The Anti-Science Party

[JohnSmith2007 353]

What absolute nonsense.

I believe in liberal principles. Others do not. When I see articles dissecting the tenets of my political inclinations, or satirical cartoons ridiculing them, I am hardly wont to take offense - and if I did, I would not be so hysterical to demand that those dissenters be silenced.

I'm afraid "being offended" grants you no rights whatsoever, nor wins you any arguments.

You seem to be a very angry person. Why is that? Political beliefs are not the same as religious beliefs. In my experience someone that is so violently adament about something is covering for something else. My guess is that in your own private thoughts you have some doubts about your stated beliefs. I know you will puff up and declare that you have no doubts at all but in the privacy of your own thought there is that small voice that says "what if I am wrong?". I suspect that is why you so loudly denounce anyone with faith, you are trying to convince yourself you are right. I will pray that you find some peace and no longer need to tear others down to make youself feel justified in your thoughts. God and I love you!

[faust-yusov 103]

Either you are mistaking me for someone else, or you have not fully understood the contributions I have made to this discussion.

Kindly clarify or substantiate your aspersions with references to what I have said and I will dignify them with a response.

[faust-yusov 103]

I will however respond to your one statement of relevance.

Political beliefs are not the same as religious beliefs.

No, they are not the same. But in a secular society they are sufficiently analagous with respect to social influence and the liberty to hold and profess them. Why one should be taken off the table of critique and satire and the other remain is an argument you have yet to make.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I will however respond to your one statement of relevance.

No, they are not the same. But in a secular society they are sufficiently analagous with respect to social influence and the liberty to hold and profess them. Why one should be taken off the table of critique and satire and the other remain is an argument you have yet to make.

Wrong sir. A person of faith is partially defined by that faith. To attack a persons belief in God is the very same as attacking the person. Look at it this way, I am very conservative is some things and very liberal on others. Take for example my attitude on abortion. I think it is wrong but have no problem with someone making their own choice on whether to have one or not. In other words I am cool with roe V wade. Now someone may say I advocate the killing of babies since I do not oppose it. I don't consider that a personal attack, just a difference of opinion with a political view. If someone should say I am illogical and primative because I believe in God then I do consider it a personal attack because what makes me, me is my faith in God. It is like the love you feel for your childeren. You cannot attack that love without attacking the person. You get it?

[faust-yusov 103]

Your examples are selective and unsatisfactory.

I might just as well say that there exist people for whom "God" is a pleasant little diversion on a Sunday, but for whom being a Republican is a veritable way of life. We return to the root of the issue: it is a choice whether or not to define yourself by your political or religious beliefs, as it is a choice to be "offended" when those beliefs are questioned or lampooned.

Edited February 1, 2011 by faust-yusov

[faust-yusov 103]

Dissent toward systems of authority is an essential pillar of a secular and democratic society. Hurt feelings quite rightly make scarcely a dent in that tremendous bastion of liberty.

"Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit."

- Aristotle

[JohnSmith2007 353]

You are not a person of faith so you can't understand. I can accept that, I hope that you can accept what I say is also true because it is. Peace to you.

[luckytxn 2,263]

For most religion is every waking moment and not just a one day a week thing. I personally am used to many telling me that I am this or that because of my beliefs and realize that it is their opinion and only that. I also realize how miserable those same have to be to have to be so negative to the ones that do have this joyful feeling. I have never met anyone that didn't know the joy of God in their life that didn't try to tell everyone else how the joy they felt was a wrong thing. I found out that they do this because they feel guilty in that know they are wrong and try to justify it. If they had no guilt for their lack of a faith then they would not feel the need to denigrate the ones that do.

Of course there are as many thoughts on moral issues as there are people. Many Christians think that killing an unborn child is murder and try to make laws to stop it. I myself do not like aborting a child but will not stop others from doing so. I will say a prayer for that child though as I am allowed to do so. I will not judge the person that killed that child as that is Gods place.

Funny that I was a Chemist for so long and even took Physics and worked at the Johnson space center for a few years and that almost everyone that I came in contact with was a Christian, some were Muslims and some were Hindu's and few Buddhist and everyone of them I met had no qualm at all being scientists and religious. Not one that I can recall believed in Creationism but did believe in Evolution for the most part. Even Darwin was religious and my fave scientist Einstein was Jewish. We after all are trying to make sense of our surroundings and further our knowledge to help us all. If anyone turns from God after reading Darwin then their faith was weak and would have left anyway.

[faust-yusov 103]

You are not a person of faith so you can't understand. I can accept that, I hope that you can accept what I say is also true because it is. Peace to you.

I think that you're overcomplicating the issue.

I will not speak for mawilson's other submissions, but you chastised him for his articulation of the "infinite regress" fallacy of a God/Darwin reconciliation. This is a perfectly civilized and relevant point, and those of faith should not feel vilified simply because it argues contrary to their position. Aquinas invoked regress fallacies numerous times in his famous God "proofs" without similar reprisal. This is not indignation at persecution or personal attack - it's childish hysteria at being disagreed with.

It is possible to revile religion without lambasting the religious. The former is critique, the latter is bigotry. To not be able to distinguish between the two betrays either an inherent insecurity or an emotional immaturity.

Edited February 1, 2011 by faust-yusov

[faust-yusov 103]

Funny that I was a Chemist for so long and even took Physics and worked at the Johnson space center for a few years and that almost everyone that I came in contact with was a Christian, some were Muslims and some were Hindu's and few Buddhist and everyone of them I met had no qualm at all being scientists and religious. Not one that I can recall believed in Creationism but did believe in Evolution for the most part. Even Darwin was religious and my fave scientist Einstein was Jewish. We after all are trying to make sense of our surroundings and further our knowledge to help us all. If anyone turns from God after reading Darwin then their faith was weak and would have left anyway.

Your anecdotal evidence is atypical. Not that I particularly agree with the invocation of "authority" as a persuasive device, but in the interest of full disclosure, only 7% of members of the American National Academy of Scientists profess to be of some faith, along with 3.3% of the UK's Royal Society.

Einstein was an atheist. Darwin wrestled with his faith throughout his entire life. I would hardly call him "religious".

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Einstein was an atheist.

Cite please.

Einstein once stated he was opposed to Quantum Mechanics, as he thought God would not have created the universe as a "####### shoot".

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I think that you're overcomplicating the issue.

I will not speak for mawilson's other submissions, but you chastised him for his articulation of the "infinite regress" fallacy of a God/Darwin reconciliation. This is a perfectly civilized and relevant point, and those of faith should not feel vilified simply because it argues contrary to their position. Aquinas invoked regress fallacies numerous times in his famous God "proofs" without similar reprisal. This is not indignation at persecution or personal attack - it's childish hysteria at being disagreed with.

It is possible to revile religion without lambasting the religious. The former is critique, the latter is bigotry. To not be able to distinguish between the two betrays either an inherent insecurity or an emotional immaturity.

A critique? Ok, if that is what you want to call it. And your assessment that I am somehow insecure or immature? I guess you have a right to your opinion then. I doubt anyone can call my conversations childish hysteria and if that is what you see in my posts I think that betrays your lack of security. Maybe you are accusing me of something you are secretly worried about yourself? As for me I am very secure in my beliefs. I was just trying to convey the hurt others may feel at your lack of understanding of what it means to truly believe in God.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Cite please.

Einstein once stated he was opposed to Quantum Mechanics, as he thought God would not have created the universe as a "####### shoot".

Exactly. And the book I just read about Darwin says he had no problem at all with his religious views but there were many who attacked him and said he did.

I will need to see a citation that says so few scientists are non believers and a link will do. And not just one society where there are just one out of a thousand scientists belong to.

[Amby 490]

soooo...ummm...everyone knows that science can't actually "prove" anything...right? no one has ever actually said this on here but I can elaborate if anyone cares

[The_Dude 1,142]

soooo...ummm...everyone knows that science can't actually "prove" anything...right? no one has ever actually said this on here but I can elaborate if anyone cares

Please do. Start with subjects beginning with A.....