flexbuster on 26/3/2008 at 04:01

---

All you're doing is switching up cause and effect and altering them to suit your arguments. You can prove anything by making up random hypotheticals about how something Might Work, and that's why it's neither scientific nor philosophically valid. You can't just pull things out of thin air, rearranging premises and conclusions and altering them in specific ways in order to avoid arguments.

The reason I listed the arguments that way is because that's what people actually believe. If you want me to disprove any theoretical God you can come up with, that's not going to work, since the entire concept is completely unfalsifiable, which works against its validity.

flexbuster on 26/3/2008 at 06:21

---

I'm not saying that.

However, "perfection" is an extremely nebulous concept that hardly means anything concrete in its general usage, so good luck getting any two people to come up with the exact same definition for it.

Kolya on 26/3/2008 at 15:37

---

LOL

Muzman on 28/3/2008 at 05:07

---

Only if you're using logic in the argument. They are, in effect, trying to redefine scientific knowledge (or, in a sense, harking back the a definition of science before falsifiability was clearly entrenched). They run around looking for things that, they think, can't be explained. Depending on who you talk to, god doesn't enter into it beyond being a sort of default explanation. With this flick though, apparently they are effectively giving up the smokescreen that ID is anything other than creationist fundamentalism with a bit of precision in a few details (I suspect they found that ID was fine for doing battle with the law and atheists but there were enough little old southern ladies who'd come up and ask the 'wha shud ah car about theus? Whur's Gard in awl theus?' so they saw their sophistry was wrecking their base).
I get what you're saying though. I don't know why they're trying to tie god to reality so tightly. Well, I guess I do in a way. But I don't get why genesis has to be fact or their world falls apart. I bet they're damn selective about which bits of leviticus they follow. Then again it's easy to underestimate the amount of theorising about the bible that goes on and gets taught. There's probably volumes of preaching and sunday school classes justifying why they don't follow half of the 'rules for jews only'. Fett can tell us all about that stuff. There's some fo the kind of 'hermenutics' I'm talking about (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/creationist_genetics/) here, if you check the comments by 'Susan' and the kind of spin she puts on those verses, before the thread goes berserk. There's a lot of that sort of thing about, and there's probably validity to a certain amount. But that doesn't help with why genesis has to be literal truth either. Oh well. (I mean, I can explain it in terms of symbolic victories and "truth" in the idealogical power struggle but I don't know what they think or how they justify it. )

Muzman on 29/3/2008 at 11:45

---

This might belong in the youtube thread I guess but it's amusing (and who ever did it is pretty well sorted with gear and skills to get this together so quick)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw)

Debate rages as to whether it is pro or against those depicted. Me, I think they're weighing in on the aspect of the debate that has people on both sides suggest the leading lights on the atheist side are arrogant and abrasive and this is an issue with their cause, so to speak. But the truth is they're just the No Faith Kru, kicken it like they know how.