Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It does not appear that he believed in Intelligent Design and you don't have the first bit of proof that he did. The fact that he used intelligence in a sentence certainly does not settle it. Deal with reality.

Intelligent design supposes a personal God or designer. If it's just some impersonal force or natural law then their attacks on the notion that an impersonal force or natural law like evolution guided by natural selection sufficiently explains the complexity/diversity of life is absolutely circular.
Click to expand...
No kidding. I don't know how many times I've pointed that out to PiMP.
 
Rana said:
he is our own cocky, egotistical, haughty, proud, narcissistic, self-absorbed, vain, vainglorious, condescending, contemptuous, patronizing, abusive, belittling, derisive, domineering, derogatory, insulting, ridiculing, overbearing, derisive, patronizing, ridiculing, belittling. pretentious,pompous, imperious, overbearing, wiseass, charming, witty, conservative, spin class helmet wearing Super Freak!
Click to expand...
Don't hold back now Rana!

You have to admit. It's fun to play werewolf with him.....though I seriously doubt that he shares that sentiment.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It does not appear that he believed in Intelligent Design and you don't have the first bit of proof that he did. The fact that he used intelligence in a sentence certainly does not settle it. Deal with reality.

Intelligent design supposes a personal God or designer. If it's just some impersonal force or natural law then their attacks on the notion that an impersonal force or natural law like evolution guided by natural selection sufficiently explains the complexity/diversity of life is absolutely circular.
Click to expand...

Albert Einstein doesn't have to fit your definition of what Intelligent Design is. He didn't have an agenda. Not everyone fits in your narrow narrative.
 
It's very important that Einstein never be known as someone who believed in Intelligent Design because no real scientist would, according to the left. That's why you see the mindset here. The agenda must be defended.
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
It's very important that Einstein never be known as someone who believed in Intelligent Design because no real scientist would, according to the left. That's why you see the mindset here. The agenda must be defended.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhb, the sensationalizing of everything! LoLol exaggerate much?
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
It's very important that Einstein never be known as someone who believed in Intelligent Design because no real scientist would, according to the left. That's why you see the mindset here. The agenda must be defended.
Click to expand...
You're hillarious. Since when has beleiving in science ever made anyone a "leftist"? It's that sort of stupid shit that's alienated so many in the scientific community from the Republican party. That and their attempts to undermine sound science education and public policy with religious dogma and their backward short sightedness in investing in scientific R&D that will move this nation forward....not back to the 18th century where ya'll seem to want to go.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're hillarious. Since when has beleiving in science ever made anyone a "leftist"? It's that sort of stupid shit that's alienated so many in the scientific community from the Republican party. That and their attempts to undermine sound science education and public policy with religious dogma and their backward short sightedness in investing in scientific R&D that will move this nation forward....not back to the 18th century where ya'll seem to want to go.
Click to expand...

So a scientist could very well believe in a creator?
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
No, he didn't say that it was everything including man, you did. He also said the "intelligence" was superior to man. Try again. Who or what is this "Intelligence"?
Click to expand...


He did, because that is what pantheism means and what he meant by Spinoza's God. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you insisted on repeating it so many times I could no longer let it pass.

What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. [The Private Albert Einstein]

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. [Telegram of 1929, in Hoffman and Dukas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism#Pantheism_controversy

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."[8] Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God [9] differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
He did, because that is what pantheism means and what he meant by Spinoza's God. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you insisted on repeating it so many times I could no longer let it pass.

What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. [The Private Albert Einstein]

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. [Telegram of 1929, in Hoffman and Dukas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism#Pantheism_controversy

Spinoza was considered to be an atheist because he used the word "God" [Deus] to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."[8] Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God [9] differs from the concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.
Click to expand...

He never said he believed in pantheism, unless you have some quotes. You still have a problem. The problem with "intelligence". It's not going anywhere.
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
Albert Einstein doesn't have to fit your definition of what Intelligent Design is. He didn't have an agenda. Not everyone fits in your narrow narrative.
Click to expand...

Ishmael Pequod said:
It's very important that Einstein never be known as someone who believed in Intelligent Design because no real scientist would, according to the left. That's why you see the mindset here. The agenda must be defended.
Click to expand...


You are the one with the agenda which is why you kept repeating this lie and have yet to acknowledge that it is clearly untrue. There is not indication that he believed in intelligent design and many of his statements seem to show he would reject the idea. It would not matter to me if he did. My only agenda here is to refute your lies.

If Intelligent Design does not imply a personal God then I fail to see that it has any grounds to attack or challenge evolution. If God is just an impersonal force then he maybe he is evolution.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
If they are not making a falsifiable claim then are they making a claim? We can't prove what we have no knowledge of but there is no reason to pretend whatever we might imagine, that cannot be falsified, is then plausible. And it is not equivalent to what can be falsified but has not been and is well explained by a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested.

Our knowledge is always contextual and therefore never absolutely certain, but that does not mean that what we know is really only what we believe. PMP and sf are both attacking good epistemology with childish nonsense.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO... another fucking lie from our resident coward. For ONCE... quote what I said that you think is an attack... don't 'paraphrase'... go grab the quote. Post it on here. Let everyone decide which of us is correct.

You have consistently accused me of attacking science, yet have not shown ONE example of where I did so. Not one.

Which is why you try and lump me together with PMP... because you KNOW you are a liar and that is your way to try and put me on your level of nonsense.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's absurd. It is the age old grould rule of science that you cannot invoke supernatural causation. Whether God is "known" or "unknown" regardless God is of the supernatural. Gould was correct when he observed that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA).
Click to expand...

Clearly String will now accuse you of 'denying science'...
 
Rana said:
he is our own cocky, egotistical, haughty, proud, narcissistic, self-absorbed, vain, vainglorious, condescending, contemptuous, patronizing, abusive, belittling, derisive, domineering, derogatory, insulting, ridiculing, overbearing, derisive, patronizing, ridiculing, belittling. pretentious,pompous, imperious, overbearing, wiseass, charming, witty, conservative, spin class helmet wearing Super Freak!
Click to expand...

translation: "Superfreak is awesome!"

;)
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You are the one with the agenda which is why you kept repeating this lie and have yet to acknowledge that it is clearly untrue. There is not indication that he believed in intelligent design and many of his statements seem to show he would reject the idea. It would not matter to me if he did. My only agenda here is to refute your lies.

If Intelligent Design does not imply a personal God then I fail to see that it has any grounds to attack or challenge evolution. If God is just an impersonal force then he maybe he is evolution.
Click to expand...

Right. You read the quote, but you have to deflect from it because you can't have a scientist who believes in a Creator. Admit it. Be honest.
 
Ishmael Pequod said:
He never said he believed in pantheism, unless you have some quotes. You still have a problem. The problem with "intelligence". It's not going anywhere.
Click to expand...

Yes he did, "we followers of Spinoza" "I believe in Spinoza's God."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism.2C_Deism_and_atheism

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).

I already explained what he meant by intelligence several times. He CLEARLY was referring to causality and the seeming order revealed through enlightenment and understanding of natural laws, like evolution. Again, that in no way implies intelligent design and in fact refutes it.

You are a dishonest scumbag attempting to pervert this man's words to fit what you want him to mean. I am not a pantheist nor an admirer of Spinoza. I understand Einsteins sense of awe with the natural world but I don't believe we need to make it a religious thing. It's supercool but not supernatural.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top