You said -ist, with a very strong implication you were specifically referring to its use in "atheist" (which predates scientific usage of the suffix), was a scientific rip off. Your analogy is very poor.
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.
You said -ist, with a very strong implication you were specifically referring to its use in "atheist" (which predates scientific usage of the suffix), was a scientific rip off. Your analogy is very poor.Agreed. My analogy was akin to AV's fallacious 'species/kind' conflation. The meaning of 'species' post-dates the Bible, but that doesn't deter how 'kind' is frequently used by so-called 'Creation Scientists', (which is of course, yet another example of such a rip-off).
How is humanist different in that respect?I'm not an atheist .. because it ends with an '-ist' suffix.
So for that reason you reject the evolution of the rest of the creatures and of our own physical bodies?God didn't tell me anything about that, but since i have experience with God and i'm pretty sure he exists, also that we have a soul, then i can conclude easily that the most important part of people couldn't have evolved because its spiritual.
The reality that God is not our origin right?
The science of evolution doesn't (and can't) address this question. You've set up a false dichotomy between evolution and God.
What I was attempting to express (maybe not so well) is that the process of classification of people which assumes them as being motivated by any default, fixed beliefs (or disbeliefs), in modern times, is not reflective of the demonstrable human ability of altering motivations on a basis other than fixed beliefs. In fact, classifying people that way and denoting those 'classes' by using the '-ist' suffix, sets up the path towards nothing more than discrimination.You said -ist, with a very strong implication you were specifically referring to its use in "atheist" (which predates scientific usage of the suffix), was a scientific rip off. Your analogy is very poor.
Correct. Each individual scientist gets to decide for himself whether he believes in God or not. The theory of evolution doesn't come into it. The theory itself is the same either way.No, its from the mouth of the same evolutionist when they say evolution is the origin of man.
It isn't .. but when I signed up to this website it was the closest approximation I could come up with which would lead to sign-up.How is humanist different in that respect?
No, its from the mouth of the same evolutionist when they say evolution is the origin of man.
Which still doesn't address the question of whether God was involved or not. Science cannot make any claims about God one way or the other.
.. and yet anyone presenting objective evidence supporting the ToE will still be referred to by the '-ist' suffixed 'Evolution-ist' label, which implies some kind of belief-based motivation for presenting evidence of it (as @NBB continually asserts).Correct. Each individual scientist gets to decide for himself whether he believes in God or not. The theory of evolution doesn't come into it. The theory itself is the same either way.
But you need to admit they say that with evolution God is not needed, evolution could do its thing alone, heavy contrast if God planned how our bodies and what our feelings intelligence would be etc.
But you need to admit they say that with evolution God is not needed, evolution could do its thing alone, heavy contrast if God planned how our bodies and what our feelings intelligence would be etc.
Well, they don't want people who previously declared themselves a non-believer relabeling a believer to get access to the Christians Only sections.It isn't .. but when I signed up to this website it was the closest approximation I could come up with which would lead to sign-up.
That the label isn't editable by the poster, is completely bizarre .. (and highly suspicious).
No, "they" don't say that.But you need to admit they say that with evolution God is not needed, evolution could do its thing alone, heavy contrast if God planned how our bodies and what our feelings intelligence would be etc.
I understand your view point. An that is why is used in this post What is the Falsification for Abiogenesis and Theory of Evolution? the wording "science minded people". I don't pretend that that's the most elegant way of phrasing it, but it was the best could come with (apart from maybe "empiricist")... and yet anyone presenting objective evidence supporting the ToE will still be referred to by the '-ist' suffixed 'Evolution-ist' label, which implies some kind of belief-based motivation for presenting evidence of it (as @NBB continually asserts).
(This is evidence supporting my point presented in my sub-conversation with @Bungle_Bear).
I don't know who "they" are, but the same could be said about any scientific theory.But you need to admit they say that with evolution God is not needed, evolution could do its thing alone, heavy contrast if God planned how our bodies and what our feelings intelligence would be etc.
But you need to admit they say that with evolution God is not needed, evolution could do its thing alone, heavy contrast if God planned how our bodies and what our feelings intelligence would be etc.
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?