<p>Well in that case I wish s/he wouldn’t mock them and compare them to a fairy in the sky.</p>
<p>That would require respect for others.</p>
<p>mosbymarion, Yeah, the worlds 6000 years old, radioactive dating is bogus, Christianity is the truth over other religions for whatever reason, some magical dude knows everything about everything, you refuse to recognize sciences objective truths…</p>
<p>You my friend, are psychologically unhealthy.</p>
<p>Ksarmand, I’ve been raised Catholic and determined that what I was being taught was a bunch of **** when I was 13. Bad assumption.</p>
<p>Baelor, what respect do you show for others by using a sexual phrase on someone?</p>
<p>A sexual phrase ON someone? I used it to refer to the obvious self-gratification that was clearly the sole motivation behind a poster’s self-professed diatribe. A normal person could laugh at the sexual overtones while realizing that they’re irrelevant. Hence my diction.</p>
<p>But this isn’t about me. It’s about your totally boorish behavior and lack of contribution (one can only imagine the reason) in an intellectual discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:rolleyes: I never assumed you had no Christian background, simply that you would not approach religious ideas afresh with an earnest desire to learn of them. And again, please be moderate in your language if you want to be taken seriously; as it has already been noted, aside from starting this thread, you have contributed very little in the way of posting and original ideas - and being a cheerleader for mifune does not count.</p>
<p>I haven’t read the entirety of this thread, but I will share a couple thoughts:</p>
<p>We must be wary of inappropriately personifying (and, in turn, deifying) our environment, a tendency that likely stems from our discomfort with the idea that the most fundamental nature of our universe is perhaps not conscious. I, too, am attracted to the idea that an almost human-like virtuous being transcends our existence; but in my experience of this world, I have seen no evidence that is consistent with the idea that such is the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. Religion, by its very nature, is not an evidence-rooted framework or a valid means of deriving truth. Rather, religion represents a catastrophic failure to explain anything. It has merely served human nature as a substructure for satisfying our lack of knowledge by ascribing any unfilled cognitive gaps to the workings of a some vaguely articulated airborne bloke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So long as one is obtaining knowledge through readily verifiable means, something of which religion has absolutely no power to accomplish based on its tenuously derived thoughts and contradictions among – and within – the various forms of belief. Since this is an online forum that primarily attracts members from the Christian faith, this thread is full of individuals using Christian belief to claim that their assertions are accurate. If this were held in India, for instance, individuals would predominantly use Hinduism to “substantiate” their claims. In an Islamist-majority state, “Allah” would be reasoned in favor of with the same vigor and a different onslaught of cretinous, bogus claims similar to those that are perpetuated here. This would inevitably hold true across all cultures that hold a belief in a moral authority without any sensitivity for authenticated evidence. Erroneously, these beliefs are designed to speak as the truth for the entire scope of humanity. In essence, religion does not describe truth, but rather satiates the need for human nature to fulfill its curiosity. </p>
<p>Religion was inevitably a backfired experiment with an original means of propounding truth, and throughout its history, abused this fallaciously believed quality to subjugate those deemed abnormal from the conventional method of thought. It is nothing more than a mentally fabricated system that serves as the common language of a particular culture that helps the necessity of preserving idealistic social structures. In more primitive, less-democratic forms of government, religion is wielded as a political tool that pacifies any perceived abuse and ideologically facilitates the irrational perpetuation of misconduct or misapplication elsewhere. This merely catalyzes much of the associated historical abuse such as (to borrow from Dawkins’ enumerations) “suicide bombers, 9/11, 7/7, Crusades, witch-hunts, Gunpowder Plot, Indian partition, Israeli/Palestinian wars, Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’ ‘honour killings,’ shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money (‘God wants you to give till it hurts.’),” and maltreatment against homosexuals, racial and cultural minorities, and other goofy forms of prejudice against things like left-handedness.</p>
<p>However, that does not hold true in the realm of science. There are not inherent contradictions in its very ontology, because uncovering objective, material reality is wholly dependent on evidence-based conclusions. Conjectural thought may be advanced, but acceptance of a derived fact can only be trusted if it has empirical proof, the capacity for replication, and possibly, mathematical verification. </p>
<p>Also, hybridized beliefs that combine both rational and spiritual elements (e.g. Deism) are not the most stable forms of thought, since those too, merely adhere to the proper method of obtaining fact in certain circumstances but revert to more primitive means of thinking at some nebulous cognitive boundary that followers cannot even define or properly rationalize. In essence, in the case between science and religion, the proper perspective does not lie in the middle of two extremes, the latter frame or reference is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mutated varieties that bifurcate into phenotypically distinct organisms are the result of a progressive, cumulative, and divergent change. The mere insinuation that the present diversity of life is a statistical uncertainty does not render it invalid. Namely, focusing on the evolutionary byproducts is the most often used tactic, in order to reveal these starkly contrasting forms. However, such fails to consider the gradual accretion of changes over vast periods of time – as demonstrated by the fossil record – and the sheer forcefulness of the process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There isn’t contradiction in atheism, unlike the various religious doctrines that propound an assorted jumble of myths. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Something may be considered true when there is demonstrable evidence to support it. However, religion does not utilize evidence in its foundation and merely thrives and subjects its influence through baseless assertions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What observational experience? Do you deny these figures simply because of the absence of observation? If so, “God” fully qualifies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, what authority do you hold to irrationally dismiss such confirmations?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Religion indoctrinates individuals to merely reach a state of blanketed satisfaction with not understanding the world. That is, it teaches us to accept solutions that are not actually solutions at all but fabricated story lines perpetuated by authors, alien to each other, spread over the course of nine centuries.</p>
<p>Thankfully, there are individuals in the world who earnestly endeavor to achieve the true understanding of nature’s structures or phenomena. For instance, scientists adhering to the objective, evidence-based perspective in searching for the molecular origins of cancer advance human nature by seeking to defend against such a debilitating and fatal disease. On the contrary, the entire creationist movement does absolutely nothing positive to advance scientific or medical knowledge. Moreover, they are informing future generations to not inconvenience themselves in seeking objective, verifiable knowledge by groundlessly disregarding credible evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, religion is typically used a means of achieving psychological satisfaction with the material world by using some sky-fairy as an erroneous, default solution. Moreover, I did not state that religion does not provide some sort of cognitive satisfaction – to use the concept of the supernatural is an attractive concept that inimically misleads the human mind, but it is fundamentally riddled by dishonesty and self-deception.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Consider stem cell research as one such example. Religion actively subverts stem cell research by superfluously butting into the inquiry. In its earliest stages, policy was dictated not by the medical potential, societal demand for new methods of treatment, and a nonpartisan appraisal, but by ideological agenda that reached a fanaticism far beyond the necessary scope of ethical regulation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course; I have not yet attained a high school degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you once again for your support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please discard the persistent fixation on semantics for a moment to truly understand the argument. As is commonly and validly cited by the atheist community, everyone is virtually an atheist by not being receptive of the mentally designed gods that are part of the multitude of other religious beliefs. The rational, independent, and intellectually wholesome individual proceeds one small step forward in proclaiming that there is one additional god to disbelieve in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One’s faith is largely a function of an inculcation by whichever religion is studied within the family unit – not a result of an initial personal association and appraisal of its elements. Religion within itself, in its very diversity, is flooded with contradiction spewing from within singular systems and among all of the many forms of thought. Adhering to one while not applying any sensitivity to other systems of belief does nothing to resolve that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the material world, the anthropomorphic fallacy renders them equal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the thought processes of College Confidential’s intelligent design cult is any indication, I would not be the least bit surprised if that is a newly argued point. The arguments propounded up until this point have been just as ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Groundlessly claiming a terrestrial age of 6,000 years is patently false by a factor of approximately 757,000, or in actual age, 4.54 billion years ([Geologic</a> Time: Age of the Earth](<a href=“http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html]Geologic”>Geologic Time: Age of the Earth)).</p>
<p>Blatantly dismissing the wealth of information that demonstrate this to be true borders a state of intellectual infirmity. Antagonistic theologians will protest that some part of the book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally in one part but others will claim that it should be. In essence, there is discord, variance, and rebuttal within the theological community since many simply cheery-pick whatever they wish to believe and scratch the rest as insignificant allegory or symbolic gesture that does not hold any relevance, all part of a scheme to evade an indefensible position.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is because loyal creationists fail to even remotely comprehend the concept of the power of accumulation and adamantly focus on the posterior portion of the evolutionary chain – which displays the greatest degree of diversity – as their “evidence.” The ancient atmosphere contained no oxygen to degrade organic molecules and that, with the combination of any energy source, inorganic molecules readily formed organic molecules, including amino acids (please see previous posts for citation). Sidney Fox, in recent years, produced membraned, cellular structures through the use of these molecules (<a href=“http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/01/04712233/0471223301.pdf[/url]”>http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/01/04712233/0471223301.pdf</a> – see pages 2-5). Anaerobic heterotrophic prokaryotes evolved from Fox’s proteinoid microspheres, which eventually manifested eukaryotic organisms through the process of endosymbiosis – or the more stable, symbiotic relationship due to the proximal residency of various prokaryotic organisms. The origination of multicellularity remains at the conjectural phase, but hard evidence falls in favor of Colonial Theory at the moment. Genomic mutations and the processes of allopatric (geographically-mediated) speciation and sympatric (non-geographically-mediated) speciation drive the evolutionary process and are responsible for the multiplicity of organisms that we observe today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I have stated previously and repeatedly, of the thousands of religious perspectives in existence that proclaim a sincere belief of some form of reality, it naturally follows that every such assertion is false by the very simple concept of contradiction. The concepts of sin and repentance and imbecilic adherence to statements within a holy book only disguises a pragmatic and clearheaded assessment of the reality inherent in our world. Religion ought to have adopted a criteria of truth to hold any fundamental authority. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The scientific elite – and particularly those working within the biological and medical sectors – are the individuals who provide the greatest empirical- and knowledge-based merit to society, and observe and comprehend life as it truly is. Thus, they are a more proper authority for formulating such perspectives. Strangely enough, the polarization towards non-belief among the scientific elite is particularly pronounced as one proceeds to the right on the spectrum of academic distinction.</p>
<p>Baselessly denying science of its proper privilege as the ultimate authority in honestly and systematically determining objective reality is certainly the aim if one wishes to provide propaganda to easily dupable laypeople and politicians.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That in which is an honest, honorable, and systematic body for deriving reality.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duping oneself into believing a false reality does not render it correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dismissing verification in favor of mindless adherence to what one read in some tenuously authored book is a blatant act of adamance. Compromising one’s viewpoint in the light of substantive justification is an act of intellectual flexibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. But as science continually provides solutions to nature’s inquiries, one must dislodge the previous default explanation of ascribing it to some human created construct. The failure to compromise in light of new evidence that is so overwhelmingly compelling merely demonstrates an inordinate degree of stupefaction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Providing slothful, two-word responses does not make anything false. Please read my aforementioned addendum to the comments you quote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, but humanity has a much better ability to distinguish between right and wrong than they are to determine what method of derivation essentially provides fundamental truth.</p>
<p>Reading these responses enlightens the sheer extent in which intelligent design and creationist thought are still ceaselessly ingrained within the human intellect, even when they lack any functional respectability. Human nature is indeed a desensitized, exploitable, dupable, overtrusting, and easily deceivable lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless it is correct. In which case it is the complete explanation of everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The latter part may be true. Note that that does not dismiss the possibility of it also being correct. You need to do better than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Objectively false. This statement is absolute trash.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Various, but not all. Almost all religions are internally consistent when one accepts a limited number of consist assumptions. Whether those assumptions are valid or not is irrelevant to your point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Objectively false. To justify this statement you would need to prove that every single religion does not accept all scientific fact. In other words, your idiocy has devolved into idiotic arrogance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely false. You claim that all religious people are fundamentally dishonest, brainwashed, and intellectually decrepit. That is literally the direct consequence of your post. For you to make that claim, you would need to constrain the definitions of the aforementioned adjectives so narrowly that they can only be used to describe religion, i.e. are worthless. There is still a fundamental difference between believing in a higher power and not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Objectively false. Prove this statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely not. Because their reality is not your reality. Your reality is limited to what can be empirically proven, and therefore you consider religion absolute trash, which is an internally consistent philosophy. But you cannot prove that all of which reality consists is that which can be determined empirically. So you are asserting that your position is correct by assuming that your position is correct. LogicFail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your reality includes no morality whatsoever – there is absolutely no justification on an empirical basis for any sense of morality (only scientifically justified action). Morality by definition is religious. So you are already separating the two realities, one of which cannot disprove the other. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you are asserting scientists’ concept of Truth by arguing that scientific truth is the only good. That is a circular argument. The point of philosophy and religion is that Truth exists outside of science. Science cannot be applied fully to religion or philosophy, in that case. They are simply incomparable. And you cannot establish definitely that the only reality is that which is scientifically proven. In other words, scientists may be examining a microcosm of reality, and one that is potentially irrelevant anyway.</p>
<p>For the record, there are religious scientific elite: [Vatican</a> Observatory](<a href=“Vatican astronomer: Webb telescope images ‘beyond a dream’ - Vatican News - Vatican Observatory”>http://vaticanobservatory.org/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, these are just statements that you appreciate posting, but which ultimately include no evidence or justification whatsoever. So I simply ask that you prove it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science is all of those things. So are some religions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fortunately, that isn’t an issue – duping oneself into the cult of empirical-only reality with no empirical reason for doing so is similarly intellectually pathetic. This statement doesn’t apply to the majority of religious people, so again, not an issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please stop erecting strawmen left and right. Very few religions do this, and many accommodate the advances of science. In other words, you are discounting religions on a basis on which they don’t operate anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many religious people are the latter. Many are the former. Same for scientists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I read them and still consider them objectively false. The historical record speaks for itself as to the tremendously positive impact that religion has had on civilization – art, architecture, science (the Catholic Church was not limited to Galileo in its scientific involvement), state forging, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As far as I am aware, there is only one creationist in this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As evidenced by your own mental deficiency. </p>
<p>What pompous fluff. I hope that the process of writing these posts is fun for you, I really do. Because that is truly the only utility that they could serve, given the obvious fact that they have no place in any intellectually rigorous or even passable discourse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really wish you understood what I believe.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is my belief that the universe stems from a being whose nature we do not understand less verifiable than your belief that the universe stems from a physical process whose nature we do not understand? Call your big bang “god” and your belief is exactly the same rationally as mine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What time in this thread have I used Christianity to claim my assertions accurate?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are beating a straw man, at least in this discussion, when you claim that my religion is “a belief in a moral authority without any sensitivity for authenticated evidence”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Naturally religious power has been abused many times in history. Power usually is. But people twisting a belief to deceive people and further their gains does not invalidate that belief itself.</p>
<p>My worldview does not support suicide bombing, persecution of Jews, maltreatment of minorities, homosexuals, etc. Someone who really used their head and read their Bible would not support those things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By that definition science should consider molecules-to-man evolution an unconfirmed hypothesis as I do, as it has not been observed and is not thus far repeatable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to define the word “religion” as “an irrational belief held by a group of people”. Ok then, I don’t have a religion. I have a scientific hypothesis about the origins of the universe that cannot be proven but that I believe is favored by the evidence, as do you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You didn’t answer my question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is a contradiction in atheism that I see, and that is a major reason why I reject it:</p>
<p>Atheism assumes that only physical matter exists. Therefore, the present state of all the universe is the cause-and-effect result of the previous state, which is the cause-and-effect result of the state before that, etc. The source of the original state is left undefined.</p>
<p>The net result of that is that what I am typing right now, I had to type. It is simply the result of the previous states of all the atomic particles in my brain, which were the result of the states before them, and so on ad infinitum. Similarly, your conclusion that atheism is correct was simply the result of the previous states of a the particles in your brain. But in order to make a logical deduction, we must first assume that we have actual choice between the different options. If you HAD to believe in atheism, and I HAD to reject it, what grounds is there for accepting or rejecting one view or the other?</p>
<p>So, while I grant the possibility of a naturalistic atheistic universe, the mere fact of my doing so requires me to assume it is false.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What part of my worldview do you think “does not use evidence” or “thrives on baseless assumptions”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I deny them due to observing the actual cause of the things they are claimed to cause: I have seen my parents wrapping gifts, purchasing easter candy, and attempting to take teeth from under my pillow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The same authority you have to deny my beliefs. My distrust of the dating methods is due to the existence of numerous examples of failures, and a basic knowledge of chemistry which informs me that a number of confounding factors may exist.</p>
<p>It is not necessary to suppress rational thought to believe in a god.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I usually dont particpate in these “debates” since you rely on nothing but your fairy tales and anal overrecycled arguments. Nice ad hominem btw. You act as if you contribute anything intellectual.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mmhmm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His statement was not absolute trash or false at all. do you deny that religion has been the root of some of man’s most ruthless atrocities? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If evidence exists to prove something, its proven. Knowledge is based on evidence, something that you clearly dont understand or are unwilling to admit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quit posting this ‘objectively false’ and ‘prove it’ crap. they’re worthless statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Science does fill knowledge gaps and removes fake religious explanations which are written by a group of fiction writers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its common sense what he’s posting. its not as if what he states isnt true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fundamentalist religion is the problem. more sciency religions are better but still not accurate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>art, architecture, sure. As for science, fundamentalist religion ruins its progress, and doesnt not benefit it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, more than that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again nice ad hominems. Like you have a fraction of his writing skills anyways.</p>
<p>Mosby is at least somewhat polite despite his ideas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We can cite any scientific proof with evidence, you cant. You dont use intellect, you use blind faith. Lets see your empirical evidence - and put all the holy books aside.</p>
<p>^For a moment I looked at your sn and thought “Wow, Adenine is a really pretty name for a girl.” I have been out of a bio classroom for too long.</p>
<p>lol, I was waiting for the comic, yet sensible, relief that is Millancad 
It was better than my previous plan which included me posting “ALALAALALALA” and then being stared down for being completely off-topic. This thread is intense! Anyhow, continue.</p>
<p>lol this is HSL, there is no off-topic</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perfectly rational. The lack of evidence of something is a fine reason for not believing in it. Others may perceive reasons why, but it doesn’t not invalidate your position.</p>
<p>The main problem occurs when people don’t have tolerance for the other side if they disagree with it. Bold claims without any empirical evidence creates a tone of hostility and bitterness that is unnecessary. One can see religion as a philosophy to life, the truth, or empirically false. But that does not create the problem. The problem occurs when people can not empathize with the views of others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me continue my ad hominem* – don’t has an apostrophe, foreign words and phrases are italicized, and overrecycled is not a word. Furthermore, there was nothing but logical fallacies as a potential answer to your argument precisely because it did not exist. In other words, I had the choice between saying nothing or attacking you, given that you contributed exactly nothing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. I do not. That is not what I said, and that was not the extent of mifune’s claim. Please stop building straw men. It’s transparent. Religion has also been responsible for some of humanity’s great achievements. Guess what? That doesn’t affect its validity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously. Gosh, you are acting dumb. I was simply asking for the evidence. It was not provided. Perhaps you do not understand the difference between supporting a claim and not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No they’re not. They’re appropriate responses to unproven statements, i.e. assumptions. I am perfectly within my logical rights to reject or accept statements if they are unsupported. In this case, I disagreed with them and am willing to back up my statement. But the onus still lies on mifune to support the statements that he claims are objective but do not have empirical support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Blah, blah, blah. Go back to seventh grade where you belong. Such pathetic name-calling to an entire position (versus a specific person) has no place in intellectual debates. Attack me all you want (goodness knows that I don’t hold back on others), but don’t mistake the person for the belief. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then it should be easy to PROVE IT. I am simply asking that he does. Not that hard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>WOW. I’m convinced! Gosh, you really do have the answers for everything!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So it does benefit it? Your posts would be much more persuasive if you could write a sentence that didn’t disagree with itself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excuse me? I can cite any scientific proof I want – it’s all there. The scientific record is FACT. </p>
<p>And until you establish that intellect is limited to science, I object in the most vehement manner to your suggestion that I do not use intellect.</p>
<p>So, here we go: Use science to disprove God.</p>
<p>Do it and you’ve won at life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You have made an unfounded conditional statement that does not provide proof for the premises asserted, which are necessary to support what appears to be its conclusion; please abstain from such when embarking upon making a caustic and disrespectful harangue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Religion, something you clearly have not made an effort to acquaint yourself with through extensive reading of the texts - as evidenced by the paucity of your knowledge of the text of one religion you have, without textual foundation and the concrete knowledge of some of the more basic concepts, mercilessly criticized here - serves as a philosophical system for many, not necessarily a substitute for cognition, unlike empiricism’s substitution for yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Simply because contradiction exists between discrete factions within and without a religion does not mean that none are correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your penchant for risible claims never fails you. My belief in evolution - with mild hesitancy in accepting certain aspects - did and does not rely upon my religious persuasions; rather, evolution affirms my beliefs. Implying that causality of posters’ beliefs begins first at religion and ends at science is incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cretinous and bogus? Don’t refer to your writing in such a manner; self-hate isn’t beneficial to your personal growth.</p>
<p>Furthermore, you have not managed to discount the existence of any higher power; you have merely stated that science provides you with empirical proof that is sufficient to effectively shut out all alternatives, as you require no spiritual nourishment. Again, a belief in a higher power and in science’s various advances need not contradict. </p>
<p>The only onslaught has been from your ego and inability to see anything but from a Manichean view.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Proof, please?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is only you who has claimed that your beliefs are the ultimate truth humanity should seek. Religion speaks to the truth that governs existence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The latter part of your statement, while possibly correct, raises this inquiry: If religion does not “describe truth,” something you claim is only the province of science, then why the rancor?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly, you have recognized that religion’s ultimate purpose is not being served when it is manipulated by various governments. Why do you then have the blind temerity to cite it as an example of the invalidity of religion? The core beliefs, without the tergiversation of leaders, still hold true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A revolting mixture of bilgewater and bull. Science can be used in the name of committing great atrocities; have you never heard of the Tuskeege experiment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Presumptive puffery. As a philosophical and moral compass, in addition to creating fulfillment for individuals that you may simply be incapable of understanding, religion provides an excellent framework from which to greater appreciate science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stop posturing as a representative for every atheist’s beliefs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You persist in your derogatory statements towards religious individuals’ intellect without empirical proof as to any innate mental deficiency in those who choose to hold belief in any god. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Clearly, you have never had a personal encounter and conversation with someone who willingly chose, after being raised outside of any religious tradition, to ascribe to some sort of faith. If your pathetically false statement were, under some subversion of the rules of logic, to ever become true, then you would satisfy it quite perfectly. Given your lack of exposure and immersion in various religions, it is, according to your statement, to be assumed that your atheism developed out of a significant lack of lasting participation in any set of religious traditions, not necessarily an “appraisal of its elements,” which you have failed to do with even the most basic information, aside from what you read by people of a persuasion similar to yours, about the religion at hand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Doyle</a>, The Piltdown Hoax](<a href=“http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/piltdown.html]Doyle”>Doyle, The Piltdown Hoax)
It can and does occur, however. I generally find most fossil finds to be credible, but there have been instances of fraud.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stop preaching. You’re not telling me anything I don’t already know. However, this does not account for the absence of RNA signature continuum between domains of bacteria, archaea, and eukarya which things like complexity theory, now somewhat outdated, have endeavored to explain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Empirical proof before claiming it as truth, then. No double standards here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Regurgitating biological facts in your patronizing address to me has made your post quite messy. As I have stated time and time again, this is a concept with absolutely reasonable proof, and is one I agree with.</p>
<p>The fact that your argument may seem to be valid does not imply that your conclusion holds - it does not- which many misguided readers here seem to believe.</p>
<p>
Lol, this isn’t a SAT Essay, 1984 is not even remotely related to this argument.</p>
<p>I haven’t the slightest bit of time to read any of these retorts whatsoever, let alone respond to them, as I have far more pressing matters to attend to at the moment. Assuredly, I will return to address the other side’s ramble within the coming day.</p>