Opinion: ID is a Concession of the Inferiority of Faith

0 views
Skip to first unread message

catshark

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 8:07:13 PM3/9/06
to

From the article:

. . . the intelligent design movement is claiming that science
leads them to the conclusion that there must have been an
intelligent agent who designed life on earth. Why? It is because
they have conceded that science is a more credible way to discover
truths about our world than religion. Given a scientific
explanation for origins and a religious explanation for origins,
they know that an increasingly science-savvy population will
choose the scientific explanation. They are attempting to remove
faith from the equation by proving scientifically the existence
of God.

In the end, they may do more harm to the creationist position than
good. What they offer as scientific proof does not even pass muster
as science let alone definitive proof. In the past religious leaders
gave people inaccurate answers about our world out of ignorance. That
is forgivable. Now they are trying to feed people inaccurate answers
about our world using willful deceit under the guise of science. That
is not as forgivable.

Intelligent design proponents have conceded the superiority of the
scientific method to faith. They know that an assertion based on
scientific research is more credible than an assertion based on
faith. So they have endeavored to promote their creationist beliefs
as scientific. But the scientific method is a tool for finding answers
to phenomena. What they have done is search for phenomena for which we
don’t yet know the answers and claim that God did it. ...

Read the rest at:
<http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6657>

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement,
but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.

- William A. Dembski -

Ray Martinez

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 8:25:30 PM3/9/06
to

False dichotomy: faith v. science

Text ASSUMES God not proven by science = atheist nonsense.

The only persons who cannot see Mind in nature are Darwinists.

Faith properly defined:

faith: based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality.
Thats why we have faith, because reality gives us a basis to trust God
for personal promises that are denied by reality.

If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.

Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
has no evidence then it is irrational.

Author of article protests evidence for God - why ?

If God exists then there has to be clear evidence. The Bible in Romans
1:20 says God made the world so that His invisible presence could be
deduced by what is made.

Cannot see God in physical reality ?

Verse 21 tells you why:

"when they knew God they did not honor him AS God...."

"....their senseless minds were darkened" (RSV) = what God does with
persons who deny design does not correspond with Designer. IOW,
Darwinism proves the reality of verse 21 = reason to have faith:
literary matching physical reality = fact.

This is why we have faith, because God's word is true.

Ray

Ken Rode

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 8:54:30 PM3/9/06
to

Still using private definitions for words, Ray? You really might try
consulting a dictionary from time to time. You'd look less ridiculous...

From http://www.m-w.com:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's
promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for
which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
especially : a system of religious beliefs

Pay close attention in particular to 2b(1), Ray -- firm belief in
something for which there is no proof. Almost seems contradictory to
your private definition, doesn't it?

> If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.
>
> Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
> has no evidence then it is irrational.

Faith is *not* based on evidence, Ray. At what point might we expect
that to begin to penetrate that cranium of yours?

> Author of article protests evidence for God - why ?
>
> If God exists then there has to be clear evidence. The Bible in Romans
> 1:20 says God made the world so that His invisible presence could be
> deduced by what is made.

A lot of people seem to be able to detect the hand of God in physical
reality. Many of them make a life of studying physical reality, whereas
you have only the most superficial knowledge of the real universe. And
yet your *opinions* seem to take precedence over their knowledge. For
someone who seems to value university degrees (or is it only from
Stanford?), you sure don't seem to have much respect for education.

> Cannot see God in physical reality ?
>
> Verse 21 tells you why:
>
> "when they knew God they did not honor him AS God...."
>
> "....their senseless minds were darkened" (RSV) = what God does with
> persons who deny design does not correspond with Designer. IOW,
> Darwinism proves the reality of verse 21 = reason to have faith:
> literary matching physical reality = fact.

Still having trouble with verb tenses, Ray? I would have thought that
that would have been rudimentary English. Perhaps English is not your
first language? That would explain a lot.

> This is why we have faith, because God's word is true.

Get it the right way around, Ray -- because you have faith, you believe

Geoff

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 9:05:35 PM3/9/06
to
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141953930.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[...]


>
> False dichotomy: faith v. science

No...very real dichotomy. Religion and science are completely orthogonal and
have different methodologies and goals.

> Text ASSUMES God not proven by science = atheist nonsense.

Yes. God has not been proven by science. Heck, for an omnieverything
dude, we shouldn't expect science to have to. God should be apparent
to everyone, not just to hopeful theists in their oil stains and grilled
cheese sandwiches.

> The only persons who cannot see Mind in nature are Darwinists.

Please provide an example of an apparent and visible mind
in Nature.

> Faith properly defined:
>
> faith: based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality.

Sorry. There are very few claims of the Bible that could be even
remotely considered fact. If you believe otherwise, please cite
them and provide your evidence.

> Thats why we have faith, because reality gives us a basis to trust God
> for personal promises that are denied by reality.

What the fucking fuck?

> If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.

Bingo!

> Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
> has no evidence then it is irrational.

Wrong. Faith requires no evidence. That's why religion relies on it.


>
> Author of article protests evidence for God - why ?

Produce your evidence and let's discuss!

> If God exists then there has to be clear evidence. The Bible in Romans
> 1:20 says God made the world so that His invisible presence could be
> deduced by what is made.

You have a very low bar for what you call evidence.

> Cannot see God in physical reality ?
>
> Verse 21 tells you why:
>
> "when they knew God they did not honor him AS God...."
>
> "....their senseless minds were darkened" (RSV) = what God does with
> persons who deny design does not correspond with Designer. IOW,
> Darwinism proves the reality of verse 21 = reason to have faith:
> literary matching physical reality = fact.
>
> This is why we have faith, because God's word is true.

Oh brother...those are some contortions of logic you have there..


Dana Tweedy

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 9:12:00 PM3/9/06
to

"Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:t%4Qf.3811$xM2.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
snip

>> This is why we have faith, because God's word is true.
>
> Get it the right way around, Ray -- because you have faith, you believe
> God's word is true.

Actually, Ken, Ray had indicated in the past that he has no faith. He
states he believes in God only because the Bible is "true", and if it
weren't "true", he'd reject the Bible and perform a very scatalogical act on
it. This forces Ray to reject any physical evidence that contadict's his
beliefs, as this would mean that the Bible is not "true".

That the Bible could be both true, and not be scientifically accurate is
beyond Ray's comprehension.


DJT.

Grogs

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 9:51:32 PM3/9/06
to
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1141953930.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Wow! That's got to deserve an award of some sort. You seem to have
convinced yourself 'faith' means exactly the opposite of the definition
of the word. That must have taken an unbelievable amount of mental
gymnastics.

Ken Rode

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 10:05:06 PM3/9/06
to

Ray is usually pretty happy to invent private definitions for any words
that cause his theology trouble. His definition for "fundamentalist",
"the bad element in any given good", is a masterpiece of vagueness and
incoherence.

Pithecanthropus Erectus

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 10:09:56 PM3/9/06
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> Faith properly defined:
>
> faith: based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality.
> Thats why we have faith, because reality gives us a basis to trust God
> for personal promises that are denied by reality.
>
> If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.

Have it your way. I wanted to Chez Watt this, but decided against it
because it is more sad than funny. Sad that someone's belief is so
shaky that they must deny reality in order to hold on to it.

The reason that you refuse to understand science is because when you do,
your faith will crumble.


>
> Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
> has no evidence then it is irrational.
>
>


--
Freeper:

"We need to change the law and make it legal to hunt liberals with dogs. "

Me:

I understand you are being flippant, but you are coming across as stupid.

Freeper:

I wasn't being flippant. I mean it.

Josh M.

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 10:31:09 PM3/9/06
to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141953930.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Yes, that's the false dichotomy creationists have created.

> Text ASSUMES God not proven by science = atheist nonsense.

It's not nonsense. Science can say nothing of the supernatural.

> The only persons who cannot see Mind in nature are Darwinists.

What is a Darwinist?

> Faith properly defined:
>
> faith: based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality.
> Thats why we have faith, because reality gives us a basis to trust God
> for personal promises that are denied by reality.

Show me one dictionary definition of "faith" that says this. A dictionary
created by you (you seem to be fond of creating your own definitions)
doesn't count.

Let's consult a few dictionaries.

Dictionary.com:
faith, n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person,
idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or materal evidence. See
synonyms at belief. See synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: _keeping faith with one's
supporters._
4. often Faith _Christianity_. The theological virtue defined as secure
belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: _the Muslim faith_.
6. A set of beliefs or principles.

Merriam-Webster:
faith
Function: _noun_
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY b(1): fidelity to one's

promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the
traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for
which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
_especially_: a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
-in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

> If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.

True in what sense? Literally, morally, something else? The Bible,
interpreted literally, is false: the world was not created in six days; the
earth is billions of years old, not several thousand; there was no global
flood. Is it morally "right"? Depends on your interpretation of it and what
your ideas of good morals are.

> Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith.

Faith is not based on evidence, and that's what makes it faith.

> If your faith has no evidence then it is irrational.

Faith, by definition, is not dependant on evidence. It's also, by
definition, irrational.

> Author of article protests evidence for God - why ?

That's not what the author says. The author, unlike you, understands that
the supernatural has no place in science, and that only people of weak faith
(like you, apparently) need "proof" of God's existence.

> If God exists then there has to be clear evidence. The Bible in Romans
> 1:20 says God made the world so that His invisible presence could be
> deduced by what is made.
>
> Cannot see God in physical reality ?
>
> Verse 21 tells you why:
>
> "when they knew God they did not honor him AS God...."
>
> "....their senseless minds were darkened" (RSV) = what God does with
> persons who deny design does not correspond with Designer. IOW,
> Darwinism proves the reality of verse 21 = reason to have faith:
> literary matching physical reality = fact.

If there is a god, who's to say it's the same God worshipped by Christians,
Jews, and Muslims? Since your "faith" requires "proof," can you provide any
proof that 1. a god exists and 2. that this god is the god you worship.?
(Note: quoting the Bible does not count as evidence, as it was obviously
written by biased authors.)

> This is why we have faith, because God's word is true.

No. People have faith because they want to believe in God.

> Ray
>


Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 10:43:52 PM3/9/06
to
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The only persons who cannot see Mind in nature are Darwinists.

I see 'mind' in nature. E.g., humans, chimps, probabl dolphins,
elephants, and housecats, maybe a lot of other stuff.

I just don't accept any arbitrary claim that this or that phenomenon
is caused by 'mind', such as lightning, the alternation of night and
day, or the origin of species.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

Ray Martinez

unread,
Mar 9, 2006, 11:56:17 PM3/9/06
to

Why would any theist/christian accept a definition of faith supported
by an atheist ?

The tandemn ensures the definition will reflect the bias of atheist.

These definitions are all gross error, supported by you an atheist.

Faith is not synonymous with no proof. Faith is based on the facts of
the Bible. Your error is self-evident when it is understood that you
are an atheist grinding an axe.

> Pay close attention in particular to 2b(1), Ray -- firm belief in
> something for which there is no proof. Almost seems contradictory to
> your private definition, doesn't it?
>

Deliberate error ridden rhetoric. Your view of faith makes faithers
insane. Your view makes perfect sense when one discovers you are an
atheist.

Atheists have faith. They believe by faith that their view is correct.
This view is supported by evidence of some sort (hopefully). Darwinists
have faith that their opinions are correct based upon evidence.
Everyone has faith - the only issue is the OBJECT.

Christians have their object: the Bible.

What is written is true = reason and basis for faith.

Bible says Jerusalem exists. We know this is true.

Bible says God made mankind from the dust of the ground.

Observation says this is true.

While you disagree, this is not the point. The point is faith has a
basis in physical reality.

Your error is the one sided view of one dimension of faith: personal
faith, which seeks a promise of God that is not manifest in reality.
The Bible says we are to act in faith for that promise. AFTER faith is
displayed, the faither is eligible to have God bring it to pass in
reality. When this happens the faither needs a new promise. Repeat
cycle until death.


> > If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.
> >
> > Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
> > has no evidence then it is irrational.
>
> Faith is *not* based on evidence, Ray. At what point might we expect
> that to begin to penetrate that cranium of yours?
>

Any atheist view of faith WILL be error-ridden. How could an atheist
properly define the reason for being of his enemy ?

The same is true in reverse when theists define atheism.


Ray

CreateThis

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 12:11:33 AM3/10/06
to
Ray Martinez wrote:

> Any atheist view of faith WILL be error-ridden. How could an atheist
> properly define the reason for being of his enemy ?

Enemy, Ray? Are we a little extra nutty today?

CT

Ken Rode

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 12:27:45 AM3/10/06
to

It's something called "communication", Ray. By using the agreed
definitions for words, we avoid the need to keep explaining what we mean
every time we communicate with one another. I really shouldn't have to
explain this to you -- it's basic knowledge.

You have a different agenda. It is important to you to be misunderstood,
which is why you invent so many private definitions.

> The tandemn ensures the definition will reflect the bias of atheist.

Incomprehensible. Perhaps you might inform me what "tandemn" is or means.

> These definitions are all gross error, supported by you an atheist.

Common definitions for words are all gross error? Are you completely
mad? Is there a minute speck of sanity left in you, Ray?

> Faith is not synonymous with no proof. Faith is based on the facts of
> the Bible. Your error is self-evident when it is understood that you
> are an atheist grinding an axe.

What "axe" am I grinding, Ray?

>
>>Pay close attention in particular to 2b(1), Ray -- firm belief in
>>something for which there is no proof. Almost seems contradictory to
>>your private definition, doesn't it?
>>
>
>
> Deliberate error ridden rhetoric. Your view of faith makes faithers
> insane. Your view makes perfect sense when one discovers you are an
> atheist.

I wouldn't have said insane, Ray. I would have said non-rational, to
which you've already agreed.

> Atheists have faith. They believe by faith that their view is correct.
> This view is supported by evidence of some sort (hopefully). Darwinists
> have faith that their opinions are correct based upon evidence.
> Everyone has faith - the only issue is the OBJECT.
>
> Christians have their object: the Bible.
>
> What is written is true = reason and basis for faith.

What is written cannot be demonstrated to be true = reason and basis for
faith. I wish you would use words properly.

> Bible says Jerusalem exists. We know this is true.

Not disputed.

> Bible says God made mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> Observation says this is true.

Sorry, Ray, you lost me. What observations show that mankind was made by
God from the dust of the ground?

> While you disagree, this is not the point. The point is faith has a
> basis in physical reality.

Disagreed for reasons indicated above.

> Your error is the one sided view of one dimension of faith: personal
> faith, which seeks a promise of God that is not manifest in reality.
> The Bible says we are to act in faith for that promise. AFTER faith is
> displayed, the faither is eligible to have God bring it to pass in
> reality. When this happens the faither needs a new promise. Repeat
> cycle until death.

Bordering on incoherent again, Ray. Can't follow your line of thinking.

>>>If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.
>>>
>>>Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
>>>has no evidence then it is irrational.
>>
>>Faith is *not* based on evidence, Ray. At what point might we expect
>>that to begin to penetrate that cranium of yours?
>>
>
>
> Any atheist view of faith WILL be error-ridden. How could an atheist
> properly define the reason for being of his enemy ?

Didn't you say above that atheists have faith? How then cannot an
atheist define faith? Do try to be consistent with your logic, Ray.

As an atheist, Ray, I will once again inform you that I have no enemies.
This appears to be another fact that simply can't get inside your cranium.

> The same is true in reverse when theists define atheism.

Well, I certainly wouldn't trust you to define atheism. You'd get it
wrong for sure, as with any word that you try to define. There are
plenty of theists here who can define atheism though.

Wakboth

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 3:02:20 AM3/10/06
to

Ray Martinez kirjoitti:

> Ken Rode wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> Why would any theist/christian accept a definition of faith supported
> by an atheist ?

What does it matter whether

> The tandemn ensures the definition will reflect the bias of atheist.
>
> These definitions are all gross error, supported by you an atheist.

I'm not an atheist, and I think those definitions are quite reasonable,
all things considered.

> Faith is not synonymous with no proof. Faith is based on the facts of
> the Bible. Your error is self-evident when it is understood that you
> are an atheist grinding an axe.
>
> > Pay close attention in particular to 2b(1), Ray -- firm belief in
> > something for which there is no proof. Almost seems contradictory to
> > your private definition, doesn't it?
> >
>
> Deliberate error ridden rhetoric. Your view of faith makes faithers
> insane. Your view makes perfect sense when one discovers you are an
> atheist.

Stop calling everyone who points out your errors of logic, definition
and fact atheists; although the word itself isn't an insult, you are
very clearly and erroneously using it as such. Furthermore, why the
made-up word "faither", instead of words such as "believer" or
"theist"?

> Atheists have faith. They believe by faith that their view is correct.
> This view is supported by evidence of some sort (hopefully). Darwinists
> have faith that their opinions are correct based upon evidence.
> Everyone has faith - the only issue is the OBJECT.

You are confusing the words "faith" and "belief", Ray. (And no, this
doesn't contradict the use of "believer" to refer to people having a
particular religious faith.)

> Christians have their object: the Bible.

No; the object of Christian faith is God. The Bible is - shock! horror!
- only a book about God, and your obsessive attention to it resembles
bibliolatria.

> What is written is true = reason and basis for faith.
>
> Bible says Jerusalem exists. We know this is true.
>
> Bible says God made mankind from the dust of the ground.
>
> Observation says this is true.

Well, yes, if you take "dust of the ground" to mean "prebiotic
chemicals of early Earth, possibly forming in lattices in clays", as
most every scientifically literate Christian thinks. If you mean we
were magicked up out of nowhere six thousand years ago, you deny the
evidence of God's own creation, the world, and reduce Him to a conjurer
of petty tricks.

> While you disagree, this is not the point. The point is faith has a
> basis in physical reality.

No, the point is that faith has a basis in spiritual reality; a
Christian believes in God (or at least should believe, I think),
because of a spiritual yearning / feeling of divine presence. To a
believer, the physical reality is testimony of God's handiwork, but
that doesn't mean they should, or reasonably can, come to different
conclusions about things like evolution, age of Earth, etc. than an
atheist would come, using the same science.

> Your error is the one sided view of one dimension of faith: personal
> faith, which seeks a promise of God that is not manifest in reality.
> The Bible says we are to act in faith for that promise. AFTER faith is
> displayed, the faither is eligible to have God bring it to pass in
> reality. When this happens the faither needs a new promise. Repeat
> cycle until death.

So... are you saying that, if you have faith, then the God /has/ to
give you something for it, so that you will keep on having that faith?
Please tell me that I've misunderstood you, because this is a both
unbelievably immature and quite heretical view.

> > > If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.

Spiritual truth is different from scientific truth. Try to understand
this, please.

> > > Faith is based upon evidence - thats why we have faith. If your faith
> > > has no evidence then it is irrational.
> >
> > Faith is *not* based on evidence, Ray. At what point might we expect
> > that to begin to penetrate that cranium of yours?
>
> Any atheist view of faith WILL be error-ridden. How could an atheist
> properly define the reason for being of his enemy ?

Atheists and theists are not, and should not, be enemies. And even if
they were, do you forget the words of Christ? "Love thy enemies."

> The same is true in reverse when theists define atheism.

... So you are admitting that you are incapable of defining atheism in
anything even remotely resembling reasonable terms?

-- Wakboth

neverbetter

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 3:31:03 AM3/10/06
to

Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> Your error is the one sided view of one dimension of faith: personal
> faith, which seeks a promise of God that is not manifest in reality.
> The Bible says we are to act in faith for that promise. AFTER faith is
> displayed, the faither is eligible to have God bring it to pass in
> reality. When this happens the faither needs a new promise. Repeat
> cycle until death.

So what you're saying that God is akin to a Coke vending machine.
Faithers put a coin called faith in the slot, and God is obliged to
give them a Coke because Coke vending machines are promised to do that.
Then they put a second coin in and get another Coke promise fulfilled.
Repeat cycle until death.

er...@swva.net

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 7:44:52 AM3/10/06
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
>

(snip)

>
> Why would any theist/christian accept a definition of faith supported
> by an atheist ?

If he's not stupid and realizes that ad hominem is a _fallacy_, in
other words, you are wrong to accept or deny something based on the
person who says it?

(snip a bunch of crazy blather).

Eric Root

SRNissen

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 7:55:48 AM3/10/06
to

Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > Faith properly defined:
> >
> > faith: based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality.
> > Thats why we have faith, because reality gives us a basis to trust God
> > for personal promises that are denied by reality.
> >
> > If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.
>
> Have it your way. I wanted to Chez Watt this, but decided against it
> because it is more sad than funny. Sad that someone's belief is so
> shaky that they must deny reality in order to hold on to it.
>
> The reason that you refuse to understand science is because when you do,
> your faith will crumble.

No it won't, because Mr. Martinez *has* no faith. His is a world of
"evidence." He wouldn't believe in God if the bible could be proven
non-literal, and so he refuses to examine properly any evidence that
the bible isn't literal.

That's not faith, that's fear. Whether it's fear of death, fear of a
lack of moral structure or whatever, I don't know. But it isn't faith.

- Søren


SRNissen

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 7:59:05 AM3/10/06
to

Geoff wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141953930.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...]
> >
> > False dichotomy: faith v. science
>
> No...very real dichotomy. Religion and science are completely orthogonal and
> have different methodologies and goals.

I was getting all ready to type in all-caps, possibly about your
mother, until I remembered what "Orthogonal" actually means. Now I feel
like apologizing for something I haven't even done. This is a really
weird feeling.

- Søren


Message has been deleted

SeppoP

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 9:44:47 AM3/10/06
to

I'd disagree. It's more like a Coke vending machine which - after you've inserted a coin -
does exactly nothing. But there's a guy like Ray standing next to the machine saying:
"You'll get your Coke when you're dead, please insert another coin for more refreshing Coke"

--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

Codeb...@bigsecret.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 10:16:19 AM3/10/06
to
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE WERE CREATED AND NOT
EVOLVED.
Evolution explanation might look more scientific than what FAITH
OFFERS but it is no TRUTH.
Now the coice is yours to follow fancy and fashionable ideas
out of snobism or to follow the truth and keep searching

Harry K

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 10:28:25 AM3/10/06
to

Codeb...@bigsecret.com wrote:
> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE WERE CREATED AND NOT
> EVOLVED.
> Evolution explanation might look more scientific than what FAITH
> OFFERS but it is no TRUTH.
> Now the coice is yours to follow fancy and fashionable ideas
> out of snobism or to follow the truth and keep searching

<snip>

Totally senseless. If I have 'truth', what need is there to "keep
searching"?

Harry K

Codeb...@bigsecret.com

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 11:01:11 AM3/10/06
to

To keep searching for the best explanation possible of not
the origin of the world but observe how the physical world
works and behaves


>
> Harry K

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 1:49:14 PM3/10/06
to

That includes biological evolution.

Geoff

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 2:41:23 PM3/10/06
to
"SRNissen" <soren....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141995545.7...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Drop and give me fifty, soldier!


Ye Old One

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 5:03:48 PM3/10/06
to
On 10 Mar 2006 07:16:19 -0800, Codeb...@bigsecret.com enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT WE WERE CREATED AND NOT
> EVOLVED.

Wrong!

Again!

You do make a habit of it.

--
Bob.

floyd

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 5:11:05 PM3/10/06
to

Ray Martinez wrote:

> Your view of faith makes faithers insane.

Oh, is _that_ what did it?

skyeyes

unread,
Mar 10, 2006, 6:01:51 PM3/10/06
to
Ray Martinez wrote:

> Faith properly defined:
>
> faith: based on the facts of the Bible corresponding with reality.
> Thats why we have faith, because reality gives us a basis to trust God
> for personal promises that are denied by reality.
>
> If the Bible is not true then faith is ridiculous.

Ah, but you're wrong, Ray. The *Bible* *itself* defines faith as
something for which there is no apparent evidence, and it's quite plain
in its meaning:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen.

Better stop lying, Ray, God doesn't like that. And there are too many
people who know the Bible here, and are ready to call you on your
littlfe Fibs for Jesus.

And by the way: faith *is* ridiculous.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net

catshark

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 1:17:41 AM3/11/06
to

From the letters section of _Nature_, 435, 275-276 (19 May 2005):

Seeking evidence of God's work undermines faith
Douglas W. Yu
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7040/full/435275d.html>

. . . In the Bible (John 20: 25-29), Thomas doubts that the
man speaking to him is the resurrected Christ until Jesus
reveals his wounds. Thomas then believes, but Jesus says:
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed".

The Bible throughout teaches that faith is more valuable when
expressed in the absence of evidence. For a Christian, when
science is allowed to be neutral on the subject of God, science
can only bolster faith. In contrast, and I imagine without
realizing it, ID proponents have become professional Doubting
Thomases, funded by Doubting Thomas Institutes. When advocates
of ID use the vocabulary of science to argue for God's presence
in cellular machinery or in the fossil record, they too poke
their fingers through Jesus' hands. In so doing, ID vitiates
faith.

I especially like the "Doubting Thomas Institute" (not to mention the image
of William Dembski with his fingers up inside Christ). Do you suppose we
could get it to stick as a nickname for the Discovery Institute?

Michael Siemon

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 1:58:40 AM3/11/06
to
In article <0vp412ldpc0k0alnc...@4ax.com>,
catshark <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...


> I especially like the "Doubting Thomas Institute" (not to mention the image
> of William Dembski with his fingers up inside Christ). Do you suppose we
> could get it to stick as a nickname for the Discovery Institute?

I wish; though perhaps it is more apt to describe them as the Pouting
Thomas Institute...

Richard Clayton

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 9:24:37 AM3/11/06
to

No, Ray has stated several times that theists and non-theists are
"mortal enemies."
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero

CreateThis

unread,
Mar 11, 2006, 5:42:01 PM3/11/06
to
Richard Clayton wrote:

> CreateThis wrote:
>
>>Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Any atheist view of faith WILL be error-ridden. How could an atheist
>>>properly define the reason for being of his enemy ?
>>
>>Enemy, Ray? Are we a little extra nutty today?
>
>
> No, Ray has stated several times that theists and non-theists are
> "mortal enemies."

It must be a real horror flick in that cranium of his.

CT

SRNissen

unread,
Mar 13, 2006, 4:28:23 PM3/13/06
to

*Drops*

I'm sorry sarge, I've only got 7 dollars and 25 cents.

- Søren


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages