What is scientific about ID?

Post Reply New Topic

It means you believe there is no god. There's a subtle-sounding difference there.
(From Merriam-Webster.com: "atheist: one who believes that there is no deity")



But a^2 + b^2 = c^2 can 1) be tested, and 2) works every time.
Evolution cannot fulfill either of those criteria by its very definition.
Therefore, it is merely a belief. Even a religion, to its most passionate adherers.

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 May 2008, 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I agree. But it was a silly point.

Perhaps, but it's not what most self-identified atheists (that I've encountered) mean when they say "I'm an atheist." Arguing over which is the "real" definition is meaningless.




Well, people don't just believe the Pythagorean Theorem because it can be tested empirically. Theorems are believed for a different reason altogether. If you're talking about something "working every time" then you have to have some definition of what "work" means. If you were trying to do an empirical test of the Pythagorean Theorem, then you'd have to account for measurement error, etc. Instead of requiring that it "work every time" the proper requirement would be that it fell within the measurement error bars an appropriate fraction of the time.


Evolutionary theory can be tested in the same sense that other scientific theories can be tested. That is, it makes predictions. One of the most striking ones that it makes is the degree of similarity between corresponding protein sequences of different organisms should fall into nested hierarchies, and that these same hierarchical relationships should be present for different proteins. In fact, we find that these hierarchies match quite well across several different methods of comparison. The original one was morphology, though now we can do direct sequence comparisons for many species as well as comparing the placement of transposable elements in the genome. In fact, the entire field of molecular phylogeny could be considered an immense, ongoing test of this prediction.

well, i would tend to agree with you... but i doubt you'd accept my level of godliness that is required for this kind of guidance.... certainly not intelligent.

"Atheists" should better understand what they're identifying as.

This is where the idiocy of atheists come in when they claim Buddhism is an atheistic religion. What they're actually describing is non-religious/irreligious.

We do understand. One describes belief, the other knowledge. Get it correct.

Mathematical 'truths' are not the same as normal truths. The Pythagorean theorem is a deductive necessity. Bad example :'(

Unless you mean that they don't teach the maybe that one of these days I'm going to go measure the sides of a triangle and wind up in a non-euclidean space...

I meant the second thing. They don't that maybe one day you're going to start going into another dimension, because IT MIGHT HAPPEN (I'm not sure how... But..just maybe..). I didn't mean anything about empiricism, or mathematical proofs vs scientific proofs, which are different. Though, if I would of used a scientific theory like gravity, I could of got a normal truth, which is more pertinent to the discussion at hand. So that probably was a mistake on my part.

You'll end up in 4 dimensions! Going backwards in time

I must be mentally ret*d. I cannot understand how an agnostic could also be an atheist. The former is ambilvalency. The latter is flat-out denial. How can you be ambivalent about a deity's possible existence while at the same time outright refuse it?

Agnosticism and atheism are two different positions! By definition one negates the other, yes? How can I be simultaneously open to the possibility and totally closed to it?

You're confused about the definitions. Let me explain.

Atheism - You do not believe in a god.

Agnosticism - You dont believe the existence of a god can ever be proven or dis-proven, or you don't believe we have sufficient ability as of yet to do so.

The first addresses belief, the other knowledge.

Just because you can't absolutely disprove a god does not give me a reason to believe in him. You can't absolutely disprove fairies, and I dont believe in those either. I just don't hold beliefs in fairy tales. Proof is a strong word, but I am 99% certain that a god does not exist, and 99.99999999999% certain that a god as the bible describes does not exist. In regards to the Judeo Christian god, I can pretty much be called an atheist, as the non existence of such a god is as sure as that reality is certain (Even though it is an a priori assumption). That sliver of doubt in both the nature of reality, and the nature of god, means I'm open slightly for just about anything.

Just to add about belief or not. There's also different theories in agnosticism like pragamtic.

I tend to lean toward Ignotic when it comes to any debate such as these.

Strictly, IIRC, the space in a gravitational field isn't quite euclidean, but now I'm really getting off topic ;P


It really depends on how you define and/or use the terms. I do hope this thread can do better than a definition battle. From wikipedia (never a bad source on common descriptive usage):

:watches as a Cthulhu comes through non-Euclidean space:

Oh dear...

This is a purely semantic issue that comes up in any group that discusses atheism and agnosticism.

The way most people who self-identify as atheists seem to describe it, an atheist is anyone who doesn't believe in any gods, and an agnostic is anyone who doesn't claim certainty about the existence of gods.

So while they're separate positions, they're orthogonal, and one can hold them independently. Agnosticism (or lack of it) would distinguish so-called "weak atheism" from "strong atheism". The latter claims knowledge that there are no gods, while the former doesn't.


Similarly, one could, with these definitions, be either an agnostic theist or a gnostic theist. I.e., one who believes without claiming to know, or one who claims knowledge that one or more gods exist.


A separate definition that seems more popular among people who don't identify as atheists is to refer to all atheists as strong atheists above, and agnostics as either weak atheists as defined above, or as people who are "on the fence" and consider both possibilities about as viable.


All definitions are matters of agreement for the sake of communication, and this is just an argument about definitions. In philosophical discussions it's pretty common to use one's own definitions as long as one makes it clear what they are beforehand.

There's no such thing as a "correct definition". There are popular ones, etymologically accurate ones (based on the popular usage of the roots), etc., but they're ultimately just a standard.

Words are usually given context by the person saying them. The definition I provide is the one used by most modern atheists. Arguments over definitions ftw.

:Cthulhu continues his rampage:

You're all over the place, here. You should have just simplified and used only a few sentences.