Hi Marc,
Just a few things. About this:
marc9000 writes:
Shermer has little, if any scientific credentials, yet he writes for the Scientific American.
According to Wikipedia, Shermer has a master's in experimental psychology, a PhD in the history of science, and is the author of a number of lay-level science books.
About the definition of atheist, I wasn't originally concerned about the way you're defining atheist, but several people have raised the issue. If you aren't using the traditional definition then you should say so.
About the desirability of removing religious superstition from our understanding of the world in which we live, that's just good science, not atheism.
There is also not a shred of evidence that ANYONE but atheists, with the complete approval of their "religious" allies (theistic evolutionists, Deists, etc.) make all decisions concerning publicly funded/government sponsored methods of exploration in science.
You haven't provided any evidence of atheists actually doing anything. You don't know which scientists are atheists and which aren't. You don't know which scientists are making the decisions. So far all you've done is described your position. Can we assume some evidence will be forthcoming?
What bothers you about science isn't that it's controlled by atheists, because it isn't. What bothers you about science is that it isn't controlled by religious fundamentalists.
--Percy