I agree that I could have phrased it better. But that was what I implied (English is not my native tongue), although I never used the term “empirical science”. You did that. It’s the evidence that is empirical if the results are indeed consistent when experiments are reproduced.

“The only evidence of that is a host of examples. Only one exception would disprove the whole lot.”

Not necessarily, it can point out that there are exceptions. New questions that have to be investigated.

“The absence of that example is only an absence of evidence.”

Why? You only know that it is when that evidence shows up. In which case, the theory will have to be adjusted. And it will. And that’s what I meant with the scientific approach being solid. It may not always be 100% correct, but it is the best way to get as close to that 100% as possible. Exactly because it readjusts in case of new evidence.
And modern technology proves this approach of fine-tuning works.

“With the remarks about sound systems and such, you insinuate that engineers and scientists are always at odds with preachers and teachers, suggesting scientists and engineers are always non-believers.”

No, I don’t, that your interpretation. Even though I’m puzzled by how some seem to combine these aspects.

“Dismissiveness about God by crowding Him with a host of fantasies (e.g. absent unicorns) makes it clear you are not comfortable to discuss the matter to hand: The presence of God. You are using the technique of introducing a matter not in evidence, i.e. you are confused.”

Religions/religious people are the ones introducing matter not in evidence. Atheists and agnostics only mirror this with unicorns and the like.

“Stay on topic.”

You’re absolutely right, and I will, as this is not about science and evolution. There’s just really no evidence that supports the existence of god, no matter what science/evolution says. There.

“If you are not willing to discuss in relevant terms, why are you posting?”

The article is about debating atheists. Well I’m a debating atheist.
What else do you consider to be relevant terms?

“You have not used the capitalized form of the name God. Do you intend to be rude to others who do?”

No, I don’t intend to be rude and I’m not.

What is rude is telling full grown women that their lives are worth less than that of their underdeveloped unborn child (even if this child is not going to survive the pregnancy anyway). Rude is the mutilation of the genitals of kids.
Not capitalizing the word ‘god’ is not rude. And if there should happen to be a god and he thinks it is rude then he probably knows where to find me. But if you are offended by not capitalizing, then you’re just too easily offended. Deal with it.
BTW, I’m not saying that specificly you do/say the things I just called rude. But we both know these things happen in the names of gods, including yours.

The only evidence of that is a host of examples. Only one exception would disprove the whole lot. The absence of that example is only an absence of evidence.

No triumphal crowing. Just making a clear eyed statement about what you appear to believe.

With the remarks about sound systems and such, you insinuate that engineers and scientists are always at odds with preachers and teachers, suggesting scientists and engineers are always non-believers. Come up with a list. You will find you are wrong.

One of the greatest theoreticians of science is Isaac Newton. He was also an alchemist, before chemistry emerged, and a devout believer in God. Much of his theorizing was to reveal God’s great creation. Many scientists and engineers are of the same disposition.

Dismissiveness about God by crowding Him with a host of fantasies (e.g. absent unicorns) makes it clear you are not comfortable to discuss the matter to hand: The presence of God. You are using the technique of introducing a matter not in evidence, i.e. you are confused. Stay on topic. If you decide not to believe, fine. If you are not willing to discuss in relevant terms, why are you posting?

You have not used the capitalized form of the name God. Do you intend to be rude to others who do?

The fact that you use a political term “religious right” shows you have other fundamental issues that are wide of the discussion to hand. Again, stay on topic.

So in a sense we’re all agnostic: unicorn agnostic, Tooth Fairy agnostic and teapot agnostic. Though every sane adult will say that he/she is certain that these things just don’t exist as the probability that they do exist is so little it can be ignored. So we’re all a-unicornists, a-Tooth-Fairyists and a-teapottists. There’s simply no evidence to support their existence.

The same with god, any god. There’s simply no evidence to support god’s existence. This makes me agnostic, but I ‘believe’ the probability that there is a god is so little that it can be ignored. And therefor I call myself an atheist instead of an agnost. I think this is true for most atheists.

About assumptions and science…
Scientific research may originate in assumptions, it’s the results from empirical experiments that make something a scientific fact or not. Not the assumption that may have lead to the experiments.

The fact that science demands reproducible experiments with reproducible results makes its evidence solid. And it shows, because all modern technology is based upon scientific research.

There would be no religious tv and radio stations with hosts questioning scientific facts, no churches where pastors/reverends call evolution a lie through a sound system, no websites where people claim that science is a believe system. None of that would exist if science hadn’t made it possible. There would not even be cheap bibles as production and transportation would take a lot of labour.

The scientific approach has been proven to work, time and time again. Still, the religious right, time and time again, uses the products of scientific efforts to call that same science nonsense.
Some will say atheists do something similar to god. The difference is that science is based on solid evidence (I’m writing this on a piece of modern technology, a product of scientific research) and that god/religion is based on believe.

Please consider that any logical construct is based on assumption. The companion assertion is very little is known a priori.

Any posit for argument are going to be assertion of faith: “This thing I believe to be so.”

Thus it is clear that any logical system starts with assertions, which are statements of faith, according to the aesthetic of the logician.

Whether you believe in a posit is not based on evidence so much as having a taste for what you believe. The posit may be part of a grand theory, but that in no way demonstrates its accuracy.

There is no proof of an assumption. God is not apart from faith of the believer. This is no failing, since all rational thought proceeds from assumptions the logician decides to believe.

My belief in God is akin to my aesthetic. There is no demonstration of God’s presence. This is just as the basic assumption of any statement of faith (Darwinism, for example) is based on identifiable posits.

BTW, there are still some old (December) comments of mine waiting for moderation. One here and one on
http://lisakrempasky.com/vote-des-moines-register-poll-about-gay-marriage/

Knock knock, who’s there?
God.
God who?
God of the gaps.

Let’s assume for a second that evolution is all nonsense. Would that mean god exists? No, not in any way.

You might suppose that includes water.