ID as Religion

Thank you for finally addressing the original post. Again you are quoting from a source (do you have an url for it? I would be interested), however I don't think the question is really answered by this. Of course in one sense that will not happen until a court actually makes a judgement. What follows is an interpretation of that document by a proponent of ID and not by any judge on the Ninth Circuit, ergo it is NOT a definitive answer but just an opinion, a self-biased opinion.Let’s look at this matter further: Such as the origin of life, the special place of human life in the course of the universe (at least to humans) and the ways that such life may have come into existence.ID fits this bill as it uses the concept of design to explain such fundamental and ultimate questions.What you quoted does not prove the case as it is only one small part of what ID is, this is the logical fallacy of using the part for the whole. For ID the belief system is that a designer is involved in the development of life, and this is certainly not an isolated teaching judging from the extensive and growing numbers of books, websites and articles on the issue of whether or not a designer is involved. Certainly the movement is not founded on the belief that one single incident occurred, but a comprehensive pattern of behavior.Again, your argument about ID not involving morals is a strawman argument. Deism is a religion and has no specific moral code, but relies on logic and rational behavior and the derivation of morals from self evident truths and first principles. First notice that this does NOT exclude any belief system that does not have certain formal and external signs and does not address whether or not a belief system can be judged when this is not the case, the implication being that if they are present that the evidence for the belief being a religion is stronger.Again what you say for ID holds for Deism with equal validity, and Deism is recognized as a religion.Of course the things you list are only some external, formal signs of religions, but don’t encompass all of them.A common belief in a being whose existence is unknown by whose powers certain things are believed to have come into existence would be another such external sign. For ID this is the common belief in the existence of a designer.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Then you need to look again. I said I would be on the road for a while and may not be able to answer immediately to your posts. I said before that the 9th court thing was only a self-serving interpretation without true legal basis. Your listing of that opinion again in greater detail does not change that fact. It seems that you are down to repeating yourself with nothing left to show.And it does not refute the argument made in the original post.You also have not answered whether the definition of supernatural is agreeable to you. You could start there.Enjoy.{edited to sort out jumbled text. touchpad changes cursor location while typing ... arg.}This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-13-2004 12:18 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

IDman invokes the supernatural when discussing Newton as evidence of god, and this would confirm a connection between belief in the supernatural and religion. He needs to answer if the definition of supernatural given in the original post is correct or what needs to be changed. That would be a logical next step.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

instead of attacking Mr Hambre on what you perceive as an incorrect view, why not discuss with him what he defines as creationism.that would be a logical thing to do.like responding to the question on the definition of "supernatural" and whether you agree with it.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Actually there are several other sites that have similar arrangements, just not as well developed. One nearby is known as "Woodhenge" as it was made entirely with wood structure (temporary until the stone one finished?).There were also many other cultural elements that are of similar construction.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

he already declared victory didn't he?I hope he comes back. that question about the def of supernatural is really bugging me ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Yes this is Off Topic. thanks for the link, but discussion should proceed on that topic, or start a new one.

Do you or do you not agree with this definition: And let's see if you can answer a straight question on the topic without going off on a tangent, eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So: is the definition OKAY? Nice ramble over irrelevant territory you have already covered while still failing to answer the question.ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION?Do you or do you not agree with this definition: YES or NO.NOTE -- I will (and do) take failure on your part to answer the question as evidence that you do understand the logical consequences of the argument in the original post and the inevitable result.enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-29-2004 08:09 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So: is the definition OKAY? Nice ramble over irrelevant territory you have already covered while still failing to answer the question.ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION?Do you or do you not agree with this definition: YES or NO.NOTE -- I will (and do) take failure on your part to answer the question as evidence that you do understand the logical consequences
Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thank you for playingenjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

because you can say that the tail of a dog is a leg, but that doesn't make it a 5 legged animalSO: we will take that as an affirmative -- that the definition of supernatural is accurate and reflects the understanding of people around the world (for that is what definitions do: form a basis for a concensus of understanding what is being communicated).NEXT: do you agree with the definition of god or not? And if not why and where.Let's see if you can follow this through to the conclusion staying on the topic and not diverting into side channels ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}