Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

It really does bother you, ci, that if there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

Wonder why that is?

Okay--If if if if if if if if .......we go with scientific materialism, as you lot obviously want, it can be tested. In practice (shudder) or in speculative theory.

So--get on with the theory then the discussion won't be mindless. You have been challenged to do that often enough and ducked every time. What will replace religious activity if we give it up.

Are you saying religion has no social functions worth having or that they are all destructive? Fair enough, but you MUST offer an alternative to avoid the accusation of mindlessness.

Scientific materialism hands us over to technical expertise. In three generations nepotism within the elite will produce a quasi-aristocracy with no opposition. Democracy will fade away. Because the nepotism cannot produce the same level of technical expertise in the third generation power will be retained by corruption and repression.

Even the presence of religion produces something similar but with scientific materialism it will be full on. Marriage and the family can easily be proved destructive by an unopposed scientific materialism.

Because you have ducked this challenge from the beginning all your posts are mindless because, as I often pointed out at the beginning of the thread, social consequences are the only game in play for grown up intelligences.

Present scientific materialism in a golden glow for us and we can debate it. We can test it theoretically before we test it in practice.

What will you put in the drinking water to rid the human mind of religious inclinations? How will baby making be organised on scientific principles. What will be done with big spending old duffers like you? Will you allow private property? Inheritances?

What will you do? Candidates for election are ruthlessly interrogated on what they will do if they win aren't they? A scientific aristocracy won't allow itself to be questioned. The readings on the instruments will decide what happens I assume.

You're mindless and so are your cohorts.

And the future is to rest on your stubborn streak is it? We are to turn society upside down and inside out because you are stubborn. There are no obscenities to do justice to that.

It still is. That's why it has 444,590 views. Saying "was" is just another vacant assertion. A thrum. An emotional blubbering.



Another daft assertion. This one a real killer. That it has no point for you is the equivalent of it having no point.

And there is a point of having you wimp out. It's one less voice on the side of failure. Another of A2K's Big Beasts resigns the fray. Are there any left?

Make sure the white flag is Daz-white eh?



Another assertion. I made the same point 10 years ago and provided details as well in terms of the rhetorical competition which results from the uncertainty about the existence of god/s. You dismissed that in the same unscientific manner so that you could sail on in your ego bubble unhindered by any uncomfortable truths. Your failure is your inability to compete in that rhetorical competition. You know you dare not describe scientific materialism in action. And you have been promoting it.

You have missed the point. Social consequences.

If you can't rule out God you can't rule out intelligent design. It's as obvious as a turd on a bleached tablecloth. How can Apisa reconsider such a thing? There's nothing to reconsider. The point is valid. Wishful thinking conditioned by your own experience is inconsequential in regard to matters of this importance.

I can present a scientific argument that adultery is a very good thing. Sufficiently so as to make it mandatory. It does involve, however, the complete redesign of living arrangements.

You are banishing yourself. It has nothing to do with the thread. You can't take it.

And free speech is entitled to make whatever it can of the opportunity in rhetorical contests and behaviour patterns. Not that you do free speech yourself. You do dictats.

Aaaah! You understand the doctrine of the Filoque I assume.

In nomine Mater Matris et Filia et Spiritus Sancti.

The alternative. The old yinyangeroonies. Its writ ran for 2 million years ed and never the slightest sign of car lots.

And of typhoid.

But no scurvy, then?

An interesting entry from an estimable lady on the Acronym thread.



Have you tried any exquisite sacrifices lately lads?

No, it doesn't bother me Frank. That's the reason I'm an atheist. Nobody on this planet can prove there are any god(s) involved in nature.

I trust science more than your attempts to prove any god(s).

Also, you lack logic - a tenet of philosophical discourse.

Sheesh!! As if you know anything at all about that.

That would have been even funnier if you had used caps, ci.

It bothers you. That probably is why you have been spending so much time on it.



You are an atheist because you are pretending you are not bothered by what I am saying!

Wow! Most interesting reason I've ever heard.



I do not know everybody, so I can't say for sure. If there is a GOD...the GOD could certainly make ITSELF known.



I have never attempted to prove there are GODS...or that there are no gods. This is a laughable strawman that seems to support my guess that you are "bothered", ci.



Either you just cannot recongnize a logical statement, ci...or you do not have the strength of character to acknowledge that my comment IS logical.

This is fun. I am beginning to love the fact that you are stubborn.

How can what you say be true? I argue with my christian siblings all the time about religion and politics. It's only because they continue to try to make me believe as they do about god. Ain't gonna happen.

Your beliefs should bother you; there's no way you can prove what you demand others to prove about god. Your "if's" goes nowhere; it's a dead-end. That should bother 'you.'

Because it is true.



What does that have to do with whether I am telling the truth or not?




I have never demanded that you prove anything about the existence or non-existence of gods, ci. Nor anyone else either.

You ought really to stop making stuff up...and then arguing against what you make up.




My "if" was significant to the point I was making. It doesn't bother me that you cannot see that. In fact, it has really taken hold of my funny bone!

You made the assumption that "it bothers me." It doesn't. Prove it that it bothers me?

Here's a direct quote that you made several posts back.


That's a direct question to me about god. You will never get it; your question can't be tested.

I made an assumption. I make lots of assumptions. I do not have to "prove" them.

Besides...your lack of control is pretty much establishing that my assumption is right on the button.

Your assumptions are bull ****! Learn to live with it.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

Are you suggesting that I am asking for proof of something here, ci?

This is getting funnier and funnier.

C'mon, ole friend. You are allowing yourself to get out of control. Get back in control...and we will talk.

Or stay out of control...and I will just have fun with you.

That you don't even know when you ask a direct question about god only proves you're more stupid than I thought. That's a good possibility based on your posts.