|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists control science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
In my summation (Message 380) for Percy's topic, I Am Not An Atheist!, I discuss your bizarre redefinition of "atheist" to include everybody who does not reject evolution and science and reality as you would wish them to:
DWise1 writes: "Atheist" has a very specific meaning, but marc9000, like so many of his brethren, has chosen to ignore that specific meaning and to apply it indiscriminately and broadly to tar everybody who doesn't agree with his beliefs. In doing so, he renders his accusations of science and scientists being atheistic completely meaningless ... not that those accusations had any meaning to begin with. And now that he is trying to get a new topic started based on those same accusations, the first thing he must do is to define his terms! No, a deist is not an atheist. Obviously! Nor is any theist. Obviously! Yet again, marc9000 just has no idea what he's talking about. Until you provide a definition for "atheist" that actually means something, your entire position here is completely meaningless. Since you used Wikipedia to provide a definition for "scientific community", shouldn't you also use it for a definition for "atheist"?
quote:In contrast, your misuse of "atheist" includes vast numbers of theists, including the majority of Christians. Now, the qualities of scientists that causes you to brand them as "atheists" is that they are sane and they work and live in and with reality instead of your community's approach of denying, ignoring, and trying to redefine reality away. In that case, then I would most certain hope that scientists root themselves in reality. If that makes them "atheists" in your scale-covered eyes, then that is your problem, not theirs.
... a pew research center poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans, while 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest don't know, or won't commit. We probably see far less than 6 percent of evolution proponents on these forums who would ever vote for a Republican.
Why are so few scientists Republicans? It's very simple. Scientists are both intelligent and sane, two qualities that are incompatible with the wing-nut travesty that the GOP has now become. Let's face it, who in their right mind could even consider voting Republican?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
A legitimate question - my definition of atheist in this case is anyone with a political opposition to traditional religious practice in the U.S. I have been an atheist for very nearly half a century, yet according to your "definition" I am not an atheist. Nor, I am quite sure, would most atheists in the USA qualify as such by your "definition". However, a very large segment of the fundamentalist Christian community, in particular the Christian Reconstructionists (CR) and those fundamentalists who have adopted the CR political agenda (beginning with the Radical Religious Right in the 1980's), would qualify as "atheists" by your "definition". Your "definition" is obviously faulty; it doesn't work.
*The words "In God We Trust" on our money Not in the least bit traditional! Although the practice started during the Civil War (which is to say four score and seven years after the fact) and continued sporadically thereafter, it became required on all our money in 1955, which is well within my own lifetime. It wasn't due to traditional religious practice, but rather due to the mid-50's Red Scare, as were two other violations traditional religious practice in the US. Starting in 1776, the National Motto was "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") a statement of national unity. In 1956, Congress scrapped the National Motto and replaced it with the current "In God We Trust". Similarly, in 1954 Congress split another statement of national unity, "one nation indivisible" in the Pledge of Allegiance, with a religious statement. As I understand it, those violations of traditional US religious practice were committed by a Republican-dominated Congress under a Republican president. Being a reactionary, I call for the restoration of the National Motto and of the Pledge of Allegiance!
*Public Ten Commandments displays A publicity stunt to promote Cecil B. DeMille's movie in the early part of the 20th century. Not in the least bit a "traditional religious practice."
The Declaration of Independence. A document with Deistic wording written by a Deist, Thomas Jefferson. Or to put it in your terms, an atheistic document written by an atheist. Indeed, the wording of the Declaration strongly matches wording used by another famous Deist, Thomas Paine, who's constantly decried by the Religious Right as an atheist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
So by the time this thread is over, there should be a much better understanding of why science really is saturated with politics, and why so many scientists are Democrats. Despite my earlier snark (the creationist cretin tempted me!), there is another reason for scientists preferring Democrats over Republicans. Overall, the Republican party is anti-science. Whether actually believed or merely driven by the misguided beliefs of their constituents, Republicans take hard stances against science; eg, stem cell research, candidates' by-the-book creationist pronouncements. Democrats do not do the same. Why would any intelligent, sane, person align himself with a political party that is so doggedly and adamantly against his own profession? {ABE}Back when, I was affected by the legislature that allowed people of age 18 to vote, though I was a bit older at the time. OK, so now suddenly I was expected to choose a party. Nixon was in power at the time. So what else could I possibly choose except Democratic? I think I was the only Democrat in my family. Curiously, my ex-wife was also the lone Democrat in her family, though at the time politics was not a factor in our family. Though ironically, Nixon would have been considered far too liberal for the current Republican party, as would Saint Reagan himself. Regarding the word, "cretin". It was historically an expression of sympathy. Regardless of how sub-human that pitiful person may appear to be, he is nonetheless a fellow Christian, deserving of all the Christian consideration he should be due. Or else he implored that to the better-off Christians in order to elicit donations. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The word you should be using then, is secularist.
One of the problems with labels is that others have used the same labels in the past with meanings that don't necessarily agree with ours (or maybe with yours, but we'll see). Yes, science is a secular activity, controlled by secularists. Wikipedia has two related articles: Secularity (formed from the adjective, secular, meaning: "worldly" or "temporal") and Secularism. These are two different words with subtly different connotations, but whose differences are important to our discussion. Obviously, "secular" is an adjective describes a condition, whereas "secularism" (like so many other "-isms") denotes a philosophy or advocacy based on the adjective, "secular". Quoting from the Secularity article (my emphasis bolded):
quote:The article goes on to list usages of "secular", including some uses by religions within those religions. So then, most certainly, science is a secular activity. But "controlled by secularists"? From the Secularism article:
quote: I'm sure that many of us here would agree with those two lists and secularism would seem reasonable to us. However, it is also true that the work of secularists in the late-19th and early-20th centuries was to promote a secular society, which required the loosening of religion's hold on government -- now secularist groups in the West are mainly working to maintain the existence of a secular state, which the USA has been from the beginning. Now, the loosening of religion's hold on government is what marc9000 is claiming that scientists are trying to do, so the question is whether that is indeed what scientists are doing. Which could hinge on just exactly how we define "secularist", whether as an advocate for a secular society or as a participant in a secular activity, which science most certainly is. I see science as a secular society and scientists in general as secularists only in so far as they engage in a secular activity and would fight to keep that activity secular, defending it against attacks from religionists and IDists who want to inject their religion into science. If there are scientists who want to work towards reducing the influence of religion in society, then they do so as individuals. Though it should be expected of all USA citizens (even if they have never taken the oath) to protect and defend the Constitution from domestic enemies who attack our secular state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
And yet you still have not presented a working definition for "atheist". And it should be noted that your Message 26 was edited into something completely different after most of us had responded to it. And that latter version of the message still fails to provide us with your definition. Until you have presented a cogent and workable definition of your idea of "atheist", all your prattle posted here is absolutely meaningless.
It's actually not the Republicans who have changed, it's the Democrats who have changed.
Actually, that is half-true. Ever hear the term, "Dixie-crat"? Well, since after the Civil War, the South had been pre-dominantly Democrat, since the Reconstruction had made that region poison for any Republican. Going into the 60's, the greatest opponents to segregation and civil rights were from Democrat politicians. But then (according to a three-part PBS series by Bill Moyers in the mid-to-late-80's that also first informed me about the Christian Reconstructionist movement that formed the political agenda of the Radical Religious Right), President Carter organized a conference on the family which took an honest look at the structure of modern families (very complex with, due to divorces and remarriages, multiple "parents") and, in that process, alienated the conservative Christians (to apply a single label to a broad classification). This resulted, especially in the South, in a mass defection to the Republican Party, especially in Reagan's first election to the Presidency. At that point, the fundamentalist mind-set left the Democratic Party and transplanted itself into the Republican Party; both parties changed at that point. After that point in time, the Republican Party continued to cater to the fundamentalists while the Democratic Party was freed from that particular mental aberration. Then the Republican Party continued to fall ever deeper into the thrall of fundamentalist/etc ideology, while the Democratic Party was freed from that corrupting influence. The Republican Party careened ever further to the right while the Democratic Party remained at the center. Until we are where we are now, with the Republican Party trapped in an ideological black-hole from which nothing can escape. I've heard of several former Republicans leaving that party because it no longer represents their views; how many have gone in the other direction (outside of the old anti-segregation Dixie-crats)? Anyway, we are now left with Democrats who deal with the real world and Republicans who are committed ideologues. Republicans used to deal with the real world, but now they no longer can do so. And you have the audacity to claim that Republicans have not changed? Bullshit! And if you want to claim "it's the Democrats who have changed", then please show us! OK, my family is originally from Kansas, but a lot of US Census reports places us in Missouri, so please pretend that I'm from Missouri: Show me! Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans, the above statement probably reflects the overwhelming opinion of those making decisions about scientific employment and (to a significant percentage of the population) morally troubling decisions like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, the effects of abortion, etc.
OK, so please explain why more Republicans don't become scientists. Nothing's keeping anybody from studying the sciences nor in becoming scientists. So why don't they? You know full well that politics have nothing to do with it, so how can you explain it? Now of course, one problem is how many scientists used to be Republicans, but then found that position to be untenable? After all, the GOP has changed radically. Another problem is that the Republican Party now envelopes itself in ideology. While ideology is a normal part of religion, it has absolutely no place in science, which dedicates itself to reality. The Republican Party is inextricably enmeshed in ideology, whereas the Democratic Party deals with reality. So right from the start, Republican ideology is foreign to science. So, to return to your original question of why more Republicans don't become scientists: we find that Republicans find themselves enmeshed in so much anti-science, anti-reality ideology that they simply do not gravitate to the sciences. The fault is not within your imagined "atheists", but rather within yourselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Failed yet again to provide a working definition of "atheist", or are you trying to deceive us and Admin? That was very wicked of you!
You stated in your reason for editing: "To conform to requirements of message 28." In Message 28, Admin says:
Admin writes: Hi Marc,I'm going to disallow your definition of atheist. Use the standard dictionary definition or I'll close your thread. Your response was:
marc9000 writes: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&... You'll find two words under ~number 1~ definitions of atheism; "ungodliness" and "WICKEDNESS". So "wickedness" is my dictionary definition of how I define atheism specifically for this discussion. Well, here is what that link actually says (my emphasis added in bold):
quote: marc, are you really unaware of what "archaic" means? If so, then you would indeed be a mental midget, so I can only assume that you misquoted the dictionary out of pure and deliberate wickedness with that drive to deceive possessed by so many creationists.
An archaic meaning is one that is antiquated, out-of-date, no longer in use! As such, an archaic meaning is not the standard definition of the word! You failed to comply with or to conform to Admin's Message 28. You still need to provide a workable and working definition for "atheism" and for "atheist". It has to be a real definition, not one that you imagine or just pulled out of a particular bodily orifice as you have been doing so far. Or we could go what you said: " the definition of an atheist is one that everyone knows - a lack of belief in a god or gods." Even though that's the definition of "atheism" and not of "atheist". That means that you cannot apply the term "atheist" to any theist. That also means that in order to claim that them members of the NAS are atheists, you will need to prove that they are not theists. That means that you cannot magically redefine theists as atheists as you have repeatedly tried to do. Instead of engaging in your characteristic wickedness, you will need to be honest -- give it a try this once; you might even find that you like it. BTW, replacing the entire message stinks of wickedness (if you're such an atheist in your own mind, why do you hate them so much?). Instead, leave the old definition stand, though with the new definition either as an addendum or in a separate message referred to by your old message. For those who want to know what marc's old "definition" was, you will find it in Dr. Adequate's Message 31 and in Tangle's Message 33.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DWise1 writes: Since statistics show that only 6% of scientists are Republicans, the above statement probably reflects the overwhelming opinion of those making decisions about scientific employment and (to a significant percentage of the population) morally troubling decisions like embryonic stem cell research, cloning, the effects of abortion, etc. Why are so few scientists Republicans? It's very simple. Scientists are both intelligent and sane, two qualities that are incompatible with the wing-nut travesty that the GOP has now become. Let's face it, who in their right mind could even consider voting Republican? DWise1 writes: Overall, the Republican party is anti-science. Whether actually believed or merely driven by the misguided beliefs of their constituents, Republicans take hard stances against science; eg, stem cell research, candidates' by-the-book creationist pronouncements. Democrats do not do the same. Why would any intelligent, sane, person align himself with a political party that is so doggedly and adamantly against his own profession? Then in my Message 61 (where I also responded to your ridiculous "It's actually not the Republicans who have changed, it's the Democrats who have changed."), I added (though it has also been pointed out by others here):
DWise1 writes: OK, so please explain why more Republicans don't become scientists. Nothing's keeping anybody from studying the sciences nor in becoming scientists. So why don't they? You know full well that politics have nothing to do with it, so how can you explain it?Now of course, one problem is how many scientists used to be Republicans, but then found that position to be untenable? After all, the GOP has changed radically. Another problem is that the Republican Party now envelopes itself in ideology. While ideology is a normal part of religion, it has absolutely no place in science, which dedicates itself to reality. The Republican Party is inextricably enmeshed in ideology, whereas the Democratic Party deals with reality. So right from the start, Republican ideology is foreign to science. So, to return to your original question of why more Republicans don't become scientists: we find that Republicans find themselves enmeshed in so much anti-science, anti-reality ideology that they simply do not gravitate to the sciences. The fault is not within your imagined "atheists", but rather within yourselves. Funny how you completely avoided those explanations. So what's so wrong with Republicans that they are incapable of becoming scientists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
There is a new type of atheism that has organized only recently, and is quickly gaining acceptance in science. The Wall Street Journal has called it New Atheism, its definition can be found all over the net. Here is a common definition;
Just a few of the things wrong with that: {quotation lifted out of context from the following URL}
http://atheism.about.com/.../Definition-Militant-Atheist.htm You're talking about "New Atheism" and claim to provide a definition for it, but you didn't actually do that, now did you? Instead, you provided a definition for "militant atheist", something quite different. I believe that's called "bait and switch", where you promise one thing and then provide something different. "Bait and switch" is a thoroughly dishonest trick and, I believe, illegal when a business does it to a customer. Even more evidence that you should consider yourself an atheist by your own latest "definition", because of your demonstrated wickedness. You should have instead referred to a link that actually does talk about "new atheism", such as on Wikipedia. As pointed out by Granny Magda in his Message 62, you lifted that quotation out of context, thus misrepresenting it (committing even more wickedness, you filthy little atheist). The complete quotation reads:
quote:marc, you repeatedly misuse that and similar terms as your link points out. You need to stop and think about what you're saying before you simply spew it out. Also, there's nothing new about "new atheism", except for public awareness of it. Sheesh! {Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Provine, Weinberg, etc.}'s increasing appeal as a license to forget morality, justify big government spending, and charm the young ladies is all working in their favor.
Just what the hell are you talking about now? What do you mean "to forget morality"? Just where do any of them actually promote forgetting morality? Provide the quotes properly cited (meaning provide the source along with the quote; and no more quote-mining, please). And "charm{ing} the young ladies". Really now! Where did that piece of nonsense come from? Please provide us with a list of "new atheist" pick-up lines known to be used in the wild and known to actually work! Again, provide actual quotes with proper citations! Or at the very least explain what you're babbling about. You should know by now that you can't just spout nonsense without being called on it! From a bumper sticker:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5925 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Biology, Chemistry and Physics would have to say they were wrong as a start.
I would also have to disagree.If hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water simply because some God or Designer decided that's how it would be until She changed her mind it eliminates all we know about chemistry. If lightning is really just the result of God getting pissed then we need to rethink all we know about physics. An old standard common-sense harmonization of science and religion says that religion is for answering the whodunnit and why questions about the universe, whereas science is for answering the how-it-works questions. Even if a god or designer were proven conclusively to exist, that would not change how the universe works and hence would not change science. Well, it may require some extra discipline to apply due dilligence to working out how something works instead of copping out with a goddidit "conclusion". The only way that science would be affected would be if it were also discovered that things happen because of arbitrary supernatural intevention, such that there are no underlying natural laws. Such as your final example of realizing that lightning really is the "Finger of God".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024