What Do You Expect After Death? (virtual, teaching, against, according)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science, including ID science and even Creationist science, is - or at least should be - an honest and objective quest for the best understanding of the natural order.
Exactly. Which is why we have problems with it. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Creationism/ID is not honest. Read the papers they publish.
Here we get back to my oft-made point: You have painted yourself into the corner of insisting that the vast numbers of philosophers, scientists, academics, and otherwise sane and rational people who are theists lose their ability to think logically rationally when it comes to theism.
Except once again, that is not the argument. These people are famous for things other than their religion. You are once again arguing that because they have made some great discovery that they have rationally though about their religion.
You need to deal with any actual arguments they make for their religion, not just pretend they have thought about their religion.
Read Pandas and People, edition 1, then read the latest edition, where the term 'creationism' has been replaced with 'ID'. You are not fooling anyone.
And I appear to have read more than you and Irkle. Same people, same papers, same argument.
And a quick check on some people (surname A - D) in the ID movement (work at or for the DI) who have stated their religious position. Green text means they are not qualified in the sciences.
Achtemeier - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Alcocer-Ruthling - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Alexanian - Works at DI - Young Earth Creationist - Not qualified
Atchison - ID creator = God - Qualified
Babuna - Creationist - Not qualified
Barnard - Creationist - Not qualified
Baumgardner - Young Earth Creationist - Qualified
Bearden - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Beaucage - ID creator = God - Not qualified
Behe - ID creator = God - Qualified
d'Abrera - Young Earth Creationist - Not qualified
Now what was the topic of the OP?
Tell me Harry do you have a copy of this 1st addition or are you just repeating what someone else said without verifying it? Seems to me the argument goes like this....creationism was in the early drafts and when the Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design.
early drafts ...Sounds very suspect to me. I could claim that in the early drafts of the God delusion Dawkin was actually referring to himself as God and he was deluded. Without the actual early drafts how are you going to prove me wrong.
So I will repeat this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Harry that is terrible evidence and you are smarter then that. You are well a where that 2 people reading the same material can come to 2 different conclusions. So if its bad science it is bad for both parties and if it is good science it is good for both parties. Just take the junk dna situation atheist used that as a club to beat over the heads of Christians because according to their perspectives on junk dna that is exactly what they would expect if evolution was true. However the perspective has been a total reversal and the atheist have had to retreat and eat a lot of crow because science showed that junk dna does indeed have its uses which is exactly what id proponents suggested.
The point being Harry both parties read into and expand on what science actually shows. You think it is all one sided but the junk dna case shows without a doubt it is not
Tell me Harry do you have a copy of this 1st addition or are you just repeating what someone else said without verifying it? Seems to me the argument goes like this....creationism was in the early drafts and when the Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design.
early drafts ...Sounds very suspect to me. I could claim that in the early drafts of the God delusion Dawkin was actually referring to himself as God and he was deluded. Without the actual early drafts how are you going to prove me wrong.
So I will repeat this.
it really more about a deity than "god". There are few god claims that have observational support. But the deity in the Jewish, Muslim, and christian are in real suspect.
the god delusion was weak when it first came out and never gained any strength. we may very well be in a living system. In facst, every discovery has been getting us closer and closer to that understanding. his book is only about things like christian deity.
So if you are saying you believe that the ID is something in the hierarchy of structure that we know in our reality and we are part of that structure. Then that type of god belief has evidence.
it really more about a deity than "god". There are few god claims that have observational support. But the deity in the Jewish, Muslim, and christian are in real suspect.
the god delusion was weak when it first came out and never gained any strength. we may very well be in a living system. In facst, every discovery has been getting us closer and closer to that understanding. his book is only about things like christian deity.
So if you are saying you believe that the ID is something in the hierarchy of structure that we know in our reality and we are part of that structure. Then that type of god belief has evidence.
Im a christian arach so the God i believe is well God. But that is NOT what id is about and until people can separate and see that id to them will always be about the God of the bible.
And i actually agree the system we are living in is alive.
Im a christian arach so the God i believe is well God. But that is NOT what id is about and until people can separate and see that id to them will always be about the God of the bible.
And i actually agree the system we are living in is alive.
what is frustrating is that we both have "fundy think" in both our camps. They do not want more rational believers and non believers to compare notes because that means we grow past fundy think and militanat think statements of belief about god.
for example. I exchanged some post with CB and High[something (i forget)]. nobody bought up god. We only talked about how we see things. science, religion, and philosophy merged at their over laps. None of us had an agenda more important than just seeking some answers.
That terrifies people that are advocating for a statement of belief about god. weather its atheism or theism. They use "strawman" as a way to avoid what we are really doing. Looking at our best explanation of how the universe works.
Seems to me the argument goes like this....creationism was in the early drafts and when the Supreme Court ruling that creationism is religion and not science, these were changed to refer to "intelligent design.
As I said, the same arguments but renamed.
So now you agree with me, can we get back on topic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
So I will repeat this.
Irrelevant to what I actually said. Perhaps if you go and read some of these papers while the rest of us get back on topic.
What do I expect after death? If I am wrong, cake and coffee. If I am correct, I will never know.
I don't think the majority of theists "need" a deity, although some certainly do seem to have this need. Something like ID suggests an intelligence with knowledge and power beyond our own to a degree we can't even fathom, which is pretty much the definition of a deity. In my case, my quest as a whole has led me to conclude that the deity of Christianity is the most plausible explanation for a variety of reasons. If I've been driven at all by a psychological need, I'm not aware of it - and I have tried to stay as self-critical as I can throughout my quest.
Something like ID (you are using the term to mean godfaith of some kind. look back at what you said) does indeed suggest a cosmic intelligence. What it does not do is provide a scientific basis for that.
Quote:
Atheism and scientism certainly can be quasi-religions. The analogies to actual religions are uncannily apt. Not all atheists or all who place great faith in science fall into this category, any more than all Christians are literalist Young Earthers, but many do. It's the refusal to acknowledge that rigid fundamentalism cuts across many more categories than just Christianity (and many more posters than just some of the Christians) that is the downfall of most of these threads.
You are special pleading. You can use the same analogies for any organisation with spokepersons, meetings and literature. Your 'religion' -label becomes to broad to be meaningful.
Quote:
Here we get back to my oft-made point: You have painted yourself into the corner of insisting that the vast numbers of philosophers, scientists, academics, and otherwise sane and rational people who are theists lose their ability to think logically rationally when it comes to theism. All you can legitimately say is that you, a nobody on a internet forum, disagree with them. The fact you try say more shows that it is you who do not think logically and rationally.
I suspect that you are strawmanning here. The actual argument is that they can think as logically and rationally as most others (given that humanity doesn't always reason well) but when Godfaith (such as Creationism) comes into it, Theist -think can replace any rational thought. This is why those savants who have Godfaith do not allow it to intrude into their scientific work and those who do simply cannot do valid science, because they do not (on faith) accept the basics. That is why they had to start their own fake peer review journal (now defunct, I believe.
Quote:
This isn't true at all. I don't see anyone trying to discredit atheism or science. Some atheists firmly believe in the survival of consciousness - surely you know that? Science, properly employed, is a valuable tool for both atheists and believers. A substantial portion of my religious beliefs, and certainly my belief in survival, is predicated on science. What I at least attempt to discredit are the notions that (1) atheism is any more rational, evidence-based or scientific than theism; (2) only hard science is relevant to a quest for metaphysical truth; and (3) anything that conflicts with the naturalistic paradigm is, ipso facto, "not science."
You have got it back to front. "some atheists firmly believe in the survival of consciousness" is a faith -claim rather than a scientific 'fact' or hypothesis. What you are trying to do is make a case for the unproven speculative, whether Theistic or just supernatural and deprecating the science that validates and explains data but does not claim as believable speculations that have not bee validated.
Quote:
Relative to the OP, I saw Norman Greenbaum on a double bill with Jethro Tull in Phoenix in 1970. Greenbaum and his band did an extended version of "Spirit In the Sky." Jethro Tull was unlistenable, and we left before the concert was even over.
Your critique is noted. On my last few outings, I heard a load of music that I considered Unlistenable.
MQ posted:
Quote:
So, What Do You Expect After Death?
<subtle hint>
Quite right. Knowing derail. But it's the old dilemma; report or reply? We know that failure to reply (e.g 'Take it to the biology forum')can be portrayed as inability to reply. But if you want to delete all ID related posts here, all power to your crimson (to the elbow) arm.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-09-2020 at 06:28 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
