Humanist Crusading

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Democracy cannot survive religious indoctrination because it creates second class citizens. Religion is tax exempt, and it’s proceeds are increasingly used to fund political campaigns and lobbies of dogmatic nature. Christianity has long ceased to be one individual’s private opinion. That's why Dawkins is speaking out against organised religion.

Religion and science are mutually exclusive. They both make claims about the same realm, even if religion tries to deny such. Yes, Dawkins does get involved in topics outside of science, and he is reaching a wider audience with some of his writing. Contrary to your claims, he did not leave ethology nor evolutionary biology, and to this day is a respected and highly regarded scientist in the field. Not everyone agrees with his theories, but no scientist enjoys unanimous backing.

Wow, such off the wall crap. Two suggestions.

One, do your homework before posting.

Two, try to at least impersonate a rational person. Suggesting that religion and science cannot peacefully co-exist, for example, is plain-as-day hogwash. A lot of scientists are religious people, and they separate the two. The Bible does not make claims about science, and science does not make claims about the supernatural.

[chicgeek]

Originally Posted by John Scott

The Bible does not make claims about science, and science does not make claims about the supernatural.

Most definitely incorrect. Shows, books, theses, courses, lectures, movies have all approached the supernatural and tried to explain it scientifically. Succeeded to some degree, depending on the topic. (Hell, I just watched an hour show last week on the plagues and how they each could have been directly caused by a volcanic eruption and its effects.)

Also, creationism. Creationism is a religious claim on scientific matter. Plain and simple.

Now... back to the original topic of this thread, which I haven't really been following anyway.

[bytech]

Religious belief in the circles of prominent scientists is in the low single digit percentages (unless you get your stats from 'University' of Liberty or the Templeton Organization - I'm sure they have a more imaginative take). One of the very few high profile biologists whom is also religious is Collin Francis (director of the human genome project). Collin Francis is considered an oddity among scientists... Your comment of "a lot of scientists" is inaccurate. Few scientists? Sure. A lot? A definite no.

Organised religion and science cannot coexist as long as organised religion makes claims about how the world got here, and how everyone should live their lives. Unlike in the bible, in real life you cannot have two creation stories (Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 claim that man was created on different days, but you know that already ). Either we came from a sadomasochistic God whom wants us to worship him, remain abstinent until married, let the people of Africa die from AIDS sooner than provide them condoms, or, we evolved and need not worry about such an awful character being at the helm.

Religion as in personal spirituality, ah, there my friend we can agree that religion and science can coexist. These days, on an organisational level Christianity is more about politics than being spirituality, and that's why the backlash against religion from the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dannet, Hitchins, and the Rational Response Squad (RRS).

[John Scott]

Shows, books, theses, courses, lectures, movies have all approached the supernatural and tried to explain it scientifically.

By definition, Laura, the supernatural is beyond the explanation of nature.

Supernatural being defined as outside the explanation of science.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Religious belief in the circles of prominent scientists is in the low single digit percentages

Talking out your ass again?

In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God.

That would be 40%.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/featu...034872,00.html

[bytech]

Here is a recent and prominent example of 'bible making scientific claims':
New (creationistic) Musem says dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. Pics from this awful piece of deception at http://studentweb.eku.edu/zachary_ly...eum/index.html

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Here is a recent and prominent example of 'bible making scientific claims

Please quote the chapter and verse where the Bible makes a scientific claim. You are not a moron, so I assume you know the difference between the Bible and some believers of a religion.

Or... you did think that Dawkins was a scientist, so maybe you are a moron...

[chicgeek]

Originally Posted by John Scott

By definition, Laura, the supernatural is beyond the explanation of nature.

Supernatural being defined as outside the explanation of science.

That's not to be said the attempt hasn't been made, m'dear. It implies that thus far absolutely conclusions have not been made.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by chicgeek

That's not to be said the attempt hasn't been made, m'dear. It implies that thus far absolutely conclusions have not been made.

Some people will always try to explain non-science in scientific terms - idiots. But better to be an idiot than a bigoted, intolerant schmuck like Dawkins and his followers.

[G10]

Originally Posted by chicgeek

(Hell, I just watched an hour show last week on the plagues and how they each could have been directly caused by a volcanic eruption and its effects.)

I read up about the scientific version of events on a website.

Moses and Aaron were pretty much on the ball then

I mean, they would have walked into Egypt, asked for their people to be set free, Pharaoh said 'No way' and then a volcano went off causing all the ten plagues.

Oh, and as they left, they were chased by the Egyptians and the Red Sea just happened to be parted due to volcanic activity which allowed them to pass an closed just as Pharaoh got in there.

It would be more believable if it claimed that Richard Dawkins went back in a time capsule and rescued them.

[bytech]

In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God.
[...]
That would be 40%.

Note that I was referring to prominent scientists. "The 1998 Larson-Witham study which replicated Leuba's work found "Personal belief" in a deity at only 7%, while "Personal disbelief" had risen to 72.2%, and "Doubt or Agnosticism" to 20.8%." (Larson & Witham).

[John Scott]

Note that I was referring to prominent scientists.

How many prominent scientists? 4? 5? 12?

And that poll you refer to did not poll prominent scientists, it polled members of the NAS.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by G10

I read up about the scientific version of events on a website.

Moses and Aaron were pretty much on the ball then

I mean, they would have walked into Egypt, asked for their people to be set free, Pharaoh said 'No way' and then a volcano went off causing all the ten plagues.

Oh, and as they left, they were chased by the Egyptians and the Red Sea just happened to be parted due to volcanic activity which allowed them to pass an closed just as Pharaoh got in there.

It would be more believable if it claimed that Richard Dawkins went back in a time capsule and rescued them.

Correlation does not equal causation. That, and the fact that personal anecdotes are not proof of anything (other than someone experienced something). Simply, humans naturally personalise events and tend to square facts to a story, rather than telling a story on facts. One of the reasons we as humans have not evolved out of religion.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by bytech

Correlation does not equal causation. That, and the fact that personal anecdotes are not proof of anything (other than someone experienced something). Simply, humans naturally personalise events and tend to square facts to a story, rather than telling a story on facts. One of the reasons we as humans have not evolved out of religion.

What is your point? Specifically, what is this in response to:

Correlation does not equal causation.

[bytech]

Originally Posted by John Scott

How many prominent scientists? 4? 5? 12?

And that poll you refer to did not poll prominent scientists, it polled members of the NAS.

Your poll was conducted on US scientists only. If we get into such semantics, I'm afraid mud flinging and boring stat quoting is all we'll get out of this thread.

The point: Dawkins is telling us what evidence is pointing towards. There is as much evidence for YahWeh as there is for the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Thor, Allah, <insert your own god>. Religion is by definition superstition, and when its proponents are shaping world agenda and attitudes, religion becomes dangerous. Last thing we can afford with today's weapons is the kind of mindset present during the Inquisitions.

[John Scott]

Simply, humans naturally personalise events and tend to square facts to a story, rather than telling a story on facts.

True.

One of the reasons we as humans have not evolved out of religion.

The statement does not support the conclusion. You would like to dress up your bigotry and intolerance as science, but science doesn't support your conclusions. Your bigotry and intolerance remains naked.