Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Naturally. You don't really want facts.

I already know them all. What's the point of reading them all again or versions of them with the names changed?

Give me a fact Ed I should have paid attention to.

It's you lot who don't want the facts. You never have. Have you read the record?

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

Besides, it's time for trolls to stick their noses back into their old moldy Bibles and reread the about Creationism.

Another abject strawman. Try the Song of Solomon. It's your self-gratifying imagination that thinks serious students read the Bible to study creationism. The book is a keystone of our culture. It is impossible to imagine where we would be without it. What an illusion to be living with that you, or any of us, would be where we are now had it not existed. The self-centredness required to think that we would be is the nearest thing to a black hole.

No wonder the false allegation of "troll" is your only shot. We can't call "moldy" a shot because most of Christendom will just laugh at such girlishness.

You can't even debate like a man.

I suppose you "peruse" a book. Or study it. It's only Christians who have their noses in it. Your emotions really are a problem.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

. Many of those people live much better than the average of their congregates.

More slime. Meaningless too. How many is many?

And their congregations freely choose it. CEOs live better than their workeforce. There are millions of people who live better than others. Hamburger store managers for example and they sell what some think, and science says, is poison. What are you trying to say?

You are so desperate to smear Christians it is pitiful. You can't debate like a man either.

Also many don't. Many work in ghettos and with tribes. Many helped open up America under very trying circumstances. Many have been tortured and murdered resisting communism.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

A poem by the new Brit Poet Laureate.

I was hoping nobody would draw attention to this strange turn of events but now someone has done I might as well say that advancing secularism cannot but be more evidence of the demise of the male.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Pretty good take for one day/week work, wouldn't you say with some marriages and funerals thrown in for more "contributions?"

I don't know how most Americans can sit still for shite like that.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Theyve mainstreamed themselves by being historically and genetically connected to Creationism but after 1992 , believing that just denying this connection is good enough for the "rubes" (like spendi, who buys their utterances HL/S)

That's a lie and effemm knows it. I have never defended the DI nor any of their statements. In fact, for anyone who dares to look, I have severely criticised them. Even as late as yesterday. They took a dive at Dover and I've told you so many times.

You told a barefaced lie effemm. What else do you lie about? Every aspect of your A2K persona is the obvious answer.

They daren't make the real argument for personal reasons. What can I be expected to do when the real argument is unmentionable and it takes a bit of bottle to even hint at it.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

solipsister's charge of emotionalism, which I entirely agree with is answered by this assertion-

Quote:

What governing intelligence -- and what emotion is clouding my feelings? Anger, fear, love? Nothing can cloud my feelings, they're all intact and healthy, thank you -- it's not even clouding my intelligence.

I don't see the slightest sign of any above average intelligence in your posts LW and I see many signs that your emotions are red raw. And it's certainly not love. Professor Vitz charged Freud's militant atheism with having its roots in both anger and fear. In Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious.

Here are two quotes from a review of Prof Vitz's book Faith of the Fatherless: The Psychology of Atheism (1999)

Quote:

Now, in postulating a universal Oedipus complex as the origin of all our neuroses, Freud inadvertently developed a straightforward rationale for understanding the wish-fulfilling origin of rejecting God. After all, the Oedipus complex is unconscious, it is established in childhood and, above all, its dominant motive is hatred of the father and the desire for him not to exist, especially as represented by the desire to overthrow or kill the father. Freud regularly described God as a psychological equivalent to the father, and so a natural expression of Oedipal motivation would be powerful, unconscious desires for the nonexistence of God. Therefore, in the Freudian framework, atheism is an illusion caused by the Oedipal desire to kill the father and replace him with oneself. To act as if God does not exist is an obvious, not so subtle disguise for a wish to kill Him, much the same way as in a dream, the image of a parent going away or disappearing can represent such a wish: "God is dead" is simply an undisguised Oedipal wish-fulfillment.

Quote:

This is a brief but brilliantly provocative book. Its main argument--that atheism is at least as much a product of personal psychology as theism--is undeniable. The extension of this argument--to correlate a particular kind of childhood relationship with the father to a subsequent and rather predictable kind of relationship with the Father--is quite compelling. Most of all, it is a great joy to see someone as skillful as Professor mount a counteroffensive in the war between faith and reason and see him carry the field so convincingly. Unless you're an atheist who had a defective father and had previously thought you were simply being driven by reason, you'll have great fun reading the book.

Or any authority.

And if "To act as if God does not exist is an obvious, not so subtle disguise for a wish to kill Him" is true then the same applies to putting someone on Ignore.

Which could only be rationalised if a serious threat is perceived to a highly emotional position.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ANYONE WHOSE BELIEFS ARE NOT INITIALLY ARRIVED AT BY REASON.

From the same review as previous there is this-

Quote:

Hostility towards God and religion has had a few voila moments over the centuries, points where disbelievers thought they'd found an argument that was so dispositive that when they whipped it out the religious would have no rejoinder. The first came with the development of reason as a tool of analysis, which they mistook as a complete system of thought in itself. They used reason to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that faith-based beliefs, those which are not provable by reason, must be inferior in quality. But along came David Hume to show that reason is actually capable of disproving itself and even our own existence, making it an inherently standard by which to judge other types of thought. Reason too proceeds from faith:

I think there's a typo. I would guess "inherently" should read "incomprehensible" or some such.

effemm has already had Hume explained to him and yet he persists with pure nonsense for his signature.

One wonders what else effemm is capable of demonstrating to his own satisfaction with his wonderfully ridiculous "reason".

No serious thinker speaks of reason. It's an illusion but what is much worse is that it is a narcissistic illusion. Religious illusions are the opposite. They inhibit narcissism. Otherwise the Divine Marquis is simply waiting for no policeman to be around. In Freudian terms there is no super-ego to control the ego and the id for an atheist. Only fear of the law.

Still--Freud was a troll too.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
A poem by the new Brit Poet Laureate.

I was hoping nobody would draw attention to this strange turn of events but now someone has done I might as well say that advancing secularism cannot but be more evidence of the demise of the male.

Promotion of the female to an equal class with the male is not the demise of the male. This is only wrong, if you think that you are superior to women.

T
K
O

0 Replies

It's the modus operandi for trolls to post in multiples of three or more, answer or comment on a post not directed to them, include ad hominem attacks in virtually every post to boost their own ego, incite or cajole controversy with non sequitur or straw man arguments, use long meandering sentences full of multi-syllabic words which make little sense in a vain attempt to exhibit a high intelligence, fancy themselves as master baiters (well, the are jacking off), complain when they get a negative response to their negative post, attempt armchair psychiatric analysis, and still, with all the deodorant they layer on with their one-quart spray bottle of Lysol, they cannot hide their distinctive and repulsive odor.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

He he he. It got you going LW.

I notice you didn't bother responding to the posts. That was very noticeable. Just went off on one all on your own.

Pity about the falsehood about "my" armchair psychiatric analysis. I was quoting a professor and a reviewer of his book about the father of psychiatry.

I never accuse others of being armchair reporters when they quote others.

Still--fairness is not in your bag of tricks is it. Your side can do anything they want and there's never a peep of complaint.

I am on my own and your side had multiple says and if I don't reply to them all they are left standing. You're bullying again.

Plenty of people comment on posts not directed at them. I'll bet you have done it. I'll bet you've all done it. It's only when I do it you mention it and I'm the only one entitled to do it.

And when it comes to boosting one's own ego you are in the top division as I pointed out in the Coffee House. You never stop jacking off. It's the reason you're here.

What was my non sequitur? What was my straw man? What's up with long sentences? Can you not follow them or something? What were my ad hominems. You're in blurt mode.

And I smell like most blokes who don't use scent.

Your post was nothing but bluster and bombast to try to cover up the obvious fact that you have no answers. And trite as usual.

Why don't you respond the Hume's rubbishing of reason. Or that atheism is just as much an illususion as ID. Or that atheism springs from psychoanayltic roots of fear and anger. It can't spring from reason.

Reason can't even prove there's any such thing as reason. And that's the intellectual core of materialist philosophy if you care to study the matter. Hume, Kant, Ryle, Armstrong et al.

You're out of your depth mate. Give it a rest.

0 Replies

Im afraid that this thread may be heading for the tank because of the soricine troll who, sfter drinking a few dozen pints , believes he is "with clue". NOT to mention that his verbal archipelego above was only accomplished in almost three hours of his wretched life. Cant he think more clearly?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You're in blurt mode too effemm. Your post is completely meaningless. Except insofar as it discloses your ridiculous habit of blurting.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Obviously not, you responded my extra clueless friend.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I always respond. Even to blurts. It's polite.

If nobody responded it could look like you were blurting at the sky. Which is worse than talking to yourself because it's incoherent and what sort of a person talks to himself incoherently?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman need never worry about getting any responses or mumbling to himself in beer bars, nor in effect talking to himself on this forum with multiple posts nobody is responding to.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

In case you haven't noticed LW I get a great deal of response to my posts. The ones I like best are those when I'm indignantly assured that I have been put on Ignore. That is proof I have touched a raw nerve amidst the welter of infantile subjectivities parading itself as objective and using science as a club to beat up on people for the purpose of making itself feel big. Which is, of course, a state of mind which feels itself being beat up and is looking for victims on which to vent its frustration. Traffic wardens are chosen from the henpecked.

It is actually a good thing because it is a recognition of its powerlessness and it being over-organised. It is just that it is the wrong method of doing something about it. The right method is to drop out.

Actually, in the history of evolution nature goes to a great deal of trouble to ensure that every individual is unlike every other individual. And here you all are, in the name of science, trying to ensure that the whole population conforms to a set of data abstracted from reality by "experts" and that the multiplicity of endlessly diverse phenomena are reduced to a unified product to come out of the schools.

Even the activity of war has been reduced on this very thread to a simple-minded effect of religion. Even A2Kers, if they don't conform to the anti-IDer's approval are reduced to trolls.

Okay--religious teachings have a similar effect but they are neither standardised nor compulsory. They allow a degree of diversity and science does not. What science does is reduce human diversity to sub-human uniformity and freedom to servitude and that is why it makes no impact in politics and why it leaves most females cold. It suffocates creativity.

So, all in all, your position is anti-evolutionary and thus incoherent no matter how much you condescendingly reassure each other. And before you get over-excited about that you might recall than effemm and myself go back a lot further than your presence on this thread.

What beer has to do with it I can't imagine. Your twee puritannical self-righteousness about that is also anathema to creativity and science.

0 Replies

It might clarify matters for you lot if you took the trouble to study Chapters XVI and XVII of Brave New World. The big scene with Mustapha Mond and the clever dicks.

Those who seek to determine educational policy for a nation have a duty to study the best literature the world has to offer before they put their gobs into gear.

0 Replies

I'm a dead horse named ID, but I'm feeling lively again... kick kick kick

0 Replies

Well, gee, Spendius, you're right, science certainly does reduce diversity of thought and enforce a subhuman uniformity on us. Believing that the sun is a ball of nuclear fire around which the earth revolves is far more limiting than also believing it sits in a chariot with a god driving a team of horses around the stationary earth. How much richer humanity is with that chariot in the sky! Sheesh.

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know