Wednesday, July 13, 2011

tom peeler, arrogant dirtbag




10:40 am

arkady @ 7 “I wonder, too, if oppostion to design theory isn’t rooted in issues other than science.”

I think so. As far as I can tell, the opposition is almost always grounded in a failure to strictly adhere to the laws of rational thought. Conclusions from first principles don’t count as “evidence” but this is non-sensical, literally. This is why EL can blithely and interminabley make reference to “no evidence” for God. Well, in her world, duh. God is immaterial and science deals with the material world. Science explains the material world so the material world is all there is. So God doesn’t exist and there can be no evidence for Him, ever, since all that exists is material and He’s allegedly immaterial. I think that fairly sums it up from their point of view. Unfortunately for everybody, they are hopelessly confused about what counts as evidence and what is rational. In the end, it’s their epistemology that leads to their ontological problem. Once this has been explained to them, it then becomes a matter of willful ignorance. I’ve tried many times to engage “them” on fundamental intellectual commitments. Always to no avail. So how can one expect to ever make headway arguing with someone who rejects reason as foundational and authoritative in matters of truth? One cannot. One can only hope that someone lurking will see what makes sense and what does not. Plus, it helps to sharpen my thoughts as I’m sure it helps others. Any opposition, even irrational opposition, is better than no opposition.

Think of it, design is excluded a priori because it’s not “scientific” but what is “scientific” is itself not a “scientific” question. Who cannot instantly see the circularity and irrationality of that? Lots of people as it turns out.

Bottom line, we are trying to bring people to truth by reasoning with them but they reject the authority of reason in matters of truth. That’s one of the things that makes it so much “fun” to do…

In fact, just for my own vicious amusement and to provide one more data point for my claim, I’m going to ask EL to tell me what her fundamental, non-negotiable, intellectual commitments are. She posted on this thread so maybe she’s still reading.


What is it with you IDiots, that you think you know everything and own all the morals, logic, rationality, reason, truth, sense, and authority? Because you believe in a god, you think you are a god.

"Unfortunately for everybody, they are hopelessly confused about what counts as evidence and what is rational."

Oh really? Well, Mister know-it-all, let's see your "evidence" that shows that your god or any god exists. And be sure that the evidence is "scientific" and "rational".

Go ahead, bring yourself on over here, for your "own vicious amusement" and show your "evidence". Or, you can just hide at UD with the rest of the cowards. Well?