Intelligent Design is not creationism

georgeob1 wrote:

Doktor,

I don't regard the notion of multiple "gods" as meaningful and therefore dismiss the possibility you suggest.

Is 'what you cannot refute, dismiss' your debate strategy or something?

What exactly makes multiple gods any more likely than one god?

What makes a god that prefers his folks to be atheists any more likely than a god who wants believers?

What makes one religious doctrine any more likely than another (specifically, what makes the monotheistic worldview you hold, complete with dogma you believe, any more likely than the rest)

Please, answer my questions, if all you have is another glib one liner I would prefer silence. It would be by far more meaningful.

0 Replies

There are no scientific "truths," because there are no scientific "lies." Understanding that scientific "lies" could be called hoaxes -- however, they are anathema to science. Scientific findings aren't implied, they are conclusions that are published. If one is going to play games of semantics with the word fact, or supposition, or truth, or lie, they are playing a fool's game. If one reads enough about evolution and are intelligent, reasoning individuals, they cannot deny that the findings are undeniable -- everything evolved from lower life forms. ID hasn't been defined clearly, especially not by anyone on this forum. Otherwise, it's more befuddled semantics and the only conclusion is that it is to cloud the issue and get it taught in public schools. If they could only find a stupid judge.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

Are you truly willing to say that all the people that have no supernatural beliefs are not sane?

No.Some of us don't give a flying conjunction with Joan Collins, in her prime, either way.

Not that we would ever dream of treating Joanie so casually.

I might be prepared to admit,if pushed,that those who have no supernatural beliefs and those who have supernatural beliefs are all completely barmy.

0 Replies

You'd like my dog then, she holds neither view.

0 Replies

Of course the philosophical question still remains beyond either conclusion: Evolution or divine creation.

"'Why', not 'how' are we here?"

I think we could grow more as a culture if we spent more time trying to figure out why we have taken on the shapes and patterns we have as opposed to how we came to be.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

You'd like my dog then, she holds neither view.

You should check out my profile Chum.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I think we could grow more as a culture if we spent more time trying to figure out why we have taken on the shapes and patterns we have as opposed to how we came to be.

Surely though, that should be left up to the philosophists and theologians?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Of course the philosophical question still remains beyond either conclusion: Evolution or divine creation.

"'Why', not 'how' are we here?"

I think we could grow more as a culture if we spent more time trying to figure out why we have taken on the shapes and patterns we have as opposed to how we came to be.

Why we are here is an endless exercise in tail-chasing. We cannot know the truth of the matter, and the exercise gains us nothing that can't be had in the way of mental exercise in any moderately subtle debate on any topic. To actually worry about why we are here is the height of folly--we are here, as individuals and in the aggregate. Far better to spend one's time considering how individuals develop and how societies may be improved.

0 Replies

That is THE point I have been labouring all along.

Once God is dead how does society accept it and what are the implications?

It is necessary for anti-IDers,or anti-theists,to show that religion,in some form,has no societal function or has a negative one and it is necessary for theists to show the opposite.

0 Replies

Neither of those silly hypotheses is necessary.

0 Replies

Why are they silly?

0 Replies

Because they assume that any significant number of persons view religion as inextricably woven into the social contract. It is not.

0 Replies

I would say that it is.

With no Sunday there is no weekend.Same with holidays.Then there's baptisms,weddings and funerals and the dignity of a religious person at catastrophes. I might be prepared to agree to all that being pointless but I hardly think society in general does.

Maybe it will one day but that day doesn't seem to me to be near.

The assertion "It is not" is hardly satisfactory evidence.

0 Replies

Of course you would, but your "contributions" to these fora never consist of anything but contrarian argumentation--you take a position opposite to another member just to have an excuse for another of your incoherent, irrelevant posts.

Very few nations in the industrial world have an establishment of religion. The two most populous nations on earth--India and China--have no establishment of religion. The nation with the largest economy on earth--the United States--has no establishment of religion. The nation with the largest land mass, saving only Canada (most of which is "empty")--Russia--has no establishment of religion.

Gabble on, Spendi, as usual, you have nothing worth saying.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That is THE point I have been labouring all along.

If you have, this is the first time I've heard of it.

Quote:

Once God is dead how does society accept it and what are the implications?

God will not die because there will always be those that want something to believe.

Quote:

It is necessary for anti-IDers,or anti-theists,to show that religion,in some form,has no societal function or has a negative one

Atheists perhaps, not anti-theists, but your notion that anti-IDers want to show that religion has no societal function is incorrect. Anti-IDers wish only that ID not be taught in science classes. Anti-IDers wish only that religion be kept out of science classes.

This is the point I've been labouring over in response to your posts.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

spendius wrote:
That is THE point I have been labouring all along.

If you have, this is the first time I've heard of it.

I was probably referring to wande's thread on S and M which you are obviously not familiar with.The point has been laboured for sure.

Quote:

Atheists perhaps, not anti-theists, but your notion that anti-IDers want to show that religion has no societal function is incorrect. Anti-IDers wish only that ID not be taught in science classes. Anti-IDers wish only that religion be kept out of science classes.

That has also been covered at some length.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

That has also been covered at some length.

Indeed it has and I pointed that out in my previous post.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Of course the philosophical question still remains beyond either conclusion: Evolution or divine creation.

"'Why', not 'how' are we here?"

I think we could grow more as a culture if we spent more time trying to figure out why we have taken on the shapes and patterns we have as opposed to how we came to be.

Why we are here is an endless exercise in tail-chasing. We cannot know the truth of the matter, and the exercise gains us nothing that can't be had in the way of mental exercise in any moderately subtle debate on any topic. To actually worry about why we are here is the height of folly--we are here, as individuals and in the aggregate. Far better to spend one's time considering how individuals develop and how societies may be improved.

I think you misunderstand me. I do not think that the answer is unanimous or that it can be found extrenally. I think we should strive to "find" a reason to exist. By "find," I mean create not search. So no tail-chasing, no absolutism. I can't imagine your purpose for bein here is remotly close to the reason I exist. Not because we are made different, but because we make different choices and have different priorities/goals. Does that clear things up?

Relgion does ask this question all the time. The problem is that they (no matter the religion) claim to have a generalist answer that can be digested by all. I'm not so eager to condesend.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

georgeob1, I consider never having had the opportunity to serve with you a personal loss. IMO, you hadda have been one helluva skipper.

Thank you very much - I think I was, even despite a few errors that are particularly visible in hindsight. This, considering the source, I take to be high praise - even if not fully deserved.

setanta wrote:

Apparently, George, you consider "engaging the question" to consist in accepting your petitio principi that theism fulfills a need which can be unquestionably asserted to reside in all humans. You wax nasty indeed when it is pointed out to you that this is not necessarily the case. There are those whom make no "leap of faith" on these questions because they are meaningless. I am completely confident that you will now allege this to be a deficient condition.

What I offered above was, and was described as, a description of my own choices in this area. I fuklly acknowledgs their subjectivity. At the same time I note that any position on this matter, necessarily involves an element of subjectivism. I fault only those who refuse to acknowledge that.

0 Replies

george, in response to my last post, wrote:

Quote:

Telling...

So again I ask, what makes the idea of multiple gods or a god that doesn't follow the agenda you give him any less meaningful than your particular conception? Even to the point of offhanded dismissal all possibilities you do not already believe! Pretentious arrogance at it's finest.
Frozen preconceptions are a bitch, ain't they?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design is not creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know