Replies

>>(Nobody is dissing those who believe in some god or other. However, it's fully appropiate to dis those who believe that their god created a universe full of fraudulent evidence for the purposes of fooling that gods creations.)

> Is that what you AREN'T doing here.

Actually, it's *exactly* what I'm doing here. I'm dissing those who abandon reason for madness, who determine that the purely mundane in fact must have supernatural explanations.

> I'm not sure why so many on these threads are terrified of belief in God leading to the "Dark Ages".

Here's yopur problem: there's almost certainly *NOBODY* on these threads who believes any such thing. So, why do you say there are? Have you been tricked? Are you lying? Have you not thought about things critically?

Nobody is afraid that belief in God is goign to lead toa Dark Age. However, the wiser of us recognize that replacing hard fact with sup[erstition *can* lead toa Dark Age. You want to believe in a god? go right ahead. you want to beleive that the world was created last Thursday, looking old with our memories built in place? That's nuts. And that's just not that different from creationism.

> You are rather belligerent in defending your philosophy.

No. I'm rather belligerantly defending *reality.*

> debate it philosophically

Why? Should I also debate the germ theory of disease philosophically rather than scientifically? How about the theory of relativity? How about the theory of gravity? How about the historical theories that hold that the Nazis tried to exterminate Europe's Jews? In philosophy, there is no "wrong" answer. In science, there is.

For something that almost nobody on these threads believes, It's brought up pretty much "every time" we start a new thread. If no one believes it, then what purpose does it serve other than to denigrate the intelligence of those who believe in a Creator, Designer, Maker, Source of intelligence, or so on?

With the exception of a few, I haven't read many posts that advocate replacing HARD FACTS with superstition.

(Why? Should I also debate the germ theory of disease philosophically rather than scientifically? How about the theory of relativity? How about the theory of gravity? How about the historical theories that hold that the Nazis tried to exterminate Europe's Jews? In philosophy, there is no "wrong" answer. In science, there is.)

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I did not suggest debating germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity, or any other scientific theory philosophically. If someone wished to debate those theories they should do so following the epistemology of science, not philosophy. To apply an inappropriate epistemology in defense of either would be "stupid". Since, I believe that evolution does occur, I'm not even suggesting that we debate that. I am asking you to defend your philosophical belief that life could not have been designed, and that those of us who think it could have been are a bunch of superstitious toilet bowel cleaners.

If I am wrong, and this is not your position, then I recant.