Stamp out anti-science in US politics

[Sheilbh]

I hate people who are 'spiritual'.  Choose a dogma!

[Valmy]

If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?

If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?

Because absent their spiritual context they are meaningless.  And even in that context they are symbols.  Why be a Christian just because some dude died centuries before for sins that you had not even committed yet?  The concepts and values here are what are important.  Views on life and death and what it means to be human.

[Valmy]

I hate people who are 'spiritual'.  Choose a dogma!

Sure.  But they are all made up so choose a good one.

[Viking]

If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?

If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?

Because absent their spiritual context they are meaningless.  And even in that context they are symbols.  Why be a Christian just because some dude died centuries before for sins that you had not even committed yet?  The concepts and values here are what are important.  Views on life and death and what it means to be human.

To quote Leanard Mlodinow's reply to Deepak Chopra. "I know what all the words you used mean but I don't understand what you said."

The thing is that there is no spiritual context if there is no spiritual world. Jesus' death on the cross has no spiritual context if the "fact" that he was god come to earth to suffer and die innocent for our sins is not true. If god isn't intervening then there is no spiritual context.

[fhdz]

I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.

It's an attempt to find a lowest common denominator that an atheist could buy off on, since a Deist conception of God is *functionally*, if not literally, equivalent to an atheist one. It's a method to find not necessarily a common premise but rather a premise which makes no functional difference to the argument. *Then* the religious person can begin to take the argument incrementally forward towards a more traditionally religious place.

[Barrister]

If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?

If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?

Because absent their spiritual context they are meaningless.  And even in that context they are symbols.  Why be a Christian just because some dude died centuries before for sins that you had not even committed yet?  The concepts and values here are what are important.  Views on life and death and what it means to be human.

To quote Leanard Mlodinow's reply to Deepak Chopra. "I know what all the words you used mean but I don't understand what you said."

The thing is that there is no spiritual context if there is no spiritual world. Jesus' death on the cross has no spiritual context if the "fact" that he was god come to earth to suffer and die innocent for our sins is not true. If god isn't intervening then there is no spiritual context.

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

[Neil]

I'd like to get rid of the use of "soft" and "strong" when referring to ideas and philosophical systems. The only meaning those words confer seem to me to be the importance the holder of the idea or system puts on convincing others to agree with him. Or, alternately, the willingness of the holder to take offense when his ideas are challenged.

They seem to have caught on as a useful shorthand for discussion purposes.  How else do you differentiate the ID of the Wedge Institute from 'prime mover' ID with a single word?  The meaning is, as always, dependent on the context.

The Discovery Institute ID is ID.

You'll have to define the other thing for me before I can tell you if it has a word or not.

The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us.  It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.

[Viking]

I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.

It's an attempt to find a lowest common denominator that an atheist could buy off on, since a Deist conception of God is *functionally*, if not literally, equivalent to an atheist one. It's a method to find not necessarily a common premise but rather a premise which makes no functional difference to the argument. *Then* the religious person can begin to take the argument incrementally forward towards a more traditionally religious place.

Tell, me, how you get from God doing the big bang to Jesus dying on the cross? I'd like to see the logical chain that goes from the Big Bang to a more traditionally religious place.

From my experience going Deist on the existence of God for any religion is a cop-out. It is a defense mechanism where the believer uses deism to get the atheist to accept that he can't prove that the Deist god doesn't exists thus any god could exist.

No Christian I have met has gone from Deism to religion. The Pentacostal side of the Family all had a personal experience and the Lutheran Church of Iceland side of the Family learned from mother.

[Viking]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.

* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.

[Viking]

The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us.  It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.

I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.

[Barrister]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.

* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.

So why do you bother to "debate" the topic of religion since you won't take what any religious person says seriously?

Do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?

[Viking]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.

* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.

So why do you bother to "debate" the topic of religion since you won't take what any religious person says seriously?

Do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?

No, did you even try to understand me? My complaint is that there is no definition of spirituality by the spritual and the spiritual complain when anybody tries to define spiritual.

[Barrister]

I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't.  Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?

Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.

* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.

So why do you bother to "debate" the topic of religion since you won't take what any religious person says seriously?

Do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?

No, did you even try to understand me? My complaint is that there is no definition of spirituality by the spritual and the spiritual complain when anybody tries to define spiritual.

And your solution to that complaint is that you are going to ignore what you are told and make up your own definition.

That doesn't sound like a discussion or debate to me.

[Viking]

And your solution to that complaint is that you are going to ignore what you are told and make up your own definition.

That doesn't sound like a discussion or debate to me.

Fucking Lawyers...

I said that I was only going to take you seriously if you made a case for your position and defended it. Merely sniping at others calling them dogmatic strident etc. is not a discussion or debate either. If you can't define what you believe and argue why you believe it then you are nothing more than a troll in any discussion or debate. When Valmy says "spiritual" what does he mean by that? I don't know. He doesn't want to define it either. He makes no, the christian term is testimony iirc, statement of his belief; he just stands up for point of view claiming that I don't understand without the will to enlighten me.

If you are not serious I don't have to take you seriously. If you want me to take you seriously I expect you to tell me what you believe and why.

[Neil]

The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us.  It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.

I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.

I am in the public sphere, and I define it as soft ID.