(February 20, 2016 at 2:13 pm)abaris Wrote: No, I won't, since you don't bother to answer the most simple questions. You fill your personal knowledge gaps with god. Fine by me and be my guest. What you fail to adress, just to give one example, is the level of peer reviews of apologist papers. How are they received by the scientific community?
You made a bold statement, so come on, lay your cards on the table.
This is the problem with Triple Ass - he thinks the scientific community is out to get those who disagree in favor of ID. It isn't, but one ID argument is exactly like any other argument which has been heard before, and still the design theists press on, presenting no evidence on which they could even begin to build a theoretical model. Therefore there is at best very little reason for qualified scientists to consider anything new which ID theists have to say, which invariably turns out to be not actually new at all. No matter how many of their bad arguments you destroy, the religious apologists who masquerade as scientists will come back again with the same dumb arguments, dusted over to make them smell fresh to the unwary, and begin all over again, because this is what their imagineered god instructed them to do.
The problem is that believers aren't really interested in the truth of reality - they like the ideas which they have, and they're going to call them real no matter what. Therefore they wouldn't care how much you point out their conflicts with reality, but they do care about convincing others to agree with them, and they want to believe they are doing right no matter how much they lie when they attempt to achieve their goal. They do this, doubling down with every hit to their sense of logic, and again it's because they think their god, who they believe is the author of all which is good, moral and just, has instructed them to do so.
Also, the questioning believer who investigates the ideas which he has been taught still wants to believe that there are at least some ideas which are remotely similar to those which he questions, and that finding and believing them would make him right. So he may see the facts as they are, while still unable to let go of theism when there's a failure to point out the injustice and immorality which is relative to atheism. My favorite canard is that atheists are all hedonistic monsters, and it took me awhile to understand why this wasn't so before I could join this club.
We know from observation of history that humans are easily manipulated to do horrible things when their sense of morality can be twisted, and this is why it needs to be questioned. This is why I seriously doubt your emphasis on fighting the Christards with logic alone. Questioning the morality of a belief is key with many believers, and possibly the majority who eventually deconvert. A true-believer can reconcile any hole you show him in his logic to his preferred reality which his sense of morality prescribes, but (if he isn't sociopathic) when you break through the false front of his morality then he won't be able to continue evangelizing what he now sees for the evil which it is.
Mr. Hanky loves you!
