.... and he once again uses someone else's quote.

Weak.

But more amusingly... lacking a consensus in the origin of the universe is NOT support for some invisible magic deity. What religious people seem to fail to understand is just because smart people haven't figured out everything that happened billions of years ago, their crackpot text written by some uneducated, unwashed people 2000 years ago isn't any more valid.

The "what came before that?" question is a dumb question as well. It's holding science to a higher standard than your religion, which also cannot identify what came before your god. It shows poor reasoning skills.

victor809 wrote:

Sorry Victor, I forgot that it's verboten to quote anyone who has ever had any credible thing to say. I'm weak, they're weak, everybody's weak except what you allow. It supposes that someone might be reading anti-progressive thought and it might encourage curiosity in other poor souls to do the same. And you know what that may lead too? Mass heresy against the Progressive cult.
You know what I really think? Your constant wearing of atheism on your sleeve and your constant claims of your superior reasoning skills has nothing to do with me or my religious beliefs. It's my repudiation of the secular religion of Progressivism that really bothers you.

RayR wrote:

still waiting for him to say what philosophical concept of social order he supports that is superior...it's been incoherent but the theme is "progressivism bad" but where's the comparison to a better framework?

I'd even give him props if he acknowledged that there isn't a superior one, all have weaknesses or inconsistencies... just that progressivism is the worst because...codswallop?

delta1 wrote:

I just wanted to point out that this is nonsense. The idea of "irreducible complexity" as being a proof against evolution is nonsense, and the idea that a system is too irreducibly complex to have evolved is nonsense.

victor809 wrote:

The problem with assuming the premise of a circular "logic system" is you end up having to come up with crazier and crazier arguments to rationalize the next node in the circle.

Then when you put those nodes to paper... they end up looking like bullet point soup.

That's where faith comes in... you have to believe in the premise first, then come up with arguments.

That's why many Christian peoples arguments start with "The Bible says...".

Because they believe the premise to be true (their religion is correct), it follows logically that the words in the official texts are true, therefore it's passages can be used as evidence to show that the premise is true (their religion is correct).

Bad logic.

bgz wrote:

In The Origin of Species (1859), Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I guess Darwin was nonsense after all. You heard it from Vic.

Dg west deptford wrote:

^ my bad. Having looked again you're exact words were:

Ok, ... you lost me...

So I thought maybe I could find you since I lost you.
But I can quote you where you were refusing to believe in logic. Then when you wanted me to continue without hearing your confession of faith in universal unchanging logic you said Isomething like - "ok just assume I believe in your logic"
So again my bad I guess it's bad logic on my part to think you don't believe in logic.

Dg west deptford wrote:

In fact faith is demanded by reason. The thing is, they don’t have a reason for trusting reason, they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Faith is not without reason. Professed unbelievers say that they use reason as their starting point and not faith. We must ask though, what is their reason for trusting reason? Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason.

Dg west deptford wrote:

Faith is not without reason. Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason. In fact faith is demanded by reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Professed unbelievers say that they use reason as their starting point and not faith. We must ask though, what is their reason for trusting reason? The thing is, they don’t have a reason for trusting reason, they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason.

Dg west deptford wrote:

Would you please explain spiritual apprehension. I am not familiar with the term and am not finding an explanation of it.

Speyside wrote:

I already pointed out why just rehashing a bunch of quotes from other people is a useless argument. It has nothing to do with your imaginary persecution complex of people reading "anti-progressive" text (honestly... if you categorize 98.2% of everything you see as progressive, where are you even finding these anti-progressive texts?)

When you use someone else's quote as a part of your argument you separate your own ideas from the argument itself. This allows you "wiggle room" so when someone criticizes aspects of the quote you can just claim "oh, I don't mean that particular part, just the other part". This isn't a high school english class. Provide your own ideas. Feel free to simply rewrite their ideas in your own words. Be criticized for your own point of view, not just your regurgitation of quotes.

I'll let you in on a little secret. A random political commentator's opinion 50 or 100 years ago is just as useless as yours. Quoting some old dude's opinion doesn't support yours in any way shape or form.

Your second paragraph makes zero sense. You've not successfully repudiated the secular religion of Progressivism... you haven't even properly defined the "secular religion of progressivism" to a point where anyone else knows what you're talking about. As I've mocked you previously, you've made your definition so broad it's nonsense. I mock your religious beliefs not because I wear my atheism on my sleeve, but because you use your religion as a part of your argument... which is dumb.

victor809 wrote: