We must reject lightning bolts are from Zeus because we have undisputable and provable proof as to where lightening bolts come from.
Okay, but the belief that lightning bolts came from Zeus is the same logic underlying Intelligent Design.
We do not have undisputable and provable proof that an intelligent designer is not possible.
You can not relate the two as identical.
I never said that an ID is not possible. Only that the logic beneath the belief is the same. What we can/couldn't explain is originated to supernatural causes. You're dealing with specifics of individual beliefs rather then the underlying logic of both.
Nope. That is a reason to either have faith that even though science can't explain it, it all still follows natural law OR have the faith that science cannot explain all because there are some things beyond nature.
Come again? Fair enough, it is a reason but is it a good reason? Believing in Christianity to save your soul is different from believing in Christianity because it explains how life came to be.
or one could just say "I don't know, I don't care" and have no view what so ever, thinking neither side is wrong, neither side is right, and HONESTLY not knowing and not caring. Few people I have ever seen do that. They go "I don't know...." an then proceed to tell you what they think.
But merely because few people do it does not make it the correct position.
At the same time one could counter that the belief that man can and will be able to explain all of existence if given enough time and resources is supremely arrogant. Ultimately it is either side simply assigning a negative trait to people doing what they dislike.
How is accepting that you don't know equate to that? Not knowing and accepting not knowing means you don't know if it is super natural or nature. It merely means you have not accepted those choices and instead settled upon simply not knowing.
However our condemnation is one sided, showing you yourself are doing the same thing you're accusing others of doing.
Come again? All I'm saying is if we reject the logic of Animism, why would we accept it in Intelligent Design? You seem to be fine with accepting the framework that what cannot be explained is therefore supernatural. If I cannot explain how my microwave works, does that mean God causes my food to get hot? Ignorance is hardly a good foundation for belief in the supernatural.
Yes, we don't know...which means one of three things happens. People assume we'll end up knowing or that its natural even if we can't understand it, people assume that it may be supernatural and beyond our understanding, or people honestly don't care and thus either disagree with both of the previous two assumptions or ignore both of the previous two assumptions.
For the most part yes. But you are assuming that people are unable to accept that they don't know and won't know. The position of agnostics right now suggests your position is inaccurate, that people can indeed hold a position other then the ones you claimed to exist. Merely because most people act in the fashion you describe (I don't contest that) does not mean those are the only choices.
What people who don't care DON'T do is just insult one of the two assumptions while give a pass to the other. All that does is show that they really do care, and that they fall in one of those two camps.
Since when did not knowing always equate to not caring? That's a fairly large assumption you've made and assumed to be true.
And to assume that anything we can't explain will definitely be explained is to assume Science is infallible, can explain everything, and that its impossible for anything to be supernatural.
Why do you keep going back to something I never argued or said? Perhaps you have confused me with another user?
Again, my whole argument is if we reject the logic of Animism, how can we accept the same logic in Intelligent Design? I have not argued anything else, despite your belief that I have. Please reexamine my first post relevant to this discussion:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...st-case-human-evolution-4.html#post1058834272
No you're not, because you only chastise those that don't know the answer thus believe it to be the supernatural. I've never seen you chastise athiests who state there is no god.
I don't chastise people who say there is a God either. You left that out. I go after
specific beliefs. I can't prove one God exists or another one does or the God I believe in exists. Nor can I disprove any others. What I can do is deal with specific beliefs that people hold. You either don't see those posts or are confusing me with someone else. From what I see, the atheists here are arguing the validity of evolution, which has been commercially proven in tangible products as proof that evolution is true and creationism is garbage. I don't see them regularly arguing that science will answer everything as you claim they have. Did anyone even argue that here at all? There's a difference between arguing the theory of evolution is true and that science will answer everything. Could evolution be the result of the supernatural? Absolutely, but arguing evolution is true is hardly the argument you are making.
I've never seen you chastise those that say everything is natural, nothing is supernatural, everything follows the laws of the universe, or everything is provable through science just not necessarily the science we have today.
Where did anyone say everything is natural? I think you are confusing me with someone else. If you look at my posts in this subforum, it's always about specific beliefs held within a religion. Not that one God is false or one religion is entirely true.
Showing that you're fine not knowing the answers ONLY because you have the faith that the supernatural is impossible and the universe unquestionably 100% follows natural rules.
Then why did I say I was a Deist several times? Hardly what you make me out to be. I think you have me confused with someone else.
Portions of animism that has been unquestionably and provably shown to be false should definitely be rejected. Beyond that there's no reason to reject it. A lack of rejection does not suggest a lack of examination.
Beyond that? Why should we accept a belief that automatically assumes Supernatural? That's basically what your argument is saying. While specific Aniministic beliefs are wrong, the core logic isn't faulty. Do you understand everything? No. Do you assume God is the cause for what you don't understand? No. That's why Animism is crap.
However do not suggest that something that is not proven, that is questionable, is on the same level as something that is without a doubt factually shown to be true.
Again, you are focusing entirely on specific Animism beliefs rather then looking at its logic. Please discuss what I said.
To me "Can't explain now = May never be able to explain = May be Supernatural = I believe it to be supernatural" is no worse than "Can't explain now = All things are natural and provable = Science will undoubtably prove it at some point = I believe it can't be supernatural"
Fair enough, but that doesn't address my point.
The logic between ID and Animism is the same. Why should we accept or reject only one?
I'd ask the same question to you. Why assume its not supernatural rather then simply accept we don't know? You may SAY that you don't assume such, but your actions would show your dishonesty.
What actions? You are confusing me with someone else. Just because I don't know does mean I think God as the first thought. What does the evidence suggest? If the evidence is inconclusive, go get more evidence. Until then, you accept you don't know. Just because you can't explain now doesn't equate to Goddidit.
