree. Especially with uninformed Christians who, when Junior asks a hard question, replies with, "Just have faith", when there may be an answer after all, and Pappy is too lazy to ask or look it up.
However, we have to be careful to define our terms, because Christians have a different understanding of "faith" (or to me, Faith is Jill's older sister) than other people. Some have defined faith as "believing in something that you know is not true", or as a kind of filler because you do not know what happened. (In the latter case, I believe that science philosophy has a great deal of faith, but never mind about that now.)
I agree with Sherlock Holmes: "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". Or, "Follow where the evidence leads".
What if the evidence and human reasoning lead to a supernatural cause? I believe it is wrong to believe that a supernatural cause must be eliminated from discussion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a rush to judgment. But I do believe that the evidence supports an Intelligent Design model better than a materialistic/naturalistic model.
I also agree with the idea that terms must be defined. Faith & god & religion & science (et al) mean different things to different people, making discussions involving them unlikely to be productive (or even entertaining).
I should be clear, also: I don't believe that logic is the only method we can or should use to understand the universe and our place in it. It has its uses and limits, as does empiricism and spirituality. Really, the best approach to understanding it all should (imho) involve a mix of them.
I know you think I'm an a**hole and a pr*ck, but it appears that you may be finding this particular exchange to be possibly productive and entertaining. I have.
As to your last comment...cut it out. I fully agree, and if we keep that up, people will start to talk.