97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 06:07 pm
@spendius,
Pascal revisited.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 06:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I'm sure you will, and that's fine by me, because it's just one more nail in the coffin of your claims to . . . what is it now? . . . "logical" superiority?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 06:15 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
But I think rowing agnostically would result in you being the first, after two shifts of 10 hours rowing, to throw yourself exhausted on the bottom of the boat saying "this is hopeless" whilst those with faith would press on and, who knows, may fetch up like Byron, regaining consciousness looking into the compassionate eyes of the daughter of the Big Chief who was out walking on the beach with her maiden companions which is out of the question if the others had agreed with you and followed your example.


Are you still at the pub?
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 06:22 pm
@Setanta,
I think that he is logically inconsistent.

We could say that a God created it all and a God created that God and a God created that God and on and on but it all boils down to everything just exist and always has and did not have a God at the beginning, "everything just is.

Except for fairies they just come in and go out of existences. lol
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 06:26 pm
@reasoning logic,
But, it's only a "guess."
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 06:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
A hypothesis.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 07:47 pm
There ARE sentient beings living on some of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol.

There ARE NO sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol.

There are gods…or at least one GOD.

There ARE NO gods at all.


Anyone who does not see that all of these statements are GUESSES is just being stubborn. They most assuredly ARE guesses…no matter how they portrayed.

Even if they are written:

I believe there ARE sentient beings living on some of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol.

I believe there ARE NO sentient beings living on any of the planets circling the nearest 10 stars to Sol.

I believe there are gods…or at least one GOD.

I believe there ARE NO gods at all.


NOTHING CHANGES. They still are guesses no matter what you call them.

They are statements about the unknown.

They are guesses.

C’mon, guys.

You can acknowledge it.

It is okay.

Acknowledging that I am correct on this does not dishonor you.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 18 Jan, 2012 07:51 pm
@Frank Apisa,
They are not "guesses." They are statements made without any support for them. It's more like fiction, because nobody can prove them.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 04:40 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They are not "guesses." They are statements made without any support for them. It's more like fiction, because nobody can prove them.


ci, with all the respect in the world, think about what you are saying here. You are so close to seeing what has to be seen. Make that final move to seeing it.

Of course they are guesses.

Any statement about whether there is or is not sentient life on any of those planets…is a GUESS. To suggest they are not “guesses”, but rather “statements made without any support for them”…is as much an unnecessary obfuscation as is calling the guesses “beliefs.”

Likewise, since it is almost certain that there is no evidence that gods exist; no evidence that gods do not exist; no evidence that gods are necessary to explain existence; and no evidence that the existence of gods is impossible…

…any statement that gods exist or do not exist…is a guess. You can certainly call them “statements without any support for them” or “beliefs” if you want, but that doesn’t change what they are. They are GUESSES.

All said another way: You can put as much lipstick on a pig as you want, but it will still be a pig.


ANYBODY...EVERYBODY...think about it. They are guesses...and you know they are guesses. The fact that they are guesses...and being called "beliefs" is significant. This is not just an insignificant play of semantics.

Imagine, if you will, having a discussion with someone defending, "It is my deeply held guess that there is a GOD!"

Imagine, if you will, someone defending, "It is my deeply held guess that the Bible tells us about that GOD."

Imagine, if you will, having a discussion with someone defending, "It is my deeply held guess that no gods exist."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 04:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
You continue to attempt to frame the discussion in terms you are prepared to deal with. I have never denied that i don't know if there are or are not gods. I am an atheist because i don't believe it. I don't believe it because there is no evidence, and not even a plausible, logical argument for the case. That is not guessing, it is simply refusing to believe a proposition for which there is no evidence, and no logical basis. You want to use the term guess--you desperately want to use the term guess, just as you desperately want to claim that all atheists by definition claim that there are no gods. Otherwise, your feeble rhetorical effort is wasted.

Take my word for it, your efforts are wasted.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 05:08 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Take my word for it, your efforts are wasted.


With you, Set, that is almost a given. I don't have to take your word for it.


Quote:
I have never denied that i don't know if there are or are not gods.


Nor have I ever said that you have denied that you do not know if there are or are not gods. So why are you telling me this?


Quote:
I am an atheist because i don't believe it. I don't believe it because there is no evidence, and not even a plausible, logical argument for the case. That is not guessing…


Nor have I said that that is guessing. Jeez, Set, get with the program. I AM saying that if someone says, “There is a God” or “There are no gods”…they are guessing.


Quote:
You want to use the term guess--you desperately want to use the term guess, just as you desperately want to claim that all atheists by definition claim that there are no gods.


I have never claimed that all atheists claim there are no gods…and I certainly am not desperate to do so. In fact, I have gone out of my way to acknowledge that some atheists do not claim that there are no gods, but instead classify themselves as atheists on the basis of not having a belief in a god.

I have noted that the word atheist, however, did come into the English language before theist...and did not derive from prefixing the Greek "a" to the word "theist."

Why are you so desperate to call me wrong, Set?

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 05:38 am
I'm not desperate to call you wrong, i am intent on pointing out how silly, how childish it is for you to claim that your point of view is superior. It isn't. Yet you constantly harp on guessing, and a simple and simple-minded dichotomy of there is a god/there is no god. Whenever you start of up your tedious (and we've read it literally for years) rhetorical chant, you recognize no middle ground. Your point of view is not superior to anyone else's point of view on this issue. I agree that those who categorically deny that there is any god, or categorically state that there is are peddling horsie poop. It doesn't make you or me superior in any way, however, to point that out.
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 06:25 am
@Setanta,
My observation is that weve been shown a cooler headed, more incisive Frank Apisa. HAd this been two years ago, Frank would have been arguing at a totally different tone of voice.
Im impressed Frank, youve taken a number of barbs and rode them pretty well, and youve delivered several but not with the venom of old.
NOW, do ya think we could talk about something else? I think the paints been fully scraped off this topic.

Setanta
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 06:26 am
The thread is fucked, there's no doubt about that.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 06:40 am
This whole discussion is as relevant (but it passes the time.. I guess) as:

Imagine we are all in a room and all able to do our favorite past-time, hobby etc. Someone who we all trust walks in and says, 'here is an unopened box. There maybe something inside that is worthless, or nothing at all. You should all stop whatever you're doing and discuss among yourselves whether there is something in the box or not (bearing in mind that it will stop you doing better activities and the object if it is in the box is worthless). When you all agree or all agree to disagree or some variation on that... you have reached the stage when you could open the box but you still can't open the box because no one knows how to open it and never will.'

What do you do next?

That is the position that we are all in... in this thread. To me this thread is (I've come to see after some time spent here) irrelevant except to point out its irrelevance from time to time.

igm
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 06:49 am
@igm,
Previous post was amended... later... on the last line.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 06:58 am
@farmerman,
It is only slightly off topic. Evolutionary scientists are interested in useful explanations rather than philosophical truth. Still, I think Frank has established part of the main topic: intelligent design is religious.
igm
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 07:06 am
@wandeljw,
Wandeljw, my recent post was not aimed at your topic as a whole because ID possess a possible threat to the status quo but the recent interjection which as you correctly say has established that ID is connected with religion is hardly a ground breaking accomplishment.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 08:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
My observation is that weve been shown a cooler headed, more incisive Frank Apisa. HAd this been two years ago, Frank would have been arguing at a totally different tone of voice.
Im impressed Frank, youve taken a number of barbs and rode them pretty well, and youve delivered several but not with the venom of old.
NOW, do ya think we could talk about something else? I think the paints been fully scraped off this topic.



Thanks, Farmerman.

Actually, I would love to move on. I agree...we seem to be going nowhere.

When I came back to A2K, I looked around for a topic to discuss...and actually didn't see many interesting ones that were active.

THIS thread is almost the only one going with any gusto right now. Unfortunately, there seems to be almost unanimous agreement to shut it down.

So...I guess we can discuss movies or television shows. I just thought the topic was very interesting...and was amazed that it has gone on for as long as it has.

I've got a couple of thoughts about political topics I may raise. Hope any of you here can stop by and give an opinion.

Other than that...(unless someone has specific questions they want to ask me here)...I am done. Liberal/Conservative topic about to be posted.

spendius
 
  1  
Thu 19 Jan, 2012 08:14 am
@igm,
Quote:
Imagine we are all in a room and all able to do our favorite past-time, hobby etc. Someone who we all trust walks in and says, 'here is an unopened box. There maybe something inside that is worthless, or nothing at all. You should all stop whatever you're doing and discuss among yourselves whether there is something in the box or not (bearing in mind that it will stop you doing better activities and the object if it is in the box is worthless). When you all agree or all agree to disagree or some variation on that... you have reached the stage when you could open the box but you still can't open the box because no one knows how to open it and never will.'

What do you do next?

That is the position that we are all in... in this thread. To me this thread is (I've come to see after some time spent here) irrelevant except to point out its irrelevance from time to time.


If the thread is irrelevant then so is the whole debate about this matter.

The scenario you create is worthless compared to the lifeboat one I posted. That was intended to show that faith can be more powerful for survival than having no view in human activity. Survival being a key to evolutionary success.

It is significant that it has been ignored except for another weak jibe at my pub. The debate is irrelevant when participants refuse to engage with it and instead offer a scenario too ridiculous to bother with.

I presume the lifeboat was ignored because anti-IDers can't face up to it. The leading one have thought fit to throw a flounce.

What you do next is throw the idiot you trusted out and revise your opinion of his trustworthiness. And carry on with what you were doing after removing the sheet you had thrown over the lingeried lady to save her embarrassment when the plonker first interruped your favourite pastime.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/18/2025 at 05:03:19