Does ID deserve "respect" as a viewpoint?

[SkinWalker]

I think that was a google quote of the day on Friday.

 

[candy]

Are we going to apply this no mutilation rule to male babies as well?
Or will we assume that circumcision is too much of a Western mainstream idea to be questioned?
In an ideal world children would be protected and allowed to form their own conclusions about religion; we do not live in an ideal world so we just have to do the best we can.
If you are unfamilar with the work of Carl G. Jung try google. Recommended for the beginner "Man and His Symbols" Jung et al

 

[superluminal]

Ok. I just read a nice 3 or 4 page description of Jung himself and his theories. I would easily class Jung among the woo-woos of the world.

 

[SkinWalker]

Are we going to apply this no mutilation rule to male babies as well?

Yes, we should. Circumcision is barbaric.

 

[charles cure]

"Our present lives are dominated by the Goddess Reason, who is our greatest and most tragic illusion." Jung

of course, this, from a psychologist/psychoanalyst. horseshit. not only was this not true when it was said, but it isnt even true now. reason, logic, fact, they arent beliefs, you cannot make gods or goddesses of them, they are a crucial part of how our minds function. to deny their relevance or eschew them in favor of other irrational alternatives is to obliterate your own humanity.

 

[Zappa]

The man, Antony Flew, who was for decades considered "The most influential atheist philosopher in the world" thinks ID should be respected...perhaps you might to well to get a better understanding of ID theories.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

 

[SkinWalker]

Perhaps you might "to" well to share with us the specific "theories" of 'intelligent' design that are relevant. Or are you in the habit of just quoting shit from people you think are smart without reading it?

 

[Zappa]

do you make a habit of pointing out typos as an indication of stupidity? calm down.

I read it, it's relavent to the post, I'm asking you atheists to read it. You CAN learn from other people, you know.

 

[superluminal]

The man, Antony Flew, who was for decades considered "The most influential atheist philosopher in the world" thinks ID should be respected...perhaps you might to well to get a better understanding of ID theories.

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/index.cfm

From the interviwe:

FLEW: That’s correct. It seems to me that for a strong moral argument, you’ve got to have God as the justification of morality. To do this makes doing the morally good a purely prudential matter rather than, as the moral philosophers of my youth used to call it, a good in itself. (Compare the classic discussion in Plato’s Euthyphro.)

Nope. He's just plain wrong.

 

[superluminal]

HABERMAS: In your view, then, God hasn’t done anything about evil.

FLEW: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it.

And this is supposed to be supportive? I love it!

 

[superluminal]

FLEW: The Bible is a work which someone who had not the slightest concern about the question of the truth or falsity of the Christian religion could read as people read the novels of the best novelists. It is an eminently readable book.

What!?!?

 

[Zappa]

He's a THEIST, NOT religious.

 

[Zappa]

how is he "just plain wrong?"

 

[Zappa]

he's saying that for a strong moral argument in support of christianity, God needs to be the justifying cause for morality, which he doesn't agree with

 

[superluminal]

Human morals are best understood in terms of evolutionary group selection, not some god hypothesis which has no explanatory or predictive value whatsoever.

 

[Zappa]

and he's not agreeing that god is a good explanation for morality

 

[superluminal]

Ok. I reread the passage and I accept your statement.

 

[SkinWalker]

do you make a habit of pointing out typos as an indication of stupidity? calm down.

I'm calm, but do you feel stupid?

I read it, it's relevant to the post, I'm asking you atheists to read it. You CAN learn from other people, you know.

I don't believe you actually read it. And, if you did, I don't believe you understood it well enough to present the specific points you found relevant. I'd like to learn from you, but you don't seem capable of teaching. Moreover, the use of the word "theory" doesn't apply to 'intelligent' design since this fallacy of thought has yet to produce any testable or verifiable hypotheses. "Intelligent" design is neither intelligent nor well designed as an argument against science.

He's a THEIST, NOT religious

Is there a difference?

 

[Zappa]

I'm calm, but do you feel stupid?

Nah. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that typos are a common occurance in my life =)

I don't believe you actually read it.

I'm telling you I did, you have no reason not to believe me.

And, if you did, I don't believe you understood it well enough to present the specific points you found relevant.

why? because I simply haven't attempted to yet?

I'd like to learn from you, but you don't seem capable of teaching.

I'm not talking about learning from me, but from a man whom was once your counterpart-a prominant one at that- and is no longer. He has reasons for changing his views that you might consider delving into; if for nothing else, just to know of them. If you don't want to, I don't care, I'm just putting it out there.

Moreover, the use of the word "theory" doesn't apply to 'intelligent' design since this fallacy of thought has yet to produce any testable or verifiable hypotheses. "Intelligent" design is neither intelligent nor well designed as an argument against science.

semantics. God isn't testable. But I believe that evidence can lead to -not prove, but point to- God as the ultimate conclusion. I'm still looking at all of the evidence, for every side - I'm on my journey for truth, we'll see where it takes me.

Is there a difference?

One believes in a God, one believes in God with religion. Big diff.

 

[SkinWalker]

Religion is the practice of accepting the supernatural as valid. This is what theists do. No difference.