Step away from that line, regardless how irritating you find him.
Louis Pasteur, you died in vain. 
BTW, while I am all for books popularizing science, since they are good at educating people in what is going on (and clearly don’t do a perfect job) they are not the same as actual science, which is both more precise and more mathematical.
Not only is **lekatt ** ignorant about science, he is ignorant about religion as well:
I have no religion, belong to no religious organization. Neither do I buy into science as the saving grace of this world. I have a great deal of knowledge of science, just see it as another type of religion. I used to believe in science in my early years, but they made claim after claim that never materialized. I remember reading in Psychiatric journals 40 years ago how mental illness would be cured in a “few” years and one could take a shot for learning math. They are no closer to understanding the “psyche” today as they were then. Age brings wisdom and knowledge you can’t get any other way. As for the pit, I have been pitted many times, but I don’t participate in such temper tantrums, just too old for the nonsense. Hey, it’s Christmas, so merry Christmas to all and wish everyone the best of everything.
Your implication seems to be, “People have made bad predictions about how rapidly science will advance; so science has no predictive value.” What an utterly specious argument (i.e., just what we have all come to expect from you). Predictions about how fast science will advance in the future have long been made, and usually been wrong. But the fact that entirely vitiates your argument is that science does advance. Science has made enormous leaps in the past 40 years. And if you don’t think that the science of the mind has made similar leaps, just ask any dopers who manage their mental illnesses with the aid of modern psychoactive drugs. Science has made strides in the last 100 years that religion hasn’t made in the last 4,000. So once again, don’t talk bullshit about how science and religion are somehow equivalent. If science proceeded by religious methods, we’d still believe in the four bodily humors, and you ought to be able to recognize this fact.
And don’t get high and mighty on me. If you were too old for nonsense, your post count in GD would drop to zero.
It has been incorrectly “pointed out to me.” You are incorrect again, as you have been in other threads since you seem to have a hard-on for me.
The “supreme manifestation of god” is a VERBATIM quote. Therefore, the “pointing out to me” was the incorrect action, not my quote.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that when someone “points out” an error, it is THEY that are mistaken in so doing okay? Perhaps also knowing what was being referred to (or asking if you don’t know, which you obviously didn’t) and then reading it would be a good idea before opening your mouth:
“He claimed to fulfill the Bábí prophecy of “He whom God shall make manifest”, but in a broader sense he also claimed to be the “supreme Manifestation of God”[1], referring to the fulfillment of the eschatological expectations of a prophetic cycle beginning with Adam, and including Abrahamic religions, as well as Zoroastrianism, the Indian religions, and others.” - Baháʼu'lláh - Wikipedia
I trust you see the bolded part. My bolding.
Your error has been corrected.
You believe in God, an afterlife and have beliefs about those things you take on faith. That’s religion.
I don’t believe that you have much knowledge of science at all, and you certainly don’t understand it, from that statement and others you have made.
I am formerly declaring My Left Butt Cheek ™ to be the Supreme Manifestation of God.
I expect my religious belief to be treated with respect and deference.
Furthermore, since there is no scientific evidence to disprove the divine truth of the Teachings of MLBC, I demand nobody mock me or roll their eyes.
- 9thFloor, Founder MLBC ™ “We turn the other cheek.”
Bah. It has been revealed unto me that My RIGHT Butt Cheek is the Supreme Manifestation of God. As is obvious to all but the hopelessly blind and lost to sin.
This can mean only one thing; HOLY WAR ! !
Or would that be A-Holy War ?
I admit that I misunderstood your post and thought you were referring to god belief. Now I see that was not the case. Part of the reason I misunderstood was your statement was not in the link I provided which is from the Bahai web site rather than an article about the Bahai. So, it is not a verbatim quote from the link I provided.
I asked you about this specifically and you didn’t answer. Tom referred to the linked text so he was not in error.
Answering honestly, was this the source you had prior to the post where you first mentioned “supreme manifestation”
If so, why wait until now to link to it?
furthermore; I have the book that reference came from in the wikki article. It’s wrong. That reference does not refer to the founder. The Bahai site I linked to presents it differently. A subtle yet interesting difference. It’s also interesting that you chose to pick one line from a Wikki article to find fault without providing a link.
Either way. It turns out you are in error because your source was flawed and you accepted it without question or comparison.
ironic isn’t it?
You guys are just looking for an excuse to bump butt cheeks aren’t you?
It doesn’t matter what you name your new religion. I’m never going to communion there.
I have no “hard on” for you. I have a professional distaste for posters who do not read carefully and then pick fights with other posters.
You ignore the actual post linking to the Baha’i website, substituting a Wikipedia article, then bolding a paraphrase while ignoring the statement that claim for divinity was made (by the unidentified Wikipedia editor) “in a broader sense” without bothering to discover who made the claim or what it meant in the context of whatever actual statement was made, which does not appear to refer to the prophet but to some eventual theophany.
You are free to join Der Trihs and lekatt and others who simply pontificate on the good or evil of spirituality or religion while cherry picking some facts, ignoring others, and making such sweeping generalizations as to make all their statements irrelevant, but you will find that such posters never persuade anyone that their opinions are worth examining.
I never said it was a verbatim quote from the link you provided.
Tom was in error in declaring that I had misread the linked text. I wasn’t referring to the linked text. It is in his assertion that I misread the linked text that he was in error. Nothing new for Tom.
Yes, the quote is and always was from the Wiki article where I found it. (I looked up info. on the founder of the “religion” which is where patent absurdities, in my view, are usually made with grandiose claims of divinity, and I was not disappointed in finding this to be the case as it so often is in the case of others.) The article references the claim as being made by the founder and its in quotes.
I had no intention of linking to it.
I was simply reporting it in quotes to specify that it was made as **verbatim **(and not my paraphrase).
If you’re saying the Wiki article is wrong, have you submitted a correction yet?
You really should. We’d hate to find that anyone thinks their founder was the divine manifestation of anything. While you’re at it, you probably should submit a correction about how they hold his image and its display to be quasi-sacred as well. That reeks of BS as well, so I’m sure that can’t be what they meant either.
I won’t engage in an argument with you about whether or not this lunatic did or didn’t think of himself as a divine manifestation or whether or not Wikipedia is in error about it the verbatim quote which you “interpret” your own way (of course).
As for your admission that you misunderstood me to be speaking of “god belief” (a term never used in my reply), thank you. That’s clarifying of you. Merry Xmas!
Oh by the way (for the benefit of another), note that no *apology *was **demanded **from **cosmosdan **for his misunderstanding (nor was any apology due for an honest misunderstanding).
Oh yeah, **cosmosdan **and I have both exchanged apologies for other worthwhile things when we’ve each been in error. Might wanna look into that for the new year, Tom; and maybe try some decaffeinated.
Merry Xmas to all Dopers! Remember, turn the other “cheek!” 
I’m launching the first strike! (and I had tacos today!) 
Red herring. I never claimed you said it was a verbatim quote.
You’re right. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had actually read the primary source and simply misrerad or misunderstood it when all you had really done was to ignore the primary link and rush out to Wikipedia for the sake of grabbing a phrase out of context and hurrying back to post it in this thread simply in order to make a snide remark that really had nothing to do with the discussion.
Next time, I will not presume that you have done any serious investigation into any topic. (You seem to be establishing this as a standard behavior.)
Chartreuse herring. I never claimed that you claimed that I said it was a verbatim quote. I was REPLYING TO COSMOSDAN! LOL
In #47, **he **said: "I admit that I misunderstood your post and thought you were referring to god belief. Now I see that was not the case. Part of the reason I misunderstood was your statement was not in the link I provided which is from the Bahai web site rather than an article about the Bahai. So, it is not a verbatim quote from the link I provided." (my bolding)
To which I replied, “I never said it was a verbatim quote from the link you provided.”
Try to keep up.
As for where I get my information from, I’m fine with an outside source like Wikipedia, thanks. If I want to read self-serving crap from a religious belief’s OWN sites, I’ll laugh myself to sleep.
You’re the one establishing an embarrassing pattern of conduct as standard behavior.
And if saying “You’re right. I gave you the benefit of the doubt…” is your roundabout way of apologizing for making a false assertion yet again, apology accepted.
Merry Xmas!
So, your only excuse for posting a misleading statement taken out of context from Wikipedia is that it lets you natter on about the evils of religion, even when you get your claim wrong?
So be it.
And your excuse for making a false statement is that you’re a swell guy that gives people the benefit of the doubt. Pretty funny.
So be it.
I will point out how amusing your bias is that you first claim I “misunderstood” and then when that’s shown to be false you switch and say I made a “misleading” statement rather than you misunderstood. LOL
I’m not going to participate in hijacking this thread with you any longer.
I have posted no false statements.
I made an assumption that you were posting in good faith that you have now shown was not the case. Your statement was an out of context phrase that was not supported by the primary source.
Many days ago I did give you the benefit of the doubt in one exchange in which you deliberately misread my statements and continued to hold to your misreading after I had clarified the issue. Given your persistent misreadings and the haste with which you seek to make every discussion one based in animosity, I will no longer give you that benefit of the doubt.