[Message Deleted]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
digital man wrote:
anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
In your opinion.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
John Carson wrote:
Among members of the (US) National Academy of Science just 7% believed in a personal God (restrictively defined, it must be conceded) and only 7.9% believed in personal immortality. For scientists in general, the figure was 40% for both questions --- way below the figures for the population at large.
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
No, there was no hijacking. People have risen to the top of the scientific community on merit and those people overwhelming reject Christianity --- also on its merits.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So you admit that the scientific community has been hijacked by anti-christian zealots. I suspected as much.
No, there was no hijacking. People have risen to the top of the scientific community on merit and those people overwhelming reject Christianity --- also on its merits.
John Carson
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly. Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly. Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly.
"In part"? So it has a weight of 1/2 of 1 percent in decision making? Maybe. However, in the physical sciences (unlike in, say, sociology or English literature), the premium on analytical brilliance is too high for personal idiosyncrasies to count for much.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, of course, there is absolutely no possibility that those who have gained control of the decision making authority in the scientific community define merit, at least in part, as the rejection of and open hostilitiy towards Christianity, and promote from within accordingly.
"In part"? So it has a weight of 1/2 of 1 percent in decision making? Maybe. However, in the physical sciences (unlike in, say, sociology or English literature), the premium on analytical brilliance is too high for personal idiosyncrasies to count for much.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because we all know that a community as refined and intelligent as the scientific community could never suffer from precisely the same drift towards intellectual inbreeding that all other such insular communities suffer from.
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
Or hard working, or honest, or dedicated - as are all walks of American life, and is ultimately the source of our greatness. But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work. It reamins an insular community. Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might negatively impact his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard. It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product. I think most of the institutions that define western civiliation have, in fact, become flagrantly anti-christian more as a by-product of the dynamics of internal population migration than because of any social revolution in the actually culture. -- modified at 9:55 Saturday 7th April, 2007 -- modified at 9:56 Saturday 7th April, 2007
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
No use argueing with these people on religion. Their commitment to its eradication is unconditional. It is much more effective to require them to define an alternative. Ultimately, all they have is the inane "well, all of us have a moral code. Its in our genes. We don't need no stinking religion!"
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will notm triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
Absolutely. Regardless of all reasoned arguments to the contrary, you simply cannot surgically remove religion from civilization as though it were some kind of vestigial organ no longer of any use. It is a vital part of any healthy cultural entity.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
since he was clearly smarter than most of us
In your opinion. Just because some historical characters believed in your god is not proof that god exists. Bottom line, you simply can't prove god exists and, even if you could, so what? Is your god so feeble that it requires worship to make it feel like a god whilst it allows children to die of starvation or causes floods to wipe out thousands of innocent people? That is not a god, should it be proved to exist, that will ever gain my respect; it's certainly done nothing to deserve it. Further, I would never worship the unseen: how foolish and childlike: anything worthy of worship should have the courage and wit to show itself.
God doesn't care what you think. Having said that, human's mistakes and sufferings are our and natures all part of life. Just because you do not think life is fair and disagree with what you see, does not negate God's existence.
There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals. Web - Blog - RSS - Math
-
John Carson wrote:
Check out the national and ethnic diversity in top ranking US university departments. They are open to anyone who is brilliant.
Or hard working, or honest, or dedicated - as are all walks of American life, and is ultimately the source of our greatness. But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work. It reamins an insular community. Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might negatively impact his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard. It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product. I think most of the institutions that define western civiliation have, in fact, become flagrantly anti-christian more as a by-product of the dynamics of internal population migration than because of any social revolution in the actually culture. -- modified at 9:55 Saturday 7th April, 2007 -- modified at 9:56 Saturday 7th April, 2007
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work.
My understanding of academic selection processes in the US (I can only speak with real knowledge concerning economics departments, but I suspect that it is true across the board) is that, unlike in many other countries, it is a very democratic process of selection by the academic staff. The "academic bureaucratic infrastructure" doesn't get much of a look in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might reflected negatively on his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard.
From what I have seen of academic life, most academics just don't care what your religious beliefs are. What they care about is how well you do your job. Most aren't religious and may regard those who are as a little strange, but being a little strange in one respect or another is normal in academic life.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product.
Interesting. A documentary has just aired on Australian TV on how being openly gay is a real drag on the career of a man, exhibit A being Rupert Everett. Going back a little, why was Rock Hudson in the closet his entire career? A "homosexual centric intellectual world view"? A tiny percentage of Hollywood films have homosexuals as lead characters. What does seem to be true is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among creative people. Industries that depend on creative people (which includes the software industry) tend to be more tolerant toward homosexuals than are other industries.
John Carson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
Beware of overgeneralising based on your own back yard:
According to recent findings by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 59 percent of Americans identified religion as an important part of their lives. In contrast, 11 percent of the French, 14 percent of Russians and 33 percent of Britons said religion was important to them.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200307%5CCUL20030716b.html[^]
John Carson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
Beware of overgeneralising based on your own back yard:
According to recent findings by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, sponsored by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 59 percent of Americans identified religion as an important part of their lives. In contrast, 11 percent of the French, 14 percent of Russians and 33 percent of Britons said religion was important to them.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200307%5CCUL20030716b.html[^]
John Carson
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Anselm of Canterbury Nicholas Copernicus Sir Francis Bacon Johanes Kepler Galileo Galilei
you really do have to be cautious about using the men as examples of belief in God, since their location of birth required them to believe in God, or die at the hands of the Church. Those who did not die, believed in God, therefore those who lived are proof of God? Although the straw man argument presented in the parody thread was a parody, you are in fact only perpetuating the same. "Copernicus died in 1543 and was never to know what a stir his work had caused. It went against the philosophical and religious beliefs that had been held during the medieval times. Man, it was believed (and still believed by some) was made by God in His image, man was the next thing to God, and, as such, superior, especially in his best part, his soul, to all creatures, indeed this part was not even part of the natural world (a philosophy which has proved disastrous to the earth's environment as any casual observer of the 20th century might confirm by simply looking about). Copernicus' theories might well lead men to think that they are simply part of nature and not superior to it and that ran counter to the theories of the politically powerful churchmen of the time. Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days." So it is difficult to use any person within the time frame of certain parts of history as proof of God's existence. You can come up with an equal number of Buddhist and Hindu scientists that have added to the combined knowledge of the modern age, therefore you can provide equal proof of other religions. All the argument ulti
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
First, homosexuality is not a doctrine. I'm not even sure how even a view through the distorted lens of religion could lead you to believe that it is a doctrine. Maybe you don't know what the word "doctrine" means. Also, while from the viewpoint of a Christian, atheism may be certainly be "perverse" in the less common usage -- "marked by a disposition to oppose or contradict" -- I'm thinking that you probably intend it to mean "marked by immorality," or "deviating from what is considered right or proper or good." In that case, you would also be mistaken, and I would suggest you invest in a good dictionary.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But that is not something that necessarily will be reflected in the academic bureaucratic infrastructure in which they work.
My understanding of academic selection processes in the US (I can only speak with real knowledge concerning economics departments, but I suspect that it is true across the board) is that, unlike in many other countries, it is a very democratic process of selection by the academic staff. The "academic bureaucratic infrastructure" doesn't get much of a look in.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Once a certain intellectual orientation becomes invested in its leadership the community itself will always tend to reflect that orientation. If he knows it might reflected negatively on his employment opportunities, even the most brilliant scientist might be as reluctant to confess a belief in God as he would to admit to seeing a UFO even if one actually landed in his backyard.
From what I have seen of academic life, most academics just don't care what your religious beliefs are. What they care about is how well you do your job. Most aren't religious and may regard those who are as a little strange, but being a little strange in one respect or another is normal in academic life.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is preicsely the same phenomenon that occurs in Hollywood, an industry that has adopted a homosexual centric intellectual world view. Homosexuality may be a very small percentage of the customer base or the workers, but that orientation nevertheless becomes a dominant theme of their product.
Interesting. A documentary has just aired on Australian TV on how being openly gay is a real drag on the career of a man, exhibit A being Rupert Everett. Going back a little, why was Rock Hudson in the closet his entire career? A "homosexual centric intellectual world view"? A tiny percentage of Hollywood films have homosexuals as lead characters. What does seem to be true is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among creative people. Industries that depend on creative people (which includes the software industry) tend to be more tolerant toward homosexuals than are other industries.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
My understanding of academic selection processes in the US (I can only speak with real knowledge concerning economics departments, but I suspect that it is true across the board) is that, unlike in many other countries, it is a very democratic process of selection by the academic staff. The "academic bureaucratic infrastructure" doesn't get much of a look in.
John Carson wrote:
From what I have seen of academic life, most academics just don't care what your religious beliefs are. What they care about is how well you do your job. Most aren't religious and may regard those who are as a little strange, but being a little strange in one respect or another is normal in academic life.
All of that may very well be true. But the scientific community is ultimately not a democratic one. Just as with any such professional community there are those who advance and those who don't, and there is a process by which such advancement occurs. As brilliant as they may be they are still people and have all the frailties of people. You cannot argue that scientists of the past may have professed a belief in God because their community expected it of them, and than turn around and say that precisely the same thing could not be happening today in reverse.
John Carson wrote:
Interesting. A documentary has just aired on Australian TV on how being openly gay is a real drag on the career of a man, exhibit A being Rupert Everett. Going back a little, why was Rock Hudson in the closet his entire career?
Are you certain that program was not produced by Gays? Frankly, I've never met a poor gay person, or even an unemployed one for that matter. All of the overtly gay people I have ever known were doing quite well.
John Carson wrote:
What does seem to be true is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among creative people. Industries that depend on creative people (which includes the software industry) tend to be more tolerant toward homosexuals than are other industries.
And you don't find that just a little suspecious? Show me any evidence at all that homosexuals are actually more creative than straight people. Go to any modern art exhibit and tell me that what you find there actually represents any sort of creativity that anyone could have produced - bu
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
First, homosexuality is not a doctrine. I'm not even sure how even a view through the distorted lens of religion could lead you to believe that it is a doctrine. Maybe you don't know what the word "doctrine" means. Also, while from the viewpoint of a Christian, atheism may be certainly be "perverse" in the less common usage -- "marked by a disposition to oppose or contradict" -- I'm thinking that you probably intend it to mean "marked by immorality," or "deviating from what is considered right or proper or good." In that case, you would also be mistaken, and I would suggest you invest in a good dictionary.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I believe that homosexuality itself is perverse and sterile and repugnant to most people, and that any doctrine that says otherwise will also be found to be perverse, sterile, and repugnant to most people.
I am not homosexual, and I am a Christian, and yet I find most western religions to be perverse, sterile, and repugnant in both doctrine and practice.
The Grand Negus wrote:
You're closer on this one. I think that a normal human perspective includes concepts such as "necessary and sufficient causes" and that psychologically healthy humans require some kind of meaning in their lives. Atheism deprives a man of both of these and is therefore a perverse and sterile doctrine (or position, or belief, or conclusion, or whatever term you like).
I think pretty much all atheists would disagree with you. They would claim a clearer understanding of "necessary and sufficient causes", and I'm quite sure feel that their lives are full of meaning. However, these are personal and subjective spiritual beliefs we're talking about, so it really doesn't matter. You have your truth, I have mine, and they have theirs.
-
There's only one problem with that last of names. With the exception of Newton, it's unlikely that I could sit down and drink beer with anyone of them and enjoy a good game of 9 ball or billiards with any of them. Oh and one more thing. Your list of noble minds excludes half the population of the world because you have no female minds listed. You sir are an idiot for not including them as well. :zzz:
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
-
John Carson wrote:
My understanding of academic selection processes in the US (I can only speak with real knowledge concerning economics departments, but I suspect that it is true across the board) is that, unlike in many other countries, it is a very democratic process of selection by the academic staff. The "academic bureaucratic infrastructure" doesn't get much of a look in.
John Carson wrote:
From what I have seen of academic life, most academics just don't care what your religious beliefs are. What they care about is how well you do your job. Most aren't religious and may regard those who are as a little strange, but being a little strange in one respect or another is normal in academic life.
All of that may very well be true. But the scientific community is ultimately not a democratic one. Just as with any such professional community there are those who advance and those who don't, and there is a process by which such advancement occurs. As brilliant as they may be they are still people and have all the frailties of people. You cannot argue that scientists of the past may have professed a belief in God because their community expected it of them, and than turn around and say that precisely the same thing could not be happening today in reverse.
John Carson wrote:
Interesting. A documentary has just aired on Australian TV on how being openly gay is a real drag on the career of a man, exhibit A being Rupert Everett. Going back a little, why was Rock Hudson in the closet his entire career?
Are you certain that program was not produced by Gays? Frankly, I've never met a poor gay person, or even an unemployed one for that matter. All of the overtly gay people I have ever known were doing quite well.
John Carson wrote:
What does seem to be true is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among creative people. Industries that depend on creative people (which includes the software industry) tend to be more tolerant toward homosexuals than are other industries.
And you don't find that just a little suspecious? Show me any evidence at all that homosexuals are actually more creative than straight people. Go to any modern art exhibit and tell me that what you find there actually represents any sort of creativity that anyone could have produced - bu
Stan Shannon wrote:
You cannot argue that scientists of the past may have professed a belief in God because their community expected it of them, and than turn around and say that precisely the same thing could not be happening today in reverse.
In the first place, I referred to the broader community, not the community of scientists. In the US, it is still the case that the broader community is, at least nominally, overwhelmingly Christian. Moroever, a recent survey showed that atheists (compared to gays, Muslims and various others) are the most distrusted minority group in America. I also never claimed that the effect of the broader community was because "the community exapected it of them". To a large extent, it is a case of growing up with certain beliefs which become the default that many people basically just accept.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Are you certain that program was not produced by Gays?
No, I am not. But please list for me some leading male actors who are out-of-the-closet gays and provide an estimate of what proportion of leading male actors they represent. I figure 0% would be pretty close.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And you don't find that just a little suspecious? Show me any evidence at all that homosexuals are actually more creative than straight people.
Here is a straw in the wind http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0205.florida.html[^] Gays make up a disproportionate share of a number of creative occupations, notably fashion and dance and, we seem to agree, people involved in motion pictures. This seems to date back to times when being homosexual was so shocking that people were reluctant to use the word in polite conversation and where homosexuality was illegal. It is hardly credible that such a disadvantaged minority group should have been so successful in gaining prominence in multiple fields unless they had an advantage in talent.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I think there is ample evidence that all of these professional communities, from science, to art, to academia, to the legal profession, and on and on, are suffering from extreme intellectual inbreeding. T
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
First, let me clarify. I wasn't suggesting that homosexuality and atheism are perverse and sterile because most people find them repugnant; I was suggesting that most people find these doctrines repugnant because they are, in fact, perverse and sterile.
Yes, I got that, obnoxious though it is.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now, regarding your poll data. Only 11 percent of the French, you say, identify "religion as an important part of their lives"; yet almost all of them would find it objectionable if I arbitrarily slapped one of them in the face. Why? On what grounds? Scientific? No. Genetic? No. They would object on moral grounds, indicating that they both recognize and accept a more-or-less universal, objective moral standard that cannot be derived from materialistic atheism. Religion plays a more important part in their lives than they know; their words say one thing, but their actions say something else - loud and clear.
Let me see now:
The Grand Negus wrote:
The eradication of religion does appear to be on the agenda. But like homosexuality, atheism is repugnant to most people. Both doctrines are perverse and sterile; they will not triumph, in the end, for those very reasons.
It seems you speak out of both sides of your mouth and the word "religion" takes on a different meaning each time. The sure indicator of a charlatan.
John Carson