14
Oct
08

Here’s why

To Mr Cretard:

The reason why many individuals with ANY understanding of the problems with Intelligent Defect and creationism come off as “arrogant” to you probably stems from the resentment many of us feel for your desire to have “equal time” for your worldview when you absolutely cannot present positive evidence for it. Your only “evidence” consists of the whole idea of the history of the life and the Universe being a “fairy tale.” I will not just write this off as fallacious as you would expect, but I agree that the narrative version of history is, in fact, a fiction. The truth of the matter cannot easily be expressed in a short writing, so we must condense our narrative into a form which requires less than a few decades to complete, and even then it would not be complete. The reason for being “vociferous” stems from the noise of individuals such as yourself with your intellectual dishonesty attempting to prop up worldviews which cannot stand on their own. You, thus, rely upon arguments from false authority (yourself) and straw men to discredit the theories which you see are in conflict with Intelligent Defect and creationism. It is particularly telling when you state “I can’t really speculate about any one individual.” I was under the impression you were a psychologist. What do you do other than speculate about the motivations of specific individuals? I feel obligated to inform you, although I feel my comments fall upon deaf ears, that your understanding of science is incredibly flawed. Perhaps a bit of analyzing yourself is in order to understand your own biases, maybe then you can understand why you are in error in a number of instances.

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Here’s why”


  1. 1 thecountryshrink
    October 14, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Actually it’s Dr. Cretard if you are going to refer to me as a psychologist. BTW, I don’t rely on false authority (myself which you are correct in stating), but on God. I can’t really speculate about any one individual that I do not know. I can only observe patterns, and you sir, fit the pattern quite nicely. I don’t say that as a psychologist, but as a human being (Mr. Cretard).

  2. 2 jaredcormier
    October 14, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    Dr. Mr. Cretard, do you make it practice to rely upon your deity of choice for divine guidance in treatment of individuals?

  3. 3 dwilli58
    October 15, 2008 at 10:06 am

    “Dr. Mr. Cretard, do you make it practice to rely upon your deity of choice for divine guidance in treatment of individuals?”

    NERD BOY, do you make it a practice to rely on your ever-changing and contradictory (Atheistic) theories to drag the rest of us, as well as our children, down to your level of discernment, which is limited to what you can touch, smell, see, feel and intellectualize? Don’t worry, NERD BOY, the reading glasses and pocket protecting species, you belong to, have control of this system: government, schools etc. Don’t be afraid of us, you can keep your chemistry sets and worship DICK Dawkins, we won’t get in the way! Now run along and make up a new theory to fix the one you believed in last week! Ta Ta!

  4. 4 jaredcormier
    October 15, 2008 at 10:38 am

    dwilli58:
    Yes, all knowledge is limited to our senses or the means of detection we have developed to extend those senses. If history has shown us anything, it is that religious doctrines change when one of their dogmas becomes untenable. I am not afraid of you intellectually or physically. I am against your theological emesis being taught in classrooms as science. I am against your attempts to get your particular dogmas preventing research which could save lives. I am against your adamant refusal to think anthropogenic CO2 is having a role in climate change. I am against your attempts to stifle reproductive freedom. I am against your de facto religious test for office.

    The fact is that you DO get in the way and actively seek to have your particular religious ideologies forced down the throats of others. Your beliefs which have no evidence, which are frequently proven incorrect, and your own personal incredulity towards vast quantities of scientific knowledge. You, sir, do get in the way of society; you do get in the way of medical research; you do get in the way environmental conservation.

    You also seem to lack understanding as to what a “theory” is and why being able to modify a theory slightly to explain more phenomenon is a good thing. If you cannot understand that, perhaps you are another lost cause.

  5. 5 dwilli58
    October 15, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    “Sir,” what happened to “CREtard?” Decide to be civil, for a change? You sir, are an intellectual bigot and bully. You lump all believers into one category without understanding. You, in effect, become what you condemn in us, intolerant!

    1) “I am not afraid of you intellectually or physically. I am against your theological emesis being taught in classrooms as science.”

    You have accomplished this end, so why do you continue to rant about it? You have control of our school systems, government and tax dollars, what more do you need? Our blood? (this will be covered below)

    2) “I am against your attempts to get your particular dogmas preventing research which could save lives.”

    I would imagine your referring to stem cell research here. I have mixed opinions on this subject, but you don’t care what I think!

    3, 4, 5) “I am against your adamant refusal to think anthropogenic CO2 is having a role in climate change. I am against your attempts to stifle reproductive freedom. I am against your de facto religious test for office.

    I believe that man is partly the cause of global warming and that we have abused the environment. When have my beliefs ever stopped material science from doing whatever it so pleases, which is trying to be God! You must be kidding! What “test” for office? George Bush and his “faith-based” crap is idiocy, as many, like me, realize!

    “The fact is that you DO get in the way and actively seek to have your particular religious ideologies forced down the throats of others. Your beliefs which have no evidence, which are frequently proven incorrect, and your own personal incredulity towards vast quantities of scientific knowledge. You, sir, do get in the way of society; you do get in the way of medical research; you do get in the way environmental conservation.”

    We’re in the way! Well, you’ve got “modern” eugenics to work out the “final solution” on this problem (Just work on the gas chambers this time, so I don’t have to suffer like the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals in Hitler’s concentration camps). Of course, we’re in the way, as is God! We stand against abusive and religious, materialistic science, not science, which, sir, is what you subscribe to and worship! You’re humanistic protestations and angst about saving humanity, through your scientific method, is merely a manipulative cover-up for self doubt and fear. Get back to me when you’re close to your last breath and reconsidering your current position on these issues!

    If being anything but a “lost cause” means becoming you, sir, then I’ll choose the former!

  6. 6 jaredcormier
    October 15, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    You know, I had a nice little reply typed up in response to many of your arguments, but I’d much rather let your many of them fall apart on their own. The observation that I addressed you by your self-identifier instead of “cretard” is a distraction from the topics at hand, I was addressing something directly to you as a response, rather than to the general public. Now I’ll just point out your errors in reasoning and demonstrate where you are incorrect:
    1) I DO understand religion, the fact is, at a very young age, I was religious, but fell away from these beliefs at about the same time I was disillusioned about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and most other human fictions.
    2) You continue to say “we’ve won” with regards to the school system, tax dollars, etc. Perhaps you should read about the current issue with the Texas Board of Education, the same is going on in Ohio, with the Conejo school board, and Brunswick North Carolina.
    3) Your eugenics tangent is a complete straw man as eugenics has more to do with a dogmatic mindset than an evidence based mindset. I have never advocated the murder of any group solely upon the belief systems which they adhere to as I find attempting to kill everyone that believes in something completely self-defeating and not a good idea in light of the need for genetic diversity among any population of organisms.
    4) I do not fear the unknown, I only seek to find out what is unknown. Frankly, I find the unknown very interesting and it gives me a direction to go with future learning and possibly my own research.
    5) If you would like to discuss these matters, I gladly will, however, your emesis of untrue talking points will not continue here.
    6) On the charge that scientists are “trying to be god,” I must reply that you must not have met many scientists. We readily accept that we do not know everything, in fact, I would go so far as to say that most scientists would state they know very little about even their area of expertise. I, for example, know only a very small fraction of what science has discovered about pit vipers. Even if I were to know EVERYTHING we have learned over the decades about pit vipers, what remains to be discovered far surpasses that knowledge. So please, do not attempt to say we are “trying to be gods” as clearly, we do not pretend to be omnipotent, omniscient, or even “benevolent.” (such an odd word for one that kills people who don’t follow a cultural norm) We are only seeking to understand the world, and universe, in which we live. Sometimes this knowledge is used for the benefit of humans (much of medicine), sometimes to harm it (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons), or with no real immediate consequences to humanity in the foreseeable future (developing new methods to look for other planets which may be habitable).
    5) I have been on my “death bed” more than once when I, and others, thought I would certainly die. One of those times was after being bitten by a venomous snake. I did not feel the need to reach out to something after death, in fact, as Douglas Adams once put it, “He hoped and prayed that there wasn’t an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn’t an afterlife.” The reason was quite simple, I could not put up with an egocentric, jealous, and vindictive entity which wanted my every thought to be about said itself. That, to me, would be a hell.
    6) Lastly, please fact-check yourself so I don’t have to…

  7. 7 MichelleSedai
    October 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm

    i posted on his blog today and got quite a lot of response you might want to check out Jared, i just don’t have the time or patience to correct me what with actual learning and all. I have to give you credit for trying, i imagine it gets tiring…

  8. 8 Stacy S.
    October 15, 2008 at 6:27 pm

    Jared, you rock! You have way more patience than I do, and let me just say “Thanks”. If it weren’t for people like you, our school system would be doomed.

  9. 9 dwilli58
    October 15, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    You made the contact with us, not the other way around, if you can’t take what you dish out, then be careful where you tread! Goodbye!

  10. 10 jaredcormier
    October 15, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Perhaps you should get your facts straight, that is a blatant lie. If you look at post times, you will notice that the timestamps on my first post which “made contact” with you was not until I was referred to here.
    On the page which you referred to me on, I was referring to this.
    And responded to the straw men which you propped up here.
    The first time I linked to your page was done a full TWO DAYS LATER. I did not “make contact” with you for TWO DAYS after you linked to me. So please, no more lies. Check you facts. You are only further degrading my opinion of creationists, which, I admit, is already pretty low due to your idea that “just because I think it’s true means it’s true!”

    Now you have the timeline, and the fact that the direct reference was done on your end.

  11. 11 thecountryshrink
    October 15, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Perhaps y’all ought to go back to calling us cretards instead of engaging us. I suspect that would be a lot easier, and the path of least resistance is preferable is it not (Michelle and Stacy)? Why try to actually think through an issue? Just go with the dogma of your atheism–that sure is a lot easier than thinking. dwilli is a cretard and so am I. Happy now?

    PS (Praise Science)….jared….btw, I think that attributing “lies” to others without considering other possibility may be…shall we say…a bit dishonest….nah…

  12. 12 jaredcormier
    October 15, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    1) I could be convinced I was incorrect in that assertion, like, for example, demonstrating I was wrong in assuming I linked to you prior to where I thought it was done. Currently, all the evidence I have indicates my assertion was correct. This includes knowing the location of both of you and where Connecticut is in relation.
    2) No, I am not happy for you to claim that title, what WOULD make me happy is understanding your reason for denying conclusions based upon sound reasoning and evidence AND why you create straw men of any conclusions which you disagree with.
    3) Again, you are very skilled in constructing straw men rather than presenting evidence. Yes, I require evidence for pretty much all of my conclusions.

  13. 13 thecountryshrink
    October 16, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    1). Dwilli did not see the initial link to your site from me. Case closed. You called someone a liar who was not, unless you think everyone who makes a mistake is a liar.

    2). You call me and others that, why do you not want us to claim the title. It really ought to make you happy. You seem to think every argument that you disagree with is a straw man or a lie.1 Where have I “misrepresented, distorted, or exaggerated your arguments? Note, sarcasm is not the same as a straw man. Are “straw men” and “lies” wrong from the perspective of an atheist? What is your moral position?

    3). Thank you for the compliment and slap in a single sentence; however, you do not seem to require much evidence as your mind is already completely and 100% made up as to atheism and the absolute truth of evolution (Praise Science). It also seems to be completely made up about the stupidity of people who believe in God, Creationism, or ID. To your credit, I’ve not met someone who has a mind that I would actually call “open” including myself.

    1 I call straw…man

  14. 14 jaredcormier
    October 16, 2008 at 6:49 pm

    1) Well, before tossing out accusations, perchance he should follow the trail, it is available in links on the pages.
    2) Your misrepresentations, in short, are: cosmological evolution, abiogenesis, the origins of life (probably more than once, yet dominance by one led to the extinction of all others), evolution (misrepresenting it as teleological), and so on. I am familiar with what a straw man argument is.
    3) Ahh, yes, I don’t require much evidence, and from what, exactly, do you draw that conclusion?
    4) The unintentional use of any common logical fallacy, for purposes of arguing a cause, are not what bothers me, these can be easily corrected. The intentional use of arguments which one knows as fallacious is far worse than the common mistake, in fact, it is on par with a lie. Lies result in a failure to abide by the social contract necessary for a functioning society. Without honesty, credit, reciprocity, trade, and so forth, they become far less likely to occur.

  15. 15 thecountryshrink
    October 16, 2008 at 7:36 pm

    1). Believe what you want in your own atheistic religious way. However, you are wrong. Perhaps some day you will know this, but frankly your opinion is irrelevant on this issue. I know the truth. I know dwilli, and you do not.

    2). Point out how I have misrepresented things. Prove how it is not teleological. If my arguments are so easy to knock down, do so. If your best argument is “You are a Cretard, I will understand.”

    3). I try to think things through in the best way that I can…on the best evidence that I see, and on my personal experience. I know I have my own biases, whereas you do not seem to recognize your own. I don’t call folks names because I don’t agree with them. I don’t assume that I am an intellectual elite. I don’t think I have all the answers. Am I a better person than you are? Hell no.

    4). I agree wholeheartedly. And I think your point 4, is self-refuting in terms of the arguments you have presented.

  16. 16 jaredcormier
    October 16, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    1) You know him, does that free him from the consequences of his error? No. I know many of my friends, quite well, but if they make a mistake, they still made a mistake. If it was an intentional untruth, fine, it wasn’t a lie, but he was still jumping to conclusions without doing the research. Without having done said research, it was still a premature and inaccurate conclusion.
    2) I already did tell you EXACTLY where you misrepresented the science.
    3) You don’t consider yourself an intellectual elite, yet you make claims as a “psychologist.” I’m pretty sure that qualifies as considering yourself superior in a certain perspective.
    4) Wow, you agree, and yet think they are self-refuting, care to explain that statement? I’ll get to your entire “naturalistic fairy tales” series at some time in the future. I’ll be sure to link to them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Join the best atheist themed blogroll!

RSS Adventures in Ethics and Science

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Blag Hag

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS denialism blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS ERV

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Greg Laden’s Blog

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Laelaps

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Lawful Good Wonk

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Pharyngula

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Tetrapod Zoology

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS White Coat underground

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

Older stuff

wordpress stats

%d bloggers like this: