Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well then thats all you need to know.

OK, I now know that it's unjust to be unjust. (not that that's news to me...)

Is it fine with you if I'm unjust to others? Why or why not? Is it, like, WRONG to be unjust to others? Because if it's not wrong, then why should I not be unjust?

And if you want to avoid the question by backing up a level and saying being unjust causes harm, then I'll just ask you again - is it WRONG to cause harm to someone? If you don't think it's wrong, then apparently it's OK with you for me to cause harm to someone.

Non-theistic positions just do not hold together logically, unless the person is brave enough to take the nihilistic position.

You always were good for a laugh rian. Im always amused when the creationist who is for promoting discrimination against gays tells ME im close minded and intolerant.

And I'm always amused when an agnostic says that other people are wrong!

And when an agnostic tells a Christian to not vote the way they think is right!

And when an agnostic says that it's discrimination against gays to prevent them from marrying who they want to while at the same time having standards about people of other sexual preferences.

Illogical.

"My beliefs that discrimination is ok is sufficient enough.�

But I do NOT believe that discrimination is OK. The issue is how we define discrimination. Personally, IMO, my definition is logically consistent and yours is not.

…allow me:

thanks for the quote, which proved my point - you would NOT automatically be against gay marriage even if harm was scientifically proven. There are other things besides "harm" that would influence your decision.

and this supports your argument how? Even if next week suddenly reams of data starts flooding out about just how harmful being involved in a loving monogamous relationship is when yer gay does that mean you should be able to discriminate now because “scientists make errors!� ?

No, I"m just pointing out that your "god", which is science, does, by your own admission, make mistakes, so talking like basing your decisions on "science" as the be-all, end-all standard to yield the right decision is just plain ... wrong!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is it fine with you if I'm unjust to others? Why or why not? Is it, like, WRONG to be unjust to others? Because if it's not wrong, then why should I not be unjust?

you would choose to be unjust simply because you don’t see it as wrong? well this explains how you can hold the enormous double standard of preaching morals and tolerance and then turn around and discriminate with no evidence.

then I'll just ask you again - is it WRONG to cause harm to someone?

And Ill tell you again Im not interested in your moralistic shell game diversions. Debate the concept of “wrong� with someone who thinks like you and doesn’t care about discriminating against gays.

Non-theistic positions just do not hold together logically

absurd. “theistic� positions require you to hold often illogical, certainly inconsistent and many times dated and absurd notions about life humanity and the universe. Furthermore, they mandate you believe that you must preach peace love and tolerance and yet you can still discriminate. Don’t talk to me about logic…

And I'm always amused when an agnostic says that other people are wrong!

clearly you need to study up on the concept of agnosticism. It doesn’t mean everything is right… Im pretty sure two and two is four. Doesn’t make me unagnostic.

And when an agnostic says that it's discrimination against gays to prevent them from marrying who they want to while at the same time having standards about people of other sexual preferences.

wait what other sexual preferences do I discriminate against again? Or is this a reference to your old argument about age and all that, that we have long since refuted?

thanks for the quote, which proved my point - you would NOT automatically be against gay marriage even if harm was scientifically proven. There are other things besides "harm" that would influence your decision.

no you keep MISSING MY point… you cant legislate discrimination when you have NOTHING to base it on. You AT LEAST have to show scientific data that clearly demonstrates the awful dangers of allowing people to fall in love and get married. if you cant then you have no leg to stand on whatsoever in terms of discriminating against people. If you can (for example we can show the horrible dangers or smoking cigarettes) THEN you can sit down and start talking about ok what should we do about this now. Regulation? Anything? THAT’S how it works. Not ban stuff because my religion tells me we have to. But show DATA first THEN you may proceed from there. The quote I gave you about 28 times now says that but I guess it required additional explaining because you kept ignoring that fact.

No, I"m just pointing out that your "god", which is science

oops. Sorry. You lost me with that. I don’t react to people trying to bring me DOWN to their religious level by insisting I have a church and a god. I find that degrading and limiting and patently incorrect. So level your religion guns at some other sucker.

[Rían]

I guess IRex thinks nothing is wrong.

Is this true, IRex?

Because if it is, then please stop telling me how I should vote on issues like gay marriage. If it's not wrong, then why should I not vote against it?

You say it's "unjust", and I ask you if you think it's wrong to be unjust, yet you won't answer this simple question. If you don't think it's wrong to be unjust, then why are you telling others to not be unjust?

Do you think anything is wrong?

[Insidious Rex]

I think you just set a record for most things ignored in one reply while clinging to your attempts at setting me up as your straw man for your moral diversion. Lemme know when you can approach the data point rian...

[Ragnarok]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You always were good for a laugh rian. Im always amused when the creationist who is for promoting discrimination against gays tells ME im close minded and intolerant.

Ironic isn't it.

[Rían]

How is it ironic, Rad?

As far as "creationist" - I'm not aware that it's been scientifically proven that God doesn't exist, and scientists themselves readily admit that they've been wrong before and will be wrong again, and IIRC, Galileo is a popular guy to bring up when talking about a guy who was right even tho it was against the majority opinion. How is it closeminded for me to have the guts to go against prevailing opinion because I honestly believe, apart from any religious beliefs, that the evidence supports creationism more? How is it openminded for IRex to say I'm wrong? I don't even say evolution is wrong - I just say that I think the evidence supports creationism more. How is that closeminded? Please explain!

As far as "promoting discrimination against gays" - I hear over and over that it's "intolerant" to "deny" people the "right" to marry, based on their "sexual orientation". Fine - if you think homosexual couples should marry, then I hope you're consistent with your reasoning and you'll also let groups marry (why be "intolerant" of them?!) and sons marry mothers (why be "intolerant" of them?!), and sisters marry brothers (why be "intolerant" of them?!), and old guys marry children (why be "intolerant" of them?!), etc. etc. I don't mind hearing other people's opinions and thinking about them; what I do mind is when what they say doesn't hold up to reason. This "intolerant" thing is just a red herring, and a cowardly one at that, because it's used to insult others with different opinions. If you're going to throw "intolerant" around, then have the guts to apply it across the board, and let all those other groups I named get married, too!

What, no? Why not, then? Because those other situations can be harmful? OK, then, whose definition of "harmful" shall we use? Yours? Sounds intolerant to me! Why not let everyone go by their definition of "harmful", since we should be tolerant of other people's opinions, especially when it comes to things like does God exist, which cannot be proven either way. And should we stop using antibiotics because it harms bacteria? Why not? I hear from non-theists that it's arrogant and wrong for us to consider ourselves special; why don't they stop using antibiotics, then?

There are just so many logical holes in non-theistic positions that it's hard to know where to start!

And harm in abortion - IRex is against partial birth abortion because it harms the fetus. Well, a 2-month-old fetus is obviously harmed by abortion, too! So he uses something other than "harm" to make his determinations. He described what that is -and it's very subjective, and different people have different opinions on it - so why doesn't he tell me that I should go by what I think is right and he'll go by what he thinks is right?

And speaking of "harmful", is that wrong? Why won't IRex answer a simple question like is it wrong to do something? Probably because he knows he doesn't have a logical leg to stand on if he does. But if a person's worldview can't pass the test of logic, then I think the person should reconsider it.

People have asked me several times how gay marriage is harmful, and I've responded several times that I'd be glad to answer that on the gay/les thread so this thread wouldn't be off-topic, and NO ONE has taken me up on that, which leads me to believe that no one really cares to consider the answer, because they've already made up their minds. How is that openminded?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think you just set a record for most things ignored in one reply while clinging to your attempts at setting me up as your straw man for your moral diversion. Lemme know when you can approach the data point rian...

Why won't you answer my simple question - is it wrong to be unjust?

you would choose to be unjust simply because you don’t see it as wrong? well this explains how you can hold the enormous double standard of preaching morals and tolerance and then turn around and discriminate with no evidence

No, I wouldn't chose to be unjust, because I know it's wrong Do YOU think it's wrong? If not, why do you keep telling me I shouldn't do it?

And as far as the "data point" - I have addressed it, but you ignore my replies. The problem here, I think, is that you want me to accept YOUR perception of the world, and if I don't, you say I'm "ignoring" you. I just don't agree with your perception of the world - that "science" is the be-all, end-all judge for all things. For one thing, you yourself admit that scientists can make mistakes, and scientists holding a minority opinion have been right before! So I don't know how you're so sure you know what's right.

But the biggest thing is that I think your perception of the world is inadequate - it's just too small, and so it is false, IMO. I see much more than what you appear to see, and your worldview doesn't fit what I see, so why should I adopt your worldview if I think it's inadequate to explain what I see and experience every day? I find too many logical errors in your worldview. At least I'm openminded and tolerant, because I say that if your worldview fits what YOU see, then by all means keep it, and base your morals on it! You just seem to say that everyone should adopt your worldview and base their morals on it, regardless of whether they think it's right or not. That's openminded and tolerant? I don't think so.

I don't know why you call yourself an agnostic, either - it seems to me that you should say, "since I'm agnostic, I'm open to any belief being true, because I think we don't have enough info to really tell which one is true, so if you think your beliefs are true, then you go ahead and base your morals on what you think is true!" Instead, you flat-out say I'm wrong?! How is that being agnostic? You're very inconsistent with what you say and how you act, IMO. You say you're "agnostic", yet you seem to only be willing to take up the easy parts of that worldview and not the difficult ones, and that's intellectually dishonest.

[HOBBIT]

But if a person's worldview can't pass the test of logic, then I think the person should reconsider it.

Can we take you up on that?

People have asked me several times how gay marriage is harmful, and I've responded several times that I'd be glad to answer that on the gay/les thread so this thread wouldn't be off-topic, and NO ONE has taken me up on that

So answer in that thread. I bumped it up and invited you to post your answer.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Can we take you up on that?

Absolutely! Please do! As long as I can take you up on it, too

So answer in that thread. I bumped it up and invited you to post your answer.

I just saw it and hope to answer later tonight. I've been tied up with my 8th grader's finals and graduation this week ...

[HOBBIT]

Well, I never said that my worldview was logical (I never said what mine was). Nothing wrong with being illogical, if you acknowledge it. I'm logical when it suits me I personally find little logic in religion.

No rush with your answer Rian. I have my own finals next week that I have to study for, so I understand.

I'm just partaking in these discussions - what I say is just my own opinions. They are not the views of this board or any administrative statement. So don't think that an "admin" is criticizing you. I'm not even trying to do that (critcize you). I'll let you know if it is an admin note, otherwise I'm just HOBBIT the member.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

I'm just partaking in these discussions - what I say is just my own opinions. They are not the views of this board or any administrative statement. So don't think that an "admin" is criticizing you. I'm not even trying to do that (critcize you). I'll let you know if it is an admin note, otherwise I'm just HOBBIT the member.

No, no, I don't mean that you are criticizing me. I mean that in the past, several times, we've been told by admins/mods to take homosexual issues to the homosexual thread because those discussions tend to take over the thread.

I started my answer over there, whenever you have time.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

As far as "promoting discrimination against gays" - I hear over and over that it's "intolerant" to "deny" people the "right" to marry, based on their "sexual orientation". Fine - if you think homosexual couples should marry, then I hope you're consistent with your reasoning and you'll also let groups marry (why be "intolerant" of them?!) and sons marry mothers (why be "intolerant" of them?!), and sisters marry brothers (why be "intolerant" of them?!), and old guys marry children (why be "intolerant" of them?!), etc. etc. I don't mind hearing other people's opinions and thinking about them; what I do mind is when what they say doesn't hold up to reason. This "intolerant" thing is just a red herring, and a cowardly one at that, because it's used to insult others with different opinions. If you're going to throw "intolerant" around, then have the guts to apply it across the board, and let all those other groups I named get married, too!

get real rian. And stop rehashing ancient arguments that have been refuted over and over and over. We have many times discussed EACH and EVERY particular example you site there as examples of abominations you think shouldn’t be allowed. And we have discussed how just because you can have good reason for something to not be allowed (or at least be regulated) like forcing babies to marry adults ISNT AT ALL equivalent of allowing two loving and willing adult same sex partners to basically officially sanction what they have anyway. So you really need to lose this argument. Otherwise whats the point of discussing this. If you can show that a man marrying another man is the equivalent of a pedophile marrying a 2 year old then give us that data and well look into the whole regulation thing.

There are just so many logical holes in non-theistic positions that it's hard to know where to start!

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

absurd. “theistic� positions require you to hold often illogical, certainly inconsistent and many times dated and absurd notions about life humanity and the universe. Furthermore, they mandate you believe that you must preach peace love and tolerance and yet you can still discriminate. Don’t talk to me about logic…

And harm in abortion - IRex is against partial birth abortion because it harms the fetus. Well, a 2-month-old fetus is obviously harmed by abortion, too!

my you move those shells fast…

Lets show em what was said and ignored about this subject before shall we…

Originally Posted by RÃ*an when she said this exact same thing before…

Before I answer any more, would you please answer this: do you think partial birth abortion is wrong? If so, why? If not, why not?

To which I quoted myself because this was already a repetition of something I had already answered but had been ignored…

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex in response

Originally Posted by Insidious RexAs I stated and was ignored in my previous posts, we have a general idea SCIENTIFICALLY when a fetus has reached a point in development where it would achieve some level of sentience and pain threshold that would make a procedure like abortion wrong according to our constitution UNLESS the life of the mother is at stake. Its pretty cut and dry.

So my advice is to see if your 2 month figure fits before or after that point where the harm would make undertaking such a procedure SCIENTIFICALLY beyond the pale. We do study this kind of thing. This is neither determined by magic or by prayer. But by science. And that’s the only thing Ive been saying all along. Stick with me this time…

And speaking of "harmful", is that wrong? Why won't IRex answer a simple question like is it wrong to do something? Probably because he knows he doesn't have a logical leg to stand on if he does.

This from the entirely legless woman who refuses to acknowledge the illogical nature of her religious position on the world. Ive explained the clear sense of what my stance on these things are. Ive explained it over and over again. Ive also explained over and over again why I wont be getting into a moral tangent on this issue as you wish I would. Im guessing this is the tactic of the person who doesn’t care what is actually logical or not but simply wants to say the same thing over and over as if anything I said hadn’t been said. Text book creationist tactic I must say. Not to mention text book fundamentalist tactic. Deny and ignore till they give up.

But if a person's worldview can't pass the test of logic, then I think the person should reconsider it.

yes you should. Or at least don’t force it on other people.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, I wouldn't chose to be unjust, because I know it's wrong

Then why do you discriminate against gays? Which is of course… being unjust…

And as far as the "data point" - I have addressed it, but you ignore my replies.

you have said NOTHING about data that hasn’t been easily refuted. I have ignored nothing. That’s your tactic remember.

I just don't agree with your perception of the world - that "science" is the be-all, end-all judge for all things.

then what else, pray tell, other then scientifically determined data can we use to legitimately discriminate against people…

For one thing, you yourself admit that scientists can make mistakes, and scientists holding a minority opinion have been right before! So I don't know how you're so sure you know what's right.

so once again you are saying because there have been errors and new discoveries in science that we should throw out science altogether when it comes to determining legal aspect of things and who we can discriminate against and just go with whatever our religion tells us? Or our intuition? If science has made such a huge error on this subject and you are aware of it then its up to YOU to provide evidence for the way it actually is. not just say well I think it might be wrong therefore Im not gonna bother with science when it comes to this.

But the biggest thing is that I think your perception of the world is inadequate - it's just too small, and so it is false, IMO. I see much more than what you appear to see, and your worldview doesn't fit what I see

and your perception of the world is myopic and backwards and incredibly warped and distorted to the point of absurdity on many things. But hey that’s human really. To cling to certain crutches and use our intelligence to alter every conceivable aspect of reality that doesn’t jive with said crutches. Quite impressive example of human psychology really. You see nothing but what you want to convince yourself you see rian. Sorry to break it to you…

You just seem to say that everyone should adopt your worldview and base their morals on it, regardless of whether they think it's right or not.

incorrect. Don’t try turning the tables on me when its you who want to dictate to others how they should live their lives which is of course exactly how your god tells you they should live. Which is why you are going out of your way to BAN people from doing something that other people can do. Meanwhile Im trying to ALLOW people to do something that others are allowed to do because im for EQUALITY and NONDISCRIMINATION in the area of gay marriage.

That's openminded and tolerant?

yep sure is. thanks for asking. Is discriminating against people without any data to prove the need to open minded and tolerant? Nope sorry. Don’t think so.

I don't know why you call yourself an agnostic, either - it seems to me that you should say, "since I'm agnostic, I'm open to any belief being true

How come you cant get the concept that agnosticism is not about shrugging your shoulders at every conceivable notion in the world. There ARE scientific facts. We CAN know certain things. The big things that we have no evidence for like oh the existence and nature of a god is what we need to be agnostic about because we have no data for this. But the things we have data for we DON’T need to ignore. But then ignorance is bliss isn’t it…

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

To which I quoted myself because this was already a repetition of something I had already answered but had been ignored…

In the quote you provided, you said "that would make a procedure like abortion wrong according to our constitution..."

I didn't ignore you. I'm not asking about if it's wrong "according to our constitution". I"m asking if YOU, personally, think it's wrong, independent of whether or not our constitution says it's wrong. Do you?

[Rían]

(from your last two posts)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

... ignored ... ignored … ignore ... ignored ... ignored ...

As Inigo said to Vizzini, "You keep using that word! I don't think it means what you think it does."

As far as I can tell, you think "ignored" means when someone doesn't agree with you. I haven't ignored anything you've said. I've read it and analyzed it and thought about it, and then when I point out the logical errors and inconsistencies in your statements, you say I "ignore" what you said. I think you're using that word incorrectly. I don't "ignore" what you say, I just disagree with it, because I see logical flaws in it.

IMO, you ignore what I say, not the other way around.


You keep avoiding answering the simple question I ask you, btw. I re-asked it many times, and re-asked it again in my previous post, and I hope you'll answer it this time - do you, personally, think partial birth abortion is wrong? And if you decide to try to avoid the question again by saying it's harmful, then I'll ask again, do you think it's wrong to cause harm? Are you somehow afraid to give an opinion about if something is right or wrong? Or do you just think that nothing is right or wrong, or what?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Which is of course… being unjust…

Is it wrong to be unjust?

I know it's wrong (and that's why I don't do it, but our definitions of "discriminiation" differ - mine make logical sense, yours doesn't ). I just want to know if YOU think it's wrong. Do you?

Do you think it's wrong to be unjust?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

“Wrong� is a meaningless word in this context really. I realize you want to make this just a moral argument but that doesn’t mean much to me. More appropriately it deprives them of their life and liberty which is unJUST. Just like discriminating against gays is unjust.

It doesnt do you any good to continue asking a question when Ive already said its not relevant to the point for me. I tell you that you are discriminating against gays and you say it doesnt matter because its not a discriminatory issue for you. Well guess what not everyone lives according to your rigid moral laws so for me this issue isnt about "right and wrong". Thats horribly misleading and confuses the point. The point is what works according to our laws based ultimately on data we have observed from a reliable testable (read scientific) source. If the scientific evidence leads us to conclude that gays marrying causes instant death then we need to take that into account when making laws on such. If however the data doesnt lead to that conclusion then we can only assume banning such an act would be simple discrimination based on no evidence.

If i shoot a man in the head is that wrong? What if he is trying to kill me? What if he asks me to shoot him because hes in horrible pain? Is that wrong? What if hes perfectly innocent but a lion eats him? Is that wrong? Can you see now how "wrong" is a meaningless term in this context? If you base your whole outlook on life on the terms "right and wrong" its no wonder youre riddled with inconsistancies and double standards in how you view things: We must all be loving and tolerant but its "wrong" to be gay so its ok to discriminate against them... logical...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It doesnt do you any good to continue asking a question when Ive already said its not relevant to the point for me.

Forget the point now - can you say that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

If i shoot a man in the head is that wrong?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point?

What if he is trying to kill me?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point?

What if he asks me to shoot him because hes in horrible pain?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point?

What if hes perfectly innocent but a lion eats him? Is that wrong?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point? (are you talking about wrong for the lion?)

Can you see now how "wrong" is a meaningless term in this context?

I don't think it's "meaningless", but I can see how you might need more information. But eventually we'll get down to enough details, and I would like to know if you're EVER willing to call ANYTHING right or wrong, EVER. Not right or wrong according to our constitution, but just, in your opinion, right or wrong.

If you base your whole outlook on life on the terms "right and wrong" ...

I don't. However, I do believe that SOME things are right and SOME are wrong; many are neutral. Do you believe that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

... its no wonder youre riddled with inconsistancies and double standards in how you view things: We must all be loving and tolerant but its "wrong" to be gay so its ok to discriminate against them... logical...

I think we should all be loving. Do you think it's right to be loving? Or will you not call anything right or wrong?

Tolerant - well, that depends upon the definition - different people define it differently. I think the definition that liberals use is pretty ... creative, to say the least! More accurately, I think it's illogical, incorrect, ironic, kinda funny in a sad sort of way, and very bullyish.

I don't recall ever saying it's "wrong" to be gay, so you're inaccurate there. I've said that homosexual behavior is, IMO, wrong, along with many other types of behavior.

And my definition of discrimination is more logical than yours, IMO. I think you're the one that's riddled with inconsistencies and double standards!

BTW, would you like to defend your worldview on the "why you believe what you believe" thread, since you seem to think it's so logical? I'd love to have you on the "hot seat" to answer some questions

One more time - do you think ANYTHING is right or wrong?

[Insidious Rex]

Still trying to get me in the same trap after like 5 pages here... you need another chess strategy rian.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Forget the point now - can you say that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

Yes, you are wrong an awful lot.

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point?

What do you think? What's your opinion - is it right or wrong, or do you not have enough info at this point? (are you talking about wrong for the lion?)

I don't think it's "meaningless", but I can see how you might need more information. But eventually we'll get down to enough details, and I would like to know if you're EVER willing to call ANYTHING right or wrong, EVER. Not right or wrong according to our constitution, but just, in your opinion, right or wrong.

I don't. However, I do believe that SOME things are right and SOME are wrong; many are neutral. Do you believe that ANYTHING is right or wrong?

I think we should all be loving. Do you think it's right to be loving? Or will you not call anything right or wrong?

youve become a one trick pony. kinda sad. Hows this: some things are wrong in the vein that they are unjust. And dont say I cant say that because its IN the actual DEFINITION of the word thanks.

Tolerant - well, that depends upon the definition - different people define it differently. I think the definition that liberals use is pretty ... creative, to say the least! More accurately, I think it's illogical, incorrect, ironic, kinda funny in a sad sort of way, and very bullyish.

Im sure you do since you dont want to deal with the fact that you are being intolerant. A credit to your strong denial skills even in the face of whats clear as day.

And my definition of discrimination is more logical than yours, IMO. I think you're the one that's riddled with inconsistencies and double standards!

And you think incorrectly. You cant create your own special definition of discrimination Im afraid. Just like you cant impose your own definition of right and wrong on people. Gotta work within the rules.

BTW, would you like to defend your worldview on the "why you believe what you believe" thread, since you seem to think it's so logical? I'd love to have you on the "hot seat" to answer some questions

No I dont really think I want to give you an excuse to simple yell IS THIS WRONG?? IS THIS WRONG?? IS THIS WRONG?? at me till you cant see straight. You do that enough in the other threads. Thats a bad use for that thread in my opinion.

One more time - do you think ANYTHING is right or wrong?

one more time - your ideas about gay marriage are wrong.

[Elvellyn]

There ARE scientific facts. We CAN know certain things.

I don't mean to sound like a nerd, but I read this once and it made sense: In order to claim certain knowledge of anything, you must claim that you know everything. That is, you must claim that there is absolutely nothing, anywhere, that can contradict this fact.
Do you remember the scene in Men in Black where the older guy is talking to Will Smith about the existense of aliens? I wish I had an exact quote but he talks about how people "knew" the earth was the center of the solar system, and some other things that I don't rememer; but the point was that scientists tend to take for granted those "certainties", like evolution. Evolution isn't fact, it isn't known. It has holes in logic and evidence. The only way to be sure about anything is to claim that you are omniscient. Or that your source is. Like, say, God.
There are a few other issues here that I would love to contibute to, but it is much too late. Perhaps tomorrow.