Scientist alleges religious discrimination in Ky.

Dec 17, 2010 By DYLAN LOVAN , Associated Press
This Dec. 26, 2005 photo provided by Mark Dahmke, shows astronomer Martin Gaskell. Dahmke argues that his faith and questions about evolution kept him from getting a prime job as director of a brand new student observatory at the University of Kentucky. He has filed filed a lawsuit against the university in federal court in Lexington. (AP Photo/Mark Dahmke)

(AP) -- An astronomer argues that his Christian faith and his peers' belief that he is an evolution skeptic kept him from getting a prestigious job as the director of a new student observatory at the University of Kentucky.

Martin Gaskell quickly rose to the top of a list of applicants being considered by the university's search committee. One member said he was "breathtakingly above the other applicants."

Others openly worried his Christian faith could conflict with his duties as a scientist, calling him "something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical."

Even though Gaskell says he is not a creationist, he claims he was passed over for the job at UK's MacAdam Student three years ago because of his religion and statements that were perceived to be critical of the .

Gaskell has sued the university, claiming lost income and . Last month a judge rejected a motion from the university and allowed it to go to trial Feb. 8.

"There is no dispute that based on his application, Gaskell was a leading candidate for the position," U.S. Karl S. Forester wrote in the ruling.

Gaskell later learned that professors had discussed his purported religious views during the search process. Gaskell told the AP in an e-mail that he didn't grow frustrated, but felt "one should not allow universities to get away with religious discrimination."

University scientists wondered to each other in internal e-mails if Gaskell's faith would interfere with the job, which included public outreach, according to court records.

The topic became so heated behind the scenes that even university biologists, who believed Gaskell was a critic of evolution, weighed in by citing a controversial Bible-based museum in Kentucky that had just opened.

"We might as well have the Creation Museum set up an outreach office in biology," biology professor James Krupa wrote to a colleague in an October 2007 e-mail. The museum was making national headlines at the time for exhibits that assert the literal truth of the Bible's creation story.

Science professors cited a lecture Gaskell has given called "Modern Astronomy, the Bible and Creation," which he developed for "Christians and others interested in Bible and science questions...," according to an outline of the lecture. Gaskell told the AP he was invited to give the lecture at UK in 1997, and organizers had read his notes.

The wide-ranging lecture outlines historical scientific figures who discuss God and interpretations of the creation story in the biblical chapter Genesis. Also in the notes, Gaskell mentions evolution, saying the theory has "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations," according to court records.

Gaskell was briefly asked about the lecture during his job interview in 2007 with the chair of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michael Cavagnero, according to Gaskell's deposition. Gaskell said he felt that questions related to religion during the job interview were "inappropriate."

"I think that if I had a document like this and I was advocating atheism ... I don't think it would be an issue," he said of his lecture.

Science professors also expressed concern that hiring Gaskell would damage the university's image.

An astrophysics professor, Moshe Elitzur, told Cavagnero that the hire would be a "huge public relations mistake," according to an e-mail from Cavagnero in court records.

"Moshe predicts that he would not be here one month before the (Lexington) Herald-Leader headline would read: 'UK hires creationist to direct new student observatory.'"

University spokesman Jay Blanton declined to comment Monday because the litigation is pending.

Gaskell said he is not a "creationist" and his views on evolution are in line with other biological scientists. In his lecture notes, Gaskell also distances himself from Christians who believe the earth is a few thousand years old, saying their assertions are based on "mostly very poor science."

Gaskell's lawsuit is indicative of an increasingly tense debate between religion and science on college campuses and elsewhere, said Steven K. Green, a law professor and director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy at Willamette University in Salem, Ore.

"I think it reflects a phenomenon that the sides in this debate are becoming more encamped, they're hunkering down," Green said. "Because certainly within the biology community and within the science community generally, they see the increasing attacks creationists are making as very threatening to their existence - and vice versa, to a certain extent."

Gaskell was uniquely qualified for the new position at the University of Kentucky, according to court records, because he oversaw the design and construction of an observatory at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He also advised UK during the building of the MacAdam facility. He currently teaches at the University of Texas.

His attorney, Frank Manion, said scientists at UK were too quick to place Gaskell on one side of the creation-evolution debate.

"Unfortunately too many people get hung up on the idea that you have to be one extreme or the other," said Manion, who works for American Center for Law & Justice, which focuses on religious freedom cases. They say "you can't be a religious believer and somebody who accepts evolution, which is clearly not true. And Gaskell's a perfect example of that."

Explore further: New anthology offers comprehensive insight into the life and works of Margaret Thatcher

More information: UK MacAdam Student Observatory: http://bit.ly/gKvvkB

4.4 /5 (9 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The Role of Sleep in Learning New Words

Sep 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study has demonstrated for the first time the importance of sleep in learning new words, and has shown the process has fast and slow components. The slow component is associated with ...

Religion puts some docs in quandary

Aug 03, 2007

More U.S. doctors are refusing to treat patients for religious reasons, causing a collision between religious freedom and discrimination laws.

Intelligent design again stopped by court

Jan 18, 2006

A California school district has reportedly decided to stop offering an elective course that includes discussion of religion-based alternatives to evolution.

Recommended for you

James Watson's Nobel Prize to be auctioned

Nov 25, 2014

Missed the chance to bid on Francis Crick's Nobel Prize when it was auctioned off last year for $2.27 million? No worries, you'll have another chance to own a piece of science history on Dec. 4, when James D. Watson's 1962 ...

Engineers develop gift guide for parents

Nov 21, 2014

Faculty and staff in Purdue University's College of Engineering have come up with a holiday gift guide that can help engage children in engineering concepts.

User comments : 365

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aaaaaaaaa
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2010
The fact that he believes in mystical magical beings i.e god, angels, heaven and hell etc.
(No scientific proof)
Enough Said.
ormondotvos
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 17, 2010
A link to the damning documents might be useful, O physorg writer!

As for atheism, it not only doesn't contradict scientific attitudes, it RELIES on them!

Truth, as we can define it, doesn't always lie in the middle. Creationism is an OUTLIER. (as in "lies", known as untruths. Do creationists know they lie?)
CHollman82
3.5 / 5 (19) Dec 17, 2010
The question is whether this mans religious faith would have hindered him from satisfactorily filling the role.

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.

One also cannot suspend their scientific side on Sunday mornings and then suspend their christian side throughout the week. Both of these two things demand that one embrace them fully and in all aspects of life.

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.
esprits4
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2010
Wow, i have never seen so many misinformed comments. obviously the topic of christianity and science is a long and in depth one, not to be addressed here, but science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural world through observation and experimentation (oxford dictionary). 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. it is how you create and and verify your experiments. the system has checks and balances for those who falsify their finds, which would happen if christians scientists were producing bad results. im sure it happens, but those individuals are discredited and ignored. this man was apparently an honored academic. religion should have no place in the questioning of good academic candidates. this is truly a shame.
CHollman82
3.6 / 5 (14) Dec 17, 2010
esprits4...

The very ABILITY to believe in that which you must believe in to call yourself a christian speaks volumes to your mindset.

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.

I CANNOT believe in god and heaven and hell, it's not that I don't want to it's that I literally can't. 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, and that is extraordinary and simultaneously without a shred of good evidence.

No good scientist would be able to believe in these things, because that belief would undermine the necessary qualities and attributes of a good scientist.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2010
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.
No, it isn't.
You're born black and someone refuses you a job, there's nothing you can do.

If you're a creationist and someone refuses to hire you, you could go read a book and learn something factual and try again.
in order to accurately be a scientist, it has nothing to do with color, religion, creed, etc.
Actually yes it does. In order to be a scientist you must be able to remove subjectivity from the equation as much and as often as possible. Secondly, you cannot use your feelings in science. I can't feel that an isotope of Uranium will decay and emit a neutron. It either does or it doesn't. You cannot claim absolute truth in something that is not demonstrable, that is the opposite of science.

If you know it, you can show it. If you can't show it, then you don't know shit.
Argon
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2010
It's sad to hear that Christian beliefs are being discriminated against, but I think the evolutionists are also being needlessy attacked for their beliefs. I think it's high time for evolutionists to claim that their belief system is a religion and as such should fall under the protection of our constitution. Evolutionists needn't give up their percieved scientific influence. Furthermore, their newfound religious status would encourage others to respect their beliefs and to stop attacking them on that basis.

Under this new order science can continue to progress without the dogmatic bias of any religion and scientists themselves are free to tender their own religious beliefs but should be required to state all scientific findings without mummy wrapping the whole thing in their religious views and then passsing it off as a "scientific fact".
aaaaaaaaa
3.5 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
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?

Why should I believe your version?

I can promise you the earth is NOT 5000 years old and Noah and his Ark is a load of Bull.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2010
"who believed Gaskell was a critic of evolution,"
Many here claim that is the job of scientists, to be critics.
Argon
1 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2010
, 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.


Is that a religious promise?

Take the dogma of evolution out of the scientific pursuit and you end up with unabridged knowledge. Unabridged knowledge is good enough for me, people can interepret it any way they want. I would just like to be presented with the raw knowledge so I don't have to spend so much time trying to seperate a world view from what is fundamentally being observed.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2010
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.


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.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2010
"In 1979, shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience."
http://nobelprize...ips.html
William D Phillips, Autobiography, 1997 Nobel Prize in physics.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2010
http://en.wikiped..._of_1964

Hope he ends up owning the place...
GFoyle
5 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2010
Gaskell's quoted comments are enough to question his fitness
1 Christians...believe the earth is a few thousand years old...are based on "mostly very poor science"
Their belief is based on religious doctrine, NOT on any science whatever. Gaskell is disingenuous
2 evolution.."significant scientific problems" "unwarranted atheistic assumptions... extrapolations"
Evolution has unanswered questions but not fundamental contradictions; does not rely on "atheistic" beliefs--unless you consider science itself to be atheistic. Science makes no claim about religious doctrine that is not advocated as a model of the material world. Evolution applies to the entire universe, not just biology, which is part of the evolution of matter, stellar nucleosynthesis, stars, planets, and life
3 questions related to religion during the job interview were "inappropriate"
Unless you propose to substitute religious doctrine for scientific theory and observation
Mira_Musiclab
4.4 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2010
Heres the conundrum I've never got over.

If you are the author of all of creation, safe to say you are the most intelligent and wisest being amongst it.

You create some bots (perhaps you are lonely, makes sense.) and give them the power of free-will. They can choose to believe, or not. They can create, or destroy if they wish.

Yet, if they chose not to believe, or chose destruction, you have created (or allowed) a plane of existence for them, that includes pain and eternal torment. No lesson to be learned, no means of restitution, you messed up, and now you fry.... Forever.

It seems to me, with such a small mind comparatively-speaking. If my little bots were to hate me, defy me. I would destroy them outright, not torture them eternally. If my culture in the petri-dish went afoul, I get rid of it. Not waste time poking it with a hot inocculation loop...

How is this not sadism? And if you are that smart and wise, could you be?

God, or not, I think we fail to describe her well..
beelize54
1.6 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2010
The fact that he believes in mystical magical beings i.e god, angels, heaven and hell etc.
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.
thales
3.4 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Major_features_of_the_Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


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."

My two bits:

Humans compartmentalize, and I think religious scientists are just quite good at applying critical thinking to everything but the religion. Look at Francis Collins. Certainly one can be religious and scientific, but it is limiting in both spheres. That is, they're mutually exclusive; so the religious scientist must and does carefully keep them mentally separate.

It's a difficult issue, but I would prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the professor. If he starts teaching creationism in the classroom, *then* deal with it.
aaaaaaaaa
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
Argon

I am GOD accept my word unquestionably and obey my disciples.

You may ask why? Because I had a dream / vision.

If not 'GO TO HELL'

Religion = Irrationality + War.
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 17, 2010
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.


Comparisons to Hitler... the last vestige of a truly irrational argument based on emotion rather than reason.
beelize54
1 / 5 (10) Dec 17, 2010
Religion = Irrationality + War.
Every physical theory is based on belief, I mean belief in validity of its assumptions, postulates or axioms. For example the Big Bang idea of Universe formation in pinpoint singularity from nothing is irrational at least in the same way, like the concept of creator.
irjsiq
1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
The Enlightenment proffered of these 'Possessors of Truth' have opened my eyes!
No Prayer Book should be anywhere near an Institution of Science! It could 'Poison the Minds' of REAL Scientists!

1. 5,000 to 7,000 years old?
'Conglomerates' have always fascinated me . . .and I have been looking for a Conglomerate within a Conglomerate,
Such would indeed be a very old rock!
Try to fit such a specimen within a 5-7K time frame!

2. I believe in:
Intelligent Design;
'Creationism';
Devine Intervention; a Supreme Being/Entity; Evolution!
I have 'intelligently' Designed objects!
I have Created, from objects at hand, New Things!
Devine Intervention?
Have you never experienced inexplicable intervention? I have several to numerous times!
My Wife approached a busy Intersection and had the Green Light. Something TOLD her to 'Slow Down', which she did . . . Another Vehicle 'Blasted through the Red Light, and would have T-Boned my Wife's car, on the Driver's side!

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
Comparisons to Hitler... the last vestige of a truly irrational argument based on emotion rather than reason.

That's the only augment presented to attack the Christian Nobel Prize winning physicist, William Phillips, irrational and emotional.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
" "Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me," he told the gathering of several hundred at the Havard Memorial Church. "For others, however, it appears strange, even astonishing, that someone could be serious about science and about faith.""
http://www.deepsc...hy/faith and science.html
jmcanoy1860
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
I think he is attempting to force a non-issue. Unless, of course, he is a creationist.

Dr. Robert Bakker of Harvard is a pentecostal preacher

Dr. Francis Collins is an evangelist and the head of the NIH

Dr. Miller is a catholic and the author of the leading high-school biology book.

These guys are not only highly respected but had no problems getting jobs.
irjsiq
1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
Roy J Stewart and 'Evolution' (Ran out of Space(sic))
The 'Concept of Evolution' simplifies astonishingly great 'gaps' in 'the Actuality of Life itself . . . and with the Discovery of RNA/DNA, vastly more 'gaps' disappear, replaced 'vastly' more questions!

A Brother-in-Law, when asked whether he 'believed' Time/Earth was only 7K years of extant; He replied that He believed that to be so; because, 'That is what He 'chose to Believe!
Note here, the fact that We Are All Free to choose what we believe:
Atheists 'Choose to believe they are right!
I Choose to Believe in God!
Neither of us can or should be concerned about the 'Beliefs' of thje other; for neither of us has 'Proof' . . . We Simply 'Choose' to believe!

My God would be humiliated were I to bow to She/He:
"You were 'Created' that You Face toward Heaven!"

Miracles are what you Believe:
The 'Epiglottis' is an incredibly 'Miraculous' Design!
A Miracle!

Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
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.
Mira_Musiclab
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
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.


Must.......resist.......troll-bait........

Ok, all better.
rgwalther
5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
A Miracle!
Roy J Stewart,
Phoenix AZ


I do believe, I do believe, I do I do I do!!
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
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.

Do you know that Lemaitre wrote the Vatican stating "As far as I see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being."

Lemaitre was an engineer and a mathematician before he joined the seminary. He only joined the seminary after fighting in the Belgian military for many years and witnessing abject carnage. Many think he joined simply to be exempt from military service going forward, but that is supposition.

Newton was from the 1600's.

Darwin did not study theology nor was he a christian.
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
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.
That is utter rubish. For instance DARWIN was a divinity student. Many scientists have been religious.

The reason for this is because I cannot make myself believe in something that is irrational,
Neither can I but many can do it and still be rational on most things.

that flies in the face of everything we have learned of the nature of reality,
Now that is wrong. You are acting as if ALL religious people are Fundamentalist Christians.

simultaneously without a shred of good evidence.
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.

because that belief would undermine the necessary qualities and attributes of a good scientist.
No good scientist should say something so narrow minded.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
Darwin did not study theology nor was he a christian
He was a DIVINITY student at Cambridge. How much more theological do you want?

http://en.wikiped...s_Darwin

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.
A lousy divinity student but still.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2010
Darwin did not study theology nor was he a christian.
Allow me to take back this statement, it is in error. He did study Theology, and for a part of his life he was a Christian.

Eth, you beat me by 32 seconds.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
“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.”
“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.”
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.”
Max Planck, founder of quantum theory.
SoulmanOtto
3.2 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2010
Planks viewpoint is woefully out of date, as I bet he would admit. I wonder who he was trying to impress or appease? University regents? Conservative funders? Politicians? In-laws?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
as I bet he would admit.
Based upon what? He had many colleagues who were quite atheist.
Atheists here keep trying to minimize the religious faith of scientists who have been and are great scientists.
Are atheists so closed minded? Are they so committed to their hypothesis that scientists can't have faith in God they have to create excuses?
What happens to the atheist world view when great scientists have religious faith? Why does that bother them so?
These atheists act like zealots who burned heretics at the stake.
CarolinaScotsman
5 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
There are many "flavors" of Christianity. Some believe in God but do not have any preconceptions of how (S)He created the universe(s), leaving that totally to the realm of science. That said, in this case, Gaskell's position that,
saying the theory has "significant scientific problems" and includes "unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations,"
shows that he is basing his scientific beliefs on his religious beliefs. That is enough to disqualify him from a teaching position. Properly, science and religion should be two seperate disciplines. Using one to evaluate the other is a common fallacy that has caused untold grief.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2010
Properly, science and religion should be two seperate disciplines. Using one to evaluate the other is a common fallacy that has caused untold grief.

That's what I have been trying to explain to the atheists here.
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.
If MIT didn't practice tenure, would the cunning linguist Chomsky still have a university job? I would fire him and let him live of his book sales condemning the capitalist system.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2010
Based upon what? He had many colleagues who were quite atheist.
-Based on a better understanding by the scientific community of the nature of the laws that they are aware of which govern the universe. And the fact that religionism exerts less political and social influence on the course of scientific research today.
What happens to the atheist world view when great scientists have religious faith? Why does that bother them so?
Because if those scientists are indeed serious about worshipping phoney gods and receiving insight from them while at the same time conducting expensive and important research based entirely on understanding and accepting reality, then this would possibly indicate a personality schism of significance, and a corresponding lack of sound judgement.

This particular gentleman seems like he desires to preach his beliefs while doing his work. This is not a part of his job description and is thus unacceptable in an academic setting.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2010
This is not a part of his job description and is thus unacceptable in an academic setting.

Unless they preach socialism, or AGW or some other non-scientific belief supported by 'liberals'.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.8 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2010
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.
If they preach their personal beliefs, like the religionist psycho killer at ft Hood, during the course of their work, then they can be and should be removed from their posts.

Socialism is the future, marduk- the machines wont let us decide things for ourselves. We're not very good at it. Too susceptable to cheating and stealing, you know, and price-fixing and graft and corruption and influence-peddling and all.

They might let us continue to THINK like we are deciding things for ourselves, just to keep us compliant, but they will know better. Huh, this sounds familiar...
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
Socialism is the future,

Future of what?
Where is your science based data?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
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!
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
"“It is often said, and widely believed, that scientists on the whole are anti-religious or, at least, are not interested in religion. I believed that for a long time too. But no longer. ...as I perceive it, the fact is, the scientists, the physicists at least, who have been most active, most successful in developing the quantum theory and further innovations in physics, are very interested in religion. "
Henry Margenau - former president of the American Association for the Philosophy of Science, a physics professor at Yale University and former editor of Reviews of Modern Physics

Robert Griffiths (a physics professor at Carnegie Mellon University and winner of the Heinemann prize in mathematical physics):

“If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The Physics department isn't much use” [interview in Christianity Today, April 3, 1987, p. 18]

What is it about physics?
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.6 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2010
Socialism is the future,

Future of what?
Where is your science based data?
The gradual replacement of nonsense by Reason, which is the hallmark of science. As in- what makes you think that the great majority of people actually have any clue as to whats best for society as a whole? They will always vote for their own personal interests and for the politicians who promise them they can deliver.

Look at Greece. Decades of politicians winning votes by promising voters benefits the govt couldnt possibly sustain for long. Those charlatans are long gone and the people spoiled silly. This is inevitable when people are allowed to actually decide things for themselves.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.8 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2010
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!
-And John McEnroe plays guitar. So what?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
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.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (23) Dec 18, 2010
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.
No, what is best for a given society often involves sacrifice or compromise by individuals or groups who will usually resist this and seek ways of unfairly influencing decision-makers to favor them.

The only way this can work is for the whole system to be 'rigged', so that it functions despite these unavoidable tendencies. People will still corrupt and be corrupted, but the things that need to get done will still be done. Obviously, the real Decision-makers, like the mafia, will have to be the corrupters.

-I'm already tired of looking at that guys picture above. He looks CREEPY. IMHO. Its like, 'Im going to look as happy as I possibly can because I'VE GOT GOD! Want to hear about it??' -No.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
often involves sacrifice or compromise by individuals

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

What a rational observation!
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.7 / 5 (24) Dec 18, 2010
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!
And if I was a professional profiler, psychoanalyst, or behavioral scientist, I would no doubt say the same thing... That guy looks creepy IMPO. 'I'm so happy I'm so happy, and anyone who sees this picture of me will know they can be as happy as me, because I'VE GOT GOD!!!Ha haaaa! Wheeee!!!!' IMPO, is what they would say.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2010
Physicists as a group tend to be quite musical
Physicists...
http://www.youtub...ozHsmVQI
Jimee
5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
A "scientist" who doesn't believe in science? Brilliant! Perhaps better as a short order cook.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
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.
Quantum_Conundrum
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
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.


The top 1% of people in America now have 25% of the income. Frankly, I don't think most any of them give a damn about anyone else. If they did, they could literally give 23% of that 25% to the bottom 23% of Americans, and they themselves would still be at least twice as wealthy as anyone else.

So no pal. Adam Smith was a dumb ass and dead wrong, and so are you.

America today is functionally the exact same thing as feudalism, except we "mostly" replaced "lords and ladies" with CEOs, senators, representatives, judges, presidents, corporations, and "entrepreneurs" who serve the exact same niche in civilization.

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

It's sad.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
Adam Smith was a dumb ass and dead wrong, and so are you.

Prove it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
We treat presidents in this country like they are God, even when they are obviously unskilled know-nothings.
Where are you from?
I watch the President of the US take the most brutal criticism ever from their country's citizens.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
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.

What's truly sad is that you don't see the single flaw of Smith's work.

He failed to delineate between positive liberty and negative liberty, and created a system that endures hardship through negative liberty, which is contrary to the natural state of man as written by a great many, including Payne, Voltaire, and most notably, Hobbes.

And not distinguishing between the two is essentially Marxism as he wrote (paraphrased) "positive and negative liberty are indistinguishable in practice, or that one cannot exist without the other."
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
Hobbes was wrong.
SH threatens those who disagree with him which is why he agrees with Hobbes.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
"In the Palaeolithic hunting and foraging bands from whose members we are all descended, there were no doubt some individuals who were liars, bullies, thieves, free-riders, and cheats, while there were others who were reliable, generous, and kind. But they managed well enough to hold together, to collaborate for common purposes, to form ongoing relationships with other bands, and to respect each other’s personal autonomy without having to be forcibly restrained by a ruling person or group. "
"...it does mean that Hobbes’s central thesis is a bad one to the extent that it attributes to human beings a universal psychology inherited from a common past from which he derives a generalisation which is demonstrably false."
http://www.philos.../?p=1626
SH needs Hobbes to defend his statism which also explains why he can't understand tea parties.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
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.
SoulmanOtto
3.7 / 5 (22) Dec 18, 2010
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.
Good link thanks.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
"the organizational practice of forcing an individual to be secretive about themselves is a basic intrusion on their right to privacy, the right to free speech, and discriminates against their guaranteed equality under the Constitution. "
http://news.yahoo...l_policy
Unless, of course, one is a Christian.
ironjustice
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
Quote: The very ABILITY to believe in that which you must believe in to call yourself a christian
Answer: The ability to believe there was a man named Christ. THAT is ALL you NEED to believe IN ORDER to BE considered to BE a 'Christian'. THAT is the ONLY 'criteria' that is REQUIRED to BE a Christian. There is ENOUGH 'evidence' to sway MANY peoples' 'belief' that there WAS a 'man' named Christ. The FACT 'evolutionists' and atheists BELIEVE that believing there was a man named Christ somehow PRECLUDES one from being ABLE to run a telescope is pretty strange. Atheists on the whole are pretty strange. MANY of them are of low morals / never taught morals DUE TO never having a MORAL upbringing / lacking in religious thought . Atheists on the whole have been shown to tend to 'give other people a raw deal' and other aberrational behavior. Cites available upon request.
ironjustice
1 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
Quote: The very ABILITY to believe in that which you must believe in to call yourself a christian
Answer: The ability to believe there was a man named Christ. THAT is ALL you NEED to believe IN ORDER to BE considered to BE a 'Christian'. THAT is the ONLY 'criteria' that is REQUIRED to BE a Christian. There is ENOUGH 'evidence' to sway MANY peoples' 'belief' that there WAS a 'man' named Christ. The FACT 'evolutionists' and atheists BELIEVE that believing there was a man named Christ somehow PRECLUDES one from being ABLE to run a telescope is pretty strange. Atheists on the whole are pretty strange. MANY of them are of low morals / never taught morals DUE TO never having a MORAL upbringing / lacking in religious thought . Atheists on the whole have been shown to tend to 'give other people a raw deal' and other aberrational behavior. Cites available upon request.
Mira_Musiclab
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
Might wanna mellow out on the caffine intake there, kiddo.. Double post, fairly random caps usage, et all. Making me worried for you.

Am wondering, for what I could parse in all that. Any reason in particular that you think that only christians have the market cornered on 'moral upbringing'? Maybe you could elaborate once you get some food in you.

Take care..
TheQuietMan
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
Someone earlier made the point, and it was a good one, that many fine scientists were religious. Be honest, it doesn't matter what faith a person belongs to, the people frothing at the mouth about what a scientist is would exclude them. They seem to believe everyone MUST believe as they do, or they are irrational idiots. This is about a narrow minded a viewpoint as any Evangelical pushing his point of view.

A scientist is someone with integrity, who takes accurate, precise measurements, observations, and notes. If they do that it doesn't matter what theories they may expound, it is the collection of data that primarily defines a good scientist. A really great scientist is willing to change his fundamental beliefs in the face of new data. We need good scientists, the great ones will sort the new data out.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
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.

"I know you are but what am I".

You should probably move your education beyond the "Wayne's World" school of insults.
Atheists on the whole have been shown to tend to 'give other people a raw deal' and other aberrational behavior. Cites available upon request.

Consider it requested.

Here's a few citations of my own to show you're incorrect.

http://blogs.dall...o_do.php

http://allphiloso...pic/1908

http://www.wbtv.c...11226353

http://www.indepe...706.html

And of course, the first crazy recorded:

http://en.wikiped...of_Isaac
jhnycmltly
1 / 5 (2) Dec 19, 2010
Quote: Any reason in particular that you think that only christians have the market cornered on 'moral upbringing'? Maybe you could elaborate

Answer: "Lacking a “moralizing god” — made the most unfair offers to strangers"

"Farming's rise cultivated fair deals"
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
"Lacking a 'moralizing god' - made the most unfair offers to strangers"
Morality comes not from a God, but from necessity imposed by the selective pressures of evolution.

1 man vs a hungry tiger == well fed tiger.
A group of men vs a hungry tiger == Tiger skin rug.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert A. Heinlein

Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
Robert A. Heinlein

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
Robert A. Heinlein

Read more: http://www.brainy...8ZQCyKXg
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
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 hungry tigers have to do with a scientist's lawsuit?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
What do your economic inanities have to do with the lawsuit?

Nothing.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2010
What do your economic inanities have to do with the lawsuit?

I am not surprised you don't understand. Most university professors are socialists even though socialism has been a failure for decades.
In the 'rational' university environment, why is acceptable to have faith in socialism, but not Christianity?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2010
That is YOUR fantasy. I prefer reality to Ann Rand's fantasies. I don't have to lie about monopolies like you do for instance. You have to ignore all the posts that interfere with your fantasy. You ignore all evidence to the contrary. It is YOU that have religious point view in regards to economics.

And I NEVER said it was unacceptable for a Christian to work in science. Going on faith, when evidence and reason is a viable option, really is anti-science. I don't know if this guy has that problem or not.

Dr. Behe does but his actual are of research doesn't impinge on his beliefs so his able to do effective research. But only in that area as he is totally incompetent when dealing with evolution.

Just like you when dealing with economics or politics.

Ethelred
SoulmanOtto
3.5 / 5 (19) Dec 19, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2010
I don't have to lie about monopolies like you do for instance

Yes, you do.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
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
Kyleric
4 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
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.


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

References:
[1]M. Sharratt, Galileo (1994)
[2]M. Caspar, Kepler (1994)
[3]R. S. Westfall, The Life of Isaac Newton (1994)
[4]G. N. Cantor, Michael Faraday (1996)
[5]J. L. Heillron, Dilemmas of an Upright ManDilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck and the Fortunes of German Science (1986)
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
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

Monopolies require govt force to exist. No govt protection, no monopoly.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2010
So how did Standard Oil engage in monopolistic business practices for decades? Yes that often low prices. Right until the independents either went bankrupt or caved in an joined the conspiracy. Then there are all those trusts you ignore and of course the still existing DeBeers conspiracy.

Money is enough force. It took governments to break them in many cases in other cases it took decades as was the case with Standard Oil and there it also took the government.

However just to make it clear and to watch you ignore it again.

Sugar Trust.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
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.

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2010
Standard Oil engage in monopolistic business practices

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?
'Progressives' whine about the corruption and collusion between business and govt then they advocate intervention when prompted by competitors who are losing market share. The 'problem' is one created by socialist interventionism. Stop whining or stop being socialists.
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2010
That is utter rubish. For instance DARWIN was a divinity student. Many scientists have been religious.


You'd like people to believe, without asking or thinking, that these scientists were all good scientists and that they were all religious at the same time and not simply religious as a product of their circumstances.

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


Oh, most things, well golly gee!

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


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

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.
Gawad
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
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.
No Mr. Hollman, it's simply because you're frighteningly flat out wrong. I speak as an agnostic, as I know Ethelred does, and I can tell you that I've have the opportunity to deal with outstanding researchers (linguists, physicists, and in medicine) whose scientific ethic was beyond reproach even though they were clearly religious (especially in the case of some of the senior researchers). There was simply never a question of religious bias entering into there conclusions. Frankly, the idea that there couldn't be anything other than a religious bias in their minds strikes me as awfully ignorant. Of course, Christian Fundamentalism is far more a problem in parts of the US, so that may be colouring your POV.
thales
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
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?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
Right, I forgot about the clause "except for religion". Do you just make stuff up?


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.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Dec 20, 2010
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.
Youre the one whos so in love with unbridled competition. Blood is the inevitable result. Now all of a sudden you favor negotiation?? That means price fixing unless REGULATED. Make up your mind.
Galileo[1], Kepler[2], Newton[3], Faraday[4], Planck[5] were both christians and successful scientists. Would you say they were not "real scientists"?
-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. And is, under different rules. Obviously. Science is moving a lot faster now that most of the people who do it arent superstitionists, either ardent or expedient, isnt it?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
You play their way or you dont play, is how it was.

And still is except now scientists must be atheist socialists to advance in the university.
Blood is the inevitable result.

Why? What is 'unbridled competition'? Business competes for customers by providing a better deal. They must persuade customers to buy.
thales
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
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.


My, so judgmental and full of certitude. The ****ing clause you're apparently referring to is the so-called Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications exception. This is an *established* exception - certainly not the only one that could be permitted. Exceptions can and in fact are made on the basis of religion. For example, a Christian church is allowed to deny employment to a non-Christian minister on the basis of religion.

Look, I made a point without calling any names. Well unless you count "Christian".
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2010
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.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2010
Look, I made a point without calling any names. Well unless you count "Christian".


Yes, actually I do now.

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. I used to laugh inside at that kind of thinking...no more.

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. 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. You need to be opposed on the political stage. You ARE evil (though not the way the fundies think you are).
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 20, 2010
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.

'Progressive' courts.
That's the problem with be a 'populist', no standards.
DamienS
5 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2010
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.

Darn, I used to feel so safe before, but now I'm defenseless and afraid.

Parading such unstable mental states in public surely doesn't help your cause. In fact, it makes you sound like a 'fundie'.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.
We really don't need any defense, but thanks I guess.
They insist you're out to get them, that you can't be compromised with, that we (believers) and you are at war.
Well that's fairly harsh, I wouldn't say I'm at war with anyone. When people say silly things, I make fun of them for saying silly things. If war was fought that way it'd certainly be interesting.
You ARE a bunch of ****ing quasi-fascists who ARE in fact out to get us.
I don't see the fascism, sorry.
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.


Ok, that's where you've gone crazy. "I don't like your viewpoint so I'm going to change my argument and line of thinking to join people who hate you." Odd MM
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
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.

As Rand pointed out, when one compromises with evil, evil wins. 'Progressives' must be defeated, not compromised with.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Because we're all the same to you. Generalization as usual.
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.
dtxx
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
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.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
They insist you're out to get them, that you can't be compromised with

How can you compromise rationality? Do we suddenly acquiesce and say, well okay, we didn't believe in the bible crock before but to appease you we'll just believe in half the bible and reject the other half?

It's actually amusing, because most 'believers' already cherry-pick bits which make them warm and fuzzy inside and ignore the rest.

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.

You've completely gone off your nut. The sad part is that there is some truth in your rantings, and that is the growing popularity of anti-intellectualism. This board has plenty of examples and that is the scary part.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
Good thing we live in a Republic.

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; ..."

dtxx: What is the fertility rate of atheists compared to Catholics, Mormons and Muslims?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
How can you compromise rationality?

How do you compromise with evil?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
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; ..."
Yeah, here's the important part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Your religion is not a state religion, and deserves no priviledge. The outrage from Christians and the majority of their arguments are "Me and my beliefs first". Sorry kids, back in line with the rest of us, don't like it? Move to Rwanda.

What is the fertility rate of atheists compared to Catholics, Mormons and Muslims?
If you cared to look at the stats, we're the fastest growing minority in the country. Enjoy that thought.
DamienS
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
We live in the US, a country where George Bush Sr. proclaimed that atheists cannot be patriots and shouldn't be considered citizens.

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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
Yeah, here's the important part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

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

In Australia, do the citizens vote for a party or a person?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Jefferson and Franklin were both elected, but that was back before the Fundamentalist movement in the 1800's.

And this is EQUALLY important: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "
People making fun of you is not akin to the government telling you that you can't be Christian.

No one is telling you that oyu can't be a Christian, we're just telling you that we're sick of hearing about it. We really don't care what you think. If you can't handle that, then it's your problem, not ours. Consider it a social "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
DamienS
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
How can you compromise rationality?

How do you compromise with evil?

I can't answer a non-sequitur. Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.
Disagree. Evil is a social definition that depicts religion.
DamienS
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.
Disagree. Evil is a social definition that depicts religion.

There are behaviors and deeds which are socially unacceptable and deplorable to be sure, but I object to the word evil as it has too many religious overtones, like sinner, etc.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
It was NOT a monopoly and they reduced costs by improving efficiencies. Just like Wal Mart and Microsoft.
They put people out of business by selling below cost in local markets and made up the diference elsewhere.
DeBeers was not a monopoly and diamonds are available from many suppliers today.
Lie. They were a monopoly. And today is not the past.
What is a sugar trust?
You can't be that ignorant.
BTW, you know the US govt subsidizes sugar?
Did you know that I predicted you would ignore Sugar Trusts. Again. Third time now.

http://www.britan...-Company
http://en.wikiped...ight_Co.

They WERE a monopoly. The courts let them get away with it. For a time.

http://en.wikiped..._Company

Lots more monopolies on this page.
http://caselaw.lp.../30.html

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
What is a sugar trust?

You can't be that ignorant.
Indeed he is. Did you forget this is Marjon?
Ethelred
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
You'd like people to believe, without asking or thinking,
Yeah that's right I don't think. Start by checking my lack of thought here.

http://www.physor...ion.html

not simply religious as a product of their circumstances.
You mean that Darwin was a Divinity student because his Grandfather Erasmus was an Atheist. Is that what you meant?
Oh, most things, well golly gee!
I am stunned by the inanity of that.
Show me a Christian that doesn't believe in a magical sky man and we can continue this conversation.
You are acting like a person that became an Atheist to tick off his parents. You and C. S. Lewis.
Wow... that's all I have to say.
Inanity squared.
Why did people rate you positively for this comment? Must have been the religiotard brigade.
Same reason they usually give me fives. I have reason on my side.

Read the link above.

Ethelred
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2010
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.


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.
SoulmanOtto
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2010
Why? What is 'unbridled competition'? Business competes for customers by providing a better deal. They must persuade customers to buy.
Unbridled. Unfettered. Markets free to roam as they will, just like nature. Except mankind always seeks to improve the stakes through what you refer to as 'negotiation'; owners collude to fix prices and carve up the consumer base, just like the mafia, unless society as a whole seeks to prevent this through regulation.
Could a US presidential nominee ever be elected if he declared himself to be an atheist? The answer is no.
-Not yet, though sometime soon it will be mandatory, and we can have true separation of church and state. 'I do solemnly swear that I am not beholden to, or influenced by, any deity; or any special interest group who purports to be... So help me Justice. (?) I hold this Truth to be self-evident.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
This thread is out of hand. I even have a alleged rationalist ranting at me as if I was Kent Hovind.

Modernmystic has gone off the handle. AGAIN.

Marjon is being even more idiotic than usual.

Atheists are acting like Fundamentalists.

Threats of religious and anti-religious warfare.

Marjon threating to out breed everyone that dares think. Marching Moron that one is.

Hatred.

Stupidity by people that are capable of thinking. Even Modernmystic is capable of actual reasoned thought. I have seen him do it.

Some of you need to go sit in the corner until you are fit to talk to. Marjon you should pull your head out of Ann Rand's ass first.

Most of the Atheists need to go there too. Seems only we Agnostics can keep our heads. Or did I miss an Agnostic with his head stuffed up as well?

Appalling.

Ethelred
Feeling the need to go Hardrede
CHollman82
2 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
You mean that Darwin was a Divinity student because his Grandfather Erasmus was an Atheist. Is that what you meant?


Are you attempting to make a point?

I am stunned by the inanity of that.


I am stunned that you think being rational and not batshit insane "most of the time" is good enough for educators.

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


Great, ad homs are fun aren't they?

Inanity squared.


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 for someone who thinks as much as you profess to.

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


That's funny, because I have a higher average rating than you do, go ahead and look, it's under "recent activity" in our profile page
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 21, 2010
Yeah Eth, I'm off the handle...AGAIN.

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?

I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't think he was evil either. I think the thought he was doing the right thing. I KNOW the idiots on this thread think they're being perfectly reasonable. You know that's the scariest part...the fascists didn't see the "fascism" either...

I'm not sure what else there is to do at this point. It's kind of like China sticking up for North Korea. It's not like they really want to...but you know it's the old "the enemy of my enemy" stuff.

I can't stand fundamentalist Christians...they really REALLY get on my nerves. At least they're not advocating the notion that if my son wants to be a scientist he can't because he's a Christian though.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
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?


It's a matter of being the best candidate for the job. It is clearly a conflict of interest. You cannot have a scientific mindset while believing in the nonsense of religion... 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'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?

Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
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?


It's not an appeal to emotion. Hitler did the EXACT same thing you're advocating. Kept people from certain jobs because of their religion.

THAT, my fascist friend is called a ROCK SOLID analogy.

Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable...go buy some jackboots and practice your Hitler salute in front of a mirror. Might make you feel better...
Deathclock
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Hitler did the EXACT same thing you're advocating. Kept people from certain jobs because of their religion.


Well, in this case it's not specifically due to their religion, and it is not anyone preventing anyone from getting a job... the people on the hiring committee determined that his religious mindset made him less qualified for the job, which is debatable but certainly plausible considering a scientific mindset and religious faith make poor bedfellows.

I don't think anyone should be restricted from anything because of their religion by law... but that isn't what happened here. 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.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
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...
CHollman82
3.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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...


You understand that a movie director can refuse to hire a black actor if the role calls for a white man correct?

You understand that a contractor can refuse to hire a midget if the job requires someone to reach up to 6 feet correct?

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?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
religious scientist based on the fact that one is more qualified for the job of "being a scientist" than the other one?

Show data to support your 'fact'.
I have shown data, many times, to refute your 'fact'.
BTW, the real judges of scientific merit, as we are constantly being told by AGWites, is the peer review process.
Gaskell's work has been published in peer reviewed journals.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
owners collude to fix prices and carve up the consumer base,

Then the market is not unfettered.
But it's OK if the govt fixes the prices and carves up markets?
we can have true separation of church and state.

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.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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?


Why can't you understand that's a load of bull****?

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

Just born stupid, or were you dropped on your head a lot?

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. You do understand that don't you? The people on that hiring committee belong in jail for violating this man's rights. Every bit as much as the guy who hires based on skin tones. I hope they're convicted and they go there for a long time, as long as is allowed for.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
Are you attempting to make a point
Made one. Not my fault you refuse to see it.
not batshit insane "most of the time" is good enough for educators
There is no indication that the person in question is insane. Batshit or otherwise.
Great, ad homs are fun aren't they?
That might be why you are doing it. I only said you behaved that way. Still are.
You asserted that the myths of the christian faith are credible because there is little evidence against them
Lie. I did no such thing. Learn how to read.
I can't believe you would make such an egregious error in logic
See above.
That's funny, because I have a higher average rating than you do
I get ones for many reasons. Like your inability to read or keep your temper.

You seem to be laboring under the bizarre impression that I am somehow a raving fundamentalist Christian. Despite all the fundies that hate my guts around here. You have left reason behind.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
Besides evil is a religious definition which doesn't exist in reality.
Disagree. Evil is a social definition that depicts religion.

Which leaves open all sorts of real evil for atheists to commit with state power as has been documented in the Black Book of Communism.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
"The price of refined sugar fell from 9 cents per pound in 1880, to 7 cents in
1890, to 4.5 cents in 1900."
""Although for the time being the sugar trust has perhaps reduced the price of sugar, and the oil trust
certainly has reduced the price of oil immensely, that does not alter the wrong of the principle of any
trust." [Ibid., p. 2558.] Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the Sherman Act as an
anti-price-cutting law."
"One final argument could be made that the trusts were practicing predatory pricing, that
is, that they were pricing below their costs to drive out competitors. But in more than a century of
looking for a proven real-world monopoly actually created by predatory pricing, an example has
yet to be found. Moreover, prices charged by the nineteenth-century trusts continued to fall for
more than a decade. What rational businessman would continue to price below cost for more
than ten years?"
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
The real reason for the Sherman Act, to protect political constituents:
"It appears that one function of the Sherman Act was to divert public attention from a
more certain source of monopoly-government. In the late nineteenth century, tariffs were a major
source of trade restraints, but the Sherman Act made no provision for attacking tariffs or any
other government-created barriers to competitive entry. In fact, evidence exists that a major
political function of the Sherman Act was to serve as a smoke screen behind which politicians
could grant tariff protection to their big business constituents while assuring the public that
something was being done about the monopoly problem."
http://mises.org/...enzo.PDF
What has changed? But the 'progressives' whine about collusion and and their favorite act enabled more govt-business collusion.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
A university professor can't be a professor because he's a Christian...really?
As an Agnostic who believes in the separation of Church and State I don't get it myself. If he was YEC maybe. There is no sign that is the case. I don't see how a YEC could do that job without being an embaressment.

The head of the Vatican Observatory is a Catholic priest. If you watch Religulous you can see he would make a great teacher for astronomy.
I'm pretty sure Hitler didn't think he was evil either.
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.
You know that's the scariest part...the fascists didn't see the "fascism" either...
I think they are being reactionaries. There is a difference between defending yourself and attacking others. The nutcases have made people fearful.

Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

That movie still sucks and then they got worse.

Ethelred
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
It's been pointed out that many of the greatest scientists that ever lived were religious people.


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

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.


You also can't discriminate based on race, gender, stature or tons of other things, yet I gave you examples where employers can legally require job candidates to be a specific color, gender, stature, etc... Did you ignore those examples? Did you fail to understand how they apply here?

There is a difference between saying "I don't like your religion so I'm not hiring you" and saying "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"
panorama
1 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
I'm praying for everyone on this thread...
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
]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.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
]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.


That's because you're a fool.

Call a movie director Hitler for refusing to cast a black man for a white mans role in a movie you retard.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
They were a product of their times, back then it was go to church or go to the gallows.


Prove that's why they were religious. I say it was because they were sincere and were ALLOWED to be both. As opposed to the fascist bastards currently in charge of our universities today.

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?
thales
4.3 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
"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"


There's lots of ways to be irrational, and religion is just one of the more visible. You could argue that every irreligious scientist that has made a mistake in reasoning is therefore irrational. More so if they stick to their guns in the face of disagreement. Should those scientists therefore all be disbarred from practicing science? Or from teaching? There would be many fewer science profs if we did that.

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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.


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?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Prove that's why they were religious. I say it was because they were sincere and were ALLOWED to be both.
I'd say it's because they saw accounts of Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake.
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?
The Egyptians thought their Pharaoh was a God. Would you want them teaching your kids in class today?

The times change. If there's a reasonable suspicion that someone cannot perform their job due to their beliefs, then they won't get that job.

I couldn't work for the RNC because I think healthcare should be universal. Is it discriminatory that they don't hire me? Can I sue them for it?
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?
Several, but answering phones and sweeping up doesn't require reason.
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
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.


This is a fantastic point, if he wasn't out there proselytizing and whoring out his faith all over the place this would have been a non-issue.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
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?
Out of curiosity, how is this discrimination? Wasn't it the exact same measure that the Christians recommended to the Gays who wanted to serve in the military.

That's right, it is.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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.


Sure, but I think we are arguing two different things. I am against establishing laws based on this, I am for the employers right to make the decision, which is what they did.

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.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
I'd say it's because they saw accounts of Giordano Bruno being burned at the stake.


Again, prove it.

As for the rest of it, he most certainly did have his rights violated and will get his day in court. Hopefully when these people are convicted it will send you cockroaches back under the rocks from which you crawled...where you belong.

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

Time to start fighting back.
Gawad
4.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
It is clearly a conflict of interest.
Wrong. There is a possibility of a conflict of interest, but only if specific religious beliefs are in conflict with accepted scientific work. Personally, I deeply dislike *religion* for the most part. I consider it mostly a blight rational thought as it all too often substitutes any kind of actual thinking for mindless dogma and drivel. As I'm fond of saying: there's nothing like religion to mess up perfectly good faith. I've seen religion drive members of my own family to a state where they are only satisfied once they are thoroughly miserable. But I have also had the privilege to work with professors and other intellectuals whose faith was the conclusion of deep and careful exploration. To assume there is a conflict from the get go is wrong. To assume this would be driven by an interest is WRONG. And to state that any of this *clear* is also wrong.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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...
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Out of curiosity, how is this discrimination?


If it isn't...then why not answer the question?

As far as the gays are concerned, is it your position that two wrongs make a right?
Gawad
4.9 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Given the kind of BS that gets pushed "for the sake of the children" please allow me to not give this much weight. "For the sake of the children" is really a catch all platitude.
I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,
Bloody well hope not.
but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.
There's no reason, offhand, for this to be so. It is the person's *scientific work and opinions* that should be a factor, not whether they attend church or go to temple, or whether they believe in God. In and of itself, believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing there is none. Only when one's religious beliefs contradict the body of work in the concerned field should this be a factor.
thales
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.


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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
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?
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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?


I don't think you understand what hypocrisy is... or irony.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
Again, prove it.
Galileo was put in jail and then under house arrest until he died by the church. If he had said he wasn't Christian, the punishment was execution. Bruno was burned at the stake. Menocchio was a deist, tortured in vatican jails for many years. Campanella had to claim insanity inspired by the devil to prevent his execution.

Shoe fits, wear it. The only notable excveption is Newton, then again, he thought his greatest accomplishment was lifelong abstinence.
If you're an atheist you don't get my business.
Better shut down your computer then. I don't think you'll find a mainstream OS that wasn't created by an atheist.
Moreover I'm going to out you to the community so everyone can make their informed decisions.
You mean persecution. Go ahead, prove our points MM.
Time to start fighting back.
Oh please.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Given the kind of BS that gets pushed "for the sake of the children" please allow me to not give this much weight. "For the sake of the children" is really a catch all platitude.
I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,
Bloody well hope not.
but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.
There's no reason, offhand, for this to be so. It is the person's *scientific work and opinions* that should be a factor, not whether they attend church or go to temple, or whether they believe in God. In and of itself, believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing there is none. Only when one's religious beliefs contradict the body of work in the concerned field should this be a factor.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
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.


I'd rather get ripped off than deal with bigoted fascists...

Just me.

Good for you and your brother though...

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


I'm just fighting fire with fire. You've been proving the points of the wacko fundies the whole thread...
thales
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
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.


I see your point, but there are laws requiring equality of opportunity. I mean, you could argue that men are naturally more assertive and therefore more qualified than women to be salespeople. The real question is how you defined "qualified" and whether that's fair. "Fair" in this case is legally enforced.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
let's play it to the end.

Yes, let's do.
But, you could not stand losing the power.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Given the kind of BS that gets pushed "for the sake of the children" please allow me to not give this much weight. "For the sake of the children" is really a catch all platitude.
I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,
Bloody well hope not.
but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.
There's no reason, offhand, for this to be so. It is the person's *scientific work and opinions* that should be a factor, not whether they attend church or go to temple, or whether they believe in God. In and of itself, believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing there is none. Only when one's religious beliefs contradict the body of work in the concerned field should this be a factor.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
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.


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?

I noticed you haven't answered the question...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
let's play it to the end.

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

Really. Well from the commentary above it sounds as though the Christians have the power in this instance. Or is MM's persecution threat all smoke and mirrors?

I'm sure he wouldn't have said it if it was.
According to the equal opportunity act yeah, you are FORCED to ignore their religious beliefs.
Unless those beliefs interfere with the operation of the business or are illegal. Rastafarians can't make me hire them after flunking a drug test.
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.
Unless they tell me that they can't work at all on a Sunday and the job requires Sunday shifts. Or they tell me they can't perform the work due to their beliefs.
Have you violated the law SH?
Nope:)
Gawad
not rated yet Dec 21, 2010
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.
Given the kind of BS that gets pushed "for the sake of the children" please allow me to not give this much weight. "For the sake of the children" is really a catch all platitude.
I am not saying religious people should not be allowed to be scientists,
Bloody well hope not.
but it is definitely a point that may contribute to them being deemed less qualified than someone else for the job.
There's no reason, offhand, for this to be so. It is the person's *scientific work and opinions* that should be a factor, not whether they attend church or go to temple, or whether they believe in God. In and of itself, believing in a creator is no more irrational than believing there is none. Only when one's religious beliefs contradict the body of work in the concerned field should this be a factor.
Gawad
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
You cannot have a scientific mindset while believing in the nonsense of religion...
There are so many things wrong with this statement on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. First off, you lump together all of religion and everything it can involved, dump it into one bag and throw it out *without* having discriminated at all between simple belief in God vs. faith vs. theologies proposed by various religions, their rituals and practices, their context and why one might practice or not...and on and on and on. Some of it certainly is nonsense while some of it is simply outside the domain of science and there is no reason for it to impact one's ability to interpret how the world works. 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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
So here's how this story breaks down thus far.

Professor Gaskell has given several lectures on Astronomy validating the Bible.

He applied for a lecturing job at a public University after his contract was not renewed at UNL in 07. The reason for the lack of renewal was perfomance based and not discussed with media.

So no conspiracy theories here about evangelicism or any other nonsense but it appears his performance was not rated highly by UNL after Prof Gaskell had pioneered their on campus observatory, so it must have been rather dire indeed.

The University asked him about his beliefs due to his lecture portfolio. They determined he was not satisfactory for the job.

The whole Christian Discrimination deal looks fabricated.

panorama
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
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...
thales
5 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
I've eschewed prayer and have moved on to ritual sacrificing small mammals for everyone on this thread...


If you're moving more old testament, please don't take the child-sacrifice ideas literally!
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
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.
CHollman82
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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.

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

These are mutually exclusive values by definition.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
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.
That's about as deist as you can get without explicitly stating it. I'm sure Planck's Christianity was more due to his upbringing having two generations of Theology professors raise him.

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.

There are particular faiths, and aspects of faith that cannot tread into scientific inquiry. The professor above shows a hint of such faith while many such as Mendel, Newton, and Lemaitre did not.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
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:
Gawad
3.6 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Horsefeathers. All you've just done here is confirm my previous impression that you know little of either faith or science. Just because YOU have found reason(s) YOU consider sufficient for belief in a creator absolutely does not mean that there no reasons that can't be found sufficient and reasonable for perfectly rational human beings. Off the top of my head:
* 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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
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:

Ever hear of Planck's constant, Planck's equation or Planck's law.
And what branch of physics did CH*82 discover?
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
"Just because YOU have found reason(s)" should read "Just because YOU have not found reason(s)". Sorry.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010

* 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


Wow...

So let's see, you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what reason is, that you have no idea what atheism is, and that you have no idea what faith 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.

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 for observational evidence is.

It's no wonder you don't understand the conflict between faith and reason...
dtxx
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2010
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."

CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
CH is wrong when he says people with some sort of faith can't think rationally


I didn't say that.

I said faith is the antithesis of reason. Surely you can be reasonable sometimes and unreasonable other times.

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


I respect your opinion more than most here, so it should prove interesting to discuss this with you...

I define faith as belief without or despite reason. If you have reason (I don't mean motive) to believe in something it ceases to be a matter of faith. Believe with reason (evidence, logic, etc) is not faith, that is reasoned belief.

Given this definition I submit that one does not have to have faith in anything, and that one should aspire to do away with faith entirely.
dtxx
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
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.


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!

Also, please give me an example of a policy you would create or advocate. I'm not saying you have to convince me it's realistic or a good idea. I just want to hear how you would keep atheists in the closet through policy. The only requirement is it has to be something you actually want to see enforced.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
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."


No I'm one of those crazies who interprets it as being able to practice one's faith freely.

You seem to interpret it as "the freedom to not see anything religious in public or hear anything religious from anyone"....
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
By the way, you just tried to call me hitler. Pulling the hitler card is known as a weak, desperate attempt at emotional persuasion.


Saying the Hitler card is a weak, desperate attempt at emotional persuasion can also be a weak, desperate attempt to mask one's actions and salve one's conscience when their behavior closely mirrors that of the infamous Adolph. You fit that shoe well...

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!


Yeah it is pretty hypocritical. Unfortunately I see no other way to deal with you people anymore. I can live with a lot hypocrisy in that area at this point...quite easily.
dtxx
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
That's a very inaccurate representation of my opinion.

My feeling is that theists tend to impose their views on others and that is unacceptable. I'm not saying that churches should not be able to display a cross, for example. But people trying to legislate christian ideals or force them into public schools is a real problem for me.

As I hinted at earlier I also have a problem with how most faiths treat the non-faithful. Despite what you might think I don't hold a christian's life as fundamentally worth less than an atheist's. How many theists do you think feel a non-believer's life holds equal weight to one of the faithful?

I find the ability to just believe in things without evidence belies either a small intellect or fragile ego. We should be past this stuff by now. It's a frustrating sign of just how retarded humanity still is that so many people continue to believe these irrational piles of myths that don't hold up to any serious intellectual or empirical analysis.
thales
5 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
Some good perspectives over at pharyngula:

http://scienceblo...elle.php
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
My feeling is that theists tend to impose their views on others

1. feeling?
2. How do they force you to believe?

Overwhelming data is available to show that socialists are trying to force people to believe their faith.
dtxx
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
So you just admitted you are intensely proud of being a hypocrite and that you're willing to do anything because atheists have to be dealt with? 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. Of course he wants you to do it, and hints indirectly. How else would an all-powerful being get something it wanted done?

Does atheism shake the foundation of your after-life fantasy? That's the problem here - once the faith goes, your eternal fantasy playground goes too. If you want to make a christian mad, don't say they are going to hell. Just tell them there's no such thing as heaven, they aren't going there, and their relatives aren't living in a custom pimped out universe designed to satiate every possible whim for all eternity just because one chose to believe something. Now we're getting to the real heart of the christian insecurity!
panorama
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
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've ceased the prayer and ritual sacrifice and have moved on to glossolalia for everyone on this thread...(not that anyone would understand it)

All this fervor is making me want a beer.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
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.


No it's fueled by seeing the hypocrisy of atheists on this board and elsewhere over and over again on this issue. It's fueled by a "fight fire with fire" attitude on the subject, which, 24 hours ago I didn't have at all.

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


Not in the least. Does the fact that most of the people on the planet disagree with you shake your faith there isn't one?

As to there being no playground...why should that bother me? If there's nothing I won't know about it anyway. Either way I'm set...how about you?
Ethelred
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
I've eschewed prayer
Eschew obfuscation.

Ethelred
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Just tell them there's no such thing as heaven,

Doesn't bother me. That is why it is called faith.
Try to prove it. Maybe that will bother you.

BTW, there are many 'intellectuals' who believe things they cannot prove:
http://www.amazon...60841818
panorama
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
I've eschewed prayer
Eschew obfuscation.

Ethelred

espouse elucidation?
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
1/3
you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what reason is
I've provided a few 'reasons' for which some might have faith without needing to be considered, as you have called them, retards and crazies. You on the other hand extrapolate without reason or from an inability or unwillingness to read.
you have no idea what atheism is. Atheism is not faith.
Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.
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.
That’s properly called *Agnosticism*.
and that you have no idea what faith is.
Well here then is your big opportunity to educated me. Please sir, I await with baited breath. Infuse me with your knowledge and wise council. But please spare us the platitudes. For the sake of the children.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
1/3
you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what reason is
I've provided a few 'reasons' for which some might have faith without needing to be considered, as you have called them, retards and crazies. You on the other hand extrapolate without reason or from an inability or unwillingness to read.
you have no idea what atheism is. Atheism is not faith.
Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.
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.
That’s properly called *Agnosticism*.
and that you have no idea what faith is.
Well here then is your big opportunity to educated me. Please sir, I await with baited breath. Infuse me with your knowledge and wise council. But please spare us the platitudes. For the sake of the children.
SoulmanOtto
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 21, 2010
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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
2/3
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
And you should stop navel gazing. These may not be sufficient to you-they’re not to me-but plenty of rational people have found in them grounds to form faith in a creator. And even if doing so qualifies as an instance of being less than perfectly rational, SO WHAT? Now only the faithless of any kind can lead all manner of the branches of science? THAT isn’t utterly retarded and asinine? What stupid and irrational beliefs do you hold that would disqualify you, pray tell? Do you enjoy witch hunts? Red scares?
...for observational evidence.
There can’t BE any (objective) observational evidence for God OR the lack thereof. Lacking such, it’s not necessarily crazy to come to a conclusion through less rigorous means. Painting all those who have done so as "religotards" (your word) makes you no better than the Fundies you decry.
SoulmanOtto
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 21, 2010
Prove that's why they were religious. I say it was because they were sincere and were ALLOWED to be both.
They were never taught any acceptable alternatives and they weren't allowed to make up their own. They had NO choice.
Moreover, regardless of WHY they were religious...they were and the did superb science.
Unwarranted generality. Lots of junk science done by religionists trying to make the universe fit scripture. Most everything in geology before plate tectonics for example, as the church demanded an unchanging and eternal world.

Like I say, things are moving much faster now without their influence. Aren't they?
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
3/3
It's no wonder you don't understand the conflict between faith and reason.
If you insist that having some kind of faith makes one incapable of reason, and that's what you've done here, and what I'm objecting to, than AFAI'MC you're the crazy one; it's no wonder you invent conflict where it need not be. "You know, ultimately I can't see how existence makes sense unless there is some creator behind it" may reflect on human limitations but it's neither crazy nor irrational. It's not sufficient for me personally, but I'm far, far from considering someone who thinks that way a feeble-minded incompetent. Currently, "God" isn't much crazier as an answer to existence as M-theory or the Multiverse. A lot of scientists have as much *faith* in the latter with as much evidence to back them as the former. And that’s even crazier because they're supposed to know better.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 21, 2010
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.


LOL, and you people tried to shame me for using Hitler comparisons.....hehehe.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
CH is wrong when he says people with some sort of faith can't think rationally


I didn't say that.
I call bull! You said PRECISELY that: "You cannot have faith and simultaneously value critical thinking and rationalism without being hypocritical." Or kindly explain the difference. By standing of being accused of being a hypocrite? As you would say, "Wow!" S_H has you peg on.

And that was following this fascistic doozy: "I am sorry, but no Christian should occupy the role of a professor of science in any accredited university...at worst they would corrupt the minds of countless youths and damage their notion of science and nature irreparably" Not no Fundie or no YEC,--denominations that have a clear problem with evidence based anything--but *Christians* and THEN you went on to lump anyone with any kind of faith in with all Xtians. That's sick, man, just utterly sick. How about no Jew? How about no Muslim? No Platonist? No superstring theorist? Yeah. "Wow!"
SoulmanOtto
3.4 / 5 (23) Dec 21, 2010
LOL, and you people tried to shame me for using Hitler comparisons.....hehehe.
There are reasons why the swastika is banned in Germany and france, and why menachim begin said 'Never again.' You do not realize how much your little hobby imperils the world. 'Fear the next generation' is what the Palestinians say to Israel. The time is nigh:
http://www.cnn.co...hpt=Sbin

-You should try picturing yourself living right before ww2. We have the same conditions brewing now in both europe and Asia, same as before. Economies have been prepared, same as before. Fascism is now vilified, as your dangerous, obsolete pastime soon will be, and for exactly the same reasons. You will all be held accountable for what religions are about to do to the world.

The Bund is dead MM. Try to learn from history.
SoulmanOtto
3.4 / 5 (23) Dec 21, 2010
MM would claim that there are good and bad religions and he feels himself lucky to be a proponent of one so benign. But we know it has another face, we've read about it in history books and we see it in places like Africa today.

I think it's clear why we don't see similar sorts of fanaticism in the US today:
http://www.csmoni...wth-slow

-If religionist-mandated pop growth was as severe here as it is in gaza, Pakistan, and elsewhere, we would experience the same religionist-inspired violence as has always shown itself. We have the success of western culture to thank for that.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 21, 2010
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...
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.


Like I said, you have shown you have no idea what atheism means...

That’s properly called *Agnosticism*.


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

A-theism... theism meaning the belief in a god or gods. The prefix a- meaning "not" or the negation of. An atheist does not have a belief in god.

Gnosticism refers to knowledge. An agnostic claims to have no knowledge of god. I am an agnostic atheist... the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive. This is all based on basic etymology.

There, you have just been educated. You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do, and most of you have written in response to me has been naive nonsense.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
Hey, CH82:

Wake up from your Hellenistic stupor:

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.

The above are how they're actually used in English, *stright out of the OED*, first provided definitions (and you do know what that means, humm?). Sound a lot more like how I'm using them than you, eh? Unlike yourself, I use actual English. I don't just try to slap ancient Greek together half a**ed to make myself sound more educated than I really am then claim I've been oh so misunderstood. (By the way, your response was horribly predictable.) Try again, I'm still waiting for my education from you. If that's the best you can do, go educate yourself in what you think you already know. Pulease.
SoulmanOtto
3.5 / 5 (22) Dec 21, 2010
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??
SoulmanOtto
3.6 / 5 (20) Dec 21, 2010
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...
Well you're right, here's some of your religionist fascist pals under a different name during 'Sacred Defense Week 2009'. Look familiar? Nuremberg, Red Square maybe?
http://www.youtub...a_player
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2010
Unfortunately there are still too many fascists as we have just observed in the FCC actions.
http://thepeoples...inGo.jpg
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 21, 2010
The FCC fascists:
"the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control." "
"Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself." "
"So the "media reform" movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That's quite a coup."
http://online.wsj...LEADTop=
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
1/2
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.

From the pharyngula link above, the analysis points to Gaskell's paper in defense of the Book of Genesis. He adopts a weaselly narrative where he seems to be cataloging what others have said and then quoting scripture as in support of scientific observations, while appearing detached at the same time. This goes on and on, until we come to the list of organizations with which he's affiliated:
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
2/2
* The American Scientific Affiliation (a fellowship of men and women of science and disciplines that can relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science)

* The Affiliation of Christian Biologists
* The Affiliation of Christian Geologists
* Chr-astro (Christian professional astronomers)
* Association of Christians in the Mathematical Sciences
* The Society of Christian Philosophers

Frankly, I only thought there was one type of science. How is Christian science different to normal science? Why is there a distinction? Will he teach others to embrace this dichotomy?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
How is Christian science different to normal science?
No medicine or surgery, lol.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
No, it isn't. You don't know what agnosticism is either
He nailed it.
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

Which covers me exactly.
An agnostic claims to have no knowledge of god. I am an agnostic atheist... the two descriptors are not mutually exclusive.
That is correct BUT IF you have an ACTIVE disbelief in any god then you are NOT an Agnostic. Which covers a high percentage of Atheists.
There, you have just been educated.
Badly. Huxley's definition is bit less certain about the existence of gods than your version.
You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do
A favorite of people losing an argument everywhere.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
Which covers a high percentage of Atheists.
No, it only covers the more radical amongst atheists.

Most agnostics, like yourself, are atheists as you do not agree with the theist depictions of a God. Deists can arguably be considered atheists as they are non-theist in their belief system.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
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??

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???
Gawad
5 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
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.
I agree with this except for one very important point, and I think it is the same mistake at the origin of CH82 bigoted statement, that point being "christianity [is] a specific organized religion and the subject of the story". Christianity is NOT *A* specific, monolithic block. No more than Islam is (Sh'ias and Sunnis consider each other heretics, as they both do Sufis). Catholics and YECs & Southern Baptists are worlds apart. Various members of both Islam and Christiandom have produced outstanding science and mathematics. Lumping all of them together does everyone a disservice.
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
We certainly have gone off track...

Having a positive belief in god is counter-intuitive to a scientific mindset and as such a mindset is a benefit of anyone that calls themselves a scientist such belief in god can rightfully be looked at as a weakness, a weakness that can rightfully be used against you in any job application for a scientific position.

This is not bigotry or discrimination, this is rightful determination of ones qualification for a the specific job in question. This mans irrational positive belief in god undermines the qualities of any good scientist and as such was determined to be a point of weakness, leading to the choosing of a more qualified candidate who presumably did not subscribe to such irrational beliefs.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
Atheism of the "there is no God" sort is as much a *faith* as theism. You have no proof there is no God.


I never said I did, and I never said that there absolutely is no god.

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.

Get your shit straight... I've never seen someone behave so disingenuously in a debate since marjon...
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
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.


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

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

Theism refers to belief, gnosticism refers to knowledge, as per the definitions you have provided.

These are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE LABELS. Someone can be an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, or a gnostic theist.

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.
SoulmanOtto
3.4 / 5 (22) Dec 22, 2010
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???
-Where? I didn't see where you mentioned hawking, superfluous, or soul but it's a long thread. Entschuldigung.
Christiandom have produced outstanding science and mathematics. Lumping all of them together does everyone a disservice.
-Everybody else gets to mention hitler, so let me mention hitler. 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. Whether this was done to appease funders and sponsors, out of a genuine belief in god, is immaterial. The work can be expected to be tainted.
-Cont
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
Oh and thanks for all the 1 ratings modernmystic, your disapproval is it's own reward.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 22, 2010
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.
thales
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
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.


Pray tell, what do you think the "official definitions" of these words are?
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Having a positive belief in god is counter-intuitive to a scientific mindset...This is not bigotry or discrimination
When leveled indiscriminately, YES IT IS.
This mans...
If you stay with the particulars of this CASE, this particular mans claims, body of work, expressed opinions, FINE. The problem is that you consistently confuse the two, failed to make any kind of nuance, and got POed for it when you got called to the floor about it (and not just by theists to boot).
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
The two terms are not compatible.


Yes they are.

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.


I do agree with the OED definitions of these words, which were posted, it's not my fault you cannot read.
Gawad
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
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.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Oh and thanks for all the 1 ratings modernmystic, your disapproval is it's own reward.


You poor thing. You really have issues with needing to be liked don't you?

Are you like 23? Don't worry most of us grow out of it....
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
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 issue with the OED's definition of these terms... you have an issue with understanding the difference between knowledge and belief. Reread the definitions you posted, paying careful attention to those two words in each...
Gawad
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
I have no problem with these definitions, and they do not detract from anything I have said.
Read them again, more carefully this time.
Your problem is that you are confusing ... which are two completely different things.
Do tell. No, rather, get real. The problem has never been the elementary distinction between knowledge and belief. The problem is your claim that anyone who believes in God in any fasion, for any reason (not just Xtians now) should never be hired as professor of science.
Instead of reading dictionary definitions and thinking you know a damn thing about the subject you should think about it for yourself.
Proper thinking requires getting a proper handle on your terms, especially common terms when the topic is of rather broad nature, not slapping them together ad hoc as you are apparently wont to do.
Once again, I am an agnostic atheist, and you are a fool.
For fools, I'll refer you to Shakespeare. He wrote up fine fools. But you, sir, are a bigot.
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
Gawad... Here are the definitions you have provided from the OED:

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) UNKOWABLE, and especially that a First Cause and unseen world are subjects of which we KNOW nothing.

Can you see that theism refers only to belief and gnosticism refers only to knowledge?

Knowledge and belief are not mutually exclusive, I can not believe something while having no knowledge of it, or I can believe something while having no knowledge of it, or I can not believe something due to knowledge I have of it, or I can believe something due to knowledge I have of it... agreed?

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

You can have no knowledge of god and also disbelieve in god, or you can have no knowledge but still believe...
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
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...
Aw, now you've gone and played the Marjon card! You know that this means war, don't you? Lol! Well! At least no one can accuse you of not having a sense of humour, mr Hollman! I just want to know, which of these would you let have a professor's chair at a university? Does being an agnostic theist count? (Just so you don't have a fit, I agree that such distinctions can be made, though I don't see them as relevant to your initial statement.)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
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.
Spoken like someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

You're attempting to tell us there are only two standpoints. Theist and unsure, well you're quite wrong, and that's because jsut as the subject of the argument, you have an overconfidence in a single result.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
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.
SoulmanOtto
3.7 / 5 (24) Dec 22, 2010
I know everybody likes to be polite and tolerant and say 'If godders aren't causing trouble then they should be able to keep their fantasies.' But you've seen Religulous and read Dawkins and you know that I am not the only one who understands that all religions harbor the propensity for violence, all have violent histories, all propagate ignorance and bigotry to whatever degree, and most importantly, tolerating religion in whatever form only allows and enables the most dangerous to exist and operate.

Both maher and Dawkins say this specifically, as do many many others, which you know. And reaching this conclusion and expressing it and taking a firm stand against ALL worship of the nonexistent does NOT mean you want anyone dead or locked up behind barbed wire.
Cont
SoulmanOtto
3.8 / 5 (24) Dec 22, 2010
Wanting religion to end is not desiring anyone to be killed. It is in fact desiring to prevent death and destruction over the cause of religion. The very fact that religionists are willing to defend their particular drug of choice to the death is ample evidence that the entire concept is insanity and must be stopped. Religion right now is the only thing preventing enduring world peace, and is the only thing threatening civilization with destruction.
Agnostic atheist
-This could mean a person is just waffling, no?
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
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.

So then you have 3 options at a minimum, not two. You shouldn't need this much help to figure out your error. People like you are the reason why CH has the stance he does. Frajo and I got into it over PMs once about how "intolerant" I was of your faith. Then I introduced him to American Christianity.

We haven't argued on this topic since then.
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
Where? it's a long thread.
Where I identify as agnostic. You're preaching to the choir.
Nazis also produced excellent science didn't they?
I'm underqualified to assess that, but IMUO, I think they produced a lot more excellent engineering than pure science.
If good science was ever done by religionists, it was done in spite of their superstitions and not because of them.
Agreed.
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.
NO, DAMN IT. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and admit that I assume you are American (Apologies to Eth & SH, & others to whom the this doesn't apply): 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*.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
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*.
As I said above, Frajo and I once had a long argument about this.

American fundamentalism is possibly the most frightening thing in the world. A lot of people fear Iran having nukes, but no where near as many as those who feared evangelical Bush having nukes.

America is the largest nuclear society with a messianic complex, as such those in the US who have this inability to reason must be dealt with to prevent calamity.

Gawad, some of us may seem harsh from time to time, but the problems with American Christianity are world wide problems.

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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
-cont. 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 on Sundays is just plain *nonsense*. To assume that a Catholic's work on measuring the density of intergalactic hydrogen is *tainted* because they say they believe in God is *asinine*. None of their work would be anymore tainted than if it had been done by someone who was an atheist Trekkie. And a lot of anti-religionist on this board (I *can't* believe I'm writing this) seem to just be pulling this crap out of thin air, based on pure abstractions and 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.
panorama
5 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
American fundamentalism is possibly the most frightening thing in the world.

As someone living a few notches deep on the bible belt of the USA, I agree. I was raised in a Catholic family and was made fun of in school by Protestants and Baptists...makes me glad I left christianity behind altogether.
CHollman82
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
Agnostic atheist
-This could mean a person is just waffling, no?


no...

Is this really that difficult?

An agnostic claims to have no KNOWLEDGE of god, because gnosticism refers to KNOWLEDGE (or ability to know). An atheist does not have a positive belief in god, because theism refers to belief pertaining to god.

An agnostic atheist therefor professes to having no KNOWLEDGE of god (agnosticism) and simultaneously no positive belief in god (atheism).

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT?

Please refer to the OED definitions provided above if you don't believe me...
thales
5 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
This sort argument over definitions is why I prefer to not self-identify as an athiest when I'm talking to someone about theism. Too many connotations and misconceptions. If they say, "are you an athiest?" I just smile and say, "well, I don't think there's a god."
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
You are completely right that we shouldn't generalize, but CH is right when he says we must give these fanatical ideologies no quarter.
I completely agree that fanatical ideologies should be given no quarter, anywhere. 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. That stuff just doesn't belong there. The problem I have is the belief that just because a human being has a spiritual bend of some kind they are unfit to do proper scientific work is just complete collective punishment BS. When you deal with a person you have to deal with them as an individual and look at their particulars, as seems to have been done in Gaskell's case.

Silent moderates are as bad as fundies.
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.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
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.

Most of us know the personal feeling of accomplishing a very hard task for the first time. Indeed there are thousands of words used to express it, but in reality that is a spiritual experience. It is majesterial. The religious call upon God for this feeling while those disenfranchized with the notion call it a flash of genius, or any number of other such feelings.

When I look through a telescope and see an exploding star I can feel the same things that the religious call "the majesty of God", but it isn't God, it is the majesty of discovery.
Modernmystic
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
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.

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


So not incapable, just unworthy of a job in the field? I'm sure that makes them feel better?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
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.

When you have a grooup, like Muslim, or Christians, or Jews, you will see that the majority are moderates and the minority are fanatical. As an outsider I can't reach the fanatical and bring them to reason as easily as a moderate can.

The moderates don't even try. If they aren't solving the problem they're enabling those who create the problem.

A moderate christian donating to a church that supports fundamentalist thought is not much different than a Sufi donating his cash to a Mosque that encourages martyrdom.

Before someone jumps in and calls apples to oranges, Money donated to churches in the US has been documented as going to build Rwanadian churches that were led by men who incited genocide.
CHollman82
2.5 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2010
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.


wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong...

/sigh

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

Once again you are confusing knowledge and belief, you and so many others...
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Are you not paying attention? Atheism only refers to belief. If you are an atheist you have no belief in god.


Yes I am, it's just that you're full of ****...

Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
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.

Now Christians use the term for those who have disagreements with their theology, as have the other abrahamic faiths.

Disbelief in theist declaration is atheism.
Claiming a lack of knowledge in reference to god is agnosticism
Claiming total belief or faith in theistic doctrine is theism.

We should all be agnostics because none of us know.
We may or may not be theists or atheists based on how we perceive theist religion.
No one should be allowed to claim gnosticism without being immediately shouted down as a liar unless they can show proof of a god or lack thereof.

That's the OED understanding of the terminology. Lots of you guys are masturbating over semantics.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
You know, I really hate to say this, especially with so many philosphy buffs on the site...

but maybe Derieda's arguments of communication were right....

No, nevermind, sorry. Like FOX news, if Derieda says it, it becomes false over time.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
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.


You said I am wrong then said the same exact thing I did...
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
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.
Okay, I didn't understand this as the context your sentence was originally referring to!
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
But it is about moderation. Moderation of any ideal results in a healthy frameowrk or ideology. Fundamentalism results in extremism.

That depends upon the 'ideal': Marxist ideal? Fascist ideal? ......

We should all be agnostics because none of us know.

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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
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.
I know, and thanks for the leeway; we're only given one k characters a pop.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
But call yourself an atheist? Sounds like a leap of faith, a belief.
No, it isn't. I am an agnostic atheist and anti-theist.
In order:
I don't know if there is a god.
If there is or isn't I believe that all dogma and statements of theism are wrong
And I think that if it were true, it would be awful.
Those with faith know in their heart and souls and really have no need to scientifically demonstrate that knowledge to others.
Great, if you can't show it, you don't know it.

That's the difference, you're claiming that you have some special knowledge that I don't, and you don't. When you say you do you are lying. If you want to tell me you feel differently, that's fine. If you're going to tell me you have knowledge that I don't, and can't share it, you're a liar.
panorama
5 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
Those with faith know in their heart and souls and really have no need to scientifically demonstrate that knowledge to others.

Besides a warm and fuzzy false sense of security, what exactly do you "know" in your heart? Me personally, I use my brain to think about my religion.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Why then can't you understand that (a)theism and (a)gnosticism are two completely different things [and] not mutually exclusive?
I do think they are different but can overlap when one teases apart their etymology. But I could just as easily all caps this way: Atheist: One who DENIES or disbelieves the existence of God, then call you a fool for not understanding "denial". I just don't see the relevance of trying to weasel out of their common use based an overlap only pertinent in their historical context. Where I’m from there's no risk of social sanction for saying "There is no God " and no more than for "I don't know". It's been ever since the Church got its a** handed to it and was sent packing back to Rome nearly 50 yrs ago. If anything, the opposite has become true for theists. So atheists don't have to be in the closet and seem to waffle. It’s therefore not uncommon to have atheists who flat out DENY there is a God. Though they don't usually acknowledge Dirac as His Prophet.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.
CHollman82
3.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2010
Gawad,

It has nothing to do with "waffling" and everything to do with being rational.

I cannot state that there is no god just as I cannot state that there is no big foot or that there is no russels teapot...

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).

I also like SH's bit about being anti-theist so I might just throw that in there too because if the judeo-christian god did exist it would be a horrible thing...

I am both atheist and agnostic... one does not preclude the other.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.


You are not capable of demonstrating.

Since you are not capable of demonstrating what you think you "know" does not exist in objective reality and only as a subjective truth relative to your own cognition... that is your god, an imaginary friend...

Don't underestimate the power of your brain to invent realities that do not exist, that ability has been paramount in our success as a species.
panorama
5 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (1) Dec 22, 2010
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.

Oh, please, I call BULL, AGAIN. See above. Talk about disingenuous! You don't like hypocrisy? Better not look in the mirror! Unbelievable.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 22, 2010
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
Actually when I wrote that I was thinking about science before the 1950s and see that wasnt clear.
without ever actually having dealt with a mix of people who do fine scientific work whether they believe in God or not.
Not many. A few moslems and orthodox jews who never discussed their beliefs. One Christian Scientist who was pretty batty and got himself fired.
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-
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 22, 2010
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. Look at the religionist archeologists in the middle east who are looking not to do science, but to find evidence that their dead heroes existed.

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 sociopolitical, 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.
Gawad
not rated yet Dec 22, 2010
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.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
Anyone who does state that they know that there is no god is lying.
They are an Atheist of the DENIAL sort, a form of "faith" based Atheism, based on belief as much as a theist's belief in that it is a conclusion reached w/out objective evidence or proof. Is THAT so hard for you to understand, Mr Supposedly Not A Fool. The sort sometimes referred to as "hard core" atheists, and there are probably more than you would know because you likely live somewhere that would severely sanction someone who admitted to such.
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).
Fine. If it works for you, far be it from me to rain on your parade. How about you not crap on all those souls who are perfectly capable of producing outstanding scientific work in addition to the fact that they believe in God?
if the judeo-christian god did exist it would be a horrible thing...
Well, at least we agree on something.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 22, 2010
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.

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

subjective truth relative to your own cognition

That's ALL anyone 'knows'. All is heuristic.
http://www.me.ute...ory.html
panorama
5 / 5 (9) Dec 22, 2010
Why not?
All teachers should understand where science fits in a universal heuristic.

WTF? How is this an ideal setting for a learning environment? Let's imagine what that would be like in the "ryggesogn2 class of universal heuristics".

Student: How does this work? What causes this?
ryggesogn2: It just does because I know it in my heart!!!
Student: What do you "know" in your heart?
ryggesogn2: YOU ARE NOT CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING!!!

Gawad
not rated yet Dec 22, 2010
1/3
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.
Gawad
not rated yet Dec 22, 2010
1/3 sorry missed a quote
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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
sigh.
1/3
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.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
2/3
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.
Granted this can happen, I even personally know of a case in which doctoral student performing research on 02/C02 gas perfusion in capillaries ultimately had to be dismissed because he kept trying to reconcile his results with what the Koran had to say about blood circulation. However, even taken on average I'm not convinced that this kind of conflict between research and religious belief has a higher incidence than similar conflicts that originate because of a disconnect between research and *other* belief systems.
Gawad
5 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2010
3/3
This can certainly involve various philosophical systems or economic theories. Whether it's e.g. Objectivism or Supply Side economics there are always those who will become so fanatically "overinvested" in an ideology that it becomes a problem on other fronts. Religious fanaticism is usually the most frightening of these both in terms of numbers and intensity, but it remains just one type of fanaticism. And this changes in no way that coming to a point where a distinction is no longer made between *fanatical* (as way well be Gaskell's case) and normal, reasonable human behaviour and beliefs, as has been the problem for some in this thread, makes the problem worse, not better.
Otto_the_Magnificent
3.6 / 5 (23) Dec 22, 2010
Religious fanaticism is usually the most frightening of these both in terms of numbers and intensity, but it remains just one type of fanaticism.
Humans categorize, draw lines, make distinctions, specialize. Let somebody else argue with marjon about socialism. My forte is the evil that is religion. Per the topic. If you try to solve all the problems at once, you get nothing done.

I like to think that, in my own little way, Im helping to prevent things like this:
http://www.bbc.co...12064775

"Fear the next generation" is what gazan fanatics tell Israel. Their religion-mandated overgrowth makes war inevitable. This is the kind of ignorance which threatens to swamp the civilization which enables scientific progress. We do not need the same sort of fanatics whittling away at it from within. The dark ages can return, and it is religion which can produce it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2010
what exactly do you "know" in your heart?

You are not capable of understanding.

No, we've already proved that the majority of us are far smarter than you.
You're merely unable to demonstrate it, meaning, you don't know shit, Mr. Swenson.
Youre right, much good work is done by believers.
If religion is to be broken down to mere charity work, may I state and prove that secular organizations, ie: USAID and UNICEF do a far better job, and are far more accountable on all fronts than religions have ever been.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 22, 2010
USAID and UNICEF do a far better job

All volunteers I presume operating on 100% donated funds?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
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.

After all, aren't they "spreading the word" to ensure a seat in Godland Amusement Park (heaven)? That isn't exactly working for free if you believe in that sort of nonsense.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
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.
panorama
5 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
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.

Their tax-exempt donations.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
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.

And this from someone who selects the laws that should be obeyed: individuals must obey courts to perform abortions, but a govt agency, FCC, doesn't have to follow court orders.
What are the standards for 'populism'?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
"LDS missions are not salaried positions, so prospective missionaries and their families must save money beforehand to pay for the missionary's living expenses. As two-year Mormon mission costs about $10,000.

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

Read more at Suite101: Full-Time LDS Missionary Service: Facts, Statistics, and Daily Activities of Mormon Missionaries http://www.suite1...g"
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
The money is given to the church and redistributed according to the cost of living in each missionary's assigned area of the world.
And you support this redistribution of wealth? Socialist. < marjon > Of course a socialist like ryggesogn2 would be interested in pickpocketing the American tax payer so that the Church can redistribute the wealth. As a socialist he cannot be trusted to have people's best interests at heart. < /marjon >
panorama
5 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
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...
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
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.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
Mormon missionaries are volunteers.
They're volunteering at the barrel of a gun called Hell.
'Progressives' require force to redistribute wealth.
The only people toting guns at rallies, and calling for forceful reorganization of government are conservatives.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
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?
panorama
5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
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.

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.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2010
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.


No ****...it's called sarcasm.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 23, 2010
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?

No, which is why I'm not carrying a gun at a conservative rally, or signing up for missionary work. In short: I'm not as dumb as you are.
Again, no Mormon will be put in jail for not going on a mission. Mormon's can even choose to leave the church.
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.
thales
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
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.

Life or death is the choice I have from the government. What choice is that?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2010
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?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2010
If shunning is so powerful, why don't you prefer that over govt force?
Again, I'm not a Mormon.

You'd rather be shunned than taxed. That would mean it is safe to say you prefer money over people, including family. Wow, that's not just evil, it is cartoon evil.

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (47) Dec 23, 2010
Life or death is the choice I have from the government. What choice is that?
How about emigration? Mexico maybe? Lots of free market action up around the border I hear-
DamienS
4 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2010
For some reason whenever I see the word Mormon I always read it as Moron.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Dec 23, 2010
For some reason whenever I see the word Mormon I always read it as Moron.
"Moron is the name of a location and a king in the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon. They are both connected with the Jaredite people." -wiki

"The Angel Moroni is an angel that Joseph Smith, Jr. said visited him on numerous occasions, beginning on September 21, 1823. The angel was the guardian of the golden plates..." -wiki

-Its a very old word "from Greek moros foolish" and well-known by the fabricators of this goofy religion. Its obvious IMO when considering the timing and the final location of the group, that it was conceived to settle and rapidly populate a region full of exploitable resources. Hence the polygamy.

As for the variations of 'moron' in the literature, I think someone had to have been making a little joke, yes? As to the gullibility of believers, the LDS Church is supposedly the fastest growing religion in the US, but much dispute-
Dick_Wolf
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 23, 2010
@otthole
Religion right now is the only thing preventing enduring world peace, and is the only thing threatening civilization with destruction.

That's childishly simplistic propaganda born entirely of your own hysterical "anti-religionist" bias.

The core problem isn't religion; it's violence, in all of its myriad and often subtle forms. Religion is only one of many ways humans attempt to justify violence. And if not with religion, then violence is justified by national, racial, economic, social or philosophical differences, among others.

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.
SoulmanOtto
3.8 / 5 (16) Dec 24, 2010
Hey baby,
Nap time over?
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.
Get somebody to read the rest of the thread to you. Lots of bludgeoning going on here. Lots of people feel this way.
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.
Tantrums are pretty violent. You going to gang-rate me now? Babies throw poop. You going to start throwing poop again? Baby?

-Can anyone here think of a mormonic-type poster who uses the term 'fascist' a lot? Marjon? Arkaine? Lewis? Anybody wonder who this sockpuppet is?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 24, 2010
The core problem isn't religion; it's violence, in all of its myriad and often subtle forms.

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.
Dick_Wolf
1 / 5 (2) Dec 24, 2010
Lots of bludgeoning going on here.

And that's fine, but when you start to think that you're achieving a lasting global peace, that's when you enter the realm of wily leprechauns and golden unicorns.
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. While it's true that religion as it's commonly practiced today is merely a form of ignorance that cripples human analytical reasoning ability, your “anti-religionist” jihad isn't any better because it's just another strategically-irrational, emotionally-charged pogrom.

And if organized religion is good at anything, it's using persecution to bolster the ranks and deepen fanaticism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (44) Dec 24, 2010
You've misunderstood, I'm not a pacifist, obviously.
No I think you've shown everybody that you're a twat.
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.
And any opinions you care to voice are offset by the smell of what's in your pampers. I think you're arkaine and I'm going to go with that. Dick/soulman/arkaine and the gang-raters all left about the 15th or 16th and now you're back.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (44) Dec 24, 2010
Heres dick the wonder-tot:
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
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2010
Violence is the problem and statists demand the govt must have the monopoly on violence.
So you're advocating private militaries owned by corporations?
'Progressives' and Randians both agree with this.
Randians are anarchists. for the most part.
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.

You're quite ignorant of history and reality.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 25, 2010
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.
Human survival has depended upon cooperation. Families and tribes throughout history, and even today, teach their children not to use violence to settle disputes.
But all it takes is one aberrant bully and now such bullying is called govt.
If shunning is so powerful, shun the bullies. If that doesn't work, then people have the right and obligation to defend themselves and their families from such force.
Free market businesses don't want to pay for militias. Violence increases entropy and is not profitable.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2010
"The Nazis feared the Jews — many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One — so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers. "
"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. "
", the Weimar law required the registration of most lawfully owned firearms, as do the laws of some American states. In Germany, the Weimar registration program law provided the information which the Nazis needed to disarm the Jews and others considered untrustworthy.

The Nazi disarmament campaign that began as soon as Hitler assumed power in 1933."
“And today, when I am asked that question, I tell people it doesn’t matter whether you’re Hungarian, Polish, Jewish, or German: If you don’t have a gun, you have nothing.”
http://www.nation...riffiths
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2010
Ayn Rand was no anarchist.
Objectivists with individualized ethics are on occasion anarchists. Her bootstrappiness shows he want for isolation, similar to you and your xenophobia.
Like you, she was an atheist
Most people are.
but unlike SH, she reluctantly saw no other alternative to the monopolization of force by the state
So you're saying I see an alternative. That'd be right. How about non-violence.
SH and Rand both presume people will readily commit violence if there is no govt threat of retaliation.
No, I think people like you would commit violence if there was no perception 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".
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2010
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."
http://www.number...america/
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 25, 2010
SH promotes state power to control his desire to use force on others.
Actually non-violence is a lack of applied force.
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.
Which can be stolen from you if you sign the wrong contract, or fall on hard times.
"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."

http://www.adhere...nts.html

Number of people who do not believe in a god:
Add 3, 6, and 14.

Then there's the matter of those who don't acknowledge their atheism due to fear of reprisal in various countries, including the US.

Sorry Marjon, Christianity isn't even a religion anymore. It's a family of diverse religions that you can hardly call a group.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (43) Dec 25, 2010
"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. "
Well- these guys had guns:
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/oedipusphinx/4034483151/

-and they were anti-fascist just like you. Something else you've got in common.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 25, 2010
Which can be stolen from you if you sign the wrong contract, or fall on hard times.

Or vote for socialist 'hope and change'.
Under an anarchist system, contracts that violate inalienable rights are voided under arbitration.
Govts have no such limitations.
Kyleric
not rated yet Dec 25, 2010
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.


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.

More recent examples: Ernst Boris Chain (1945 Nobel prize,medicine) raised his children within the Jewish faith. William Daniel Phillips (1997 Nobel prize,physics) is a Methodist,as is Arthur Leonard Schawlow (1981 Nobel Prize,Physics).

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

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.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2010
the university system as we know it was in great part created by the Church, so it had in fact a positive influence.

That was the purpose for the founding of Harvard.

"In the words of Harvard's founders:

"After God had carried us safe to New England, and we ... rear'd convenient places for God's worship ... dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust ... it pleased God to stir up the heart of one Mr. Harvard, a godly gentleman and a lover of learning ... to give the one half of his estate ... towards the erecting of a college and all his Library." "
Dick_Wolf
1 / 5 (2) Dec 25, 2010
Okay ottnot, since you’ve repeatedly failed to defend your empty assertion that religion is the only thing standing in the way of a peaceful Utopian world, I guess we can all go ahead and assume that you’ve conceded defeat.

http://news.bbc.c...3709.stm
“The War Audit says that although armed conflicts may take on religious overtones, their genesis invariably lies in factors such as ethnicity, identity, power struggles, resources, inequality and oppression - and one factor is often exacerbated by another.”

A world without religion would undoubtedly produce superior conversations, but people would still find plenty of reasons to butcher each other.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (42) Dec 25, 2010
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.
'Certainly' is not the correct word in this case. A cursory examination of faraday, Nietzsche, Planck, and the founders of their affiliated educational institutions shows many religionist and theologian ancestors, parents, teachers, friends, relatives, and benefactors, including education at harvard. Even so, they are in the minority at a time when religions icy grip still held fast the course of science and education.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Dec 25, 2010
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.
'Clearly' is also in this case not the proper word. 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... I like that metaphor. Like mojo points out, harvard was founded by religionists, as was most all of the ivy league.

-What's that smell by the way? Smells like... diapers...
http://www.sassyp...210.html

-Oh hey, dick-
Kyleric
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2010
Even so, they are in the minority at a time when religions icy grip still held fast the course of science and education.

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.
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
Religion, unlike monarchy, does not need to control the political arena to thrive. Many countries have separated church and state and are inhabited by a large proportion of religious believers (France for example). So "icy grip" or not, religion remains, and as I stated earlier, it does not interfere with the advancement of science.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Dec 25, 2010
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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Dec 25, 2010
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.
No actually it has no bearing at all on the reasons why they were religionist. You or I would have to do more research to get some idea of why people have said they were, and I do not want to.

My uncle was an engineer at bell labs. He wasn't particularly religious, but he was a very friendly guy, and joined a church because they were just a very nice bunch of people, is what he said.

I would want to see what faraday and planck said themselves about their membership, in what context they said it, and what they were doing at the time, in order to discern their motivations if possible. You can understand that religionists jump at the odd example and play it for all it's worth, so I wouldn't necessarily trust popular sources.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Dec 25, 2010
So "icy grip" or not, religion remains, and as I stated earlier, it does not interfere with the advancement of science.
Another unwarranted blanket statement. Of course religion has routinely obstructed and derailed the course of science, and will continue to do so. Somebody mentioned giordano Bruno as only one of many examples.

Keeping creationism out of curricula is a constant fight against those who would discourage future scientists in the womb so to speak. The current pope only recently begrudged evolution, but only to define it as an instrument of providence.
Kyleric
5 / 5 (1) Dec 25, 2010
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.

CHollman82's comment was much more extreme than what you just said, and what I posted was a reaction to it. The question as you pose it is much more reasonable.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2010
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 socialist academics in positions of power are quite acceptable?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2010
"New Atheism is really the hijacking of science. 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."
Alex B. Berezow is the editor of RealClearScience and associate editor of RealClearReligion. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
http://spectator....d-dawkin
yyz
5 / 5 (1) Dec 26, 2010
"Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it."

Religion offers one explanation among many of why we are here and that should be *RealClear* even to Ph.D. microbiologists.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2010
People like Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins believe science alone explains the existence of the universe.

Yup, at least it aims to, which is far more than any other discipline is able to do.
Therefore, all the foolish people who buy into the concept of God are ignorant simpletons.

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

Not really. Philosophy at least is closer to science than 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?"

Religion is beautifully equipped to answer precisely nothing.
The Big Bang and evolution explain how we got here, but that is about it.

What more is there?
Religion explains why we are here and what we are supposed to do about it.

Religion explains nothing. There is no 'Why' we are here. It's an invalid question. We need not have been here.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2010
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.
DamienS
5 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2010
But why ARE we hear?

Here, not hear. Like I said before, it's an invalid question. Or, if you like, we are here because the laws of physics don't rule out an assemblage of molecules that makes us and other animals possible.
Why life?

Again, laws of physics don't rule life out of the realm of possibility.
Why has life led to intelligence?

Probably because there's a survival benefit in having more smarts than the average bear.
It is all quite opposed to entropy. Why?

Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.
Science fails to even ask such questions.

Wrong, they have already been answered, but you're too closed minded to accept them.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2010
Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.

And you don't wonder why?
DamienS
5 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2010
Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.

And you don't wonder why?

What are you talking about? I'm asking you why "it's against entropy", because I can't think of any arguments which support your assertion. It's a ridiculous and baseless assertion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 26, 2010
It's a ridiculous and baseless assertion.

Then explain the purpose of life.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 26, 2010
It's a ridiculous and baseless assertion.

Then explain the purpose of life.

There isn't one.

Life is exactly what entropy demands. The complex chemical reactions that make up life simply increase the entropy of the universe by seeking the lowest available energy state.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (6) Dec 26, 2010
Then explain the purpose of life.
There actually is a purpose FOR life. Make more life. It is inherent in the way self-reproducing anything works that its purpose is to make more of itself. Otherwise it would end.

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

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 26, 2010
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.
But why mommy? WHY?? How come mom? Etc. Exact same motivation from immature minds who will keep asking until they get the answer that suits them, instead of accepting things for what they are.

Scientists ask why because they genuinely want to know, and they accept the answers that they get. Religionists don't want to know why; they think they already know. Their questions are only dishonest ways of telling you this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 26, 2010
Yes, why is it against entropy? I can't think of any reasons.

And you don't wonder why?
No, YOU don't wonder why, you're only trying to tell people here that you already know, like I said. And since the people here already know what you think in this respect, you are wasting your time. And theirs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2010
Scientists ask why because they genuinely want to know,

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.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Dec 26, 2010
There is no other known purpose and making up a god just ads one more question. What is the purpose of the god.
Hmmmm. Good question. Perhaps a gods purpose is to make more gods? That would explain the profusion of self-perpetuating denominations and sects. But I think the primary Reason for the gods mankind worships today, can be found in genesis.

Adam and eve gained the knowledge of good and evil by disobeying god, and mankind is made to suffer because of it. Good is what your god, through your holy institution, says it is. Therefore the god you believe in is there to define for you what is good and what is evil, and what will happen to you if you get them confused.

The knowledge of good and evil is the understanding and acceptance of who and what defines it. And as god of course doesn't exist, this has always meant religious institutions and those in authority that they endorse.
Cont
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 26, 2010
So which scientists are investigating the purpose of life in the universe
None of course. It isn't something that can be discovered EXCEPT in the sense that I used and there it is inherent. Any purpose to life would require some sort of a creator and then the question would be 'what is the creator's purpose of existence'.

So what is the purpose of YOUR concept of a creator? And why is that you think the god of Genesis was rational enough to actually have a purpose for life
Or are there no scientists asking because they don't want to know
Hard to ask since there isn't anything to ask. However MY answer is REAL as opposed to believing in a book written long ago by ignorant men
BTW, our modern science was motivated by faith to investigate and try to understand God's creation
SOME people in science acted in that manner. Most scientists just want to know how the Universe works. Claiming a god did it is just a way to say 'don't look I don't want my beliefs tested'

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Dec 26, 2010
What is good for your group is invariably evil for the group you're in conflict with, and vice versa. But they have been supplied with a god who is there to point this out to them, at the proper Time, in the proper Manner. Much constructive and organized mayhem can thus ensue.
So which scientists are investigating the purpose of life in the universe
You mean who in science is looking for the answers that you want to hear? Dr Vinnie Goombats of the Institute for the Advancement of Backwardness maybe?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 26, 2010
BTW, our modern science was motivated by faith to investigate and try to understand God's creation.
Actually, I thought it was done in spite of this. Ask Copernicus, Galileo, and Bruno et al. remember, the church already KNEW how the universe worked. They only has a real interest in protecting this 'knowledge' from satanic disruption. They also, of course, wanted to know about gunpowder and metallurgy and siege engines, etc, as Moslems and Tatars were also a threat to their Weltanschuung.
DamienS
5 / 5 (3) Dec 26, 2010
So which scientists are investigating the purpose of life in the universe?

I and others have already pointed out that this question is meaningless, but you keep asking it. There is no purpose OF life any more then there is a purpose for the existence of a rock.

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

Scientists ask because they DO want to know. That is their raison d'être. What they don't waste time asking are meaningless questions.

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

It was motivated by people not content to accept mere folklore as explanations but to see for themselves, usually in spite of religions' millstone around their necks.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2010
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?
DamienS
5 / 5 (6) Dec 27, 2010
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?

Are you really that obtuse that you can't understand answers when supplied to you?

Okay, let's try another tack. I can shoot down your statement. A rock can reproduce by splitting in two. Rocks evolve by means of the rock cycle: magma -> crystallization-> igneous rocks -> erosion -> sediments & sedimentary rocks -> tectonic burial & metamorphism -> metamorphic rocks.

These process follow physical rules just like life's processes. The same atoms combine in different ways under the same laws. There is a multitude of different organizations possible, life is but one.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
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?
Because unlike creationists, we know why.

Chemistry is very helpful in understanding the natural world. Especially since the whole magical answer doesn't work out in practice like you say it does.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 27, 2010
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?
'But why mommy, why? WHY mom??' 'Go ask your father.'
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
Obviously the atheists Otto and SH can't answer and obviously don't care.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2010
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.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
"Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to 'nobody knows.' The favorite reply is, 'There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.'"
"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. "
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=1
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
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.

"Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality."
"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."
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=1
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
A rock is composed of atoms similar to those found in living matter yet a rock does not reproduce or evolve.
My you are ignorant about rocks aren't you. Rocks are primarily Silicon dioxide and other oxides. Pretty much inert. Which is way they can sit in water for millions of years without dissolving. Live is not going to come from that sort of material.
Scientists have no interest in understanding why?
As you can see from what I wrote above they DO understand why and its amazingly ignorant of you that you don't as well.

Even by your low standards of dealing with reality this is exceedingly low. I bet even Kevin knows better.

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

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.
Nonsense. It is rational since we don't yet know enough to even come close to coming up with a real answer.

Simply because we don't know everything that doesn't mean that an already disprovable god, the god of Genesis, actually exists.
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.
Based on the laws of the Universe. Which does not tell us why those particular laws exist.
the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm
I am not squirming but then I am not a scientist. Of course it that asses opinion and not reality that scientists actually squirm over that bullshit claim that a PHILOSOPHICAL question must be a theological one.

And you are EVADING again.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2010
Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity
Can questions be absurd? Yes. That one is. It is CIRCULAR and thus absurd.
the laws should have an explanation from within the universe
WRONG. The laws MUST come from OUTSIDE the Universe that we see and from outside the space-time of the Universe that we see. Stupid to think it must be internal.
and not involve appealing to an external agency.
Agency in the sense of a god yes. But only in that sense.
The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research.
Maybe. Might always be outside our understanding.
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
Bullshit. He engaged in circular reasoning and used assumptions dependent on knowledge NO ONE has.

Crap won't your god real when it depends on a Universe that we do not live in.

Ethelred
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 27, 2010
"...the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. "
Actually your author here is being dishonest- he probably knows that the old priests were quick to jump in and offer answers that they didn't have to prove when the tribal elders ran out of excuses. 'The crops failed because you've angered the gods!' -was their reply, and the elders had to agree because it was after all the only answer that would keep the people from blaming THEM.

Theological answers are the ones of last resort, used to prevent Leaders from having to admit mistakes and ignorance, and losing Authority as a result. Priests are just waiting in the wings for someone to say 'we don't know yet.' They're sheisters, and people like marjon fall for them all the time. Because over the centuries they have concocted such Wonderful answers... sigh. Dont ya just wish... Wouldn't it be great if... More kids stuff.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (44) Dec 27, 2010
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.
Otto does not sneer, snickers a lot though.

Unlike the people They are destined to Manage, I think the true Leaders of this world are very comfortable in accepting Reality for what it is. Reality after all is Their whole reason for existence. A reality too horrific for the people to accept or understand, that without Management they would soon overpopulate the world and thus destroy it, and with it their only chance of finding a more enduring solution to this relentless Equation.

'Fear of god is the beginning of wisdom.' Proverbs1:7

These Leaders fear only one god- Inevitability.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Dec 27, 2010
Or- 'Fear of wisdom is the beginning of god.' -? (snicker)
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 27, 2010
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.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
I'll give a bit more credibility to a theoretical physicist than Ethel
I don't care what he does if he has circular reasoning and uses false dichotomies in an effort to claim that people that aren't depending on faith are doing so. And of course you don't like anything I say.
At least he is still acting like a scientist.
A bad one in that article since he used bad reasoning. He is avoiding tough questions by calling philosophy 'theological' which is the false dichotomy that he used. If you can't see that it is no wonder that you are so full of nonsense.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 27, 2010
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.

I'd give more credibility to anyone who refused a Templeton prize over accepting one. What you don't seem to understand is that the Beyond Center is an academic think tank (surprised you'd even care to cite them seeing your overall disgust with "liberal" think tanks) that specializes in the philosophy of science.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
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.
"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.'
Max Planck "
"When Schrödinger published
his book, quantum physicists
were flushed with the success of
explaining the nature of matter.
Life is, after all, just a state of
matter, albeit a weird one. Sixty
years on, Schrödinger’s expectation
has not been fulfilled.
Molecular biologists are content
with ball-and-stick models based on classical
concepts. But so long as they cling to that,
the origin of life will remain mysterious."
http://beyond.asu...Life.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 27, 2010
Truth hurts.
You would know, it always kills your arguments.
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.
You're right, I'm sure there are many more who follow the Aquinian school of faith and use science as a tool to investigate their concept of God.

That concept isn't forbidden in science. It takes on a different meaning. Some people completely seperate their faith from science and have both. Some use their faith as a driving force to engage in objective discovery about their reality. And some, like Gaskell, attempt to twist science to fit their preconceived notions.

The third group doesn't adhere to science as "Science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the Universe."

Special thanks to Carl Sagan
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Dec 27, 2010
Here's another one for you Marjon,

Dr. Carolyn Porco, atheist.
"The same spiritual fulfillment that people find in religion can also be found in science by comming to know the mind of "God".

Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive, but in Science, reason rules faith, not the other way around.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (44) Dec 27, 2010
Faith and Science are not mutually exclusive
-is one school of thought but of course there are others. Some, including myself, feel that science and superstition are mutually exclusive. And as religion struggles with renewed fervor and force of numbers to regain control of the world, reason is again in peril.

I don't know if you gents have seen this wiki article of religion vs science:
http://en.wikiped..._science

-but it summarizes the different arguments in a rather conciliatory but comprehensive way. Personally I think that, the more we learn about how the world really works, the more apt we are to discard the notion that some patron intelligence might be running it all from behind the curtain.
Cont-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 27, 2010
Hey marjon- here's some ammo for you from the article:

"Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common." ... Coulson asserted that science, like religion, "advances by creative imagination" and not by "mere collecting of facts,""

-but before you get excited, let me chop it up a bit... This exerpt gives the mistaken impression that science is created by dreamers following their curiosity wherever it leads. The best science has always been borne of competition- scientists competing to publish first, competing for funding, or at the extreme, working for their country under wartime threat; which is what drove the manhattan project.
Cont-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Dec 27, 2010
Creativity under duress I suppose is what causes pragmatic religionists to tailor their message to whatever works best for their flock. But it exposes religion for what it is at the core- an adjustable form of social control and not the pure and unalterable godly Truth that you would expect.

In this respect alone science and religion are similar- they both follow what works. And while science remains valid, religions day as a moderator of human behavior is past.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Dec 28, 2010
Truth hurts.
Is that why you can't stand it?
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.
And they will all be speaking for themselves. How about we take some quotes from Godel about race?

The difference between faith and reason is a willingness to change ones mind in the face of new evidence. Fundamentalists have been ignoring evidence that goes against their faith for a long time.

Oliver K. Manuel goes on faith. He is in denial with regards to evidence. Einstein went on evidence when he found out that the Universe is expanding. He went on faith in regards to QM. Thus making him irrelevant as a scientist for decades. Science depends on evidence and reason. Stubbornness in the face of opposition is NOT faith if the reasons are good and the evidence supports you. Stubbornness in face of evidence is faith.

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.