Vince Hart wrote:

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th century.

How does that relate to my point about preferring a natural explanation
to a supernatural explanation?

It doesn't.

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th
century.

How does that relate to my point about preferring a natural explanation
to a supernatural explanation?

Of course every rational person should prefer a "natural" explanation. It
seems clear, however, that the further back we go the less likely that
"natural" explanation will fall into some neat category that we now
recognize as scientific. Quantum physics would not have appeared "natural"
to a 19th century physicist. String theory would have been dismissed as
mysticism as well. To me the delusional aspects of theism are assumptions
that we know what this creator or creating force is ("heavenly father"),
what it wants us to do (ten commandments), how it disposes of its creations
(heaven, hell), and how it reveals itself to humankind (sacred texts). These
notions are quite separate from the notion that a creating entity exists.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th
century.

How does that relate to my point about preferring a natural explanation
to a supernatural explanation?

Of course every rational person should prefer a "natural" explanation. It
seems clear, however, that the further back we go the less likely that
"natural" explanation will fall into some neat category that we now
recognize as scientific. Quantum physics would not have appeared "natural"
to a 19th century physicist. String theory would have been dismissed as
mysticism as well. To me the delusional aspects of theism are assumptions
that we know what this creator or creating force is ("heavenly father"),
what it wants us to do (ten commandments), how it disposes of its creations
(heaven, hell), and how it reveals itself to humankind (sacred texts). These
notions are quite separate from the notion that a creating entity exists.

I think I agree. I categorically reject the delusional theists who
seek to impose their irrational vision on atheists, agnostics, and
rational theists alike. I am just not as convinced as I once was that
rational theism is where I want to make my stand.

Vince Hart wrote:
Why would you label either of these men idiots?

"I do think he considers to be idiots those people who want creationism
taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes."--Vince
Hart

So you forgot the above statement that you just posted?

LiamToo wrote:

Vince Hart wrote:
Why would you label either of these men idiots?

"I do think he considers to be idiots those people who want creationism
taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes."--Vince
Hart

So you forgot the above statement that you just posted?

No, idiot, he didn't forget. It's just that - quite unlike you - he's
too *smart* /himself/ to characterise Newton and Einstein as idiots. He
was saying that he believes that *Dawkins* considers such people to be
idiots, although, to be fair, it would seem that he applies it only to
the living.

You're really a ****ing moron, you know Lance?

LEARN TO READ BEFORE POSTING MORE ****.

Oh, and Happy New Year.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
No, idiot, he didn't forget. It's just that - quite unlike you - he's
too *smart* /himself/ to characterise Newton and Einstein as idiots. He
was saying that he believes that *Dawkins* considers such people to be
idiots, although, to be fair, it would seem that he applies it only to
the living.

So, because Newton and Einstein are already dead, Dawkins does not
consider them to be idiots, according to Hart? How convenient. If we go
back to Hart's posting, he didn't define idiot. He said something else.

And why are you defending Hart? Cant' he talk for himself?

LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
No, idiot, he didn't forget. It's just that - quite unlike you - he's
too *smart* /himself/ to characterise Newton and Einstein as idiots. He
was saying that he believes that *Dawkins* considers such people to be
idiots, although, to be fair, it would seem that he applies it only to
the living.

So, because Newton and Einstein are already dead, Dawkins does not
consider them to be idiots, according to Hart?

Not quite. Dawkins has no opinion on Hart, but that's not because
Newton and Einstein are already dead, it's because Dawkins doesn't know
Hart. At least you're correct about Dawkins' having no opinions about
Hart's opinions.


How convenient.

No, ****wit, this is logic 101.

If we go
back to Hart's posting, he didn't define idiot. He said something else.


Ok then... go back to Hart's posting... what else did he say.

And why are you defending Hart?

I'm not defending Hart, I'm merely pointing out that you're a moron
with no logic skills and no literary skills.

Cant' he talk for himself?

No, he can. Oh, and the apostrophe goes *between* the "n" and the "t".

Keep banging those rocks together. ****wit.

LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
Why would you label either of these men idiots?

"I do think he considers to be idiots those people who want creationism
taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes."--Vince
Hart

So you forgot the above statement that you just posted?

No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught as
science. Do you?

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Vince Hart" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for
thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he
considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact
that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some
phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it,
or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

I should point out that the current theories of mental illness are
only
slightly more functional and non-mythical than beliefs of the 19th
century.

How does that relate to my point about preferring a natural explanation
to a supernatural explanation?

Of course every rational person should prefer a "natural" explanation. It
seems clear, however, that the further back we go the less likely that
"natural" explanation will fall into some neat category that we now
recognize as scientific. Quantum physics would not have appeared
"natural"
to a 19th century physicist. String theory would have been dismissed as
mysticism as well. To me the delusional aspects of theism are assumptions
that we know what this creator or creating force is ("heavenly father"),
what it wants us to do (ten commandments), how it disposes of its
creations
(heaven, hell), and how it reveals itself to humankind (sacred texts).
These
notions are quite separate from the notion that a creating entity exists.

I think I agree. I categorically reject the delusional theists who
seek to impose their irrational vision on atheists, agnostics, and
rational theists alike. I am just not as convinced as I once was that
rational theism is where I want to make my stand.

I don't think it matters, except to you.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
exists.

I think I agree. I categorically reject the delusional theists who
seek to impose their irrational vision on atheists, agnostics, and
rational theists alike. I am just not as convinced as I once was that
rational theism is where I want to make my stand.

I don't think it matters, except to you.

"Nobody cares what you think" doesn't contribute much to the
discussion, does it?