"Alacarte - Atheism is not a religion, ....
JFK_Lib - Of course it is, just as the number '0' is still a number though void of quantity. Atheism makes religious assertions and is thereby a religious faith, and its lack of a formal organization is no more relevant than it is for Primitive Baptists."
Atheism makes no assertions at all. It is a lack of theism. A lack of something is not something in itself. Or can you explain to me what apathy asserts?
Here is a better analogy: The number zero is not a positive number.
"And yes, the prejudice and bigotry of materialists keep Christians from moving openly among the ranks of scientists and are purged when discovered."
I can see that anyone who bases science on untestable assumptions will be purged sure. A raelian scientist who bases a theory on the untestable assumption that aliens created humans will be "purged" too. People can have these beliefs but they can only be included in science if they can be tested. Abuse of the scientific method in science, not personal beliefs, leads to degraded reputation.
"ID will eventually get its day, but it may be only at the cost of existing scientific institutions becoming replaced."
ID has had over 100 years to "get its day". Modern ID arguments are essentially the same as creationist arguments 100 years ago. "It's really complicated! I don't see how it could happen!". This is a nice argument for personal disbelief in natural mechanisms - the same kind of argument cavemen probably used to explain lightning and rainbows as the product of magic.
ID is best supported when we know nothing about nature. That says it all. If scientists have a natural tendancy to support their own pre-conceptions then ID scientists would be by far the worst kind. Naturalistic scientists would at least be spurred to seek natural mechanisms. ID scientists have no drive to study anything, as any natural mechanisms found can only weaken ID.
Atheism makes an assertion, oh yes it does. It is agnosticism that says there is no persuasive evidence and so no evaluation is made, and it is the 'negative' form of atheism that says 'there is insufficient evidence, therefore I disbelieve the claims for God.'
Just as there is a difference between 0 and NULL, there is a difference between agnosticism and negative atheism and that is that negative atheism has formed a judgement, a value that other judgements and values are based on, constituting a values system that is the negative of a theistic values system that we refer to as a 'religion'. Yes, atheism is a religion, it certainly is, much as the Democratic Party is to politics, according to Bob Wills, IIRC.
ID has had over 100 years to "get its day". Modern ID arguments are essentially the same as creationist arguments 100 years ago.
LOL! No, they obviously are not, but go ahead and keep telling yourself that. MEanwhile the ID proponents are going to continue to gain ground and theism will triumph. Even Antony Flew agrees now that the evidence is on the side of theism (not against scientific evolution, but for creationism in the philosophical sense).
As a theist it warms my heart to see materialistic atheists put their hands over their ears and close their eyes and tell the world that there is no evidence for philosophical creationism.
Keep up the good work, all you monkeys, heheh.