So as to not derail the IMA forum I have responded in a more relevant forum. I'll responsd to your 2nd reply JK after I finish work and training. You don't need religion for moral codes and most religions moral codes contain discrimination that really should not be a part of any modern conception of morality. The notion that science is only restrained by religious morality is ridiculous. There are ethics committees, there are codes of practices, there are advisory boards and so on... There were moral codes before any of the major world religions popped into existence and most modern religious people today use their common sense to regulate what religious instructions need to be followed from their holy texts and which are irrelevant. And What's the comment about cross-bred animals meant to mean? It sounds like your kind of suggesting that science without religion is something akin to the island of Dr. Moreau which further throws into question how much you respect or understand modern science. JK your missing the point. Whether or not a rabbi dismisses the question is irrelevant... a qi adherent can dismiss the question as well but that doesn't make their claims any more valid. And when YOU demand someone should ask for scientific evidence before accepting something as true then completely dismiss its use when it comes to your beliefs that is hypocritical! I don't understand how you cannot see that. As for conceptions of God I don't doubt you claim God as everything or that other religious people do, but my point is they also define God as a deity that can come and talk to you and do other such personal things- as you have claimed several times. God as the impersonal totality of existence and God as a personal deity who talks to people and has likes and dislikes are two different concepts (and yes people can hold them at the same time) and while one is difficult to argue against the other is not when someone starts claiming it as true in any tangible way. I can't for the life of me how you cannot see the inherent contradiction in your posts. Look it's not passing people by that you believe in God- that's great, wonderful, etc... you think therefore that God is real- again great, wonderful, etc... the salient point remains though i.e. that you stating something is true does not necessarily make it true. Maybe it is true but you believing it to be so is not really evidence nor is millions of people the world over believing it evidence that it is true, millions of people the world over think we use 10% of our brain... but we don't- we use it all. The point being that BELIEF is not the same thing as PROOF or TRUTH. Anyhow, myself and most everyone on this site already KNOW you believe in God and think therefore that questioning God's existence makes no sense but that is THE EXACT SAME position someone who believes in qi could take! And please before you respond that God is real therefore your position is different- WE ALL ALREADY KNOW YOU BELIEVE THAT! lol. Sorry for the capitals but I'm hoping it makes it clear that you don't need to keep mentioning that your right. Repeating that what you believe is true does not prove your point, it proves nothing other than you believe you are right which is the exact same position of the qi believers you argue against! Holy moses... I agree people can be inspired by their faith to study science. I'm not disputing that, what I am disputing is that religious belief in any way, shape or form has any place in scientific study. It doesn't. Say a scientist believed God caused evolution to happen and studied evolution because of his or her deep admiration of his creators work... that's fine but you will note is that his studies will not discuss his personal belief they will discuss the exact things he is studying without exhortations of how wonderful the divine lord is. The reason being such beliefs have nothing to do with scientific study. I am also not angry that their are religious scientists I really like some of them. Kenneth Miller is one such example of a religious scientist I find very enjoyable to listen to. If I'm annoyed at anything (and for what it's worth I don't personally feel I am particularly annoyed) it is your hypocritical arguments, the fact that you claim to respect science when you evidently only respect it when it suits your arguments and that you hold religious inspired prejudicial views but refuse to recognise them as such i.e. the notion that science requires religious morality to hold it together. lol... I get it, seriously JK, it's not rocket science- you believe God exists and therefore is not subject to debate and you believe science cannot disprove God and that is further evidence that God exists. Your perspective is so glaringly obvious in your posts only a total fool would have problems seeing where you are coming from. The criticisms your making about lack of empathy are I think the very reason you are not understanding the criticisms of and hypocrisy of your position. Consider that you believe in the existence of Djinn's, of figures appearing from trees, of God interefering in everyday life and talking to people and so on all of which have no scientific evidence for them and yet you remain totally convinced with 100% conviction because of your personal experience. Yet you seem completely unable to appreciate that your conviction is just the same as someone else who believes 100% in other unproven beliefs... (cue you reminding your beliefs are true and others are false). As for viewing your arguments with detachment... 1. I'm not a scientist. 2. I'm not particularly upset by your views I just find them deeply hypocritical and well deserving of criticism. 3. Viewing your arguments from a detached standpoint you do make good points but then you completely defeat your own points with your religious rhetoric. Sorry but thats the way it is. You have complained several times in this thread alone that you attack peoples arguments and not them personally and they shouldn't overreact. Well take your own advice- I am criticising your opinions because they are hypocritical and illogical (how can you tell someone to respect science then say if science proved qi you would ignore the result) I am not attacking you personally. No I wouldn't because I've not found many religious scientists who make the glaringly hypocritical arguments you do and before you ask yes I have listened to several religious scientists discuss their beliefs. For the love of all the monkeys in the world... when did I say science disproved God? If it makes you feel better I'll put this in capitals so it is nice and clear SCIENCE CANNOT DISPROVE GOD, lol, happy now? That still does not mean God exists though... thats not logical... science cannot disprove a variety of illogical beliefs but that does not mean they are true. JK you really seem to be missing my point entirely; Im not suggesting religious scientists are hypocritical I am suggesting YOUR arguments are hypocritical. I would also suggest that certain kinds of God have been shown by science to be extremely unlikely and the personal deity intervening in everyday lives is one of them- there is no scientific evidence for such a thing and as such it requires an act of FAITH or personal belief to accept such a beings existence. No good scientist would argue that science has proven the existence of God and as such it is clear that if a scientist believes in God they do so for entirely non-scientific reasons- that is fine but your suggestion that because there are scientists who believe in God that is somehow relevant to the scientific evidence for God is welll... silly. There is no scientific evidence of God therefore science does not assume Gods existence... there is no scientific evidence for invisible teapots therefore science does not assume the existence of invisible teapots and so on. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I think you are a genuinely deeply sincere religious believer who fails to see the hypocrisy inherent in their views. In terms of liking you... I can like a person and still find their views ridiculous I don't define people solely by their religious and philosophical views and I think that you often have good points that are unfortunately now becoming deeply submerged below religious hypocrisy.