Atheist Activists Disguised As Scientists

Apr 14, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 62

Francis Crick and James Watson are famous and infamous. They are famous for having discerned DNA's double helix structure and are infamous for being activist Atheists .

Full Story
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Mike N

New City, NY

#1 Apr 14, 2012
So they weren't disquised as scientists. They were simply scientists. Big deal. Most scientists are atheist or at least agnostic. Not sure what the news is here.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#2 Apr 14, 2012
Mike N wrote:
So they weren't disquised as scientists. They were simply scientists. Big deal. Most scientists are atheist or at least agnostic. Not sure what the news is here.
It is another attempt to discredit scientists and science as anti-religion heathen and godless, who's only function is to disprove god and to be stopped at all cost.

It is an attempt by ignorant godbots to suppress real education because that is the one thing they fear above all else.
Chimney one

United States

#3 Apr 14, 2012
It seems the morons above are unable to read and comprehend. Is mystic the new definition for scientist? Lmao

Indeed, Sam Harris, the Buddhist Atheist mystic (who does not like the terms Buddhist, Atheist or mystic) is now known as a neuroscientist but he is, in reality, a neuro-speudo-scientist. This is because he admits to have gotten into the field of science in order to find evidence to back his Atheistic worldview (see “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief”– Sam Harris’ Neuroscientific Escapades).

Thank god---oops, Iean evolutionary fairies. Hahahaha

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#4 Apr 14, 2012
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
It is another attempt to discredit scientists and science as anti-religion heathen and godless, who's only function is to disprove god and to be stopped at all cost.
It is an attempt by ignorant godbots to suppress real education because that is the one thing they fear above all else.
Science is satan or so they say. They also say dinos were on the ark. They have been known to say water covered the highest mountians. Now they say atheist activists.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#5 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one AKA The Pet Whisperer wrote:
It seems the morons above are unable to read and comprehend. Is mystic the new definition for scientist? Lmao
Indeed, Sam Harris, the Buddhist Atheist mystic (who does not like the terms Buddhist, Atheist or mystic) is now known as a neuroscientist but he is, in reality, a neuro-speudo-scientist. This is because he admits to have gotten into the field of science in order to find evidence to back his Atheistic worldview (see “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief”– Sam Harris’ Neuroscientific Escapades).
Thank god---oops, Iean evolutionary fairies. Hahahaha
No, as usual you get it back to front.

Harris being a mystic, or a buddhist, and/or an atheist, a christian, or a muslim, all would have NOTHING to do with him being a scientist so long as in doing science, he used the scientific method. No more, no less.

This article makes the ridiculous claim that scientists like Crick are not "real" scientists BECAUSE they had an atheist world view.

Do it redefines what a scientist is to suit its own agenda. Classic Strawman argument.

Scientists do science. Whatever else they want to believe is irrelevant, so long as they do science according to the principles of science. Your Creotard buddies fail completely in this, although there are Christians who ARE real scientists too.

Think hard, Pet Man, I am sure you will get it one day though God knows after two years of your garbage, you are still as clueless as ever.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#6 Apr 15, 2012
This struck me:
"So, he was taught it, he believed it and he turned it into a worldview." Unquote.

It seems that some religionists need to see atheism as a worldview fundamentally based on evolution. I think that's an important observation about the way such religionists think.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#7 Apr 15, 2012
EdSed wrote:
This struck me:
"So, he was taught it, he believed it and he turned it into a worldview." Unquote.
It seems that some religionists need to see atheism as a worldview fundamentally based on evolution. I think that's an important observation about the way such religionists think.
Creationists seem to have no idea how little most scientists even give a second thought to their silly superstitions.
redneck

Cave Junction, OR

#8 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
It seems the morons above are unable to read and comprehend. Is mystic the new definition for scientist? Lmao
Indeed, Sam Harris, the Buddhist Atheist mystic (who does not like the terms Buddhist, Atheist or mystic) is now known as a neuroscientist but he is, in reality, a neuro-speudo-scientist. This is because he admits to have gotten into the field of science in order to find evidence to back his Atheistic worldview (see “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief”– Sam Harris’ Neuroscientific Escapades).
Thank god---oops, Iean evolutionary fairies. Hahahaha
You sound the fool. Evolution is scientifically proven an god is not. www.400monkeys.com/God
Chimney one

United States

#9 Apr 15, 2012
Once a mystic, always a nut case.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#10 Apr 15, 2012
redneck wrote:
<quoted text>You sound the fool. Evolution is scientifically proven an god is not. www.400monkeys.com/God
"Chimney one" AKA The Pet Whisperer AKA Jim Ryan is definitely a fool. Everyone stop listening to his stupidity months ago. Which is why he now tries to steal the identity of others to get a hearing. Pathetic.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#11 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
Once a mystic, always a nut case.
Harris does not call himself a mystic, that is just more BS from the article. You know, that article where they do not even understand that "nearly 50%" is a minority. Not quite as dumb as you, which is why you think its brilliant.
Chimney one

United States

#12 Apr 15, 2012
It seems sciences atheist ambassadors can't lie hard enough or long enough, cricks name was used to sell the followings mysticism and evolution. Read the last paragraph, but notice how science uses deception by using crick, Watson and Gould.

Francis Crick and James Watson are famous and infamous. They are famous for having discerned DNA’s double helix structure and are infamous for being activist Atheists.

The late Stephen Jay Gould (who was an agnostic and teacher of biology, geology and history of science at Harvard University) noted:

The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology...

The myth of a separate mode based on rigorous objectivity and arcane, largely mathematical knowledge, vouchsafed only to the initiated, may provide some immediate benefits in bamboozling a public to regard us as a new priesthood, but must ultimately prove harmful in erecting barriers to truly friendly understanding and in falsely persuading so many students that science lies beyond their capabilities...

the myth of an arcane and enlightened priesthood of scientists…*

[find fuller quote at Scientific Cenobites, part 6 of 9]

Indeed, Sam Harris, the Buddhist Atheist mystic (who does not like the terms Buddhist, Atheist or mystic) is now known as a neuroscientist but he is, in reality, a neuro-speudo-scientist. This is because he admits to have gotten into the field of science in order to find evidence to back his Atheistic worldview (see “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief”– Sam Harris’ Neuroscientific Escapades).

This is what evolutionists are taught to do.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#13 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
It seems sciences atheist ambassadors can't lie hard enough or long enough, cricks name was used to sell the followings mysticism and evolution. Read the last paragraph, but notice how science uses deception by using crick, Watson and Gould.
Francis Crick and James Watson are famous and infamous. They are famous for having discerned DNA’s double helix structure and are infamous for being activist Atheists.
The late Stephen Jay Gould (who was an agnostic and teacher of biology, geology and history of science at Harvard University) noted:
The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology...
The myth of a separate mode based on rigorous objectivity and arcane, largely mathematical knowledge, vouchsafed only to the initiated, may provide some immediate benefits in bamboozling a public to regard us as a new priesthood, but must ultimately prove harmful in erecting barriers to truly friendly understanding and in falsely persuading so many students that science lies beyond their capabilities...
the myth of an arcane and enlightened priesthood of scientists…*
[find fuller quote at Scientific Cenobites, part 6 of 9]
Indeed, Sam Harris, the Buddhist Atheist mystic (who does not like the terms Buddhist, Atheist or mystic) is now known as a neuroscientist but he is, in reality, a neuro-speudo-scientist. This is because he admits to have gotten into the field of science in order to find evidence to back his Atheistic worldview (see “The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief”– Sam Harris’ Neuroscientific Escapades).
This is what evolutionists are taught to do.
The idiocy of this article is that is takes that position that if a scientist does not believe in God, they are a pseudo-scientist. That is just as stupid as saying that if a scientist believes in God, they are a pseudo-scientist. Either position is idiotic.

They are scientists if they do science properly, which Crick, Watson, and Gould et al most certainly did.

Also, look up the work of Elain Ecklund, the woman who conducted this survey. She has written MANY articles defending faith among scientists, not attacking it.

And HER survey results were that 27% of scientists believe in God while up to 47% have some religious tradition or religious view.

So the claim that belief in God is a minority position is coming from a DEFENDER of religious views, not an "atheist attacker".

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#14 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one wrote:
Once a mystic, always a nut case.
So is that your way of debunking religion? I had no idea you were an atheist.
Chimney one

United States

#15 Apr 15, 2012
Are most all scientists so gullible or just plain stupid, where they answer such stupid and one sided questions, when they either don't have to or is it they are too stupid to understand the full implications to the questions, as they radically alter their answers by a huge percentage?

It's no wonder at least 99%of today's evolutionary science is all BS, according to Blake, the scientist that finished Einsteins theory of relativity, and what should be so easily understood in this damning poll.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#16 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one AKA The Pet Whisperer wrote:
Are most all scientists so gullible or just plain stupid, where they answer such stupid and one sided questions, when they either don't have to or is it they are too stupid to understand the full implications to the questions, as they radically alter their answers by a huge percentage?

It's no wonder at least 99%of today's evolutionary science is all BS, according to Blake, the scientist that finished Einsteins theory of relativity, and what should be so easily understood in this damning poll.
Blake said 99.9% of all science papers, not evolutionary ones. At least be accurate when quoting your favourite nutcases. Finished Einstein's relativity?

You love to imagine scientists are stupid, so that you don't feel so grossly inadequate. It won't work...you simply are.
Chimney one

United States

#17 Apr 15, 2012
Eclland is an idiot for posting that garbage poll. However, she points out how crick, Watson and goulds names are being used to sell the atheist, Buddhist mystics pseudo science.
Chimney one

United States

#18 Apr 15, 2012
Poll takers take polls, they do not question the why, obviously.

99% of polls are designed to fool the poll takers, to advance a deceitful position. If you can prove otherwise, give it a go.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#19 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one AKA The Pet Moron wrote:
Poll takers take polls, they do not question the why, obviously.
99% of polls are designed to fool the poll takers, to advance a deceitful position. If you can prove otherwise, give it a go.
You have made the extraordinary claim therefore its up to you to back it up.

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#20 Apr 15, 2012
Chimney one AKA The Pet Moron wrote:
Eclland is an idiot for posting that garbage poll. However, she points out how crick, Watson and goulds names are being used to sell the atheist, Buddhist mystics pseudo science.
No, this is not what the article points out, you confused idiot.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Robots Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is iPhone 6 just for chicks? Sep 13 hot cougar dating 1
Robotic Prostate Surgery May Be Risky (Oct '09) Aug 31 derekblaken 17
Secret of herding sheep discovered Aug 27 not so religious 1
Is that really a thigh bone on Mars? NASA gives... Aug 26 Smoking what 1
Hitchhiking robot charms its way across Canada Aug '14 William 3
North Fulton Hospital Offers New Robotic Spine ... (Jul '13) Aug '14 Cory Trevor 3
140729205754-pkg-moos-hitchhiking-robot-0000230... Aug '14 Injured cyclist 1
•••

Robots People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••