Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What is scientific about ID?

Page 9 of 12 [ 183 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

07 May 2008, 7:04 pm

Are Cthulthu, Set, and Odin easier to believe in than the Christian God? I don't understand why self-described atheists choose from other pantheons but deny the existence of God.

Cthulthu is from a series of horror novels.


Thank Set, thank Odin, thank f***k, thank anyone but God. What gives?????? :?



Escuerd
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 101

07 May 2008, 7:14 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Are Cthulthu, Set, and Odin easier to believe in than the Christian God? I don't understand why self-described atheists choose from other pantheons but deny the existence of God.

Cthulthu is from a series of horror novels.


Thank Set, thank Odin, thank f***k, thank anyone but God. What gives?????? :?


I don't think they'd do so if these gods were still (or ever in the case of Cthulhu) taken seriously by any significant number of people. It's mostly for humor purposes.

They don't typically consider them any more likely than JHVH, but probably no less.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

07 May 2008, 7:28 pm

The creationist stupidity in this thread is pathetic.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

07 May 2008, 7:42 pm

Escuerd wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Are Cthulthu, Set, and Odin easier to believe in than the Christian God? I don't understand why self-described atheists choose from other pantheons but deny the existence of God.

Cthulthu is from a series of horror novels.


Thank Set, thank Odin, thank f***k, thank anyone but God. What gives?????? :?


I don't think they'd do so if these gods were still (or ever in the case of Cthulhu) taken seriously by any significant number of people. It's mostly for humor purposes.

They don't typically consider them any more likely than JHVH, but probably no less.


We said his name three times! Now he is going to appear!! Run away from the sea!!



Last edited by Kalister1 on 07 May 2008, 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

07 May 2008, 7:45 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Quote:
Just because you can't absolutely disprove a god does not give me a reason to believe in him. You can't absolutely disprove fairies, and I dont believe in those either. I just don't hold beliefs in fairy tales. Proof is a strong word, but I am 99% certain that a god does not exist, and 99.99999999999% certain that a god as the bible describes does not exist. In regards to the Judeo Christian god, I can pretty much be called an atheist, as the non existence of such a god is as sure as that reality is certain (Even though it is an a priori assumption). That sliver of doubt in both the nature of reality, and the nature of god, means I'm open slightly for just about anything.


You're all over the place, here. You should have just simplified and used only a few sentences.


The less sentences I use, the more you guys try to find holes in it. You never do, but just expose that you haven't given the idea enough thought, or know enough about it, so I spend 5 more posts trying to explain that I simply left things out because I thought the secondary ideas were self evident. I have to walk you through by the hand of every simple idea to reach the more complex ones. You can't simplify when you're trying to convey the meaning of complex ideas to those who lack the ability to extrapolate your secondary propositions from a terse explanation of a primary one. Some people are seriously confused in this thread, especially when it comes to the mechanism of evolution, as explained by Charles Darwin.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

07 May 2008, 8:47 pm

I am not a believer in God because I have had No personal contact from/with God AND no one who believes in God has demonstrated Gods presence, let alone existance. IF God DOES exist, and Im talking about a definite positive then Why cant those who are believers SHOW me and the world Gods power?!? If God is REAL than it SHOULDNT MATTER whether or not anyone believes in him! I call upon those of you here who Believe to suggest a way for me to VERIFY Gods existance!!



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

07 May 2008, 8:54 pm

Die :lol:



jfrmeister
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 447
Location: #2309 WP'er

07 May 2008, 11:32 pm

God is dead... I blew him away with my 12 gauge.


_________________
"The christian god is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust" - Thomas Jefferson


D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

08 May 2008, 12:46 am

Kalister1 wrote:
Die :lol:


Sorry Bub, thats a cop-out :wink: . You're gonna have to do better than that.

twoshots wrote:
Strictly, IIRC, the space in a gravitational field isn't quite euclidean, but now I'm really getting off topic ;P


No but its Locally Euclidean! :wink: Because after all, IIRC any solution to the Einstein field equations is going to be a Riemannian Manifold(and of course, a Lie Group :D ).



Kalister1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,443

08 May 2008, 1:03 am

D1nk0 wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Die :lol:


Sorry Bub, thats a cop-out :wink: . You're gonna have to do better than that.



I don't believe, so thats the best I can give you.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

08 May 2008, 1:35 am

Kalister1 wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
Kalister1 wrote:
Die :lol:


Sorry Bub, thats a cop-out :wink: . You're gonna have to do better than that.



I don't believe, so thats the best I can give you.


No Sh1t, eH? Maybe I'll finally meet the great Flying Spaghetti Monster too when I die :roll:
Thats what religion does. They tell you all these myths that can only be experimentally verified upon death wich is IRREVERSIBLE. That way they gotcha fooled for life :x . But NOT I :wink:



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

08 May 2008, 11:24 am

Gromit wrote:
Intelligent Design theory is portrayed by its proponent as a scientific theory, and they object when that claim is doubted. If it is acceptable to quote from other threads, I can offer examples from Ragtime and iamnotaparakeet.

Despite those protests, I have never yet heard from any ID proponent what is supposed to make ID scientific. But it is possible that I have not searched hard enough, and that the ID proponent I asked before was not competent enough. So I would like to ask Ragtime, iamnotaparakeet and anyone else who argues that ID is a scientific theory to explain to me what makes it scientific.

Please tell me what must be true if ID is true. "Must be true" means that if these predictions are not true, that would convince you that ID is false. Please concentrate on predictions that other theories don't make.

Please tell me what can't be true if ID is true. "Can't be true" means that if you do find what ID says should not happen, that would convince you that ID is false. Please concentrate on predictions that other theories don't make.

Finally, please tell me how these predictions can be tested, and whether they have been tested.

Edit: If you don't think ID is scientific, please read my second post in this thread, the 12th overall, before replying. Thanks




Until you can PROVE that such a designer exists it is nothing more than useless speculation.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

08 May 2008, 11:32 am

Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Can you show what is incoherent?

I have done, and if you'd like to know more (which I'm 100% sure you don't), visit http://www.evolutionthelie.com.

I asked you to be specific. Part of my question was what you know. Your response here is consistent with you knowing nothing about evolution, but choosing to believe there is scientific support to what you want to believe for religious reasons. It is also consistent with other possibilities, probably more than I can think of. It would be easy just to choose to believe what suits me best, but I'd rather not.

We can address both that point and the science if we each choose one topic from this web site and commit to discuss both seriously and in enough detail to spot and explain possible inconsistencies. That means no "just read this site", that means reading and thinking carefully enough to explain a point, and giving relevant references. I am willing to take this seriously and invest the necessary time. Are you?

Ragtime wrote:
In modern times, the internet allows you to be your own teacher.

Only if you know how to choose reliable sources.



Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

08 May 2008, 11:38 am

D1nk0 wrote:
Until you can PROVE that such a designer exists it is nothing more than useless speculation.

ID is presented as exactly that proof. To demand independent proof of the conclusion before looking at the argument is excessive.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

08 May 2008, 11:44 am

Gromit wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Gromit wrote:
Can you show what is incoherent?

I have done, and if you'd like to know more (which I'm 100% sure you don't), visit http://www.evolutionthelie.com.

I asked you to be specific. Part of my question was what you know.


Why turn the discussion of whether or not evolution is likely into an ad-hominem argument?
Stick to the issue, please.

Gromit wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
In modern times, the internet allows you to be your own teacher.

Only if you know how to choose reliable sources.


Well, do you?

I had assumed you did.

The truth is just as I predicted: You don't want to know any more about evolution than you currently do,
because more knowledge would only distract you from the piquancy of your religious belief in evolution.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 08 May 2008, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

08 May 2008, 11:50 am

Gromit wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
Until you can PROVE that such a designer exists it is nothing more than useless speculation.

ID is presented as exactly that proof. To demand independent proof of the conclusion before looking at the argument is excessive.


Well, how dare ID express the opinion that, given the functioning complexity of the universe and everything in it, it is highly, highly unlikely that it all just occurred from nothing.
I guess ID should have just shut up when the evolution bullies told it to.

:roll:


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.