RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,09:10   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,09:10   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,04:11)
[SNIP]

They're welcome to think it as much as they like. As long as they're not trying to get their opinions taught as legitimate scientific theories, or trying to force others to pretend their opinions are anything more than that, their beliefs don't bother me at all.

It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,10:29   

Quote (jeannot @ Jan. 22 2011,07:08)
† †
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 21 2011,08:04)
† †  
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 21 2011,03:52)
Please make a point which can then be discussed.

You want a point for "rational discussion"? Okay, how about this:

Science cannot prove that intelligent design or creation, of the universe or biological organisms or their building blocks, are or were impossible.

Hi everyone, it's been an long time. †:)

As others have pointed out, your claim is entirely correct. And I should add that you have just outlined why intelligent design isn't scientific.

In the same vein, nothing can disprove the fact that you do not exist and that everything is the product of my imagination.
Nothing can disprove the fact that I just created the universe 1 minute ago, including this very webpage, with your memory and all.


Ravi de te revoir! Et comment va?

It's not a fact; it's just a theory!*


*I know its old material but things are quiet around here these days.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,11:04   

Wow, late to the party and the monkey's dead!

(That's what she said.)

Kwis said:  Science can't prove an imaginary concept is impossible.

I say:  Correct.  Next.

Kwis said:

Quote
*SNIP*


I say:  DNFTT

I like this game!

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,11:35   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,08:48)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 22 2011,22:29)
There you go, being all reasonable and stuff.

I'm sorry - was that wrong? Should I not have done that?

;)

Reason and logic, delivered without the abuse he so badly craves, makes Baby JoeyKris cry.


The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
qetzal



Posts: 309
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,19:12   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10)
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1038
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,19:31   

Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,19:12)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10)
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.

You should try substituting baby seal.  You get that same neotany and the fat content gives you that same juicy consistency you've come to expect.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3320
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,19:35   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 23 2011,19:31)
Quote (qetzal @ Jan. 23 2011,19:12)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2011,09:10)
It's intolerance like that that makes you worse than Hitler you baby eating atheist Darwinist persecution loving bastard.

{shakes fist}

Louis

Guilty on all counts. Oh, except the baby-eating. I'm baby-meat-intolerant. It's so embarassing to have to ask for beef or pork when everyone else at the secret atheist Darwinist Nazi barbecue is enjoying sweet, succulent baby.

You should try substituting baby seal. †You get that same neotany and the fat content gives you that same juicy consistency you've come to expect.

Might I also suggest bald eagle?  It has a flavor somewhere between California condor and dodo... oops, we weren't supposed to mention the dodos were we?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,20:20   

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no. †we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?

You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?

How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3320
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,20:29   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:20)
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no. †we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?

You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?

How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.

WTF?

Dude really.

There are three statements here.  Only one has any connection with reality.

I'm very curious, why is it that you want to argue about American Indian religion with an American Indian and not discuss... you know... science?  You're the one complaining that we don't talk about science... yet, given the opportunity, you don't want to talk about science.  That's just weird.

Here let me help.  I'll start a topic and you can feel free to jump in.

I maintain that and any designer must be a deity and if that deity can affect the physical universe, then its actions must be detectable in the physical universe.  To date, the majority of the suggested actions of said deity have natural explanations that are better than the deital ones.  Further, currently on-going research indicates that there are no physical limitations that would prevent a purely natural explanation for other of said deity's supposed actions.

Discuss.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,20:36   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?

Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?

What is this supposed to mean? †"...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,21:02   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?

Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?

What is this supposed to mean? †"...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"

I think the implication is that by believing in a lenient Grandfather instead of a stern Father, they can sin more, or something like that.  What this has to do with science, you got me.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Kristine



Posts: 3046
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,21:22   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
† †
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?


Uh, I'm saying that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. That surprises you?

Different tribes have different creation myths, but they listen to all without fighting because, essentially, what you whitewash as "Native American" are local tribes with a local religion.

Read God Is Red by Vine Deloria Jr. to get an understanding of a place religion, versus the "time religion" of Judeo-Christianity.
†  
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?


I'm saying that non Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts of God are very different from the creator/designer concept. Santeria is a case in point; followers of that religion say, "You talk about God, but we dance to the drum and become God."

It's a big world out there!

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
What is this supposed to mean? †"...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"


That's a joke. You reacted exactly as I expected you to.

Edited by Kristine on Jan. 23 2011,21:23

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,21:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 23 2011,18:29)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:20)
 
Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
†  
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no. †we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?

You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?

How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.

WTF?

Dude really.

There are three statements here. †Only one has any connection with reality.

I'm very curious, why is it that you want to argue about American Indian religion with an American Indian and not discuss... you know... science? †You're the one complaining that we don't talk about science... yet, given the opportunity, you don't want to talk about science. †That's just weird.

Here let me help. †I'll start a topic and you can feel free to jump in.

I maintain that and any designer must be a deity and if that deity can affect the physical universe, then its actions must be detectable in the physical universe. †To date, the majority of the suggested actions of said deity have natural explanations that are better than the deital ones. †Further, currently on-going research indicates that there are no physical limitations that would prevent a purely natural explanation for other of said deity's supposed actions.

Discuss.

Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."

Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,22:32   

Quote
Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.

† †  
Quote


Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."


Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.

† †  
Quote


Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*



Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3320
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,22:45   

Kris,  I know you just want to be a pissed off troll.  Let's take a look at what was said and how you responded... k?

Quote (rhmc @ Jan. 23 2011,07:10)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 22 2011,22:18)
Just to let you know, it's not only Judeo-Christians who think there is or could be a creator and/or designer. Just ask some American Indians, for example.

ah, no.  we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".

it's your ridiculous claim that supernatural things exist but you have no proof.

just 'cause a subset of palefaces believe such garbage is no reason to include amerinds in the stupidity.

unega yuwi newda.

Who's "we"?
Quote


There's this thing called 'context' in language.  It means that you can divine some information that is literally unsaid by how what is said.

When you specifically say something about American Indians and a parson quotes you and says "we", the unpoken assumption is that he is an American Indian.

I freely admit that this assumption could be wrong.  But I'd put money on it being correct.




You're not really asserting that no American Indians believe in a creator/designer (besides the Judeo/Christian one), are you?
Quote


This is what was said:
Quote
we don't believe in a "creator and/or designer".


I'm not sure how you missed this.  

Now, again, I will admit that I'm sure that no one can speak for all American Indians, however, as someone who has studied a bit of their culture, I can safely say that they do not think of the creator/designer in the same way that you do.


How would you like to make a bet? I'll bet you any amount of money that you cannot show where I ever said that supernatural things exist. Put your money where your mouth is.
[/quote]

OK, I can see that you never actual said "I believe supernatural things exist"... on the other hand... you are DEMANDING that science accept the possibility that such things do exist when there is no evidence for them.

You are oh so very careful to say nothing that could be literally taken as one way or another.  My 4-year-old has already gotten beyond such things and can handle adult phrasing and assumptions.  If I tell him to go to bed, he knows that he has to get into the bed and go to sleep.  He doesn't stand beside the bed, then complain that I told him he just had to "GO" to bed.

Why don't you just say what you mean and we can stop all this silliness?

Quote

Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."

Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*


See here's what you are not understanding and I know that you are not understanding it because you have SPECIFICALLY ignored it.

I don't give a shit about your religion or lack thereof.  I don't give a shit if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthullu, Odin, Jupiter, or Shiva.  If you want to have a science discussion that's fine.

However, what you don't get is the Intelligent Design IS religion.  That's all that it is.  There is no science to talk about, so we must talk about the religion of intelligent design.

As I said, and you have not read or commented on, almost by definition, the designer must be a deity.  There is no evidence for said deity and there are purely natural explanations that cover almost all the ground that said deity must cover to be real.

Indeed, when invoked, there is a 50% chance that the invoked statement regarding said deital action has already been shown to have a purely natural, physical cause or mechanism.  It is my belief and opinion that the other 50% will be shown to also have a natural, physical cause.

Any proponent of design, and you are a proponent of design if you think that it has any redeeming qualities, must show that not only does design show EVERYTHING that science does, it must also do show more effectively AND show that the things science can't explain can be explained by that deital action.  No such statement has ever been found.

Now, at this point, I'm sure you (well, an ID proponent would say) "But the designer does everything, literally everything."  In that case, the designer is chemistry, physics and biology... or not different enough to mean anything to anyone.

I note that you never read the article I wrote and pasted a link for you.  It would explain why the designer, if it exists, must be a deity and why it must act in a very specific way and that we have not, in all the hundreds of years we've been looking, we have not seen the merest scrap of evidence for those actions.  

I invite you to read the article and comment here, if you like.

To reiterate, science does not bring deity into this conversation... ID does.  Would like the statements from all the leading proponents of ID that specifically say that ID is religion?  Would you like me to quote the Wedge document that they were all a part of making?  I can do that.

Anyone who thinks that ID or a designer is not deital, is just lying to themselves.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2137
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,23:01   

Okay, I know it's getting as old as Kwok's "M.I.P.", but Kris really argues like a tenth-grade chess club nerd. I know because I was one.

"I never said that..."

True: Kris makes a point of never really saying anything we can hold him to, except "Scientists R MEEEN! WHAAAH!".

In response to the FACT that the ID that most of the cognitive universe recognizes, is the movement of that name promulgated but the Discovery Institute and their ilk, Kris will say:

"Not that ID! Just because their "ID" is religious doesn't mean "ID" is religious!"

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2011,23:22   

what a sad cunt

edit for teh betterz

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1006
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,00:45   

I've got a bone for Kris to chew on.

(That's what ... never mind.)

Assume no fossil record.  All you've got are biological samples from thousands of organisms.  You have DNA sequences and protein sequences and you have figured out how DNA relates to proteins.  

Let's make it even worse.  You don't know anything about the organisms - no pictures, no nothing.  Just the molecular info.

With this information alone is it possible to derive a theory of evolution?

With this information alone, what can you figure out?

(To coin a phrase, I would call this the Venter Conjecture.  Mugs and t-shirts available on-line soon.)

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2011,08:21)
fact - the sun is a yellow star. †This is not science. †This is a fact. †It is provable.

Hypothesis - the sun is yellow because it is made of melted yellow crayons. †This is science. †It is a testable hypothesis.

You, like most non-scientists, are confusing the two.

Evolution is a fact. †It is observed in the wild and in the lab. †Speciation is a fact. †It is observed in the wild and in the lab.
Evolution is also the mechanism for the fact of evolution. †It is a testable hypothesis.

ID is not a fact. †There is no proof of a designer or a designer affecting ANYTHING in the universe.

ID as a mechanism is not a testable hypothesis. †There is no evidence that will convince an IDist that ID is not true. †There is no research program. †There is not even the beginnings on one and every leading light of ID admits this.

Every statement is decided on its own merits. †Just saying, Science has problems does not in any way shape or form mean that ID is correct. †ID must be decided on its own merits... if you can find any WE WOULD BE THRILLED TO HEAR THEM.

I know you probably don't get this. †But every single person in this forum would be thrilled if someone would come up with a testable hypothesis for ID, because then we could do the work and figure it out once and for all.

So, so you have anything like this?

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise. I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and †giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:30   

Quote

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
†  
Quote


I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

Right, so you could stop right there.
†  
Quote


I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
†  
Quote


It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
†  
Quote


To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
†  
Quote


I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and †giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.


WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!

Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU!

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:43   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 23 2011,20:32)
Quote
Apparently you haven't noticed that I'm responding to comments. My responses are connected to reality. I don't know if rhmc is an American Indian or not, but I do know that some American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not or was not the Judeo/Christian one. I said some American Indians, "for example". Want another example? How about Hindus? Would someone here like to tell me that all Hindus who believe in a creator/designer believe that that creator/designer is or was the Judeo/Christian one?

Considering the profound differences between Hinduism and Biblical religions, that seems unlikely. Some Hindus worship idols and are polytheistic, which the Bible vehemently denounces.

† † †  
Quote


Let's see, you say you want to talk about science but then you bring up deities. Actually, you want to talk about science versus religion, and of course you just want to bash religion in the name of science (the entire purpose of this site). Whatever happened to science being "silent" on religion? And what happened to this so-called rule?

"*Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse."


Where did you read that? And we can bring up anything we want to here. So can you. Just don't be surprized if the resulting feedback is negative when you spit out bullcrap.

† † †  
Quote


Why not just remove such a hypocritical, dishonest rule and replace it with a truthful one like: *Attacking religious beliefs is the only purpose of this site. Anyone who does not regularly attack religious beliefs and the people who adhere to them will be insulted, attacked, ridiculed, and probably banned.*



Because that's not true. We don't necessarily attack Christianity itself, only Christians who are delusional about what science is or should be.

Dale, your responses are so far off track and so irrelevant to what I said that they're not worth responding to, except by saying this:

You're a moron.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:56   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:02)
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

What you are missing, Kris, is that the majority of ID supporters claim that ID is in fact provable, falsifiable and so can be settled as an issue.

This is not actually news. Except to you, it seems.

Daily claims are made on UncommonDescent as to how ID has been once again vindicated. There's only one source of "coded information" and that's intelligence don't ya know. And DNA is "coded information" therefore ID = True.

Quote
What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.


Then as nobody here is suggesting that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer I would suggest that you take your faux-concern to UncommonDescent and see how long you last over there under their free and open moderation policy. Free and open until you say something they do not like.

So why don't you take it to UD Kris, they must be making you very angry with their daily claims that they know exactly who the designer is.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,02:59   

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 24 2011,00:30)
Quote

Look, all I'm trying to say about ID or creation is that they are possible, at some level or in some form, by some sort of intelligent entity, until and unless it's proven otherwise.

That is totally backwards. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is credible. It is also possible that Jupiter harbors life, but until we find actual life forms there, we can't teach about life on Jupiter in science classes as anything other than hypothetical speculation. At least we know Jupiter exists and what it is made of, including organic molecules. ID is not even at that level, since without identifying the Designer or the process he used to design life, ID is unscientific.
† †  
Quote


I am not saying that any religious beliefs are true or scientific or provable. I realize that at least some of the ID or creation proponents are religious zealots who want to push their beliefs into schools and every other aspect of life. I also realize that at least some of them are dishonest about their agenda.

Right, so you could stop right there.
† †  
Quote


I am not saying that a possible creator or designer is or has to be supernatural. For all I know there could be a creator/designer of our universe, or any other universe if there are any, that is totally natural. Yeah, I know, that might bring up the question, 'Where did that creator/designer come from?' And to that I would answer, I don't know.

Yet you seem so sure we must be on the wrong track for dismissing ID.
† †  
Quote


It's interesting to think that some scientists are trying to find the how, what, when, and why of the universe(s), life, and what makes everything tick, but at the same time some scientists and science supporters hate the idea that it could be an intelligent entity of some sort. I don't know about all of you but I like our universe just as much whether it was created by an intelligent entity or not. It doesn't make me mad to think that there could be a creator/designer. What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.

Again, you sound reasonable, but your slamming us for attacking Creationism and ID when we have found no reason to conclude there must be a Designer of any kind is profoundly unreasonable. Piss off!
† †  
Quote


To me, virtually all religious beliefs are fairy tales and bullshit, and to me there's a difference between religious beliefs and keeping an open mind about the possibility of a creator and/or designer, in some form, and at some level. The Gods people have invented are laughable but they sometimes make for entertaining movies, like Clash Of The Titans or Bruce Almighty.

If you are so open minded, why are you so sure that people investigating the possibility of a species of woodpecker not yet being extinct must be frauds?
† †  
Quote


I would think that every person who has ever lived past the age of a pre-schooler has wondered how everything came about. When we humans look at the night sky we wonder what's out there and whether we will ever know. We now have tools that allow us to see and understand a lot more than we used to but there are still countless mysteries. We can't even get our shit together here on Earth, let alone figure out and understand what (or who?) made everything come to be.

I do not condone the teaching of religion, ID, or creation in schools, but I also do not condone science or teachers saying that any sort of creation and/or ID are impossible. Unfortunately, ID and creation are usually mixed into religious beliefs, so it makes it very hard to think of or speak about ID or creation without thinking of and speaking about religion.

Something I've always found interesting, and often irritating, is when people say they're "spiritual but not religious". When asked exactly what they mean they often give a variety of answers. Mainly though, it boils down to them believing there's a God of some sort (a creator and/or designer) but they don't like the "trappings" of "organized religion". Maybe they just don't like singing hymns and †giving money to proselytizing blowhards who already own a Rolls Royce, a mansion, and several Rolex watches.

Whatever the case, they seem to be separating 'God' (or whatever deity, entity, or spirit they believe exists) from religion. If nothing else that shows that some people don't like the bullshit and fairy tales in typical religions but they still fell better by believing there's a God or creator or designer of some sort. People like that are likely to accept the claims that science makes about the age of the universe and the Earth and maybe evolution too. They're probably also more likely to accept a lot of other scientific claims than religious zealots are but they obviously aren't convinced that science knows everything, and especially everything about how the universe and life came to be, and what makes it all tick, and what's going to happen to it all eventually.

It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.

When it comes to dealing with the religious wackos who want to cram their beliefs into everyone's life, I think there must be better ways to promote science and to shut them up than to simply bitch about them on a website. Even if sites like this were to remain, there are other things that could and should be done too, to make science more popular (which would help to dispel the myths in religions). The more people there are who like, accept, and trust science, the fewer people there will be who want to support the religious zealots in any quest to force their religion into schools, government, or anywhere else.


WTF is wrong with you??? Your inconsistency just keeps getting more outlandish at every turn! The ONLY way to deal with the religious wackos and defend science is to fight them the way we've been doing it! That's what we have learned from decades of experience, and we don't need a loon from out of nowhere telling us otherwise. You haven't been there when we fought Creationists and ID promoters, investigated them, exposed their lies and fallacies, and defeated them in court and in testing their claims. You know NOTHING about what it take to attract people to science, because you make no effort yourself!

Carl Sagan was one of the greatest popularizers of science in the 20th Century, as well as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould. All non-theists, all staunch evolutionists. And none of them as wacked out as YOU!

Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,03:03   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Dale_Husband



Posts: 118
Joined: April 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,03:11   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,03:03)
 
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

Kris forgot once more to hurl his favorite insult at me:

"Youíre a complete fucking loon, and a pathological liar. Commit yourself to an insane asylum. You belong in one."

--------------
If you need a man-made book to beleive in a God who is said to have created the universe, of what value is your faith? You might as well worship an idol.

   
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,04:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,00:56)
† †
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:02)
It would be nice if religions were a thing of the past, and the concept of ID or creation were simply kept (by whoever wants to) as a question or thought that doesn't cause people to argue and fight over something that will likely never be provable, falsifiable, or settled.


What you are missing, Kris, is that the majority of ID supporters claim that ID is in fact provable, falsifiable and so can be settled as an issue.

This is not actually news. Except to you, it seems.

Daily claims are made on UncommonDescent as to how ID has been once again vindicated. There's only one source of "coded information" and that's intelligence don't ya know. And DNA is "coded information" therefore ID = True.

† † †
Quote
What makes me mad is when someone says they know exactly who the creator/designer is or that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer.


Then as nobody here is suggesting that it's impossible for there to be a creator/designer I would suggest that you take your faux-concern to UncommonDescent and see how long you last over there under their free and open moderation policy. Free and open until you say something they do not like.

So why don't you take it to UD Kris, they must be making you very angry with their daily claims that they know exactly who the designer is.


I'm not sure I'd agree that the majority of ID supporters would claim that it's scientific, or fact, or falsifiable, or provable. Some would, and some would even claim it's settled.

I see it as being kind of like the militant muslims who want to kill anyone who isn't just like them. They're definitely worth taking seriously but they don't necessarily represent every muslim on Earth. Some of the guys or gals(?) on the internet (or elsewhere) who push ID and creation in a religious way and want to cram their religious beliefs into schools and everything else are the 'militant' ones, in the sense that they can't stand the thought that anyone else could possibly disagree with them. You know, kind of like some people on religion bashing websites. :)

Until pretty recently I wasn't aware of the combatants in this 'war' and I didn't think about it much. I was too busy finding and studying fossils, butterflies, birds, and a lot of other things. I'm more familiar with the war and the combatants now, although I'm sure there are some things and people that I'm not aware of.

Some of the claims or arguments from ID-ists or creationists are thought provoking but I do realize that none of them have proof. Some of their claims are crazy. Still, some of their arguments against science are valid. Both 'sides' have their militant supporters and both sides surely have people who don't take sides, or art least not in a way that feeds the war. In other words, I'm sure there are people who believe in ID and/or creation who don't want to force their beliefs onto anyone or everyone else.

I do complain to or bash some religious zealots. Some of them are just plain nuts, or downright dangerous.

It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem. I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:03   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 24 2011,01:03)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,02:59)
Are you off your meds again Dale? You're foaming at the mouth.

Your confident debating skills are really shining through now Kris. It must be a struggle being so much more erudite then the average person.

Why don't you call him a shithead next?

IOW you are not that different from Joe G, you might know a few more words them him but at the core you are essentially the same person.

Calling Dale a shithead would be an insult to shit.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:07   

Quote (Kris @ Jan. 24 2011,04:35)

I'm not sure I'd agree that the majority of ID supporters would claim that it's scientific, or fact, or falsifiable, or provable. Some would, and some would even claim it's settled.


Then you disagree with most ID supporters as can easily be seen by simply going to UncommonDescent and browsing the posts and comments. This is not a complex claim, the evidence is there if you are willing to look.
Quote
Some of the guys or gals(?) on the internet (or elsewhere) who push ID and creation in a religious way and want to cram their religious beliefs into schools and everything else are the 'militant' ones, in the sense that they can't stand the thought that anyone else could possibly disagree with them.


Disagreeing with people is one thing, but it's not about that. They claim to have evidence that life was designed. The disagreement is about that evidence, not the claim itself.
Quote
You know, kind of like some people on religion bashing websites. :)

I don't give a fuck about your nor anybody else's religion. On the other hand if you make the claim that there is evidence for ID then that's when I'll give a fuck.

Clear?
†  
Quote
Until pretty recently I wasn't aware of the combatants in this 'war' and I didn't think about it much. I was too busy finding and studying fossils, butterflies, birds, and a lot of other things


Fascinating I'm sure.
Quote
I'm more familiar with the war and the combatants now, although I'm sure there are some things and people that I'm not aware of.


It's not a war when one side refuses to fight. ID refuses to fight, they want to win the "war" without going through the normal process of proving their case via evidence.
Quote

Some of the claims or arguments from ID-ists or creationists are thought provoking but I do realize that none of them have proof.


So why don't you go an argue with Gordon Mullings who claims to have such proof.
Quote

Some of their claims are crazy.

Name 1 non-crazy claim.
Quote
Still, some of their arguments against science are valid.

Name 1 such argument. Dare you.
Quote
In other words, I'm sure there are people who believe in ID and/or creation who don't want to force their beliefs onto anyone or everyone else.

So what?
Quote
It seems to me that if science were strong enough and popular enough, religious zealots wouldn't be much of a problem.

They are their own worst enemy's. Just another generation or two and their ranks will be a fraction of what they are now.
Quote
I think that pushy religious zealots should be fought in court or in the media or politics, in the most effective way possible, but I also think that science should and could do a lot more to make itself trustworthy, accessible, interesting, understandable, honest, and popular.

Then I guess you support decent eduction which by definition means that ideas like ID are not taught in schools as there is absolutely no evidence for them.

Do you?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Kris



Posts: 93
Joined: Jan. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2011,05:14   

Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 23 2011,19:22)
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
† † †
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 22 2011,20:15)
I don't think that appealing to "Native Americans" is going to help Kris's case. To a tribe they seem to have a horror of arguing about religion or the Great Spirit, and they certainly don't imagine a Father. (Some invoke a Grandfather, and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids.)

Are you saying that no American Indians believe there is or was a creator/designer that is not the Judeo/Christian one?


Uh, I'm saying that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. That surprises you?

Different tribes have different creation myths, but they listen to all without fighting because, essentially, what you whitewash as "Native American" are local tribes with a local religion.

Read God Is Red by Vine Deloria Jr. to get an understanding of a place religion, versus the "time religion" of Judeo-Christianity.
† †  
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
Are you saying that all people everywhere who believe there is or was a creator/designer are Judeo/Christians?


I'm saying that non Judeo-Christian-Muslim concepts of God are very different from the creator/designer concept. Santeria is a case in point; followers of that religion say, "You talk about God, but we dance to the drum and become God."

It's a big world out there!

† †
Quote (Kris @ Jan. 23 2011,20:36)
What is this supposed to mean? †"...and you know how lenient they can be with their grandkids"


That's a joke. You reacted exactly as I expected you to.

You have things a bit mixed up, which doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me at all that their religion(s) are very different from Judeo-Christianity. In fact, those differences help support my point. There are or have been lots of religious beliefs, and not just among American Indians, that include a creator and/or designer that is not the Judeo/Christian God.

I'm only contesting the assertion that all ID-ists or creationists believe that the creator and/or designer is the Judeo/Christian God.

--------------
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato

  
  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]