Is religion guilty of moving the goalposts?

[QMan]

Here is all the proof I need about the hereafter and God's plan. One reason is that I have learned to trust in the competence of other people and not only my own to observe and figure things out.

Spinal orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mary Neal dies in a kayak pinned under water for close to 30 minutes. Comforted by Jesus as she dies, taken to the entrance to heaven and then told she must go back. One of the reasons, besides witnessing with her story, she is told is to be with her son when he is going to die at age 18. He was 5 years at this time. He died at 18 when he was hit by a car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjYdm55k5U

Clearly, from what I have seen so far, the crowd over here cannot trust in someone else's competence when it goes against their ingrained biases. I am putting this out here in the hope that some unbiased objective people might sometimes stray onto this forum and take something from it.

[thedoc]

Here is all the proof I need about the hereafter and God's plan. One reason is that I have learned to trust in the competence of other people and not only my own to observe and figure things out.

Spinal orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mary Neal dies in a kayak pinned under water for close to 30 minutes. Comforted by Jesus as she dies, taken to the entrance to heaven and then told she must go back. One of the reasons, besides witnessing with her story, she is told is to be with her son when he is going to die at age 18. He was 5 years at this time. He died at 18 when he was hit by a car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjYdm55k5U

Clearly, from what I have seen so far, the crowd over here cannot trust in someone else's competence when it goes against their ingrained biases. I am putting this out here in the hope that some unbiased objective people might sometimes stray onto this forum and take something from it.

I could be a smart ass and call you a 'Doubting Thomas' for needing proof but instead I'll say that I believe that each person will receive whatever they need to believe in God. There is no right or wrong way and some get some kind of proof or demonstration, and some can just see what they need in the world around them, there is not one better than another.

There is a song that really rubs me the wrong way "I knew Jesus before he was a Superstar", maybe I'm hearing it wrong but it always sounded a bit arrogant, in that the singer thought his belief was better than one who came later. It's as if the singer thinks that those who came to Jesus after or because of Superstar, are not as good as those who had accepted Jesus before the musical.

[QMan]

Here is all the proof I need about the hereafter and God's plan. One reason is that I have learned to trust in the competence of other people and not only my own to observe and figure things out.

Spinal orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mary Neal dies in a kayak pinned under water for close to 30 minutes. Comforted by Jesus as she dies, taken to the entrance to heaven and then told she must go back. One of the reasons, besides witnessing with her story, she is told is to be with her son when he is going to die at age 18. He was 5 years at this time. He died at 18 when he was hit by a car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjYdm55k5U

Clearly, from what I have seen so far, the crowd over here cannot trust in someone else's competence when it goes against their ingrained biases. I am putting this out here in the hope that some unbiased objective people might sometimes stray onto this forum and take something from it.

I could be a smart ass and call you a 'Doubting Thomas' for needing proof but instead I'll say that I believe that each person will receive whatever they need to believe in God. There is no right or wrong way and some get some kind of proof or demonstration, and some can just see what they need in the world around them, there is not one better than another.

There is a song that really rubs me the wrong way "I knew Jesus before he was a Superstar", maybe I'm hearing it wrong but it always sounded a bit arrogant, in that the singer thought his belief was better than one who came later. It's as if the singer thinks that those who came to Jesus after or because of Superstar, are not as good as those who had accepted Jesus before the musical.

Thedoc, did you miss or never take Bible 101? You've got it all backwards. If you do not want proof of any kind your creator will ask you one day what you did with the brain he gave you. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO ASK AND LOOK FOR PROOF as strongly and intently as you can. THAT IS WHY CHRIST PERFORMED HIS MIRACLES and not to put on a three ring circus. If you are not taking his miracles as proof or whatever else he delivers up, you make his life so much more difficult. He needs volunteers (free and willing) and volunteering needs proof. The proof he gave us via his life and continues to give via other miracles must not be turned down since it has the purpose to increase and strengthen faith. He demands faith from the get go, yes, even with very limited proof, and most likely was annoyed with Thomas because he chose to ignore the proof that had been given so far.

[uwot]

Thedoc, did you miss or never take Bible 101? You've got it all backwards. If you do not want proof of any kind your creator will ask you one day what you did with the brain he gave you.

If ever I'm in the position that my 'creator' is asking me that question, I'll ask her why she gave me a brain that thinks individual testimony isn't proof.

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO ASK AND LOOK FOR PROOF as strongly and intently as you can. THAT IS WHY CHRIST PERFORMED HIS MIRACLES and not to put on a three ring circus.

We all know the stories, water into wine, walking on water, feeding 5000 with one fish butty; we don't have to ask and look for them, what us unbelievers need is our credulity turning up to 11.

If you are not taking his miracles as proof or whatever else he delivers up, you make his life so much more difficult.

How hard can it be for an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being to perform a miracle that everyone accepts as proof?

He needs volunteers (free and willing) and volunteering needs proof.

Are you sure god is omnipotent? Why does god 'need' volunteers?

The proof he gave us via his life and continues to give via other miracles must not be turned down since it has the purpose to increase and strengthen faith.

Why does god perform miracles that only some people are convinced by?

He demands faith from the get go, yes, even with very limited proof, and most likely was annoyed with Thomas because he chose to ignore the proof that had been given so far.

If it is so easy to doubt, in what sense is it proof?

[thedoc]

Thedoc, did you miss or never take Bible 101? You've got it all backwards. If you do not want proof of any kind your creator will ask you one day what you did with the brain he gave you. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO ASK AND LOOK FOR PROOF as strongly and intently as you can. THAT IS WHY CHRIST PERFORMED HIS MIRACLES and not to put on a three ring circus. If you are not taking his miracles as proof or whatever else he delivers up, you make his life so much more difficult. He needs volunteers (free and willing) and volunteering needs proof. The proof he gave us via his life and continues to give via other miracles must not be turned down since it has the purpose to increase and strengthen faith. He demands faith from the get go, yes, even with very limited proof, and most likely was annoyed with Thomas because he chose to ignore the proof that had been given so far.

I have never had a formal course on the Bible, outside what is given in conjunction with being a member of a congregation, and some Bible study in private groups associated with the congregation. Perhaps you missed my point that some will refuse whatever proof is offered even when it is right in front of them, Many accept God and Jesus on faith alone without any proof, and some get some kind of demonstration without asking for it.

It seems that you are trying to refute the statement, made by some, that God requires faith alone without proof.

BTW, that humans seem to have the intelligence they do is one of the indicators that I accept as evidence of Gods existence.

[QMan]

Thedoc, did you miss or never take Bible 101? You've got it all backwards. If you do not want proof of any kind your creator will ask you one day what you did with the brain he gave you.

If ever I'm in the position that my 'creator' is asking me that question, I'll ask her why she gave me a brain that thinks individual testimony isn't proof.

YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO ASK AND LOOK FOR PROOF as strongly and intently as you can. THAT IS WHY CHRIST PERFORMED HIS MIRACLES and not to put on a three ring circus.

We all know the stories, water into wine, walking on water, feeding 5000 with one fish butty; we don't have to ask and look for them, what us unbelievers need is our credulity turning up to 11.

If you are not taking his miracles as proof or whatever else he delivers up, you make his life so much more difficult.

How hard can it be for an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being to perform a miracle that everyone accepts as proof?

He needs volunteers (free and willing) and volunteering needs proof.

Are you sure god is omnipotent? Why does god 'need' volunteers?

The proof he gave us via his life and continues to give via other miracles must not be turned down since it has the purpose to increase and strengthen faith.

Why does god perform miracles that only some people are convinced by?

He demands faith from the get go, yes, even with very limited proof, and most likely was annoyed with Thomas because he chose to ignore the proof that had been given so far.

If it is so easy to doubt, in what sense is it proof?

Short and sweet answer to most of your points, Uwot, (which I am convinced you knew anyway).
Free will, of course, and no coercion whatever form that could take (powerful miracles right into your face, making you move your left arm when you wanted to move your right arm, etc.). Really, are you just pretending or you do not know the significance of free will and respect and the need to extend those and have them extended in a relationship. Don't know if you are married, but did your wife wear handcuffs at the altar that you had put on her or did she marry you because someone coerced or bribed her? You must be aware that God is interested in a relationship with each member of his creation since we do call him our heavenly father. He is of course also able to accept the fact that you are not interested, and my educated guess is that that will be your loss one day.

[uwot]

Short and sweet answer to most of your points, Uwot, (which I am convinced you knew anyway).
Free will, of course, and no coercion whatever form that could take (powerful miracles right into your face, making you move your left arm when you wanted to move your right arm, etc.).

If your god knows anything about me, he will know that I would take that as a sign that something is wrong with me. If he were to do such a thing, would it not be a perverse act of cruelty?

Really, are you just pretending or you do not know the significance of free will and respect and the need to extend those and have them extended in a relationship. Don't know if you are married, but did your wife wear handcuffs at the altar that you had put on her or did she marry you because someone coerced or bribed her?

I am married, but it isn't down to me moving my wife's left arm when she wished to move her right. Whatever miracle persuaded her to accept me, I had to perform without the aid of omniscience and omnipotence.

You must be aware that God is interested in a relationship with each member of his creation since we do call him our heavenly father.

We call him our heavenly father, therefore god wants a relationship? Doesn't work.
Talking of fathers, I am one. My wife was raised a catholic and still goes to church on occasion. She wanted the children baptised, I didn't see any harm, but it does mean they will have to spend eternity without their earthly father. I'm sure the love of god will make up for their loss, but will they feel no anxiety for my tortured soul? Or is heaven a place of rampant egotism, where the only thing that is felt is the love of god and an individuals satisfaction in that love?

He is of course also able to accept the fact that you are not interested, and my educated guess is that that will be your loss one day.

I don't really get the sense that your education is better than mine, but it has led to a very different conclusion.

[aiddon]

Here is all the proof I need about the hereafter and God's plan. One reason is that I have learned to trust in the competence of other people and not only my own to observe and figure things out.

Spinal orthopedic surgeon Dr. Mary Neal dies in a kayak pinned under water for close to 30 minutes. Comforted by Jesus as she dies, taken to the entrance to heaven and then told she must go back. One of the reasons, besides witnessing with her story, she is told is to be with her son when he is going to die at age 18. He was 5 years at this time. He died at 18 when he was hit by a car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xjYdm55k5U

Clearly, from what I have seen so far, the crowd over here cannot trust in someone else's competence when it goes against their ingrained biases. I am putting this out here in the hope that some unbiased objective people might sometimes stray onto this forum and take something from it.

QMan, the testimonies of individuals' brush with God is even dismissed by the Catholic Church. For them they are too apocryphal and unreliable, and usually indicates a certain psychological disoder rather than divine intervention - for example, the hoards of people who claim to see visions of Mary and/or Jesus (usually impoverished, pious, Catholic women) on an annual basis. The Church have become embarrassed by such claims and don't bother to even investigate anymore. (It's probably something to do with the visions always appearing like their caricatures from children's bible stories).

I've seen you use this example of the surgeon on other threads, and I'm sorry but it doesn't even hold up to the most meagre scrutiny.

Firstly, human beings are notoriously unreliable witnesses to anything. That's the reason we have legal systems based on single eyewitness accounts. That's the reason the four gospels are poor historical accounts (only one was written within 100 years of Jesus' death). There is the famous man in a gorilla suit experiment that proves the unreliabilty of human awareness.

Secondly just because she is an orthopaedic surgeon, doesn't preclude her from lying/insanity/delusion/unreliability.

Thirdly, you say this is all the you require: to beleive in God: one woman's claim; one incident; one coincidence? Please, don't insult your own intelligence. If I believed every supposed eyewitness account, I would believe in: UFOs, alien abductions, the Devil, the Tweleve Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Mickey Mouse, that Elvis was eating a Big Mac last Saturday in Austin Texas, that Moses is renting a condo in Berlin, the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, Shakespearen ghosts carrying their own heads, George Bush.

Even Anselm's Ontological Argument makes a better case than that.

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry for the long delay in responding, A. I haven't had a chance to check the forum in a few days. I'm not losing interest, but the season is becoming busy.

I'll pick up where we left off.

Quote:
IC wrote: The timing of the plans of God is not a theological worry at all. God can have his reasons for when and where he chooses to do what he does. Nothing there threatens Theism in any way.

Any clue as to why God's timing is as it is? Or is it one of these mysteries that serve as a useful sidestep by theologians?

We can speculate, of course. But of course, speculations are no more than that. One condition of being the Supreme Being in the universe is surely that One's knowledge would be likely to far, far exceed that which ephemeral creatures on a lone planet might know, or be capable of knowing. However, if the Supreme Being did choose to explain one or another of His motives, there would also be no reason why a limited creature such as ourselves might be capable of understanding. The "mystery" could be exposited in that way. What it all would depend on is whether or not God has actually spoken on a given subject.

Quote:
IC wrote: I think the question of life on other planets is not relevant. There's nothing in Christianity either affirming or precluding the existence of other life forms and other Divine activities. The Earth is our story; it might not be the only story going. It wouldn't matter either way.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Brought up a Catholic, I seem to remember that we are unique, which is the reason why Jesus was sent to us. Now, if we are not unique, and there are many more like us, in galaxies further away than our imagination, then is it possible that Jesus was dispatched to tell them the same thing also?
Your Catholic theologians explained this very badly to you. Christian theology holds that we are not chosen for any particular feature of us, but because of the intrinsic generosity of God (also called "grace"). As for speculative others, we don't even know that such *do* exist, let alone *why* they would exist, or *what* the particular Divine plan would be for them. To assume it has to be a re-run of the show on Earth is an extremely broad jump in logic. We have no reason at all to believe it's true.

Either Jesus didn't know what he was talking about (I assume he did because he was God) or he was as unaware of the future possibilities of science as the rest of us were.
I'm sorry: I missed the specific "thing Jesus said" that you are talking about here. You'll have to clarify. To my knowledge, Jesus said nothing at all about life on other planets...and my knowledge on that is rather extensive. Is there some obscure inference to a particular passage you're making there, or are you reading something in?

Quote:
IC wrote: And your judgment that we "will" find other life forms is surely a statement of pure belief, not fact. I would suggest that you couldn't possibly know so much as that claim requires.

Interesting, IC, how 'belief' all of a sudden becomes a term of uncertainty?

Well, Aiddan, like so many other words, "belief" bears different meanings. There is "unwarranted belief," as well as "warranted belief," of course. There is "illogical belief," but also "logical belief." So it would be linguistically naive to force "belief" to mean any one thing, absent the appropriate conditioning adjective.

That being said, I have found that Atheists almost invariably try to force "belief" to mean only "irrational, unwarranted, evidence-lacking belief," and then stridently to claim that all "belief" is nonsense, and that no "scientist" actually has to "believe" anything. But I think you can see the obstinate stupidity of such a stratagem, since even science depends on "belief." What else is a "hypothesis" but a "belief" one has not yet tested fully? So they're not just insulting Theists, they're actually acting as naive verificationists with regard to evidence and also denying the validity of the scientific process without realizing their error. So I'm sure you can see through that as well.

That being said, we should ask what kind of a "belief" you are using to make the statement that there are other life forms out in the universe and that we are inevitably going to find them. I would propose that since this statement is not based on any achievement science has yet made, and since its practicality is highly questionable based on the dimensions and dynamics of the universe as we currently know them, and since it attributes to science a future power is clearly does not have at present, that your statement actually *is* of the kind the Atheists so routinely mock: an unwarranted belief. But hey, if I'm wrong, then feel free to produce the evidence that compels your conclusion.


Well, as I prefer to speak in terms of fact, you only have to switch on the news (an independent, unbiased, apolitical news channel) to see that we are tantalisingly close to finding microbes on Mars. This, you may say, does not prove that 'life' exists or existed on other planets, but if you believe in evolution, as I'm sure you do, then yes, it does in fact prove that life most likely exists on the trillions of other planets, and has the capability to evolve into something as complex as lifeforms on Earth.
Is "tantalizingly close" a scientific state of which I am unaware? Does it fit somewhere between hypothesis and evidence? How does one get "tantalizingly close" to something one admittedly does not actually have? By wanting it very, very badly?

You're quite wrong about me believing in Evolutionism. I don't have enough (unwarranted) "belief" to do that. However, even if we supposed that that arrant nonsense were true, it would not say a thing about there being other life forms out there in the universe. In fact, as even a knowledgeable Evolutionist can tell you, the "odds" against life developing by chance are so astronomically high that it is astronomically unlikely that any two life-bearing planets would be anywhere near each other. And given the precise balancing of cosmological constants required to sustain any such life, there is at present no scientific data to sponsor the "belief" that any such life exists anywhere.

I'm afraid you've got a "Star Trek" view of cosmology there: in that show the characters hop from inhabited planet to inhabited planet, and the universe turns out to be as densely populated at Macy's at Christmas. But even there you'll note they have to invent the strange fiction of the "warp drive" to overcome the astronomical distances between allegedly life-bearing planets.

So your belief in alien others looks pretty "beliefy" to me at the moment. It's got zero hard data, and just a whole lot of wishful thinking. But again, if I'm wrong, then show your evidence. If you've no evidence, then I have to wonder why you'd try to use it to base an argument against what you see as unwarranted "belief."

[aiddon]

You're quite wrong about me believing in Evolutionism. I don't have enough (unwarranted) "belief" to do that. However, even if we supposed that that arrant nonsense were true, it would not say a thing about there being other life forms out there in the universe.

Oh dear, I think there is a fundamental breakdown here which has signalled the end of the debate. Firstly, and I will state this as strongly as I can, I must object to you using the term evolutionism. This tacking on of ism at the end relegates it to a cult of thought, theory, a school of belief. I'm sorry, but evolution is none of these, and I am not going to be drawn on the reasons why. There is powerful experimental, observational and rational evidence for evolution. It is the fact of evolution, accepted by the majority of right-minded, rational human beings. The fact that you can refer it to as arrant nonsense beggars belief. Even the Catholic Church has (a long time ago) has accepted all aspects of evolution without exception.

One gets the sense that you simply cannot accept evolution, no matter how strong the evidence is, because if you do, everything you hold to be true as a result of your faith is in jeopardy.

Sorry, IC, I thought at least we had this as common ground.

Is "tantalizingly close" a scientific state of which I am unaware? Does it fit somewhere between hypothesis and evidence? How does one get "tantalizingly close" to something one admittedly does not actually have? By wanting it very, very badly?

As an addendum, tantalisingly close has nothing to do with how badly anyone wants to find anything. It is to do with fact: fossils containing possible microbial organisms similar to terrestrial microorganisms, the discovery of complex organic compounds on meteorites originating from Mars. I'd like you to name me the 'knowledgable evolutionist' who you seem sure of the astronomically low odds of another life-bearing planet? Not the evolutionists (I prefer to call them evolutionary biologists) I am aware of, all of whom maintain the exact opposite. I can provide you with a list of these people if you like - all of whom, by the way are expert in their field, and not just some religious apologist who knows next to nothing about it.

But as I said, the debate on evolution is a non-runner for me. It's be done. One must accept it and move on.

[Immanuel Can]

But as I said, the debate on evolution is a non-runner for me. It's be done. One must accept it and move on.

Well, this seems rather fundamentalist. A "scientific" subject that cannot be discussed? A precept so firmly believed that it admits of no further discussion? An authoritative pronouncement that we all must just "accept and move on"?

I wonder, Aiddan, if you, or anyone else, began to believe in this "science," so called, because you actually discovered it scientifically on your own? I suggest that everyone could honestly say they'd learned it in the first place from a high priest in a white lab coat, who said to their young minds, "This is the truth; believe it or you're a fool," and after that they never questioned it again...after all, who wants to be thought a "fool"? And then, after they'd read other impressive people parroting the same line, they came to the conclusion that there was no other view to be had.

It doesn't help that the pseudo-scientists don't publicize their many blunders. But just ask yourself, "Where did all the monkey-to-man charts go?" Remember them? At one time, they were certified evolutionary science, backed by all the textbooks: nowadays, they're just an embarrassing footnote in bad science. But no one ever wrote a retraction for the Piltdown man or any of his lovely friends; they just quietly banished them from the textbooks and replaced him with a new "common ancestor" theory. This is their working method, then: we can't be wrong, we're scientists. And we're not telling you when we're wrong.

Well, Evolutionism is indeed a creed and a pseudo-science, a sort of modern-day phrenology, a mixture of dogma and slant. So if we have to share a blind trust in macro-evolutionist propaganda as a starting point for discussion, then you're right, I suppose. However, I'm surprised that this is your sticking point.

[aiddon]

But as I said, the debate on evolution is a non-runner for me. It's be done. One must accept it and move on.

Well, this seems rather fundamentalist. A "scientific" subject that cannot be discussed? A precept so firmly believed that it admits of no further discussion? An authoritative pronouncement that we all must just "accept and move on"?

I wonder, Aiddan, if you, or anyone else, began to believe in this "science," so called, because you actually discovered it scientifically on your own? I suggest that everyone could honestly say they'd learned it in the first place from a high priest in a white lab coat, who said to their young minds, "This is the truth; believe it or you're a fool," and after that they never questioned it again...after all, who wants to be thought a "fool"? And then, after they'd read other impressive people parroting the same line, they came to the conclusion that there was no other view to be had.

It doesn't help that the pseudo-scientists don't publicize their many blunders. But just ask yourself, "Where did all the monkey-to-man charts go?" Remember them? At one time, they were certified evolutionary science, backed by all the textbooks: nowadays, they're just an embarrassing footnote in bad science. But no one ever wrote a retraction for the Piltdown man or any of his lovely friends; they just quietly banished them from the textbooks and replaced him with a new "common ancestor" theory. This is their working method, then: we can't be wrong, we're scientists. And we're not telling you when we're wrong.

Well, Evolutionism is indeed a creed and a pseudo-science, a sort of modern-day phrenology, a mixture of dogma and slant. So if we have to share a blind trust in macro-evolutionist propaganda as a starting point for discussion, then you're right, I suppose. However, I'm surprised that this is your sticking point.

Oh, I can discuss evolution alright, but man, has it be done...there is irrefutable evidence, overpowering, watertight evidence for evolution that really, you must question your stubborness to ignore it. Park for one moment your faith, LOOK at the evidence, read up about it - what's this about a high priest in a lab coat? I don't understand your use of this image. This is a straw man once again - very weak from somebody of your intelligence. What we understand about evolution is 200 years of observation, questioning, experimenting, verifying, re-questioning. It is simply the case that it has passed every type of scrutiny from every example. So much so that even the antibiotics you take is based on the fact of evolution.

Again, you've introduced a straw man with the monkey-to-man comment, that it was banished from the textbooks. Well blame the damned guys who wrote the textbook - it has always been the common ancestor theory. THAT is what Darwin proposed. It is obvious you are not well versed in evolutionary science. It is complex, and when people cannot or will not understand it, it is dismissed. THIS is the reason I will not debate it hear, because there are som like you just ignore the evidence, and keep on the same creationist lines of which there is not one single minutest shred of evidence! This is most bizarre, and really, it leaves you with very little credibility.

Answer me one question, just one: how else have you got here? You deride me for postulating of life on other planets. Tell me how and when we human beings suddenly popped into existence. Also provide evidence, concrete, irrefutable evidence, show me how to gain that evidence through experiment, and that experiment is repeatable with the same results. Show me and then we'll talk.

[thedoc]

But just ask yourself, "Where did all the monkey-to-man charts go?" Remember them? At one time, they were certified evolutionary science, backed by all the textbooks:

If they are gone, (and I have no reason to believe that), it would only be because the teachers of evolution got tired of hearing the Christian Fundamentalists whining about them. That and the political correctness of not offending anyone who is too ignorant to understand the subject at all.

[uwot]

However, if the Supreme Being did choose to explain one or another of His motives, there would also be no reason why a limited creature such as ourselves might be capable of understanding. The "mystery" could be exposited in that way. What it all would depend on is whether or not God has actually spoken on a given subject.

This is nonsense. If there is "no reason why a limited creature such as ourselves might be capable of understanding", we would have no way of telling whether "God has actually spoken on a given subject". Do you not see the contradiction there?

Well, Aiddan, like so many other words, "belief" bears different meanings. There is "unwarranted belief," as well as "warranted belief," of course. There is "illogical belief," but also "logical belief." So it would be linguistically naive to force "belief" to mean any one thing, absent the appropriate conditioning adjective.

The thing about belief is that it makes no difference whether it is warranted or logical; some people believe things that others don't.

That being said, I have found that Atheists almost invariably try to force "belief" to mean only "irrational, unwarranted, evidence-lacking belief," and then stridently to claim that all "belief" is nonsense, and that no "scientist" actually has to "believe" anything.

I doubt you have found any such thing; I suspect instead that you have woven it into your narrative; you find examples to support your belief and ignore counterexamples. It looks very much like confirmation bias.

But I think you can see the obstinate stupidity of such a stratagem, since even science depends on "belief."

No you don't. You hope that by using terms like obstinate and stupid, people will be less inclined to challenge you. Science doesn't depend on belief, you are obstinate and stupid to argue otherwise.

What else is a "hypothesis" but a "belief" one has not yet tested fully?

This is you demonstrating your lack of understanding again. A scientific hypothesis is one that makes a statement about the world that can be tested by anybody, regardless of their metaphysical interpretation. Going back to apples, anybody can measure the acceleration experienced by an apple near the surface of the Earth. There are variables, but no one doing science will measure anything significantly different to 9.8ms per second. If you know the mass of the Earth and the apple, you could work that out using Newton or Einstein, near enough. You could then have a debate about what causes the acceleration. A Newtonian might say 'I don't know.' (Hypotheses non fingo) A relativist might say 'It's because of the warping of spacetime.' A quantum physicist might say 'It's because of an exchange of gravitons.' A theist might say 'It's the holy ghost doing it.' They can all do exactly the same science; metaphysical claims make no difference. Where the claims do differ is that the relativist and the quantum physicist accept that their 'beliefs' might be proven wrong by advances in maths or technology. The theist on the other hand, can keep moving the goal posts, because god works in mysterious ways.

So they're not just insulting Theists, they're actually acting as naive verificationists with regard to evidence and also denying the validity of the scientific process without realizing their error. So I'm sure you can see through that as well.

I'd like to hear what you understand by 'naive verificationists' . What exactly is the scientific process that you talk about?

[Immanuel Can]

Answer me one question, just one: how else have you got here? You deride me for postulating of life on other planets. Tell me how and when we human beings suddenly popped into existence. Also provide evidence, concrete, irrefutable evidence, show me how to gain that evidence through experiment, and that experiment is repeatable with the same results. Show me and then we'll talk.

I'm sorry, Aiddan -- I didn't realize you would think I was deriding you, or making a personal attack. Rather, my intention was to call into question the belief you expressed, and to point out that it was merely a "belief," just as I had said. I don't think it's reasonable to rely on faith in other inhabitable planets so nearby that we could expect aliens to drop by or offer themselves for our discovery. I do think that suggestion is worthy of a little mirth, and a few jokes about it might not be entirely out of court. But my intention was not a personal attack. I apologize if I came across as insulting to you.

To respond, then: if what you claim you would like as evidence above is all that's good evidence in your view, then you're not going to have it for either theory. Science itself is merely inductive, and if we understand its basic claims we know it never pretends to be deductive. So we can't fault it for giving us only what it promises. It does not offer "concrete, irrefutable evidence," but only "strongly suggestive probabilities." There are only arguments from the best evidence available at a given time: it does not give absolute certainly in the way that, say, pure mathematics do. But then, Science never promises that. It promises only probability.

I find the evidence for design probabilistically compelling; I do not find the suggested evidence for Evolutionism convincing. Since neither of us was present at the inception of life (nor was any scientist, of course), all any of us has is the indicative evidence of the present "read back" into the past. Beyond that, there wasn't even "life" at the Big Bang, or whatever you take to be the origin point for existence itself. The final truth of this realization is that for both Intelligent Design theory and Evolutionism, then, all there is available is an interpretation of present data. And that data leads me overwhelmingly to opt for the Design hypothesis. You, it seemingly fails to convince.

Yet that is the best that there is, for any of us, scientist or layperson. We have that, plus our "belief" about which is the best evidence. You and I both, then, are "believers." We just "believe" different things. And both of us work with the evidence, not with mere speculation. That's an important realization for us both.