Please restrict your edits here on the talk page to the article, and refrain from disruptive behavior, including spurious conjecture about other editor's religious beliefs. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
While the term atheist is not an insult, it is an insult to call people who disagree with you atheists, because what you are doing is say, to me at least, and probably to others, that because I do not subscribe you your philosophical view, I am somehow less of a Christian. So, you're use of the term atheist is an insult. In addition, claiming that ID represents the religious/Christian viewpoint is also deeply insulting. For one, by relegating God to the gaps, by reducing God into something that can measured, ID denies the omniscience of God. By making God directly and intentionally responsible for terrible diseases like malaria, it makes God responsible for evil. And by misrepresenting the facts and trying to use ID as part of "the wedge", the proponents of ID have made deceit a central tool in their promotion of their agenda. As a Christian and a Methodist I find my pro-science stance to be far more compatible with my understanding of Christianity. Guettarda 21:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[Moved to proper place] As a Christian, I agree with Guettarda. ID-ers don't think carefully about the examples they use. Behe keeps citing "the flagellum" as evidence for a designer. What does he think pathogenic bacteria use flagellae for, anyway? See this cartoon for enlightenment (you may need to view an ad to see this). Bill Jefferys 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
My point was to agree with Guettarda's point that "By making God directly and intentionally responsible for terrible diseases like malaria, it makes God responsible for evil.".
ID may not be "officially" theistic, but Marshill's calling objections to the article "atheistic" seems to imply that it (ID) is actually theistic. I'm not sure why he uses this sort of language, since it undermines the "official" position. The only other reason I can guess is that he means to use "atheistic" as a perjorative, applying to anyone that disagrees with his position, including theists such as Guettarda and myself. I find this profoundly insulting. Bill Jefferys 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Jim62sch 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Once this article (which it does) introduces religion into ID, making specific mention of christians and fundamentalists, suddenly religion and belief becomes valid topics of discussion. Atheism at this point, is absolutely not exempt. Any discussion where religion and science are mixed makes atheism and agnosticism valid points of discussion. to those who are very sensitive and easily offended at the mention of atheism/agnosticism in a debate that includes religion and science, please consider not participating as you will be sure to find offense at something. religion, science and philosophy, when combined in one discussion, require some backbone. We must not easily fall into playing the "i'm offended" card in a discussion regarding science, philosophy, and religion. At the same time, we must be careful not to personally attack. while its ok to say "I believe christianity is irrational" its not ok to say 'YOU are irrational'. Debates of religion, science and philosophy can be naturally intense. Given the subject matter at hand, I will continue to use terms like "atheism" because it is pertinent to the discussion, whether you agree with me or not. I mean no personal insult on anyone, and if you take it personally, this topic just might be too heated for you. Marshill
Marshill, your clinging to the term "atheist" has an oblique reference to a point I think is under-represented in the article. Many ID proponents seem to conflate scientific methodological materialism with atheistic materialism, and conclude that science in general and evolution theory in particular is the atheistic enemy. This ignores theistic evolution which is an approach held by a large proportion of Christians, even in the US. As it happens I've just been watching a programme about God and science by a Jewish academic, who finds both his faith and evolution theory to be completely compatible. This difference in mindset between ID / creationism and other faiths or approaches makes mutual understanding difficult. .... dave souza 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Please restrict your edits here on the talk page to the article, and refrain from disruptive behavior, including spurious conjecture about other editor's religious beliefs. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
While the term atheist is not an insult, it is an insult to call people who disagree with you atheists, because what you are doing is say, to me at least, and probably to others, that because I do not subscribe you your philosophical view, I am somehow less of a Christian. So, you're use of the term atheist is an insult. In addition, claiming that ID represents the religious/Christian viewpoint is also deeply insulting. For one, by relegating God to the gaps, by reducing God into something that can measured, ID denies the omniscience of God. By making God directly and intentionally responsible for terrible diseases like malaria, it makes God responsible for evil. And by misrepresenting the facts and trying to use ID as part of "the wedge", the proponents of ID have made deceit a central tool in their promotion of their agenda. As a Christian and a Methodist I find my pro-science stance to be far more compatible with my understanding of Christianity. Guettarda 21:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[Moved to proper place] As a Christian, I agree with Guettarda. ID-ers don't think carefully about the examples they use. Behe keeps citing "the flagellum" as evidence for a designer. What does he think pathogenic bacteria use flagellae for, anyway? See this cartoon for enlightenment (you may need to view an ad to see this). Bill Jefferys 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
My point was to agree with Guettarda's point that "By making God directly and intentionally responsible for terrible diseases like malaria, it makes God responsible for evil.".
ID may not be "officially" theistic, but Marshill's calling objections to the article "atheistic" seems to imply that it (ID) is actually theistic. I'm not sure why he uses this sort of language, since it undermines the "official" position. The only other reason I can guess is that he means to use "atheistic" as a perjorative, applying to anyone that disagrees with his position, including theists such as Guettarda and myself. I find this profoundly insulting. Bill Jefferys 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Jim62sch 14:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Once this article (which it does) introduces religion into ID, making specific mention of christians and fundamentalists, suddenly religion and belief becomes valid topics of discussion. Atheism at this point, is absolutely not exempt. Any discussion where religion and science are mixed makes atheism and agnosticism valid points of discussion. to those who are very sensitive and easily offended at the mention of atheism/agnosticism in a debate that includes religion and science, please consider not participating as you will be sure to find offense at something. religion, science and philosophy, when combined in one discussion, require some backbone. We must not easily fall into playing the "i'm offended" card in a discussion regarding science, philosophy, and religion. At the same time, we must be careful not to personally attack. while its ok to say "I believe christianity is irrational" its not ok to say 'YOU are irrational'. Debates of religion, science and philosophy can be naturally intense. Given the subject matter at hand, I will continue to use terms like "atheism" because it is pertinent to the discussion, whether you agree with me or not. I mean no personal insult on anyone, and if you take it personally, this topic just might be too heated for you. Marshill
Marshill, your clinging to the term "atheist" has an oblique reference to a point I think is under-represented in the article. Many ID proponents seem to conflate scientific methodological materialism with atheistic materialism, and conclude that science in general and evolution theory in particular is the atheistic enemy. This ignores theistic evolution which is an approach held by a large proportion of Christians, even in the US. As it happens I've just been watching a programme about God and science by a Jewish academic, who finds both his faith and evolution theory to be completely compatible. This difference in mindset between ID / creationism and other faiths or approaches makes mutual understanding difficult. .... dave souza 21:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)