Re: Unintelligent Design?

sordo @mini-true.org wrote:

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 15:59:04 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Harry Thompson wrote:


Ned Niws wrote:


On Jul 30, 6:19 pm, Harry Thompson <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


JC wrote:


"JC" <dontbot...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bykri.356710$G_4.48181@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185787483.396589.303350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I hate to see someone worry themselves sick because they think they know
something about someone else when they don't, so let me just explain my
religious belief for you.
I believe there was, and still is, a creator. Some call it Allah, some call
it Mother Nature, some, including me, call it God. But whatever it is
called, I believe that it had the intelligence to create the universe out of
nothing and to do so in such an orderly manner that things EVOLVED into what
they are today. I do not believe that the ability to think and reason came
from some rock that resulted from a big explosion. I believe that it came as
a result of an intelligent decision on the part of a creator to give certain
of his/her creations dominance over others. I believe that this was done in
order to create a self sustaining life. And I believe that this intelligent
being laid down certain laws that it's creations must abide by or perish.
And I believe this took place billions of years before the book of Genesis
was ever dreamed up.

At last, you're getting somewhere.

Religion based on faith is unassailable logically.

Let's simplify terms and call this original creator God. No harm done,
so far?

I assume not, so let's continue.

It isn't clear from your statement of belief whether God created the
Universe, which somehow, at some time, congealed into thinking and
reasoning man as the purpose of his creation (teleology), or if the main
event is the creation of the Universe itself.

Which do you mean? Are you arguing Her creation per se, or Her purpose
for creating?

[snipped rest of very nice credo]


When you get to the part where we debate 'if there is evidence that
this 'God' intervenes in today's world in any manner outside the
physical Laws, and if so how?', wake me up. Unexplained, (miracle
cures) don't count. There's still too much to learn in medicine (but
we are making a lot of progress and many blind people are learning to
see and the lame to walk).

Over the ages 'God' has been a catch basin (in essence a giant
question mark) for all those mysteries that mankind has not understood
and as time moves on, the catch basin (or question mark) has been
getting smaller and smaller. (Isn't that what the sages had in mind
when they told the story about eating from the Forbidden Tree of
Knowledge in the Garden of Eden)?

Down the road, this may leave us with only the mystery of the essence
of mankind (a sort of collective will and identity) which if you think
about it, is perhaps what JC was trying to teach us!

Isn't it time we got away from a theology based on an old, omnipotent
man with a long white beard sitting up in the sky somewhere!

The real question is "What does the new theology look like?".


Bruce


Agreed. But I'm trying to determine just what JC believes.

JC believes that his *** doesn't stink, and just because he said it and believes it, that it's both correct and true, even if facts exist which reveal otherwise. JC shoots from the hip and either doesn't think things through before he shoots, and thus gets into trouble when anyone( and someone usually does ) find some logical or factual hole with what he says. In short, he revs up his mouse before he puts his brain in gear. And even when he gets himself painted into a corner by trying to defend the indefensible, it only makes him look so much the more foolish.

In summary, JC believes in the infallibility of JC, and also believes that if he shouts louder and longer, and throws in a few ad hominem attacks against an adversary, that it somehow makes him more correct. He doesn't realize that for the most part it doesn't, and all it does do is illustrate his frequent reliance on the logical fallacy of the Red Herring.

Does that summarize what he believes in for you?


Like I stated many times before: "You above all, should discuss egos,
you pompous egotistical ass." You've only to read a couple of your posts
such as this one to prove my point.

Jealous are we now, queer one? Come back when you can discuss something on my level. That time, is not now, and likely will never be. Now go back to sleep and stop your dribbling. It's bed time at the asylum, and the orderlies don't want to have to clean you up again.
.

Loading