OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[PoliticalChic]

Cutting and pasting the same incoherent mess you've cut and pasted a half dozen times already won't tidy-up your mess.

Let's review.

1. I've asked you to respond to questions raised as a result of your posts.

2. I use exact quotes of your statements so there is no misunderstanding as to what you said....

3. You refuse to answer....and post the same level of answer over and over, claiming something about 'cut and paste.'
But....you've used massive 'cut and passte' passages....and, I have no problem with the method.....
...but do have a problem with the fact that the passages are not related to the posts to which you are ostensibly responding.


4. It seems as though you are simply programmed to post those answers, no matter the issue at hand.

What can one conclude, other than you have..."limited" intelligence?



5. It seems that you are no more than a biased 'hate-bot' whose programming kicks in as soon as you hear any reference to religion.


But...I won't give up on you!
6. I'll give you another opportunity to answer the questions.


You can do it!

…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…



Waiting.

Let's review.

You're an angry, self-hating fundie who doesn't understand.

When you post stuff that's patently untrue you add credence to my indictment of you.


Not one thing in the sentence in your post is true.


Every single thing I've writen about you is true.
Proof?

Sure:
I actually quote your words.



You're in way over your head, aren't you.
You haven't the ability to think on your feet....that's why you must make up questions
to answer that haven't been asked.....you need to answer only what you've been programmed to answer.


The old saying that you so aptly demonstrate:
“He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”


It's not too late....you could try to answer.....

....or, would you rather I ask some different ones that you didn't answer?
Say the word.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're really quite desperate for attention, aren't you?

Is there a reason for your mindless cutting and pasting... other than an opportunity to embarrass yourself?

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy? <snip>

Oh trust me, there's zero chance of that after the way she owned you here. Her avatar could be a chunk of green kryptonite.

You afraid that I'm making her look like Swiss Cheese....you needed to jump in?

After yesterday's performance....where you accused me of tampering with your quote function....

...a stupid baseless charge from a stupid baseless person....

...and then you pretended that the episode never happened....

only one thing I have to say to you:

Step off, worm.

 

[koshergrl]

As usual, you're stuttering and mumbling is reduced to juvenile name-calling.

That's a syndrome shared by the religiously addled.

Hey.....good to see you, Collie!


Got a question for ya'


1. I got such a kick out of your post: “"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."…and I posted:

a. The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”
When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

b. ….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….” But no denial of the facts. So......I'm right again? You are so much fun!



2.Then there was this: You wrote "...a demonstration or some evidence of these gods is in order before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking."

Well, then, I asked this: "before we can move on to something more than wishful thinking" perhaps you'd like to provide proof of the Big Bang, or how life began from Miller's pot of amino acids, or the source of the energy that became the universe, or,...... in fact, the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea embraced by Richard Dawkins, among others, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours.

Why, then, scruple at the Deity? After all, the theologian need only apply to a single God and a single universe. Dawkins must appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to experience.

Now, get this: Dawkins actually writes, “The key difference between the radically extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis, is one of statistical improbability.”
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion."


Heck....I was hoping for some response.

a. But….you disappeared! Where is your answer? Ohhhh…hiding under your desk?



3. And one of your many obfuscations: "One of the many ignorant claims made by fundamentalists as they attempt to discredit science..."
But….there were no ‘fundamentalists’ around…..nor was there any attempt to discredit science. In fact..I wrote:

‘You seem not to be able to grasp the essence of the OP....that there is an abrasiveness that some scientists exude....as do you....when the idea of God or religion is brought up.

I'm not discrediting science, and, in fact, I agree with " Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "
(above from Wikipedia).

a. Seems to me you have some pretend-opponent in mind ( I’m using the term loosely, in your case) and you’ll simply write some prepared jargon to an imaginary question…..true?



b. Responding to imaginary questions is not a sign of mental health. You should have that looked into.

You're just mindlessly cutting and pasting what you cut and pasted previously...which was refuted previously.

Shameless attention seeking?

Or, as I pointed out earlier, you're just stuttering and mumbling and your only offering is goofy name-calling.

Paraphrase: I didn't read it, and wouldn't understand it if I did.

Hollie's a confirmed nitwit. She cuts and pastes a lot, has limited understanding of the material she opts to discuss, and none at all of the terms she uses.

 

[Pogo]

Crazy Collie....don't you recognize help when it's offered to you????

Do you want readers to think you're stupid?? Or worse.....crazy? <snip>

Oh trust me, there's zero chance of that after the way she owned you here. Her avatar could be a chunk of green kryptonite.

You afraid that I'm making her look like Swiss Cheese....you needed to jump in?

After yesterday's performance....where you accused me of tampering with your quote function....

...a stupid baseless charge from a stupid baseless person....

...and then you pretended that the episode never happened....

only one thing I have to say to you:

Step off, worm.

Again, your cheese is in your imagination; trust me the only Swiss on the page is yours. Thinly sliced too. No, just a reality check for you, as you declare victory and limp off, and a hats-off to her. And may I say it's sooo cute that you seem to think ad hominem dressed up isn't still just as fallacious.

Whatever you imagine didn't happen was IIRC back around posts 29-30 when I advised you to cease and desist misquoting posts -- which you then did.

Mmmm! Guyére!

 

[koshergrl]

Oh trust me, there's zero chance of that after the way she owned you here. Her avatar could be a chunk of green kryptonite.

You afraid that I'm making her look like Swiss Cheese....you needed to jump in?

After yesterday's performance....where you accused me of tampering with your quote function....

...a stupid baseless charge from a stupid baseless person....

...and then you pretended that the episode never happened....

only one thing I have to say to you:

Step off, worm.

Again, your cheese is in your imagination; trust me the only Swiss on the page is yours. Thinly sliced too. No, just a reality check for you, as you declare victory and limp off, and a hats-off to her. And may I say it's sooo cute that you seem to think ad hominem dressed up isn't still just as fallacious.

Whatever you imagine didn't happen was IIRC back around posts 29-30 when I advised you to cease and desist misquoting posts -- which you then did.

Mmmm! Guyére!

 

[koshergrl]

Oh please.
This isn't embarrassing; it's pathetic. "A.D" and/or its English equivalent has been the standard appellation since the Gregorian Calendar spread through Europe in search of a standard. Its origin was Christian-based because at the time that's who held the keys to both political power and the means to education and science (such as it was). "Year of our lord" is eighteenth century legalese for a legal document, put there to avoid ambiguity; a measure that would be clear to anyone in the world -- which for their purposes meant the Eurocentric world. And the Christian domination of that world was in large part what the Founders were distancing themselves from; that's why the first ten words of the Bill of Rights get right to the point, stating categorically: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." . They weren't exactly being cryptic there.

Language is by nature conservative, and legalese even more so. "A.D." no more directly invokes Jesus today, or in 1776, than our appointment next Wednesday has anything to do with the deity Woden. That's illogical as hell (and in like manner that expression invokes no belief in a netherworld).

Pathetic flailing attempt at righting an errant ship. Let's face it, Hollie owned this thread.

While possibly pathetic, your song and dance is a great source of amusement.

Does the US Constitution include this reference" "..."the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."

That would be a yes or no question.


Dance around all you like, Rumpelstiltskin.....

....it remains a yes or no question.


Answer when you're ready.

Answered in the past. You just quoted it. You brought this sentence up thusly: "Despite the secular nature of our national government, there is one unambiguous reference to Christ in the Constitution". Fallacy duly refuted.

Are you spending the day bowing before the star in the sky that provides our daylight because it's "Sunday"? Should that focus entirely change if we were to write in a Romance language? And shall we tomorrow prostrate ourselves before a lunar deity?

OK then.

It's your flawed logic, but I know of no logic you can turn on and off like a light switch according to which myth one is pushing at the time.

Of course you're "having fun"; you've relieved yourself of the responsibilities of rationality; you've awarded yourself a "Get out of fallacy free" card and think it works outside your own mind.

So you maintain that some other lord was referenced in the "the year of our lord"????

What lord do you think they're referencing? And what a coincidence that he shares the same calendar year....based on the years elapsed since the crucifixion of Christ.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh trust me, there's zero chance of that after the way she owned you here. Her avatar could be a chunk of green kryptonite.

You afraid that I'm making her look like Swiss Cheese....you needed to jump in?

After yesterday's performance....where you accused me of tampering with your quote function....

...a stupid baseless charge from a stupid baseless person....

...and then you pretended that the episode never happened....

only one thing I have to say to you:

Step off, worm.

Again, your cheese is in your imagination; trust me the only Swiss on the page is yours. Thinly sliced too. No, just a reality check for you, as you declare victory and limp off, and a hats-off to her. And may I say it's sooo cute that you seem to think ad hominem dressed up isn't still just as fallacious.

Whatever you imagine didn't happen was IIRC back around posts 29-30 when I advised you to cease and desist misquoting posts -- which you then did.

Mmmm! Guyére!

Looking forward to your repeat of that highlight-reel faceplant.

 

[Hollie]

Let's review.

1. I've asked you to respond to questions raised as a result of your posts.

2. I use exact quotes of your statements so there is no misunderstanding as to what you said....

3. You refuse to answer....and post the same level of answer over and over, claiming something about 'cut and paste.'
But....you've used massive 'cut and passte' passages....and, I have no problem with the method.....
...but do have a problem with the fact that the passages are not related to the posts to which you are ostensibly responding.


4. It seems as though you are simply programmed to post those answers, no matter the issue at hand.

What can one conclude, other than you have..."limited" intelligence?



5. It seems that you are no more than a biased 'hate-bot' whose programming kicks in as soon as you hear any reference to religion.


But...I won't give up on you!
6. I'll give you another opportunity to answer the questions.


You can do it!

…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…



Waiting.

Let's review.

You're an angry, self-hating fundie who doesn't understand.

When you post stuff that's patently untrue you add credence to my indictment of you.


Not one thing in the sentence in your post is true.


Every single thing I've writen about you is true.
Proof?

Sure:
I actually quote your words.



You're in way over your head, aren't you.
You haven't the ability to think on your feet....that's why you must make up questions
to answer that haven't been asked.....you need to answer only what you've been programmed to answer.


The old saying that you so aptly demonstrate:
“He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”


It's not too late....you could try to answer.....

....or, would you rather I ask some different ones that you didn't answer?
Say the word.

Still avoiding taking responsibility for the lies and deceit you further.

Not surprising.

 

[Hollie]

So let me try to summarize to see if I understand.

No proof of the big bang.....it may have happened

Incorrect. No conclusive proof. There is plenty of evidence suggesting such an event happened.



We know it existed. Hell, it exist today. The only real question is if that is where life started. The answer may be yes. Hopefully someday soon we will find out.



No proof whatsoever. Not a shred. Nothing that points to god, nothing that implies god. And nothing that even remotely points to any specific god. And no, "it's complicated" does not count as proof.

But yes, he may exist. The chances are much slimmer than the chance of alien life somewhere out there, but it is possible.

No proof of God in the Muslim sense....he might exist?

See above.

Do you see the difference? On the one side you have evidence, but not proof. On the other no evidence, no proof, god simply complicates an already hard to explain situation.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

In scientific terms, the big bang, primordial ooze and evolution are theories. Creation and god are hypothesis.

Over and over the oblivious champion science, but deny theology the same language they use to support science.

I couldn't write a funnier defense of science then this:

" No conclusive proof."

"evidence suggesting"

"might have existed"

"it is possible."

"The only real question "

"Hopefully someday soon we will find out."


Imagine, if you had the sense to realize that you're the punchline of your own joke!




Oh....one more thing:

“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times



Luckily you're here to set them right.

Luckily, those numbers represent little belief in the angry, violent gods that you believe in.

 

[Hollie]

Re: OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

It's a false label.

There really is nothing to attack. In the glaring light of truth and evidence, the tales and fables of religions have been peeled back.

The Decline of Evangelical America
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/o...-evangelical-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In 2012 we witnessed a collapse in American evangelicalism. The old religious right largely failed to affect the Republican primaries, much less the presidential election. Last month, Americans voted in favor of same-sex marriage in four states, while Florida voters rejected an amendment to restrict abortion.

Much has been said about conservative Christians and their need to retool politically. But that is a smaller story, riding on the back of a larger reality: Evangelicalism as we knew it in the 20th century is disintegrating.

In 2011 the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life polled church leaders from around the world. Evangelical ministers from the United States reported a greater loss of influence than church leaders from any other country &#8212; with some 82 percent indicating that their movement was losing ground.

I would personally like to extend my thanks to Born Again Christian Nation zealots, Evangelical Fundamentalist Far Right Religious whack jobs, Tea Baggers and thumpers for your loss of influence and for your fading relevance.

You have proved that you are 12th century Neanderthals in a 21st century America. Your failings may just encourage the far right in the GOP to be a bit less strident, a bit less reactionary and a bit less cowed by the fundamentalist zealots lest they become even less relevant.

Can I get an Amen, brothas' and sistas'?

 

[koshergrl]

Incorrect. No conclusive proof. There is plenty of evidence suggesting such an event happened.



We know it existed. Hell, it exist today. The only real question is if that is where life started. The answer may be yes. Hopefully someday soon we will find out.



No proof whatsoever. Not a shred. Nothing that points to god, nothing that implies god. And nothing that even remotely points to any specific god. And no, "it's complicated" does not count as proof.

But yes, he may exist. The chances are much slimmer than the chance of alien life somewhere out there, but it is possible.



See above.

Do you see the difference? On the one side you have evidence, but not proof. On the other no evidence, no proof, god simply complicates an already hard to explain situation.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

In scientific terms, the big bang, primordial ooze and evolution are theories. Creation and god are hypothesis.

Over and over the oblivious champion science, but deny theology the same language they use to support science.

I couldn't write a funnier defense of science then this:

" No conclusive proof."

"evidence suggesting"

"might have existed"

"it is possible."

"The only real question "

"Hopefully someday soon we will find out."


Imagine, if you had the sense to realize that you're the punchline of your own joke!




Oh....one more thing:

&#8220; a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.&#8221;
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times



Luckily you're here to set them right.

Luckily, those numbers represent little belief in the angry, violent gods that you believe in.

Lol..this was the idiotic (and specious) claim that was made in the other thread, too...by...underhill? well some other equally dimwitted atheist zealot...

"Scientists don't believe in God the same way you do."

What morons.

Quantified by the always effective, "I know because I know some, so there. I win."

lololol

 

[koshergrl]

Re: OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

It's a false label.

There really is nothing to attack. In the glaring light of truth and evidence, the tales and fables of religions have been peeled back.

The Decline of Evangelical America
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/o...-evangelical-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

In 2012 we witnessed a collapse in American evangelicalism. The old religious right largely failed to affect the Republican primaries, much less the presidential election. Last month, Americans voted in favor of same-sex marriage in four states, while Florida voters rejected an amendment to restrict abortion.

Much has been said about conservative Christians and their need to retool politically. But that is a smaller story, riding on the back of a larger reality: Evangelicalism as we knew it in the 20th century is disintegrating.

In 2011 the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life polled church leaders from around the world. Evangelical ministers from the United States reported a greater loss of influence than church leaders from any other country &#8212; with some 82 percent indicating that their movement was losing ground.

I would personally like to extend my thanks to Born Again Christian Nation zealots, Evangelical Fundamentalist Far Right Religious whack jobs, Tea Baggers and thumpers for your loss of influence and for your fading relevance.

You have proved that you are 12th century Neanderthals in a 21st century America. Your failings may just encourage the far right in the GOP to be a bit less strident, a bit less reactionary and a bit less cowed by the fundamentalist zealots lest they become even less relevant.

Can I get an Amen, brothas' and sistas'?

^^^Proof positive that when science shines a light on atheist retards, they come up lacking...incidentally, the evidence shows that mankind's intelligence is steadily declining. So if we hearken back to the 12th century, that likely means we have higher functioning brains than any modern day atheist bigot alive.

 

[Hollie]

Atheism Rises, Religiosity Declines In America

Atheism Rises, Religiosity Declines In America

(RNS) Religiosity is on the decline in the U.S. and atheism is on the rise, according to a new worldwide poll.

The poll, called "The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism," found that the number of Americans who say they are "religious" dropped from 73 percent in 2005 (the last time the poll was conducted) to 60 percent.

At the same time, the number of Americans who say they are atheists rose, from 1 percent to 5 percent.

The poll was conducted by WIN-Gallup International and is based on interviews with 50,000 people from 57 countries and five continents. Participants were asked, "Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person, or a convinced atheist?"

Thank you impotent purveyors of religious fundamentalism, thus further underscoring the declining impact of promoting fear, hate and supernatural threats on an evolving population.

 

[koshergrl]

Well that explains the increased stupidity factor.

 

[Toronado3800]

So let me try to summarize to see if I understand.

No proof of the big bang.....it may have happened

Incorrect. No conclusive proof. There is plenty of evidence suggesting such an event happened.



We know it existed. Hell, it exist today. The only real question is if that is where life started. The answer may be yes. Hopefully someday soon we will find out.



No proof whatsoever. Not a shred. Nothing that points to god, nothing that implies god. And nothing that even remotely points to any specific god. And no, "it's complicated" does not count as proof.

But yes, he may exist. The chances are much slimmer than the chance of alien life somewhere out there, but it is possible.

No proof of God in the Muslim sense....he might exist?

See above.

Do you see the difference? On the one side you have evidence, but not proof. On the other no evidence, no proof, god simply complicates an already hard to explain situation.

You are trying to create a false equivalency.

In scientific terms, the big bang, primordial ooze and evolution are theories. Creation and god are hypothesis.

Over and over the oblivious champion science, but deny theology the same language they use to support science.

I couldn't write a funnier defense of science then this:

" No conclusive proof."

"evidence suggesting"

"might have existed"

"it is possible."

"The only real question "

"Hopefully someday soon we will find out."


Imagine, if you had the sense to realize that you're the punchline of your own joke!




Oh....one more thing:

“ a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.”
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times



Luckily you're here to set them right.

Cool. You noticed the relationships with the maybies and could be's.

Was it this or another post where I asked if you had a problem with an almighty setting the uniververse in motion 11 billion or so years ago at the big bang?

That I can see as a theory if for no other reason than the seemingly infinate issue of time. No beginning or end.

Start saying 7,000 years ago and I wonder.

All them maybies and could be's about science can be applied to my "there must be a god because without the supernatural how did time start" belief. And this Jesus stuff could be right. Difficult to prove though.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well that explains the increased stupidity factor.

You are exactly right.

The stupidity of Americans in not knowing the difference between faith and science.

 

[rdean]

1. Western society remains strongly polarized with respect to God. This is the fundamental conflict, the result of which is a godless secular society. A careful study will convince one that the dichotomy originated in the French Revolution, wherein the efforts to remove the yoke of the monarchy and the Church resulted in an explosive overreaction: the assault on all religion, and the ongoing tirade against God.





2. Finding easy cover, many champion science as the cudgel&#8230;even though &#8220; a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not.&#8221;
What do scientists think about religion? - Los Angeles Times

a. &#8220;But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, &#8216;Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!&#8217; And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.&#8221;
Berlinski, &#8220;The Devil&#8217;s Delusion.&#8221;

b. Before one accepts the support of such &#8220;smart scientists&#8221; simply because of their vocation, why not question this scientific atheism as merely yet another foolish intellectual fad, successor to academic Marxism, or feminism, or the various doctrines of multicultural tranquility? Ibid.

3. Charles Darwin knew that the theory of evolution placed religion in doubt, and atheist academics and scientists love to quote Darwin on that account. It is less than curious that Alfred Wallace, co-originator of the theory, is far less cited. Could it be because Wallace was spiritually inclined, and remained so throughout his life?





4. Scientific discoveries serve as formidable weapons in this conflict. For example, Darwinian evolution&#8217;s explanation for speciation, natural selection, requires variation, wherein one is superior to another. And science has gone further, with the theory of mutation, errors in transcription of DNA. Certainly, errors are evidence against creation: God&#8217;s system must be error free&#8230;.true?

a. Hardly. If God has set in motion a process, as posited by Rene Descartes posited, in which his building blocks self-assemble, then errors that produce change are purposeful, in fact necessary. And disease and other adverse occurrences become explicable, e.g., &#8220;how could God let such things happen?&#8221;





5. Now, from the other side&#8230;.science leaves much to be desired. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world&#8217;s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: &#8220;&#8216;We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.&#8221; Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: &#8220;&#8230;we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&#8221; Lewontin on materialism - EvoWiki






a. And, yet, Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
Perhaps he's not familiar with Professor Lewontin's admissions.

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that &#8217;scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.&#8217;
Of course, he is an ardent atheist.






6. So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others:
&#8220;Thou shalt have no other gods before me.&#8221;
Berlinski, Op.Cit.

Of the 51%, it could be 6% believe in God and 45% believe in magic (referred to as a "higher power"), they aren't clear. Of course, the 6% would be Republican scientists. Remember, it was PEW who said only 6% of scientists are Republican.

 

[koshergrl]

100 percent think rtard needs stronger meds, however.

 

[newpolitics]

Religion is like having a classroom where the students have to show up every day but there's no teacher.

There are a bunch of books around and no one is even sure which one is the text book. Some students insist on one book; others argue just as hard for another.

Then suddenly, on the last day, the teacher appears and say's he's been watching everybody the whole time.

He praised the ones who chose the right book and sends them off to have cookies and milk.

And then he sets everyone else on fire.

This was an almost perfect analogy that elucidates the moral absurdity of certain extant theologies... *cough* christianity! *cough*

Well done. Anything to rob arrogant theists the grounds for establishing a pathological ego by highlighting the obvious, is a step in the right direction.

 

[koshergrl]

This is where someone starts to spontaneously spout scripture out of context and as an indictment against Christians.