Intelligent Design is not creationism

Chumly wrote:

Hey Neo,
would you agree that if you could find a religion inherently more benign than the one you adhere to, it would be sensible to switch?

benign:
Of a kind and gentle disposition.
Showing gentleness and mildness.
Tending to exert a beneficial influence; favorable: a policy with benign consequences for the economy.
Having little or no detrimental effect; harmless: a chemical additive that is environmentally benign.
Medicine. Of no danger to health; not recurrent or progressive; not malignant: a benign tumor.

Not sure I understand what is meant by 'benign consequences for the economy'; but yes, I agree.

Will you also agree?

No donut for you.

That's also fine with me, 'cause all the ID, Creationism crazy, stupid talk is making my eyes glaze over.

Hey, what th... what happened to the quick response box?? Must I now, carefully compose my thoughts? Im so used to quickly responsing that I feel like Im now in front of class reciting.

_Neo- mooga booga , check.

I'll define the opposite of benign consequences for the economy: religious wars / religious constraints (past or present) as to slavery / homosexuality / woman's rights / freedom of thought / freedom of action / religious intolerance.

As to your second question "Will you also agree?" given I have no religious predilection, I naturally opt for zero religion.

The question I next ask you Neo-son: given you agree if you could find a religion inherently more benign than the one you adhere to, it would be sensible to switch; have you done any comparisons to confirm your religious choice is the most benign? If not why not? If so how do you rationalize Christianity as being the most benign as compared to:

1) Some of the North American Aboriginal religions?

2) Some of the Eastern religions such as Buddhism?

3) The New Age Movement (which unlike most formal religions has no holy text, central organization, membership, formal clergy, geographic center, dogma, creed, etc) ?

4) Deism (which is based on a God who created the universe, and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation)?

5) White Magic (characterized by those rites and spells designed to produce beneficial effects for the community)?

I submit that zero religion is a belief, at least in comparison to my belief.

I've pretty much kissed all the toads, Chumly. I'm quite the old geezer, you know.

neologist wrote:

I submit that zero religion is a belief, at least in comparison to my belief.

If you are inferring that an individual cannot escape being subjective I agree. If you are inferring that by my zero religion action, I therefore hold a belief I disagree. Why? Because I have zero religion on the rational grounds of zero proof, massive logical fallacies, and pragmatic realism, etc. I would however be willing to change that view pending proof. So in my case zero religion is not a belief based perception, it is a rationally based action.

neologist wrote:

I've pretty much kissed all the toads, Chumly. I'm quite the old geezer, you know.

That should make you most aptly able to address my still unanswered question: "how do you rationalize Christianity as being the most benign?"

I did a fast scroll-through of this thread ... the usual suspects hurling the usual invectives at the usual targets by-and-large ... I really have neither the time nor the stomach to read nine pages of the stuff.

Having said that ... just thought I'd share some tales from the school where I teach. Apparently this is Big Bang Week in the science department. One poor first-year teacher is doing her very best to teach a concept she does not believe, but must impart as proven fact as required by law here in the Great State of Ohio. Apparently that's the easy part. The hard part is when she has to field questions after the lecture. Some of this spilled over into my class and I, too, did my level best to maintain the party line without compromising my own principles.

Is ID a theory with obvious flaws? Sure. But so is Darwinism. Yet which is being taught as unquestioned fact and which is the subject of litigation and ridicule? The bottom line is a bunch of savvy 15-year-olds did an admirable job of asking the right questions and exposing some very gaping holes in the fabric of evolutionary "science" despite the efforts of very many adults trying to teach them otherwise.

Yes, it's great fun to hoot and sneer at the author of this thread through the insular protection of the internet, but it would be even greater fun to watch said hooters defend their "facts" in a real world classroom - an actual level playing field, God forbid. 'Twould be quite a different shooting gallery, actually, and great, great fun, indeed!

Intelligent Design is to Creationism, as Peanut Butter is to peanuts.