The worst thing about Mormonism

Post by **_EAllusion** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:20 am

The Anthony Flew affair is kinda fascinating and a little depressing when it becomes clear what is going on.

e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magaz ... ref=slogin

But, again, we are just talking about ID-creationism here, which can be addressed on its own merits or lack thereof.

Post by **_dartagnan** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:55 am

No I'm not very fond of the morality argument. But I know Collins bases his belief in God on much more than the moral argument.

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:29 pm

dartagnan wrote:
The "we" wasn't referring to a group of posters as much as it was referring to "people with actual brains in their heads." I'm not surprised you misunderstood yet again, sad panda.

You implied with "we" that there was a group of people who considered my knowledge "worthless." You've done this on occassion, but the fact is nobody here is questioning my intelligence or ability to reason, except you.

You're a lone wolf acting on ignorance and bigotry, with a creepy fascination with pandas.

You know this, do you? The same way you know there's a god? LOL (ahhh, cracks me up every time).

You're such a joke. Pretty funny one, too, even though you're a sad little panda.

Post by **_silentkid** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:20 pm

EAllusion wrote:Francis Collins converted to theism on the basis of C.S. Lewis's moral argument, which is a species of teleological argument at its heart. Do you think that is a good argument Kevin?

I'm interested in looking at Collins' position, especially his labeling DNA the "language of god". My boss and I often joke that introns represent the best argument against ID. I've been sequencing genes in corn and if anybody wants to see the complete opposite of intelligent design, come see me. I'll withhold any comment on Collins' position until I read his book. So far, I think Kenneth Miller's approach is the best.

Post by **_Ren** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:28 pm

silentkid wrote:So far, I think Kenneth Miller's approach is the best.

...interested in what you mean here SK. You mean his approach to the 'God question'?

Saw a video of him giving a presentation recently (we talked about it in the ID thread). Hadn't really seen much of the guy before...

...he really blew me away in this video.

...anybody wanna tell this guy that he isn't a 'critical thinker' just because he believes in a God then - well - rather you than me To be honest:
Warning this is a long video - nearly 2 hours. But well worth watching in my opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

Post by **_Some Schmo** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:36 pm

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote: ...anybody wanna tell this guy that he isn't a 'critical thinker' just because he believes in a God then - well - rather you than me To be honest

There's little doubt that a person can believe in god and still be a critical thinker. It's when a person claims to know there's a god that they've abandoned sanity for the comfort of their padded room. Only the most obnoxious ignoramuses would claim such a thing.

Post by **_Ren** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:39 pm

Some Schmo wrote:There's little doubt that a person can believe in god and still be a critical thinker. It's when a person claims to know there's a god that they've abandoned sanity for the comfort of their padded room. Only the most obnoxious ignoramuses would claim such a thing.

Well yeah - point taken. I'd be tempted to go easy on them, because that would be me 10-odd years ago. But - well - yeah... ;)

Post by **_John Larsen** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:14 pm

Some Schmo wrote:
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote: ...anybody wanna tell this guy that he isn't a 'critical thinker' just because he believes in a God then - well - rather you than me To be honest

There's little doubt that a person can believe in god and still be a critical thinker. It's when a person claims to know there's a god that they've abandoned sanity for the comfort of their padded room. Only the most obnoxious ignoramuses would claim such a thing.

I don't have any problem with the belief in God. It is when that belief is used to justify other truth claims that I get uncomfortable.

Post by **_EAllusion** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:23 pm

dartagnan wrote:No I'm not very fond of the morality argument. But I know Collins bases his belief r. in God on much more than the moral argument.

C.S. Lewis's moral argument is more a design argument anyway. Instead of the thing we need a designer to invoke to explain being something like an eyeball, it is instead the human capacity for moral thought. Dr. Collins over and over invokes this as his reason for conversion and sharpest arrow in his quiver. That he also has some fame for attacking the intelligent design people is a cute irony.

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:43 pm

Some Schmo wrote:
RenegadeOfPhunk wrote: ...anybody wanna tell this guy that he isn't a 'critical thinker' just because he believes in a God then - well - rather you than me To be honest

There's little doubt that a person can believe in god and still be a critical thinker. It's when a person claims to know there's a god that they've abandoned sanity for the comfort of their padded room. Only the most obnoxious ignoramuses would claim such a thing.

Unless God spoke to their soul in a way which was unmistakable for anything else. I wouldn't call that obnoxious.

by the way, I wouldn't put many people into this camp. Most that say "know" believe. So I guess you'd have to pick and choose who you trust based on other indicators. Get's tricky, doesn't it?

Regards,
MG