And then you go and talk about how you think you have “predicted” how someone will react to something? As if that matters at all? What matters here is your education – or lack thereof. Why don’t you stop hiding behind your imaginary friends and learn a few things?

“Give me *one* way you can obtain knowledge of something that exists without using such.. just *one*… comon boy.

But of course, I have given you many, and then I set the stage for you to give me the capstone. Well done. I couldn’t have made my point so well without you.”

You have given us nothing at all.
I’ll give you one more chance: Give us a way of obtaining knowledge where we don’t use logic and reasoning. Thanks.
Don’t just say you have done it already, without doing it, you must actually give it. Until you do, saying you have won’t make it that you did.
Do you stomp your feet when you’re mad?

I’m unreasonable? I’m the one that is well grounded, doesn’t have imaginary friends, doesn’t say that it’s not fair to call someone deluded when they are, doesn’t say science is a religion and is dogma. I’m the one that uses logical progression.. what have you done? You just play on words, and attempt to re-interpret what you’ve already written when you’re boxed in a corner.

No, son, you’ve been checkmated and laughed at by more than myself in these forums.

Criticizing religion because it is “one entity” (it is when you consider it theistic religion), is not “unreasonable”. Any religion which touts imaginary friends and asks you to believe in them and to follow their rules is unhealthy for mankind. If you think I’m unreasonable for this, then you have no idea what the word “reason” means.

I’ve debated wanna-bes like you for years. You have nothing extra you have brought to this table here, and attempting to think you can have the last word and look good will never do you good, because no matter how much you xians attempt to have a last word, even if you get it, you never, ever look smarter or more intelligent than the atheist that just tore you a new one. Why? Because the words speak for themselves, and everyone can see that all you can do is play on them.

I find it very funny you would call me naive. Oh wait, you didn’t even spell it right.

What statements did I make that required supporting evidence – that I have not backed up? Oh wait, all you can do is say I have, again, without giving any examples whatsoever. Why am I not surprised? Typical theistic behavior on your part. Thanks for not being any different than the other xians, makes it easier to defeat you in what could have been a debate but never was – because you are not properly armed.

It’s also funny you attempt to use pop-psychology on me. This is a sorry debate tactic. You have nothing to defend, so the sorry xian resorts to any attack he can, because he doesn’t have anything else. Well let’s see here, I’m well grounded and have a love for reality and science. You are not, you have imaginary friends, think that magic exists, and that you’ll live forever.

Who’s the one with the better mental health? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not you. :)

So here is one last example to seal my case.

In an earlier post you said:
“Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”.

To which I responded:
– That’s why I equate your science with religious bigotry. I “know” that you will respond with an unpleasant outburst of hysteria, but it ain’t science.

This was a simple test that any moron could have understood. It is certainly not science in any technical sense. However I made a prediction based on my understanding of “the truth”. I said that you would respond to my logic for equating your application of science in a bigoted way to the way some religious people apply their religion in a bigoted way. I told you that you would have an “unpleasant outburst of hysteria”.

Was I correct? Did I know the truth or not? Let’s look at your response:

Religious bigotry?
Are you freakin *STUPID*?!?!?!?!
How *ELSE* are you going to know ANYTHING AT ALL *WITHOUT SCIENCE*?!?! Without using logic and reasoning??!?! You’re a total mental case.

Looks like I nailed it.

I do love your challenge that you followed with when you say:

Give me *one* way you can obtain knowledge of something that exists without using such.. just *one*… comon boy.

But of course, I have given you many, and then I set the stage for you to give me the capstone. Well done. I couldn’t have made my point so well without you.

I would like to say touche, checkmate, game, set and match but you are very unreasonable . . . and you say you honour reason? You break your own rules of engagement. You criticise “religion” as if it were a singular entity. You make blanket statements with no supporting evidence. You refuse to look at ideas that challenge your beliefs. You are so nieve that you cannot see your own egocentrism. You think you are educated because you selectively read books by those that agree with you. And all of this blindness is undergirded by your hysterical anger. Why is that? Is it because your parents abused you as a child? (I am not guessing, you put this in the public domain on your myspace site). Is this not something that you should examine to see if your bias is in fact not as “rational and logical” as you would like us to believe?

So know I will desist from trying to help a blind man understand colour.

I will respond to you no more.

Matt.

No, we look at the data (facts) that we have, and we construct theories based on those facts. Theories are *always* supported by data, not “can be”. What are you smoking?

[quote]“Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”. – That’s why I equate your science with religious bigotry. I “know” that you will respond with an unpleasant outburst of hysteria, but it ain’t science.[/quote]

Religious bigotry?
Are you freakin *STUPID*?!?!?!?!
How *ELSE* are you going to know ANYTHING AT ALL *WITHOUT SCIENCE*?!?! Without using logic and reasoning??!?! You’re a total mental case.
Give me *one* way you can obtain knowledge of something that exists without using such.. just *one*… comon boy. You think your religion is going to give you information? Hell I’d *love* to hear that one! haha

[quote]- So the there is no place for historical evidence. How about eyewitness testimony?[/quote]

Eyewitness testimony != evidence.
Having people tell you that “they saw an angel” is not evidence whatsoever to any degree.
-we have no evidence of an angel
-we don’t know what an angel is
-someone saying they saw something doesn’t mean what they saw was an angel
-the word angel is mostly a meaningless word

Yes, for extra-ordinary claims, we need extra-ordinary evidence. People saying they saw a unicorn doesn’t mean that there are any, Einstein. :)
But then again, logic isn’t your forte, is it?

[quote]If you don’t accept eyewitness testimony don’t waste your money on a scientific journal[/quote]

Scientific journals don’t rely on eyewitness stories in order to substantiate claims in the scientific community. What’s relied upon is evidence and the procedures that lead up to the person(s) findings.

[quote]I am saying that there is good science AND bad science out there, and you better know how to tell the difference. Apparantly you don’t, and you are upset that I should raise the question.[/quote]

I’m sure there is “bad science” out there, but that’s why whenever science produces something for scrutiny, they also provide us, believe it or not, the steps to replicate what they have concluded! Did you know that? So if we want to know if it’s bad science, we merely look at the data they provide in order to replicate it.

Evolution is a science where the data we have on it is up for scrutiny and testing. It has been tested and proven to be accurate. The age of the planet is ages old. This is all successfully tested information. This is what we refer to as “good science”. Bad science doesn’t last too long in the scientific community.

I don’t get upset over any questions raised.

[quote]“So you say you benefit from science, but you call it “dogma”?” – I wasn’t calling science dogma, I was calling your freaky abuse of it dogmatic.[/quote]

Science is not used as a religion, like you have attempted to assert.
I do not molest it whatsoever, even though you’d like to think so.

[quote]“want to change this country into a theocracy” – Is that what you are afraid of? It’s not on my agenda.[/quote]

It’s something that’s being attempted, and it shouldn’t happen, yes. But the mere fact that you attempt to fight against science shows that you contribute to this.

[quote]“I do not want to kill religious people, as you have assumed (making yourself look like an ass)”. – It was a word picture used to make a point and not meant to be taken literally.[/quote]

Again, you say one thing and then attempt to interpret it to mean another.
This seems to be a common thing with you.

“Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth”. – That’s why I equate your science with religious bigotry. I “know” that you will respond with an unpleasant outburst of hysteria, but it ain’t science.

“Firstly, you have to explain what theory you are referring to. Secondly, you have nothing else to go on other than what science provides. Lastly, any alternatives you offer *have to be scientific*.
– So the there is no place for historical evidence. How about eyewitness testimony? If you don’t accept eyewitness testimony don’t waste your money on a scientific journal, you have to do all of the research yourself (BTW, where would you get the funding for that research – oh yeah, only from someone with a vested interest).

“Theories aren’t good just because some science school says so. It’s good because of the EVIDENCE PROVIDED.” – Which of course raises another red flag, ie: evidence not provided. You seem to be of the point of view that merely declaring yourself aethiest and “scientific” will at once turn you into a paragon of virtue! I am saying that there is good science AND bad science out there, and you better know how to tell the difference. Apparantly you don’t, and you are upset that I should raise the question.

“If you have, you would know all of this… and I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.” – All talk and no listen makes Ted a dull boy.

“Don’t presume to know why I’m interesting in topics such as religion. I haven’t told you. You are only looking like a fool for trying to say you know. But apparently you want to try to come across like you know a thing or two by trying this pop-psychology”. – I looked at your MYSPACE site that your name is linked to. You didn’t tell me your name was Ted either, but I guess us asses are good guessers. Where the heck did you think I got that deplorable quote from?

“So you say you benefit from science, but you call it “dogma”?” – I wasn’t calling science dogma, I was calling your freaky abuse of it dogmatic.

“Being intolerant of the belief in imaginary friends and peoples’ want to change this country into a theocracy is by far not a bad thing at all. It’s actually a good thing. Show me, one example, how it is bad? I’d love to see your rational”.
- 100 million corpses thanks to communism, just for starters.

“want to change this country into a theocracy” – Is that what you are afraid of? It’s not on my agenda.

“I do not want to kill religious people, as you have assumed (making yourself look like an ass)”. – It was a word picture used to make a point and not meant to be taken literally. Notice in said picture you are a passive not active participle. You seem to have had a different picture in your mind. If you think I am being too dramatic take a look at Milgrams experiment, post WWII. It was conducted with subjects that were probably not nearly as aggressive as you (look at your language – the number of times you tell me “don’t”! This is agressive language – although I confess that I have had some fun with your aggression and inability to comprehend by being provocative).

“It’s not the “who” of the funding of research that should decide whether you should take information seriously. It’s the information found out, and how it was found out, that should determine if it should be taken seriously”.
- the former is a strong determinant in the latter.

“This is simple logic”.
I agree. Very simple . . . VERY SIMPLE!

Theories are supported by facts.
We use the facts we obtain in science in order to create theories based on those facts.
Using scientific theories is the *only* way of knowing the truth. You cannot know truth in any other way. It’s just not possible.

Whether you “accept theories” or not is irrelevant. Firstly, you have to explain what theory you are referring to. Secondly, you have nothing else to go on other than what science provides. Lastly, any alternatives you offer *have to be scientific*.

Theories aren’t good just because some science school says so. It’s good because of the EVIDENCE PROVIDED. You obviously have never looked into what evidence is provided for whatever theory you have a problem with (unless you are trying to have a problem with *any* theory at all in general). If you have, you would know all of this… and I wouldn’t have to sit here explaining it to you.

Evolution is science. You learn it, you don’t believe in it.

I’m not a religious zealot. I’m not religious at all. I know reality. I know science, apparently a bit better than you do. You probably can’t even give me the definition of evolution.
What dogma do I have?
So you say you benefit from science, but you call it “dogma”? Not very “educated” of you at all. Apparently you slept during those classes.

Don’t presume to know why I’m interesting in topics such as religion. I haven’t told you. You are only looking like a fool for trying to say you know. But apparently you want to try to come across like you know a thing or two by trying this pop-psychology. And I think it has something to do with the fact that you can’t defend your incredibly ignorant assertions on this board (like science being a religion, as you have said).

Religion is evil. If you would like to call me a bigot you may do so. But that doesn’t change the fact that religion is evil and bad for mankind, and that it needs to be educated out of our societies.

Being intolerant of the belief in imaginary friends and peoples’ want to change this country into a theocracy is by far not a bad thing at all. It’s actually a good thing. Show me, one example, how it is bad? I’d love to see your rational.

I do not want to kill religious people, as you have assumed (making yourself look like an ass).
I want to kill religion itself.
Big difference.
Get that? Don’t create another strawman, got it?

It’s not the “who” of the funding of research that should decide whether you should take information seriously. It’s the information found out, and how it was found out, that should determine if it should be taken seriously. This is simple logic.

Interesting little spat between you two over in the Grand Canyon:-) Quite entertaining.

I find it fascinating that you would describe science as a ‘cult’ and a ‘belief’ and be prepared to toss the lot down an abandoned mineshaft. And then write about it on a computer, using the internet, both of which are directly descended from this same science. No doubt you and your family enjoy good health and nutrition, medical care, efficient transport, television, electricity, running water, and every other convenience civilisation has to offer. If science is a cult, I’m a believer.

As for religion? I understand it clearly when you say that your faith has had a positive effect on your life, and I’m pleased for you. For me, it’s been the other way around. My loss of faith has brought me freedom from bigotry, a thirst for knowledge, self-reliance, and a healthy skepticism for the positions of both science and religion.

As for the comment of science changing it’s mind as often as the JWs, you are perfectly correct. The difference is that science never said that the previous theory was the absolute truth worth dying for. It has always said only that the evidence suggests that a certain theory is a possible explanation of certain observations. It’s conclusions are always open to debate and change. The Watchtower, on the other hand, has the monopoly on “Absolute Truth(tm)”

I hope you and your family have a great 2007.

Regards,
Mike

It doesn’t make sense to say that people questioning your belief therefore “reinforces” your belief. That is not logical. The fact that it *is* questioned is what should tear down the belief. Only through logic and reasoning are you capable of arriving at the truth. The fact that your mythology is not supported by such is enough to show that it should not be seriously considered as truth in any way.

Why *would* we accept something as truth without evidence, anyhow? It’s impossible. You cannot avoid using logic and reasoning. Until you get some, then anything you say in support of your mythology is ridiculous.

You can say you look at “opposing arguments” all you want, but that doesn’t mean you know how to think properly enough in order to effectively weigh the information. You need to first learn how to think, *then*, and only then, will you be capable of analyzing why you are wrong – and to look at the truth.
Because I tell you this.. you *are* wrong when you posit imaginary friends. It’s up to *you* to discover *why* you’re wrong.

Where is the evidence for seas parting?
or for people walking on water?
or for burning bushes talking?
or for angels?
or people coming back from the dead?
or for afterlife?
You have nothing.
You lose before you even can begin.