Replies

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.

"NOPE, I DON'T LOSE. IT IS A VALID USAGE OF THE WORD."

Not in this context. In the way you are trying to use it, it makes *religious* lose the meaning it almost always has.

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

I do not disagree with the definition, I disagree with the usage. The way you use it, *religious* could apply to gardening or jogging.

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

But using the definition you use for *religious*, it fits in just fine. I play guitar religiously. It is not my religion.

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

Now you are straying from your own chosen definition of *religious*. Try to stay focused.

"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."

You are losing it. Try some meditation, it may clear your mind.

BTW, methodoligical naturalism is a neccessity for ALL science. There is no way to do science without it.

"If design is ruled out..."

It isn't.

"Can you imagine applying methodological naturalism to an arson investigation where the issue is whether the fire was designed or accidental?"

Sure. That's what is used. Investigators do not postulate supernatural causes for fires.

"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..."

... they would be ignoring methodological naturalism.

"I'm glad to make your day."

:)

"HA HA HA. THAT's HILARIOUS, VAGUE INDEED. VAGUE TO YOU BUT NOT TO ME."

Because you like postmodernist, mamby-pamby definitions that muddy meaning.

"There's a religious statement right there."

No, it's a scientific statement. There is no evidence any intelligence formed life. Your definition of *religious* continues to evolve, ironically.

"There is no evidence that NS+RM formed life as well."

True. Nobody says it did.

Your caps are locked again. Have they stopped giving you your meds?