Posted on 01/24/2007 3:02:32 PM PST by Tim Long
What's with the funny outfits?
Rather than employ a semantic atrocity like "secular religion", why not use a perfectly good word that fits the idea you're trying to convey and that everyone understands the meaning of, like "heresy"?
Why? To make people like you get bogged down in non issues- you BOTH knew what I was refering to- I explained it well enough- yet amazingly, this seems to have become an issue more important than who poisoned litvenko?
As Running wolf said- it seems to be a favorite tactic of folks to quibble about a gnat while choking on a camel. The point was that folks in ID don't even believe that God is the creator or originator of the Design- The accusation was that I.D was a 'religious endeavor' and therefore not true science- and you know very well that my point was that if folks who study the evidences don't even belief God created the design that it is a SECULAR view as to what caused the design we see in nature. Discovery.org clearly explains they don't study design to propose that God is the originator- they simply study and record and examine the design itself.
But do keep glomming onto a non issue as htough it would be the end of the world because a minor mistake were made- it's tittilating to watch.
I'm a Rush fan. "Words mean things". People who use words that don't mean anything are hiding something.
either that or they didn't explain precisely enough and made tiny errors- I type fast, I try to get my thoughts on paper as precisely as possible- sometimes it doesn't come out so well- but the basic meanings are there- yes, words are important, so aren't intended meanings as well- and the quibblings I've seen are over the precisions of the owrds when the meanings shoulkd have been understood and obviously-
Effort and good intentions are more important than getting the right answer placemarker.
WWBMMD?
(What Would Bran Mak Morn Do?
The meaning of "secular religion" is far from obvious. The meaning of "heresy" is quite obvious. What is idea are you trying to convey that is inconsistent with the meaning of the word "heresy"?
Tactic- you KNOW that I meant folks who practice some sort of religion but do NOT think God Created the design- what you are attempting to do is avoid this obviousness- play dumb, and zero in on issues that are so minute that by themselves they are nothing, BUT if enough of them are gathered together, you'll create a negative image of me or others in the minds of your jury. These are games that are played lesser forums as I pointed out- by folks who either can't or won't focuss on the meat of the subject and instead get into intense quibblings over non issues- OBVIOUSLY, anyone that doesn't beleive God created design is NOT practicing the Religion of God as they doubt God's own word. Call them what you like- I'll refere to them as secular religions who may have a mind knowledge of God, but are NOT God's true children- the secular mindset has crept in and overtaken their minds- they can claim to be God's people but they are not, as explained in detail by God's own word clearly enough.
If it makes you happy, so as to avoid two more pages of this little symantics game- I'll reword my original point and state that "People who don't believe God had ANYTHING to do with design work on the panel, AND in the secular science realm and who study STRICT science, yet feel that design is present in nature and believe a force is behind that design- whether that force is nature, or some other they take no position on the matter and instead focus on the design itself and adhere to STRICT science. To assert that ID is the same as Creation science therefore is dishonest and untrue. AND to even assert that Creation science doesn't adhere to STRICT science in their studies is equally dishonest and formed by a bias that allows eovlutionists the luxuries of opinion, but denies Chreation scientists the same luxuries of opinion. It is the OPINION of evolusionsits that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point to evolution- it is the OPINION of Creation Scientists that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point ot creation- it is the OPINION of ID scientists that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point to design- whether that design have a "natural" catylyst or be of a "force" catylyst is not known, but it is the DESIGN that is important in the study as further study of DESIGN may reveal important new evidences."
Are there some in ID movement that have opinions as to what the design means? Sure- does that discredit their scientific studies? ABSOLUTELY NOT- their ultimate goal is to study the design and to discover how that design affects everything.
Now- if you have a problem with my above statement, then address that and drop the symantics
Not at all. What I am attempting to do is de-obfuscate what it is you're actually saying.
When you say "secular religion" is there anything that you attribute to that idea that would not be equally expressed by using the term "heresy"?
Laughable.
buh bye- go play your games elsewhere- the meanings AND lengthy explanations by me have made clear- I'm done- play if you like, but you'll play alone-
More like: "We don't have a particle of physical evidence for our beliefs, so legislate it as it science!"
This is not a game. I'll call 'em like I see 'em and let the chips fall where they will. Your "explanations" will stay behind after you're gone, and speak for themselves.
You claim to be a Rush fan, but apparently you are a selective fan. Rush has spoken at length regarding the religion of secular humanism. It means something to him , but not to his fan, huh?
Your circular babble is a veiled form of adhominem attack; you are attempting to make cott look foolish, and thereby discredit his ideas. It won't work; you are transparent.
I am familiar with "secular humanism". The secular humanists intentionally obfuscate the distinction between "secular humanism" and "theistic humanism" in an attempt to have it both ways. I'm not fooled by or impressed with the tactic, nor am I willing to overlook you and cottshop engaging in the same exercise in sophistry because "they're doing it too".
The sophistry is all yours. You are transparent.
So you say. Like I said, I call 'em like I see 'em and let the chips fall where they will. If that's all you've got, then we're done.
Now matter how much you push the envelope itll still be stationery
Now matter how much you push the envelope itll still be stationery.
How special.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.