|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you do not want to have an honest debate with me, ignore me.Can you try some honest debate instead of making personal attacks against people that do not agree with you? Not when they're idiots like you.
Bullshit. It is a statement of faith. Nuh-uh!
You are equivocating the word evidence. Give the definition you are using. Because it certainly isn't a scientific definition of the word evidence. Their evidence is faith. Evidence is something that can be used to form a conclusion that is not based on faith. Faith is accepting a position without evidence. If the IDist reached a conclusion from some evidence, then they are not accepting the position without evidence and they are not using faith. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Evidently personal attacks makes you feel like a man or something. You might want to quit acting like a middle schooler. Nah, its just that when dealing with idiots I would rather make responding a little more enjoyable to myself by making fun of them. If you can't handle it, as you said you are free to ignore me.
Well it seems you will take any personal attestation as evidence. That doesn't follow at all, stupid.
Your whole argument shows why ID is not scientific and is taken by faith alone. Your claims of there being evidence are in fact just redefinitions of the word evidence in order to say it is not a faith proposition. The definition of faith is not "accepting something without scientific evidence" so it is you who is misusing the terms.
Mods - Are their no penalties for personal attacks? What happens if I respond in kind? As you can see, again, I have done nothing to provoke such venomous attacks. Can someone please request that CS respond to the arguments only instead of making an attack in every response to me. Now who's acting like a middle schooler... Boo-fucking-hoo. Cry me a river. You gonna go home and eat some baby food, crybaby?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Classic. No response to the point just a personal attack. I simply feel no need nor desire to specifcally address any complete nonsequitor thrown my way. Especially from an overly intelligent person like yourself (who should know better).
You may have noticed if you had actually read my posts that I am not arguing the definition of Faith, I am claiming you are not adequately defining Evidence. Without knowing how you define the word Evidence your argument is meaningless. Wrong again, you beautiful genius. Speakers of english can use the word "evidence" in its colloquial sense and get an understanding of my position. The crux of the argument relies on what is meant by Faith, which you have wrong because of your misuse of the term "Evidence". I simply skipped right to the crux. Since you're such an honorable person, I'll just wait for when you go back and re-address my position that is still there waiting instead of taking this further into the wrong direction. But thank you for spending your valuable time on me, especially for being such a wonderful person as yourself, you must have so many better things to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The schoolyard bully returns. When a bully like you shows up... FYI, These two personal insults in particular really hurt my feelings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
According to you all these are valid uses of evidence. The bible is evidence for a great flood.Unexplainable lights are evidence of extraterrestrial visitations by Aliens. Visions are evidence of ghosts and the afterlife. These are similar uses of evidence as your argument that belief in ID might not be based solely on faith. Exactly! What's so hard to understand about that? If some dude sees some lights in the sky and thinks they're aliens and comes to the conclusion that aliens exist, then it would be wrong to say that he has faith that aliens exist. He was convinced that aliens exist from evidence. That you don't want to consider that evidence, or that you want to call that bad evidence, is beside the point that he, himself, is not holding his position on faith but has come to a conclusion from something he observed.
Funny how you still refuse to define how you use the word evidence. Just look it up in a dictionary... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not at all. His belief is based upon a false interpretation of evidence. It is the fallacy of non-sequitur. The evidence does not support the belief. The evidence does not in any way support the conclusion. In most cases the evidence has nothing to do with the conclusion. Therefore, if the evidence does not support the conclusion, then the conclusion is based upon faith not evidence. Absolutely not. Whether or not you have faith is not defined by the quality of the evidence, just whether you have any or not. Even a conclusion arrived at from bad evidence, or even poor logic, is still a position that was not arrived at via faith.
His belief is based upon a false interpretation of evidence. It is the fallacy of non-sequitur. The evidence does not support the belief. It doesn't matter because the evidence convinced him, and he is the one holding the position... a position he did not use faith to arrive at, a position he concluded from bad evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In ID faith is what makes them willing to accept the bad evidence. How do you know that it isn't just plain stupidity? You can't read minds.
Also with the other examples it is a faith based conclusion. It most certainly can be, no doubt. My contention is against the position that it must be.
Gee a response without any attacks, bullying and general all around assholishness. I knew you could do it. I do it all the time. I already explained to you that its your stupid idiocy that requires me making fun of you in order to have any desire to reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But I think more to the point, how important is this point? I don't think its important at all, nor do I see why it would be contentious. Does the ID position have to have faith? No, it doesn't have to. BFD.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When you can't defend your position anymore just avoid discussing it.
Let everyone be aware that if you do not agree with CS you are a stupid idiot. I've disagreed with tons of people without thinking they're stupid idiots... except for the ones who are stupid idiots. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Indeed all is well, I had my 15 mo checkup since last chemo and have all clear from the doctor. Hey alright! Congradulations.
Spending too much time remodeling the house and not enough biking. You gotta get your priorities crooked! Ergo, if someone accepted ID from evidence or proof, then it would not be faith. Except that ... ... if the evidence is not objective empirical evidence, then one is taking on faith that it does represent what you think it does. That and this:
If - and only if (imho) - objective empirical evidence is found, then no, it would no longer be a matter of faith. Are the seemingly-false dichotomy that I was referring to in Message 307:
quote: ...
Here the assumption is that lights=aliens, while the open-minded skeptic view would be that it could be aliens, or it could be something else, neither of which are confirmed (pending further evidence). Going from could be to IS is a leap of faith. That could just make them not an open-minded skeptic while still not making their position a matter of faith. And that is why I said that you're talking about a different faith than I am, again from Message 307:
quote: Further, you're opening a slippery slope here where anything and everything could be considered a leap of faith. You have to have faith that your not a brain in a jar... But as I said, I don't see any merit in going that route.
Again, going from a position that it could be designed to it IS designed is a leap of faith. But what if the person just isn't that smart or just hasn't thought about it that much? They see a light, they're convinced its aliens, end of story. Saying that they have faith in aliens is making a different statement than saying a person has faith in Jesus (to continue wiht the example). I don't think you should be calling that alien-convincing a matter of faith as if it was like having faith in Jesus. Too, I don't see the merit in watering down the meaning of faith so that it can be applied to the poorly thought out conclusion of an Intelligent Designer. Especially if it comes from something the person witnessed that convinced them of the position, as opposed to simply believing in something without evidence at all. As I said in Message 196:
quote: A belief being a matter of faith is a personal issue that only the holder of the belief can know if they're relying on faith to maintain it, or if they've been convinced of it by something they've witnessed. It doesn't matter if you can whittle it down to a leap of "faith", or show that its a poor deduction, or that the evidence is wanting... What matters is how and why they beleive it. I still think its possible for someone to come to a conclusion of ID without having to rely on faith to get there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is RAZ saying that everything is believed on faith until scientifically confirmed as correct? I don't think so. From Message 304:
quote: And from Message 309 quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If an absence of objective empirical evidence isn't what RAZ is using to distinguish faith based belief from non-faith based belief what is?
What makes you think it isn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So this thread ultimately boils down to pointing out that there is no actual objective empirical scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design. The bigger point is that that makes ID a form of faith. That having "actual objective empirical scientific evidence" makes something no longer a position of faith and because ID lacks it, then what is left over must be a form of faith. That is, unless someone can come up with another explanation (which the thread invites). Also, he's using "faith" in a looser sense...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What if the person in question honestly and genuinely (albeit erroneously) believes that they do have "actual objective empirical evidence" for Intelligent Design is that belief still a form of faith? They'd be having faith that they have actual objective empirical evidence due to the nature of the designer that they believe in, as outlined in the OP.
Were those who believed in the existence of a luminiferous ether believing on the basis of faith? What about those who believed that Piltdown man was the "missing link"....? No, not them. This is about the Designer, itself, being the thing that would require faith because of how its proposed... with the whole not-being-designed-itself deal that you get from IDists.
CS writes: Also, he's using "faith" in a looser sense... Rather all-encompassing I would say. Excepting things that can be shown via "actual objective empirical evidence". The point here being that because the Designer's nature (as described by IDists) necessitates that "actual objective empirical evidence" for it cannot be had, then by default (or de facto as its was put) it would have to be left as a form of "faith". It makes sense... but I don't like the definition of the term 'faith' as it is being used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
OK. So as long as one genuinely believes that there is objective empirical scientific evidence it isn't faith. Right? No, not according to the definition of faith that RAZD is using here in this thread. But, this thread is for the specific case of the Intelligent Designer.
Now to my mind his isn't faith. This is evidence and reasoning (albeit evidence which isn't as reliable as he believes it to be). Do you think this is faith? Not that particular part, but according to the definition in this thread, the position of there being a designer would be because the person does not actually have the evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024