I see you still.. just.. can't... resist the tendency to repeat that we both have equal ignorance about the existence of God. We do not. Understand? In fact, as I discussed earlier, you know less than I do because you believe things without evidence, and then (and only then) do you try to desperately search for anything to prove what you are saying. In fact, you know less than nothing because you believe lies. It is better to have limited knowledge than to believe in erroneous ideas. My views represent a strong stand for reason and evidence. Jan said nothing about that. Try to think before you post.

I'd also thank you not to refer to my detailed knowledge of how science works as 'pseudoscience'. I studied chemistry, and also now that I'm a research student, they go to a great deal of trouble to teach you how the scientific method works, and why it works (at least they do where I live). But I guess, you also can't resist ad hominiem attacks. That speaks volumes about your character.

There's no pseudoscience like religion. "Don't understand something? Don't worry, God did it!!" Dear, dear me. In a world of purely religious people, no scientific research would get done. Actually, there was a time when religious folk ruled the planet, it's called the dark ages.

I see you once again demonstrate your insulting character with z's, as though the chimp comparison wasn't insulting enough.

I emphatically do not need to wake up. I'm aware that the different myths are all equally absurd, and in fact it would make no difference whether I used Cain and Abel or Ra and Osiris. The conclusion is the same no matter what fairytale you choose. They're all an instance of the strange need that humans have to believe in a deity. This hardly validates a shred of anything you've ever said to me, I'm stunned that you would come to such a bizarre conclusion. Is it... perhaps... you who needs to wake up? I nearly fell off my large black leather office chair with laughter when you said that! I might have injured myself...

Serpicus if you want to continue your faltering assault on my clear and strong means of reasoning, then by all means carry on. Perhaps along the way you can admit that you have a soft spot for the Qu'ran as some weird modern 'improvement' of the other ancient religions. If you truly do try to argue with me that the Qu'ran is anything but a violent and twisted mime of the already twisted bible, you will be quickly defeated. I'm ready with gloves on 

Faith is an ill-defined and therefore misused word, and even the various religious faiths cannot agree on its definition, with some groups saying that faith is based on evidence (which is a complete joke), and others saying its what you “feel” in your “heart”, or that it’s based on intuition. And of course, a scientist views that with enormous suspicion.

You have not even told me what you mean by “universe”. Note that I’m not being manipulative here. Universe has a meaning in science, in particular in thermodynamics, and all it means is “everything else”. The only place that outside “universes” have any meaning is in the multiverse hypothesis. The fact that you view this as yet another validation of your backward beliefs is frankly hilarious. If anything, a multiverse illustrates that reality is far richer and grander than anything suggested by religion. No holy book or traditional worldview even comes close to the majestic wonder that is being revealed by cosmologists as we carefully peel back each layer of reality. This validates my viewpoint not yours (is a lol in order? Actually, no, I don’t want to be as childish and desperate for kicks as you are). Religious people wouldn’t even be aware of the intricate wonders of physics if it were not for the careful unfolding of the scientific method which you hold in contempt. How laughable that you try to use the findings of that method in a last ditch attempt to attempt the awful awful argument from ignorance, as if that’s gonna work on me now!

The idea that altruism and generosity are subjective is something you generated; it is absolute rubbish. In the natural world, pain results from damage, and there are also naturalistic reasons to refer to things such as fatigue and hunger as negative concepts. We do good when we help to alleviate these things in our fellow humans and other creatures. The level of good depends on how we alleviate such suffering, and how long we do it for. The fact that you would try the horrid redefinition of evil shows what sort of person you are. It wouldn’t surprise me if you went on to try the sickening argument that I’ve heard that we need cancer so we have people to pray for. I hope they lock that person up, I really do.

As for you desperate last ditch attempt to compare my views to religion, I’m afraid that’s utterly ridiculous. You’re so desperate for arguments, that the only thing you know how to do is mirror your own situation, and in the process acknowledging that religious thinking must be a bad thing! Moreover, it is utterly irrelevant what I sound like, it is the content of what I am saying that is most important. If the tired old “you’re an evangelical atheist” argument is the best you can come up with, then you’ve already lost the argument.

Implacability of my posts? What rubbish. You’re just using another one of your favourite words to try to make yourself feel better, and using yet another ad hominiem attack, attacking the person instead of ideas. Your use of “lol” is also a mechanism to compensate for your inadequacies, and you will notice that my posts are different. This is because I feel secure about what I am saying. Just what exactly am I supposed to be in denial about? Your position is hilarious Serpicus; you’re accusing me of being in denial about the existence of an unprovable sky-fairy. Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand? I could just as easily postulate a new deity, Grendall, and then accuse you about being in denial about its existence, and all the while my only argument for that being’s existence would be that nobody can disprove it! Which, of course, is utterly ridiculous. Do you understand this? Should I repeat it again? It seems you do not read prior posts, or you ignore their content.

Your “accusation” of my point of view is empty, and there could never be enough evidence to oppose it, since there could never be enough evidence to oppose my hypothetical Grendall entity. You “position” is completely absurd, and hilarious. You can’t even resist the temptation to repeat refuted arguments, such as the old one that I am an “evangelical”. I’ll say it again, if by that you mean that I have passion and am proactive in the defense of my position, then I take it as a compliment, but this is not what you mean. What you are really trying to say is that my thought processes are like a religious person, which is plainly not the case. As I’ve stated many times, religious people believe something and then desperately search for supporting evidence. I follow (and think according to) the scientific method, which operates in the reverse direction; you start off believing nothing, and then examine the evidence to see what it tells you about reality. This is nothing like the evangelical way of thinking, and it’s very obvious. Do you get this? Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It’s a joke that you even attempt to say “rest my case” anymore, since you have no case to rest!

You said “thanks Laz” in your usual superior and insulting way, but the irony is that you should be thanking me, since I have given you every opportunity to clarify your method of thinking and convert it to a rational one based on reason. So, no problem, you are quite welcome.

As a matter of fact, I’d already read the article you referred to, so it is highly amusing that you are attempting to use as a tool to attack evolution. Speciation is not easily defined, but any professional biologist knows (and I’ve heard it from their own mouths) that the adaptation described over the last five thousand years does not amount to speciation. It doesn’t even come close, basic adaptations do not cause speciation in metazoans over such a short period of time, even at this rate. You label something as pseudoscience that you do not even understand, which is rather funny. Moreover, the fact that you jump to the conclusion that there were improper motives shows that you tend towards culturism or racism yourself, which is why you spew out anti-western arguments all the time, and which is why you give strange support to middle a eastern religion even though its merits are even fewer than the others. Talk about biased.

You even try to manipulate the words science and scientist. Should I repeat this again? Ok, here goes. Scientists follow an unsentimental method, and “science” is not something that should be personified. Science is not represented by a guy in a white coat, it is represented by the way it operates, a powerful, tried and tested method that is the best (and only) means of understanding the universe. What is more, theories are never accepted without question, and in fact evolution has been questioned ever since it came into being. When people like you throw pseudo-intellectual attacks at scientists, it just forces them to refine their theories and investigate further, strengthening their position. Curious how creationists predicted in the 80s that evolution would not survive the next 20 years. In fact it has been strengthened and extended. Even in the field of synthetic biology, which aims to create artificial life, the researchers have made progress in incorporating Darwinian evolvability into their vesicles or organisms. The fact that we can do this for real shows just how amused biologists must be when creationists try to claim there is no evidence for evolution. Don’t even get me started on the supposed arguments for creationism, I’ll dissect them with pleasure if you even attempt it. Notably, you've also clearly demonstrated that you don ot even understand what scientists mean when they use the word "theory". Everyday people use theory to mean an unproven idea, like something you thought of when you are intoxicated. Scientists do not dream up their theories when they are drunk. If there was a strict hierarchy of words in science, theory would occupy the highest position in terms of testing, above law and above fact, but still subject to test for as long as they exist. Go and learn about this before you attack things you do not understand.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour. The fact that you attempted a joke about transparency shows how childish you are and how desperate you are for kicks, in order to atone for your weak arguments. It also illustrates that you don’t even understand the quote, so instead of achieving your focused aim of humiliating me, you have actually embarrassed yourself. Don’t worry, I won’t now make a closing statement about how I “rest my case”, since you are likely to come back with some ridiculous argument, probably either that 1) I have no evidence to disprove what you are saying (as though this is somehow ingenious, what a joke) or 2) How I’m an “evangelical” or “fundamentalist”, two of your favourite words. If you had even read my previous post, you would see how I noted that this is a plain admission on your part that religious thinking is wrong. The only thing I have in common with the evangelists (and it is not a lot), is that I am passionate in the defense of my position, and I am also proactive about promoting it. As for all the other features of evangelical religious people, I could not be more different, and my mode of thinking and reasoning is very different. Should I repeat this a third time just so you understand? I will repeat that if you try the idiotic “no evidence against me” argument again I’ll just flush it down the figurative black hole again.

Posted on: December 12, 2007, 05:37:49 pm

---

200 posts!! Serpicus, you came in with your nose in the air attempting to squash the thread, but got your eye wiped. You haven't even realised yet that I will carry this on indefinitely. Your arguments have always been poor, and you actually ran out of those arguments a long time ago, which is why you are tending towards ad hominiem attacks. Good luck Serpicus. You're going to need it, as does any weak character who comes up against a much stronger opponent.

It really underscores the central theme of religion; Stage 1, believe what you'd like to believe, Stage 2, find a scripture and choose one of an infinite number of possible interpretations to support your idea, or alternatively find a news article and do the same thing. I remember debating muslims on the Islamicboard who started quoting scriptures from the Qu'ran which allegedly predicted modern science. I'd already read those verses, and they are just as watery and open to interpretation as the very similar bible science ones which supposedly support modern scientific ideas. The Hindu passage is no different. It's absolutely stunning the lengths people will go to in order to somehow convince themselves that their holy book is inspired of God.

If religion were worth following, it would be possible to derive it's truth by using the scientific method, which is the only means of understanding anything. We would start with our blank slate, and God or biblical inspiration would pop out as a result. Unfortunately for our religious friends, nothing even close has happened. In order to believe in this God, you have to introduce him as a fudge, with zero evidence for his existence. To mock others who do not accept this anti-intellectual approach must be some sort of joke. I for one could not have any self-respect if I approached life by believing what I want, only to then slither about trying to apologise for the belief system that results.

Oooo, nice quotes Lazarus!
"What has science's perspective on reality done to improve you personally, and to make you a more conductive member of society?"

Well... for starters, science has made me a more conductive member of society by putting these beautiful brand-spanking new electrodes in my arms. Sorry: very tired, therefore my humour is nasty 

What type of an answer are you looking for though (it feels to me that it is kind of like asking, what does it feel like to be a human)? Perhaps I am not a good candidate to answer however...

We can see here how desperate the religious guys are to attack science, by asking what it has done to improve us personally. Where should I begin? Well, firstly I should point out that doing good to others or relieving suffering is so easy, and so basic, that we do not need a book to tell us what is basically common sense, and for most of us, natural. It's amusing that religious people think they have a monopoly on morality, especially when you consider that its moderate moral code is greatly outweighed by the hatred and division it causes. This also illustrates the simplistic thinking of those who follow religion. However, the primary benefit I derive from science (remember, it is a method, not a personification) is an ability to think rationally, and to be personally capable of using the only method of truly understanding anything. This is no small benefit. We are not born with this ability, we have to learn it. Once we have learned to think rationally, it is no longer possible to follow religion or any other belief system that is irrational and not evidence based. There are also the less personal (less personal?) benefits of science; in a world of Luddites, our life expectancy would still be 37, at least for those of us lucky enough to survive childbirth. It still amazes me that people still view science with disrepect and even contempt.

Which brings me to Jan, for whom this thing is not the problem. It is clear that you have not yet learned to think rationally. And if you do take a look at the statistics, even in the religious USA, biologists (and other scientists) who do not believe in evolution are the exception rather than the rule. Education does lead to pantheism or atheism. No offense, but I was religious while I was still a student of chemistry, and such a degree in straight no-nonsense physical science is highly rigorous in the UK, with concepts introduced in the final year that our american cousins don't learn until graduate school. I have a lot of respect for what you are studying, Jan, and like you I am now a multidisciplinary student, albeit a postgrad one. I used to say the same thing: that the more I learn, the more it "confirms" my beliefs (without really explaining to anyone why). And you have not offered any explanation whatsoever Jan why your science studies support the existence of a God. In implying this, you suggest that the existence of religion can have a rational explanation, but in the very next sentence you declare with great conviction that such matters are not in fact rational, so this is a blatent contradiction. One thing I do agree with you on though Jan: religious belief is certainly not rational!! You got that right. You also scored a home run when you said that religious belief is untouchable. Of course it is!!! So is my god Mahumbdalla, and also Grendall, the garden fairy and the flying spaghetti monster. The reason all these ideas are untouchable is because they can never, ever be disproved. This emphatically does not mean we should believe them. I simply cannot believe, Jan, that you suggested that this supports your position. It actually supports mine. How convenient that you should declare that your belief system is irrational and untouchable. Convenient for me that is. You've basically admitted that you just believe things without evidence.

In the end, that's what it comes down to. Nowhere is there any proof of any sort of a creator (I'd truly love somone to argue this one with me, as the pro-creationism arguments are easily dismantled). Since none of us can prove the existence of this hypothetical, unprovable deity, we are all faced with a choice. We can either choose to not believe in the deity, or just say, "hey! I know in my heart he's there, and a bunch of sheep herders in ancient mesopotamia seemed to believe in him too. Things look like they must have been designed, so he must exist, right?". This is the difference between rational and irrational thinking, respectively. I'd also like to repeat that the fact that I also do not have proof or disproof of this God, does not mean I should believe in him, any more than I should believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus (sorry to disappoint those who still believe in Santa. Take some comfort from the fact that I cannot disprove his existence!!!).
Posted on: December 13, 2007, 02:56:57 pm

---

Cectic - Vocations
http://cectic.com/032.html (Never trust your emotions).

And a message for Serpicus just incase he ever tries to accuse me of evangelism again. Read this article carefully, if you have the courage to:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,990,Those-fanatical-atheists,Dan-Gardner-The-Ottawa-Citizen