They are just being argumentative, and trying to find a flaw in my comments about ID being non denominational, which it is. The whole Buddhist diversion is just that, a diversion.
Unless they are actually Buddhists practicing Buddhism or have practiced it for a long period time, have studied the philosophy deeply, they don't really know what Buddhists think, or believe, or experience.
You can see how deeply confused, agitated and emotional stu becomes at the discussion of eastern philosophy that he doesn't like and/or doesn't agree with....or more than likely doesn't have the capacity to understand conceptually.
Not all Buddhists think exactly alike either, there are different opinions. Not all Buddhists, if any, actually treat the Dali Llama like some Catholics treat the Pope.
If someone is following the teachings of Lord Buddha and on the path that Lord Buddha is reported to have spoken of, then (and I am not so sure that we are seeing the real teaching of Buddha in practice, just like I am not sure we see the teaching of Jesus Christ followed in practice) they are a Buddhist. Who from the outside can truly say who is on what internal spiritual path?
Only Lord Buddha would know who is really following the path he prescribed for liberation.
People nearly always get lost in the dogma and formality of the words of a great spiritual leader after that leader passes, as the leader spoke in their native language to their audience at that time, which remains as words that have been translated and retranslated who knows how many times, as the followers are lacking in the direct experiences of the type of Enlightenment that the Liberated ones embodied. So they act as they think a Liberated one would act, but it becomes and remains an act, rather than a reality.
They can't even put in their own words what Buddhism is, so we see they just go to a website and cut and paste. They can't argue the philosophy, as they don't understand it.
Getting back to the diversion, what is really funny, is that if you go to a dictionary and do bother to look up non denominational you would find that ID certainly is non denominational as I have defined ID:
non-denominational
⢠adjective open or acceptable to people of any Christian denomination.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/nondenominational?view=uk
Many here appear to be confused about ID, as I define it, as one non a Christian defines it.
They resent the terminology of ignorant chance being used to explain evolutionary theory/big bang theory, but that is exactly what the theory of non ID is. A theory of non intelligent chance happenings resulting in the Universe and life itself.
If they want to believe it, fine by me, but I don't see the spirit of fairness in prohibiting students from being exposed to an opposite concept of ID in schools.
If the so called science supports are so supremely confident in their position, I would think they would be bursting to have children exposed to ID, so that they could counter ID with their "scientific" theories and be done with it.
A child is much stronger in their belief systems when they have had a chance to see both sides, and be convinced reasonably what side is more "reasonable."
Why they fear this process of education, of healthy debate, of addressing what is in their minds already (as the world and the universe does in fact appear designed) is beyond me...
I suspect that they are a lot like the Catholic Church, who steeped in their own dogma and power, control over the people, feared anything that might possibly reduce their power.
You have posted some good articles that demonstrate how things are slowly changing, and I would hope that one day we can see even more level headed people willing to allow students to graduate from the public schools learning how to think...NOT WHAT TO THINK.
Quote from Teleologist:
ZZZzzz said:
I agree, but what I'm trying to pin down is why the ID critics here seem to think that Buddhism refutes your claim. When I ask them what their point is they say to ask you. So, I'm asking you. What does Buddhism have to do with ID? Maybe you understand the point they are trying to make even if you disagree with it. I don't get it at all.
