Letters to the Editor
sunspot
Published Letters: 351 Editor's Choice: 43
-
Blowdrying Strawmen
[Read the article: The believer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sunspot you're an idiot
That feels better.
You seem to be big on feeling better. Maybe you should devote more of your efforts to knowing better.
Science should not seek to make a statement on "god" because science can make no statement on "god".
I'm not exactly sure how science could make a "statement" on "god", however religious types continually make assertions regarding the workings of the physical world – assertions which science has frequently refuted over the centuries as the realm of human knowledge has expanded. This isn't about science making a statement on "god" – it's religious types being made to look like fools. I don't blame them for not liking it, but they're the ones making the baseless assertions without evidence. They could always stop making silly assertions, like insisting that the sun revolves around the Earth even when all evidence points to the contrary, and then persecuting those with the audacity to contradict them.
Your statements that the earth is not a closed system is irrelevant to the notion of organic systems spontaneously generating.
I'm not the one who drug thermodynamics into the conversation, misapplied it, and ended up looking like a fool, once again demonstrating that the religious apologists in this thread lack the most basic, fundamental understanding of science. Beyond that, the fact that the Earth is indeed not a closed system is fundamental to understanding how life might have arose here, or been carried here billions of years ago.
As it is irreproducible in a lab, any thoughts are theory, and should not be held as fact.
Gravity is a theory. Since theories apparently don't count for much by your estimation, why don't you take a flying leap off a tall building. After all, it's only a theory!
You don't need to be able to reproduce something in a lab in order to construct quite a solid theory around it. There are plenty of things we can't reproduce in a lab but that we can observe in nature, form theories regarding, make predictions from those theories and then make additional observations which either confirm or refute the theories.
I wouldn't take too much comfort in the fact it hasn't been reproduced in the lab yet, either. There are plenty of people working on the question, and sooner or later one of them is likely to have some success. And at that point your god of the gaps will be shoved even further into the closet.
The Christian god's really a pretty wizened little specter compared to his former pre-Enlightenment self. Maybe if more of his followers actually had one ounce of the faith they claim to possess, the advancement of human knowledge wouldn't bother them as much as it obviously does.
Yes I know, you are an atheist, and what a clever little boy are you, all the universe dances for your amusement and there is nothing your mighty brain can not comprehend.
You're wasting a lot of hot air blowdrying strawmen.
You say I offer no proof of "Higher organizing principles", that's because such proof is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the purity of science.
If such principles exist they are a matter of philosophy, and science should not concern themselves with it.
Who the hell are you to decide what science should and should not concern itself with? The Pope? Just because your cherished beliefs don't stand up to the slightest critical scrutiny – and your own scientific illiteracy is appalling – is no reason to exempt your beliefs from examination. If you're going to make assertions regarding physical reality, expect those assertions to be tested – end of discussion.
If you don't care about physical reality, what difference does it make? If you do care about physical reality, why are you wasting your time believing in a bunch of silly crap that's contradicted by abundant evidence to the contrary? And why are you so ignorant of the reality around you? It's really not that difficult to become scientifically literate at a basic level. There's plenty my "mighty brain can not comprehend", but that doesn't mean I can't at least make the attempt. What's stopping you? Ego? Hubris? What?
-
Blowdrying More Strawmen
[Read the article: The believer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Atheism, like theism claims to have a universal truth that is not provable by any scientific method.
Um, nope. Sorry. Try again. Atheism makes no such claim to universal truth. As an atheist, I simply don't have any confidence in the definitions of god offered to date. There's not the slightest whiff of evidence to support any of them, and they answer no questions that appear to be "outside" the realm of scientific inquiry. Worse, claims regarding god are frequently accompanied by patently silly assertions even a grade schooler could refute.
The funny thing about most religious people is that they're all atheists too - if they believe in Jeezus they don't believe in Zeus. If they believe in Isis they don't believe in Ganesh. Religious people have no problem being atheists when it comes to other god concepts - they only freak out when their own is somehow challenged.
Gravity need not be reproduced because it is observable in a lab.
Huh? What's so magical about a lab? I've got news for you – there's plenty about gravity that we cannot observe in a lab. We can only observe how massive objects interact with the environment by peering out into deep space. We can only observe how gravity functions over great distances by peering out into deep space. We can't reproduce any of that in a lab. Does that make the observations less valid somehow? Only in the fevered minds of scientifically illiterate religious apologists, apparently.
The thing that kills me is that not only can you guys not handle science, you can't even competently discuss philosophy. You need to type less and read more. Much, much more.