Wait a second, what? You've just highlighted the precise problem amongst the science-supporting camp; just because empirical evidence is reliable, doesn't mean that its supporters and their chosen arguments are too. My post was intended to shed light on a subject I feel is hindering science's progress with the argument, and you effectively accuse me of being some kind of religious saboteur. I'm not a religious fundamentalist, and if you can't differentiate between constructive criticism and psychological warfare you need to pull your head out of your ass.
No. In this case, that expression is very much true. Coyne is an obnoxious oaf, and by no means an exception to your rule. He is one of the growing number of secularist zealots that are incapable of arguing coherently or intelligently. Their infatuation with the dismissal of religion as a concept is perpetuated in a lack of education or understanding of their opponents' arguments - leading to the hugely ironic situation in which they have much more in common with religious fundamentalists (bible-bashers) than the academics they accuse of the same.
Consider again your blind support for anyone spouting the appropriate buzzwords, or you'll be just another tool in Coyne and his ilk's clueless endeavour to found a belief system upon science.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait a second, what? You've just highlighted the precise problem amongst the science-supporting camp; just because empirical evidence is reliable, doesn't mean that its supporters and their chosen arguments are too. My post was intended to shed light on a subject I feel is hindering science's progress with the argument, and you effectively accuse me of being some kind of religious saboteur. I'm not a religious fundamentalist, and if you can't differentiate between constructive criticism and psychological warfare you need to pull your head out of your ass.
No. In this case, that expression is very much true. Coyne is an obnoxious oaf, and by no means an exception to your rule. He is one of the growing number of secularist zealots that are incapable of arguing coherently or intelligently. Their infatuation with the dismissal of religion as a concept is perpetuated in a lack of education or understanding of their opponents' arguments - leading to the hugely ironic situation in which they have much more in common with religious fundamentalists (bible-bashers) than the academics they accuse of the same. Consider again your blind support for anyone spouting the appropriate buzzwords, or you'll be just another tool in Coyne and his ilk's clueless endeavour to found a belief system upon science.