Full born atheism is anti-intellectual

Actually, I do want those otherwise competent people moving away from scientific fields due to their personal superstitious beliefs. Note the caveat on competency. Note also, that the entire aim of science is to avoid superstition.

As far as I know, science does avoid superstition regardless of who is involved. How many theist-published credible peer reviewed papers out there are based on even the tiniest bit of superstition?

Naturally, simply because a belief may interfere with a particular pursuit it does not follow that it will do so. Nonetheless, it behooves the rational mind to eliminate as many variables as possible.

I would think incompetence, or a lack of supply, would be a much higher priority to eliminate than a few theists who are "otherwise" competent. How big of a variable are they, really? The entire process is meant to weed out poor science whether it's by a theist or an atheist.
 
I would think incompetence, or a lack of supply, would be a much higher priority to eliminate than a few theists who are "otherwise" competent. How big of a variable are they, really? The entire process is meant to weed out poor science whether it's by a theist or an atheist.

It why you'll find scientific research moving away from such societies and into others where people and environment are both more receptive.
 
How many western scientists do you know that have been discriminatory towards theist scientists?

I've known plenty who were plain discriminatory. :p

Since I don't discuss religion, I haven't personally faced it. But yes, I've heard of others who have. And its a generally understood thing.

Its not just the US either, where theists such as Francis Collins are attempting to make it easier for scientists to have faith. Its also in Europe, probably more so, due to their more extreme attitudes against religion.
My old university, Oxford, which was founded by monks, friars and theologians nine centuries ago, was until recently regarded as a bastion of old-fashioned Christianity and, as such, was called "the house of lost causes." Today a publicly expressed belief in Christianity is likely to lower your chance of landing a job at Oxford.

Religion has become a handicap in university life, especially in certain subjects. In philosophy, for example, academics who hope for senior chairs keep mum about any faith they hold. God and promotion do not mix. And in all the sciences, young men and women with religious backgrounds are advised to jettison their Christian, Jewish or other religious baggage if they want to pursue careers in physics, chemistry or biology. The universal assumption seems to be that a belief in God fatally debars a scholar from acquiring scientific knowledge. In Britain the number of students concentrating in the sciences is on the decline, and the systematic discouragement of Christians and Jews in the science faculties will clearly increase that trend.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/1008/027.html
 
Wow, I wasn't aware. This sort of discrimination seems completely ridiculous. If religion (or sexual orientation, or gender, or ethnicity, etc.) doesn't interfere with your work, it should be a non-issue.
 
Wow, I wasn't aware. This sort of discrimination seems completely ridiculous. If religion (or sexual orientation, or gender, or ethnicity, etc.) doesn't interfere with your work, it should be a non-issue.

Yeah, for people like us the rise in opportunities in the East and even in newly established universities in the Middle East (like the Stanford-like university coming up in KSA) is a boon. For me, there is always India, where an Abdul Kalam can be a rocket scientist and a President and feel no shame in going to prayer.
 
Last edited:
Wow, I wasn't aware. This sort of discrimination seems completely ridiculous. If religion (or sexual orientation, or gender, or ethnicity, etc.) doesn't interfere with your work, it should be a non-issue.

I do not think it is possible for one's religion etc. to not interfere with one's work in one way or another.

If one's religion etc. doesn't interfere with, impact, shape one's work, then one isn't taking one's religion etc. seriously in the first place.


Those committing discrimination implicitly posit the demand for people to be robots, to do their work fully objectively. Eventually, this means they posit the existence of objective reality and that it can be objectively known. Which is a heavy cunundrum, to put it mildly.

I don't have so much a problem with discrimination per se. But I have a problem when discriminators attempt to justify their position. That is the real nonsense.
 
From what I have seen in the west, admitting to faith of any kind seriously damages your upward mobility in the science fields.

It can... which is why most corporate HR departments strongly urge the topic of religion to stay silent. Of course discrimination based on religion is illegal albeit difficult to demonstrate sometimes.

On the flip-side there are edge-case workers out there whom pick careers that contradict their faith and then refuse to work. I recall semi-recently something about an evolutionary biologist whom was failing to perform because of a lack of belief in evolution.
 
It can... which is why most corporate HR departments strongly urge the topic of religion to stay silent. Of course discrimination based on religion is illegal albeit difficult to demonstrate sometimes.

Like atheists in Saudi Arabia. I don't see it as a good trend.

On the flip-side there are edge-case workers out there whom pick careers that contradict their faith and then refuse to work. I recall semi-recently something about an evolutionary biologist whom was failing to perform because of a lack of belief in evolution.

Complete morons, if you ask me.
 
Like atheists in Saudi Arabia. I don't see it as a good trend.

Don't ask + don't tell seems to work ok. I am not sure what other alternatives might be.


Complete morons, if you ask me.

It gets worse, to become a public official in the US you have to claim you are a Christian. It's hard for the atheists / non-christians in office because they have to compromise their values and lie just to get their foot in the door.
 
God didn't do "it" to you.

You are a believer. That's fine. Asserting things about god, as fact, the way you do proves that you have no ability to reason on this subject. Which I already knew. You will yell and jump up and down about the fact of gods existence. That's good for you. But don't expect rational people to be too impressed with such antics.

no one is yelling and jumping around. your quote here is "antics". there are things that have happened to me...experiences that i've had...that have proven to me beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is in fact a spiritual realm, and there's a lot going on in it, and we can interact with it, and it can interact with us. you don't have to believe me. your point is...you just don't want to. and it's one thing to say, "i don't know of a spiritual realm or of any god because i haven't experienced it", but it's quite another to say, "there is no spiritual realm or any god because i haven't experienced it." ...is my point.
 
You've yet to show us this "smack down" of hard physical evidence you have for your god.

physical evidence of a spiritual interaction? that's retarded. and why should i have to provide you with evidence of anything? i don't care if you believe. i know that whether you get YOUR OWN evidence or not is a personal choice and a request that you make of god. why should i be responsible for seeking evidence and knowledge on your behalf? and why would you take my word if i did? you're supposed to find it out on your own. it's meant to be that way.
 
SL. Send QQ a private message asking him what he would consider of a God, although he is an atheist.

It makes the whole position of God interesting to say the least....
 
no one is yelling and jumping around. your quote here is "antics". there are things that have happened to me...experiences that i've had...that have proven to me beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there is in fact a spiritual realm, and there's a lot going on in it, and we can interact with it, and it can interact with us. you don't have to believe me. your point is...you just don't want to. and it's one thing to say, "i don't know of a spiritual realm or of any god because i haven't experienced it", but it's quite another to say, "there is no spiritual realm or any god because i haven't experienced it." ...is my point.
On the other hand, it's perfectly valid to say, "It's very unlikely that theres a 'spiritual' realm or a god, because no one has produced any empirical evidence of it." :shrug:
 
What is a "spiritual interaction," exactly?

Interaction, my dear doubting mennace, which is spiritual.

I am sure in your condition you would have never had some such thing. Such is a shame! :shrug:

Then again, there's interaction over periods of time; for example; the state that the universe is in can change; there is only one creation that can do this, God, the universe, our our connectivity as the bible was hitting at, which is the only god that exists.

And this is my theory.
My conception of God which is not incorrect.

I would enjoy hearing your finger pop up in this arguement.
 
What is a "spiritual interaction," exactly?

when something initiated in one realm causes an effect in the other i suppose would constitute an interaction, which i'm sure happens constantly. as i was going to reference an awareness of such an interaction but that's not always the case. though there have been times when i have been made very aware.
 
On the other hand, it's perfectly valid to say, "It's very unlikely that theres a 'spiritual' realm or a god, because no one has produced any empirical evidence of it." :shrug:

As I said, Send QQ a message.

He will answer ANY questions you have.

QQ=Quantum Quack
 
How can something "spiritual" cause a physical effect? Would belief in this be similar to belief in poltergeists?
 
when something initiated in one realm causes an effect in the other i suppose would constitute an interaction, which i'm sure happens constantly. as i was going to reference an awareness of such an interaction but that's not always the case. though there have been times when i have been made very aware.
Multiple "realms" then?

Presuming one of these "realms" is "reality," then wouldn't there be physical evidence of this interaction?
 
Back
Top