Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Thermal]

Dear God, just summarise your point. All I got from this horrible detour is that peer-reviewed doesn't equate to being good scientific research.

Wasn't he pointing out that the creationists were being honest and putting their cards on the table by submitting to formal scientific scrutiny? I mean, that's a good sign, really, as long as it wasn't strictly an attempt to get a seat at the respectable table.

 

[Olmstead]

Wasn't he pointing out that the creationists were being honest and putting their cards on the table by submitting to formal scientific scrutiny? I mean, that's a good sign, really, as long as it wasn't strictly an attempt to get a seat at the respectable table.

Maybe? I went back, and this all started with the claim that creationists are also doing science but coming to a different conclusion. However, it can't be good science if they already started with a preferred result, i.e. ID. Not that there aren't other researchers who fall into a similar trap but that's another issue entirely.

At any rate, I don't want to go look through 10 pages to deduce a point which could be summarised in a paragraph, and GDon seems to have some greater purpose in this whole discussion.

 

[Finster]

Wasn't he pointing out that the creationists were being honest and putting their cards on the table by submitting to formal scientific scrutiny? I mean, that's a good sign, really, as long as it wasn't strictly an attempt to get a seat at the respectable table.

Lying to get published in neither honesty, nor science.

 

[Darat]

Isn't that a pretty modern spin, lifted from Eastern thought? Biblically, the idea of ressurecting your own body and heavenly mansion and all seem to point towards a continuation of an individual existence.

No. That's I think a fair summary of current and past RCC theology.

 

[Darat]

Wasn't he pointing out that the creationists were being honest and putting their cards on the table by submitting to formal scientific scrutiny? I mean, that's a good sign, really, as long as it wasn't strictly an attempt to get a seat at the respectable table.

No - he was claiming that ID was science. Which we know it wasn't and isn't, it was something made up out of whole cloth to try and remove non-biblical stuff from education.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again "Intelligent design" was an intentional, premediated plot to get Christian Creationism into schools. This was admitted by its creators and legally proven in a court of law. It is a fact and it is not up for debate. If you say otherwise you are either unreasonably wrong or intentionally lying.

There is nothing honest about intelligent design and nothing honest about suggesting otherwise.

 

[Leumas]

Again "Intelligent design" was an intentional, premediated plot to get Christian Creationism into schools. This was admitted by its creators and legally proven in a court of law. It is a fact and it is not up for debate. If you say otherwise you are either unreasonably wrong or intentionally lying.

There is nothing honest about intelligent design and nothing honest about suggesting otherwise.

And as is the case with all apologetics.... the risible irony abounds...

In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview. ....

Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do....

 

[GDon]

Creationists want to use ID as a Trojan Horse to get credibility for creationism. ...snip...

Nope. Creationists created ID to try and fool people into thinking it wasn't creationism. Sadly you have fallen for their lies.

Thanks for the correction. I've argued a lot against creationists in the past, so I had the impression that Michael Behe developed the idea of IC which is supported by an old earth. It was one of the arguments I used against them -- if a creationist pointed to ID, I pointed to Behe and support for an old earth.

If you have info showing that Creationists actually created ID to try and fool people into thinking it wasn't creationism, I'd love to see any links you have on that!

 

[Leumas]

Lying to get published in neither honesty, nor science.

It is literally the sinew of Christian Apologetics...

Lying For Jesus is a well cherished and long held Christian Tradition started with Paul and legitimized by Bishop Eusebius and sanctified by Martin Luther and is the bread and butter of Christian authors and publishers and book sellers and "Institutes"... not to mention Churches and Faux "news".

...numerous religious organizations with billion$ can afford to finance and deploy and employ and train hordes of religious zealots and charlatans to lie for Jesus as Paul taught and Martin Luther sanctified... and to do Concern Trolling and Fly Trapping and... to launch full out propaganda INSTITUTES and fake journals and buy corrupt scientists and purchase venal judges and bribe authorities etc. etc.

• 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; ... To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak. I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some peddle Jesus. And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with hawk Jesus to you.
• Martin Luther -- "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

 

[Thermal]

Thanks for the correction. I've argued a lot against creationists in the past, so I had the impression that Michael Behe developed the idea of IC which is supported by an old earth. It was one of the arguments I used against them -- if a creationist pointed to ID, I pointed to Behe and support for an old earth.

If you have info showing that Creationists actually created ID to try and fool people into thinking it wasn't creationism, I'd love to see any links you have on that!

Isn't the evidence right in the name? What would the intelligence in ID be except for a god?

 

[GDon]

Dear God, just summarise your point. All I got from this horrible detour is that peer-reviewed doesn't equate to being good scientific research.

Too many points to summarise in one go, I'm afraid! But I'll try:

1. To say that a group that is against modern scientific consensus is "against science" is wrong. Those who argue against the consensus do so by arguing that it is they who are doing science right, and the consensus group doing science wrong.

2. ID proponents argue they are doing science correctly. They don't "reject science". They believe that the scientific consensus is wrong. But it doesn't mean they think therefore computers and planes don't work (paraphrasing someone's comment much earlier in the thread).

3. ID proponents are following the scientific method by (1) making an observation (flagellum), (2) proposing a hypothesis (IC), (3) submitting into peer reviewed publications. That's all good! That's science at work!

4. ID is a failed hypothesis, since the flagellum doesn't show IC. ID can be rejected as unproven. That's all good also! That's science at work!

This is very important to acknowledge. Science is under attack like never before. When one man can declare "I am the Science! To attack me you are attacking Science!" you know that science is in trouble. When science is devolved into "science is just those things that I agree with", then you get the same result if you devolve free speech into "you are free to say anything I agree with."

There seems to be an ideological line whereby even admitting that ID has had peer reviewed articles presented somehow means that science has failed. It hasn't. Quite the opposite.

It's a small hill, but one that I'm willing to die on. Hope that answers your question!

 

[GDon]

Wasn't he pointing out that the creationists were being honest and putting their cards on the table by submitting to formal scientific scrutiny? I mean, that's a good sign, really, as long as it wasn't strictly an attempt to get a seat at the respectable table.

No, I wouldn't say Creationists are being honest! They are using ID for dishonest purposes, since ID requires an old earth, and most Creationists reject that anyway. It is their cynical attempt to try to overthrow evolutionary theory. If that gets done, then the next thing Creationists will try to overthrow is ID.

 

[GDon]

Again "Intelligent design" was an intentional, premediated plot to get Christian Creationism into schools. This was admitted by its creators and legally proven in a court of law. It is a fact and it is not up for debate. If you say otherwise you are either unreasonably wrong or intentionally lying.

I know that Creationists are using ID to try to push Creationism into schools. Did they admit that they created ID for that purpose? Given that ID requires an old earth, I'd love to understand this. Any links to Creationists admitting that they created ID would be much appreciated!

 

[GDon]

Isn't the evidence right in the name? What would the intelligence in ID be except for a god?

Behe leaves that open, that ID can't say anything other than there was a designer. It might be aliens, for example. Of course, for Creationists the designer can only be God!

 

[Thermal]

No, I wouldn't say Creationists are being honest! They are using ID for dishonest purposes, since ID requires an old earth, and most Creationists reject that anyway. It is their cynical attempt to try to overthrow evolutionary theory. If that gets done, then the next thing Creationists will try to overthrow is ID.

"Honest" was a poor word choice. I meant more like being direct, and submitting their work to scientific scrutiny rather than Twitter warring.

 

[Leumas]

Behe leaves that open, that ID can't say anything other than there was a designer. It might be aliens, for example. Of course, for Creationists the designer can only be God!

WOW... what amazing CONCERN you have for Behe's hoax....

And regarding all this incessant and indefatigable apologetics for Imbecilic Design... may I remind you ... ironically... of your own words...

In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview. ....

Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do....

 

[Leumas]

...
If you have info showing that Creationists actually created ID to try and fool people into thinking it wasn't creationism, I'd love to see any links you have on that!

I already gave you that... but of course you did not read it...

No, it passed because it wasn't an outright rejection of evolution, but rather a "reappraisal of certain aspects of evolution".

So in other words the writers of the paper yet again obfuscated their REAL AGENDA in order to befuddle and beguile and acquire an inch so as to insidiously steal the whole yard.

Their agenda is a Trojan Horse For CREATIONISM. And then proceed to hoodwink that the designer is a celestial slave mongering voodoo rituals prescribing witches proscribing human sacrifice commanding ethnic cleansing participating bronze age tribal myth.

 

[The Atheist]

From page 5:

I give it two more pages, tops.

Well short. Still going 9 pages later.

 

[The Atheist]

Immortality would become a form of torture.

No ****.

I think I'd be a touch bored after a billion years or so, and you still have eternity to go.

Even noted theologian, Jonathan Swift, who was Dean of St Patrick's Cathedral, pointed that out 300 years ago, yet people are still too dumb to grasp the fact.

 

[Thermal]

From page 5:



Well short. Still going 9 pages later.

It's the grift that keeps on grifting.