Home ยป The Second Cross-Examination

nigelTheBold's picture

kellym78 wrote:VD wrote:It

Submitted by nigelTheBold on April 15, 2008 - 9:55am.

kellym78 wrote:

VD wrote:
It is perfectly understandable, but unfortunate, that Kelly is so wedded to an oppositional context that she tends to blindly fall into applying hostile and incorrect interpretations to various parts of the text in which no opposition is required. This does not appear to be a problem of basic reading comprehension, but rather, the result of reading with a critical filter that causes her to react rather than think through her response to what she is reading. This filter, combined with her failure to read the entire book before beginning the chapter-by-chapter review, leads her into a number of completely unnecessary errors in her critique of this chapter.

"Oppositional context." I like that. From a man who wrote a book called, "The Irrational Atheist." No irony there.


VD wrote:
This is not only wrong, it is completely backward. Kelly fails to understand that the point of referencing the blatantly false claim to science by Jim Rose is to provide a simple and vivid picture of the way the New Atheist books are doing precisely the same thing. The Unholy Trinity's attempts to argue "it is science" in support of their atheism are every bit as absurd, and as unscientific, as Jim Rose's similar claims about nipple-piercing and lightbulb-chewing. My purpose is not to belittle science, nor confuse the reader, it is simply to clarify the line between that which is claimed to be science and is, and that which is claimed to be science and is not.

 

Interesting assertion. Yes, insinuating a tie between erudite and vocal atheists, and a man who runs a circus freak show, is not at all disingenuous. Mr. Rose claims sciences supports his positive claims. Our learned atheists claim that all propositions of a supernatural being have turned out unsupportable, and so unscientific.

Yes, I see the similarities.

It's a good thing VD likes science, and applies it to his Biblical beliefs:

Quote:
...if we accept the documentary evidence that God spoke to Moses in the shape of a burning bush, (and we have no basis to reject it except non-scientific logic)...

Ah, yes. Pure science.

Next up: the scientific music of the satyrs.

 

People like this kill me. From the outset, claiming that Kelly just doesn't understand him (like L. Ron Hubbard in his introduction to Scientology), through his rejection of Popper's definition of science because it doesn't allow him to call Dawkins' defence of atheism "unscientific," through his condescension about Kelly's definition of atheism, he has demonstrated his excellent rhetoric, and poor logic. He tries to sound reasonable, while peddling snake oil. "Oh, everyone knows that ID truly respects science, and just wants the chance to prove that it is science. How can you deny it that?"

Funny, funny stuff.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <p> <span> <div> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <img> <map> <area> <hr> <br> <br /> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <table> <tr> <td> <em> <b> <u> <i> <strong> <font> <del> <ins> <sub> <sup> <quote> <blockquote> <pre> <address> <code> <cite> <embed> <obj
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text, URLs will automatically be converted to links.

More information about formatting options