I "don't get out enough", I have "nothing but contempt for science", I'm " just equivocating", I'm "very silly", I "reject scientific findings", I deal in "pure bull", I "haven't the slightest idea of what I'm talking about", I'm pretending to be a half-decent writer" ( where does that idea come from?), I'm "terrible at it" and I'm "incoherent" and "opaque".
Yes, on the specific things I mentioned, those are accurate. Care to make any defense whatsoever? No? Oh, I see, you'll be acting as an internet psychologist instead. Touché!
I am talking about abusing science for personal reasons and not abusing science per se.
Funny, I saw you writing quite a few things, most of them complete crap, and not only a commentary on"'abusing science for personal reasons". I saw you writing ignorant nonsense about what you'd expect Dawkins to do and equivocating on what science is.
You didn't answer any of the points. You didn't even try to. If you go about like that all day long it must be very tiresome for your companions.
Most of the points were so ignorant that I'd be wasting my time explaining how you're wrong. You made errors so basic that I'd be surprised if anyone with a cursory familiarity with science or Dawkins would make them. For now, I'll just point out that they're stupid and ignorant and see if you can put in some effort towards being accurate, as opposed to the usual pretentious and condescending ignorance.
Oh, hey, I'll be nice and give one example: "Every observation that is used to effect some gain to humans is the application of science. Science is the observation. Primitives had science. Voodoo shamen knew scientific stuff. That's what gave them power over those that didn't. No religion eschews science. That would be fakir stuff on top of a pole."
No, science, in common usage - which is to say what everyone else is talking about - , is the methodological effort to understand objective reality using empirical methods and a number of 'safety' features to ensure good reasoning and pragmatic inquiry. You can look up what those specific things are just like anyone else can. If you go on about your silly sophistry on using an expansive definition of science, you'll be commenting on something else entirely for no apparent reason other than to fuckwittedly peddle pedantic sophistry.
My last paragraph was simple stuff.
Nonsense, if you'd asked anyone to tell you what you meant, you'd probably have gotten a 50/50 response at best. We've played this game before, and the people on *your* side didn't know what the hell you were talking about.
Your straw man is thinking you understand science by talking about it.
What? If anything, that entire statement is a straw man of the people you're arguing with. But please, explain how it's a straw man to me.
Religion is a scientific process.
Lol, how stupid. Like I said, you are equivocating on science. You are using an expansive definition because it is convenient, not because it's the actual subject matter. Defining religion as a process is even more entertaining. I suppose Catholicism is a process? Scientology? They're not movements or organizations (static referents)? To answer my own question, of course they are. You're equivocating on religion as well.
And Christianity has brought you all you have.
You've never given any reasonable evidence for that. The most I ever seem to get from you is some tough talk at first and rambling later. Even if we pretend your fantasy here is accurate, so what? An Appeal to Consequences, particularly what one is merely materially comfortable with, is fallacious.
What's incoherent or opaque about that.
Nothing, you rewrote it. Did you not notice?
Saying it was incoherent and opaque is not an argument.
Did I say it was?
You're not a mediocre writer Shira. You are not a writer at all. Of any description. Unless srtinging words together is your criteria and six year olds can do that.
Yes, stringing words is indeed my criteria and like I said you're often not very good at it, especially when you try to be pretentious.