Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(3)
Message 75 of 124 (671598)
08-28-2012 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Granny Magda
08-27-2012 6:38 AM


Re: Scientists control science
In actual fact, I have never met a genuine militant atheist.
Because they don't exist. "Militant atheists" is a term, IMO, coined by the religious in an attempt to basically say "see, you atheists are just as dogmatic as us" due to the accusations of violence performed in the name of religion. Throw "militant" in front of a term and watch as people associate it with violence. And rightfully so. However, those that are acually labeled as militant are nothing more than atheists who actually speak up against religion. Generally, these are your "new atheists". Although, Madalyn Murray O'Hair is hardly "new" and definitely more "militant" than anyone alive today. She did more for atheism, anyways. Atheism+ is a different name for feminism and a new way to ostracize a group of people already all too familiar with being ostracized. However, now it is being done from within. Unnecessary derision at its finest.
More on topic: Science isn't something that can be controlled in the way the OP hopes to point out. Science is a method, plain and simple. All the "evidence" laid out in the OP was, for the most part, how science gets conveyed to the general public. How journalist report science says absolutely nothing about the method of science or what happens in science. What the OP hopes to do, IMO, is make a claim that religious people, seemingly only the ones exactly like him, are directly barred from performing science. This is wholly untrue. Any creationist, IDist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Muslim, Mormon, Scientologist etc. is free to publish actual science. What they don't get to do,however, is change the rules that are already laid out and have been established for centuries as to how to acually do science. This means testable hypotheses and repeatable results; something creationism or ID has failed miserably at. And that is not for a lack of trying or funding. As far as funding, DI has plenty to test for ID or for any number of things, they just choose to donate to silly things like Ark replicas or creation theme parks.
If there actually is mostly atheists who are published, working scientists, that is because the god bit is a worthless endevour and does nothing to further our knowledge of anything. This is what the evidence tells us. When the god believers put forth some evidence for this god character, you will DEFINITELY see more theistic scientists and few, if any, atheist ones. That is not to say there are NO non-atheist published, working scientists because that would be a false statement. Plenty of scientists are able to compartmentalize their beliefs and perform sound science. But once that compartment becomes contaminated, out goes the god bit. Conversely, if that compartment leaks, out goes the sound science and out goes the respected scientist.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 08-27-2012 6:38 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2012 8:56 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 78 of 124 (671607)
08-28-2012 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Modulous
08-28-2012 8:56 AM


Re: Scientists control science
dooble post goodness
Edited by hooah212002, : double the pleasure, double the fun

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2012 8:56 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 79 of 124 (671608)
08-28-2012 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Modulous
08-28-2012 8:56 AM


Re: Scientists control science
Atheism+ is meant to refer to a subset of atheists that are not just interested in atheism issues directly - but other issues they feel naturally fall from their philosophical roots that led to their atheism
I'd love to discus it on a different thread where it is on topic because I feel completely different based on how those who claim to be A+ act, not what they claim A+ is. In short, if you aren't completely and 100% supportive of feminism or feminism isn't your number one goal, they label you as misogynist, homophobic etc. It's not that the people who are against the label actually are misogynists, those that lead the "movement" just say so as a form of moral superiority. Look what they (freethoughtblogs) did to thunderf00t, for example.
The people being ostracized, or rather not being included are homophobic, misogynistic etc., atheists.
Name one. There is a HUGE difference between not having feminism or homosexual equality as your NUMBER ONE goal for the freethought movement and being homophobic or misogynist. Feminazi's (Skepchic, here's looking at you) and now their friends (PZ, Matt Dillahunty for example) are throwing around the misogynist term left and right for anyone who slightly disagrees with them.
If the NAS was 90% Protestant - it'd surely raise some eyebrows. The Protestants would no doubt claim that its because smart and educated people accept Christ in the right way. Just as we might argue that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are an atheist (esp. in sciences) - so it stands to reason that some of the most educated people in the country (in sciences) are disproportionally atheist.
You'd have a point if atheism was some sort of dogma as opposed to a conclusion intelligent people come to when they look at the evidence and/or take off the blinders their religion has put on them. Atheism is not a religion and should not be compared to one.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2012 8:56 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 08-28-2012 5:41 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 98 of 124 (671799)
08-30-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
08-30-2012 11:03 AM


Re: Back to the Topic
If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."
Wrong about what? Where does science say anything about there being a creator/designer? What actual scientific endeavor/study would have to say "we were wrong"?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 11:03 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 1:50 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 100 of 124 (671802)
08-30-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
08-30-2012 1:50 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
I disagree unless this creator/designer changed the actual laws. However, we still wouldn't have to admit we were wrong because we wouldn't have been up until that point. At no point does ANY science state unequivocally that any natural process cannot be the result of some sky fairy. Science doesn't even address it. If we were to find evidence for this creator, we would go on about our business of studying how this thing does what it does.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 1:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 2:16 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 102 of 124 (671804)
08-30-2012 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
08-30-2012 2:16 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
And you are free to provide evidence that natural science has ANYTHING to say about gods since you are the one that made the claim.
It really is that simple.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 2:16 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:44 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 109 of 124 (671814)
08-30-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
08-30-2012 3:44 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."
then
Biology, Chemistry and Physics would have to say they were wrong as a start.
This tells me you are saying that science has anything at all to say about gods.
They don't.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:51 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 111 of 124 (671816)
08-30-2012 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jar
08-30-2012 3:51 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
I never said natural science has anything to say about gods.
What would science have to be wrong about, then, in regards to a creator/designer?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 113 of 124 (671818)
08-30-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jar
08-30-2012 4:07 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
So they are wrong to not see evidence before it is presented? I guess Newton was wrong about relativity then too?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:24 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 115 of 124 (671820)
08-30-2012 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
08-30-2012 4:24 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
When new evidence is presented an honest scientist says, "Whoops, what I thought was the answer is wrong."
Except for the fact that you've not shown how any answer would change with the addition of a creator god. The only way that it would is if said deity changed physical laws. Science doesn't address the god question so the addition of a god changes nothing aside from giving us something else to study.
It's really that simple. Science just doesn't give a damn if there is a god or not.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:24 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:34 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 791 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 117 of 124 (671824)
08-30-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
08-30-2012 4:34 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
What, specifically, would change with the discovery of a designer or creator? What scientific discovery would change by simply finding out that there was a designer or creator? What scientific discovery or field implicates strictly natural origins and would be wrong with the discovery of a designer or creator? You named fields of science that would have to say "we were wrong". Why? What, specifically, would they be wrong about? Where and when has ANY field of science explicitly, or even implicitly, said "This theory ONLY works if it arose of natural origins"?
Stop beating off behind the bushes. Or is it too hard for you to speak more directly?
You are free to hold whatever opinion you want
My assertion/statement that NO field of science implicates strictly natural origins and would therefor need to admit itself to be wrong with the discovery of a creator is hardly an opinion. Especially since you cannot or refuse to backup your initial claim. Do not confuse the fact that so far we have ONLY found natural origins and no evidence for this designer for being wrong about there not being one, what with never even addressing that topic.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 4:34 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024