|
PRO |
Political Debates and Polls Forum |
CON |
| National Catholic Register Magazine Subscription | People Magazine |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
Do IDers actually want Intelligent Design taught in schools?
Fundamentally, Intelligent Design is nothing more than Animism. What is too complex to understand or explain now is credited to a higher being. That is absolutely no different from crediting lightning to Zeus, the rain to the Tlaloc, volcanic activity to Pele, so on and so forth. The reason those beliefs have died out is because people actually know what causes volcanic activity, lightning and the rainy seasons. All ID does is replace lightning with current modern day subjects. There is no principle difference.
If intelligent design was taught in schools in an honest fashion, it would be painfully clear that it is nothing more than Animism. With a complete lack of acceptance and hard rejection from the youth, ID would die a slow painful death as its believers would have no one to replace them. So, I argue that among the educated IDers (who are using this for political gain) that they do not want ID taught in schools as it would destroy the movement. Instead, they want to use it as a cudgel against modern science for their own gain. Persecution complex if you will. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Animism: Greeks, Romans, Santeria, Voodoo, American Indians, Mayas, Witches, Ancestors, Hindus...Religion and Cults - Animism So you see, those who worship idols and such are the practitioners of animism. Judaism and evangelical christianity condemn such practices as abominations before God. And that is because the God of the Old and New Testament also condemns such practices throughout His word. So you have once again blatantly and ignorantly misrepresented what the bible and God Himself stands for and represents to us as His Truths. So in short order I have easily proven that according to what animism is, it plays no actual part in the scriptural perspective of how, why and who Man is according to our relationship with the living God. |
|
||||
|
Archangel fails to understand the basis of Animism (as usual).
Animism seeks to explain things it cannot by assigning them supernatural associations. Often that is done through a soul. The principle argument I've argued in their similarities is that of why they do such a thing. What cannot be explained now or its relation to the greater whole is credited to a supernatural being, a being or set of beings that exists not entirely of the natural world. Where ancient animists believed that lightning was associated with the Gods, and that Volcanoes were the manifestation of Pele, the principle is the same. What cannot be explained or understood now is of a higher being. How did this rock get here? Where did deer come from? How do they exist in the larger picture? Animists assign souls, or anima to the inanimate and animate objects as a way to place what they do not understand into a coherent organized picture. Intelligent design is no different. Only that it has replaced lightning, volcanoes and rain with the human eye and origin of the life. While it may not use the same identical concepts of anima to inanimate object, the core logic is identical. What is too complex to understand or explain now is of a higher being. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
"Don't know = Goddidit" Takes about 5 seconds if you say it slow. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
BTW, your explanation above which I have posted in its entirety is nothing more than self indulgent gibberish. http://www.religion-cults.com/Ancien...sm/Animism.htm Do IDers actually want Intelligent Design taught in schools? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Furthermore, in the other thread regarding ID, I was discussing ID in itself. Paranoia, paranoia everyone is coming to get you eh Arch? Furthermore, as stated, the core logic of ID is the same core logic of Animism. I noticed you did not address that. Quote:
[quote]But in usual fashion you will claim it is me who doesn't understand when it is you who must corrupt the truth with the lies and distortions you tell. Quote:
How? Come up with your own original material for a change. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
While many Muslims and Christians are using ID to sneak back creationism into schools, there are plenty of other people who accept ID while rejecting the Biblical faiths. They credit everything from a pantheon view where all life is 'God' to the strange view of life itself guiding its own evolution, none of which are even close to heretical beliefs about Biblical creation. They all reject that things occurred naturally and create something other then natural causes. Therefore, it is stupid to argue that ID = Biblical Creationism. I'm talking about ID as a whole rather than specific Behe types or Discovery Institute views of ID. You made a big assumption. Quote:
Quote:
Still not addressing the core logic eh? Nothing you wrote addresses what I actually stated. Furthermore, instead of hoping that some random link you found off the website addresses a post, how you about specifically quote it to the part of my post you feel is incorrect? Notice I have addressed the anima issue. You fail to deal with the reason for this and the core logic it shares with Intelligent Design. Try again, and come up with your own original material for a change. |
|
||||
|
If you can show that Intelligent Design attributes a soul to plants, rocks, trees and all types of inanimate objects, and natural phenomena in causing the creation of the world and everything in it, then I will agree with you because that is what animism asserts. But you can't do that because it is a patently ridiculous proposition. Intelligent Design proposes that God, an all powerful intelligent being created all that is, not that everything created by the intelligent designer has a soul which animism clearly proposes. You must corrupt what ID is in order to equate it to animism. No matter how you slice it ID does NOT propose that everything in creation has a soul so even discussing animism with ID is to corrupt what ID is and represents from the outset.
|
|
||||
|
ID rests squarely on the Animist concept that since the creation of themselves and the world around them was beyond their skills or understanding, it must therefore have been a magical powerful being who did it. ID is a primitive belief dressed in modern clothing, and it shows.
__________________
" ... It's not as though he proved anything, he only refuted my evidence. ..." Archangel 04.01.09 " ... this egregiously ignorant christian ... Archangel 03.09.09 “Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil.” |
|
||||
|
Quote:
an·i·mism (n-mzm) ^ This is animism above ^. Show where ID asserts any of these beliefs at all or stop lying about any practical similarities between animism and Intelligent Design.n. 1. The belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit natural objects and phenomena. 2. The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable or separate from bodies. 3. The hypothesis holding that an immaterial force animates the universe. |
|
||||
|
LOL. Penfold (and I) are discussing the reasons for why Animism assigned its animistic beliefs and thus its core logic. You are stuck at the surface as to why Animism did rather than move below the superficial into its core logic and principles. Instead of talking about why you are only talking about what. Hence why we laugh at you. You are trying to argue that the superficial appearance of Animism negates our arguments about the primary core logic and principles of why Animism did what it did. You are arguing that the ocean is calm by looking at the surface while we are discussing the turbulence of underwater currents. We move below the surface, while you are stuck.
Arch just doesn't understand what we are talking about. But that's pretty much normal. You still don't get the fundamental core logic. I said this before: You fail to deal with the reason for this and the core logic it shares with Intelligent Design. And you just don't get it. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
an·i·mism (n-mzm) ^ This is animism above ^. Show where ID asserts any of these beliefs at all or stop lying about any practical similarities between animism and Intelligent Design.n. 1. The belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit natural objects and phenomena. 2. The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable or separate from bodies. 3. The hypothesis holding that an immaterial force animates the universe. Your core logic is as bogus as your irrational and illogical reasoning which is corrupting what Intelligent Design represents. Your attempt to align it with animism is just wrong on so many levels. So don't accuse me of not getting it because I understand the language better than you ever will, you sanctimonious punk. I just disagree with your premise and I have proven it clearly. That you refuse to accept that evidence reflects on your lack of intellect, not mine. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|