Yeah--your idea of an IDer. Your fundamentalist straw man. You invent your own idea of an IDer and then you take a dump on it not realising that it is a convenience you have arranged for yourself. Not like your shithouse. You didn't arrange that. Christianity arranged that. Plato & Co shat in a hole they had scraped in the arid soil with a amphora of water by their side which they carried from place to place for when needs must.
That's pretty passe I must say.
If Christianity has arranged the convenience that allows you to arrange conveniences for yourself such as your average common or garden straw man it might be even cleverer than I thought. Shithouses only require engineers. Straw men require sheer genius.
I suppose it's only natural when one lives in the lap of luxury through no fault of one's own and has had a lot of the sharp edges rubbed down for one. I humbly accept it as a given along with it's synergised other benefits.
It's not that I'm saying that you are a bunch of nambie-pambie spoiled brats mind you because I'm not. I think you are a fine body of men and women and are doing a good job. And long may you continue to do so.
On with the motley.
Is indoor plumbing a sign of Intelligent Design?
Is the kidney machine all part of ID?
Obviously.
Atheists could never have figured out either.
They would still be swinging in the branches. Monkeys are atheists. That's why we use them in adverts to sell various substances and appliances.
Explain the mechanism by which monkeys evolved to the point where they played golf on the moon. From a selected advantage point of view when it's a pisser playing golf on a well manicured golf-course with a bar waiting to cater for the thirsts of the gentlemen who have just gone round in 89 from the front tees at double pub prices and even better at quadruple.
I think you might need something more than cascades of blood-clotting agents in laboratory stabbed chiclids to get even a tenuous grip on such things.
Oh, when Chumley said "indoor plumbing," I was thinking the "advance" in medicine.
foxyQuote: For IDers, belief comes as a combination of reason, logic, common sense, and explerience however implausible that seems to anti-IDers.
_________________
But never any evidence or data, isnt that curious to make a pseudo scientific declaration of the validity of a way of thinking without any real "meat" to back it up?
Now, if IDers could have a shred of evidence to add to all that "belief basis" then perhaps theyd be on to something worth consideration. They keep avoiding that , or trying to dismiss it by pseudo scientifc "sillygisms" like Irreducible complexity or Specified complexity, think maybe they dont have no clothes on?.
It is curious how spendi, while assuring us that his definition of ID is the correct one, still engages in cooptation of all the ID "code words" like the aforementioned sillygisms and adds nothing new. Argumentum ad obscurem
farmerman wrote:foxyQuote: For IDers, belief comes as a combination of reason, logic, common sense, and explerience however implausible that seems to anti-IDers.
_________________
But never any evidence or data, isnt that curious to make a pseudo scientific declaration of the validity of a way of thinking without any real "meat" to back it up?
Now, if IDers could have a shred of evidence to add to all that "belief basis" then perhaps theyd be on to something worth consideration. They keep avoiding that , or trying to dismiss it by pseudo scientifc "sillygisms" like Irreducible complexity or Specified complexity, think maybe they dont have no clothes on?.
It is curious how spendi, while assuring us that his definition of ID is the correct one, still engages in cooptation of all the ID "code words" like the aforementioned sillygisms and adds nothing new. Argumentum ad obscurem
You keep avoiding that one word 'experience' however. That which one has
experienced is rather compelling proof albeit proof that cannot be demonstrated to anybody else. It's sort of like being in love or angry or hurt or depressed. You know your feelings are real whether or not they are based on accurate perception; and you can express them but cannot demonstrate them or even adequately desscribe them to anybody else in a way that the other person can fully understand unless the other person has also had the same experience.
But when you have millions upon millions of people claiming the same experience, a reasonable person has to give that experience at least some consideration don't you think?
I think i can sum up ID theory in one sentence: Lack of knowledge doesn't create a fact.
Are you trying to say there are facts for ID? if u have any id love to hear about it. im serious if god exists id really like to know.
OGIONIK wrote:Are you trying to say there are facts for ID? if u have any id love to hear about it. im serious if god exists id really like to know.
Yes. But, just like appreciation for art or computing a math problem in your head or having feelings or a rush of inspiration, there are no words to describe these things to somebody who has not experienced them. The facts are known by experience, not by testing or research. That is why ID cannot and should not be taught as science.
But just as Darwin's Theory can be tested and researched by anybody with the interest, so can what ID-ers know as fact be experienced by anybody willing to allow that to happen. And believe it or not, the experience really doesn't make one less educated or less intelligent.
Quote:You keep avoiding that one word 'experience' however. That which one has experienced is rather compelling proof albeit proof that cannot be demonstrated to anybody else.
I cant give any creedence to "visions" or any form of experience because its so subjective.
1Data is reproducible, experience is not
2Evidence can be transferred into responses, experience cannot
3Many people just flat lie, experience is open to continued misapplication. However, evidence, should it be falsely presented, is soon discovered.
4Experience is the stuff of poetry , not science.
ALso, as far as ID coming fdrom reason, I challenge that entire premise. Its a philosophical "comfort zone" for species incapable of learning about what makes all this lifeforce Tick. ID is rather cowardly in that it , for the most part, is an attempt at providing a pseudoscientific expectation of life after death.
im still waiting for a fact... im sorry but you did not present any.
Religion, in its unifying aspect, which is what it is at the foundation, is concerned in the Christian world with the inhibition of pride and the other six deadly sins which are themselves sub-divisions of pride. It involves a submergence of the self into the social body.
Grown and hard-bitten industrial workers are often moved to tears when Abide With Me is sung by the crowd before a Wembley Cup Final. They are tears of joy at the temporary relief from the prison of the self.
The materialist has no reason within him or herself to resist the temptations of those sins and they are picked out specifically for attention because of the powerful nature of them. It is, of course, possible for a materialist to fake resisting them as a useful set of life strategies but then pride is back with a vengeance.
To the extent that succumbing to the temptations presents social difficulties legislation is enacted to control such behaviour and this leads to the idea that acceptable social behaviour is conditioned by fear of the law and does not work at all for the fearless. The volume of such legislation is directly proportional to the strength of the force a materialistic world naturally exhibits in this respect and can be seen and measured on the bookshelves in the offices of lawyers.
The traditional sanctions of the personal social milieux, disapproval up to ostracism, can be escaped from by re-locating to areas where one is unknown and where these temptations are offered and accepted. Those are invariably big city centres where it is no accident that media centres are also flourishing.
Thus media is anti-ID as is also the legal profession although in both cases a market niche exists for faking being anti-ID.
The processes of unifying religions, the rituals, ceremonies and dogmas, are variable and adapted to local conditions and are secondary to the basic function of submission of the self, the lonesome ego adrift in the cosmos as Spengler has it, to the group.
As the lonesome ego is the powerhouse of western scientific progress the benefits conferred, which are many, come, as Marx, Weber, Durkheim and Freud well knew, at a cost of an increasing sense of aloneness and its obvious concommitant, narcissism.
ID as a movement, a Party, is presumably an attempt, if we ignore the possibilty of cynical exploitation, to continue with the benefits of progress in material terms whilst providing some mitigation of the alienating, angst-ridden, aloneness and has come in a response to the felt unendurabilty of highly attenuated aloneness
Both Orwell and Huxley envisioned a continuous war on a far flung frontier as an antidote to a collection of isolated, frightened egos when religion has ceased to fulfill the function. Sport and phone-in voting knock-out shows provide illusory relief but only in short bursts.
So the question is- "Can we do without religion?"
And it is no good answering "No- but I can".That is overweening pride.
If you can the only answer is "Yes" and then you need to explain how we won't all go mad without the use of pharmaceuticals, surgery, mind control, continuous war on distant frontiers and a circus of never-ending, humilating entertainment.
Sorry for oversimplifying so much.
fm wrote-
Quote:It is curious how spendi, while assuring us that his definition of ID is the correct one, still engages in cooptation of all the ID "code words" like the aforementioned sillygisms and adds nothing new. Argumentum ad obscurem
Assertion again.
What is curious for real is why fm won't answer Lola's muzzling question. He's been asked it over and over and to try to disguise his refusal, an insult to our intelligence, he puts up stuff like the above quote which is meaningless.
Of course it is obscure. Would we be debating it if it wasn't?
OGI wrote-
Quote:Are you trying to say there are facts for ID? if u have any id love to hear about it. im serious if god exists id really like to know.
Oh my! Have you no idea how silly that is?
use of facts to confirm a theory? why, i had no idea that was silly. all those silly people confirming their facts when we can all just close our eyes, type whatever we want, and if we believe it enough it must be true
yay ignorance.
anyone who hasnt experienced any of those would be what you call, brain dead.
