Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Atheism

Disproofs of God’s existence are falling on hard times these days

Omnipotent means the power to do any possible thing. Christians, for example, say that God “became man and suffered for us under Pontius Pilate.” So the answer to McGinn’s questions (“does he have the power to sneeze or digest food or pick his nose”) is yes, though it requires incarnation in a human body. Read More ›

Researchers: Rise in “religious Nones” masks growth in evangelicalism

Atheists have also grown from 1.6% of the adult population to 3%, which is a significant increase. But the smaller the starting number, the easier it is for any increase to be significant. It;s the mushy middle that is shrinking. Read More ›

Logic & First Principles, 16: The problem of playing God (when we don’t — cannot — know how)

In discussing the attempted brain hacking of monkeys, I made a comment about refraining from playing God. This sparked a sharp reaction, then led to an onward exchange. This puts on the table the captioned issue . . . which it seems to me is properly part of our ongoing logic and first principles reflections. Here, the other big piece of axiology (the study of the valuable) ethics, with side-orders of limitations in epistemology. So, kindly allow me to headline: KF, 10: >>It is interesting what sparked the sharpness of exchange above: KF: Playing God without his knowledge base, wisdom and benevolence is asking for trouble. A78 is right: all I’m saying is proceed with caution we shouldn’t play God Read More ›

Logic spaghetti: Who created God?

Tapscott: What are the most difficult questions to answer? Solid candidates are those which by virtue of how they are posed eliminate the only logical and correct answers. (Introducing mathematician John Lennox) Read More ›

Atheist public intellectual John Gray separates the atheist wheat from the chaff

Graham McAleer: This book should put to rest the canard that atheism is free thinking, and oh so much more broad-minded and gentle than what is on offer from the dull and cramped-spirited God-fearing types. Read More ›

Neuroskeptic: Atheists are NOT genetically damaged

Of course, the claim is nonsense but then those of us who have listened to rubbish about the God gene and such can’t help hiding a giggle. Hey, given that it's Hate Your Local Atheist Week anyway, how about "Atheists have mutant genes, don’t live as long "  ;) Read More ›

Harry’s food for thought on “Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational”

This is the first of two food for thought pieces coming from comments in the scientism thread: Harry, 7: >>Materialistic Scientism Is Fundamentally Irrational In order to demonstrate how a given instance of functional complexity might come about mindlessly and accidentally, one must first know how to create it intentionally. Then, one can at least begin to explain how the required steps in the functional-complexity-assembling procedure might, over enough time, happen mindlessly, accidentally, and in the necessary sequence, through some combination of chance and the laws of physics. So, until science knows how to create life – an instance of massive functional complexity – from scratch, they are in no position to insist that it came about mindlessly and accidentally Read More ›