Intelligent Design Isn't So Intelligent

[SkepticThinker]

It's not a silly claim, and cannot even be an anecdotal claim, since I've personally witnessed to hundreds of atheists, and found them all to be fatalists, gloomy about the meaning of their life in the future and without hope in this world. It's wholly true.

No one wants to believe in fairy tales and be THAT fool, not even me. I have MANY more sound reasons to trust Christ that the obvious "atheists are full of doom and gloom and do little to help their fellow man and Christians see true beauty."

I don't believe you.

By the way, it is anecdotal.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually you do. I just pointed out that you did that in my most recent reply to you.

And no, you really should not make false claims about others. If you can't do better than that the discussions will get nowhere. By making claims about others that you cannot support you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. At best you can only say that you believe that, but you would need to do that in each and every post. Lastly you appear to be a science denier. It is not wise to both deny science and to try to claim that you use scientific observation.

I don't think we've spoken about science, the scientific method, or what I believe or don't believe regarding any of the sciences. Your claim that I appear to be a science denier is a false claim, because I don't even appear to be one! You make a false claim about me to paint me as anti-reason in the same post as you urge me "kindly" not make false claims. Typical!

I don't deny science, I adore it, enjoy it.

Regarding gruff atheists and atheists whose cup is constantly half full, who are constantly, constantly whining about suffering or how all the ills of the world reside in Christians or other religionists, who constantly point their fingers at others--like your "ooh, you broke the ninth commandment" assertion--I've spoken to thousands of such wretches. Most of them troll religious forums, these being the worst hecklers among their own crowd.

A part of the scientific method for some issue resolutions involves assembling thousands, or even, with the aid of computers, millions of points of data and analyzing them. The Bible states that those turned aside from God are full of complaints and bitterness. My large amount of anecdotal data confirms the Bible's truth here.

When I stop encountering born again Christians who are so joyful that I can spot them at the grocery store and stop encountering angry, confused, bitter atheists, we can talk.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No offence but your subjective assessment of your own observations isn't reasoned just because you say so. In a debate, you must also show it.

Right now my point still stands.

Your claims of other people are unfounded unless you can show us examples. It's just an irrational blanket statement.

I understand some of the rules of informal and formal debate well enough.

I've witnessed to thousands of angry, bitter, grumpy skeptics, and met thousands of people with beaming smiles and said to them--in the grocery store, in the movie theatre--"my, you're a born again Christian, aren't you?" and been right EVERY time. Not that it's about being right, but it's about the statistical significance of knowing whiny atheists and beautiful Christians lifelong.

I also have a dollar--or ten--or one hundred--that since I enjoy witnessing on occasion that I've interviewed more atheists in my life than you'll ever speak to--after all, atheists tend to dislike people in general.

And there you have it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't think we've spoken about science, the scientific method, or what I believe or don't believe regarding any of the sciences. Your claim that I appear to be a science denier is a false claim, because I don't even appear to be one! You make a false claim about me to paint me as anti-reason in the same post as you urge me "kindly" not make false claims. Typical!

I don't deny science, I adore it, enjoy it.

Regarding gruff atheists and atheists whose cup is constantly half full, who are constantly, constantly whining about suffering or how all the ills of the world reside in Christians or other religionists, who constantly point their fingers at others--like your "ooh, you broke the ninth commandment" assertion--I've spoken to thousands of such wretches. Most of them troll religious forums, these being the worst hecklers among their own crowd.

A part of the scientific method for some issue resolutions involves assembling thousands, or even, with the aid of computers, millions of points of data and analyzing them. The Bible states that those turned aside from God are full of complaints and bitterness. My large amount of anecdotal data confirms the Bible's truth here.

When I stop encountering born again Christians who are so joyful that I can spot them at the grocery store and stop encountering angry, confused, bitter atheists, we can talk.

Ah, so that's where your belief that atheists are all doom and gloom really come from. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand some of the rules of informal and formal debate well enough.

I've witnessed to thousands of angry, bitter, grumpy skeptics, and met thousands of people with beaming smiles and said to them--in the grocery store, in the movie theatre--"my, you're a born again Christian, aren't you?" and been right EVERY time. Not that it's about being right, but it's about the statistical significance of knowing whiny atheists and beautiful Christians lifelong.

I also have a dollar--or ten--or one hundred--that since I enjoy witnessing on occasion that I've interviewed more atheists in my life than you'll ever speak to--after all, atheists tend to dislike people in general.

And there you have it.

Maybe the atheists you meet are simply annoyed that you're always trying to "witness" to them.

Your views on atheists are quite bizarre, I have to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think we've spoken about science, the scientific method, or what I believe or don't believe regarding any of the sciences. Your claim that I appear to be a science denier is a false claim, because I don't even appear to be one! You make a false claim about me to paint me as anti-reason in the same post as you urge me "kindly" not make false claims. Typical!

I don't deny science, I adore it, enjoy it.

Regarding gruff atheists and atheists whose cup is constantly half full, who are constantly, constantly whining about suffering or how all the ills of the world reside in Christians or other religionists, who constantly point their fingers at others--like your "ooh, you broke the ninth commandment" assertion--I've spoken to thousands of such wretches. Most of them troll religious forums, these being the worst hecklers among their own crowd.

A part of the scientific method for some issue resolutions involves assembling thousands, or even, with the aid of computers, millions of points of data and analyzing them. The Bible states that those turned aside from God are full of complaints and bitterness. My large amount of anecdotal data confirms the Bible's truth here.

When I stop encountering born again Christians who are so joyful that I can spot them at the grocery store and stop encountering angry, confused, bitter atheists, we can talk.

You appear to be a science denier. If you deny such obvious science as the theory of evolution, AGW, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, general geology, biology physics and even chemistry then you are a science denier.

And no, in all likelihood all that you have is confirmation bias. You ignore the evidence that contradicts your claims and only pay attention to events and evidence that go along with your claim. That is not following the scientific method at all. If you want to approach your concept scientifically the first thing you need to do is to form a proper testable hypothesis. You need to have a reasonable test that could show you to be wrong. I doubt if you can come up with one. Until you do so all yo have is your bias being confirmed by looking at half of the data or less.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You appear to be a science denier. If you deny such obvious science as the theory of evolution, AGW, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, general geology, biology physics and even chemistry then you are a science denier.

And no, in all likelihood all that you have is confirmation bias. You ignore the evidence that contradicts your claims and only pay attention to events and evidence that go along with your claim. That is not following the scientific method at all. If you want to approach your concept scientifically the first thing you need to do is to form a proper testable hypothesis. You need to have a reasonable test that could show you to be wrong. I doubt if you can come up with one. Until you do so all yo have is your bias being confirmed by looking at half of the data or less.

Good points. God challenges us to test Him in the scriptures. Avail yourself of these tests is my recommendation!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good points. God challenges us to test Him in the scriptures. Avail yourself of these tests is my recommendation!

Really? Where? I am aware of scriptures that tell you not to test God. And why would you limit yourself to "the scriptures"? A literal interpretation of the Bible is very easily refuted.

So how can we supposedly test your version of God? Why limit the tests to scriptures? Could we not see what the Bible says and compare that to reality? For example we knew long before Darwin came along that the Flood story was myth. Would that count as a failure? If not why not?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? Where? I am aware of scriptures that tell you not to test God. And why would you limit yourself to "the scriptures"? A literal interpretation of the Bible is very easily refuted.

So how can we supposedly test your version of God? Why limit the tests to scriptures? Could we not see what the Bible says and compare that to reality? For example we knew long before Darwin came along that the Flood story was myth. Would that count as a failure? If not why not?

Satan was told "you shall not test the Lord". It is reasonable to test for God, God asks you to do so.

One good reason to use the scriptures in testing--it speaks to the very questions you and I are addressing, and well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Satan was told "you shall not test the Lord". It is reasonable to test for God, God asks you to do so.

One good reason to use the scriptures in testing--it speaks to the very questions you and I are addressing, and well.

Perhaps, but you do not seem to be able to come up with any proper tests. Now the countless contradictions in the Bible seem to be valid test of the Bible. The scientific failures of the Bible seems to be a valid test of the Bible. The moral failures of the Bible seem to be a valid test. It fails all of those.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't constantly make unfounded claims regarding people. I am rather asserting that decades of witnessing to and living alongside atheists shows they are miserable persons whose glass is half-full. That's an assertion made upon massive amounts of observation, a scientific or reasoned observation.

It can be seen here, at this forum!

Hi BB, you appear to still be looking in a mirror.

 

[ChristineM]

You don't see any evidence of design, beauty or order in GALAXIES?

I see exquisite beauty but not much in the way of order... How about you?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see exquisite beauty but not much in the way of order... How about you?

I was under the impression you are interested in space science and cosmology, there are titanic amounts of order involved here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was under the impression you are interested in space science and cosmology, there are titanic amounts of order involved here.

"Order" does not imply a god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Perhaps, but you do not seem to be able to come up with any proper tests. Now the countless contradictions in the Bible seem to be valid test of the Bible. The scientific failures of the Bible seems to be a valid test of the Bible. The moral failures of the Bible seem to be a valid test. It fails all of those.

There are problems inherent in your line of argument, for example, calling Bible morals failures without defining what is moral. When a scientist tests, they attempt to perform objective, not subjective or philosophical tests. We can indeed test the Bible's morality, but we will have to define terms first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are problems inherent in your line of argument, for example, calling Bible morals failures without defining what is moral. When a scientist tests, they attempt to perform objective, not subjective or philosophical tests. We can indeed test the Bible's morality, but we will have to define terms first.

You may have a point since all morality is relative. But if one defines morality by a reasonable standard, such as doing the least amount of harm, then the Bible fails countless tests on morality.

I would include genocide as an immoral act. The Bible is immoral.

I would include supporting slavery as being immoral. The Bible is immoral.

 

[ChristineM]

I was under the impression you are interested in space science and cosmology, there are titanic amounts of order involved here.

Please provide your evidence for your claim because since the first particles began to collide and gravity began to vary the universe has been chaotic.

Does this look ordered?

 

[Skwim]

Please provide your evidence for your claim because since the first particles began to collide and gravity began to vary the universe has been chaotic.

Does this look ordered?

Hey! No fair using evidence.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Order" does not imply a god.

Not even the universality of order? Absolutes certainly imply a god.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You may have a point since all morality is relative. But if one defines morality by a reasonable standard, such as doing the least amount of harm, then the Bible fails countless tests on morality.

I would include genocide as an immoral act. The Bible is immoral.

I would include supporting slavery as being immoral. The Bible is immoral.

I'm trying to understand from your perspective. It sounds like you believe genocide is wrong for the past, not just for you.

Is this an absolute belief? Do you believe in absolute morality?

Do you believe morals never evolve or change? Skeptics say all is subject to evolution over time.