[Dimensio]

ID is vastly different from the nonsense currently taught in schools. It’s not a junk topic. A junk topic could not inspire sophisticated discussions like this one.

Sophisticated? Someone trying to smear evolution by linking it to Karl Marx and Adolf Hitelr is sophisticated? People like Liberty Wins dishonestly claiming that those who accept evolution are atheists is sophisticated?



Here’s the wish of the atheist: “I wish I were able to overcome my fear of being a fool.”

How did you deduce this wish?

Equivalent to the mental process of the one year old infant (God bless him) who believes the rattle that has slipped from his hand does not exist because he can’t see it.

I know that this was a popular belief amongst infant psychologists (starting with Piaget), but are you aware that recent research suggests that infants may not have a view of the world wherein things cease to exist once out of view?

Not that I find your analogy convincing either way. You might want to offer up evidence for your claims rather than assertions.

[reasonisfaith]

“Sophisticated? Someone trying to smear evolution by linking it to Karl Marx and Adolf Hitelr is sophisticated? People like Liberty Wins dishonestly claiming that those who accept evolution are atheists is sophisticated?”

A detailed discussion about biology, genetics, physics, calculus, metaphysical philosophy, epistemology and religion is sophisticated. Those are some of the topics covered in this post.

“How did you deduce this wish?”

From the speech and the behavior of the atheist.

(Has Piaget been a topic of this thread? Don’t worry I’ll let you slide on that one—victory breeds generosity)

Atheists don’t believe in God because they think they can’t see God. The content of their argument extends no further.