Agam:

Berlinski's main problem is his extreme pomposity, which for his meger accomplishments instantly sounds comical.

[...]

Not to forget the two-bit mathematician who has published a proof of god's existence.

[...]

It is not worth the trouble logging in to UD, we'd rather take their silly arguments apart on pandasthumb or pharyngula. If it is not serious enough there is always AtBC! You guys here too require us to register and login, but we don't mind because you don't exhibit the same sort of misplaced zeal that the folks at UD do.

[...]

Chu-Carroll a lightweight [made] Berlinski look like a clueless newbie

[...]

Neither in France (where he[Berlinski] is something of a laughing stock)

[...]

(read the masterpiece eviscerating that shallow and illread Freud vs. Lewis book by Antonio De Nicholas

[..]

Seriously, you want to question the intellectual honesty of PT? That debate got over a few years ago. PT is the best popular resource for evolutionary biology around. Game, set, and match.

Pompous twit much? Amuchtoomuch. Of course PZ did get mad about it, so I understand. Not that you cats are easy to herd or anything. Not sure if there's such a thing as a cyber-sciencism-groupie, but… damn. Free Thinkers my ass!

By the way, you used "we" quite often in your post, who are the "we" you keep referring to? Jus' curious. I suspect we all know what you mean.

(edit)And if this post is moved to the memory hole by the TT creationists with their properly placed zeal, we will know just what kind of sneaky bastards they all really are. And we will take their silly arguments apart elsewhere. No doubt.

[/overlysarcasticineedtogotobedbutcantsleepsoamjustttypingnonsensenowr ant]

I feel better.

PT is the best popular resource for evolutionary biology around. Game, set, and match.

Popular being the operative word. He's popular because of his non-science positions and his tough guy rhetoric. There are thousands of better locations on the web for real science.

Thnks a lot for the bandwidth.

Nalam nalamariya aaval - that's how one would sign off a letter in Tamizh - literally, I am OK, and eagerly wish to know how you are doing!

Doug I am not crying about somebody's posts being trimmed

That's why I focused on your use of the word 'editted' and not 'trimmed'.

it's just another one of those things creationist bloggers do that is ridiculous.

What you're doing isn't ridiculous? You come here and make some well-worn (random) slams against Berlinski, Nelson, UD, creationists in general. Use some pretty sorry analogies. (by the way, if Berlinski is now the heavyweight and Chu-Carroll now a lightweight you're still in a bad way. A lightweight would get annihilated by a heavyweight in a catch-bout.)

In particular I am referring to the hamhanded management of UD where any posts that question the creationist party line - Dembski variety - are summarily deleted.

Any post? Again, a ridiculous claim.

It is not worth the trouble logging in to UD, we'd rather take their silly arguments apart on pandasthumb or pharyngula. If it is not serious enough there is always AtBC!

Oh, those bastions of intellectual honesty and open-minded discussion? You don't need to ban anyone there, you'll just mock them until they shut up. Large numbers + derision doesn't not = a valid point.
Mock…. alot like what you're doing here.

You guys here too require us to register and login, but we don't mind because you don't exhibit the same sort of misplaced zeal that the folks at UD do.

Wow. Misplaced zeal? Now that's holding UD and Phar, PT and AtBC to complete different standards.
It appears that you prefer one form of 'misplaced zeal' over another.

(read the masterpiece eviscerating that shallow and illread Freud vs. Lewis book by Antonio De Nicholas, where Shallit sets up Lewis against Russell and takes apart Lewis)

Sure, only after you present those arguments effectively to Victor Reppert 1st.

Is there any atheist who makes anything comparable to even an obscure megachurch?

There are and have been atheists who control the resources of entire nations. As for megachurches and megabuck pastors, they constitute a speck on the landscape. Most clergymen earn an income that is below the average. 99% fall into that category. Of course it is the small numbers who are exceptions that atheists like to pound the drums about.

In particular I am referring to the hamhanded management of UD…

Be advised along with all others that blog entries are not to be used as opportunities to bash UD. Stick to the topic. You are not the only one doing this. There are places on the web for UD complaints. This blog entry is not one of them.

OK lightweight is the wrong analogy to describe Berlinski contribution to letters. So then let's call him a heavyweight - in your terms - and Chu-Carroll a lightweight for making Berlinski look like a clueless newbie:grin:

Berlinski isn't a thorn in my flesh and less still for the scientific community. At this point we have many groups pursuing different avenues of research in specific fields. Theories today do not stand or fall due to the actions of individual scientists. Darn the debate over evolution isn't a scientific debate at all. Berlinski isn't about to shaft somebody's funding proposal or second someone's ternure application. For that he would have to wield some authority, or command some respect on scientific matters, or policy debates. Neither in France (where he is something of a laughing stock) nor in the US does he serve in any capacity in any scientific organization. Darn he is not even a professor for the public understanding of science.

Evangelical atheist? OK I do have a problem with atheism, because it can be defined only wrt theism, even then how does one become an evangelical atheist?:roll: OK I get the idea, a megahall, with healing, commitment, and a lot of shaking and rolling, with millions collected and spent on a lavish lifestyle? Is there any atheist who makes anything comparable to even an obscure megachurch? I can see you being annoyed with the rather unambiguous rejection of faith by Dawkins, Hitchens, Stenger, Shallit or PZ. But this is not what they do for a living. Stenger spent many years teaching physics before he took on qstions of faith. He is one of the few free-thinking scientists who spends his time writing about faith. There are numberless others who don't bother with it at all. And most of them if not all free-thinking scientists consider this sort of writing to be the least important part of their work. Jeff Shallitt for instance spent more time working with the plaintiffs at Dover than on his brilliant book reviews (read the masterpiece eviscerating that shallow and illread Freud vs. Lewis book by Antonio De Nicholas, where Shallit sets up Lewis against Russell and takes apart Lewis), and after all the work he does advising his graduate students. Scientists don't have the time to "witness" to atheists, even tenured ones. A lot of them believing or otherwise are happy to let the rest of the world carry on - with belief or without it. We aren't ranting friends. It's all in jest cheer up:mrgreen:

That's the best piece of hype about this nonentity of a lightweight.

Bradford:

What is your weight class agam?

Agam should know the background of prize-fighting before mentioning a particular weight class (lightweight) with the intent of mocking Berlinski.
Since in boxing (as well as in mma and kickboxing) the 'lightweight' division tends to be the most active. Yielding more interesting fights and fighters. Compared to that typically vapid 'heavyweight' division. The division with the fighters who (historically and for a large part) that lack heart and the ability to provide exciting fights.

That's the best piece of hype about this nonentity of a lightweight. His contribution to science, philosophy (his graduate field of study), and mathematics are obscure if at all, and inconsequential today.

What is your weight class agam?

Berlinski's main problem is his extreme pomposity, which for his meger accomplishments instantly sounds comical.

Spoken like a true ideologue.

Like here where he lays claim to the thoughts of all scientists re god, when if at all any "experiments" are being conducted wrt god, it is to prove god's existence!

This is a false characterization. Berlinski does not pretend that all scientists think alike. Why would you infer otherwise?

Not to forget the two-bit mathematician who has published a proof of god's existence. But given the generally poor quality of discussion within the creationist community (all varieties new, old, open, and subtle) these big errors are rarely noticed.

If your comment was intended as an example of quality you fell short of the mark.