"How many of you here today used to believe in something — used to, past tense — whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that? You can raise your hand if you want to. [lots of hands go up] Not everyone is born a skeptic. A lot of you raised your hand. I’d even say most of you, from what I can tell."I followed that by saying "as a true atheist and skeptic (someone who never believed) I found the results of Phil's simple poll of TAM attendees interesting" because (as I discovered when I did my own survey of science bloggers) most of them had been believers. And, since scientists are lefties who also blindly voted for Oprah's candidate, I added:
"From what I can see, the science community hasn't shown they're inoculated, in the least, to the siren call of unreason, except with the cheapest form of evidence available: their words."Needless to say (being a ruthlessly despised "wingnut" blogger) I haven't heard anything about it.
But, while reading The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto, I did catch an item about a so-called "Leading atheist" named Edwin Kagen who had gotten some folks "lined up to be 'de-baptized' in a ritual using a hair dryer" on Nightline:
"Kagin believes parents are wrong to baptize their children before they are able to make their own choices, even slamming some religious education as 'child abuse.' He said the blast of hot air was a way for adults to undo what their parents had done."Taranto's reaction? Same as mine:
"It would occur to a real nonbeliever that the baptismal water had evaporated years earlier. It sounds as if these 'atheists' believe in God whether he's fake or genuine."And so it goes.
Sorry, kids, but whether it's "flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that" - which includes voting for politicians with mystical powers, or rituals attempting to undo God's - a "real nonbeliever" just doesn't go for these kind of things.
And, yea, I know:
I'm being a total dick for pointing that out.
Thanks (again) to Jon Huntoon!
I'm sorry but this is a poorly written argument. First you go on to oppose a simple "raise-of-hands" majority vote that probably went to prove a greater point.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you're calling all scientists "lefties". I'm going to ask for a source on this one because I doubt it, because you know what... I'm skeptical of people like you.
I'm also skeptical that you actually know what Obama has been doing. Some things include: protecting the public from credit card companies, had 3.5 million dollars in tax cuts for small businesses, protecting college loans and the borrowers, cut medicare prescription costs by 50%...
And the list goes on. YOu can see more things he's done here: http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
And next time you prepare an argument to post online. I propose that you back up your opinions because people will think you're a bigot. I'm not saying I think that, it's may friend who's sitting right next to me.
Interesting. Let's start with you're commenting on a post that's over a year old - what had Obama done by then? Also, leaping forward to today, if you ask the vast majority of people, Obama may have done *something* (which I'm quite aware of) but he's hardly fulfilled his promise or promises.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I didn't "oppose" the "raise-of-hands" vote - I said it fit my own research: that most scientists I've spoken to are NewAgers and leftists who voted for Obama.
Lastly, I don't know who you're claiming I'm bigoted against, but the charge doesn't bother me - I don't like NewAgers, I don't like leftists, I don't like Obama, and A) I'm open about it, and B) have very good reasons for feeling as I do and I'm proud that everything has turned out exactly as I said if they were allowed to attain power. If you don't see it, then you're deluded:
Which makes the bigotry charge even less relevant.
I believe everyone must look at this.
ReplyDelete