Why Are So Many Scientists Atheists?

[AgeofKnowledge]

The scientific consensus has been wrong throughout history and, in fact, often slows down scientific inquiry and advancement. The history of science is one of scientific revolution. Read Thomas Kuhn sometime. You appear to be completely ignorant of this basic fact or of the great importance of freeing the scientific enterprise from it's current state of authoritarianism.

Let me give you just one out of hundreds of thousands of historically recorded examples for the sake of this discussion. Not too long ago the scientific consensus was Newtonianism. This view was propagated from every prestigious university, the entire public school system, and perpetuated by every government organ.

Newtonian physics explained almost every observed fact about the world, however, the orbital cycle of mercury deviated slightly from the predictions of Newton. The behavior of science atheists at that time mirrored the behavior we see in today's new atheists. They asserted the tiny gap was nothing more than an annoyance that would be quickly filled in so that Newtonian cosmology could be declared the only correct view of the world and the academic persecution of all dissenters in science, government, and education they were involved in finally justified once and for all.

But along came Einstein advancing his theory of relativity and suddenly the orbital deviation of Mercury was accounted for. Instead of affirming that this was quite an accomplishment and Einstein's theory should be given serious attention, they strongly resisted him.

Eventually; however, after what amounted to a scientific war between a small group of scientists and the scientific consensus the truth could no longer be denied and a pure Newtonian cosmology was abandoned. A tiny gap was an amazing clue that the scientific consensus was deeply flawed in its perception of reality and Einstein was brilliant and fortunate enough to discover the correct scientific understanding regarding it and committed enough to take on the entire scientific community and overthrow their authoritarianism.

The current scientific consensus is riddled with these gaps and everyone of them has the power to eventually create a scientific revolution overturning the current paradigm.

Scientists who hold to creationism and intelligent design have made inquiries into these gaps meeting the predictable resistance that change always results in. Now while I agree with you that intelligent design isn't "science" but rather a philosophical inquiry into science, science itself is not about persecuting everyone that applies empirical evidence to a competing hypothesis or theory but that's exactly what we see occurring under the new atheists whom are behaving exactly as the old Newtonian atheists did.

Though you don't know the scientific reasons for it, change is coming as a result of the scientific work of Christians in the scientific endeavor and it will eventually revolutionize the current structure.

Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

Because God requires faith and they only have faith in things lesser than themselves.

 

[T_Laurich]

Lets not be prideful and make our self's out to be better than the 'scientists'. We are no better than they, and vise versa...

Jesus loves us all, even with all our faults...

 

[DannyC]

The scientific consensus has been wrong throughout history and, in fact, often slows down scientific inquiry and advancement. The history of science is one of scientific revolution. Read Thomas Kuhn sometime. You appear to be completely ignorant of this basic fact or of the great importance of freeing the scientific enterprise from it's current state of authoritarianism.

Let me give you just one out of hundreds of thousands of historically recorded examples for the sake of this discussion. Not too long ago the scientific consensus was Newtonianism. This view was propagated from every prestigious university, the entire public school system, and perpetuated by every government organ.

Newtonian physics explained almost every observed fact about the world, however, the orbital cycle of mercury deviated slightly from the predictions of Newton. The behavior of science atheists at that time mirrored the behavior we see in today's new atheists. They asserted the tiny gap was nothing more than an annoyance that would be quickly filled in so that Newtonian cosmology could be declared the only correct view of the world and the academic persecution of all dissenters in science, government, and education they were involved in finally justified once and for all.

But along came Einstein advancing his theory of relativity and suddenly the orbital deviation of Mercury was accounted for. Instead of affirming that this was quite an accomplishment and Einstein's theory should be given serious attention, they strongly resisted him.

Eventually; however, after what amounted to a scientific war between a small group of scientists and the scientific consensus the truth could no longer be denied and a pure Newtonian cosmology was abandoned. A tiny gap was an amazing clue that the scientific consensus was deeply flawed in its perception of reality and Einstein was brilliant and fortunate enough to discover the correct scientific understanding regarding it and committed enough to take on the entire scientific community and overthrow their authoritarianism.

The current scientific consensus is riddled with these gaps and everyone of them has the power to eventually create a scientific revolution overturning the current paradigm.

Scientists who hold to creationism and intelligent design have made inquiries into these gaps meeting the predictable resistance that change always results in. Now while I agree with you that intelligent design isn't "science" but rather a philosophical inquiry into science, science itself is not about persecuting everyone that applies empirical evidence to a competing hypothesis or theory but that's exactly what we see occurring under the new atheists whom are behaving exactly as the old Newtonian atheists did.

Though you don't know the scientific reasons for it, change is coming as a result of the scientific work of Christians in the scientific endeavor and it will eventually revolutionize the current structure.

You have actually managed to preform another arrogant stunt but failed to address my point, for someone who attempts to give facts, you give opinions with no facts.

'The scientific consensus has been wrong throughout history and, in fact, often slows down scientific inquiry and advancement.'

Did I state that the scientific consensus is always right? No I did not, I in actual fact wrote that the scientific consensus regards creationism as religious due to its belief that the bible is the true word of God and is historically accurate but not reaching that point with evidence but asserting it and looking desperately for the evidence to support its claim. In fact almost an overwhelming majority rejects it. Not to mention your misguided argument can be made for the flat earth society also. I am not here to listen to pleading and pity cases for a fundamentalist religious dogma. The levels of support for evolution and the statement for the rejection of evolution range from

American Association for the Advancement of Science

[h=1]American Association of University Professors[/h]
[h=1]Council of Europe[/h]
[h=1]American Astronomical Society[/h]
To name but a few, and I mean a few, to the extent where the AAUP has 47,000 professors that reject the dogma of creation and accept and support evolution. Why is this? Well since creation enjoys to cling on to the title science, it should in fact follow the scientific method. It does not. It does not make predictions and it barely advances knowledge if practised.It cannot follow the method of the field it claims to be in and it cannot even work with the basic knowledge which has been obtained. You once again pretend that atheism has again and again rejected the new results of science consistantly. Your attempt to wheel out your I would say one year couple line paragraphs about atheists is tired and weak. Especially when you attempt to spread it across everything you find wrong. It is laughable in fact, considering the fundamentalist theologians and churchs protestant and catholic which tortured and killed men and women throughout the century for defying the dogma of the church. Again you present a red herring I must say you assert the gaps but fail to state why the gaps exist, or even what are the gaps.


'The behavior of science atheists at that time mirrored the behavior we see in today's new atheists.'

Find me a quote firstly where the new atheists state the gaps are a mere annoyance? Hardly assume that Dawkins a scientist states this? Have you read his books? The point he makes that science is so much more interesting with gaps and lack of knowledge. Another assertion but no substance. Pity.

'Now while I agree with you that intelligent design isn't "science" but rather a philosophical inquiry into science, science itself is not about persecuting everyone that applies empirical evidence to a competing hypothesis or theory but that's exactly what we see occurring under the new atheists whom are behaving exactly as the old Newtonian atheists did.'

You make a silly error again, this is pretty poor for someone who insults christians across this thread announcing how much more intelligent they are but yet can't see his own failures in his writings. I.e Natilus. Claiming IE is philosophical is false, there is nothing philosophical about it, nor do any of the promoters claim it to be They claim it be science the scientific community says it is religion. You state it is philosophical, both creationism and the scientific community disagree. You should stop leaping from one title to another in an attempt to sound grounded. All those poor creationists who are persecuted like Michael Behe who gets wheeled out for his irreducible complexity or Ken Ham or Kent Hovind or any of the AiG. Oh yes none of them nor any others are 'persecuted' unless you want to start using words where they do not belong. That persecution like being able to set up a museum or a theme park or a webstie with employees and what do the scientific community do? Get out their pitch forks? No they ignore the pseudo-science and get on with real work.

'Eventually; however, after what amounted to a scientific war between a small group of scientists and the scientific consensus the truth could no longer be denied and a pure Newtonian cosmology was abandoned. A tiny gap was an amazing clue that the scientific consensus was deeply flawed in its perception of reality and Einstein was brilliant and fortunate enough to discover the correct scientific understanding regarding it and committed enough to take on the entire scientific community and overthrow their authoritarianism.'

Want to quote the contemporary scientists of the day who regarded Einstein's work as religious or point to anywhere in the bible where Einstein gained his knowledge about physics? Perhaps you cannot, because when I make a point I expect to defend it when someone comments on it. I do not intend to deal with red herrings and vague history statements. Another flaw in the logic.

'Though you don't know the scientific reasons for it, change is coming as a result of the scientific work of Christians in the scientific endeavor and it will eventually revolutionize the current structure.'

More assertions about your own wide range of knowledge and others inability to even hold the vast amount of knowledge you contain, displays more insecurities than anything else. If you need to top off your points with little digs at that person then your point evidently lacks any conviction and we have all seen that.

'change is coming as a result of the scientific work of Christians'

Work comes in every form religious non-religious. Even with that you didn't even detail your point but decided to leave it basic and with no sources. Also you trim it to suit your own bias.

'Now while I agree with you that intelligent design isn't "science"'

You agreed with my original point all that warrented your reply was this above quote. My original point has been agreed on and your red herring has been pointed out, next time don't make me wade through your paragraphs trying to find relevance, while ignoring the remarks you make with spite and incorrect facts.

If you want to advance this conversation further point out the flaws in the theory of evolution. Otherwise this is pointless.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

Well since creation enjoys to cling on to the title science, it should in fact follow the scientific method. It does not. It does not make predictions and it barely advances knowledge if practised.

actually it does...see for example dr. russell humphreys' theory of the magnetic fields of the planets...which has made -several- predictions that were later confirmed by space probes...in fact humphreys' theory has been more accurate than the 'dynamo' theory that is currently favored in secular science...

the fact that you even make this claim shows that you haven't bothered to actually investigate what young earth creationists do...you are just repeating something you heard from some ideologues...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

All I did was repeat Thomas Kuhn's life's work (who Stanford University and many other prestigious universities state is "one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential") in a short narrative form by example and postscript it with a prediction of my own based on the work of hundreds of thousands scientists who happen to be Christians and what the leaders of organizations they belong to are publishing in response to this short post of yours:

"Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science."

Somehow you turned that around in your mind to a place where you thought this was an appropriate response, "You have actually managed to preform another arrogant stunt but failed to address my point, for someone who attempts to give facts, you give opinions with no facts."

The truth is your original statement fails to address that is exactly what atheists are doing: referring to their ideas as science. But atheism is not science. Nor it is it neutral. It is a metaphysical worldview like every other "religious" worldview. Scientific evidence can be applied to a wide range of competing scientific theories both religious and naturalistic.

Whether it's a religious theocracy of the 15th century or state atheism of the 20th and 21st centuries referring to their ideas as science and leveraging government power via consensus to persecute everyone that dissents, the result is the same. Science is thwarted in a material way.

And regarding your assertions of religious people involved in the scientific enterprise versus atheists, you didn't read the posts in this thread or you would have already known that: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...o-many-scientists-atheists-3.html#post1146834

"Christians were severely persecuted and purged from the domains of science across much of the globe in the 20th century by the communist state atheist Marxists. Just a few decades ago, a mere wrong word from a scientist that veered from the communist "party line" could get them ten years in a hard labor prison which many didn't survive. This occurred in the Soviet Union, China, and nations they influenced.

Simultaneously, in the West influential atheists constructed a model based on evolutionary reductive materialism as they wrested away control of the public education system and have ever since shown great bias against anyone that fails to conform.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the situation has reversed. Outside of China and a few despotic nations like North Korea, Christians are today influential in science across the globe.

Christian associations devoted to science have very large memberships with the largest ones running into the hundreds of thousands of scientists, researchers, educators, philosophers/theologians, ministers, and interested laypersons.

Some examples are as follows:

Young Earth Creationism: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
Old Earth Creationism: Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
Theistic Evolution: Home | BioLogos

There is still the problem of academic bias against Christians in the West; however. That continues. And through the public education system, the bias is leveled widely against students."

I'm a Cold War veteran who saw it first hand friend and has seen the sweeping change since as religious people have reentered the domain of science. If you had read the Pew Study I provided in this post you would have known that: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...o-many-scientists-atheists-4.html#post1148298

"For instance, the number of scientists that now believe in God have rebounded from the severe purges over much of the globe in the 20th century conducted by state atheistic Marxist nations to over 33% (See 2009 Pew Research Study) with another 18% of them stating they believe in a universal spirit of some form or higher power and 7% stating they are agnostic and don't know leaving only 42% that claim to be atheists. Newer studies show belief in God has climbed a tad since 2009 in this demographic."

The rest of your post is, of course, you engaging in the same behavior you falsely accused me of which Dawkins and the New Atheists engage in as a matter of course while putting your ignorance, deception, and pride on display. Dawkins is a deceived atheist misrepresenting reality. Since that's your chosen "fit", the next question is what are you doing here on a Christian forum where people have experienced the supernatural and know God personally pushing that reductive materialist nonsense?

 

[DannyC]

All I did was repeat Thomas Kuhn's life's work (who Stanford University and many other prestigious universities state is "one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential") in a short narrative form by example and postscript it with a prediction of my own based on the work of hundreds of thousands scientists who happen to be Christians and what the leaders of organizations they belong to are publishing in response to this short post of yours:

"Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science."

Somehow you turned that around in your mind to a place where you thought this was an appropriate response, "You have actually managed to preform another arrogant stunt but failed to address my point, for someone who attempts to give facts, you give opinions with no facts."

The truth is your original statement fails to address that is exactly what atheists are doing: referring to their ideas as science. But atheism is not science. Nor it is it neutral. It is a metaphysical worldview like every other "religious" worldview. Scientific evidence can be applied to a wide range of competing scientific theories both religious and naturalistic.

Whether it's a religious theocracy of the 15th century or state atheism of the 20th and 21st centuries referring to their ideas as science and leveraging government power via consensus to persecute everyone that dissents, the result is the same. Science is thwarted in a material way.

And regarding your assertions of religious people involved in the scientific enterprise versus atheists, you didn't read the posts in this thread or you would have already known that: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...o-many-scientists-atheists-3.html#post1146834

"Christians were severely persecuted and purged from the domains of science across much of the globe in the 20th century by the communist state atheist Marxists. Just a few decades ago, a mere wrong word from a scientist that veered from the communist "party line" could get them ten years in a hard labor prison which many didn't survive. This occurred in the Soviet Union, China, and nations they influenced.

Simultaneously, in the West influential atheists constructed a model based on evolutionary reductive materialism as they wrested away control of the public education system and have ever since shown great bias against anyone that fails to conform.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the situation has reversed. Outside of China and a few despotic nations like North Korea, Christians are today influential in science across the globe.

Christian associations devoted to science have very large memberships with the largest ones running into the hundreds of thousands of scientists, researchers, educators, philosophers/theologians, ministers, and interested laypersons.

Some examples are as follows:

Young Earth Creationism: Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
Old Earth Creationism: Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge
Theistic Evolution: Home | BioLogos

There is still the problem of academic bias against Christians in the West; however. That continues. And through the public education system, the bias is leveled widely against students."

I'm a Cold War veteran who saw it first hand friend and has seen the sweeping change since as religious people have reentered the domain of science. If you had read the Pew Study I provided in this post you would have known that: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...o-many-scientists-atheists-4.html#post1148298

"For instance, the number of scientists that now believe in God have rebounded from the severe purges over much of the globe in the 20th century conducted by state atheistic Marxist nations to over 33% (See 2009 Pew Research Study) with another 18% of them stating they believe in a universal spirit of some form or higher power and 7% stating they are agnostic and don't know leaving only 42% that claim to be atheists. Newer studies show belief in God has climbed a tad since 2009 in this demographic."

The rest of your post is, of course, you engaging in the same behavior you falsely accused me of which Dawkins and the New Atheists engage in as a matter of course while putting your ignorance, deception, and pride on display. Dawkins is a deceived atheist misrepresenting reality. Since that's your chosen "fit", the next question is what are you doing here on a Christian forum where people have experienced the supernatural and know God personally pushing that reductive materialist nonsense?

'All I did was repeat Thomas Kuhn's life's work (who Stanford University and many other prestigious universities state is "one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential") in a short narrative form by example and postscript it with a prediction of my own based on the work of hundreds of thousands scientists who happen to be Christians and what the leaders of organizations they belong to are publishing in response to this short post of yours:'

You mentioned his name, and sumerised his work in a line, then placed your opinion onto him, I am not criticising his work, only your opinions which you assert with no evidence.

'prediction of my own based on the work of hundreds of thousands scientists who happen to be Christians and what the leaders of organizations they belong to are publishing in response to this short post of yours:''

This is unfortunately you standing on the shoulders of others while making no contributions at all instead you make little remarks to demean others. This is simply me shifting through wasted lines in search of direct responses. You made no predictions apart from science changes, but managed to literally make three paragraphs out of it, in some sort of refutation of my statement. Combined with purile ' You appear to be completely ignorant of this basic fact' and 'Though you don't know the scientific reasons for it'. I could ask you to detail the second objection with a philosophical basis for aquiring full knowledge of another person's capicity for retaining facts and data, since you make the assertion that I do not have these facts, even though you never asked. In reality you don't read what you write, you just jumble your opinions, history and science into one remark and mix it with insulting remarks which I have seen across this thread. You don't disrespect the person you are talking to, you actually lose your own self respect engaging in this way. I have two jobs now, one writing a remark and two attempting to shift through the waste to find the engageable comments.

'The truth is your original statement fails to address that is exactly what atheists are doing: referring to their ideas as science. But atheism is not science. Nor it is it neutral. It is a metaphysical worldview like every other "religious" worldview. Scientific evidence can be applied to a wide range of competing scientific theories both religious and naturalistic.'

Lovely example of streching a word beyond reason to suit a point, in my view it is intellectually dishonest for two reasons. It shows a dishonest nature in which you wish to conduct your conversations, it means your willing to lie to make your point. It also in my view shows lazyness. I take care in what I write, and I would not expect people to have to sort out my mistakes relating to definitions in order to reply to me.Unless of course it was delibrate. Atheism for one is the lack of belief in Gods/Deitys or even if you wish for arguments sake the assertion there is no God. I don't hold to the second one personally nor do I believe it is true for the definition, but it is common and gives leeway for your points. So lets take the definition from Oxford English dictionary.


Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
Translate atheism | into German | into Italian | into Spanish[h=3]noun[/h][mass noun]

• disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
  
  Or perhaps the Cambridge dictionary
  
  [h=1]atheist[/h]noun
  
  [h=1]someone who believes that God does not exist[/h]
  'The truth is your original statement fails to address that is exactly what atheists are doing: referring to their ideas as science.'
  
  
  Now that we have established that no 'ideas' or 'metaphysics' or 'religion' is entered into those words. Do you see the words 'materialist' or 'naturalist' involved? No you don't. Why do you not? Because you have made an attempt to spin the word atheist to mean everything you can but never bothering to even define it. I have read your comments to me and others with such lengths to I even gave such loose definitions and still I see these remarks pertaining to materialism. It is laughable considering many atheists are not in fact materialists. This is particulary interesting considering materialism and atheism do not have to follow with each other. It is quite a pity there that you seem to misunderstand the words because I think it is deliberate at this stage.
  
  'But atheism is not science' Nor did I say it was.
  
  'Cultural relativism, of course, is a construct of reductive materialism (e.g. atheistic materialism)'
  
  I picked this from a post you made awhile back. Let's just analysis one point here, you stated that reductive materialism is a construct of culture relativism which the example you have given is atheistic materialism. Shall I give definitions of reductive materialism and see if the definition fits into atheistic materialism? I do not need to as it is self evident that you cannot have two different meanings but use them as if they are not different. Which makes me wonder since your example was atheistic materialism, you must have tons of other examples? How can someone stretch meanings so far and not wonder if his meanings are incorrect. Cultural relativism as a by product of atheistic materialism? I have no clue where you deemed that to be correct, if I shall link you Professor Shelly Kagan a atheistic materialist, also professor of ethics in Yale, you would be interested in his reply on this matter, consdering he would have strong opinions differing this. Not just on definitions but on the fact you believe these are excepted facts of the implications of the words and their meanings. I am just highlighting the thread I see.
  
  'It is a metaphysical worldview like every other "religious" worldview.'
  
  I did not expect you to state metaphysical, but then again you have given no evidence to assume atheism encapsulates metaphysics. The definitions nor don't add up either. Another keen interest is if atheist is fundamentally metaphysical as you state, then materialism is incoherant as an compatible concept for atheism. Unless of course you have not given correct definitions. In that case the solution is fairly obvious. Also atheism is not a religion by any stretch of the imagination, I am actually tired of giving definitions and showing why yours fail, if you take me up on this point about religion I will be happy to give you dictionary definitions and take you through it. Quickly though here you are. This is something I wrote awhile
  
  re·li·gion
  
  The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,esp. a personal God or gods.
  
  That is the first definition from the Oxford English dictionary.
  
  Atheism cannot be a religion by simple comparison of definitions. Atheists hold no belief or worship in a superhuman controlling power, i.e God. Nor do they have any belief system or doctrinal code to follow.
  
  In fact atheism couldn't be further from the definition of religion if it so tried. It involves a lack of belief in a God, and that's it.
  
  
  

.'And regarding your assertions of religious people involved in the scientific enterprise versus atheists, you didn't read the posts in this thread'

I believe the only point I made was referring to religious people and non-religious people discover thing everyday. I didn't say anything about religious people vs atheists in the scientific enterprise.


"Christians were severely persecuted and purged from the domains of science across much of the globe in the 20th century by the communist state atheist Marxists. Just a few decades ago, a mere wrong word from a scientist that veered from the communist "party line" could get them ten years in a hard labor prison which many didn't survive. This occurred in the Soviet Union, China, and nations they influenced.

Not to be the bearer of bad news on this, but more than just christians were killed by the communist state. Atheists included. Taking into account Atheist marxists who were also killed or preferably the title trotskyites. We should just ignore the christian nations involved in suppression of speech or persecutions. No instead we should attempt to focus on communism another point not included in atheism or this conversation, I am not surprised though you state it every chance you get with it losing impact every time. This is simply a red herring a continual red herring, while you fail to engage my points.

'Simultaneously, in the West influential atheists constructed a model based on evolutionary reductive materialism as they wrested away control of the public education system and have ever since shown great bias against anyone that fails to conform. '

Quite disgusting if I say to compare atheists who established and support the theory of evolution with communists who murdered men and women and children, this is getting tedious considering believers along many lines supported evolution. This is like talking to someone wearing a blinker head set for horses, they either ignore entire parts of history or pretend only one thing happened and assert it consistantly.

'and have ever since shown great bias against anyone that fails to conform.'

You mean adherring to the best possible scientific knowledge and information even if it destroys a bedrock of assertions is a bad thing?

When you fail to use definitions correctly you place words in my mouth with entire segments dedicated to stating that scientists can be christians and do science. Point out where I wrote scientists cannot believe in God and work in a science department? Or perhaps state where I say that christians don't engage in science. You cannot because you take the line of what do scientists believe on a personal level, instead of dealing with my point that objectively creationism and IE are rejected as not science. You agreed with me on this, then proceed to make a straw man and demolish it. I said nothing that you are assuming I did. A red herring and a straw man argument. Again stating that more scientists are becoming christian is fantastic for you I assume, but it is so irrelevant to anything I have said. Are you mistaking me for someone who said more atheists are scientists or that scientists don't believe? I even said that scientists are so busy working that many of them don't even have time to think about it. I gtave the quote from Steven Weinberg Leading physicist. Again wasting my time with these points.


'The rest of your post is, of course, you engaging in the same behavior you falsely accused me of which Dawkins and the New Atheists engage in as a matter of course while putting your ignorance, deception, and pride on display. Dawkins is a deceived atheist misrepresenting reality. Since that's your chosen "fit", the next question is what are you doing here on a Christian forum where people have experienced the supernatural and know God personally pushing that reductive materialist nonsense?'

This should not take long.

'The behavior of science atheists at that time mirrored the behavior we see in today's new atheists.'

Find me a quote firstly where the new atheists state the gaps are a mere annoyance? Hardly assume that Dawkins a scientist states this? Have you read his books? The point he makes that science is so much more interesting with gaps and lack of knowledge. Another assertion but no substance. Pity.

The new atheists are four men, one of which is a scientist. The title New atheists is common place, if you were not referring to this group then you show a serious lack of understanding in the progression of contemporary atheism, whether you like it or not, ignorance and assertions are not acceptable. I wanted a quote from Dawkins who is a scientist in the New atheists, pertaining to the behavior you stated occuring. You failed to do so again. So you have no quotes but you go further to make more assertions, leaping ahead but not checking if you clearly made you point. You did not.

You agreed creationism and IE is not science, you did not challenge me on my objection to it being called philosophical either, nor did you make any objections to the theory of evolution which I asked for.

'pushing that reductive materialist nonsense?''

You assume I must be this, again I made it clear, I need not be.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I provide a good deal of documentation in my posts on this board but if you're going to require that every post of mine be fully documented, then I'm going to require that of you DannyC. I prefer APA for a forum of this type but MLA is certainly acceptable and look forward to every post of yours containing empirical documentation for every assertion that you make which I can qualify. Failure to do so will reveal that you have no intention of being genuine to this discussion after inserting that requirement (which you yourself have failed to meet and can you guess what we call people who require of others what they do not themselves do).

The specific reason why I didn't provide documentation showing the resistance Einstein encountered from those who formed the scientific consensus at the beginning of the 20th century, is because it's so widely known that I didn't think it was necessary. But you revealed that you were unaware of it even as you lambasted both the assertion and my assumption that you were already aware of science history and didn't need to be provided such documentation. But in hindsight, you did appear to never even have heard of Thomas Kuhn perhaps the most influential science philosopher of the 20th century nor of the struggle Einstein encountered from the "scientific consensus" as we are calling it for the purpose of this discussion. It was from ignorance and pride DannyC that you lambasted me.

The criticisms of Einstein’s work put forward by the "scientific consensus" of the time are well documented and transcend the period's physicists who clung to classical physics and philosophers who saw central elements of their ways of understanding the world threatened by Einstein’s fundamental restructuring of the basic principles of physics. It lessened as time went on but even his Nobel Prize may have been tainted by it (along with the committee holding out for further confirmation and the anti-Semitism that existed at the time).

I suggest you calm down and start listening. Read this.

"This detailed account of the controversy surrounding the publication of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity explores the ferocious popular and academic opposition which at one time encircled one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the twentieth century. Based on extensive archival research, this fascinating discourse includes a compelling and entertaining examination of the contemporary literature created by Einstein's detractors. Exploring the arguments and strategies, social contexts, and motivations of Einstein's detractors, and providing unique insights into the dynamics of scientific controversies, this book is ideal for anyone interested in the history and philosophy of physics, popular science, and the public understanding of science."

 

[DannyC]

I provide a good deal of documentation in my posts on this board but if you're going to require that every post of mine be fully documented, then I'm going to require that of you DannyC. I prefer APA for a forum of this type but MLA is certainly acceptable and look forward to every post of yours containing empirical documentation for every assertion that you make which I can qualify. Failure to do so will reveal that you have no intention of being genuine to this discussion after inserting that requirement (which you yourself have failed to meet and can you guess what we call people who require of others what they do not themselves do).

The specific reason why I didn't provide documentation showing the resistance Einstein encountered from those who formed the scientific consensus at the beginning of the 20th century, is because it's so widely known that I didn't think it was necessary. But you revealed that you were unaware of it even as you lambasted both the assertion and my assumption that you were already aware of science history and didn't need to be provided such documentation. But in hindsight, you did appear to never even have heard of Thomas Kuhn perhaps the most influential science philosopher of the 20th century nor of the struggle Einstein encountered from the "scientific consensus" as we are calling it for the purpose of this discussion. It was from ignorance and pride DannyC that you lambasted me.

The criticisms of Einstein’s work put forward by the "scientific consensus" of the time are well documented and transcend the period's physicists who clung to classical physics and philosophers who saw central elements of their ways of understanding the world threatened by Einstein’s fundamental restructuring of the basic principles of physics. It lessened as time went on but even his Nobel Prize may have been tainted by it (along with the committee holding out for further confirmation and the anti-Semitism that existed at the time).

I suggest you calm down and start listening. Read this.

"This detailed account of the controversy surrounding the publication of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity explores the ferocious popular and academic opposition which at one time encircled one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the twentieth century. Based on extensive archival research, this fascinating discourse includes a compelling and entertaining examination of the contemporary literature created by Einstein's detractors. Exploring the arguments and strategies, social contexts, and motivations of Einstein's detractors, and providing unique insights into the dynamics of scientific controversies, this book is ideal for anyone interested in the history and philosophy of physics, popular science, and the public understanding of science."

'The specific reason why I didn't provide documentation showing the resistance Einstein encountered from those who formed the scientific consensus at the beginning of the 20th century, is because it's so widely known that I didn't think it was necessary. But you revealed that you were unaware of it even as you lambasted both the assertion and my assumption'

False I didn't say that Einstein never recieved criticism. 'Want to quote the contemporary scientists of the day who regarded Einstein's work as religious or point to anywhere in the bible where Einstein gained his knowledge about physics?' That was my point you made up that I don't think Einstein recieved criticism. Why did you blatently lie about what I wrote?

'It was from ignorance and pride DannyC that you lambasted me.'

Your points don't become true, when you seek pity from people on this thread you openly insult. Considering your lying to me about what I wrote, lying about definitions and asserting things about me and you have never asked me, you have failed to conduct yourself honestly and I have noted this every time and stated it.

'I suggest you calm down and start listening. Read this.' I am completely calm, but am uninterested in someone who believes he can openly insult people, provide little evidence, make assertions and then present himself as if he has just been attacked. You have been refuted and you have ignored my questions consistantly. You didn't even attempt to reply to my previous post.

 

[zone]

Albert Einstein was a nobody propelled into position.
half the stuff he taught he never believed himself, and to this day can not be proven.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You've done almost nothing but insult me in a hypocritical manner beginning with your first reply to a very normal post in this thread. If this is calm DannyC, you've got issues to resolve. One of them would be this expectation of clairvoyance from other people because you're not a good communicator. But now you've degraded the entire thread into defending against your personal attacks yet again which go nicely as a side dish to that red herring you're having about Einstein and the lack of his opposition's criticism arising from a religious objection (which is actually false and if you had read my last post closely you would have seen the clue that it was in play with his philosophical critics though I doubt you know why). The point I made was a direct response to what you stated. You stated:

"Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science."

What you were omitting was the obvious:

"The truth is your original statement fails to address that is exactly what atheists are doing: referring to their ideas as science. But atheism is not science. Nor it is it neutral. It is a metaphysical worldview like every other "religious" worldview. Scientific evidence can be applied to a wide range of competing scientific theories both religious and naturalistic.

Whether it's a religious theocracy of the 15th century or state atheism of the 20th and 21st centuries referring to their ideas as science and leveraging government power via consensus to persecute everyone that dissents, the result is the same. Science is thwarted in a material way."

And, as someone who was actually observing the Soviet Union from a front row seat I had to laugh when you went on about how the Russian and Chinese state atheist governments were persecuting atheists because any atheists they persecuted were certainly not persecuted for being atheists but some other unrelated reason while religious people were literally hunted by the state organs simply for being religious.

You don't appear to realize that these formally state atheistic empires committed themselves to the destruction of religion with a religious fervor destroying churches, historical artifacts, archeological sites; engaging in campaigns of harassment, imprisonment, and execution of religious leaders; flooding the schools and media with atheistic propaganda; and promoting 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept or suffer persecution. Scientists, researchers, and educators that were religious (e.g. the vast majority were Christian) were targeted by the state for immediate removal and severe persecution. The Soviet Union murdered over 20 million Christians and persecuted up to two hundred million more in one way or another while rewarding and promoting atheist scientists, researchers, and educators who they highly regarded. That's what you omitted from your presentation as you falsely called me disingenuous.

'The specific reason why I didn't provide documentation showing the resistance Einstein encountered from those who formed the scientific consensus at the beginning of the 20th century, is because it's so widely known that I didn't think it was necessary. But you revealed that you were unaware of it even as you lambasted both the assertion and my assumption'

False I didn't say that Einstein never recieved criticism. 'Want to quote the contemporary scientists of the day who regarded Einstein's work as religious or point to anywhere in the bible where Einstein gained his knowledge about physics?' That was my point you made up that I don't think Einstein recieved criticism. Why did you blatently lie about what I wrote?

'It was from ignorance and pride DannyC that you lambasted me.'

Your points don't become true, when you seek pity from people on this thread you openly insult. Considering your lying to me about what I wrote, lying about definitions and asserting things about me and you have never asked me, you have failed to conduct yourself honestly and I have noted this every time and stated it.

'I suggest you calm down and start listening. Read this.' I am completely calm, but am uninterested in someone who believes he can openly insult people, provide little evidence, make assertions and then present himself as if he has just been attacked. You have been refuted and you have ignored my questions consistantly. You didn't even attempt to reply to my previous post.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

And my definitions add up just fine in the way I'm using them. If my use of the word atheism offends you then substitute scientific materialism as I referenced reductive materialism which IS classified under narrow atheism and IS the form of atheism being perpetuated by the New Atheists.

Your exercise in semantics is but a fallacious attempt to escape the truth that atheism is a metaphysical worldview. Every philosophy major learns that this form of atheism IS a metaphysical worldview. That's WHY it is most often referred to as METAPHYSICAL naturalism.

Unbelievable. Please do take some proper classes in philosophy rather than cobbling things together off the Internet and then projecting them at someone who did take those classes and got all A's as if they are the one engaging in the behavior.

 

[Drett]

I remember I worked with graduate who got high distinctions at university. On paper she was a genius. She was totally useless at work. Having a high IQ does not guarantee the right choices are made.

William Herschel who discovered Uranus and some moons believes the surface of the Sun was cool and aliens, with enormous heads, lived on it.

Linus Pauling who founded molecular biology believed vitamin C could cure terminal cancer.

Shockley who founded the electronic age basically thought unskilled black people should not breed.

 

[CoooCaw]

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/Translate atheism | into German | into Italian | into Spanish

noun[mass noun]disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


Or perhaps the Cambridge dictionary

atheist


noun someone who believes that God does not exist


Or perhaps the Bible

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

 

[maxwel]

"Most" scientists believe in atheism?

Now surveys determine truth?
Opinions don't determine truth... that isn't even scientific.

This entire thread is a logical fallacy, and therefore pointless.

And just for the record...
you realize Richard Dawkins refuses to debate William Lane Craig, because Craig demolishes atheists, and Dawkins' atheist nonsense doesn't hold up to a real public debate with an expert?

 

[DannyC]

You've done almost nothing but insult me in a hypocritical manner beginning with your first reply to a very normal post in this thread. If this is calm DannyC, you've got issues to resolve. One of them would be this expectation of clairvoyance from other people because you're not a good communicator. But now you've degraded the entire thread into defending against your personal attacks yet again which go nicely as a side dish to that red herring you're having about Einstein and the lack of his opposition's criticism arising from a religious objection (which is actually false and if you had read my last post closely you would have seen the clue that it was in play with his philosophical critics though I doubt you know why). The point I made was a direct response to what you stated. You stated:

"Regardless the scientific consensus rejects creationism as religion not science with IE as a failed attempt at being scientific This does not mean creationism is false, it just means creationists should stop referring to their ideas as science."

What you were omitting was the obvious:

"The truth is your original statement fails to address that is exactly what atheists are doing: referring to their ideas as science. But atheism is not science. Nor it is it neutral. It is a metaphysical worldview like every other "religious" worldview. Scientific evidence can be applied to a wide range of competing scientific theories both religious and naturalistic.

Whether it's a religious theocracy of the 15th century or state atheism of the 20th and 21st centuries referring to their ideas as science and leveraging government power via consensus to persecute everyone that dissents, the result is the same. Science is thwarted in a material way."

And, as someone who was actually observing the Soviet Union from a front row seat I had to laugh when you went on about how the Russian and Chinese state atheist governments were persecuting atheists because any atheists they persecuted were certainly not persecuted for being atheists but some other unrelated reason while religious people were literally hunted by the state organs simply for being religious.

You don't appear to realize that these formally state atheistic empires committed themselves to the destruction of religion with a religious fervor destroying churches, historical artifacts, archeological sites; engaging in campaigns of harassment, imprisonment, and execution of religious leaders; flooding the schools and media with atheistic propaganda; and promoting 'scientific atheism' as the truth that society should accept or suffer persecution. Scientists, researchers, and educators that were religious (e.g. the vast majority were Christian) were targeted by the state for immediate removal and severe persecution. The Soviet Union murdered over 20 million Christians and persecuted up to two hundred million more in one way or another while rewarding and promoting atheist scientists, researchers, and educators who they highly regarded. That's what you omitted from your presentation as you falsely called me disingenuous.

So you openly lie about what I write, provide a book about something I never argued and then copy and paste most of your previous post. To ignore the first paragraph is easy as it is another snide remark about my intelligence. From a 50 year old man on a thread throwing insults to people about how much more intellegent he is, I find this quite surprising as there is no evidence to support any of what you write.

'Want to quote the contemporary scientists of the day who regarded Einstein's work as religious or point to anywhere in the bible where Einstein gained his knowledge about physics?'

That was my point about Einstein for the third time, you have lied to me twice now regarding what I wrote and then give a second go at what you have been reciting for the past year regarding atheist states. You fail to address any of my points, you use words where they should not be used and you are lying to me in front of people reading this.

 

[DannyC]

And my definitions add up just fine in the way I'm using them. If my use of the word atheism offends you then substitute scientific materialism as I referenced reductive materialism which IS classified under narrow atheism and IS the form of atheism being perpetuated by the New Atheists.

Your exercise in semantics is but a fallacious attempt to escape the truth that atheism is a metaphysical worldview. Every philosophy major learns that this form of atheism IS a metaphysical worldview. That's WHY it is most often referred to as METAPHYSICAL naturalism.

Unbelievable. Please do take some proper classes in philosophy rather than cobbling things together off the Internet and then projecting them at someone who did take those classes and got all A's as if they are the one engaging in the behavior.

Give me your definitions, since they contradict two dictionaries I have sourced. I am not offended, you just don't use words correctly. If using words incorrectly and then pointing it out is semantics then you do not understand what semantics are either. I already quotes two dictionaries about the definition of atheism. No where do we see metaphysical being mentoned. You are being intellectually dishonest in order to play off your points as well researched.

Last few lines are just more attacks on my intelligence for some reason.

 

[1still_waters]

Albert Einstein was a nobody propelled into position.
half the stuff he taught he never believed himself, and to this day can not be proven.

Short post.
Did your copy and paster go on strike?
Is wikipedia down?:O
:O

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No. I never lied DannyC. We've already covered this. You wrote a short one-sided paragraph presentation and I replied to it with information I wanted to share and believe is relevant to the discussion.

The rest is you screeding and making false assertions while I try to correct them for you. But here we are yet again defending against young DannyC's false personal attacks as DannyC himself lies about me not providing any documentation though I have and he has not.

The reason why I repeat myself in response to your false assertions is because you continue to repeat your false assertions and falsely state I never replied to them. I stated:

"...to that red herring you're having about Einstein and the lack of his opposition's criticism arising from a religious objection (which is actually false and if you had read my last post closely you would have seen the clue that it was in play with his philosophical critics though I doubt you know why)"

...and the documentation substantiating what I said is in the book I recommended you read.

So obviously, I pointed out that your assertion was false and provided documentation to substantiate my own assertion. But you simply ignored it, repeated your false assertion, engaged in more personal attacks, and hypocritically falsely accused me of doing what you fail to do (e.g. provide scholarly documentation).

You're not fooling anyone but yourself DannyC with this continuing nonsense. I suggest (again) that you calm down and start listening.

So you openly lie about what I write, provide a book about something I never argued and then copy and paste most of your previous post. To ignore the first paragraph is easy as it is another snide remark about my intelligence. From a 50 year old man on a thread throwing insults to people about how much more intellegent he is, I find this quite surprising as there is no evidence to support any of what you write.

'Want to quote the contemporary scientists of the day who regarded Einstein's work as religious or point to anywhere in the bible where Einstein gained his knowledge about physics?'

That was my point about Einstein for the third time, you have lied to me twice now regarding what I wrote and then give a second go at what you have been reciting for the past year regarding atheist states. You fail to address any of my points, you use words where they should not be used and you are lying to me in front of people reading this.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Your game of semantics is nothing but a red herring to this discussion DannyC. This is a Christian forum so we are viewing the discussion through that lens, specifically:

"ATHEISM is the view that holds that God does not exist. The term is used conventionally to indicate lack of belief in the God of the Judaeo-Christian tradition."

Ferguson, S. B., & Packer, J. (2000). New dictionary of theology (53–54). Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

We are discussing why so many scientists are atheists in this context both why that is and how it has been radically changing since the collapse of the state atheistic Soviet Union across most of the globe including the West.

And every philosopher knows what Metaphysical naturalism (e.g. scientific materialism, ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, also referred to as reductive materialism) is in atheism and that's what I referenced. Go take a philosophy 101 class and have the instructor explain it to you instead of screeding it at me as a red herring.

Give me your definitions, since they contradict two dictionaries I have sourced. I am not offended, you just don't use words correctly. If using words incorrectly and then pointing it out is semantics then you do not understand what semantics are either. I already quotes two dictionaries about the definition of atheism. No where do we see metaphysical being mentoned. You are being intellectually dishonest in order to play off your points as well researched.

Last few lines are just more attacks on my intelligence for some reason.