Intelligent Design, Daganev.

"Oh, okay. God did it. NEXT SUBJECT. Oh, god did that too.".

I swear, the hypocrisy the rest of your posts drip (Not to mention, Saw, you are so wrong, I won't even answer, here is a long and irritating post on why you are wrong, thus answering) would drown most people.

And yet, people did.

You can say that they won't, but the fact is, that they did.

You can pretend that people who think their lucky sock will help them, won't actually practice hard or even harder to win won't, but they do.

Obviously not all people do. But the idea that having an irrational belief will somehow dictate or predict some other aspect of your behavior is pure nonsense.

You really think other people believing in god is worse than people in your own country thinking they are more important then you?

Are you aware that one of the greatest supporters Intelgent design is also the same person who was instrumental in decoding the entire Human Genome?

I don't think I really answered his points, they merely tangential to his points. But whatever.

There is nothing more acidic than Dawkins and his supporters, and no group more prone to act the part of the irrational biggot.

Dawkins create false caricatures of people, and thinks he is so high and mighty, its frankly disgusting.

His contempt for humanity is noted.

Because I realised fundementalists have a hard time distinguishing subtle concepts.

Not all Atheists are "New Atheists."

I'm not seeing the way that affects my argument. ID-ers think that whenever something becomes too complicated, it's just "god did it". That's my objection. (I'll find the news interview later.)

And yes, because I definately raised a flag waving around my support for it. Hey, maybe read my other post in the thread, aside from your quoted one? "You're disagreeing with me. So you're being a bigot." seems to be your prime point in this thread. And the acidity? Take a look at your other posts, daganev. The day I declare myself high and mighty is the day hell freezes over. You've already done it.

This is sort of hilarious. In ever single post, daganev, a moderator, is slinging poorly veiled personal attacks and acting as if its his right.

And the hypocrisy. That's classic.



Seems to me like they're one in the same in this case. You believe in God, and yet you're slinging so much "holier than thou" crap around that I need to put my boots on. The only one in this whole conversation being hostile (aside from Verithrax.. but come on.. that's Verithrax, and even he's keeping himself mostly in check) is you. Everyone else is being civil while you claim its impossible for us to do so. You seem to be the only one acting in the way you're touting that fundamentalists act. Your saying we're all New Atheists, and I don't think any of us here, except maybe Verithrax, are. You keep saying we can't be civil, when, aside from you, we all are.

Maybe its time to read over this thread with a little bit of detachment so you can see what the subject is turning you into. Because I don't think you'd like it if you were being rational.

Daganev should go on moderator preview.

No, I'm not going to attempt to contribute to the conversation, because then I'd be getting more Daganev's Divine Displeasure than I'd care to have the discomfort of experiencing.

Also, Daganev, combine your multi-posts into one, for posterity's sake.

Factually incorrect. Francis Collins is a theist, a proponent of theistic evolution, but he has himself rejected creationism and intelligent design theory. Hell, he wrote a book about god in which he expressly rejects it; and although Collins may be irritating at times, he's no creationist. You don't go very far in biology when you believe in ID or its uglier cousin, Creationism.
Very nice coming from you, who have been espousing bigoted, downright offensive views from the start. If I had said about jews what you said about atheists so far, I'd have been banned already.

I'm sorry, but we don't. This is not a caricature, and neither is this or this, and neither is this. If all religion was the sedate, sit-down-and-have-tea, let's-discuss-the-talmud form you like to pretend it is, there would be no need to be so strident, and Dawkins, Hitchens, et al would have written different books. Alas, the world is not so easy-going on us.

My contempt for humanity? I'm not the one who believes humans are naturally sinful; I'm not the one who believes humans are necessarily attached to baseless superstition and believing in things with no truth value. I'm the one who has faith in humanity here, not you.

Daganev, as SAW said, you know longer have any right to hiss at someone for making "thinly veiled personal attacks".

And seriously, your hypocrisy is painful. You're saying "There is nothing more acidic than the tongue of a person defending New Atheism," and in the very same post "You create false caricatures of people, and think you are so high and mighty, its frankly disgusting."

Care to explain give an excuse?

Sorry, all my personal attacks were aimed at Dawkins and people who think Dawkins is the best thing since sliced bread, not the people in this thread. I'll edit my posts.

I've been reading interviews of Dawkins lately, and I don't understand how anybody can support him.

Your personal attacks really did not sound like that, Daganev. And now you're editing your posts and pretending it didn't happen?

Lets just put it this way. I have religious beliefs, there is not a single thing that you have said about people with beliefs that applies to myself.

I can't say I know much about the details of the ID theory, as I don't really care about them, since there is no need for it, but to say that because you believe that "god did it" means that you can't investigate -how- god did it, is just juvenile assumptions.

The whole point of religion is to know how the world truly works so that you can make the most of it and make the world the best it can be. If your understanding of religion is the correct one, then it can't conflict with truth in science.

Some reason people seem to forget that it was religious institutions that often spurred scientific progress.

Ever heard of Gregor Johann Mendel the Abbot?

Yes, that is what happens when people make personal attacks, their posts get edited.

They also have their warn level go up.

That is correct.

Thats wonderful, neither do I.

Dawkins however feels that a human who has the natural human attribute of belief, is now suddenly worthy of vitriol and is not fit to have their opinions listened to.

Now what you are really saying by that comment is that you have something against Christianity. Lets not confuse Christianity with theism, or belief.

If there are specific beliefs you have problems with, then maybe you can discuss those. But Dawkins and New Atheism doesn't appear to have problems with specific beliefs, he has problems with all beliefs. This makes him a fanatic, i.e, a Fundamentalist.

That is, He has a fundamental belief that Atheism is the only legitimate opinion to have, and anything that might hinder a person from that belief, i.e. Other superstitions, must be eradicated. If thats not fundamentalism, then I would like to know what is.

"Gary Ferngren in his historical volume about Science & Religion states:

While some historians had always regarded the Draper-White thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.
"

Perhaps you would like to look at this list of people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chris...kers_in_science

But ofcourse, those must not be "real" Christians right? They obviously didn't hold any of the beliefs that you mock. Nope, couldn't be, that would go against the hard held beliefs presented here.


Perhaps you should rethink your position on the Big bang theory, since afterall is was first thought of from a priest. Obviously, he must not have really believed that G-d created the universe, cause how could he come up with the big bang theory if he did? Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Again... Dawkins wrote his book, and criticises religion (Which is definitely not a positive thing; at best it's an useless appendix with no effect either way, at worse it's very bad.) not because of the sedate, let's-have-tea-and-cakes religion; because of the angry, let's-burn-all-heretics, I-don't-believe-in-real-science religion which needs to be fought against.

A common quotation whose origin escapes me right now is, "Without religion, you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things; but to get good people doing bad things, you need religion." It can easily be paraphrased to, "Without religion, you have inquisitive people asking questions, and non-inquisitive people being satisfied with the answers handed down to them; but to keep inquisitive people from asking questions, you need religion." Giordano Bruno wasn't a scientist and a natural philosopher because of his religion, but in spite of it (And got burned at the stake for it.) Gregor Mendel became a monk specifically because the peaceful idle life of a monk would allow him to pursue his love of the natural sciences; had he stumbled upon Darwinian evolution rather than discovered genetics, perhaps he wouldn't be remembered the same way. Whenever fact conflicts with dogma, religion fights the fact - It's done it with heliocentrism, it's done it with a round earth, it's done it with evolution, plate tectonics, and modern cosmology. Dawkins' and Hitchens' point is that god most certainly does not exist (Just like anything else we have no evidence for) and at the same time, religion is almost always poisonous and negative. Their point, and mine, is not that religious people are idiots or lunatics, despite the fact that it may seem that way sometimes; but rather that they are otherwise unremarkable people who espouse idiotic or silly beliefs. We wouldn't care - I don't care about Francis Collins believing in silly things like men coming back from the dead after being nailed to a tree - if it wasn't taken to such ridiculous extremes; and the problem with the religious moderates - the people who have "faith in faith" is that more often than not they admire and provide cover for fundamentalists, while they should be condemning them for perverting religion into an irrational, unpleasant monstrosity that tries to keep people from knowing about objective, scientific facts and, ultimately, carries out a political agenda based on nothing but irrational, untrue notions about life and morality.

I think this post proves my point, well enough.

A bunch of trite quotes with no reality behind them. I gave a link which lists 106 people who not only contributed to the theological teachings of Christianity, but also contributed to scientific discoveries. And you are going to dismiss it all with the wave of a hand, and the declaration of a belief (they did so despite their beliefs not because of them), not a fact.

Its like arguing that agnostics give credibility to Atheists. (which they don't)

Okay. First of all, Christian scientists don't prove god's existence; Chrstianity and religion in general are all more likely than not false anyway, so why bother, right?

But second of all, we don't care about scientists believing silly things, including religion. What we do care about are nuts and fundamentalists, and the people who pretend belief in religion is above criticism.