>Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
>Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
No. You are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.
In the scientific sense, I am using both the hypothesis that the creator exists and that the hypothesis creator does not exist to interpret the data of the world, comparing the results, and choosing the one as being more logical and likely. I assume nothing, though, being an inherently imperfect being, I recognize I must make some educated guesses to interpret the data before me -- but that is necessary for employing either hypothesis in the real world.
In a subtle sense, one could say that any hypothesis is a "working assumption" or a "tentative assumption". But, no, it is not the same as a just plain "assumption" as found in any dictionary.
It may be true that some people cut this short this process by making assumptions from the get go. But that is not intrinsic to atheism. Arguably, it is not even intrinsic to theism.
Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
No, atheism makes no initial assumptions, and through reason and experimentation comes to the conclusion there is most likely (to a high degree of certainty) no God, at least not as defined by most religions.
Now, your final two sentences...
Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.
...do not imply the third from last:
There is no difference between the two.
There are many other sorts of differences beyond assumptions and possible incorrectness. From a rational perspective, the evidence supporting one is much more rigorous (i.e. evidence has a higher prior probability and more supporting data to raise posterior probability).
You could assume that if I turn the key in my car's ignition it will start. I could assume that it won't. Both have the possibility of being incorrect. However, one of us has actually tested this, so one of us has better information.
I'll assume your question was not meant to sound condescending (because I don't think it was).
Christianity, in its purest form, is not compatible with evolution. Christianity believes that the Bible is the infallible word of God and therefore is complete truth. The Bible says the world and everything in it was created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution. That being said, there are lots of denominations of Christianity that have accepted evolution by "reading between the lines" of the creation story and assuming things that are not there. Catholicism, for example has made an official statement (by the Pope) that there are no incompatibilities between the two.
But, your question and the statement that follows are not related. I am not a Christian because I don't believe in evolution. The converse is also true; the reason I don't believe in evolution is not because I am a Christian. I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life. I am a Christian because having hope that someday everything that has happened here on Earth will someday be worth it is what makes me get out of bed in the morning. I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is. IMO it would be a miserable and mundane existence if there was no purpose to life.
(And yes, I do consider myself an intelligent developer)
"I am a Christian simply because I believe there has to be something more to this life."
Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then? They also offer something that will make you feel comfortable with your belief; Christianity is nothing special or unique regard to some existence beyond your current life.
"I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is."
I couldn't disagree more. This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations.
"Why not be a Buddhist or believe in some other religion then?"
Maybe I stated it a little too simply, but I think you got my point.
"This precious life, even with it's ups and downs, is awesome!! And, as far as we know for certain - as it's happening right now - it's all we have. The fascination with a possible after- or next-life is a dangerous one that twists many people's actions and motivations."
I agree with you mostly. Life is precious. And the thought of "after-life" does drive some people to do some terrible things. But the same can be said for some people who believe they have nothing to live for. The "religious fanatic" argument only really works with religious fanatics and the unfortunate part is that they are usually the only ones that make the news. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left shaking our heads and hanging them in shame because of the senseless things that are done "in the name of < insert religious figure head here >".
But this has gone way off the topic of the article. The fish still looks cool and, as someone else put it, like a turtle fish. I wouldn't want to get into a fight with it.
> I couldn't imagine going through life believing that this is all there is. IMO it would be a miserable and mundane existence if there was no purpose to life.
This realization is part of growing up for many people. One learns to deal with it and find happiness where one can.
> Christianity, in its purest form, is not compatible with evolution.
I don't think this is true at all.
> The Bible says the world and everything in it was created in 6 days and so is incompatible with evolution.
I think this is just a symptom of reading too much into the wrong thing - the creation narrative in Genesis 1 is not written as an exact historical account - the writing style is very different to the parts in Genesis that are supposed to be historical. And if it were meant to be about the literal ordering and times of creation, then why is there a creation narrative with a different ordering of creation in the very next chapter?
The point of the narrative is more theological - about the nature of God and humans. It's not making claims about cosmological mechanisms...
The last thing I want to do is start a flame war, but I don't see anyone on here criticizing you for putting your faith in science.
I would like to have thought that the Hacker News community would be above unwarranted comments such as this.
Short of actually taking the first two paragraphs literally, I don't think you could have misunderstood the point of my post more.
And no, I don't put faith in science. Faith means belief without evidence. I accept science. I acknowledge that scientists are human, and that humans can be fallible, corrupt, egotistical and plain old stupid. And I admire the Scientific Method for doing an excellent job of counteracting most of our human failings.
Faith does not mean belief without evidence, it is more belief in something not seen. That does not imply a lack of evidence.
For example, you have faith in the efficacy of a pharmaceutical product based on the fact that you trust the peer reviewers of the reports of its clinical trials, and the reputation of the journals those reports are published in.
Without faith you could not accept any scientific conclusion unless you had directly observed the experiments they were based on. Neither could you believe anything on the news or any historical event you hadn't observed.
You might be arguing semantics, but I'm not. I see a gulf of difference between any definition of "faith" and how I derive confidence in science.
No definition of faith I'm aware of relates to confidence based on weight of evidence, or balance of probabilities.
To use your example of pharmaceutical efficacy, I take a pill with the expectation that it will elicit results comparable to its stated claim. I hope that it works. I'm happy if it does work. But my worldview won't be shattered if it doesn't.
There's pretty-good-guess faith and blind faith. Mathematical axioms and believing what other people tell you about science you haven't observed yourself are examples of the former. Belief in God varies between the two from person to person.
There's a way of formalizing this, so we don't have to rely on the imprecise and loaded word "faith": Bayesian probability, e.g. as described on http://lesswrong.com. See also http://rationality.org.
The definition of faith is, "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something". It has nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence supporting the thing you have faith in.
That's just one of numerous definitions of the word, a historically legitimate definition to be sure. Sadly any innocent use of the word for that purpose is -- to my mind at least -- tainted by the other, socially dominant meaning.
And anyway, even using your cherry-picked definition, I still say I don't have faith in science, because I can't afford it "complete trust or confidence". While I do think the core principles of science are the best tools we have to describe the natural world, even these core principles can not be immune to questioning.
I am sure he doesn't have complete and total trust or confidence in evolution; evolution is after all, falsifiable. A rabbit in the Pre-Cambrian would surely rock his boat. The boat has already been rocked many times before, and course adjustments were made based on the new information conveyed by that rocking.
It just so happens however that none of the things that would kill the theory have ever actually been shown.
Yes many of us would-- in the case of the subject of the article, it would've only required $134 if done early enough (before it snowballed to $4,999).
An important part of the article is that the subject profiled had dementia and was thus may not have been able to understand what was going on and was basically taken advantage of, albeit legally.
This is awesome. Yes, there are some usability problems, a few bugs, and tonnes of missing features, but I already like it better than Basecamp.
I started dev on a product like this a long time ago, when Basecamp was relatively new, but I didn't complete it. I was going for a Redmine-esque feel and that's what I get out of Ubercamp.
Keep it up. I hope you will stick it out as you have some big competitors.
Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).
Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.
>There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.
Atheism tries to answer the question without the use of a creative being and creationism tries to answer it with the use of a creative being.
There is no difference between the two. Both make assumptions. Both have the possibility of being incorrect.