|
Intelligent Design
|
Haven't you caught on yet that that's not your call to make?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 9:32 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 9:32 am by Delicate.)
What is my call to make is how much effort I put into a conversation.
And that depends on whether I know I'll get a stimulating intellectual experience out of it. If I told you what specified complexity was, how it worked, and how it was supposed to generate testable predictions, would you grapple with it rationally or just make some dumb inane ad hominem attack or commit a well-poisoning fallacy or something? Based on my experience, well, you don't need me to tell you what looks more likely.
Again, that's not up to you, although I actually resent that you are insinuating that I am too dumb to engage. Believe it or not, you don't get to control how others post here. Not even Staff have that right, generally speaking.
However, if all you have to share are the usual PRATTs and rubberduck arguments, then we're done.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
 RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 9:41 am
(This post was last modified: January 15, 2016 at 9:41 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
What "hypotheses of intelligent design" are you testing?
"This Thing [insert process/gene/phenotype here] looks too complex for people to figure out how it happened, yet, given our current knowledge and state of technology." TRUE! *Hypothesis proved!*  I mean, seriously, for fuck's sake. It's not science. The only way to make it even seem like science is to broaden the definition of science until concepts like astrology would fall within its purview. It's beyond ridiculous; the only thing sillier is you ID/IC types who come here and so "loudly" proclaim those ridiculous monstrosities of peudo-logic with such amazingly brazen, prideful, and willful ignorance.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I don't know that I consider you dumb clinically.
But the average tone and depth of conversation here, even when discussing substantive topics is remarkably bad. I can see that stunting intellectual growth in general. Also keep in mind I don't want to control conversations. That doesn't follow from anything I've said. Rather if what you mean is "I wish we could guide discussions into substance but our hands are tied" then I sympathize. No idea what PRATT and rubberduck arguments are.
The 45-year-old overweight male pretending to be a delicate young female is on to you, Stimbo... you clinically stupid person!
What. The. Fuck?
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love. (January 15, 2016 at 10:01 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: The 45-year-old overweight male pretending to be a delicate young female is on to you, Stimbo... you clinically stupid person! Paradigm example of my point. I'm being candid and sincere and this assmunch tries to provoke me to troll.
PRATT = Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
Rubberduck arguments = from Richard Dawkins' coinage of "unsinkable rubber ducks" to describe the situation when one fundie is torpedoed, only to have another pop up in its place.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
I'd very much love to see these testable hypothesis' of ID
Wouldn't we all...
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
