Intelligent Design/Creationism/Religion

[D1B]

Posted, of course, by someone who can't counter it.

Hey, congrats! Your first post to a Christian where you didn't call them a Fuck.

You're the 175th christian to post, without a counter or answer to a simple question.

[YoUDeeMan]

What gets really frustrating here or anywhere is the anti-Christian crowd that immediately goes ad hominem instead of providing true arguments that can either be verified or refuted.

You, as a person who believes in God, are asking for true arguments from others that can be verified or refuted?

Do you realize how funny that statement is?

[Cap'n Cat]

What gets really frustrating here or anywhere is the anti-Christian crowd that immediately goes ad hominem instead of providing true arguments that can either be verified or refuted.

You, as a person who believes in God, are asking for true arguments from others that can be verified or refuted?

Do you realize how funny that statement is?

Clucky gets it.

[death dealer]

Quite to the contrary, it puts all the impetus on me. There is no God to fall back on, so I'd better be doing it right from the start.

An odd statement IMO.

It's odd that you find my statement so odd, IMO.

It's not rocket science, and you're pretty smart from the evidence on here, so figure it out. No god, nobody to bail your ass out when the shit hits the fan. Better learn to take care of things on my own. Stand on my own merits and not send my wish list to some super-Santa in the sky.

[89Hen]

An odd statement IMO.

It's odd that you find my statement so odd, IMO.

It's not rocket science, and you're pretty smart from the evidence on here, so figure it out. No god, nobody to bail your ass out when the shit hits the fan. Better learn to take care of things on my own. Stand on my own merits and not send my wish list to some super-Santa in the sky.

I'm still not following you. If you believe in God and heaven, you're more likely to be benevolent. Obviously there are exceptions to that. If you believe this is all there is, you're far more likely to be hedonistic and get all you can for yourself out of this life. Obviously there are exceptions to that too.

[JoltinJoe]

You, as a person who believes in God, are asking for true arguments from others that can be verified or refuted?

Do you realize how funny that statement is?

Clucky gets it.

I think 89's statement refers to the fact that the principal argument you get from atheists is that theists are silly and stupid.

There are many, many brilliant philosophers and theologians who have written eloquently defending, with rational arguments, the existence of God. But hey, a handful of guys on fcsfans.com think the belief in God is ridiculous.

[93henfan]

If there is a God, does he fart? These are the kinds of things I wonder about.

[89Hen]

If there is a God, does he fart? These are the kinds of things I wonder about.

What do you think is behind all this global warming?

[Cap'n Cat]

For the hanging out they did, I betcha Jesus fvcked Mary Magdalene like a bobcat.

[YoUDeeMan]

I think 89's statement refers to the fact that the principal argument you get from atheists is that theists are silly and stupid.

There are many, many brilliant philosophers and theologians who have written eloquently defending, with rational arguments, the existence of God. But hey, a handful of guys on fcsfans.com think the belief in God is ridiculous.

Plenty of supposedly brilliant people wrote eloquently, with what appeared to some to be "rational" thoughts, defending a lot of things in our past...and they were flat Earth out wrong. Looking back, they were misguided and stubbornly stuck in their beliefs.

And how many people were ridiculed, abused, and outcast for opposing those "brilliant" writers? How many more stayed silent on the golf courses? Indeed, the world lost a lot of time and lives from not moving forward due to the stigma and punishment of speaking out against the prevailing "masses".

[∞∞∞]

Plenty of supposedly brilliant people wrote eloquently, with what appeared to some to be "rational" thoughts, defending a lot of things in our past...and they were flat Earth out wrong.

[death dealer]

It's odd that you find my statement so odd, IMO.

It's not rocket science, and you're pretty smart from the evidence on here, so figure it out. No god, nobody to bail your ass out when the shit hits the fan. Better learn to take care of things on my own. Stand on my own merits and not send my wish list to some super-Santa in the sky.

I'm still not following you. If you believe in God and heaven, you're more likely to be benevolent. Obviously there are exceptions to that. If you believe this is all there is, you're far more likely to be hedonistic and get all you can for yourself out of this life. Obviously there are exceptions to that too.

Only a christian would say something like that. The vast majority of atheists are responsible caring people. The vast majority of those who claim a belief in god are murderous hedonistic narcissists. Again, the facts and evidence in no way supports your statement. Why do you think the vast majority of environmentalists would classify themselves as atheists or at least agnostics? While almost every climate change denier is a die hard christian? Actually, it makes a ton of sense. I mean, if you're willing to ignore all of the obvious scientific evidence on evolution and the origins of the universe, then it isn't nearly so hard to ignore all the evidence staring you in the face about climate change.

I'll never forget a quote I read by Jerry Falwell one time. I'm gonna have to paraphrase, but the gist of it was, "I don't worry too much about global warming, because when all the trees have been cut down, and all the seas are polluted, I know God had a back-up plan. He's coming again to take his children home to heaven." So basically, fuck the rest of you sinners.

[death dealer]

I think 89's statement refers to the fact that the principal argument you get from atheists is that theists are silly and stupid.

There are many, many brilliant philosophers and theologians who have written eloquently defending, with rational arguments, the existence of God. But hey, a handful of guys on fcsfans.com think the belief in God is ridiculous.

Plenty of supposedly brilliant people wrote eloquently, with what appeared to some to be "rational" thoughts, defending a lot of things in our past...and they were flat Earth out wrong. Looking back, they were misguided and stubbornly stuck in their beliefs.

And how many people were ridiculed, abused, and outcast for opposing those "brilliant" writers? How many more stayed silent on the golf courses? Indeed, the world lost a lot of time and lives from not moving forward due to the stigma and punishment of speaking out against the prevailing "masses".

Exactly! Did you know that the guy who first proposed continental drift was pretty much excommunicated from the scientific community? The current belief at that time was that there had been land bridges between the continents that had either eroded or been covered up by rising seas after the ice-ages. Seems completely ridiculous now if you think about it, but they were so invested in it, that when a guy comes along with a different but clearly correct alternative, they destroyed him and his career.

I realize that I just opened a big can of worms with the whole denier camp. Prepare for the shit storm.

[89Hen]

Only a christian would say something like that. Again, the facts and evidence in no way supports your statement. Why do you think the vast majority of environmentalists would classify themselves as atheists or at least agnostics? While almost every climate change denier is a die hard christian? Actually, it makes a ton of sense. I mean, if you're willing to ignore all of the obvious scientific evidence on evolution and the origins of the universe, then it isn't nearly so hard to ignore all the evidence staring you in the face about climate change.

Only an atheist would take your position.

You're going down an entirely different road here DD IMO. Singling out environmentalists and stating that because tree huggers are more likely to be agnostic (IDK if you could make a case for most being atheist) that would mean atheists are more likely to be what... benevolent? moral? Environmentalists are inherently benevolent to begin with, aren't they?

I have no idea what your GW point has to do with my previous posts.

[JoltinJoe]

I think 89's statement refers to the fact that the principal argument you get from atheists is that theists are silly and stupid.

There are many, many brilliant philosophers and theologians who have written eloquently defending, with rational arguments, the existence of God. But hey, a handful of guys on fcsfans.com think the belief in God is ridiculous.

Plenty of supposedly brilliant people wrote eloquently, with what appeared to some to be "rational" thoughts, defending a lot of things in our past...and they were flat Earth out wrong. Looking back, they were misguided and stubbornly stuck in their beliefs.

And how many people were ridiculed, abused, and outcast for opposing those "brilliant" writers? How many more stayed silent on the golf courses? Indeed, the world lost a lot of time and lives from not moving forward due to the stigma and punishment of speaking out against the prevailing "masses".

This is just idle chatter. You haven't read any of them.

When are you guys going to realize the reason people don't pay any attention to modern atheists is that they know you guys haven't read squat?

Who is going to influence me more: Aquinas or Cluck U? Seriously, if you could address Aquinas and others, it might be worthwhile to hear what you have to say.

[Cap'n Cat]

Plenty of supposedly brilliant people wrote eloquently, with what appeared to some to be "rational" thoughts, defending a lot of things in our past...and they were flat Earth out wrong. Looking back, they were misguided and stubbornly stuck in their beliefs.

And how many people were ridiculed, abused, and outcast for opposing those "brilliant" writers? How many more stayed silent on the golf courses? Indeed, the world lost a lot of time and lives from not moving forward due to the stigma and punishment of speaking out against the prevailing "masses".

This is just idle chatter. You haven't read any of them.

When are you guys going to realize the reason people don't pay any attention to modern atheists is that they know you guys haven't read squat?

Who is going to influence me more: Aquinas or Cluck U? Seriously, if you could address Aquinas and others, it might be worthwhile to hear what you have to say.

Don't pay attention to modern atheists? Ha! The movement is steadily growing as more and more realize the empty promises of religion in the face of the world's calamities and tragedies. Look it up, Monsignor!!

Love,

Your hometown responsible, tax-paying, charitable atheist.

[YoUDeeMan]

This is just idle chatter. You haven't read any of them.

When are you guys going to realize the reason people don't pay any attention to modern atheists is that they know you guys haven't read squat?

Who is going to influence me more: Aquinas or Cluck U? Seriously, if you could address Aquinas and others, it might be worthwhile to hear what you have to say.

Consider this influence...once the church tried to "save" someone, and failed, Thomas was OK with them being killed for being a heretic. The church steps aside and allows the state to kill people because of their beliefs? Thomas must have been influenced by the Muslim hard liners.

Would that subject be OK to talk about on the golf course?

[Cap'n Cat]

This is just idle chatter. You haven't read any of them.

When are you guys going to realize the reason people don't pay any attention to modern atheists is that they know you guys haven't read squat?

Who is going to influence me more: Aquinas or Cluck U? Seriously, if you could address Aquinas and others, it might be worthwhile to hear what you have to say.

Consider this influence...once the church tried to "save" someone, and failed, Thomas was OK with them being killed for being a heretic. The church steps aside and allows the state to kill people because of their beliefs? Thomas must have been influenced by the Muslim hard liners.

Would that subject be OK to talk about on the golf course?

[JoltinJoe]

This is just idle chatter. You haven't read any of them.

When are you guys going to realize the reason people don't pay any attention to modern atheists is that they know you guys haven't read squat?

Who is going to influence me more: Aquinas or Cluck U? Seriously, if you could address Aquinas and others, it might be worthwhile to hear what you have to say.

Consider this influence...once the church tried to "save" someone, and failed, Thomas was OK with them being killed for being a heretic. The church steps aside and allows the state to kill people because of their beliefs? Thomas must have been influenced by the Muslim hard liners.

Would that subject be OK to talk about on the golf course?

First, that portion of Thomas' writing (Article 3 of Question 11 in the Secunda Secundae) is greatly distorted by many. Thomas was certainly not advocating that non-believers be executed, although he did believe that baptized Catholics who renounced their faith were properly subjected to trials by the sovereign and could be put to death.

Second, the reference to Aquinas wasn't to suggest that he is the end all and be all, or that everything he wrote was worthy of belief or acceptance. Nonetheless, Aquinas had some very eloquent thoughts on the existence of God which maintain relevance even if he had some other views which don't merit following today.

Much like Marx & Engels: there were many things these guys observed about capitalism that were true ... even if other things they wrote or thought are not worthy of belief.

Every philosopher is a bit of a mixed bag. It is what keeps modern philosopher and theologians writing.

[death dealer]

Consider this influence...once the church tried to "save" someone, and failed, Thomas was OK with them being killed for being a heretic. The church steps aside and allows the state to kill people because of their beliefs? Thomas must have been influenced by the Muslim hard liners.

Would that subject be OK to talk about on the golf course?

First, that portion of Thomas' writing (Article 3 of Question 11 in the Secunda Secundae) is greatly distorted by many. Thomas was certainly not advocating that non-believers be executed, although he did believe that baptized Catholics who renounced their faith were properly subjected to trials by the sovereign and could be put to death.

Second, the reference to Aquinas wasn't to suggest that he is the end all and be all, or that everything he wrote was worthy of belief or acceptance. Nonetheless, Aquinas had some very eloquent thoughts on the existence of God which maintain relevance even if he had some other views which don't merit following today.

Much like Marx & Engels: there were many things these guys observed about capitalism that were true ... even if other things they wrote or thought are not worthy of belief.

Every philosopher is a bit of a mixed bag. It is what keeps modern philosopher and theologians writing.

That's all fine and well from a philosophy standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. That is not open for debate. There is no sound science that can truly justify teaching ID in the science curriculum.

Also, Aquinas didn't have access to modern scientific evidence, you do. He can be excused for his fantasies, you can't.

[JoltinJoe]

First, that portion of Thomas' writing (Article 3 of Question 11 in the Secunda Secundae) is greatly distorted by many. Thomas was certainly not advocating that non-believers be executed, although he did believe that baptized Catholics who renounced their faith were properly subjected to trials by the sovereign and could be put to death.

Second, the reference to Aquinas wasn't to suggest that he is the end all and be all, or that everything he wrote was worthy of belief or acceptance. Nonetheless, Aquinas had some very eloquent thoughts on the existence of God which maintain relevance even if he had some other views which don't merit following today.

Much like Marx & Engels: there were many things these guys observed about capitalism that were true ... even if other things they wrote or thought are not worthy of belief.

Every philosopher is a bit of a mixed bag. It is what keeps modern philosopher and theologians writing.

That's all fine and well from a philosophy standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. That is not open for debate. There is no sound science that can truly justify teaching ID in the science curriculum.

Also, Aquinas didn't have access to modern scientific evidence, you do. He can be excused for his fantasies, you can't.

I never said ID should be taught in schools.

There is nothing about modern science that negates any of Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God. In fact, one of his points was that the existence of God was neither self-evident nor unprovable.

What in modern science has proven that God does not exist?

BTW, my "fantasy" is not a fantasy at all. I believe that man perceives and understands, through his knowledge and sensory experiences, merely the tip of the iceberg of what is real or true. There are scientific and philosophical truths that we have not even begun to grasp. To rule out the existence of God based on what we know or experience is the ultimate rush to judgment (in fact, that is precisely the shortcoming of modern atheism).

Do you think differently?

[death dealer]

That's all fine and well from a philosophy standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. That is not open for debate. There is no sound science that can truly justify teaching ID in the science curriculum.

Also, Aquinas didn't have access to modern scientific evidence, you do. He can be excused for his fantasies, you can't.

I never said ID should be taught in schools.

There is nothing about modern science that negates any of Aquinas' proofs for the existence of God. In fact, one of his points was that the existence of God was neither self-evident nor unprovable.

What in modern science has proven that God does not exist?

BTW, my "fantasy" is not a fantasy at all. I believe that man perceives and understands, through his knowledge and sensory experiences, merely the tip of the iceberg of what is real or true. There are scientific and philosophical truths that we have not even begun to grasp. To rule out the existence of God based on what we know or experience is the ultimate rush to judgment (in fact, that is precisely the shortcoming of modern atheism).

Do you think differently?

If you don't want ID taught in the classroom, then you and I have no beef. I don't give two rats asses about your personal beliefs as long as they remain personal, and you don't try to prosthelitize me. This entire thread started with me simply saying that there is no evidence to support the idea that god is a benevolent force in this reality. All the evidence I can see is either of a malicious god or one who simply doesn't care.

Actually, I believe the evidence points to no god at all, but it isn't conclusive, so I won't say that it's impossible that some sort of super-intelligence that we just can't detect exists. I still refuse to believe that if it does exist that it gives a shit about us in any meaningful way or has an actual active role in our lives. There's just no evidence to support that as anything but wishful thinking.

[JoltinJoe]

If you don't want ID taught in the classroom, then you and I have no beef.

Then we have no beef.

[Cap'n Cat]

Now we're all friends again. Let's have a circle jerk!!!!!!




"OK, well, you start first, JoltinJoe!"
"No way, I always start them off! You start, Hen!
"Uh-uh, it's Cap'n's turn! Tell us about that Down Syndrome hottie, Cappy!!!"

[YoUDeeMan]

First, that portion of Thomas' writing (Article 3 of Question 11 in the Secunda Secundae) is greatly distorted by many. Thomas was certainly not advocating that non-believers be executed, although he did believe that baptized Catholics who renounced their faith were properly subjected to trials by the sovereign and could be put to death.

Every philosopher is a bit of a mixed bag. It is what keeps modern philosopher and theologians writing.

As mentioned, Thomas has a lot in common with what are considered Muslim hardliners...and Stalin. What people have problems with is that the Church took Aquinas as one of their theological leaders...a man who condoned the killing of people who turned their backs on God. And while we can argue whether he may not have supported the church's direct killing of non-believers, he most certainly did not advocate the church attempting to stop the state from killing what the state considered heritics.

That is not a small "add on" item...it was a part of his core belief. Shudder to think if he or the state in which he resided had the modern killing capabilities of Stalin.