That part I certainly and whole-heartedly agree with.

@412. John Sandlin : Hear, hear. Agreed.

On the other hand, in no other endeavor that I’ve seen is the ability to change your mind and admit you were wrong so prevalent as in the world of science and rational thought. These are still human endeavors and many resist, but when you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

An astute observer might have noticed (or even the not so astute) that Dr. Plait regularly admits his errors and corrects them (and leaves the evidence of his change available). His is a decent example to follow, I think.

jbs

One additional thought about MTU’s definition of atheism: If you and at least one dictionary use one definition of the term, but all prominent self-declared atheists (and, it seems, the atheists that visit this blog) use a different definition, which of these options do you think is more likely to be the case:
1. atheists are secretly hiding what they really believe because they know they cannot support it and are trying to subvert the definition of “atheist”; or
2. that dictionary (and thus your personal definition) is wrong or in need of updating?
A third possibility has occurred to me, which is that the dictionary is a tool of the creationists who are trying to spread the conviction that all atheists consider god to have been disproven. This is perhaps a bit too Machiavellian, but if successful it would certainly make it easier to argue against atheism in a public forum.

Option number two, I suppose.

Option 3 – and option 1 there – are, indeed, both a bit paranoid, methinks.

I apologise if you, Nigel Depledge, were offended by my previous understanding of what the word “atheist” actually means. It was, simply, how I have always understood the word / concept of an atheist. No offence intended. It does sometimes take me awhile to get my head around things.

@400. Julia :

Being a Christian, and also an armchair scientist, I will never understand why people are so insistent on trying to “prove” religion with science??? They are two completely separate things. It’s like saying, “I’m going to spell my name in numbers – watch!” and then it makes no sense to anyone. Sure, I suppose you can do it, but can anyone read it?

^ This! Seconded by me. I agree & well put.

tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication.

- Bill O’Reilly

Just like moons and like suns,
With the certainty of tides,
Just like hopes springing high,
Still I’ll rise.

- Maya Angelou

Maya gets it, Bill doesn’t.

You say that ‘Nature’ is subtle, amazing, interconnected’ etc. To whom are you referring when you reference ‘Nature’?

Not to any living being, but to the universe (and its processes and laws) itself.

Your use of the word “whom” suggests that you cannot envisage anyone attributing those qualities to the laws of nature and what has arisen from those laws.

Are you truly that much ahead of Bill O’Reilly or anyone else in your ‘knowledge’ of how this planet and life here came to exist?

Apparently so.

Some of us look at creation and worship the Creator.

[devil's advocate]Not so. You look at existence and you imagine it was created. You imagine a god and worship that.[/devil's advocate]

More seriously, can you not come up with a better reason?

Others look at creation and worship the creature. Evolutionist worship the creature.

Why do you find it so hard to understand that some of us feel no need to worship anything?

Christians worship the Creator.

Worship what, exactly?

Show me this creator and I will join you.

Sadly it seems that those who worship the creature have decided to ridicule and despise those who worship the Creator.

This is a feeble straw man.

What actually happened was this:
1. Investigation of “god’s creation” led to the understanding that there was no need to include god in explaining how and why it came to be the way it is.
2. Religious fundamentalists made it illegal to teach our best understanding of how life changes over time in schools in the US.
3. After a substantial amount of time, the USA worked out that this was unconstitutional, because it forced state endorsement of one specific religious position. Evolution became part of the science curriculum.
4. Religious fundies came up with the phrase “creation science” in an attempt to disguise their lame strawman attacks on evolutionary biology as a form of science.
5. “Creation science” was shown to be nothing more than one specific religious view, and so its teaching in science class was ruled unconstitutional.
6. Those same religious fundies funded some lawyers and others to come up with an alternative. Thus was born ID.
7. ID also was shown to be one specific religious idea (Christian creationism) disguised with new buzzwords. Its teaching in US public schools is also unconstitutional.
8. Rational people the world over laugh and point at the American religious fundies, who are so ignorant and blinkered that they do not even understand their own constitution.
9. Said religious fundies spread rumours on the internet that atheists and other rational people hate religion and all that comes with religion.

In fact, jlue, if you bothered to look into the topic, what you will find is this:
Most supporters of the teaching of good science firmly support the right of everyone to believe whatever they choose to.
Many atheists question the number of concessions granted to religious beliefs and religious organisations in our so-called “free” societies.
Many rational people recognise religious belief as irrational (and, hey, being irrational is part and parcel of being human, so it’s no surprise).

Personally, I have relatives who are creationists and I love them dearly. Their choice baffles me, as they seem otherwise intelligent people, but I respect their right to believe whatever they wish. I am offended by your claim that I (a) worship “creature” (does this even mean anything?) and (b) despise people who worship something of their choosing.

Let me ask you this: if you are a Christian, why are you being so hateful of (including spreading malicious lies about) those who are not? That behaviour does not seem very Christian if you ask me.