Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky.

what you gentlemen would be rebuking is the theology of Christianity. By removing someone from a post based on religion is similar if not identical to racism.

in order to accurately be a scientist, it has nothing to do with color, religion, creed, etc.

, but I think tIt's sad to hear that Christian beliefs are being discriminated against.(q)

Argon are you also sad that
muslem, Hindu, sciencology, paganism (that's one of my favorites), are also being discriminated in the name of science?

I am sad that those who maintain the belief system of evolution feel it's their duty to crusade against every belief system that they disagree with.

Why should I believe your version?

What makes you think I have a version?

I can promise you the earth is NOT 5000 years old and Noah and his Ark is a load of Bull.

I am sorry, but no Christian should occupy the role of a professor of science in any accredited university. At best they would be lying to themselves half the time and at worst they would corrupt the minds of countless youths and damage their notion of science and nature irreparably.

The fact that he believes in mystical magical beings i.e god, angels, heaven and hell etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Major_features_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

You're not sorry, and I've got some old sheets you can cut eye holes and wear. Also I can probably find you a deal on some swastikas to hang up around your place.

At first I just thought you were an ignorant a**hole. Actually you're a truly evil person, which are very few and far between. Congrats.

Religion = Irrationality + War.

Comparisons to Hitler... the last vestige of a truly irrational argument based on emotion rather than reason.

I think he is attempting to force a non-issue. Unless, of course, he is a creationist.

Why should that matter if the research in his field is sound?
I submit no scientist should then be hired if he is a socialist. All data shows this is a false belief and has led to millions dead in the past century alone.

A Miracle!
Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ

Isaac Newton was bigot Christian. Big Bang theory was proposed with catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. Darwin, the father of evolutionary theory studied theology and he indeed believed in God, too. You're maybe atheist, but where is your significance for science? The louder opponents of Church, the less significant scientists such people are.

Someone with a sufficiently scientific mindset to teach science education would have no ABILITY to believe in the things that one must believe in to be a christian.

The reason for this is because I cannot make myself believe in something that is irrational,

that flies in the face of everything we have learned of the nature of reality,

simultaneously without a shred of good evidence.

because that belief would undermine the necessary qualities and attributes of a good scientist.

Darwin did not study theology nor was he a christian

This neglect of medical studies annoyed his father, who shrewdly sent him to Christ's College, Cambridge, for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the first step towards becoming an Anglican parson. As Darwin was unqualified for the Tripos, he joined the ordinary degree course in January 1828.[20] He preferred riding and shooting to studying.

Darwin did not study theology nor was he a christian.

as I bet he would admit.

saying the theory has "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations,"

Properly, science and religion should be two seperate disciplines. Using one to evaluate the other is a common fallacy that has caused untold grief.

Based upon what? He had many colleagues who were quite atheist.

What happens to the atheist world view when great scientists have religious faith? Why does that bother them so?

This is not a part of his job description and is thus unacceptable in an academic setting.

Please explain how scientists who are socialists are still allowed to practice science as socialism has been proven to be a failed theory for decades.

Socialism is the future,

Socialism is the future,

Future of what?
Where is your science based data?

Martin Gaskell's resume. Seems he meets criteria for science, published research in peer reviewed journals.

http://www.as.ute...gaskell/

Physicists as a group tend to be quite musical and have a great appreciation for music. Why not be critical of such an emotional pastime? And he likes to dance and run!

They will always vote for their own personal interests

They will always vote for their own personal interests

Adam Smith and many others have proven this to be a strategy for increased liberty and prosperity.
What is best for 'society' is what is best for the individuals who are members of the society.

often involves sacrifice or compromise by individuals

I'm already tired of looking at that guys picture above. He looks CREEPY.

often involves sacrifice or compromise by individuals

You first.

I'm already tired of looking at that guys picture above. He looks CREEPY.

Physicists...
http://www.youtub...ozHsmVQI
What a rational observation!

Physicists as a group tend to be quite musical

The gradual replacement of nonsense by Reason, which is the hallmark of science.

Physicists as a group tend to be quite musical

Physicists...
http://www.youtub...ozHsmVQI

Adam Smith and many others have proven this to be a strategy for increased liberty and prosperity.
What is best for 'society' is what is best for the individuals who are members of the society.

Adam Smith was a dumb ass and dead wrong, and so are you.

We treat presidents in this country like they are God, even when they are obviously unskilled know-nothings.

Adam Smith was a dumb ass and dead wrong, and so are you.

Adam Smith was a dumb ass and dead wrong, and so are you.

What is sad is that QC doesn't understand that his envy is a product of socialism, not free markets.
Smith was and is right. What is wrong is QC's socialist solutions that continue to fail.

SH needs Hobbes to defend his statism which also explains why he can't understand tea parties.

SH needs Hobbes to defend his statism which also explains why he can't understand tea parties.

Oh no, I'm a product of Germany. I know fascism when I see it.

The gradual replacement of nonsense by Reason, which is the hallmark of science.

Physicists as a group tend to be quite musical

Physicists...
http://www.youtub...ozHsmVQI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PT90dAA49Q

Fitting for the confluence of topics.

SH needs Hobbes to defend his statism which also explains why he can't understand tea parties.

Oh no, I'm a product of Germany. I know fascism when I see it.

You should, you support it.

Atheists on the whole have been shown to tend to 'give other people a raw deal' and other aberrational behavior. Cites available upon request.

"Lacking a 'moralizing god' - made the most unfair offers to strangers"

necessity imposed by the selective pressures of evolution.

SH can only understand that the 'necessity' is a club, gun, force: aka government.
He can't understand that persuasion is and was a more powerful evolutionary pressure because it is not destructive, uses less energy and most importantly, does little to risk the individual survival instinct.

SH can only understand that the 'necessity' is a club, gun, force: aka government.
He can't understand that persuasion is and was a more powerful evolutionary pressure because it is not destructive, uses less energy and most importantly, does little to risk the individual survival instinct.

Try to stay relatively close to on topic. How exactly is the need to survive by being social relevant to your view point of mankind using violence during resource contention?

Your blind insults simply make you look more foolish than we assume you are.

What do your economic inanities have to do with the lawsuit?

necessity imposed by the selective pressures of evolution.

SH can only understand that the 'necessity' is a club, gun, force: aka government.
He can't understand that persuasion is and was a more powerful evolutionary pressure because it is not destructive, uses less energy and most importantly, does little to risk the individual survival instinct.

Then it would be the first time it would have been used in the entire history of life on this planet, no doubt.

I don't have to lie about monopolies like you do for instance

The role, of course, is that of a university science professor, and in general being a scientist. It seems to me that that which is required to be a christian is fundamentally at odds with that which is required to be a scientist. No real scientist could ever believe that which they are asked to believe by the christian faith, the two are as contradictory as night and day.

You have lost every discussion about monopolies. I never lied about them. Unlike you.

You redefine them. You bring up court cases from AFTER they stopped monopolistic practices and you pretend that the trust are not included in monopolies. Which is just a bunch of lies.

Ethelred

IMO, it's not so clear he would win. Section VII: "In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."

Standard Oil engage in monopolistic business practices

That is utter rubish. For instance DARWIN was a divinity student. Many scientists have been religious.

Neither can I but many can do it and still be rational on most things.

Now that is wrong. You are acting as if ALL religious people are Fundamentalist Christians.

While I don't think the claims of divinity for Jesus have good evidence to support them there isn't any evidence agains the idea either.

While I don't think the claims of divinity for Jesus have good evidence to support them there isn't any evidence agains the idea either.

Wow... that's all I have to say.

Why did people rate you positively for this comment? Must have been the religiotard brigade.

IMO, it's not so clear he would win. Section VII: "In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise."

They're talking about sex, not religion there (think a male stripper applying for a job in a club frequented entirely by heterosexual men). So ya it's VERY clear who's going to win here. It's a long time over due too.

Right, I forgot about the clause "except for religion". Do you just make stuff up?

Then it would be the first time it would have been used in the entire history of life on this planet, no doubt.

You really are to be pitied.

Galileo[1], Kepler[2], Newton[3], Faraday[4], Planck[5] were both christians and successful scientists. Would you say they were not "real scientists"?

You play their way or you dont play, is how it was.

Blood is the inevitable result.

No, you're just a bigoted ******* and can't see past your bias. It doesn't have to say "except for religion" because religion is INCLUDED in the ****ing clause. It's the EXCEPTIONS that are listed...idiot. The only generally allowed exception is the one I listed, were that not the case you'd have essentially no different a situation now than you did in the early sixties.

It was NOT a monopoly and they reduced costs by improving efficiencies. Just like Wal Mart and Microsoft.

Look, I made a point without calling any names. Well unless you count "Christian".

It was NOT a monopoly and they reduced costs by improving efficiencies. Just like Wal Mart and Microsoft.

So you attempt to exemplify why it wasn't a monopoly by citing two businesses that had to go before the courts and lost for practicing monopolistic business practices.

Priceless.

You ARE a bunch of ****ing quasi-fascists who ARE in fact out to get us. I see that very, VERY clearly now. That you people can defend this kind of behavior is not only appalling, but it's opened my eyes to who...and what you are.

I for one won't be defending you anymore.

You know I used to defend all of you, all of you atheists to the "fundies" I know. I call them that because they talk like all of you have been on this thread.

They insist you're out to get them, that you can't be compromised with, that we (believers) and you are at war.

You ARE a bunch of ****ing quasi-fascists who ARE in fact out to get us.

I for one won't be defending you anymore. I'll be for pushing every political thing I used to be against I can from prayer in schools, teaching creationism, you can pretty much name it.

Whatever SH. I've seen enough, heard enough. You're the one who's always saying how "afraid of the religious right you are", or if it wasn't you some other atheist jerk on this board.

One good thing about democracy. There's a lot more of us than there are of you and the way things are turning in the country right now...well I'd say that you need all the help you can get. Don't look for it from me anymore...ever.

Whatever SH. I've seen enough, heard enough. You're the one who's always saying how "afraid of the religious right you are", or if it wasn't you some other atheist jerk on this board.

One good thing about democracy. There's a lot more of us than there are of you and the way things are turning in the country right now...well I'd say that you need all the help you can get. Don't look for it from me anymore...ever.

They insist you're out to get them, that you can't be compromised with

One good thing about democracy. There's a lot more of us than there are of you and the way things are turning in the country right now...well I'd say that you need all the help you can get. Don't look for it from me anymore...ever.

Good thing we live in a Republic.

How can you compromise rationality?

Yes, with a first amendment the states in part, the first part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

What is the fertility rate of atheists compared to Catholics, Mormons and Muslims?

We live in the US, a country where George Bush Sr. proclaimed that atheists cannot be patriots and shouldn't be considered citizens.

Yeah, here's the important part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Could a US presidential nominee ever be elected if he declared himself to be an atheist? The answer is no. Compare and contrast that with another liberal democracy, Australia, which elected an unmarried, childless, female prime minister, who's a self declared atheist.

And this is EQUALLY important: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

How can you compromise rationality?

How do you compromise with evil?

Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.

Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.

Disagree. Evil is a social definition that depicts religion.

It was NOT a monopoly and they reduced costs by improving efficiencies. Just like Wal Mart and Microsoft.

DeBeers was not a monopoly and diamonds are available from many suppliers today.

What is a sugar trust?

BTW, you know the US govt subsidizes sugar?

What is a sugar trust?

You can't be that ignorant.

You'd like people to believe, without asking or thinking,

not simply religious as a product of their circumstances.

Oh, most things, well golly gee!

Show me a Christian that doesn't believe in a magical sky man and we can continue this conversation.

Wow... that's all I have to say.

Why did people rate you positively for this comment? Must have been the religiotard brigade.

Atheists are far more numerous than you and your cultist buddies dare admit to each other. And unfortunately many have to stay in the closet because christians will lash out. That may carry a variety of professional and personal consequences. I live in the US, a country where George Bush Sr. proclaimed that atheists cannot be patriots and shouldn't be considered citizens. I see that as a common thread in almost all religions though - non-believer's rights, even just the right to not be victims of genocide, hardly exist if at all.

Why? What is 'unbridled competition'? Business competes for customers by providing a better deal. They must persuade customers to buy.

Could a US presidential nominee ever be elected if he declared himself to be an atheist? The answer is no.

You mean that Darwin was a Divinity student because his Grandfather Erasmus was an Atheist. Is that what you meant?

I am stunned by the inanity of that.

You are acting like a person that became an Atheist to tick off his parents.

Inanity squared.

Same reason they usually give me fives. I have reason on my side.

A university professor can't be a professor because he's a Christian...really? And people who claim they're for human rights and claim they understand basic human dignity are OK with this...really?

I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't think he was evil either. I think the thought he was doing the right thing.

You know you've lost an argument when you have to resort to comparing people to Hitler... what is that logical fallacy again, appeal to emotion?

Hitler did the EXACT same thing you're advocating. Kept people from certain jobs because of their religion.

This mans faith played a direct role in their ability to compete for a job, because his faith detracts from the qualities that are necessary for scientists... it's not that unreasonable.

This mans faith played a direct role in their ability to compete for a job, because his faith detracts from the qualities that are necessary for scientists... it's not that unreasonable.

Like I said, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better Adolph.

Oh and a sock puppet Adolph at that...

religious scientist based on the fact that one is more qualified for the job of "being a scientist" than the other one?

owners collude to fix prices and carve up the consumer base,

we can have true separation of church and state.

Then why do you not understand that a university can pick a non-religious scientist over a religious scientist based on the fact that one is more qualified for the job of "being a scientist" than the other one?

Are you attempting to make a point

not batshit insane "most of the time" is good enough for educators

Great, ad homs are fun aren't they?

You asserted that the myths of the christian faith are credible because there is little evidence against them

I can't believe you would make such an egregious error in logic

That's funny, because I have a higher average rating than you do

Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.

Disagree. Evil is a social definition that depicts religion.

A university professor can't be a professor because he's a Christian...really?

I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't think he was evil either.

You know that's the scariest part...the fascists didn't see the "fascism" either...

It's been pointed out that many of the greatest scientists that ever lived were religious people.

Moreover you understand it's the LAW (or it's supposed to be) that you can't discriminate against people in this country on the basis of their religion.

]I don't think he cared. And you may have already noticed that its not a good idea to bring his name up if the discussion doesn't deal with WWII or genocide.

]I don't think he cared. And you may have already noticed that its not a good idea to bring his name up if the discussion doesn't deal with WWII or genocide.

In most cases I'd agree with you on that Eth...not in this one.

I'm just tired man. I'm tired of this BS. A university professor can't be a professor because he's a Christian...really? And people who claim they're for human rights and claim they understand basic human dignity are OK with this...really?

They were a product of their times, back then it was go to church or go to the gallows.

"The fact that you believe these irrational things sheds insight onto your mindset and leads me to question your ability to think critically and rationally, which are requirements of this job"

Well the gentleman certainly hasn't lost any rights. He still has all of his Constitutional and legal rights. As for human dignity, well, he sacrificed that once he artificially shackled himself to a religion as opposed to keeping his faith private. Religion is a private matter, if he kept his religion private, he wouldn't have had this problem.

Don't ask, don't tell.

Prove that's why they were religious. I say it was because they were sincere and were ALLOWED to be both.

Moreover, regardless of WHY they were religious...they were and the did superb science. So what point was it that you were trying to make?

I hope you get caught discriminating against your religious employees someday SH and get sent up the river. Do you have any people of faith working for you BTW?

I'm just tired man. I'm tired of this BS. A university professor can't be a professor because he's a Christian...really? And people who claim they're for human rights and claim they understand basic human dignity are OK with this...really?

Well the gentleman certainly hasn't lost any rights. He still has all of his Constitutional and legal rights. As for human dignity, well, he sacrificed that once he artificially shackled himself to a religion as opposed to keeping his faith private. Religion is a private matter, if he kept his religion private, he wouldn't have had this problem.

Don't ask, don't tell.

Don't ask, don't tell.

I hope you get caught discriminating against your religious employees someday SH and get sent up the river. Do you have any people of faith working for you BTW?

I see the argument - in fact I made the point above that this is a plausible argument - but I very much disagree with it. It's not right to discriminate on the basis of what someone *might* teach. In this case, IMO it's very unlikely that he would teach anything not supported by science. If he does, then deal with it. Let's not go down the road of preemptive discrimination.

I'd say it's because they saw accounts of Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake.

It is clearly a conflict of interest.

I for one am going to start to be VERY conscientious about where I do business and who I buy from. If you're an atheist you don't get my business.

Out of curiosity, how is this discrimination?

and being reasonable and rational "most of the time" is only good enough if you don't give a shit about the quality of the educators of our children.

I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,

but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.

I for one am going to start to be VERY conscientious about where I do business and who I buy from. If you're an atheist you don't get my business.

Is this really something you wanted to have said?

Because it makes you look like a fool and a hypocrite...

Is this really something you wanted to have said?

Because it makes you look like a fool and a hypocrite...

Actually it is, and not according to you am I being a hypocrite. I've just decided that I don't trust or like atheists. Why would I trust them with my money? I'm doing the same thing this committee did. Are you saying the were wrong? Are you suggesting I be FORCED to buy products from people I don't want to?

Again, prove it.

If you're an atheist you don't get my business.

Moreover I'm going to out you to the community so everyone can make their informed decisions.

Time to start fighting back.

and being reasonable and rational "most of the time" is only good enough if you don't give a shit about the quality of the educators of our children.

I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,

but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.

Ha, my fundamentalist brother has told me several times - even back when I was still a Christian - that he refuses to do business with someone who advertises their Christianity. Something about getting ripped off too many times.

You mean persecution. Go ahead, prove our points MM.

To maximize human rights in this case the employers should have been allowed to determine for themselves if a given candidate was the best qualified for the job. You can disagree with their reasoning here but you should NOT try to limit or remove his freedom to make the call himself... after all, he's the one that has to sign the mans paychecks.

Actually it is, and not according to you am I being a hypocrite. I've just decided that I don't trust or like atheists. Why would I trust them with my money? I'm doing the same thing this committee did. Are you saying the were wrong? Are you suggesting I be FORCED to buy products from people I don't want to?

let's play it to the end.

and being reasonable and rational "most of the time" is only good enough if you don't give a shit about the quality of the educators of our children.

I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,

but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.

Actually it is, and not according to you am I being a hypocrite. I've just decided that I don't trust or like atheists. Why would I trust them with my money? I'm doing the same thing this committee did. Are you saying the were wrong? Are you suggesting I be FORCED to buy products from people I don't want to?

Are you suggesting that in a free market economy I should be FORCED to hire Christians? If turn-a-bout will be fair play, let's play it to the end.

let's play it to the end.

Yes, let's do.
But, you could not stand losing the power.

According to the equal opportunity act yeah, you are FORCED to ignore their religious beliefs.

You're not forced to hire them BECAUSE they're Christians, but if you don't hire them for this reason alone you've violated the law.

Have you violated the law SH?

and being reasonable and rational "most of the time" is only good enough if you don't give a shit about the quality of the educators of our children.

I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,

but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.

You cannot have a scientific mindset while believing in the nonsense of religion...

I'm praying for everyone on this thread...

I've eschewed prayer and have moved on to ritual sacrificing small mammals for everyone on this thread...

But the biggest mistake you make in this statement is that that it assumes that a scientific mindset and a religious mindset can't be dissociated. In fact, they *can be* and in my experience usually *are* insofar as scientific enterprise is concerned.

But the biggest mistake you make in this statement is that that it assumes that a scientific mindset and a religious mindset can't be dissociated. In fact, they *can be* and in my experience usually *are* insofar as scientific enterprise is concerned.

I don't like hypocrisy.

There doesn't have to be anything hypocritical about it. God and ontology (for lack of a better word), faith and science belong to different domains. Conflict only arises when either improperly invades the others domain, but both *can* peacefully coexist, and even in the same person. The fact that you seem unable to see that leaves me thinking you actually know little about either. I'm not speaking to the particulars of Gaskell's case either, here, nor about YEC's that try to pass themselves of as researchers in order to push a religious agenda. I'm talking about a personal belief in a creator or private faith.

You cannot have faith and simultaneously value critical thinking and rationalism without being hypocriticaL

Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, "faith" interpreted as being similar to "having a working hypothesis".

The God in which Planck believed was an almighty, all-knowing, benevolent but unintelligible God that permeated everything, manifest through symbols, including physical laws.

You cannot have faith and simultaneously value critical thinking and rationalism without being hypocriticaL

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
Max Planck
Which implies CH*82 has not been seriously engaged in scientific work.

You cannot have faith and simultaneously value critical thinking and rationalism without being hypocritical.

Faith is the antithesis of reason. Faith is belief without, or in spite of, evidence and reason.

These are mutually exclusive values by definition.

You cannot have faith and simultaneously value critical thinking and rationalism without being hypocriticaL

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."
Max Planck
Which implies CH*82 has not been seriously engaged in scientific work.

What a load of horseshit :rofl:

* Fine tuning
* Emergent complexity from the simplest
fundamental principlpes(evolution based, *not* ID)
* Ultimate causation
Concluding from these that there is a God is not irrational, doesn't make you crazy/insane, a hypocrite or unable to hold a science chair. Or a religotard. Your ATHEISM is just as much a faith as any theist, so it is you who is the hypocrite

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahahahahahahhahaha....ah. Thanks I needed a good laugh. Just keep telling yourself that. I for one am going to be an advocate of policies that make sure you stay in the closet where you belong. Just like Neo-nazis, and sociopaths of all stripes.

CH is wrong when he says people with some sort of faith can't think rationally

Most everyone has faith in something, even if it is only in themselves.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHahahahahahahahahahhahaha....ah. Thanks I needed a good laugh. Just keep telling yourself that. I for one am going to be an advocate of policies that make sure you stay in the closet where you belong. Just like Neo-nazis, and sociopaths of all stripes.

You seem to be one of the people who interprets freedom of religion in the US to mean "freedom to choose which type of christian to be."

By the way, you just tried to call me hitler. Pulling the hitler card is known as a weak, desperate attempt at emotional persuasion.

But, since you broached the topic I would point out that calling for someone to be persecuted based on religious beliefs then calling that person hitler in the same breath is just about the absolute zenith of hypocrisy. But, that's nothing new to the christian world view!

My feeling is that theists tend to impose their views on others

I'm praying for everyone on this thread...

I've eschewed prayer and have moved on to ritual sacrificing small mammals for everyone on this thread...

I suppose that's fueled by the feeling that you have ultimate truth on your side and some sense of obligation to your god to enforce his will.

Does atheism shake the foundation of your after-life fantasy?

I've eschewed prayer

Just tell them there's no such thing as heaven,

I've eschewed prayer

Eschew obfuscation.

Ethelred

you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what reason is

you have no idea what atheism is. Atheism is not faith.

I do not believe there is a god and I do not believe that there is not one... You don't HAVE have have faith in anything, that is a false dilemma.

and that you have no idea what faith is.

you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what reason is

you have no idea what atheism is. Atheism is not faith.

I do not believe there is a god and I do not believe that there is not one... You don't HAVE have have faith in anything, that is a false dilemma.

and that you have no idea what faith is.

But it's OK if the govt fixes the prices and carves up markets?

You will have to amend the First Amendment.

That is what Lenin demanded. All party members must be atheists. Otto demands all govt employees be atheists.

The list of "reasons" to believe in god that you have presented is comical and shows that you don't understand what a reasonable explanation is

...for observational evidence.

Prove that's why they were religious. I say it was because they were sincere and were ALLOWED to be both.

Moreover, regardless of WHY they were religious...they were and the did superb science.

It's no wonder you don't understand the conflict between faith and reason.

But it's OK if the govt fixes the prices and carves up markets?

Absolutely.

You will have to amend the First Amendment.

-Just judicial reinterpretation. Lots of things will be changing. Religionists are about to attempt to destroy the world. The world will have had enough of them after that. ALL of them.

That is what Lenin demanded. All party members must be atheists. Otto demands all govt employees be atheists.

I dunno. All job descriptions would need to be reviewed, see where the dangers lie. As I say, events will change public opinion, and superstition will be made illegal. Worldwide.

CH is wrong when he says people with some sort of faith can't think rationally

I didn't say that.

LOL, and you people tried to shame me for using Hitler comparisons.....hehehe.

Fascism is now vilified

Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.

That’s properly called *Agnosticism*.

Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.

Fascism is now vilified

Where?
'Progressives' and populists continue to support fascism. Of course they had to call it something else just as they keep changing their names from 'liberal' to 'progressive' to 'no label' to...

How is Christian science different to normal science?

No, it isn't. You don't know what agnosticism is either

Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable

An agnostic claims to have no knowledge of god. I am an agnostic atheist... the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive.

There, you have just been educated.

You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do

Which covers a high percentage of Atheists.

Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.

We do have a good indication, per Hawking and M-theory, that if god exists he is at best superfluous. We have much confidence that the laws of nature are absolutely dependable and unalterable, for everyone, and so we can conclude that your god does not grant wishes or do favors. After all even you would admit that, if your god created them then they must be perfect, no?

And a soul is not necessary to explain any human behavior, and so it, too, most likely does not exist. So there is no life after death. So why do you all waste your time WORSHIPPING some wholly absent deity and fighting about it? What's the point? Where's your dignity??

I think some of the theistic arguments have gone off track, where some equate christianity (a specific organized religion and the subject of the story) with a generalized, non-specific and indefinable creator that is beyond scientific scrutiny and has no trappings of a specific religion. These two sets of beliefs are quite different, IMO, and only the former is relevant to the story at hand.

Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.

From the OED Second Edition, 1986:

Atheist: One who denies or disbelieves the existence of God.

Agnostic: One who holds that the existence of anything beyond or behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

Hey Soulman, you talkin' ta me? You talkin' ta ME? Seriously, though, I think you must have missed a post up there. You're quoting me, but whose "God" are you referring to???

Christiandom have produced outstanding science and mathematics. Lumping all of them together does everyone a disservice.

Once again, I am an agnostic atheist,

You can say you are a table but that does not make it so.
The two terms are not compatible.
The only honest scientific position is agnostic.
If you don't want to agree to official definitions of words, then you can't have a reasoned discussion until definitions are agreed to.
That's the whole point of the OED, a standard for language.
My observations suggest that 'progressives' don't want standards and like to change the meanings of words and laws to suit their feelings of the day.
Science can't successfully operate that way.

Having a positive belief in god is counter-intuitive to a scientific mindset...This is not bigotry or discrimination

This mans...

The two terms are not compatible.

If you don't want to agree to official definitions of words, then you can't have a reasoned discussion until definitions are agreed to.

You are making up nonsense to make your argument easier, this is called a straw man.

No one here expresses this "form" of atheism, in fact I can't say I have ever known ANYONE to state with certainty that there is no god.

Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD... which does not imply a positive belief in the non-existence of god.

Atheism requires NO faith. Nothing REQUIRES faith. You are wrong.

Oh and thanks for all the 1 ratings modernmystic, your disapproval is it's own reward.

You are making up nonsense to make your argument easier, this is called a straw man.

No one here expresses this "form" of atheism, in fact I can't say I have ever known ANYONE to state with certainty that there is no god.

Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF IN GOD... which does not imply a positive belief in the non-existence of god.

Atheism requires NO faith. Nothing REQUIRES faith. You are wrong.

Really? Well then if our English doesn't suit you, I think you should advise the editors of the OED that they have also made grievous errors and are spreading serious misinformation.

I have no problem with these definitions, and they do not detract from anything I have said.

Your problem is that you are confusing ... which are two completely different things.

Instead of reading dictionary definitions and thinking you know a damn thing about the subject you should think about it for yourself.

Once again, I am an agnostic atheist, and you are a fool.

Someone can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.

Get your shit straight... I've never seen someone behave so disingenuously in a debate since marjon...

Once again, I am an agnostic atheist,

You can say you are a table but that does not make it so.
The two terms are not compatible.
The only honest scientific position is agnostic.

You're attempting to tell us there are only two standpoints. Theist and unsure,

Agnostic atheist

You're attempting to tell us there are only two standpoints. Theist and unsure,

No.
Believer or unsure.
The science process fails to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Where? it's a long thread.

Nazis also produced excellent science didn't they?

If good science was ever done by religionists, it was done in spite of their superstitions and not because of them.

And the science religionists have done is rife with the presumption that god designed it, and so it just HAS to look like this was the case....The work can be expected to be tainted.

Will you Americans get it out of your head that not the whole world has the problem you do with the Bible Belt! Your problems with IDers and YECs and the lot of the Fundies are not universal. Treating the whole world this way is *empirically wrong*.

American fundamentalism is possibly the most frightening thing in the world.

Agnostic atheist

-This could mean a person is just waffling, no?

You are completely right that we shouldn't generalize, but CH is right when he says we must give these fanatical ideologies no quarter.

Silent moderates are as bad as fundies.

The problem I have is the belief that just because a human being has a spiritual bend of some kind they are incapable of doing proper scientific work is just complete collective punishment BS.

And I'll up you one (though I know the upping doesn't really apply in your case): no religious ideologies, faith, or other "meme" of a spiritual nature has any business finding its way into any body of scientific work.

This sort argument over definitions is why I prefer to not self-identify as an athiest[sic] when I'm talking to someone about theism. Too many connotations and misconceptions. If they say, "are you an athiest[sic]?" I just smile and say, "well, I don't think there's a god."

I never said that it would make them incapable of it, did I?

It's not about moderation SH, but justice. But yes, the battles being waged in the States over the soul of science are very unsettling.

This sort argument over definitions is why I prefer to not self-identify as an athiest[sic] when I'm talking to someone about theism. Too many connotations and misconceptions. If they say, "are you an athiest[sic]?" I just smile and say, "well, I don't think there's a god."

Which implies a positive belief, which is what an atheist is. If you answered "Well I'm just not sure either way", that's agnosticism.

Are you not paying attention? Atheism only refers to belief. If you are an atheist you have no belief in god.

Atheism only refers to belief. If you are an atheist you have no belief in god.

Atheism only refers to belief. If you are an atheist you have no belief in god.

This is also wrong.

Atheism refers to a non-belief of theological constructs. Christians were considered the first atheists as they disagreed with Greek Pantheonic Theology while having not theology of their own.

It's not about moderation SH, but justice. But yes, the battles being waged in the States over the soul of science are very unsettling.

But it is about moderation. Moderation of any ideal results in a healthy frameowrk or ideology. Fundamentalism results in extremism.

But it is about moderation. Moderation of any ideal results in a healthy frameowrk or ideology. Fundamentalism results in extremism.

We should all be agnostics because none of us know.

And I'll up you one (though I know the upping doesn't really apply in your case): no religious ideologies, faith, or other "meme" of a spiritual nature has any business finding its way into any body of scientific work.

Well I'm not even sure that's defined properly. I understand your exact meaning, and I'm on board, but using the word at its exact meaning, science can be very spiritual while religion commonly is not.

But call yourself an atheist? Sounds like a leap of faith, a belief.

Those with faith know in their heart and souls and really have no need to scientifically demonstrate that knowledge to others.

Those with faith know in their heart and souls and really have no need to scientifically demonstrate that knowledge to others.

Why then can't you understand that (a)theism and (a)gnosticism are two completely different things [and] not mutually exclusive?

what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.

what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.

The problem I have is the belief that just because a human being has a spiritual bend of some kind they are incapable of doing proper scientific work is just complete collective punishment BS.

I never said that it would make them incapable of it, did I?

You are incorrectly reading a lot into what I have said and using your misconceptions as a basis for an argument that never had to happen in the first place.

To assume from the get go, for example, that some Anglican's work in looking for ways to improve functional magnetic resonance is *tainted* because she attends church

without ever actually having dealt with a mix of people who do fine scientific work whether they believe in God or not.

Go to your local University library where they keep records of doctoral thesis. More than 99% of the time this is just a non-issue.

Belief in God simply has no God damn bearing on the mass of research being produced.

To assume from the get go, for example, that some Anglican's work in looking for ways to improve functional magnetic resonance is *tainted*...

Actually when I wrote that I was thinking about science before the 1950s and see that wasnt clear.

Granted, there's a big break between pre and post WWII on that level.

Go to your local University library where they keep records of doctoral thesis. More than 99% of the time this is just a non-issue.

Now I bet THAT number came out of thin air. Depending on the institution, someone who submitted a science thesis which gave god responsibility for anything wouldnt see it in a library. Maybe at ORU-
cont-

True, that number is more of a bet than anything else, but it's not exactly pulled out of thin air either. I can't speak for the bible belt, but it's just never factored into any of the science research locally available at our universities and it seems very hard to imagine it as a significant % elsewhere.

Anyone who does state that they know that there is no god is lying.

I don't believe in god (which makes me an atheist) but I don't KNOW that god doesn't exist either (which makes me agnostic).

if the judeo-christian god did exist it would be a horrible thing...

what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.

To bring this full circle, this is a prime example of what I personally wouldn't want in a science classroom, or any classroom really.

subjective truth relative to your own cognition

Why not?
All teachers should understand where science fits in a universal heuristic.

Belief in God simply has no God damn bearing on the mass of research being produced.

I bet you would admit that it certainly can, and accept that it certainly has, and then realize that it most certainly will.

Of course it *can*, of course it *has*, and of course it probably will again. which is why selection committees with a strong scientific ethic are paramount in order to vet out pretenders, frauds and those who have non-scientific agendas. But this doesn’t apply only to religionists, all kinds of nonsense needs to be guarded against. Look at the failure to put a crimp on the Bogandov brothers.

Consider scientists in prewar europe who bent over backwards to prove humanity originated there, even to the extent of fabricating piltdown man. Their motivation was likely socio-political, not scientific; but their inspiration was wholly religionist.

Well there you have it. Exactly. Religious inspiration, but sociopolitical, racial motivation.

Belief in God simply has no God damn bearing on the mass of research being produced.

I bet
you would admit that it certainly can, and accept that it certainly has, and then realize that it most
certainly will.

Of course it *can*, of course it *has*, and of course it probably will again. which is why selection committees with a strong scientific ethic are paramount in order to vet out pretenders,
frauds and those who have non-scientific agendas. But this doesn’t apply only to religionists, all kinds of nonsense needs to be guarded against. Look at the failure to put a crimp on the Bogdanov brothers.

Consider scientists in prewar europe who bent over backwards to prove humanity originated there, even to the extent of fabricating piltdown man. Their motivation was likely socio-political, not scientific; but their inspiration was wholly religionist.

Well there you have it. Exactly. Religious inspiration, but sociopolitical, racial motivation.

Belief in God simply has no God damn bearing on the mass of research being produced.

I bet
you would admit that it certainly can, and accept that it certainly has, and then realize that it most
certainly will.

Consider scientists in prewar europe who bent over backwards to prove humanity originated there, even to the extent of fabricating piltdown man. Their motivation was likely socio-political, not scientific; but their inspiration was wholly religionist.

Youre right, much good work is done by believers. But I would think that, on average, they would be
less apt to accept something which conflicted with their beliefs than a non-believer. And they would be
more apt to proceed with preconceived notions derived from their beliefs, whether they realized it or not.

Religious fanaticism is usually the most frightening of these both in terms of numbers and intensity, but it remains just one type of fanaticism.

what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.

Youre right, much good work is done by believers.

USAID and UNICEF do a far better job

USAID and UNICEF do a far better job

All volunteers I presume operating on 100% donated funds?

If you think the Mormon and Catholic missionaries are working on donated funds and for free, you're batty.

If you think the Mormon and Catholic missionaries are working on donated funds and for free, you're batty.

They are not paid with taxes.
Mormon missionaries save their own money to pay for their mission.

If you think the Mormon and Catholic missionaries are working on donated funds and for free, you're batty.

They are not paid with taxes.

Mormon missionaries save their own money to pay for their mission.

If you think the Mormon and Catholic missionaries are working on donated funds and for free, you're batty.

They are not paid with taxes.

Au contraire. Remember the Bush exec order providing for "Faith Based Initiatives"? Last year the Catholic church was handed 20 million of tax dollars to renovate "landmark" churches in Baltimore. To this day the money is gone and the churches remain unrenovated.

Mormon missionaries save their own money to pay for their mission.

No, the super powered church pays for their endeavors. They must pay their "initiation" fees for their missionary work.

More marjon lies.

The money is given to the church and redistributed according to the cost of living in each missionary's assigned area of the world.

The money is given to the church and redistributed according to the cost of living in each missionary's assigned area of the world.

The money is given to the church and redistributed according to the cost of living in each missionary's assigned area of the world.

How progressive...

Mormon missionaries are volunteers.

'Progressives' require force to redistribute wealth.

Mormon missionaries are volunteers.

They're volunteering at the barrel of a gun called Hell.

Mormon missionaries are volunteers.

They're volunteering at the barrel of a gun called Hell.

So you believe in hell, or that two wrongs make a right?

Mormon missionaries are volunteers.

They're volunteering at the barrel of a gun called Hell.

So you believe in hell, or that two wrongs make a right?

Mormon Missionaries believe in Hell, as far as I can tell form his comments I really don't think Skeptic_Heretic is a mormon missionary.

Mormon missionaries are volunteers.

They're volunteering at the barrel of a gun called Hell.

So you believe in hell, or that two wrongs make a right?

Mormon Missionaries believe in Hell, as far as I can tell form his comments I really don't think Skeptic_Heretic is a mormon missionary.

Mormon missionaries are volunteers.

They're volunteering at the barrel of a gun called Hell.

So you believe in hell, or that two wrongs make a right?

Again, no Mormon will be put in jail for not going on a mission. Mormon's can even choose to leave the church.

Again, no Mormon will be put in jail for not going on a mission. Mormon's can even choose to leave the church.
If 'progressive' wants my money, he uses a govt agent to put a gun to my head and takes my money. The ONLY choice, my money or my life.

Again, no Mormon will be put in jail for not going on a mission. Mormon's can even choose to leave the church.
If 'progressive' wants my money, he uses a govt agent to put a gun to my head and takes my money. The ONLY choice, my money or my life.

So you admit they're both choices.

If they do that their entire family, the Church, and in some cases the entire city or town will isolate and shun them. That is the ultimate in compulsion, loneliness.

If shunning is so powerful, why don't you prefer that over govt force?

Life or death is the choice I have from the government. What choice is that?

For some reason whenever I see the word Mormon I always read it as Moron.

Religion right now is the only thing preventing enduring world peace, and is the only thing threatening civilization with destruction.

Like all fascists, you attempt to create peace by forcibly bludgeoning others into submitting before your own rigid and narrow personal beliefs. But that action is itself a form of violence, which only yields more violence. So you only create more conflict, not peace.

Peace is only realized through understanding, tolerance, patience and love. None of which you exhibit. You're a part of the very problem that you claim to wish to solve.

The core problem isn't religion; it's violence, in all of its myriad and often subtle forms.

Lots of bludgeoning going on here.

Tantrums are pretty violent.

You've misunderstood, I'm not a pacifist, obviously.

I think violence is often effective and sometimes even fun. I was just pointing out that your claim "religion right now is the only thing preventing enduring world peace" is patently idiotic.

I'm an atheist and occasional agnostic forced into existence to lay down a little law and order around here, because trolling freaks like the multi-sock-puppeted Zephir/KwasniczJ aether theory crackpot, and the infantile fascist fanatic otto1932 - who sometimes plagiarizes some of my profile to make himself sound righteous, are dumping their turds

Violence is the problem and statists demand the govt must have the monopoly on violence.

'Progressives' and Randians both agree with this.

My kids asked how Hitler could come to power. Simple, he disarmed the citizens and ruthlessly attacked and killed any opposition. People want to live and suffer the tyranny.

Randians are anarchists. for the most part.

Ayn Rand was no anarchist.

Like you, she was an atheist

but unlike SH, she reluctantly saw no other alternative to the monopolization of force by the state

SH and Rand both presume people will readily commit violence if there is no govt threat of retaliation.

I think both are projecting their violent desires on society.

I'm not the one endorsing private armies and "the right to commit violence".

SH promotes state power to control his desire to use force on others.

I am one of the few here that respects and promotes the individual's right to liberty, responsibility along with the right for self defense and property.

"In 2008, 1,621,000 Americans reported themselves to be atheists. This represents 0.7% of the total adult population of 228,182,000 at that time. This is based on the 2010 Statistical Yearbook of the United States Census Bureau."

"The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic’s gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime. "

Which can be stolen from you if you sign the wrong contract, or fall on hard times.

So was everybody else at the time who ever wanted to get anywhere.So what?You play their way or you dont play,is how it was.

Science is moving a lot faster now that most of the people who do it arent superstitionists, either ardent or expedient,isnt it?

the university system as we know it was in great part created by the Church, so it had in fact a positive influence.

Certainly at the time of Faraday and Planck it was not necessary to be a christian to go anywhere: Robert Edmond Grant held a University College London chair and he was an atheist. Friedrich Nietzsche held a Chair at the University of Basel and was an atheist.

Clearly the examples above show that belief in God does not interfere with the advancement of science. Also, the university system as we know it was in great part created by the Church, so it had in fact a positive influence.

Even so, they are in the minority at a time when religions icy grip still held fast the course of science and education.

I can make the case that science was only able to follow discovery where it led when the church began to lose it's icy grip

So "icy grip" or not, religion remains, and as I stated earlier, it does not interfere with the advancement of science.

They were a minority but it's enough to have a reasonable doubt that Faraday and Planck were Christians merely as a product of peer pressure.

So "icy grip" or not, religion remains, and as I stated earlier, it does not interfere with the advancement of science.

That's not really the issue here. Sure, the religious can do valid science in fields which they perceive not to be in conflict with their beliefs. But there is a problem when such a person, with a truckload of 'christian science' associations, is placed in a position of power, such as a teaching position or a directorship, where he can influence (even if subtly) students, colleagues or policy.

But there is a problem when such a person, with a truckload of 'christian science' associations, is placed in a position of power, such as a teaching position or a directorship, where he can influence (even if subtly) students, colleagues or policy.

People like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins believe science alone explains the existence of the universe.

Therefore, all the foolish people who buy into the concept of God are ignorant simpletons.

Sadly, this posture betrays a breathtaking ignorance of philosophy and theology.

The tools and theories of science are beautifully equipped to answer, "How?" while the ideas of philosophy and religion are beautifully equipped to answer, "Why?"

The Big Bang and evolution explain how we got here, but that is about it.

Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it.

We need not have been here.

But why ARE we hear?

Why life?

Why has life led to intelligence?

It is all quite opposed to entropy. Why?

Science fails to even ask such questions.

Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.

Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.

And you don't wonder why?

It's a ridiculous and baseless assertion.

It's a ridiculous and baseless assertion.

Then explain the purpose of life.

Then explain the purpose of life.

We need not have been here.

But why ARE we hear?
Why life? Why has life led to intelligence? It is all quite opposed to entropy. Why?
Science fails to even ask such questions.

Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.

And you don't wonder why?

Scientists ask why because they genuinely want to know,

There is no other known purpose and making up a god just ads one more question. What is the purpose of the god.

So which scientists are investigating the purpose of life in the universe

Or are there no scientists asking because they don't want to know

BTW, our modern science was motivated by faith to investigate and try to understand God's creation

So which scientists are investigating the purpose of life in the universe

BTW, our modern science was motivated by faith to investigate and try to understand God's creation.

So which scientists are investigating the purpose of life in the universe?

Or are there no scientists asking because they don't want to know?

BTW, our modern science was motivated by faith to investigate and try to understand God's creation.

A rock is composed of atoms similar to those found in living matter yet a rock does not reproduce or evolve.
Scientists have no interest in understanding why?

A rock is composed of atoms similar to those found in living matter yet a rock does not reproduce or evolve.
Scientists have no interest in understanding why?

A rock is composed of atoms similar to those found in living matter yet a rock does not reproduce or evolve.
Scientists have no interest in understanding why?

Obviously the atheists Otto and SH can't answer and obviously don't care.

Obviously the atheists Otto and SH can't answer and obviously don't care.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't the answer.

A rock is composed of atoms similar to those found in living matter yet a rock does not reproduce or evolve.

Scientists have no interest in understanding why?

Obviously the atheists Otto and SH can't answer and obviously don't car

The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.

After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are.

the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity

the laws should have an explanation from within the universe

and not involve appealing to an external agency.

The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.

But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus

"...the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. "

SH DID give the answer and Otto was clearly sneering at your ignorance. Then again, while I suspect he knows the answer I wouldn't be surprised if he thought the Bavarian Illuminati was behind it.

Bullshit. He engaged in circular reasoning and used assumptions dependent on knowledge NO ONE has.

I'll give a bit more credibility to a theoretical physicist than Ethel

At least he is still acting like a scientist.

Bullshit. He engaged in circular reasoning and used assumptions dependent on knowledge NO ONE has.

I'll give a bit more credibility to a theoretical physicist than Ethel.
http://beyond.asu.edu/
At least he is still acting like a scientist. He is asking tough questions and not ruling out any answers.

claim that people that aren't depending on faith are doing so.

Truth hurts.

I now have a sample size of two, Davies and Max Planck, both theoretical physicists who state faith is used in the practice of science. I suspect there are many more.

Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive

Truth hurts.

I now have a sample size of two, Davies and Max Planck, both theoretical physicists who state faith is used in the practice of science. I suspect there are many more.