Attacking academic freedom? Hardly. When supposed scientists stop thinking along the lines of scientific inquiry, then they should no longer be regarded as scientists. They should continue their journey along their new chosen path of academia: theology. I'm sure that these fine academics would be seriously considered for tenure in the theology departments at the institutions in question, where they rightfully belong.
New Ben Stein Flick, Expelled, Blows the Whistle on the Darwinist Inquisition
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Another argument from flatulence from a parishioner of the Holy Church of Darwinism...
It is bad enough that we see the swift boating by the klannish, the repeated logical fallacy filled dribble from the likes of Bush/Cheney/Hannity/Coulter/Limbaugh et al junta as they try to utilize such absolute nonsense in their "the liberals are emboldening the enemy" simply because they criticize the administration, but when we see the same type of tactics from someone who claims to be logical and rational, it is clear that the exposed nerve of blind following of the non empirical beliefs in Darwinism are being dangerously threatened.
It is bad enough that we see the swift boating by the klannish, the repeated logical fallacy filled dribble from the likes of Bush/Cheney/Hannity/Coulter/Limbaugh et al junta as they try to utilize such absolute nonsense in their "the liberals are emboldening the enemy" simply because they criticize the administration, but when we see the same type of tactics from someone who claims to be logical and rational, it is clear that the exposed nerve of blind following of the non empirical beliefs in Darwinism are being dangerously threatened.
Try reading more. Try the "Skeptic/Skeptical Inquirer" magazines. They walk around with a singular focus at banging on every nail that disagrees with scientific process and methods as the template for all things. Religion/Deity is only one example. They wander from paranormal to Yeti sitings to many others.
The scientific community regularly discuss strategies aimed at unseating religious belief and practice ("ignorance" in their eyes), especially in the schools. The basic aim is to bring people to the scientific viewpoint. There are even "extremists" who discuss trying to find ways to win support for atheism in society, with a goal of taking on/unseating religious influence. In other words, the scientific paradigm is the best explanation, the pinnacle. All others are considered somewhat down in the valley.
In ancient Israel, the Roman govt. representative demanded of a Jewish rabbi, "Show me your God!" and the rabbi said "Look into the Sun." and the rep said "I cannot do this!" and the rabbi said, "you want to look into the face of God, yet you cannot even look into something He formed?"
I would like science to try one thing. Since it now seems we live in an 11 dimensional universe (multiverse, perhaps). Answer this: For 1 dimension, we have the X axis (normally, horizontal). For 2 dimensions, we have the Y axis (normally, vertical), For 3 dimensions, we have the Z axis (normally, "coming out of the board"). Where do we put the axis for the 4th dimension? The 5th? etc...
I have heard it said that the quickest way to convert most religious people is to have them read the bible from cover to cover. Among other tidbits it includes instruction on stoning undisciplined children and killing those who work on the Sabbath. And what was that about God's killing every Egyptian's first born during some period or other? Yeah, those are the morals and standards you want to live and be governed by, symbolically or otherwise. Oh, and then there's Noah and his boat...that's always been one of my favorites. What scientist could possibly dispute Noah's lark?
your favorite trader, larry williams, other activities include searching for the ark--- i believe there is a book about this out there......
surf
"Favorite trader," eh?
We both know he is a charlatan without peer.
The ark story only confirms my suspicions about him. How hard could it be to find a boat that held at least two of every living species on the planet? And remember, it had to be large enough for them to at least move around a bit as well as store the food they would require for their blessed journey. And let's not even talk about waste management and disposal during the trip. You'd think that someone would have found that little rowboat by now, eh?
Would that be a sampling of that ad hominem that you habitually accuse everyone else of engaging in? Careful, Z, your spirituality is showing. As for my post that you quoted, you may not like it, but it is sadly true. The parties may not be interchangeable, but the parallel is unmistakable.
A strawman fallacy may point to something true in its attempt to divert from the matter at hand, but it is none the less wholly fallacious in its nature with respect to the point that is under attack by the strawman strategy.
Geez, you are are emotionally and illogically driven as those theists you persecute.
Imagine that...you are acting just like the neocon klannish and the republicans.
I guess you too must have major control issues...I guess that's why you wet yourself publicly so frequently.
Geez, you are are emotionally and illogically driven as those theists you persecute.
Imagine that...you are acting just like the neocon klannish and the republicans.
I guess you too must have major control issues...I guess that's why you wet yourself publicly so frequently.
OK, at least we are in agreement that theists are emotionally and illogically driven. Let's quit while we're both ahead.
Theists don't deny their personal faith, they admit they employ faith in their personal lives. However, that is no evidence that they necessarily color their world view when it comes to scientific matters with that personal faith nor is there proof they all of them are on a mission to convert others to their personal faith. Your comparison to the Taliban was a ridiculously scurrilous analogy that emulates the bottom feeders like Karl Rove.
You on the other hand demonstrate emotionalism and theist like faith in Darwinism, which any educated person knows that Darwinism is not an empirical science.
So, who is the hypocrite?
I am not surprised that after someone points out that you wet yourself the way you did that you want to "quit."
Quit while your behind is publicly soiled, fined by me.
You on the other hand demonstrate emotionalism and theist like faith in Darwinism, which any educated person knows that Darwinism is not an empirical science.
So, who is the hypocrite?
I am not surprised that after someone points out that you wet yourself the way you did that you want to "quit."
Quit while your behind is publicly soiled, fined by me.