ap wrote-
Quote:Fair enough; I think what you are trying to say is that my mind is closed. The problem here is the distinct hypocrisy which you seem to be unaware of. At least I have admitted my biased and attempted to have an open mind. I wrote a thread once - "Science starts with a conclusion. Religion ends with one". Religionists, and creationists in particular, are extremely unwilling to even consider ideas that contradict their beliefs. I find it ironic that you accuse me of doing this.
When you said that ID was completely and utterly ridiculous you betrayed a final position. You are saying you have a closed mind. Not me. There's an emphasis with "completely and utterly", an unnecessary one except for the emphasis, which I don't fancy trying to overcome. There's no irony in that.
It is considered bad form to discuss religion in English pubs for that very reason.
A religionist would cease to be a religionist if he considered ideas that contradict his beliefs. And the same is true for an atheist.
You are obviously not familiar with the thread. I am concerned to tease out the possible social consequences of belief and unbelief. Even if belief is ridiculous, just as unbelief is, the social consequences of belief may well be more useful than the social consequences of unbelief.
I never argue for a point unless I envisage everybody accepting it. If atheists would explain the social consequences of a 100% atheistic society at least there would be something to discuss. But they won't. They have been continually challenged to describe a society in which their argument is accepted. A society in which it is rejected doesn't need describing because it is there to see. Just about. In some significant places much more than just about. It is the atheist argument which seeks to change the status quo and therefore the onus is on atheists to show how society will be better off under their dispensation which is self-evidently revolutionary.
Quote:Your potent anti-academic views are not encouraging. This tells me, as I already knew was true for the majority of religionists, especially creationists, that you are not a scientist, have little intelligence and have a bad work ethic. An extreme description, perhaps, but only to match an extreme view.
Water off a duck's back. Meaningless. Blather for blather's sake.
Quote:There's a subjectivity involved. I'm an IDer and ap is an anti-IDer.
Don't know why you are referring to me in third person - I doubt anyone else would bother to post a reply about someone else's post.
I don't know what that means. "spendi is insane-pass it on" refers to me in the third person. It doesn't bother me in the least. If what someone says about me bothers me then they have power over me. Fat chance of that.
Quote:A fancy way of saying that you don't have the words to say it. This clearly indicates that it is not true, because if Creationism is a scientific theory, as you claim it to be, it should be able to be explained.
How can I explain it when the social consequences aspect is not going to be considered by anti-IDers. I have never said that creationism is a scientific theory. Or that ID or atheism is either. The science only arises on the social consequences argument. Belief and unbelief have nothing to do with science although one might not think so reading this thread. Anti-IDers continually make forceful statements which they have no evidence for. I try to make sure I don't do that.
Quote:I might add, for future reference, that when a person's remarks are prefaced by the words "To be totally honest" I sort of smell a rat. When it is followed by "I think" I know I am in that land of smoke and mirrors in which I have great difficulty navigating.
The words were nothing more than that. I was simply showing that I was expressing my views in complete frankness.
I take that for granted. I can't see why there's a felt need to point it out. Doing so implies that if it isn't pointed out you are not being frank or might not be being.
Quote:As I said it my first paragraph, you are hypocritical, and I at least was attempting to be open to your ideas. My description of you is an apt one. You should have taken the opportunity to try to prove Creationism, but it is clear from your post that you could not have done that.
It has never been otherwise. Nobody can prove Creationism. One might try to prove its usefulness in certain settings but the thing itself resists all attempts to prove it. Beliefs don't require proof.
You are never going to be open to ideas when you declare with added emphases that ID is ridiculous and imply that those who hold the view (90% of Americans) are ridiculous.
Are you in favour of an atheist society? That is a question that can be answered and argued for.
In the article I referred to about the kerfuffle in Eldorado a lady member of the FLDS justified polygamy on the grounds that there are not enough good men to go around. One might easily presume that she meant that 4/5ths of men are unsuitable for breeding from the female point of view.
And, if monkeys are anything to go by, and stags and many others, she has evolution in action to support her position.
And sperm banks function on that very principle.
What would be the atheist position on reproduction and child-rearing arrangements. I am in favour of the Catholic ones which I assume I don't need to explain nor attempt to minimise their difficulties.
) of THIS thread. 