Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.

[Belacqua]

It's clear that some of the anti-religion people are just bigots. 

They think like bigots, they write like bigots. They get support on this forum for bigoted views.

I didn't say that religious people are being repressed. Most of them aren't.

I said that some anti-religion people are bigots. Have you really not noticed this?

[brewer]

I didn't say that religious people are being repressed. Most of them aren't.

I said that some anti-religion people are bigots. Have you really not noticed this?

And many many religious people are bigots. I hear/receive their bigoted remarks IRL on a daily basis. Until you walk in my shoes I'm not going to give your thoughts and hurt feelings much consideration.

Don' like the occasional anti religious bigotry on an atheist forum, there's an exit door.

[Belacqua]

I didn't say that religious people are being repressed. Most of them aren't.

I said that some anti-religion people are bigots. Have you really not noticed this?

And many many religious people are bigots. I hear/receive their bigoted remarks IRL on a daily basis. Until you walk in my shoes I'm not going to give your thoughts and hurt feelings much consideration.

Don' like the occasional anti religious bigotry on an atheist forum, there's an exit door.

I've been surprised by how easily people justify their bigotry. I guess it's the age of Trump.

[brewer]

And many many religious people are bigots. I hear/receive their bigoted remarks IRL on a daily basis. Until you walk in my shoes I'm not going to give your thoughts and hurt feelings much consideration.

Don' like the occasional anti religious bigotry on an atheist forum, there's an exit door.

I've been surprised by how easily people justify their bigotry. I guess it's the age of Trump.

And I'm amazed at how easily and often the religious claim persecution. Must be the entitlement slipping away after all those years of being on top.

[Haipule]

Because religion is stupid! As a Major representative of God's Children...Religion, Theology and Science are all stupid and we know it.

So you don't see the contradiction in saying you're a "Major representative of God's Children" and then calling religion stupid in the next sentence?

Also, how exactly do you figure that "Science [is] ... stupid?"

Please tell me you're being sarcastic and that the joke went over my head.

Nature is nature. Religion is religion and theology is theology, science is science, God is God whether you can accept that or not--I don't care. I don't post here saying "Believe and be saved" because the Word of God is about life, right here, right now--not salvation whatever anyone says about that Latin based word! Nature cannot be ignored in any ism or ology. Yet, I realize we have a lot to learn about her. But through her we can be friends right? 

I've often said this: "If the bible and science disagree...then all, or some, are stupid". Both theology and science. Nature is our middle ground. And the study of nature is called "science". The study of God is called "theology" which is also a science(but has degraded into the showcase of man's goofy ideas)! If one denies the other then Nature is reinvented constantly but actually never changed. We're just stupid. And that's ok.


We have the Tower of Babel now--thee internet! Nothing shall be impossible for us he, he, he...

[The Grand Nudger]

But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim.

Perhaps the basis for that knowledge is that the term “leprechaun” refers to a diminutive nickname given by Christians to a native divinity as an aide to depaganization? How a semantic flourish created by humans in the historical record managed to be either giant or the creator of anything is a question you might want to ask yourself if you really believe that there can be no basis for that claimed knowledge.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?

But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.

This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.

Actually, there is a basis for the claim 'giant creator leprechauns don't exist' - semantics. 'Giant leprechaun' is a contradiction in terms, since (without going into the tedium of translation) 'leprechaun' means 'small body'.  Granted that 'small' and 'giant' are relative terms, these are generally taken to be relative in relation to the size of human beings.  Thus, I can confidently state that giant creator leprechauns do not exist.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled point.

Boru