(September 16, 2014 at 7:53 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: So again, I posed a question to you all (particularly those who accused me of strawmanning) asking about your level of confidence (0-100%) that there is no intriguing evidence pointing to intelligent design and influence. Only a few have responded, both reporting 100% confidence.
Honestly, I am not convinced that any of you were justified in saying I was strawmanning. I don't think I was misjudging at all what it is that you think. In fact, the assumption I was making (and the comparison I made to my atheist friends) seems to be quite accurate at this point. I have not had a single one of those that shamed me respond that something they have experienced, read, heard, etc has made them question the possibility of ID.
I feel lied to at this point. Like I said, I'm 80% confident in ID based on my observations and the opinions I've formed of them. I don't care if what I shared does not sway your opinion. I wasn't trying to. They're my thoughts and ideas and I was hoping to discuss them with people who do not fit the definition of that "strawman". If I was right, thanks a lot for convincing me that it was possible to get the discussion I was looking for. Sucks to be shamed and lied to at the same time.
A bit of advice for the future, drop the "strawman", "strawman" shaming game at times when what's being said is true. It's misleading.
I will admit to not being 100% confident, although I am so close, the difference is almost not being worth discussing.
But, and that is a big 'BUT', if demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence
is presented to me to get me to think otherwise, I will change my position.
The difference between how close I am to being 100% confident and not, is the extreme possibility that new evidence might be found.
I don't believe you were accused of strawmaning every atheist, only many of the ones here.
Quote: I have not had a single one of those that shamed me respond that something they have experienced, read, heard, etc has made them question the possibility of ID.
Because none of it classifies as demonstrable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence. It is all conjecture.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
