Pat,
If you honestly are trying to be a humble seeker of the truth, then why fight against kids seeing evidence that you don't agree with? You are so against censorship in other areas, but when it comes to evolution, you wouldn't allow school kids to see physical evidence that appears to disagree with YOUR position.
I honestly want to know how you reconcile these stances you've taken.
Excellent article. And it is true that many atheists have a kneejerk retaliatory reaction to religionists.
While I often feel it's justified, it is almost never productive.
Cheers.
We are just allergic to the willful stupidity of fundamentalists like M. and Tim(insert name here).
You have to admit there isn't much point in trying to have a rationale dialogue with a creationist like that. They simply aren't rational enough for it to EVER be productive. I think it's better to just expose them as the morons that they are. Fixing/improving education in this country would go a long way towards exterminating some of the rampant psedo-science/mysticism as well.
Yes Boosterz, by all means, keep it up!
Karen Armstrong makes it pretty clear in her various books that shes an atheist. It would be nice to think some religious people had her rational aproach but it's not so.
It has been said before and needs to be said again and again. Science is nontheistic, not theistic or atheistic. Science is a system of rational thought, not a religion. Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural (if the latter even exists). Believers and non-believers alike can do science, because science doesn't care which you are and your application of the method of science to the natural world won't distinguish one of you from the other.
Wow, that is the longest post I've ever seen on RSR. This blog is one of the reasons I haven't completely ruled out the possibility of returning to my home state. That and the shopping on Mass St. in Lawrence.
Too simplistic Dave ... what about when science studies prayer or ghosts?
Simplistic and creationism DO sound like two words that go together don't they? 
Are you telling us your a ghostbuster now M.? It IS possible I would laugh until I cried if I imagined you wearing a pair of overalls and sporting a home made plasma streamer on your back...
"aKevin Nyberg of Garden City Kansas can answer these questions.
But why does a man of his talent work in a wasteland like that/
some little boys know."
tiama | 02.27.06 - 2:05 pm |
Yes, they do. These were little boys (and girls) who grew up to be nuclear engineers, botanists, research biologists, astrophysicists, dentists, physicians, lawyers, ministers, literary scholars, writers, film-makers, military intelligence officers, and diplomats, just to name a few.
In my own way, I helped them do things like compose English prose with more efficiency than the pos(t)er's innuendo-laden semi-literate screed above. It appeared to have helped them escape their fairly backwater origins.
To which one might legitimately ask this language-challenged pos(t)er: so, how well are YOU situated for the next five years?
I would disagree about Athens (of the past) as the home of "rational thought" (Democratus and his skeptics were from Iona, though on a different part of the island were the mystics that would influence significantly Socratic thought).
For all of the logic that Aristotle codified, he was still a mystic putting the perfection of thought ahead of the factual evidence (and a strong supporting source for the geocentric model for quite some time). He truly believed that just thinking (logically) about something was enough, never bothering to realize that all the logic of his conclusions mean nothing if the premise and axioms he build it on were (evidentially) wrong.
Plato for his republic and the reasons behind it, still wrote with no evidence at all about Atlantis, setting off the pseudoscience of that place's reality that we still have to contend with among the credulus.
On the other side, the mysticism that dominated christian thought for 1500 years was an artifact of the fall of Rome and the loss of decent education and communication for the better part of 200 years, than having anything to do with a Jerusalem of the imagination they'd never seen. Neither Jesus, John, nor Paul's writings ever insisteded on the literalism that held the church 'til Copernicus (and would come back at different times in various protestant churches ever since), nor did St. Augustine.
The ignorance that infected the church of Rome in its isolation was entirely its own.
In short, I believe both metaphores to be historically innacurate and not terribly useful.
Great post, Pat. This is a discussion that keeps repeating, but it's an important discussion and bears repeating.
Dave wrote: Science is the study of the natural world, not the supernatural (if the latter even exists).
M responded: Too simplistic Dave ... what about when science studies prayer or ghosts?
I ascribe to the KISS principle. Applying the scientific method to "prayer and ghosts" is possible, of course. So what about it? Science is still about natural phenomena. If "prayer or ghosts" can be explained by science, its natural basis will be understood and the supernatural will still be speculation.
You seem a bid defensive there, Pat. No need though; there is a big difference between you and PZ and the likes of Dawkins (I haven't read anything by Dennet). Whereas Dawkins is perfectly comfortable weaving his philosophical ideas into his science writing, you and PZ do not do that.
Of COURSE atheists should be a part of this discussion. The tireless passion you guys have on the issue is absolutely essential. Believers like me are too complacent to stop the shennanigans of the fundies on our own.
Great post Pat, thanks. I find myself in full agreement - yes there are some "dangers" or "difficulties" in that folks like Dawkins make easy targets for the Fundies to say "see - you have to choose"
but by no means should atheist have to hide your beliefs - it's not like the fundies wouldn't invent foils anyway. The key, as you indidcate, is to make clear the distinction between the science and the the metaphysical conclusions drawn.
Personally I find the more I learn of biology, physics, chemistry, and astronomy, the more connected I feel with God's creation. I'm perfectly comfortable if you and others think I'm a loon for that - doesn't make a bit of difference in how we build a telescope or document observable data.
Kuna, FO.
You fling your poo without even the guts to show your 'face' in the light.
Take your issues elsewhere - and get back on your meds.
I think "Kuna" and its "issues" have crossed the line. Pat should delete those posts, and ban the pos(t)er's ISP.
It has transgressed the bounds of civil discourse, and should not be allowed to continue its unsubstantiated mudslinging.
It would also be nice to reveal the pos(t)er's identity, so appropriate legal action may be taken.
Or he could just post the IP address here....
RSR has never banned anyone before, but we agree with KDN that this "person" has crossed the line of civil discourse. We banned them earlier today.
I got a funny feeling that means no more posts from "tim". 
Super post, Pat. Thanks again for refusing to paint all believers with the same brush.
I just happened to be in the neighborhood, very much enjoyed this post. Only one quibble:
Since nonbelievers make up an infinitesimally small portion of the population
Not really. According to this USA Today Survey (which I find endlessly fascinating), even in Kansas "no religion" is 15% of the population. Atheists & agnostics are everywhere a much, *much* larger segment of the US population than non-Christian religions, but receive a level of disrespect that we do not expect any religious group to tolerate.
Commenting by HaloScan
