"Intelligent" Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-05-2011, 12:46 AM
RE: "Intelligent" Design
No, no, the atheist are ok, they answer everything, but these Christians that come here to talk have decided to ignore me when I demand specific evidence for anything. They don't have the right answer, I didn't go to philosophical debate, so they don't have any answer to give and they decided to ignore me. How very nice of them all, very Christian like... But to tell you the truth, I didn't expect them to do otherwise.

[Image: a6505fe8.jpg]
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours.
-Hunter S. Thompson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2011, 03:58 AM
RE: "Intelligent" Design
Buddy Christ wrote:

If this is so, then why are babies constantly born with serious disabilities and diseases, some that cripple and some that outright kill before the child even reaches adulthood? God wanted them to have a taste of life, but just enough to experience a tortured existence?

______

Thank you for pointing this out. It's one of many reasonable questions to ask any theist who truly believes in God's benevolence and love for us. Or even just God's "plan" for us. What kind of God plans for a baby to be born with some horrible genetic defect which causes the baby to die within weeks of it's birth? One with a pretty sick and cruel sense of humour, I would venture. Especially since that baby, according to the rules of the Bible, would be condemned to the fires of hell for eternity, since it never acknowledged Jesus as it's saviour.

What boggles my mind is how so many people, given so much time to ponder these sort of logical conflicts between their religious faith and reality, fail to recognize the stunning inconsistency between what the Bible lays down as the rules and what is morally justifiable. How can anyone worship a God who cripples infants while they are still in the womb, makes them suffer constantly during their short time on Earth, and then tortures them for eternity afterwards?

(And then claim to be morally superior to anyone who isn't a Christian!!)

The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eye of Reason. - Ben Franklin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2011, 03:02 PM
RE: "Intelligent" Design
I have another problem with the creationist's logic method. After being ridiculed for their biblical stance of creation (and usually after struggling to explain the Noah and his animals), a creationist will switch tactics and try to explain creation from a deist perspective. They will discard all the easily falsified "evidence" of the garden of Eden and the talking snake in a tree, and instead start using arguments from Aquinas while becoming more and more vague. They go from "God is a caring father figure who created us with a specific purpose and monitors our moral choices carefully" ...to "well there's got to be SOME kind of force that set existence in motion."

And after using First Cause and First Mover arguments, they attempt to conclude their line of deist logic with a theist statement. "And we call this First Mover 'God'." It's an attempt to connect the dots. And here is my problem: you can't call this Unmoved Force "God." God is a word that already has a set of attributes and conditions and ideas attached to it. This is why it's so easy for Muslims to also call this force Allah, because it's easily interchangeable with whatever purpose driven deity you want to assign to this power.

My point is that you can't just assign a weighted word such as God to the deistic First Cause because you want your fictional character of a god to have more philosophical roots. I choose to call the Unmoved Mover force "Flarn" and its only properties is that it caused existence. And you for some reason you feel the need to worship a force, then go right ahead.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Buddy Christ's post
16-05-2011, 09:43 AM
RE: "Intelligent" Design
(15-05-2011 03:02 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I have another problem with the creationist's logic method. After being ridiculed for their biblical stance of creation (and usually after struggling to explain the Noah and his animals), a creationist will switch tactics and try to explain creation from a deist perspective. They will discard all the easily falsified "evidence" of the garden of Eden and the talking snake in a tree, and instead start using arguments from Aquinas while becoming more and more vague. They go from "God is a caring father figure who created us with a specific purpose and monitors our moral choices carefully" ...to "well there's got to be SOME kind of force that set existence in motion."

And after using First Cause and First Mover arguments, they attempt to conclude their line of deist logic with a theist statement. "And we call this First Mover 'God'." It's an attempt to connect the dots. And here is my problem: you can't call this Unmoved Force "God." God is a word that already has a set of attributes and conditions and ideas attached to it. This is why it's so easy for Muslims to also call this force Allah, because it's easily interchangeable with whatever purpose driven deity you want to assign to this power.

My point is that you can't just assign a weighted word such as God to the deistic First Cause because you want your fictional character of a god to have more philosophical roots. I choose to call the Unmoved Mover force "Flarn" and its only properties is that it caused existence. And you for some reason you feel the need to worship a force, then go right ahead.

Another good point. The concept behind this is basically that if they cannot imagine a natural process that gave rise to it then it must be "god" or if they cannot conceive how these natural processes work then it must be "god."

There was a hypothetical material once thought up by chemists called phlogiston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory). This was an invisible, odorless, weightless element that was responsible for combustion and held back some of the great chemists from realizing new elements (like hydrogen gas). At one point in time this was a well established theory in science and everyone just accepted it, even though there was no actual empirical evidence for it. Same thing here. First Mover and First Cause are merely ideas that have no actual evidence behind them but because someone made a "reasonable" argument suggesting their validity people latch onto them. I think god is a big pile of phlogiston.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 04:19 PM
RE: "Intelligent" Design
Next let's mock the "Creationism taught in schools" aka "another reason to hate the south" issue.


I'm constantly hearing that the reason creationism should be taught in schools is that "we want to have all possible theories represented so that the children can decide for themselves."

First, that's a load of h0rseshit. If you truly wanted "all possible theories" wouldn't you also be advocating ALL creation stories from ALL religions? I mean it's not like anybody ever proved that the Taoist creation story was wrong. Or proven that Hindu's Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva DON'T go around creating and destroying worlds. Every religious creation story is JUST AS POSSIBLE as the christian one.

And why doesn't this "all possible theories" attitude apply to any other scholastic field? Shouldn't we also then be teaching the science, math, medicine, and astronomy theories of biblical times? I mean how do we really KNOW that leeches don't cure ailments? Or that the earth isn't REALLY the center of the universe? Just because those liberal scientists show you their agenda driven picture of this so-called outer space doesn't mean it's right. Should we also include "Stork Theory" in our Sex Ed classes or should we trust science on this one?

And second, "show the children all possible theories and let them decide for themselves." Seriously? You want school to be a buffet of incorrect and disproven theories of the past? The whole reason we call them teachers is because they TEACH our children, not because they lay out all possibilities and go "decide whatever you want."

School isn't interested in possible. They are interested in probable. This is why we don't still suggest to them that witchcraft, alchemy, astrology, and necromancy are legitimate practices. Or that gravity MIGHT be caused by tiny pixies flying around the planet so fast that the wind blows us back to earth.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2011, 06:04 PM
 
RE: "Intelligent" Design
I'm new hear, so forgive me if this has been mentioned before, but Nova did a great story on ID. If you have not seen it, it's a great watch.



[url] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/i...trial.html[/url]
Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2011 12:56 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: "Intelligent" Design
Potholer does a great job of explaining things from the origin of the universe to how we got to where we are. Here's part 3 of the 9 part journey.






And here's one discussing the age of the earth, which is relevant to Creationists who believe the earth is 6000 years old (and those Creationists who have embraced evolution AND creationism... c'mon buddy, reality isn't a buffet where you can pick out which explanations you want and combine them on your plate of beliefs).




"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: