mhaze,

<<I can't help it if you want to jump into the middle of a conversation and get the wrong end of the stick.>>

It has nothing to do with what I want to do. And yes, you can. Again, you can start by wording what you say a little more carefully. 

You don't get to say "atheists" (implying all of them), only to refer back to an earlier post of yours in which you were talking about a few, and then accuse me of getting the wrong end of the stick.

That's deceitful. 

All you had to do was acknowledge the careless wording on your behalf and all would be forgiven. Instead, you choose the dishonest route by attempting to put the blame on me. 

Keep digging, mhaze. 

<<With a word limit, we can't afford to go restating caveats in each post.>>

Well, you need to. I do. All you had to say was, " I'm NOT saying that *the above* atheists are wrong in their beliefs."

That's two additional words.

Nice try, though. 

<<You'll just have to try harder to follow the thread.>>

Nope. We're not all mind-readers and we can't be expected to assume that you're still talking about the same thing when your words clearly say something else. You don't get to just write however you please and expect everyone else to be the ones to put all the effort in by trying interpret what you're saying. Take some responsibility for yourself.

<<[The Wikipedia article] was making the exact point I've been trying to get you to see - that no one has seen DM and its existence is inferred based on how we think the universe and gravity works.>>

No, that's not what your point had "been trying to get me to see". Your point was that dark matter cannot be seen, measured or verified, and neither can gods, so scientists must have faith too.

That's it.

Continued...

...Continued

I then link you to my post from months ago (in which I had pointed out that dark matter proves useful in explaining something, whereas gods are an excuse to stop looking and only serve as a dead end) while also adding that we at least have observations that are consistent with dark matter, and your only response was to change your angle of approach, walk dangerously close to the argument from ignorance fallacy by indirectly implying that a deity has as much explanatory power as dark matter and attempt to shift the goal posts...

<<Scientists believe DM exists not through direct observation but because they need it to make their models work.>>

Oh, so it has to be *direct* observation now, does it?

Says who?

No, it doesn't have to be *direct* observation. The fact that there are no observations to suggest a god (without resorting to the argument from ignorance fallacy) is enough to render you argument invalid.

.

Dear david f,

.

Thanks for the tip and the info.

I had no idea paedophilia was so bad in the Salvation army. What a pity. They did great work in the Pacific during the Second World War.

Times change, unfortunately, not always for the better.

I have now wiped them off my list.

.

.

Dear David G.,

.

"Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues." (Richard Dawkins).
.

It is a pity Dawkins felt the need to employ the term "virtues", a moral designation, to describe the characteristics of scientific enquiry. It is inappropriate and unnecessary for proving his point.

As I see it, the human brain has developed three modes of thought to try to understand what life is all about: the philosophical mode, the religious mode and the scientific mode.

There was a certain amount of cross-fertilisation of all three modes during their early development, though less between the religious and scientific modes. The dogmatic approach of the former having rendered it rigid and less evolutive, the two found themselves on different trajectories, no longer able to cooperate together.

This had dramatic consequences due to the fact that the religious mode was the reigning mode of thought with the political rulers who used their power to impose their views under threat of severe sanctions.

However, this proved untenable as the scientific mode gradually demonstrated its superiority in an increasing number of domains.

As a result, the advocates of the religious mode were obliged to revise their strategy. Not only did they cease contesting scientifically proven facts but they now approved of them, i.e., once all doubt had finally been erased. They subsequently adopted a "wait and see" attitude before taking position on any further matters likely to be the object of scientific enquiry.

Never again would they expose themselves to scientific ridicule.

It is only after the scientific mode has revealed its conclusions and exhausted its resources (at least for the foreseeable future) that the advocates of the religious mode feel free to take position.

This strategy reposes on the well established principle that the more we learn, the more we realise we ignore. Ignorance grows faster than knowledge.

As Dawkins observes:

"Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of [science's] virtues."

.

Banjo, thanks for your comment and for this pearl: "Ignorance grows faster than knowledge."

Humans, strange, driven creatures that they are, seem destined to lie forever in a rancorous bed soiled by ignorance and superstition rather than to rise up, shower themselves thoroughly, rid themselves of the anachronistic goblin-witch-godmyth mentality, and live lives based upon reality and the need for a peaceful, caring humanitarian ethos.

The goblin-witch-godmyth mentality, if it is allowed to fester for much longer, will inevitably lead us to annihilation.

Perhaps it is a fitting end!

mhaze,

To ensure that we really nip this in the bud once and for all, let's take a more in-depth look into just how similar (or not) God and dark matter really are.

Dark matter helps to explain something, whereas God has no explanatory power at all.

Dark matter gives us an avenue of investigation (the LHC may detect it one day - what argument will you use then?), whereas "God did it" is the end of the line of inquiry and provides no motivation to look any further. 

Scientists don't engage in mental gymnastics to maintain the hypothesis and even if they were to, investigation and peer review would eventually see dark matter retire to the scrap heap eventually if it doesn't exist or it proves to be too inconsistent with what we observe and know.

Scientists don't claim that dark matter is above, or transcends, logic and reason in order to protect it like you seem to (and as many theists most certainly do) with religious beliefs by playing the faith card. 

[By the way, did you notice your little inconsistency there? They're both apparently "faiths", yet only religious belief is protected from logic and reason by somehow being above it all or in a different realm. Or are you really silly enough to claim that dark matter should be too? I don't think so.]

And yet despite all the above, your entire argument rests on the sole fact that neither can be seen and both are assumed (although dark matter is more *presumed*, despite your refusal to acknowledge that).

Really puts your analogy into perspective, doesn't it.