Thursday, July 7, 2011

Into the void (part three)

I'm going to respond (below the dashed line) to some of the things gordy has said in his recent rants at UD:

kairosfocus said:

In short, Newton’s thought is clearly hebraic and related to Plato’s ideas, and he infers from the intelligible, functional, complex organisation of the observed cosmos to its source in an intelligent, necessary being whose word is the law of the cosmos that men discover. Indeed, he actually holds that to discourse upon that Architect in light of the appearances of things is a legitimate act within natural philosophy; the older name for especially the physical sciences. That is, it is the worldview right of the scientist to look up from his observations and calculations, and to reflect soberly on what lies behind the wonderful order and beauty he sees.

With that history of ideas in mind, and with the sobering considerations already on the table, it is plainly time for a serious re-think on how these sorts of themes are being treated in our civilisation today. And, particularly, we should reflect on the role being played by ruthless factions that have set out to shout down and intimidate any and all who would dare think out side of their preferred evolutionary materialist box.

Then, we should have the courage to think for ourselves, and to take a bold stance, exposing those who would impose worldviews censorship on science, science education and science-related public policy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Ya know gordy, it's really funny that many (if not all) of you IDiots accuse "Darwinists" of having antiquated ideas that originated in the mid-1800s with Darwin, and are still locked into the mid-1800s, and that they keep thinking and promoting them today, unrevised. You creationist, bible-thumping IDiots think, believe, and promote ideas (fairy tales) that originated thousands of years ago with incredibly superstitious goat herders and fishermen.

You also rely on ancient philosophers, like Plato, who based his ideas on what little was known by him about nature and reality, at the time. Newton, while smart in some ways, was also ignorant of many things that are known today. Plato and Newton are old news. Science has advanced tremendously since the mid-1800s and since the times of Plato and Newton, while you IDiots still believe in ridiculous, ancient fairy tales. Whose ideas are more antiquated? Whose ideas, and actual evidence, are more realistic and up to date? The ideas of IDiots have no evidential support, while the ideas (and findings) of "Darwinists" (actually 'evolutionary scientists') have a lot of evidential support. No actual evidence supports your absurd claims.

"That is, it is the worldview right of the scientist to look up from his observations and calculations, and to reflect soberly on what lies behind the wonderful order and beauty he sees."

Yep, the scientist has that right, as a person, but no scientist has the right to impose his/her unsupported worldview (e.g. religious bullshit) into or onto science.

"And, particularly, we should reflect on the role being played by ruthless factions that have set out to shout down and intimidate any and all who would dare think out side of their preferred evolutionary materialist box."

No gordy, it's insane, paranoid wackos like you who are the ruthless factions that are trying to shout down and intimidate any and all who would dare think outside of your preferred religious box.

"Then, we should have the courage to think for ourselves, and to take a bold stance, exposing those who would impose worldviews censorship on science, science education and science-related public policy."

Absolutely right gordo, only to think for ourselves means shedding the controlling, stifling, brain-washing, mind-numbing, ambition-killing, curiosity-quelling, culture-destroying, science-wrecking infection known as religion. Science is no place for YOUR tyrannical and maniacal worldview censorship. Actually, your superstitious, antiquated worldview, and desire for your own form of censorship, doesn't belong anywhere in the modern world.

You can believe in whatever crazy shit you like gordy, but quit trying to corrupt science, public policy, and education with it and quit trying to shove it down everyone else's throat.

You posted:

"If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons, then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights. [Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1984), p. 81.]"

It's abundantly obvious that you, gordon e. mullings, have never entertained the thought that people who disagree with you have the right to do so. Where's your respect for that right when you're judging and condemning everyone who isn't exactly like you, on a daily basis?