(Part 2) Best products from r/agnostic

I haven't read it, but your claim checks out. Amazon 59 reviews, 4.5 out of 5 stars average

The pig that wants to be eaten (collection of philosophical thought experiments with short commentary, i dont think its useful for someone with 0 background in philosophy except maybe as a taster but the more experienced people will see what they know and appreciate it).

[Contemporary debates in the philosophy of religion] (http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Debates-Philosophy-Religion-Peterson/dp/0631200436) (looks at arguments from both sides which im sure us agnostics looking for the truth will appreciate)

Life, Death, and Meaning: Key Philosophical Readings on the Big Questions

And for some (thought provoking) philosophical humour:

Antitheism - A reflection (essentially they turned the problem of evil on its head, they said all the good in the world disproves an all evil God in humour)

*Pascals Mugging

There's a lot you have wrong here. I'm fairly sure your posting in good faith, so I'll try to hit all your points

> Yes I understand that some religion uses it as cover

They do. And it makes them and it makes them intellectually dishonest, at best, and flat out liars, at worst.

> and I also know that almost all atheists believe that life just started as a coincidence and evolved to where it is now

OK, so a couple of things here. The first is that atheism doesn't have anything to say on the matter of abiogenesis, or evolution. Atheist is the response to a claim. The lack of a belief in god(s). That's it. And second, while there are some common beliefs among atheists, no one is saying that life started as a "coincidence". The beginnings of life are largely unknown.

> and that intelligent design is a direct attack to that believe but still why the hate,

What do you mean by hate? I don't see that, and I've been a secular activist for 30 some odd years. ID isn't a direct attack on atheism, it's a concerted effort to rebrand creationism in an attempt to get it into class rooms. The liars at The Discovery Institute have admitted as much. And you not familiar with the Wedge Document?


> I thought they were supposed to be the rational ones

As I said, atheists aren't a monolith. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. People can arrive at an atheist position for bad reasons.

> but every time a scientist releases their evidence for ID no matter how convincing and scientific it is

That has never happened. Ever. There's no such thing as a "creation scientist". Are you aware that organizations like The Discovery Institute create their own publications so they can call their work peer reviewed?

> you will still see it pasted on an atheist forum and shitted on with no real refutes but instead insults about how dumb and stupid the scientist ,

Insults are wrong, but there's typically nothing to refute.

> how intelligent design is just pseudoscience

It's not even pseudoscience. It's a religious claim that can't be supported. At all.


> or just the usual religion argument counters like if God created humans then who created God,

That's not the argument. The argument your referring to properly stated, would be "If everything has a cause, what caused god?". I'm not a huge fan of this response to the Cosmological Arguments, but it's a legitimate one.

> if god is perfect then why is the human body so terribly designed or other arguments like these that depends entirely on god being the Christian one or must be perfect, omnipresent etc.

We can only response, or refute, to the claims we're presented. Most Christians claim that god is perfect, and omnimax. Calling out the contradictions in these statements in, again, legitimate.

> In the end both theories are not 100% proven

OK, again, this is lack of understanding about what science is. A scientific theory isn't a guess, or unsupported conjecture. A theory in science is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.

Also, science doesn't "prove" things, let alone to 100% certainty. And, when a conclusion can't be reached , that doesn't mean that all assertions are equiprobable. For example; if we have a large jar filled with jellybeans, but we don't know how many there are in the jar, is one billion as likely the correct answer as two hundred? Of course not.


> and both have their faults like an ID believer will also argue that if life randomly started then why has it no happen again

No one is saying that life start randomly. Please stop building this strawman. I bet if you googled this, you'd find many, many scientific responses to this question.


> or if life randomly started because of the different nature of early earth then why do we have only one common ancestor not hundreds.

We did have more than one. I suggest you read Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It's brilliant, and it will straighten you out on some of this stuff. If you have a PO BOX, I'll send you a copy.


> So why the bias to ID, why is it that God must be imaginary and that is it?

Because there is zero evidence of ID. Zero. All they have to offer are strawmen, Arguments of Ignorance, and Incredulity. And attempts to poke holes in legitimate science. At best.

The time to accept a proposition is when it's indicated by evidence. Not before.