From Message 366036 …

You're going to get targeted and shown for the hypocritical liar you are every time, jeffrey. Robert asked you a direct question

… and …

ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT IS PUT TO YOU.

Let us use the evidence to show that it is demonstrably true that Chuck is also a hypocritical liar who does not always answer the questions put to him or do so in a direct manner. He also contradicts himself. Furthermore, he can be shown to act on a lack of evidence. He shows a lack of knowledge or understanding of studies from the area he claims to have studied, psychology. Unfortunately, when he does make good points, they get lost in his rantings and ravings, as Es99 calls them. Worse yet, he cannot tell on what points people agree with him on. (He says in his sig to never forget a friend or an enemy, but is incapable of recognizing even a partial ally … a reasoning skeptic … for he must at some point battle virtually everyone in here.) Last, he blames all the world’s problems on religion, when in fact these problems have more basic reasons: the biology and psychology we have inherited due to our evolution.

He keeps telling Jeffrey to go out and read certain books. Yet when he doubted my assertions about mathematics, I challenged him to go out and read certain books as well. He did look up “axiom” as I requested. What other evidence do we have that he tried to find out more about what I am talking about? It seems he would rather make me out to be someone with an agenda of twisting the body of knowledge I study and teach. Here’s a quote from one of my previous posts, from Message 434917 …

Would you like me to locate for you some journal articles or books on the nature of mathematical proof? I am sure I can list plenty and, though some might have an agenda, several would not.
You might want to read about the open conjectures and the million dollar prizes that are being offered for the solutions to some of these. Without a doubt, mathematicians have reasoned from shaky ground. They have shown deductively that, if one assumes something they hope can be shown true at another time, then we get another nice result. Or, they have shown something they hope to be true is logically equivalent to another proposition. They may have more hope of showing the thing true by showing what is logically equivalent to it is true. It might be easier.
But, to be a bit more blunt: look up "axiom" in several dictionaries. Then check several textbooks ... traditional AND reform ... from the high school, undergraduate and graduate school levels. Are you seriously going to tell me that the definition of axiom deviates so far from what I suggested and that mathematicians do not APPLY deductive reasoning ***WITHIN*** an axiomatic system?
Guess that's why the mathematical community spent about two millenia thinking Euclid's Fifth could be proved instead of needing to state it a postulate. No need for that pesky non-Euclidean geometry worked about Bolyai, Lobechevsky and (the great) Gauss.

Evidence that he does not always answer the questions put to him or do so in a direct manner …

In Message 435826, I said to Chuck …

BTW, to Chuck, after examining the link you provided to landoverbaptist.org, it is pretty clear the site is meant to be a farce. The stuff there is both funny and sad. Some people do think along the lines suggested there, like those that protest at funerals of American soldiers killed in Iraq, suggesting that they were allowed to die b/c gay marriages have been allowed in some part of the U.S. Those people are an incredibly small minority, as are the people that believe much or any of the "correct" answers provided in that "Bible quiz."

Chuck responded, in Message 439181 …

Yes, and they are making a farce out of baptists and bible thumpers.

Why does he spend so much time arguing against points in farce and fiction? Stick to the real things we have said in here and profess to believe.

From one of my posts, here are some questions I have posed to him that he has not answered … Message 447841 …

My former roommate (a guy that was suicidal and alcholic) had a tough time answering my question whether he himself, as an atheist, chose to be an atheist or became one because his mother was one and so he never experienced going to church or whatever else.

(Oops, I just now spotted my typo: alcoholic.)

For example, you have failed to respond to something such as this above quote, from one of my earlier posts. What makes one who is unquestioningly religious any better or worse than one who is unquestioningly atheist? One raised as Christian versus one raised as an atheist? I would say nothing. Elsewhere, you brought up “being smiled upon” for following the crowd and accepting the beliefs they hand you, such as at a church. Do you have any life experiences with going to a church or other religious service? If not, then I will tell you the “crowd” is not always as “smiling” and “accepting” as you might think, despite the teachings. For example, in the 1970s, men who divorced their wives for good and necessary reasons were frowned upon by their fellow congregation members. Other examples exist.

I asked him, in Message 44808 what the point of debating points that no one in this forum has professed to believe is. Along similar lines, why does he argue about points in fiction, such as in the works of the incredibly funny Douglas Adams?

From Intelligent falling: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Intelligent falling (IF) is a supernatural explanation for the tendency of masses to attract each other that has its roots at least as far back as Isaac Newton. It has recently been brought to public attention as a satirical response to the ongoing "intelligent design" (ID) debate. It proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them.

===============================================================
If this Wikipedia entry is correct, then why the need for the satire? Obviously, the ideas being satirized are thought to be wild and crazy enough already. (In the same vein as "Truth is stranger than fiction"!) So, why not battle the actual thoughts and beliefs of those you disagree with? It doesn't help to put words in people's mouths, attribute thoughts and beliefs to them, etc. ... . Furthermore, to go so far in battling what is apparently farcical is frankly a waste of time.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Argue against the beliefs professed only by those posting here.

In Message 450074, I asked Chuck …

What did it mean to you when I said when I was raised Christian, but have been incredibly inactive?

In Message 451972, I said …

And obviously one thing is not clear to people, so I will make it clear. I was raised Christian but ... I am not set in my belief. The whole point of recent posts is that Chuck's approach is not a good one or a helpful one.

Yet, in Message 454058, Chuck would rather paint me as some religious fanatic rather than someone who has questions about the faith he was raised in.

Sarge is simply another fanatic claiming that earthquakes are caused by the fury of 'god' when science can prove otherwise; the only difference is that Sarge's arguments are far more subtle, detailed, and wrapped in an educated half-truth instead of in ignorance.

As if I ever said that. Not! Once again, Chuck is arguing against farce and fiction rather than addressing things we, the posters, have actually said. (Note that the subtlety of Chuck’s own approach is being addressed and illuminated throughout this post.)

Also in Message 450074, I asked …

How often does the average person think about death? How often do you think I think about death? I will tell you. Maybe once every few years. What goes through my mind at those times? Worry that I will not complete things I have set out to do, never marry, or never have children. Much more rarely do I think or worry about “what will happen to me after I am gone.” Now, come on. Does this sound like being cowardly and trembling about my mortality 24/7? (BTW, besides having a “project to pass on” is one way to keep one’s self going after death, in a sense, as is passing on one’s genes by having children. Obviously, this goes back to sentence six or so in this paragraph.)

As well as …

Have there not been psychological studies that have shown human beings naturally fill in gaps? For example, our word processors have spelling and grammar checkers, but they are not perfect. So, we re-read what we write before submission. We may have to several people proof-read for us. Sometimes, errors still slip by! Why? Because for some things we have a sense of where it is going and our minds somehow fill in the gap and we miss the error.

Evidence of contradicting himself …

From Message 379916 …

You got a pi-in-the-sky solution for that, Walla? I do. It's called REPLACE RELIGION WITH SCIENCE. THEN you'll see no more hatred in the world.

Yet, from Message 422821 …

I'm not saying the world would be a perfect utopia without religion, but it would be a LOT nicer of a place without it.

Would not “no more hatred in the world” be an example of utopia? Of course, this is also an example of blaming all the world’s problems on religion.

From Message 368994 …

Science pretty much ignores religion.

Yet, I said in Message 441015 …

It is not the place of science to battle religion. The purpose of science is to explain things such as physical processes. Whether or not there are "purposes" behind them, it is not the function of science to determine these. However, should science provide evidence that rightfully challenges any of our beliefs, from religion or otherwise, it should be considered and stimulate rational discussion.

Apparently his response to that was deleted. But he did say science is to battle religion, in direct contradiction to “Science pretty much ignores religion.”

Evidence of acting on a lack of evidence …

From Message 376680

It looks like Troy's case is simply brainwashing along with a lack of experience due to his short years.

Troy Stull has never stated his age to the best of my recollection.
Chuck stated somewhere he was 14 when he watched Cosmos in 1982. That makes Chuck my age. For all we know, Troy may be close to our age.

Evidence of a lack of knowledge or understanding of studies from the area he claims to have studied, psychology …

From Message 388296

So basically, jeffrey believes in two contradictory precepts at once.

Only the irrational could do it!

Chuck needs to look up studies performed by people such as David O. Tall, Shlomo Vinner, etc. … where it has been demonstrated that several people can believe in contradictory things. What this indicates is, that despite maturing and further development of abstract reasoning, new knowledge and ways of thinking do not completely replace the old. It is a matter of biology and psychology, not irrationality.

Evidence of Chuck’s good points …

From Message 397579 …

So, your god created man knowing what each and every man would do, until the end of time. That is Omniscience, knowing all, a side effect of Omnipotence, being able to do anything at all.

So how does man then have 'free' will? Your 'god' knows what any given man will do at any given moment. How is that free will? Your god has set up some men to be evil, some to be good, and many to be in-between, doing both, and there is NO choice in what they do at all - your god knew what everyone would do in the instant he came into existence.

Carl Sagan discusses religion distinctly in the scene where the camera is aimed up at him, and he is on a moving boat in the episode 'The Edge of Forever', where he says that "some religions attempt to answer the question of 'Where did the universe come from?' with a creator - but if we are brave in our questioning we must ask 'well what made the creator then?' Why not save a step and conclude there was NO creator. Or if one claims the creator was always there, why not save a step, and conclude the universe was always there?"

Before Chuck calls me a hypocrite for not answering his question, I will say I simply do not have a good answer for it. Plain and simple. Remember folks, I have my doubts, even though Chuck tries to paint me as a religious fanatic.

Evidence of blaming all the world’s problems on religion …

From Message 420919 …

That's the difference between the 'view' you have, based on faith, and proof. It's not me who determines religion is irrelevant - it simply IS irrelevant (at best) and destructive at worst. And that's why I'm talking in here: to stop the madness. I wouldn't give the least little damn to leave religious idiots to their own devices if they only harmed each other, but sadly, they harm intelligent people too. Quite badly, by making them ignorant. If it were not for religion, we would probably be travelling to the stars by now, and we would probably have no wars either.

So, yes, I'll come in here and expose the worst scourge this world has ever seen. The stupididty of religion.

CONCLUSION
Chuck says the same things over and over. He puts lies in the mouths of others. He is not worth debating with. In the past six weeks or so, he has essentially added nothing new to the debate. While, in looking back, I see I wound up addressing some of the same things others have, I submit to my fellow crunchers that I have done so with far more depth. Chuck’s answers remain the same. Rather than try to educate a man who has doubts about the faith he was raised in, Chuck has little to say when he agrees with someone, or twists what is said so he can disagree again. Either that or he reads selectively. Apparently, since Jeffrey hasn’t posted much lately, Chuck needs a new scapegoat to call a religious fanatic.

Tom Koenig and Es99, apparently on opposite sides of the fence, both applauded me for having so much patience with Chuck. Furthermore, not even Es99 or R/B can find themselves in complete agreement with Chuck.

Tom Koenig said, in Message 454087 …

Then Chuck posts this little bit of irony:

Why does all of this annoy me and put a cactus in my backside? Because I detest seeing people misled and abused - and religion sure abuses females, aside from others.

. . . from perhaps the most abusive poster these boards have seen in a very long time. And yet Chuck has the nerve to complain that he is being deprived of his "freedom of expression", as if he has some right to be as rude, intolerant, close minded and verbally abusive as he has so consistently been.

Yes, Chuck can be quite rude, but it is easy to ignore usually. What I find, in the end, offensive is his twisting of the words of others and placing words in their mouths, attributing thoughts/beliefs to them that they have never professed.

I have removed my subscription to this thread. I suggest to Tom closing it down. At best, we’ve said everything of substance we’re going to say, and people will just have to look at the various reasoning (or lack thereof) provided by others and proceed from there, continuing to reason for themselves. At worst, keeping this thread open allows Chuck a venue for his abusiveness. At least I won’t have to see it, because my data collection begins soon and I have removed my subscription to this thread.

Es99 said, in Message 454670 …

Nope. Need to fight ignorance and stupidity through education. :)

I just don't think it's going to take.

If this doesn’t get Chuck to reconsider where he’s coming from and his tactics, so be it. At the least, his tactics have been illuminated for others, if they were not clear before. I’m out.

You have faith that your interpretation of information you have is correct.

So tell me, knightmare, where do the actual scientists talk around here? You don't know? I'm not suprised.

It has to do with the fact that none of you are actual scientists; here in a forum under the pursuit of doing actual science. Ironic indeed, that non-scientists, believing in fantastic superstitions and mythologies that are entirely unproven still contribute to science.

It has to do with the fact that none of you are actual scientists...

SIGHALT

So tell me, knightmare, where do the actual scientists talk around here? You don't know? I'm not suprised.

Considering that I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a scientist...I'm not all that surprised either...lol

What does any of your arguments with Sarge or Billy have to do with me anyway??

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

I don't have faith. I don't have faith. I don't have faith. Faith is based on BELIEF, not on FACTS! If you can't drill that through your skull, don't bother posting to me!
All of the tenents I hold to be correct are PROVEN by FACTS.
If you don't understnad what science IS, pick up COSMOS or The Demon Haunted World so that you can understand it. You're in here doing SETI, one parent of which was Carl Sagan. GO READ HIS STUFF! That's all I am saying in here! I sure didn't think of this myself! I had to LEARN it from him!


Next, I am not angry, bitter, or unhappy. I come off that way in here, because the only posts I answer are the ones I just can't let go by: they might make some woefully uninformed -yet curious- people out there even dumber and more credulous. I haven't been motivated to return to these forums, because they only annoy me with their foolish repetition of outright falsehoods - it's an endless circle of ignorance! I'm getting tired of constantly proving the same things over and over!

Sarge makes a half dozen little snippet comments, -all in a row!- that have no supporting facts attached to them, and passes it off as knowledge! What's the point of even debating people who have a vested interest in clinging to their little belief system that helps get them through the night when death makes them tremble?!? Honestly - it's a waste of time even reading half of this crap! I came to these forums originally thinking I would have stimulating discussions by like-minded scientists. The only like-minded scientist I have found so far is Es99!!! And our styles of dealing with people are polar opposites.

So tell me, knightmare, where do the actual scientists talk around here? You don't know? I'm not suprised.

Billy, you really don't know what you're talking about:

You have faith that your interpretation of information you have is correct.

I don't have faith. I don't have faith. I don't have faith. Faith is based on BELIEF, not on FACTS! If you can't drill that through your skull, don't bother posting to me!
All of the tenents I hold to be correct are PROVEN by FACTS.
If you don't understnad what science IS, pick up COSMOS or The Demon Haunted World so that you can understand it. You're in here doing SETI, one parent of which was Carl Sagan. GO READ HIS STUFF! That's all I am saying in here! I sure didn't think of this myself! I had to LEARN it from him!


Next, I am not angry, bitter, or unhappy. I come off that way in here, because the only posts I answer are the ones I just can't let go by: they might make some woefully uninformed -yet curious- people out there even dumber and more credulous. I haven't been motivated to return to these forums, because they only annoy me with their foolish repetition of outright falsehoods - it's an endless circle of ignorance! I'm getting tired of constantly proving the same things over and over!

Sarge makes a half dozen little snippet comments, -all in a row!- that have no supporting facts attached to them, and passes it off as knowledge! What's the point of even debating people who have a vested interest in clinging to their little belief system that helps get them through the night when death makes them tremble?!? Honestly - it's a waste of time even reading half of this crap! I came to these forums originally thinking I would have stimulating discussions by like-minded scientists. The only like-minded scientist I have found so far is Es99!!! And our styles of dealing with people are polar opposites.

So tell me, knightmare, where do the actual scientists talk around here? You don't know? I'm not suprised.

When I am allowed to put some words to this controverse topic:

IMO the Bible itself says what faith is all about: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(Hebrews 11:1, KJV) So each one who starts a task - whether or not believing in whatever religion - has faith that this task will bring results, even though he or she can't see any results yet. But only when the first results come, then the faith will change into knowledge.
So each scientist, each researcher is a believer: a believer in his or her particular theory not exactly knowing it to be true - but doing and acting as if. And as soon there are enough evidence, or proof, - only then, not before that - the belief in that theory turns to a knowledge that this theory is really true.
Insofar I judge each new, unproven theory as kind of "new religion", until it is 100% proven as true.


BTW: I'm a Christian, but not raised up as one. I decided myself to accept the idea of God when I was 25.

When I am allowed to put some words to this controverse topic:

IMO the Bible itself says what faith is all about: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."(Hebrews 11:1, KJV) So each one who starts a task - whether or not believing in whatever religion - has faith that this task will bring results, even though he or she can't see any results yet. But only when the first results come, then the faith will change into knowledge.
So each scientist, each researcher is a believer: a believer in his or her particular theory not exactly knowing it to be true - but doing and acting as if. And as soon there are enough evidence, or proof, - only then, not before that - the belief in that theory turns to a knowledge that this theory is really true.
Insofar I judge each new, unproven theory as kind of "new religion", until it is 100% proven as true.


BTW: I'm a Christian, but not raised up as one. I decided myself to accept the idea of God when I was 25.

Well said!

Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett had ruled in October 2005 that the transfer violated the state constitution's ban on government preference or aid to religion. She agreed with McElroy that arguments that Proposition A was designed to save a secular war memorial were a “sham.”

I have to agree with VYUZ San Diego writer Terri Trainor: "The government accepting a gift to honor veterans, a gift that has a centerpiece representing the presiding symbol of the religion of most of those so honored merely indicates honor for one religion. It in no way dishonors other religions. Nor does it preclude other religions from so representing themselves and making similar gifts. There are a lot of hills in this town. Why not have those religions that wish fair representation simply raise the funds and erect their own memorials? One religious affiliation taking initiative in no way restricts other religious groups from making similarly honoring initiatives." and "Has Cowett visited Arlington Cemetary in Washington, DC?"

The athiest who brought the suit is also free to put up his own memorial deriding the religious convictions of all others so honored. That way, he need not feel slighted. I also have issue with identifying this person as an "atheist". According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "atheist" is a derivitive of the word "atheism", a noun meaning "the belief that God does not exist". If this person were actually an atheist, it would be a matter of supreme indifference where or how people have honored soldiers fallen in battle.

I have to agree with VYUZ San Diego writer Terri Trainor: "The government accepting a gift to honor veterans, a gift that has a centerpiece representing the presiding symbol of the religion of most of those so honored merely indicates honor for one religion. It in no way dishonors other religions. Nor does it preclude other religions from so representing themselves and making similar gifts. There are a lot of hills in this town. Why not have those religions that wish fair representation simply raise the funds and erect their own memorials? One religious affiliation taking initiative in no way restricts other religious groups from making similarly honoring initiatives." and "Has Cowett visited Arlington Cemetary in Washington, DC?"

The athiest who brought the suit is also free to put up his own memorial deriding the religious convictions of all others so honored. That way, he need not feel slighted. I also have issue with identifying this person as an "atheist". According to the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "atheist" is a derivitive of the word "atheism", a noun meaning "the belief that God does not exist". If this person were actually an atheist, it would be a matter of supreme indifference where or how people have honored soldiers fallen in battle.

In my opinion some "atheists" use their belief the same way as some "religious" people, just as a mask to put their own peculiar interests through behind.