Atheist Islamophobia... Again

Atheist Islamophobia... Again

There are 3765 comments on the Religion Dispatched story from Apr 9, 2013, titled Atheist Islamophobia... Again. In it, Religion Dispatched reports that:

Sparked by a Richard Dawkins tweet , in which he drew a parallel between Islamists and Nazis, Nathan Lean recently suggested on Salon.com that the most famous representatives of the new atheism "flirt with" Islamophobia [echoing Chris Stedman's prescient warning to fellow atheists on RD this past August]. As the article explains, Dawkins, Hitchens ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Religion Dispatched.

spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#1041 May 2, 2013
EASY MONEY wrote:
..End all immigration into America from all, mid-east countries and all muslim ..
You sure have it in for Islam! Stopping immigration is not the answer I think to seeing off theism. The answer is education. The spread of knowledge through the internet is slowly defeating religion. Just my opinion.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1042 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's hard to tell. He has mostly quoted from some pretty nutty websites. That's why I asked the question about the frequency of the photon emitted when an electron goes from the n=3 to the n=2 levels in hydrogen. Someone that has actually had quantum mechanics would be able to do this problem immediately. Someone that hadn't would have problems googling it.
<quoted text>
My impression is that the Christian colleges don't get close to real quantum mechanics.
<quoted text>
I have seen no actual evidence one way or another. He could have a BS in physics and have dropped off the mystical edge. It happens. It seems more likely that he is bluffing, but I withhold judgment on that.
I, too, hesitate to call posters on dubious claims unless I'm pretty sure that they are false. A degree from a Christian college or university could explain what we're seeing from him. Liberty doesn't offer one (they're offering chemistry class for the first time next year), but Bob Jones does offer a BS in physics. According to the department's page, " A department goal is the training of astronomers and physicists for contribution to the development a consistent, biblically based creation model." This would tend to inhibit acceptance of results that seem inconsistent with biblical teachings.

BJU requires 40 credits of physics in order to graduate from the program. They introduce quantum physics in a third year course titles "Modern physics" along with "atomic structure and models, the hydrogen atom, molecules, solids, nuclear physics, lasers, elementary particles, statistical mechanics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc... " In that same year, students also take a course called "Essential Science," which involves "A biblical and conceptual view of science applied to important issues including cosmology, creation/evolution and the environment." The senior year includes six credits in quantum mechanics.

I suspect that anyone who understood the material described above could answer your test question pretty quickly. That he hasn't suggests that he's getting a friend to coach him or that he will ignore it altogether. I don't think he has the degree he claims even from a program like Bob Jones'.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1043 May 2, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I, too, hesitate to call posters on dubious claims unless I'm pretty sure that they are false. A degree from a Christian college or university could explain what we're seeing from him. Liberty doesn't offer one (they're offering chemistry class for the first time next year), but Bob Jones does offer a BS in physics. According to the department's page, " A department goal is the training of astronomers and physicists for contribution to the development a consistent, biblically based creation model." This would tend to inhibit acceptance of results that seem inconsistent with biblical teachings.
BJU requires 40 credits of physics in order to graduate from the program. They introduce quantum physics in a third year course titles "Modern physics" along with "atomic structure and models, the hydrogen atom, molecules, solids, nuclear physics, lasers, elementary particles, statistical mechanics, astrophysics, cosmology, etc... " In that same year, students also take a course called "Essential Science," which involves "A biblical and conceptual view of science applied to important issues including cosmology, creation/evolution and the environment." The senior year includes six credits in quantum mechanics.
I suspect that anyone who understood the material described above could answer your test question pretty quickly. That he hasn't suggests that he's getting a friend to coach him or that he will ignore it altogether. I don't think he has the degree he claims even from a program like Bob Jones'.
The BJU curriculum in physics looks like it would cover the basics, although I noticed a curious lack of comment on radioactivity......

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1044 May 2, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprising. Reading your posts, it appears that you have no use for facts, only poorly formulated opinions and conjecture.
Oh, I like facts.

But facts are NOT something YOU use at all!

Take this post of yours-- is there a FACT in it?

Nope.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1045 May 2, 2013
Aphelion wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW ... I wasn't making apologies for the bible,
Oh, but you WERE-- it is ALL that you True Believers™ can do with it-- the bible is so fatally flawed after all.

So you WERE trying desperately to apologize for the bible's failures.

And failing, naturally. You have NO FACTS, you see...

Just like this post of yours-- NO FACTS.

Just failures.

It's what you True Believers™ do best-- fail.
Aphelion wrote:
... only pointing out your ignorance on the subject that you were speaking.
You may have THOUGHT that was what you were doing-- but you failed.

Again.

Its what you do: fail.
Aphelion wrote:
Regardless of your childishness is still does not change the fact that your argument was flawed. Much like you.
Nope-- I posted PICTURES of PROOF your HITLER WAS A CATHOLIC--WITH THE BLESSING OF YOUR POPE-UMS.

But you did not SEE the photographic PROOF.

You failed.

Again.

It's what you do: fail.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1046 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ouch! I've known more than one example of such behavior.
I already have the PhD in math, so another one in physics would be icing on the cake. I am in it mostly for the knowledge (and a bit of pride). But it would be nice to finish at some point--actually have that piece of paper.
Since it's purely one of principle, then you should not be pressed for time, I'd think.

Keep pushing-- you'll find someone willing to fill the role you need.

Meanwhile, you are productive teaching college students how to THINK.

That is a legacy without measure, and without price.

:D

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1047 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The BJU curriculum in physics looks like it would cover the basics, although I noticed a curious lack of comment on radioactivity......
Well, when you think about it from a purely philosophical position?

Radioactivity is pretty much anti-god, on a fundamental level.

As I understand radioactive decay, for any given point in time, there is a certain probability that a radioactive element will give off one of it's signature decay particles/energy.

But in truth, it is completely unpredictable if you get a particle at a given point, or not.

In other words, radioactive decay is one of the truly random things that we can experience on a regular basis-- unlike the "random numbers" that computers generate, which are simply sequences of numbers from a formula of some sort, not really random at all (in that they are predictable if you have the formula).

So radioactive decay is rather un-godly-- in that even GOD cannot predict if the particle will emit at >>that<< moment or not.

Sort of an ultimate demonstration that omniscience is impossible after all...

...!!

<laughing>

I once saw a demonstration of a truly random number generator-- it used the random decay interval of a low-level radioactive isotope, and an interval counter: when a particle was emitted, it triggered a sensor, which then re-started the counter. The count (in each case) was a truly random number. Neat.

Another one I saw, used the inward pinging of cosmic rays to generate the random number-- the random element was the frequency (using a frequency counter) of the incoming ray as it struck a suitable antenna. Again, neat.

Random events in the Universe are pretty anti-god.

So it stands to reason BJU would avoid that at all costs...
Thinking

London, UK

#1048 May 2, 2013
Trying to hide their cr*p in a list of facts... just like bad sales people.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
These trolls do try hard don't they?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1049 May 2, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, when you think about it from a purely philosophical position?
Radioactivity is pretty much anti-god, on a fundamental level.
As I understand radioactive decay, for any given point in time, there is a certain probability that a radioactive element will give off one of it's signature decay particles/energy.
But in truth, it is completely unpredictable if you get a particle at a given point, or not.
The problem is that this is common to *all* of quantum mechanics. So the basic philosophical problem already exists in their curriculum. How they manage to deal with that, I do not know. I have a feeling that the problem with radioactivity is more that it leads to an age of the universe that is far, far more than 6000 years. This is also unavoidable in cosmology, so I am also curious how they deal with that. probably not well.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1050 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that this is common to *all* of quantum mechanics. So the basic philosophical problem already exists in their curriculum. How they manage to deal with that, I do not know. I have a feeling that the problem with radioactivity is more that it leads to an age of the universe that is far, far more than 6000 years. This is also unavoidable in cosmology, so I am also curious how they deal with that. probably not well.
That is a very astute observation-- radioactive decay is the "can-do" method to date very old things in geology.

So yeah, I can see how the young-earthers would rather it didn't exist.

:)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1052 May 2, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
The BJU curriculum in physics looks like it would cover the basics, although I noticed a curious lack of comment on radioactivity......
I work for a large hospital that is a pioneer in use of proton therepy for Radiation.
And I have never heard of anyone questioning the qualification of a Science( Mostly in healthcare) From Loma Linda University. Despite it being a religious school.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1053 May 2, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I work for a large hospital that is a pioneer in use of proton therepy for Radiation.
And I have never heard of anyone questioning the qualification of a Science( Mostly in healthcare) From Loma Linda University. Despite it being a religious school.
what is therepy and why do they use it for radiation?

isn't proton therapy a type of radiation therapy used for cncer treatments? are you the janitor at this hospital?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#1054 May 2, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is therepy and why do they use it for radiation?
isn't proton therapy a type of radiation therapy used for cncer treatments? are you the janitor at this hospital?
Yes it is and Loma Linda is a pioneer in its use.
Im a Tech, but the janitor jibe is useless here because
1) First to work even in Housekeeping you need to know more then how to sling a mop.Even janitors have to be able to read and understand things like Chemical data sheets and Universal precautions.
2) Unlike liberals , I respect ALL honest labor .I dont hold a man better then me because he makes more or hold him in contempt cause he makes less as long as its honest work.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1055 May 2, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I work for a large hospital that is a pioneer in use of proton therepy for Radiation.
And I have never heard of anyone questioning the qualification of a Science( Mostly in healthcare) From Loma Linda University. Despite it being a religious school.
Nor have I. The quality of religious schools varies widely, and as far as I can tell from its site and others that refer to it, Loma Linda is one of the best.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1056 May 2, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> I work for a large hospital that is a pioneer in use of proton therepy for Radiation.
And I have never heard of anyone questioning the qualification of a Science( Mostly in healthcare) From Loma Linda University. Despite it being a religious school.
Well, since you've already been established is telling outright lies?

Your post above is rather dubious, isn't it?

Sorry, but that is the consequences of you, lying from the start..

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1057 May 2, 2013
One of the ways to distinguish between excellent universities like Lorna Linda and those of questionable value like Bob Jones is to look at its accreditation. Lorna Linda is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which is about as mainstream and reputable as can be found.

BJU, on the other hand, is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. According to Wikipedia:

'The organization was founded in 1971 to "promote the welfare, interests, and development of postsecondary institutions, whose mission is characterized by a distinctly Christian purpose."[2] According to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), TRACS is a "product of the ICR" and was created "Because of the prejudice against creation-science, outspoken creationist schools" that had "little or no chance of getting recognition through accreditation."[4] Currently TRACS requires all accredited schools to have a statement of faith that affirms "the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible" and "the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image".[5]

'TRACS's first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991, U.S. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition."[6] Approval came following TRACS' third rejection by the board in which Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing," and critics of the approval said the move was about politics.[6] TRACS' approval "worried" accrediting officials who concluded that TRACS was not a qualified accreditor and the move was criticized by education officials.[7][8][9]'

Liberty University was also accredited by TRACS from 1984 until it resigned in 2006, but is main source of legitimacy comes from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which is much more reputable. it is also accredited by the ABA. The possible shortcomings in its physics program aside, LU appears to be academically sound. But I've read reports from graduates of LU science programs that they find themselves at a disadvantage in many academic and business settings after graduation.

How much more so for the unfortunate graduates of the many Christian colleges with accreditation from TRACS or similar organizations or with none at all. What a waste of their time and money! If minds are terrible things to waste, then these schools bear a guilt that can never be washed away.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1058 May 2, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
One of the ways to distinguish between excellent universities like Lorna Linda and those of questionable value like Bob Jones is to look at its accreditation. Lorna Linda is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which is about as mainstream and reputable as can be found.
BJU, on the other hand, is accredited by the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. According to Wikipedia:
'The organization was founded in 1971 to "promote the welfare, interests, and development of postsecondary institutions, whose mission is characterized by a distinctly Christian purpose."[2] According to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), TRACS is a "product of the ICR" and was created "Because of the prejudice against creation-science, outspoken creationist schools" that had "little or no chance of getting recognition through accreditation."[4] Currently TRACS requires all accredited schools to have a statement of faith that affirms "the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible" and "the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image".[5]
'TRACS's first application for federal recognition in 1987 was denied, but in 1991, U.S. Education Secretary Lamar Alexander "approved TRACS, despite his advisory panel's repeatedly recommending against recognition."[6] Approval came following TRACS' third rejection by the board in which Secretary Alexander "arranged for an appeal hearing," and critics of the approval said the move was about politics.[6] TRACS' approval "worried" accrediting officials who concluded that TRACS was not a qualified accreditor and the move was criticized by education officials.[7][8][9]'
Liberty University was also accredited by TRACS from 1984 until it resigned in 2006, but is main source of legitimacy comes from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, which is much more reputable. it is also accredited by the ABA. The possible shortcomings in its physics program aside, LU appears to be academically sound. But I've read reports from graduates of LU science programs that they find themselves at a disadvantage in many academic and business settings after graduation.
How much more so for the unfortunate graduates of the many Christian colleges with accreditation from TRACS or similar organizations or with none at all. What a waste of their time and money! If minds are terrible things to waste, then these schools bear a guilt that can never be washed away.
Also? Follow the money-- many purely christian "colleges" charge a great deal of money for the "education" they are selling-- usually double or triple what a secular State college might charge.

Bolt into that, there are scholarships funded by Fundie Christian churches, to help send their kids to the abusive "colleges".

And of course, government loan programs too.

Then look at the drop-out rate-- are these "colleges" all that concerned with that? Not really-- so long as they get their tuition moneys....

... it's big business.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1059 May 2, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it is and Loma Linda is a pioneer in its use.
Im a Tech, but the janitor jibe is useless here because
1) First to work even in Housekeeping you need to know more then how to sling a mop.Even janitors have to be able to read and understand things like Chemical data sheets and Universal precautions.
So you are not a scientist.
californio wrote:
<quoted text>
2) Unlike liberals , I respect ALL honest labor .I dont hold a man better then me because he makes more or hold him in contempt cause he makes less as long as its honest work.
Liberals respect honest labour too. We got another mentally ill theist it seems...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1060 May 2, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are not a scientist.
<quoted text>
Liberals respect honest labour too. We got another mentally ill theist it seems...
Indeed we do-- his first reply to me, was to try to prove Hitler was not associated with the catholics-- in spite of photographic evidence to the contrary (which he refused to even look at).

Classic godbottery.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1061 May 3, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed we do-- his first reply to me, was to try to prove Hitler was not associated with the catholics-- in spite of photographic evidence to the contrary (which he refused to even look at).
Classic godbottery.
Yep. Refusing to look means that he didn't see it... and if he didn't see he can claim it doesn't exist... and since it "doesn't exist" (simply because he refused to look) means he can continue to use it as an 'argument' for his 'god'.
Apparently, the 'god' he worships is dumb as a stump and more gullible than it's followers. But that would make sense wouldn't it?
They'll claim it's all knowing and all seeing and one of it's top 10 no-no's is about bearing false witness... yet bearing false witness is all they have to use when they argue for their religion. Apparently they believe their 'god' is too stupid to notice when they flat out ignore that particular commandment

Seeing is believing so NOT seeing is not believing.... except in religion, of course, where NOT seeing is grounds for die-hard belief.

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
A riddle for fun.... 4 hr Guest 1
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr candlesmell 94,457
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism 6 hr Guest 16
Stephen Hawking, now a believer 7 hr Guest 21
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 6,004
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 9 hr blacklagoon 3 155
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... Sat Eagle 12 - 12