Atheists on the march in America

Atheists on the march in America

There are 70629 comments on the TurkishPress.com story from Aug 26, 2009, titled Atheists on the march in America. In it, TurkishPress.com reports that:

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TurkishPress.com.

nina

Ottawa, Canada

#2857 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
... Scientists have no real idea how life began....
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/...

pwned
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2858 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Your progress? There aren't enough of you to progress.
Christian scientists
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm
For starters
OK, lots of scientists who were christians from the 1500's to the 1900's. But if your logic was on track, the more scientists discovered about the world, especially in those areas of most 'contention' for believers, you would expect the percentages of scientists in those disciplines to be finding even more reasons to believe in a god. Yet the National Academy of Science 1998 polls show biological scientists having the lowest rate of belief in a deity (5.5%) and physicists and astronomers only slightly higher (7.5%). Scientists in fields that don't deal directly with origins issues that collide with religious beliefs have much higher levels of belief.

So clearly the more we discover about the origins of the universe, biological life, evolution and the physical realities of our world, the less those scientists see evidence for any gods. This would seem to support the observation that the scientists you've listed were simply products of their time and culture when virtually everyone believed in a deity. Are you going to simply gloss over this or do you have a clever dodge waiting?
Second Coming of Dave D

Media, PA

#2859 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I mention that atheist scientists were as rare as virgins in a brothel?
By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits
had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics – all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents [Jonathan Wright, The Jesuits, 2004, p. 189].
Sooo easy.
And the pagan Egyptians and Chinese paved the way, by inventing medicine, biology, irrigation, construction, engineering, and astronomy.

All without God's help or even a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, who was invented a few thousand years after the Egyptians built the pyramids.

You're sooooooooo finished, idiot.
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2860 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
So basically you are admitting what he said. Scientists have no real idea how life began. You just fudge it to sound otherwise. You got to have faith.
Straw man. "Scientists have no idea what dark matter is so they fudge it and just have faith". Sounds pretty stupid doesn't it? Instead of fudging and faith, known facts about the material world are combined with observations and models are formed for testable hypotheses. You falsely say scientists have NO idea how life began. They have many ideas, informed educated ideas based on expertise in a variety of fields.
keltec 9mm wrote:
< Abiogenesis is a living thing coming from a non-living thing.
The way you phrase that is like the fundie creationist saying they never saw a banana give birth to a giraffe.

Did we ever see a single cancer cell turn into a massive tumor? No. How do we know god didn't do it while we weren't watching?
keltec 9mm wrote:
< and not a single observation of a living thing coming from a non-living thing.
MOre straw man just like the banana-giraffe or monkey-man caricature of creationists. Cleverly you avoid the definition of 'living' so you can't get pinned down. Let's look at one possible path of abiogenesis:

Simple chemicals.
Polymers.
Replicating polymers.
Hypercycle
Protobiont
Bacteria

We know chemicals can naturally form monomers which can form polymers
What if the first "living" thing was a self-replicating polymer molecule? There is no magic moment when non-life became life anymore than there was a magic moment when the ancestor of chimps and hominids became homo sapiens sapiens. It was a long, gradual process.
keltec 9mm wrote:
< In any other science such unexcepted observations become laws of nature.
One, not necessarily. Two, living things only come from living things, if it is a law only refer to existing replicating organisms. It is silent on the process of abiogenesis, which does not violate such a law.

keltec 9mm wrote:
< Yet abiogenesis,the exception to the law, is taught in a vacuum like it was proven to have happened that way and only the details are missing. So why is a conjecture with no empirical support whatsoever that violates a law of nature taught in a vacuum like it is a fact instead of mere conjecture?
It isn't. Abiogenesis is taught as a set of testable hypotheses to explain how inorganic chemicals can form complex compounds that can form the building blocks of organic molecules that can form organic, biological, self replicating life. It is not taught as fact. It is not taught as a theory. You are just spewing fundie lies.
keltec 9mm

Boca Raton, FL

#2861 Sep 10, 2009
nina wrote:
I never said they didn't have conjectures or hypotheses. There are many and many are in favor one moment and out of favor the next.
keltec 9mm

Boca Raton, FL

#2862 Sep 10, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, lots of scientists who were christians from the 1500's to the 1900's. But if your logic was on track, the more scientists discovered about the world, especially in those areas of most 'contention' for believers, you would expect the percentages of scientists in those disciplines to be finding even more reasons to believe in a god. Yet the National Academy of Science 1998 polls show biological scientists having the lowest rate of belief in a deity (5.5%) and physicists and astronomers only slightly higher (7.5%). Scientists in fields that don't deal directly with origins issues that collide with religious beliefs have much higher levels of belief.
So clearly the more we discover about the origins of the universe, biological life, evolution and the physical realities of our world, the less those scientists see evidence for any gods. This would seem to support the observation that the scientists you've listed were simply products of their time and culture when virtually everyone believed in a deity. Are you going to simply gloss over this or do you have a clever dodge waiting?
But then we ask ourselves, why the non believing scientist?

..........

Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?

The recent study by Ecklund and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and NOT area of expertise.Let me repeat, NOT areas of expertise.



"Instead, particular demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household, seem to explain some of the religious differences among academic scientists... Most important, respondents who were raised in religious homes, especially those raised in homes where religion was important are most likely to be religious at present."


Conversely, those that were brought up in households that were non religious tended themselves to be non believers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2863 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Your progress? There aren't enough of you to progress.
Christian scientists
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912)
BACTERIOLOGY LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULUS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
CELESTIAL MECHANICS JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
CHEMISTRY ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
COMPARATIVE ANATOMY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
COMPUTER SCIENCE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
DYNAMICS ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)

ELECTRONICS JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
ELECTRODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
ELECTRO-MAGNETICS MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ENERGETICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS HENRI FABRE (1823-1915)
FIELD THEORY MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
FLUID MECHANICS GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903)
GALACTIC ASTRONOMY WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
GAS DYNAMICS ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691)
GENETICS GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884)
GLACIAL GEOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
GYNECOLOGY JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
HYDRAULICS LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519)
HYDROGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
HYDROSTATICS BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
ICHTHYOLOGY LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873)
ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
MODEL ANALYSIS LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919)
NATURAL HISTORY JOHN RAY (1627-1705)
NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866)
OCEANOGRAPHY MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873)
OPTICAL MINERALOGY DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
PALEONTOLOGY JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728)
PATHOLOGY RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902)
PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS JAMES JOULE (1818-1889)
STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879)
STRATIGRAPHY NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686)
SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
THERMODYNAMICS LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
THERMOKINETICS HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832)
TABLE II
NOTABLE INVENTIONS, DISCOVERIES
OR DEVELOPMENTS BY CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS
CONTRIBUTION SCIENTIST
ABSOLUTE TEMPERATURE SCALE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
ACTUARIAL TABLES CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
BAROMETER BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662)
BIOGENESIS LAW LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
CALCULATING MACHINE CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871)
CHLOROFORM JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870)
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778)
DOUBLE STARS WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822)
ELECTRIC GENERATOR MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867)
ELECTRIC MOTOR JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
EPHEMERIS TABLES JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630)
FERMENTATION CONTROL LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
GALVANOMETER JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
GLOBAL STAR CATALOG JOHN HERSCHEL (1792-1871)
INERT GASES WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916)
KALEIDOSCOPE DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868)
LAW OF GRAVITY ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
MINE SAFETY LAMP HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829)
PASTEURIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
REFLECTING TELESCOPE ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727)
SCIENTIFIC METHOD FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626)
SELF-INDUCTION JOSEPH HENRY (1797-1878)
TELEGRAPH SAMUEL F.B. MORSE (1791-1872)
THERMIONIC VALVE AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945)
TRANS-ATLANTIC CABLE LORD KELVIN (1824-1907)
VACCINATION & IMMUNIZATION LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-103.htm
For starters
So what? These were my people, scientific rationalists. Except in the metaphysical realm, they behaved as atheists. If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have done anything memorable, and you wouldn't be cutting and pasting their names.

Belongs to us, not you.
keltec 9mm

Boca Raton, FL

#2864 Sep 10, 2009
Second Coming of Dave D wrote:
<quoted text>
And the pagan Egyptians and Chinese paved the way, by inventing medicine, biology, irrigation, construction, engineering, and astronomy.
All without God's help or even a belief in the Judeo-Christian God, who was invented a few thousand years after the Egyptians built the pyramids.
You're sooooooooo finished, idiot.


Lol

The Chinese.

"In truth, if China was the entire world, I could undoubtedly call myself the principal mathematician and philosopher of nature, because it is ridiculously and astonishingly little what they know; they are preoccupied with moral philosophy, and with elegance of discourse, or to say more properly, of style."
Jesuit Matteo Ricci.(1595)

"About the learned among the Chinese, let me say that this: the Chinese have no science at all; one may say that only mathematics is cultivated, and the little they know of it is without foundation.....They just manage to predict eclipses and in that they make many mistakes. All are addicted to the art of divination, which is most unreliable and also completely false. Physics and metaphysics, including logic, is unknown among them....Their literature consists wholly in beautiful and stylish compositions all of which correspond to our humanities and rhetoric."
Jesuit Matteo Ricci.(1597)

Concerning those who predicted eclipses:
"they know nothing more than to make computations, without any insight into the rules, and when the result does not come out right, all they say is that they kept to the rules of their forebears."
Jesuit Matteo Ricci.(1605)

Matteo Ricci was born in Macerata, Italy and died in Peking, China. Against his father's wishes, who forbade any talk of religious topics around the home, Matteo Ricci entered the Jesuits. At the end of his training he was assigned to the China Mission, and arrived there in 1583, where he worked for 27 years. Eventually he was welcomed to the academies and gained many influential friendships. He opened a residence in Nanking for himself, his fellow Jesuits and his scientific instruments. Later he became the court mathematician in Peking. His books Geometrica Practica and Trigonometrica were translations of Christopher Clavius' works into Chinese. He made Western developments in mathematics available to the Chinese and in 1584 and 1600 he published the first maps of China ever available to the West. For the first time the Chinese had an idea of the distribution of oceans and land masses. He introduced trigonometric and astronomical instruments, and translated the first six books of Euclid into Chinese. The Chinese geometrical works for which he is remembered were books on the astrolabe, the sphere, measures and isoperimetrics. But especially important was his Chinese version of the first six books of Euclid's Elements, which was written in collaboration with one of his pupils. Entitled A first textbook of geometry, this work assures Ricci an important place in the history of mathematics.

From about 1600 until the suppression in 1773, Jesuits were practically the sole source of Chinese knowledge about Western astronomy, geometry and trigonometry. Appointments in the Astronomical Bureau provided the Jesuits with access to the ruling elite, whose conversion was their main object. Mathematical and astronomical treatises demonstrated high learning and proved that the missionaries were civilized and socially acceptable. While trigonometry became an analytic science in Europe, in the Orient it remained primitive until the Jesuits came.





"Probably no European name of past centuries is so well known in China as that of Li-ma-teu (Ricci Matteo)."
The Encyclopedia Britannica


http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scie...

That was fun.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2865 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
By the eighteenth century, the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks
But not by using the religious method. The scientific method is valid even when Christians employ it. and you're welcome.
keltec 9mm

Boca Raton, FL

#2866 Sep 10, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
So what? These were my people, scientific rationalists. Except in the metaphysical realm, they behaved as atheists. If they hadn't been, they wouldn't have done anything memorable, and you wouldn't be cutting and pasting their names.
Belongs to us, not you.
They weren't your people, they were my people. Atheist scientists were as rare as virgins in a brothel.

"In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior, and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.

http://www.barna.org/topics/faith-spiritualit...


Lying, too.
keltec 9mm

Boca Raton, FL

#2867 Sep 10, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
But not by using the religious method. The scientific method is valid even when Christians employ it. and you're welcome.
Intelligence being a gift of God, I agree.

Once again

“When I reflect on so many profoundly marvelous things that persons have grasped, sought, and done I recognize even more clearly that human intelligence is a work of God, and one of the most excellent.”
Galileo
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2868 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
But then we ask ourselves, why the non believing scientist?
..........
Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God?
The recent study by Ecklund and Scheitle reveals that the most important factors in belief were related to upbringing and family status, and NOT area of expertise.Let me repeat, NOT areas of expertise.
"Instead, particular demographic factors, such as age, marital status, and presence of children in the household, seem to explain some of the religious differences among academic scientists... Most important, respondents who were raised in religious homes, especially those raised in homes where religion was important are most likely to be religious at present."
Conversely, those that were brought up in households that were non religious tended themselves to be non believers.
Thanks. My money was on the dodge also.
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2870 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
But then we ask ourselves, why the non believing scientist?
..........
I was hoping that we might have a reasonable discussion. From previous encounters I was skeptical and you've reminded me why. You obviously have a decent mind and good grammatical and rhetorical skills but the pattern is out of the fundie playbook. You have a set of beliefs. You NEVER let data or evidence sway you. You search for quotes furiously as if they are support for your beliefs or proof of some argument you've concocted. If someone quotes Einstein as not believing in a personal god you frantically search for a snippet that indicates he did believe as if 'winning' quote mining contests proves anything and all the while ignoring that fact that what he, or any scientist believes about deities is completely unrelated to the employment of the natural scientific method. You create straw man arguments. You construct fundamentally flawed arguments full of logical fallacies. Beyond the veneer of language and command of the search engine for literary quotes you show a stunning lack of understanding of logic and the scientific process. This recent discussion over abiogenesis research brings it all home. If the topic was another line of scientific inquiry that didn't conflict with your creation beliefs you wouldn't give it a second thought. Maybe another time.....

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#2871 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Western science was a product of Christianity.
"Christian theology was necessary for the rise of science. Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity,.
"For the Glory of God," Rodney Stark (2004)
The following is a rebuttel to Stark's thesis:

"Stark's next major error comes in the form of a generalisation, the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars, one that is often made but does not stand up to examination. Given the fact that within the effective theocracy that was Europe in the High Middle Ages to say that all the scientists were Christians is utterly meaningless. One could just as well claim that all the scientists were men. After all women were not allowed to study. The claim that they were all deeply religious is one that cannot be substantiated as it is impossible to tell with the majority of mediaeval scholars what they actually believed. Much more productive than the Christianity generalisation, is to ask if a particular scholar was Averroist, Thomist, Ockhamist or whatever; these streams of philosophical thought being more relevant to their scientific work than the mere formality that they were Christians. The situation becomes even more complex after the Reformation.
Just to give one example, if we take three major scientific figures from the 17th century – Kepler, Pascal and Newton – it is a triviality to say that they were all Christians, but what does it mean in each individual case? All three of them were by our standards religious fanatics but each in a totally different way. Kepler studied to become a Lutheran pastor until Maestlin decided that he would make a better maths teacher and packed him off to Graz. All of his life he remained deeply religious and all of his scientific work was characterised by a very strong Christian metaphysics. Privately he was strongly ecumenical and was even denied the sacrament in his own church because he thought that Calvinists were just normal people and not terrible sinners. Pascal was a Jansenist, which meant that he gave up the practice of science as sinful. As Descartes met with him to discuss their mutual love of mathematics, Pascal refused to converse because Descartes was educated by the Jesuits, the greatest enemies of the Jansenists. Newton was an Arian, which means he denied the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity which would have brought him into conflict with Kepler, who believed that the solar system was a closed system because the sun was God, the sphere of the stars was Jesus, and the space in between the Holy Ghost, thereby mirroring the Holy Trinity. Newton of course loathed Catholics as he believed that they had falsified the Bible to support their own trinitarianism. The three were all Christians but their very Christianity meant that they were incapably of communicating with each other because they each regarded the others as heretics. Doesn’t exactly further the development of science does it?
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008...
rider

Marquette, MI

#2872 Sep 10, 2009
http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafi...


----- www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm

MSNBC's Racheal Maddow Show Propels Growing Scandal Over Washington's "Christian Mafia"

In a new August 17, 2009 Maddow show segment [link to MSNBC page with viewable show segment], Rachel Maddow and Jeff Sharlet discuss, among many new revelations, the disturbing fact that the "Christian Embassy" scandal, propelled by a complaint to the Department of Defense from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, was investigated by a Pentagon Inspector General who is in fact a Family member.
The Family, also known as "The Fellowship", is a secretive fundamentalist Washington DC ministry which runs the National Prayer Breakfast and Bible study groups attended by numerous US Senators and Congress members, wields global influence, and celebrates the leadership lessons of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao.
http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafi...
Washington D.C. is home to the self-styled Christian mafia, a secretive Christian fundamentalist organization with deep ties to power elites in the US and the world. The Capitol Hill house on C Street has been making the headlines of late, and the news is not good. It seems the house on C Street is a Christian fundamentalist frat house for US congressman and senators.

The house, sometimes referred to as the "C Street Complex", is actually home base for a secretive international Christian cult. This cult is sometimes referred to as "the family" or "the fellowship". The family espouses strange and nefarious goals. Indeed, their mission is to create a universal Christian theocracy, a world where all governments are subordinate to this peculiar and secretive Christian sect.

The family at C Street preaches a secretive doctrine known as the "Seven Mountains Mandate" in which believers seek to gain world control, by gaining influence over seven key sectors of society: religion, government, media, education, arts and entertainment, family, and business. The group is racist and sexist, believing in a strong patriarchy and that God has chosen rich white elites to rule. Members take an oath and are sworn to secrecy.

The Capitol Hill house on C Street eludes property taxes by being listed as a church. According to The Associated Press, Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Jim Demint, R-S.C.; and Sens. Ensign and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., live in private rooms upstairs in the $1.1 million house and pay $600 a month in rent. The whole thing smells of corruption spiced with Christianity. The odor is obnoxious.

The family teaches that morality is a secular concept, a concept that does not apply to their own members . Indeed, this strange cult, with ties to fascism and Nazism, appears decidedly unchristian. Rather, the organization seems dedicated to justifying, maintaining and creating power and privilege for the wealthy.

ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2873 Sep 10, 2009
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
The following is a rebuttel to Stark's thesis:
"Stark's next major error comes in the form of a generalisation, the rise of science was achieved by deeply religious Christian scholars, one that is often made but does not stand up to examination. Given the fact that within the effective theocracy that was Europe in the High Middle Ages to say that all the scientists were Christians is utterly meaningless. One could just as well claim that all the scientists were men. After all women were not allowed to study. The claim that they were all deeply religious is one that cannot be substantiated as it is impossible to tell with the majority of mediaeval scholars what they actually believed. Much more productive than the Christianity generalisation, is to ask if a particular scholar was Averroist, Thomist, Ockhamist or whatever; these streams of philosophical thought being more relevant to their scientific work than the mere formality that they were Christians. The situation becomes even more complex after the Reformation.
Just to give one example, if we take three major scientific figures from the 17th century – Kepler, Pascal and Newton – it is a triviality to say that they were all Christians, but what does it mean in each individual case? All three of them were by our standards religious fanatics but each in a totally different way. Kepler studied to become a Lutheran pastor until Maestlin decided that he would make a better maths teacher and packed him off to Graz. All of his life he remained deeply religious and all of his scientific work was characterised by a very strong Christian metaphysics. Privately he was strongly ecumenical and was even denied the sacrament in his own church because he thought that Calvinists were just normal people and not terrible sinners. Pascal was a Jansenist, which meant that he gave up the practice of science as sinful. As Descartes met with him to discuss their mutual love of mathematics, Pascal refused to converse because Descartes was educated by the Jesuits, the greatest enemies of the Jansenists. Newton was an Arian, which means he denied the divinity of Christ and the existence of the Trinity which would have brought him into conflict with Kepler, who believed that the solar system was a closed system because the sun was God, the sphere of the stars was Jesus, and the space in between the Holy Ghost, thereby mirroring the Holy Trinity. Newton of course loathed Catholics as he believed that they had falsified the Bible to support their own trinitarianism. The three were all Christians but their very Christianity meant that they were incapably of communicating with each other because they each regarded the others as heretics. Doesn’t exactly further the development of science does it?
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008...
Keltec will now lose another two or three layers of epidermis on his fingertips frantically trying to mine quotes to 'refute' you.

“No Bishop,No King,No Nobility”

Since: May 08

The Underworld

#2874 Sep 10, 2009
Bill Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It makes perfect sense. Since I don't support any form of government, why would I support Iran? Why do you mention it?
Governments only exist by stealing wealth from others and killing those who resist. Anyone who supports that supports theft and murder.
There are many things that we can not have without a larger entity to lead their construction and maintenance.

The question is: Do you want that entity to be one in which you have absolutely zero control of, or one in which you at least have a modicum of control?

“No Bishop,No King,No Nobility”

Since: May 08

The Underworld

#2875 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
Science only happened in areas whose worldview was shaped by Christianity, that is, Europe.
LOL

I guess all that Chinese history is a lie. Who wants to break the bad news to China?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#2876 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
"In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior, and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.
http://www.barna.org/topics/faith-spiritualit...
Lying, too.
I read your cited web site and found the following information very instructive:

More than four out of five adults - 83%- contend that they are concerned about the moral condition of the nation. Given that 84% of all adults consider themselves to be Christian, they have good reason to worry about the moral state of the country: many of their own views conflict with the moral teachings of their professed faith.
Of the ten moral behaviors evaluated, a majority of Americans believed that each of three activities were "morally acceptable." Those included gambling (61%), co-habitation (60%), and sexual fantasies (59%). Nearly half of the adult population felt that two other behaviors were morally acceptable: having an abortion (45%) and having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse (42%). About one-third of the population gave the stamp of approval to pornography (38%), profanity (36%), drunkenness (35%) and homosexual sex (30%). The activity that garnered the least support was using non-prescription drugs (17%).
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-b...

In other words, 84% of those who responded to the above survey identified themselves as CHRISTIANS
and they approved the following as morality acceptable:
Gambling 61%
Co-habitation 60%
Sexual fantasies 59%
Having abortion 45%
Having sexual relations other than one's spouse 42%
Pornography 38%
Profanity 36%
Drunkeness 35%
Homosexual Sex 30%

In conclusion, it appears that the activities you mentioned is more wide spread then you lead your readers to believe. If 84% of those surveyed identified themselves as Christians and according to a Gallup poll conducted in 2005 showing only 5% of population who identified themselves as Atheists/Agnostics then how could 5% of the surveyed
respondents be blamed for activities way beyond their reported percent of the population.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2877 Sep 10, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
"Making the building blocks of life is easy—amino acids have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function."
Davies, Paul. 1999. Life force. New Scientist. 163(2204): 27–30.
I'm VERY familiar with Paul Davies. If he actually said this, then it is taken out of context. Davies would tell you that you were full of shit after just one post form you. Much of what I know about 20th century physics comes from Davies' books.

Can you find a citation to support those words that doesn't come from a pro-Christian site? Because I couldn't find one.

You do no that your people are liars and frauds, and make things up, don't you? You need to confirm things such as this in an atheist forum. it'll fly with the low lying fruit in church in, soup lines and on death row, but not here.

And even if you could, so what?

I could only find this alleged quotation on Christian sites.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Paul Scott 28,503
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Paul Scott 66,752
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 18 hr Dogen 3,439
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) Sat IB DaMann 5,975
Atheist Humor (Aug '09) Apr 21 Eagle 12 456
News Unholy? Atheists should embrace the science of ... Apr 20 Eagle 12 9
Where have all the Atheists gone? Apr 18 Eagle 12 13
More from around the web