Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
You are changing the subject again. If I am going to be held to the arguments of theists, as an agnostic, you are supposed to be agreeing that atheism is a religion.
I am not changing the subject again. *You* are changing the subject again. My initial point was to state that DI is contradicting itself as to whether or not ID should legally be treated as religious - you responded with some claim that I was somehow using the same logic/arguments.
You had the choice to just simply admit that, yeah, DI is contradicting itself. Instead you tried to argue that I was somehow using the same logic they are, and *you* brought in the different subject with that claim and a bunch of talk about me having to get RI to agree that atheism is a religion, which is completely ridiculous.
If you're going to pretend that I'm just being obtuse, rather than trying to get you to plainly admit that DI is contradicting itself on whether or not ID should be treated as religious in courts of law (which you have not yet done - you've merely stated something along the lines of 'some theists say it's a scientific claim', while pretending I'm somehow holding you to their contradiction), while *also* getting you to admit that I have never made a likewise contradictory claim that *anything* should be treated as religious by the courts in one case, but not religious in others, then there's really no point in talking to you, is there?
To be clear: I am not saying you are making the same argument they are, nor am I trying to hold you to their argument.
I am saying *your statement that I am somehow using the same argument they are is flat out incorrect*. They claimed that ID should be differently treated, by courts, based on whether or not the suit they wanted to win would win on a particular interpretation. *YOU* claimed I was making the same argument, as far as I can tell. I am not holding you to *their* argument, I am holding you to *YOUR* claim.
So please quote where I have *ever* stated or implied that *anything* should be treated as religious by a court
in one context, and not religious by a court
in another context. That is the contradiction DI is committing. If you cannot provide such a statement, then your claim that I am somehow using the same arguments they are fails.
Please also quote where I have ever stated that you hold the same position as DI - you will not be able to, as I never said any such thing. I merely stated that you were missing the point, when your response actually missed the point that DI was contradicting itself.