Darwinism refuted

[Debaser11]

What about Kant's theologia revelata, Eliade's catalogs of the hierophantic origins of religion, James' catalogs of religious experience, the whole history of Gnostic theology, the whole history of shamanic praxis, etc.? These are all empirical theologies centered around that the holy can be directly prehended.

I parenthesized the word "empirical" because that is not how most would view matters of faith and spirituality. People like Kant had an extremely sophisticated view on matters of faith that one would not necessarily expect the average (or even above average) person of faith to share. Kant's understanding of the divine is not the layman's understanding.

And that one may put forth a religiously empirical point of view (if that's how you want to phrase it) does not render my point invalid.

[Psychonaut]

And that one may put forth a religiously empirical point of view (if that's how you want to phrase it) does not render my point invalid.

It does clash with the attempt to bifurcate knowledge and experience via the NOM thesis.

[Debaser11]

It does clash with the attempt to bifurcate knowledge and experience via the NOM thesis.

Even if that's the case, I'm not making Kant's argument.

[Psychonaut]

Even if that's the case, I'm not making Kant's argument.

LOL, I know...which is why I brought it up to contrast your division between empirically knowable scientific phenomena and unknowable religious phenomena.

[Debaser11]

I see.

I guess I sometimes respond in cases where no response is necessary. It's not like you're one of the people around here who doesn't understand what a strawman is. Chalk our exchange up to over-defensiveness on my part.

[Eldritch]

You aren't the first halfwit creationist to claim the mantle of open-mindedness and reason while mocking those who truly wear it.

The only reason this thread was allowed to remain open this long in the first place is the very open-mindedness and tolerance you refer to, which creationists in fact do not deserve. They aren't just harmless loonies and village idiots -- the fact that someone, anyone, actually capable of reading, writing and operating a computer takes them seriously is evidence enough of that, if you ask me.

Richard Dawkins, among others, has written extensively about the time and effort real biologists have to waste shooting down the same retarded arguments, only to have them jump back up again the next day like a jack-in-the-box, instead of getting real work done. In this sense I can understand (although not condone) his hostility towards Christians in general. This is the other reason this nonsense shouldn't be tolerated anymore -- it's a real retardant to everything that's valuable and worth preserving.

The regressive element on this forum and elsewhere would have us believe that clinging to superstition is the key to preservation. In fact the opposite is true, and everything that has made Europe and the European diaspora great has always come from challenging established facts, and refusing to be afraid of the truth.

Thread closed, and if we must have cre(a)ti(o)nist (ain't I clever ) threads in the future, they should be posted in the religion and/or weird and paranormal subfora, not in the education section, ffs.