|
MsPerduta (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@YehiaYMishriki You should read the RDF mission statement.Sadly they engender at least as much fundamentalism, ignorance and intolerance as any other religion ever did and the evidence is right here on their own channel.
YehiaYMishriki (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
It is one thing to not believe in God. That is every individual's right. However, one does not have the right to denigrate the beliefs of others. It's uncalled for and takes away from the talk.
MsPerduta (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@bobslifeanimation While most atheists believe in science, science don't believe in atheism
bobslifeanimation (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I thought Scientology and atheism were different? However most ( maybe all) atheists believe in science so what's the difference between the two now?
MsPerduta (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@DJockovic1 For 2000 years religion has been abused as a means to obtain political power.These atheist frauds are trying to pretend atheism is scientific.It is not. There is no more scientific evidence for absence of reason behind creation than there is for intended purpose, but sadly most people are too stupid to understand this.
DJockovic1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@1spiders1 There are a whole host of interconnected problems with integrity even in very straightforward science. But it is much worse when science aligns itself, as here, with some fairly radical political aims. One main problem being that trust is further lost. And so unless science uncouples itself from this kind of fanticism we will always have good reason to be suspicious of anything they say. Trust not only has to be earned, it also has to be maintained almost constantly.
1spiders1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@DJockovic1 Yes it's all a load of bs , all this 'mainstream' shit, mainstream science mainstream media , the politicians , all are lying c****. Science is not about science anymore. its a market worth billions.
DJockovic1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@1spiders1 The problem with peer-review is made clear if one imagines what would and would not have made it through peer-review in ages past. Galileo. for example, failed his peer-review, simple as that. He submitted his ideas and they were rejected. That's the process. All peer-review is is another name for authority - and the authority may be right or wrong. It's also a bit like buying three copies of the same newspaper to check the information in each is correct.
DJockovic1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@MsPerduta This is the problem: and far from being humble (we don't know everything) they are unbelievable arrogant (nobody else knew anything at all). That is, the first half looks humble, but when the full thought is exposed it is clearly not humility. This attitude is especially dangerous in any political arena. They know best. To which my answer is: if you're so clever, why not just win Wimbledon.
1spiders1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@DJockovic1 "The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,and lenient towards those that accord with them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than less established ones to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals or publishers" so krauss has to give his holyblessing first. .. |
