Subduction Zone
Regular Member
It does not appear that you treat the subject neutrally. If that were the case you would support your claims with proper evidence.
Upvote
0
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.
That deal was for the particular discussion at hand and not as a declaration that I would always treat the subject from a religiously neutral perspective. It depends on the thread. It also depends on how atheists respond. If they respond as if I am taking a religious perspective then I will begin react in harmony with that feedback if deemed necessary. For example, if the atheist brings in biblical issues then he will force me to deal with his objections from religious angle.
All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.It does not appear that you treat the subject neutrally. If that were the case you would support your claims with proper evidence.
All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.
Yes.Why not, that's the whole emphasis of the "Wedge Document."
Mystical science.AV, what do you think "gnostic" means?
Your modus operandi isn't scientific.Wrong again, It is improper from a scientific perspective. You try to claim that your beliefs are based upon science and then when it comes to evidence you avoid scientific evidence. Scientists (not 'atheistic scientists') developed the definition so that it would be neutral. Scientists are not perfect and are liable to deny evidence at times. By using a specific definition one can show that one has evidence. Your so called "evidence" does not meet this relativley low standard.
You should not act like a child. I politely explained to you why you have no evidence.Your modus operandi isn't scientific.
Yes, you do it all the time.When I argue from an ID standpoint I don't bring in God, a god, goddesses or deities of any kind. I just argue from the standpoint of what nature indicates.
That deal was for the particular discussion at hand and not as a declaration that I would always treat the subject from a religiously neutral perspective. It depends on the thread.
For example, if the atheist brings in biblical issues then he will force me to deal with his objections from religious angle. So whether or not the subject remains neutral isn't completely up to me.
In fact, some atheists cannot discuss an ID without immediately brining in religion and God.
They seem too prefer to assume that is what is really being discussed..
I politely responded that the modus operandi of selective blindness and inconsistency of policy is unscientific.You should not act like a child. I politely explained to you why you have no evidence.
I politely responded that the modus operandi of selective blindness and inconsistency of policy is unscientific.
I don't think it matters any more. Radrook is pretty much "out" as a biblical creationist and like the Discovery Institute whose ideas about ID he was pitching, may not regard ID as anything more than a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism.Actually... you are just making bare assertions of this supposed "selective blindness". Because you see, in order to justify those assertions, you'ld actually have to explain by which criteria one can detect unnatural design, and then demonstrate how "them' atheists" selectively not apply those criteria to life.
But you haven't done that. Not even once. You haven't even tried.
All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.
Claims have a tendancy to stand on their own merit/evidence. Could be why dr. Behe, got destroyed under oath while questioned on ID. If his claim had merit, that wouldnt have happened. His own attorneys couldnt even save him.All evidence which supports an ID is improper from an atheist perspective.
Really? I am not familiar with what the Discovery Institute teaches in that creationist area. So how am pitching for them? Also, as an Anglican-exactly what is it that you are pitching by lending support to atheists while attempting to discredit a believer?I don't think it matters any more. Radrook is pretty much "out" as a biblical creationist and like the Discovery Institute whose ideas about ID he was pitching, may not regard ID as anything more than a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism.
What for-so you can smugly drone that you can't see?Actually... you are just making bare assertions of this supposed "selective blindness". Because you see, in order to justify those assertions, you'ld actually have to explain by which criteria one can detect unnatural design, and then demonstrate how "them' atheists" selectively not apply those criteria to life.
But you haven't done that. Not even once. You haven't even tried.
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?