I was commenting on the blog referred to in my last blog, and someone claimed scientists who happened to be atheists were, if they expressed their views on god, therefore pseudoscientists, and equated acceptance of evolution with atheism. I replied, quite politely:
Are scientists who express belief in god pseudoscientists?
Pseudoscience would only be if they claimed to have scientific evidence of something they don’t have evidence of. A scientist is free to espouse any views they want and is not a pseudoscientist unless they claim their religious or philosophical views are scientific without the adequate empirical support. And evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.
To which he responded:
I will give you the courtesy of one reply. First off, I was simply explaining to someone who asked why the term could apply. Considering the rather high percentage of comments in this thread that were left by you, it seems that you are just looking to argue with people. I’m not interested in meaningless arguing. Now, a legitimate debate is one thing but I remain skeptical that debate is really what you’re looking for.
Now having said that, those whom I described do, in fact, lack sufficient evidence to justify the very behaviors I mentioned. Now if you can provide solid evidence for them to take the actions, then I would be interested in hearing it. If you do so, however, be advised that unless you approach in an manner that I feel warrants a response, you won’t be getting one. I have better ways of investing my time this evening.
What a remarkably snobby person.
I’ve no need of snobby condescending people who pretend it’s too much of a strain to lower themselves to my level in order to answer a yes or no question, so by all means keep all that golden goodness that is you to yourself.