|
ZenrageTheKeeper -> RE: Atheism/Agnosticism (11/22/2006 4:41:28 PM)
|
First of all, I want to say that I have the exact same picture of Puss in Boots on my desktop as michaelOfGeorgia has as is avatar.
Now I only have "Loves it" for Atheism and Agnosticism, but I do consider myself a militant atheist both socially and politically. This means I go out of my way to hunt down those specific bozos like Fred Phelps, Scott Minnich, The American Family Association (The KKK of the Homosexuals), and all the other ultra-whackjob christian organizations out there and make sure they know, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is at least one person out there that willingly pisses on their irrational value system.
Usually I wont target the average church goer unles they do something to really piss me off.. like say, promoting Creationism or saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". Anything like that will put you square in my crosshairs and not make me regret for an instance that I am going to strip away your spiritual faith like old varnish.
For example, a college professor named Scott Minnich, who I mentioned earlier, gained a little popularity when he took the stand for Creationism in Pennsylvania last year. Basically his testimony included such nuggets as "Science looks down upon us because we are the minority" and "The "creator" suggested by Intelligent Design is left up to the individual."
So I looked up the idiot's email address and sent the following email to him.
quote:
To Scott Minnich,
Today you claimed, on the stand, that Intelligent Design was based in science and that whoever the "creator" was, was based on individual philosophy. While it is a popular opinion among creationists, I am curious to know how you defend that this notion holds water in regards to scientific responsibility.
You have done extensive and impressive research in the field of microbiology along the same deductive reasoning of Behe, but I am curious how you can suggest that even if Darwin and evolution are found to be, at the least, incomplete, that your notions of intelligent design are somehow valid or even accurate by default?
It seems to me that your notion of intelligent design is not based on science, but rather what appears to be, at the most, a lack of science. These concepts are not the same thing, Scott. Without direct validation for your notions rather than attempts to indirectly invalidate current, more supported, scientific theories, I can not see how you can expect anyone to see your notions as valid.
The Constitution gives everyone the right to believe in whatever we want to, Scott. A citizen in this country can believe in God, Allah, Shiva, Zeus or even purple leprechauns underneath the bed. Nothing however, gives anyone the right to automatically claim validity for anything that they may want to believe in. Tell me Scott, how can you believe that to assume otherwise is anything but just plain irresponsible?
But perhaps you have something to show us we have yet to see. Without showing evidence of how current theories are possibly incorrect, can your research DIRECTLY show evidence, outside of your personal religious faith, of a supreme maker of life? Do you have methods to produce this evidence? Do you have a controllable way of measuring this evidence? Can you reproduce this evidence in a controlled environment? Do you have the method for which to compare your findings?
I'm sure that if you were to produce something tangible that your notion of a "supreme entity" exists and that it indeed did create life as we know it today, that the scientific community would be more than happy to give you the credit you deserve for your work. If not, I have a suggestion for a scientific methodology that may help you out.
1. Study paranormal activities.
2. Find out if these entities are indeed the remnants of living people (aka souls).
3. Inquire as to the nature of the philosophies held by them.
4. Request an audience with their top official.
5. Ask the top official if your notions are correct.
Granted, my methodology may be in the minority of what is scientifically acceptable, but I am sure you can relate to that.
I hope that you will see that showing direct evidence of your theories is much more useful than assuming your notions, seemingly based in a lack of science, are correct simply by default. I wish you the best of luck with either your or my methodology. I hope you that you will find the results that you require for validation.
With best regards,
X
PS. I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the dean of your University and to the chair of the Tenure committee. I have heard that you have found yourself in a spot of hot water concerning your teaching methods. Perhaps by answering my questions, you can also relieve any fears they may have about your teaching abilities. Good luck, Scott. I'm rooting for you.
I have yet to receive a reply.
|
|
|
|
