|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Constant Claim: Scientist/academic=Atheist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view.
The reason given for this (claimed) behaviour is that it is due to a lack of belief or being an atheist. A recent example of this can be found in the is man inherently good or inherently evil? thread.
quote: I want this thread to have a very narrow focus - I want people who support this view to provide evidence that: a) Those involved in physical sciences are mostly atheist (therefore AT LEAST 51%) and/or b) Those involved in the social sciences/humanities are mostly atheist (therefore AT LEAST 51%) That is the start and end of the debate - we are NOT here to discuss other matters. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-20-2004 03:49 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-20-2004 03:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
plenty of the creationists make this claim - I'm sure they be only too happy to provide the evidence now they have a chance!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
that not one of creationists wants to step up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Your choice is TOO narrow.
IF you had stuck with permitting a response to,
quote:THEN I could have devolved to the "fairy circle"(as to empirical context) (in ECSCOTT's Evs.C (I started to review) inEvC Forum: Evolution Vs. Creationism ) where by 1st ammendment(US) (wrongly modified on my opinion as in a response say^I^to^you @ your first paragraph(regardless of possible independent reasons of content) One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view. IN SUBSTANTIA the fact came out for Scott where I would be able by reference to what has already happened be able to show that the relation of Catholic immigrants and Protestant endemics what is NOT PROHIBITED BY THE STATES is missocalized/anthropologized (by Scott) (I GUESS FOR THE REASON YOU MENTIONED--THAT BY NOT BEING A RELIOIUS ENOUGH PERSON (nair belief or being atheist)THE DESIGN OF THE EVIDENTIAL CIRCLE OF PEOPLE, FUNGI, AND KANTIAN SCHOLARHIP was not written by this author IN THE POWER OF THESE PEOPLE but instead as "bad science" but rather you remand that a different people in your choice be discussed. We would only need to be this tricky in internet conversation if one WAS trying to use the new electronic formats to CHANGE (not modify) the fact %INTO% evidence (like playing the part of "activist judges" etc.) I dont do this and seeing that you posted twice in a row that is prima facie evidence to me that you dont either. I would not know if there was out and out suppresion (in the case of Scott's foreward by Eldgredge say that attempts a false verticalization (on their lingo)) unless I responded to you as to if the foreword DOES apply your choice but then we would be talking in the other direction that we cant even get physiologically to let alone psychologically nor linguistically because you too soon attempted to cut the human out of the humas, but I do think the reason I would is because of the issue you started out from in this thread head. Instead I am fairly confident I find Scott using the words "false evidence" in the LEGAL THEORY (not science sense of the word "theory") where this WAS "false fact" BEFORE Scott wrote the work as a regression line of ID through any brand of c/e. Thus even excluding myself and only doing the writing in terms of my parents generation I find I can not answer you in the form you requested be replied to. So it is not in my case that I do not *want* to step up. I can't. And I can't do it, on purpose!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
english translation anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Don't ever ask for a translation of one of Brad's posts, it just encourages him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Dont worry mate, I am too busy working on something for Tony that I probably wont have the time to prime till next week so as to have finished reading Scott's book OUT LOUD to myself (so I can spit back to yous all etc) and then I pick up a new class at school, have to turn in an application to college, buy my own birthday presents, go to New Jersey to watch some lizards, and probably start programming with a laptop, so working out the OTHER direction the foreword indicated illegally, I think, probably wont happen till after Halloween.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3074 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
One of the constant claims that appears time and time again is that Scientist/academics cannot be trusted in regards to judging "religious" matter as they will suppress any evidence that does not fit a materialist world view. Hi Charles: Are you bloody serious ? Please tell me Charles HOW an atheist can objectively judge a religion that begins with the claim of a miracle ? (christianity/Resurrection)(the question is rhetorical) What atheist is going to conclude a miracle occurred which simultaneously disproves his own worldview ? What you are really saying between the lines is that atheists are objective regardless of their personal beliefs, which is what they desparately go out of their way to try and establish. EVERYONE HAS AN AXE TO GRIND: ATHEIST OR THEIST OR AGNOSTIC; it doesn't matter. Dr. Scott says the most trusted sources declare their bias/position up front so his audience can recognize the bias when it creeps in. The worst are those who hide behind the deceitful mask of (pseudo) objectivity - an animal that has never existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What atheist is going to conclude a miracle occurred which simultaneously disproves his own worldview ? An honest, objective one.
EVERYONE HAS AN AXE TO GRIND: ATHEIST OR THEIST OR AGNOSTIC; it doesn't matter. Not everybody's like you, WT. Some of the rest of us will actually allow the evidence to dictate the conclusion, even if it's something we don't like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote:And some of us would even like there to be a deity who loves us and will reward us with eternal life in heaven if we worship him. We just need better evidence of this than some self-contradictory collection of ancient mythologies and people yelling, "You're God-sense has been removed!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Are you bloody serious ?
If you'll bother to read what Charles wrote, WT, you will see that he asked about scientists and academics, not about atheists. You're wandering off again, pal.....
Please tell me Charles HOW an atheist can objectively judge a religion that begins with the claim of a miracle?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Willowtree has as you say got this entirely back to front and clearly had not read the first post properly.
The ONLY focus of this thread is some stats that prove that academics and scientists are mostly atheist (51% or more). The actual issue of bias is NOT the matter under discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
creationistal Inactive Member |
In 1997, a study by Edward Larson of the University of Georgia decided to evaluate the religiosity found in the scientific community. In a poll of 400 members of the National Academy of Science, he found that only seven percent expressed a belief in a God. Seventy-two percent expressed "personal disbelief" (atheism), and 20.8 percent expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Page Not Found - The Triangle Not up to date, but I'd not argue it's changed much, I have heard of nothing earth-shaking in the last few years that would sway numbers like those. -Justin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6038 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Well, that's a very small, skewed, specific sample of scientists, (the NAS), not a widespread view of what scientists in general believe.
For example, according to a poll reported here: Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation 40% of scientists believe in Theistic Evolution. Mind you, that puts a *minimum* number on how many scientists believe in God, since belief in Naturalistic evolution does NOT preclude belief in God. Added by edit: Also, 5% of scientists agreed to a creationist viewpoint, so at *most* 55% of scientists could be atheists according to these data. This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-29-2004 01:22 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024