Creationist Scientist Wants Airtime on Cosmos for Creationist Views

[loa]

You're not a scientist if you're researching with the sole goal of proving your already established result without ever accepting it to be false or unlikely.

When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?

It is a theory and that's why people seem to think it's on "equal footing" with fairy tales because lolsemantics.

 

[Erik Zarkov]

The problem with YEC is that they won't accept the Scientific Method, and then point out the strengths of said method and present them as flaws. Further more, they won't accept any evidence that isn't testable right now.

Science has had some crazy hypotheses which although came under quite a bit fire at first, eventually became accepted because the results of testing these hypotheses supported their claims. Einstein did not want to accept Quantum Theory, but repeated tests kept showing results in what the theory predicted. Some hypotheses can't be tested in the lab. Instead we have to search out for evidence among the stars, or in our own Earth though fossils.

For what Science tells us now, we 1) Have Theories based on what we know. BUT! 2) Be willing to change those theories based on new observations and evidence. AND 3) Accept that mistakes happen, verify, verify, verify. Maybe that fossil is a fake, maybe the experiment was compromised and the results are skewed. Follow these and we can keep building on our knowledge, and learn more about universe.

Now the YEC will look at new observations and evidence, see Science build a better model and go, "Hey, they just changed the model. That means the last model was wrong! How do you know this model isn't wrong too? Therefore, you can't accept it, and therefore mine is just as right!" This is one of the prime arguments, that since Science makes mistakes, or as it finds new data, refines its theories, that you can't trust what its telling you, at least as far as knowing about the past.

Which leads into the other popular argument, "Since nobody was there to see it and record it, how do we know the laws of physics worked the same then as now." Seriously, that's their argument. Nobody was around to record the speed of light way back then, so at some point in the past it could have been much much much faster so now that its slowed down all those stars look to be billions of light years away. Because at some point the speed of light slowed down and stopped slowing. And you can't prove this by their logic, because nobody was there to observe this, and you can't disprove it either by their logic. Its very neat and tidy.

So you have a group, with a hypothesis, that by their own logic you can't test or find evidence for its support. They request to put it up there with Theories that we have tested and found evidence for their support. There is a very simple answer for this request.

No.

They have an amazing claim that at one point in history, the laws and theories we observe now were not the same in the past. Until they can find evidence or proof for this claim, rather than attacking the methods of Science itself and claiming that as its proof, they can stay the hell off Cosmos.

 

[Mad World]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No.

You can still be a scientist who believes in creationism.

 

[Neta]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No.

You can still be a scientist who believes in creationism.

You'll just be REALLY BAD at your job.

 

[Olas]

Creationism is fundamentally a religious belief, not a scientific one. No matter how many Christian scientists try to find evidence to support it, their belief ultimately stems from the Bible first and not because of an unbiased hypothesis and therefore you cannot call it a scientific belief.

Since it is not a scientific belief it doesn't make sense to cover it on a show about science as if it were one. If someone were to create another show that was about religious beliefs THEN it would seem appropriate. However, that's not what Cosmos is and not what it should become.

 

[Strazdas]

Yeah, that aint going to happen. Especially when they spout around patently false claims about things like evolution. Then again, they managed to go as far as to ban word "Evolution" in schools in some states, so lets not underestimate those fanatics.

Yeah, we can discuss creationism in science show when you write some science into your bible (you are rewriting it as you see fit anyway every few hundred years).

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

No. Creationism Scientist would be. Creationist Scientist is not. That is because a person can be both Creationist and, say, a language scientist. There are many different types of sciences and not all collide with earth history.

When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?

Not sure when you were in school, but A LOT has happened in the field. from the replicated evolution jumps of bacterial to minor evolution observed in many mammals. Not to mention if our schools are anything to go by, the books there were already otudated by the time they taught us (10 years ago for me).

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

because there is absolutely no proof of that, but rather contradiction: if god set the rules what rules does god abide by?
Granted your presented stance is much more sane than most of what we see but it is still groundless.

 

[Nurb]

People neeeed to hear the creation theory that the world is on the back of a giant turtle, and the one where we were the children of a volcano godess.

The problem with religion is that they need to work backwards with every step forwards science takes to jusify their beliefs....

They were sure the earth was flat, and on pillars because it says so in a book. They were sure disease and natural disasters was divine punishment from a god because that's how god worked in a book. They were sure earth was the center of everything because its creation was so important in a book. They were sure earth was the only world.

Everything about religion explaining anything related to reality is firing an arrow and painting a target around it; new interpretations suddenly come up.

When did evolution become fact? No, seriously, can someone tell me when? When I was still in school, all the way up through college, evolution was still referred to as a theory. Then is seemed like one day theory was dropped and evolution became fact. I'm curious when that happened, or was my city just slow to catch on?

Gravity is a theory too you know.

 

[Sofus]

I believe that the universe exists within the belly of a giant odder and that the universe expands because the odder is eating alot of muffins.

ALL HAIL THE OTTER GOD MAY HIS ENIMES BE SMASHED AGINST A STOMIC LIKE A MUSSTLE!

Side bar: It's sad when even Christion think this is stupid.

It is but a test... I pray that his holy Otternes finds me worthy. Now if you will excuse me, I have to find a lake with fresh water and build a sacrificial dam.

 

[Sicram]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Damn you, as someone else said, I was about to say that it sounds like an oxymoron!

Saw a documentary where a creationist "scientist" was asked what he'd do if there was proof against his religious beliefs and he answered that he'd disregard that and assume that it's the human's faulty perception that sees something contradicting to his beliefs.

No scientist ever would disregard results that repeated themselves, even if they contradicted previous knowledge! That is how new knowledge is gained!

Scientist: "It's said by some that the earth is only 6000 years old" *checks earth age by dating rocks* "Huh, seems to be a wee bit older than that, and these dino fossils which also date in the millions support that"

Creationist: "Earth is 6000 years old" *Scientist points to gealogical dating* "Pah! You must've done something wrong!" *Scientist points to dino fossils* "You must've dated them wrong and they probably died out 5000 years or so ago" *Creationist continues to disregard that some human civilisations are older than that and that they have no records of dinos and the fact that some fossils are found way down in the ground*

And those creationists who say that thermodynamics disprove the evolution theory have no idea what thermodynamics is to begin with. And correct me if I'm worng but creationism seems very USA centric, haven't heard about it here in the EU.

 

[Ieyke]

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

<_<

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

When did evolution become fact?

Technically it's ALWAYS been a fact, whether we were aware or not. Scientific theories are the most rigorously tested and proven sets of information that mankind has. Scientific theories should not be confused with the generic usage of "theory".

The only real difference between a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory is that a Law is simple enough for our understanding of it to be considered complete. A Theory is considered incomplete....much in the way that a sword might be in the process of having its blade honed.

For instance - the Theory of Gravity is NOT a guess. We are all unanimously aware of the factual nature of gravity. However, we do not know all of the science, and do not understand all of the mechanisms that causes gravity to function the way it does.
Likewise with evolution. Evolution is absolutely proven, and even repeatedly observed in laboratories. It is, however, extremely complicated, and the details of HOW all of the bits work have not yet been nailed down.

Compare it to an ancient Greek finding a digital watch. CLEARLY the watch factually exists and definitely tells time, and he's even opened it up and seen the intricate circuitry inside it that he knows must be what makes it function, but he has yet to figure out the how and why of the the way the circuitry functions.

So much ignorance in this thread.

You didn't have to bring it all with you. It's not one of those "bring enough to share with the whole class" things.

Science is not democracy.

Bingo.

Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

That would be pretty awesome. "In the beginning, there was a great egg. After a time, it hatched, and the great sun god Ra emerged. Ra then sat down and masturbated the universe into existence." Or how Odin and his brothers killed their father and used his bones to make the world (I think there was some kind of celestial cow involved, somehow, can't quite recall).

This is why religion never really tempted me - I grew up around children from various religious backgrounds, and by the time I was old enough to start thinking about that stuff for myself, I'd been reading ancient mythologies for fun. Even when existential crises did come knocking, what god am I supposed to believe in? I still know more about Greek mythology than I do about what's in the Bible.

(FTR, the cow's name is Auðumbla. Auðumbla is the primeval cow that created/freed Odin's grandfather, Búri, by licking him out of the ice of Ginnungagap, the primordial void.)

Yessir.
In an existential crisis, I recommend turning to the ways of the great Lady, Athena.

Real or not, adhering to the path of knowledge, wisdom, justice, civilization, craftsmanship, heroics, strategy, and defense...it's pretty hard to go wrong.
There's a reason Athena is so often venerated in institutes of science as a respected symbol. The same reasons why the founders of the USA patterned their monuments after Greek temples, and their government after ancient Greece's democracy. They were icons of powerful ideas.
These men came from countries that were predominantly Christian, and were founding a new country that was predominantly full of Christians. These men, the brightest of their time, were however classically educated, with Latin and Greek as cornerstones in their education. They built monuments not in reflection of Christianity, but in the reflection of the temples of Greco-Roman Pantheon, the Parthenon and its lesser relatives.

In fact, America itself is hilariously oblivious to our veneration of the Greco-Roman gods.
- Dike(AKA Justitia), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Justice, presides over courts all across the country as blind Lady Justice.
- Libertas, the Roman Goddess Of Liberty, reigns as both Columbia (the namesake of the District Of Columbia AKA Washington D.C.), and as the single greatest icon of the United States - The Statue Of Liberty.
- Nike(AKA Victoria), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Victory, is the namesake of a HUGE shoe company, and the basis for every archetypal Christian angel.
- Medical institutions are symbolized by the Rod Of Aesclepius.
- The Christian "God" himself is merely a rebranding of Zeus himself. Hell, Old Testament God even acts just like Zeus. Jesus is essentially just another demigod, and basically Athena's little brother - much like her, except a pacifist.
- Etc. That barely scratches the surfaces of America's Greco-Roman pantheon.

So, when in existential crisis, it might not hurt to turn to the ways of Athena, the most honored of the Greek gods. The Athenians grew to be one of the greatest and most enlightened peoples in history by looking to her for guidance.
She may not exist, but that doesn't mean looking to her principles can't serve as a guide in troubled times.
Cherish knowledge, seek wisdom, advance society, protect the weak, be heroic, invent, create, fight if you have to defend, and fight smart.
To me it's no wonder so many halls of science and institutions of learning honor Athena as a symbol.

As much as I am Atheistic/Agnostic, I'll also call myself a disciple of Athena.
*shrug*

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- Tommy Lee Jones, Men In Black

Probably one of my favorite movie quotes ever.

-

-

So yea, if Cosmos addresses Creationist BS, I'm going to complain about the fact that they skipped over the way Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza created the world together.

And how they skipped over the Titanomachy and Gigantomachy.

And they totally skipped the melting of the ice around Ymir, and the sprouting of Yggdrasil.

*eyeroll*

-

Ultimately, I have no problem admitting some sort of deity COULD exist. Beyond the realms of what science has been able to explain there lies an unknown, and it is impossible to rule out the possibility of a deity or deities existing in that beyond. Perhaps they set in motion the events of the Big Bang. Ultimately, there's no way to prove one way or the other.
What IS certain, is that the Christian God makes almost NO sense as a concept. I'll not wade several college semesters deep into the history of philosophy here on The Escapist, but I WILL note that some of the greatest minds in history have dissected all of the reasons an all-powerful "God" that cares -at all- about us, and interferes with us, is a nonsensical notion.

But the fact remains, when we get down to pedantic brass tacks, anyone who claims to be a true Atheist is as much an idiot as a Creationist is.
Agnostic, fine.
Agnostic Theist, fine.
Agnostic Atheist, fine.

Claiming to be a true Atheist - i.e. that you truly KNOW there is no such thing as a deity - is folly. You cannot definitively KNOW. It is utterly impossible. It's as much folly as claiming belief in Creationism, or any other idea disproved by science.
It's fine to be an Agnostic Atheist - to THINK, and FEEL very sure that there are no gods, just as long as you acknowledge that you do not actually KNOW that which is impossible to know.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when debating from the Atheist point of view. We're here opposing falsehoods and nonsense, not championing the "truth" of things that cannot be proven.

 

[kael013]

You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

And in turn you use me, my family, two-thirds of my friends, etc. etc. as examples without knowing us. Now, I can't speak for them, but if science could create life from nothing or definitively answer any of the "we still don't know how this happened" questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists then I would reconsider my stance. In short, I'm like you, stop generalizing a group as big as "religious".

OT (I'm so gonna get flamed for this): No, Creationism Science should stay off science shows because it's a religious belief, not a scientific theory. I'm a Christian and I hate it when religion interferes with science because I see science as a way of understanding God as well as the universe (multiverse theory and a non-linear view of time help explain away that whole free will vs predetermination "problem"). Now if scientific facts start contradicting my religion I'll start re-evaluating my stance, but until then... I've never understood why people think of science and religion as separate, opposing viewpoints. Why couldn't God have created everything to run in a logical, scientific way?

 

[Branindain]

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

Ha! I found the glaring flaw in your argument that negates everything you have to say. He actually added FOUR extra letters, because if you remove the "oxy" then you no longer require the "n" in "an". What are you, some kind of an moron?

(Never mind me. I've been enjoying the thread but everything I have to say has been stated so eloquently by so many people that I thought I'd just mess around. Really interesting post.)

 

[Ieyke]

You use me as a point in your case without knowing me.

If you asked me "What would it take to change your mind?" I would answer "Evidence."
If you asked someone religious what it would take to change their mind, they would almost always answer "Nothing."

And in turn you use me, my family, two-thirds of my friends, etc. etc. as examples without knowing us. Now, I can't speak for them, but if science could create life from nothing or definitively answer any of the "we still don't know how this happened" questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists then I would reconsider my stance. In short, I'm like you, stop generalizing a group as big as "religious".

OT (I'm so gonna get flamed for this): No, Creationism Science should stay off science shows because it's a religious belief, not a scientific theory. I'm a Christian and I hate it when religion interferes with science because I see science as a way of understanding God as well as the universe (now if scientific facts start contradicting my religion I'll start re-evaluating my stance, but until then...). I've never understood why people think of science and religion as separate, opposing viewpoints. Why couldn't God have created everything to run in a logical, scientific way?

"'we still don't know how this happened' questions that religion holds up as proof that God exists" ARE NOT proof or evidence of any sort. They just fundamentally aren't. At all.
That point HAS TO be understood.
A lack of explanation is not license to imaginatively reinvent reality and declare the invented explanation as the truth just because no evidence of an actual explanation has been found to disprove it.
That's not how logic works.
It's just bad thinking.
That HAS TO be understood.

Thinking that MAYBE, PERHAPS a god could fill in the blanks in the unknown is fine. But do NOT misunderstand your lack of knowledge as PROOF or evidence of anything. Because it's not.

Science and religion ARE separate things. They're two separate ways of approaching the universe. That said, you're right, in a sense. They're NOT necessarily incompatible. RELIGIONS (meaning all the notable ones that currently exist) ARE incompatible with science (and philosophical logic), because science invalidates all of them. But that's not to say that -A- religion couldn't hypothetically be invented or modified to mesh with science.
There's really nothing at all wrong with the idea that, for instance, maybe the Big Bang was sparked by a god. And that all of the events set in motion by the Big Bang lead to life on Earth, and subsequently lead to the creation of humans, and that therefore that deity would, technically and very circuitously, be the creator of humans.

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

Ha! I found the glaring flaw in your argument that negates everything you have to say. He actually added FOUR extra letters, because if you remove the "oxy" then you no longer require the "n" in "an". What are you, some kind of an moron?

(Never mind me. I've been enjoying the thread but everything I have to say has been stated so eloquently by so many people that I thought I'd just mess around. Really interesting post.)

You caught it! Well done.
The "n" did give me pause...

 

[Under_your_bed]

Or, you know. All science that we see everywhere is true because God did it. Why is it so hard for these two views to coexist? God made the universe able to run on science. He made it with a firmly established set of rules for physics, biology, geology, etc, etc... Why is this so hard to understand?

Because that would be a reasonable and open-minded approach to both faith and science, and we can't be having that because of, uh.... JEE-ZUS! FREEDUHRM! THE SECOND AMENDMENT! STATES RIGHTS! 'MURICA FUCK YEEEAAAHHH!!!

(My advice? The next time those inbred southern Hick States ask to secede, let them as soon as possible. That way, rational people of all faiths can get on a lot better.)

 

[Madkipz]

We ask that readers remain respectful in their comments and not attack anyone's religious views. Thank you.

<_<

Ok...Someone tell me if I'm wrong here. But isn't a Creationist Scientist an oxymoron?

Well, you added 3 extra letters, but essentially you're right.

When did evolution become fact?

Technically it's ALWAYS been a fact, whether we were aware or not. Scientific theories are the most rigorously tested and proven sets of information that mankind has. Scientific theories should not be confused with the generic usage of "theory".

The only real difference between a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory is that a Law is simple enough for our understanding of it to be considered complete. A Theory is considered incomplete....much in the way that a sword might be in the process of having its blade honed.

For instance - the Theory of Gravity is NOT a guess. We are all unanimously aware of the factual nature of gravity. However, we do not know all of the science, and do not understand all of the mechanisms that causes gravity to function the way it does.
Likewise with evolution. Evolution is absolutely proven, and even repeatedly observed in laboratories. It is, however, extremely complicated, and the details of HOW all of the bits work have not yet been nailed down.

Compare it to an ancient Greek finding a digital watch. CLEARLY the watch factually exists and definitely tells time, and he's even opened it up and seen the intricate circuitry inside it that he knows must be what makes it function, but he has yet to figure out the how and why of the the way the circuitry functions.

So much ignorance in this thread.

You didn't have to bring it all with you. It's not one of those "bring enough to share with the whole class" things.

Science is not democracy.

Bingo.

Which religion's version of creationism do they want to give airtime to?

I'd be interested in learning about ancient Egyptian, Greek and Norse creationism. How about those?

That would be pretty awesome. "In the beginning, there was a great egg. After a time, it hatched, and the great sun god Ra emerged. Ra then sat down and masturbated the universe into existence." Or how Odin and his brothers killed their father and used his bones to make the world (I think there was some kind of celestial cow involved, somehow, can't quite recall).

This is why religion never really tempted me - I grew up around children from various religious backgrounds, and by the time I was old enough to start thinking about that stuff for myself, I'd been reading ancient mythologies for fun. Even when existential crises did come knocking, what god am I supposed to believe in? I still know more about Greek mythology than I do about what's in the Bible.

(FTR, the cow's name is Auðumbla. Auðumbla is the primeval cow that created/freed Odin's grandfather, Búri, by licking him out of the ice of Ginnungagap, the primordial void.)

Yessir.
In an existential crisis, I recommend turning to the ways of the great Lady, Athena.

Real or not, adhering to the path of knowledge, wisdom, justice, civilization, craftsmanship, heroics, strategy, and defense...it's pretty hard to go wrong.
There's a reason Athena is so often venerated in institutes of science as a respected symbol. The same reasons why the founders of the USA patterned their monuments after Greek temples, and their government after ancient Greece's democracy. They were icons of powerful ideas.
These men came from countries that were predominantly Christian, and were founding a new country that was predominantly full of Christians. These men, the brightest of their time, were however classically educated, with Latin and Greek as cornerstones in their education. They built monuments not in reflection of Christianity, but in the reflection of the temples of Greco-Roman Pantheon, the Parthenon and its lesser relatives.

In fact, America itself is hilariously oblivious to our veneration of the Greco-Roman gods.
- Dike(AKA Justitia), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Justice, presides over courts all across the country as blind Lady Justice.
- Libertas, the Roman Goddess Of Liberty, reigns as both Columbia (the namesake of the District Of Columbia AKA Wasigton D.C.), and as the single greatest icon of the United States - The Statue Of Liberty.
- Nike(AKA Victoria), the Greco-Roman Goddess Of Victory, is the namesake of a HUGE shoe company, and the basis for every archetypal Christian angel.
- Medical institutions are symbolized by the Rod Of Aesclepius.
- The Christian "God" himself is merely a rebranding of Zeus himself. Hell, Old Testament God even acts just like Zeus. Jesus is essentially just another demigod, and basically Athena's little brother - much like her, except a pacifist.
- Etc. That barely scratches the surfaces of America's Greco-Roman pantheon.

So, when in existential crisis, it might not hurt to turn to the ways of Athena, the most honored of the Greek gods. The Athenians grew to be one of the greatest and most enlightened peoples in history by looking to her for guidance.
She may not exist, but that doesn't mean looking to her principles can't serve as a guide in troubled times.
Cherish knowledge, seek wisdom, advance society, protect the weak, be heroic, invent, create, fight if you have to defend, and fight smart.
To me it's no wonder so many halls of science and institutions of learning honor Athena as a symbol.

As much as I am Atheistic/Agnostic, I'll also call myself a disciple of Athena.
*shrug*

"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
- Tommy Lee Jones, Men In Black

Probably one of my favorite movie quotes ever.

-

-

So yea, if Cosmos addresses Creationist BS, I'm going to complain about the fact that they skipped over the way Arceus, Dialga, Palkia, Giratina, Groudon, Kyogre, and Rayquaza created the world together.

And how they skipped over the Titanomachy and Gigantomachy.

And they totally skipped the melting of the ice around Ymir, and the sprouting of Yggdrasil.

*eyeroll*

-

Ultimately, I have no problem admitting some sort of deity COULD exist. Beyond the realms of what science has been able to explain there lies an unknown, and it is impossible to rule out the possibility of a deity or deities existing in that beyond. Perhaps they set in motion the events of the Big Bang. Ultimately, there's no way to prove one way or the other.
What IS certain, is that the Christian God makes almost NO sense as a concept. I'll not wade several college semesters deep into the history of philosophy here on The Escapist, but I WILL note that some of the greatest minds in history have dissected all of the reasons an all-powerful "God" that cares -at all- about us, and interferes with us, is a nonsensical notion.

But the fact remains, when we get down to pedantic brass tacks, anyone who claims to be a true Atheist is as much an idiot as a Creationist.
Agnostic, fine.
Agnostic Theist, fine.
Agnostic Atheist, fine.

Claiming to be a true Atheist - i.e. that you truly KNOW there is no such thing as a deity - is folly. You cannot definitively KNOW. It is utterly impossible. It's as much folly as claiming belief in Creationism, or any other idea disproved by science.
It's fine to be an Agnostic Atheist - to THINK, and FEEL very sure that there are no gods, just as long as you acknowledge that you do not actually KNOW that which is impossible to know.

I think that's an important thing to keep in mind when debating from the Atheist point of view. We're here opposing falsehoods and nonsense, not championing the "truth" of things that cannot be proven.

Not to bring down your rather splendid post, but isn't atheism merely the lack of belief in a god? I was pretty sure that to dub yourself an atheist all you had to do was to actively deny the existence of a god. As in you do not have to know, but you distinctively present a lack faith and deny the existence of god(s).

 

[Piorn]

I'm not going to discuss the obvious, but to be honest, I'd love a scientific look at the history and evolution of the creationism myth.
Like, they could explore it's origins, it's changes throughout history, and how it influenced and was influenced by other religions. It's a better topic than ancient aliens, anyways.

 

[Megalodon]

People have always thought they've "known" what the sun is etc etc etc.

The universe is infinitely more complex than we give it credit for, the limits of our knowledge are defined by the limits of our ability to comprehend, the one and only thing that I cannot believe is possible is that the human race has reached the pinnicle of comprehension.

Note: I'm in no way saying that I believe that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago by a singular god that incarnated into the form of a man named Jesus roughly 2000 years ago etc etc etc etc etc... I'm just saying, that for all we know, it's not compeltely outside the realm of possiblity that a higher intelligence had a hand in humanity's/the universe's creation.

We can't just blanketly rule out points of view because they seem outlandish.

Yes we don't know everything about anything. But just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that any explanation is valid.

Believing in something objectively wrong like Young Earth Creationism is intellectual poison. If for no other reason than it is a retardant for knowledge and progress. If you think you 'know' the truth, why look for a more correct model than the current one?

An outlandish point of view is not ruled out for it being outlandish. Although it can take a depressingly long time for incorrect ideas to be fully excised (phlogiston), thanks to scientists still being human, it does happen, as long as the evidence is there to back it up.

For the latter point, Sagan had something to say about this in the original Cosmos.

 

[Ieyke]

Not to bring down your rather splendid post, but isn't atheism merely the lack of belief in a god? I was pretty sure that to dub yourself an atheist all you had to do was to actively deny the existence of a god. As in you do not have to know, but you distinctively present a lack faith and deny the existence of god(s).

Denying, yes.
But to deny something is to declare it untrue, rather than to simply claim that you do not believe it to be true.
The difference between denying you murdered someone and saying you don't THINK you murdered them.

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."

"Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known."

As I said, this is in pedantic terms, regarding the precise definitions rather than the loose ones.