Replies

"Between the Dictionary and you, I take the former thank you."

Then you still lose, because three out of the four definitions were about God.

"And you like to ignore the dictionary definition of words."

And you like to ignore the first three definitions for one that makes *religion* mean just about anything. I really like playing guitar, you can call it an enthusiasm. By the fourth definition you chose to use (which is never used in the context you are trying to force it into), guitar playing would be a religion to me.

Posting at FR is a religion to you, by that definition. That definition effectively neuters the word of any significance.

"I'll take that back, you pick and choose which item in the dictionary you prefer."

That's hilarious!! YOU are the one who picked the fourth, vague, and seldom used definition and deliberately ignored the 3 above that concern a believe in God/ the supernatural.

Do you even READ what you write before you post? lol

"Good, then Intelligence formed it then. I have no arguments with you here."

There is no evidence any intelligence formed life. That is consistent with saying it wasn't natural selection plus mutations.

Then you still lose, because three out of the four definitions were about God.

NOPE, I DON'T LOSE. IT IS A VALID USAGE OF THE WORD. And you like to ignore the first three definitions for one that makes *religion* mean just about anything.

NOPE. I AGREE WITH ALL THE DEFINITIONS. INCLUDING THE FOURTH.

I really like playing guitar, you can call it an enthusiasm. By the fourth definition you chose to use (which is never used in the context you are trying to force it into), guitar playing would be a religion to me.

1) PLAYING THE GUITAR IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO BELIEVING THAT NS+RM CAN CREATE LIFE.

2) LIKING A GUITAR IS A PREFERENCE, DEFENDING SOMETHING AS TRUE OR FALSE IS NOT THE SAME.

Posting at FR is a religion to you, by that definition. That definition effectively neuters the word of any significance.

DEFENDING METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM, WHICH EFFECTIVELY MAKES A CLAIM ABOUT ULTIMATE CAUSES *IS* IN EFFECT, A STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE. IT IS IN EFFECT A STATEMENT OF FAITH. If design is ruled out, not for evidentiary reasons but for philosophical ones, then you prejudge the question and the investigation. Can you imagine applying methodological naturalism to an arson investigation where the issue is whether the fire was designed or accidental? If we tell the arson investigator to ignore the empty gas can and trail of accelerant leading to the center of the house where the fire started as well as all other evidence of design, can we ever believe the findings of the investigator? The same problem arises when you ask what causes life and its diversity. If only one of two possible answers is allowed, then the one allowed can never be logically or scientifically credible.

That's hilarious!!

I'm glad to make your day.

YOU are the one who picked the fourth, vague, and seldom used definition and deliberately ignored the 3 above that concern a believe in God/ the supernatural.

HA HA HA. THAT's HILARIOUS, VAGUE INDEED. VAGUE TO YOU BUT NOT TO ME. IT's there in the dcitionary. What rule in the universe says it can't be used ?

Do you even READ what you write before you post? lol

OF COURSE, LOL. There is no evidence any intelligence formed life.

There's a religious statement right there. There is no evidence that NS+RM formed life as well. That is consistent with saying it wasn't natural selection plus mutations.

SURE IT IS. I'll make it even more clear --- It is more likely that intelligence formed life than NS+RM. If you disagree, that does not escape the fact that you are making in effect, a religious statement.