Dawkins defends comments about "Alien Designers".

So, no evidence of rising discrimination? Thats good to know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How many scientists you know declare themselves to be theists?

How many chairs? deans? department heads?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Question: why should they?
i know of quite a number of physicists that are christians, but frankly, but as it is a private matter I only know that because I have talked to them in private. While we are at it, how many scientists have declared themselves to be gay, vegan, D&D or, even worse, Counterstrike gamers? And who cares?
But according to surveys I recall that in the US the majority of physicists declared themselves to be religious at some level, the reverse was true for biologists and chemists guy were in-between.
The numbers are higher even in most social sciences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Off topic posts moved

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=79084

Hmm so you do not think that there is discrimination against theists in the sciences?

How many declare themselves as atheists?

 

You appear to be claiming that even the attempt to argue the thesis Dawkins is arguing is invalid.

You can't compare the different "end points" of various models ? Why not ?

He is doing neither one of those things, as far as I have read.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, though. This "different end points" stuff is confusing.

I'm not sure what you think Dawkins is asserting as "science" that does not involve obsevation, testing, and replication.

So is Dawkins allowed to do that or not ?

Bullshit.

About the same number who "declare themselves" to be atheist - very few.

There is discrimination against the ones who employ theistic explanations of natural phenomena - such as human morals, if morals are the subject under investigation. But theists who do not employ deity in their theories face no special obstacles that I can see - quite the opposite: there are many employers of scientists who favor certain religious beliefs.

I don't see the slip. Probably the other "evolutionists" don't either. Where is the slip ?

 

I'm saying that Dawkins is using his position to promote his faith by associating it with science.

 

Darwin also found his discoveries challenging to his faith. So did most of his critics.

 

Did he start an evangelical movement over it?

 

He had better things to do, like figuring out how we were really created.

 

What faith is that Sam?

You could also make that statement a forum topic here.

I doubt you would, though. :fright:

 

I rarely argue with fundies.

But as for faith?

Here

 

Not really. But, he did pen a bible.

 

It's a fact that science discovered a powerful principle in our world that robbed religion of one of it's main explanatory purposes.

 

Pffft... You don't have the nerve. You'd get spanked and sent off tail tucked twixt yer hind legs. :spank:

 

No, I find no reason to rob someone of their reason for living. Fundies tend to be very unstable.

 

So what faith is that, that needs to be purposefully associated with science ?

From what I have read, Dawkins promotes nothing in particular but science itself, and evolutionary theory specifically. Any faith involved there would not need associating with science.

He attacks theism, in some of his writings - - -

So why is it that fundies are so fragile, think you, that we must tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities ?

 

Forget it. Iceaura just dont seem to get it.

 

[ENC]New Atheism[/ENC]

Thats how the Nazis started, with a theory about some people being more equal than others.

Some? It seems to be all he does these days.

No idea, I don't pretend to understand what drives people like Dawkins or Wilders.

 

That's how the Nazis started? By daring to question What Must Not be Questioned? Give me a freaking break.

 

No by making distinctions between people based on assumptions.