It's not prejudice, it's a distaste borne of logic.  I am a man of science, of enlightenment, not of millenial fairy tales.  

You can't make headway against the religious as religion/faith goes against the scientific method. 

Has history not proven that the contrary is possible.

There existed a man who was religious, and who put his faith in the scientific method. I challenge you to disprove that.

@Runa. If you were truly  a man of science, you would come to understand that there is a possibilities that one of these fairy tales may be true, and you will never live to see the day where that is proven to be false.

You may say it is unlikely, but you will never see the day where it is proven false.

As I have shown to dsgrue, one simply cannot stand and claim that the absence of evidence is proof for inexistence.

I admire your commitment to science, but let that not be a path for you to look down on others who may have had the misfortune of looking at the metaphysical, and thinking "what if it was true".

oh, I accept that the god Myth may turn out to be true, but until I see a shred of evidence that is actually evidence and not philosopical musings, I'll continue to act like it's a myth.  Because until then, it is.  

Bet you didn't know I think Jesus was real, that 'the great flood' happened, and that a decent amount of biblical tales were initially based on reality.  Of course all of these events are prone to storytelling syndrome: making it sound far grander than it actually was, but I do believe much of the bible actually happened in some form or another, or that someone really thought it happened when the tales were written.  

For example, The great flood, as it's told, cold not possibly have happened.  Even if all the hydrogen and oxygen on our planet formed as much water as possible, it still wouldn't be possible to flood the mountains.  Maybe Noah's people are just unaware of real mountains, or maybe the story was exagerrated for effect, either way, it's possible it happened, not possible to have happened exactly as written.  See where I'm going with this? 

I'm not absolutely certain, but what I do know is that it paints a very different picture than what I previously knew of you.

If the bible shows signs of truth, what is it about christians then that you despise so much?

As for the ability to verify biblical claims, I also agree that the hand of god in history describes events that can be put into question scientifically. If that was your beef all along, then you have an ally in me.

But if your only purpose is to ridicule believers, know that we cannot be on a common path. If your quest is truth, and you are ready to honestly question the claims of the bible, or any other claim made, then so long as you stand in the confines of truth and logic, I will be by your side. Stray from that, and you will only find an enemy in me.

The scientific method does not require faith; that is a failing to understand it as it is a logical method of determining something. As it is based on logic, it is inherently true and therefore faith is not a requirement. You do not need faith to know that 1 + 1 = 2. 

The issue with religion is that it is based on believing something without proof. That goes against the scientific method.

Are you being serious or facetious? I actually have to make an argument in order for it to be an anecdotal fallacy.....as in I need to argue that an isolated incidence implies some general truth. I just made the simple observation that I've seen an academic cite wikipedia...not that this means academics cite wikipedia all the time.

I mean.....I actually mentioned I was surprised that the book cited wikipedia.....because I've never seen another academic work cite wikipedia.

The scientific method is not really inherently true. It is our best method at overcoming biased inferences, counteracting empirical uncertainty, and establishing causal explanations....that doesn't mean its inherently true.

However, I  wouldn't say its a matter of faith, but it is an unprovable assumption that scientists must make.....they can't prove that the scientific method is true through scientific investigation because the very scientific stuides they would use to prove the veracity of the  scientific method  fundamentally assume that the scientific method is valid.....which is circular.

Its really just Hume's problem of induction in a different context.

Also, 1+1=2 is a necessary truth, which is different from the inferential arguments that the scientific method depends upon.

Gotta do catch'em all!

1+1=2 is a logical axiom. No special pleading required.

Two thumbs way up for this awesome wall chart of logical fallacies. I especially like the 'holy' trinity.