"Mike rules the forum on account of power alone. He has no moral right to do what he does, but morals do not have a place in the natural order of the world."
What are you talking about? Do you have a scientific definition of "moral right?"
What are you saying "Mike does?"
I really have no idea what the heck you're talking about -- because you have not built it
Aurino also wrote (as the next paragraph):
"Do you see, Harv, why I oppose scientific theism? A scientific outlook on life necessarily leads to a view of the universe where sheer blind, purposeless force is the only agent."
First, I am not a scientific theist
at all, so I don't see how your first paragraph connects to the second. Secondly, there are various versions of "science" that depart from
logic and accuracy on their first step. Rigor
is what science needs... There can be no
"scientific outlook on life" because science is
the process of evaluating outlooks on life.
"From my perspective, our subjective longing for something better is the only evidence, albeit a strong one, that God exists. The evidence is not in the world, for the world looks as ungodly, chaotic, and meaningless as this forum. If I'm correct in my beliefs and a loving God is in fact behind reality, then science must necessarily be an illusion as it leads us to the opposite conclusion"
I liked the first sentence except the word "only." The second sentence is rhetorical and not a data transaction. The third sentence makes it seem that being "correct in my beliefs" even more important to you than whether "a loving God is ...behind reality."
In your conclusion:
To label as "illusion" the process of evaluating a proposition logically (namely science) puts you in Jacob Bronowski's quote
about the ashes of millions poured into the pond from crematorium at Auschwitz (paraphrasing):"This was not done by science. This was done by ...people who wanted no test of their ideology."