Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know who else we are all waiting to respond to our posts. (Though maybe AV wrote something I didn't see.)
I think the suggestion might be what we will supposedly discover following death.
Nothing to do with evolution or creation. I grow weary of the Xians that reflexively tell others they'll "find stuff" out *after* death.
Of course we know we're going to "find stuff out." We're afraid of it. That's why we deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for our hedonistic lifestyle.That's alright, Hans. I grow weary of atheists who reflexively tell others that they definitely won't "find stuff" out *after* death.
I guess the best part of this mutual disregard is that no one is required to care about it either way.
Of course we know we're going to "find stuff out." We're afraid of it. That's why we deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for our hedonistic lifestyle.
Of course we know we're going to "find stuff out." We're afraid of it. That's why we deny the Bible and its promise of punishment for our hedonistic lifestyle.
Perhaps as a philospher you'd appreciate my disdain for arguments from post-mortem consequences. (And I didn't say you *wouldn't* find out, only that I was tired of such claims made in irrelevant places. [looks at your tag line, sigh]That's alright, Hans. I grow weary of atheists who reflexively tell others that they definitely won't "find stuff" out *after* death.
Do you know anything about ID creationism or their critiques of evolutionary theory?I guess the best part of this mutual disregard is that no one is required to care about it either way.
@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.I think that @Mountainmike was perhaps unnerved to find that at least 2 people had already read it.
The frustrations of atheists is both that we won't get the satisfaction of Christians "finding out" what actually happens after death and that we know Christians won't find out either to know how wrong they were about everything. 'cause there is no "after."That's alright, Hans. I grow weary of atheists who reflexively tell others that they definitely won't "find stuff" out *after* death.
I guess the best part of this mutual disregard is that no one is required to care about it either way.
Perhaps as a philospher you'd appreciate my disdain for arguments from post-mortem consequences. (And I didn't say you *wouldn't* find out, only that I was tired of such claims made in irrelevant places. [looks at your tag line, sigh]
Do you know anything about ID creationism or their critiques of evolutionary theory?
There were 2 "well informed" posters who are willing to discuss Denton with you. Are your travels over? Do you have time to have the discussion with the informed posters in the thread you started a week ago?@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.
Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking by ( for the most part illinformed ) atheists .
so hard to take interest in posting..
We're not referring to "bpp" or "nbb" or that philosophy fellow. A couple of us have mentioned reading Denton's book, others of are aware of these critiques and willing to address any presentation you make from his argument and book. Atheist got nothing to do with it. You walked into the room and offered a duel, we have responded with acceptance.@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.
and am moving around for next four weeks
Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking by ( for the most part illinformed ) atheists .
so hard to take interest in posting.
I simply point out that my Views echo much mainstream science.
I was lambasted for saying that there is no valid hypothesus or theory for how the hideously complex minimum cell came to be, and that Darwinian small change does not account for the life forms we see. Science agrees with me. Or rather , I agree with science.
Excellent. She misses the point, though. The creation/evolution debate is about the Bible, not the existence of God or his creative acts. She'll just have to get used to being accused of denying the existence of God. It happens to all of us, whether we believe in God or not.The context here was in our finding out the operative difference between God and evolution. Of course, originally I didn't include any inference about finding stuff out *after* death. That was added by conjecture as to what someone thought I must have meant.
My insinuation here is that I don't know why we would expect, here and now, to see any difference in natural history of the formative processes of the world, as if God somehow leaves behind 'fingerprints' on whatever He might deign to fiddle with. I mean, where Methodological Naturalism is applied to our scientific outlook, I've always tended to lean on Eugenie Scott's definition of it rather than on that of a few others:
“Because creationists explain natural phenomena by saying “God performed a miracle,” we tell them that they are not doing science. This is easy to understand. The flip side, though, is that if science is limited by methodological [naturalism] because of our inability to control an omnipotent power’s interference in nature, both “God did it” and “God didn’t do it” fail as scientific statements. Properly understood, the principle of methodological [naturalism] requires neutrality towards God; we cannot say, wearing our scientist hats, whether God does or does not act.”
Science and Religion, Methodology, and Humanism | National Center for Science Education
[In May 1998 Dr Eugenie C Scott, NCSE'S Executive Director, was awarded the American Humanist Association's 1998 "Isaac Asimov Science Award". What follows is excerpted from her acceptance speech. Ed.]ncse.ngo
The frustrations of atheists is both that we won't get the satisfaction of Christians "finding out" what actually happens after death and that we know Christians won't find out either to know how wrong they were about everything. 'cause there is no "after."
The interpretation of the bible, especially the translating of ideas derived from the bible into creationist pseudosciences like creation science or ID, more so than the bible itself is at issue.Excellent. She misses the point, though. The creation/evolution debate is about the Bible, not the existence of God or his creative acts. She'll just have to get used to being accused of denying the existence of God. It happens to all of us, whether we believe in God or not.
I am disappointed and almost offended that a philospher, for whom nuances of vocabulary should be important and semantics essential, egregiously misrepresented my words. There is a world of difference between what I "thought you must have meant" and "thought you might have meant". The former reeks of arrogance on my part, claiming to know your mind, the latter intended to suggest deferential uncertainty.That was added by conjecture as to what someone thought I must have meant.
I am disappointed and almost offended that a philospher, for whom nuances of vocabulary should be important and semantics essential, egregiously misrepresented my words. There is a world of difference between what I "thought you must have meant" and "thought you might have meant". The former reeks of arrogance on my part, claiming to know your mind, the latter intended to suggest deferential uncertainty.
Deferential uncertainty is my superpower.
@Mountainmike has been travelling for a fortnight.
and am moving around countries for next four weeks
Most of what is posted here is unscientific wishful thinking by ( for the most part illinformed ) atheists .
so it is hard to take interest in posting.
I simply point out that my Views echo much mainstream science.
I was lambasted for saying that there is no valid hypothesus or theory for how the hideously complex minimum cell came to be, and that Darwinian small change does not account for the life forms we see. Science agrees with me. Or rather , I agree with science. Read the book. It documents all the main schools of thought.
The interpretation of the bible, especially the translating of ideas derived from the bible into creationist pseudosciences like creation science or ID, more so than the bible itself is at issue.
It is disappointing, I know, especially when a philosopher like myself might not even have alluded to some specific person in the least, but rather to someone else. But it happens.
Language is a funny thing. It's almost protean.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?