Atheists and their jargon of insults

[JDMS]

If you speak out against the status quo, purchased science, or waste then you are an heretic and you inviting insults. If there's even a hint that you believe in God, or right and wrong then you are also misanthrope and a place in the gulag will be prepared.

As a a scientist here... No, I really don't think that many of us care if you speak out against what you see as defective. It's not as if it's effecting us or we can do anything about it.

Edit: I actually don't think anyone complains about the status quo of academia as much as academics do.

 

[shunyadragon]

We're not talking about actual scientists here.

The actual author of the thread fled like a gooney bird dropping his load in the night. He presented a Red Herring argument insulting atheists about supposed atheists insulting Theists concerning the existence of God, and did not address the the topic of the epistemology argument whether God exists in an orderly rational manner. If you would like we could go forward with a constructive discussion on the topic let's go for it. I can argue both sides of the problem of the existence of God.

I am talking about actual scientists like Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein are the bottom line since you reject the Methodological Naturalism which you reject, Trying to associate atheists with science is another Red Herring piled on this thread.

We're talking about how rude many atheists and especially those who believe in science are.

No, let's not talk about Red Herring arguments proposed by the Gooney Bird. Actually in my experience in this thread and all threads of this forum Theists are most definitely more abusive and insulting then atheists,

There were many accusations shouting at the wall concerning how insulting atheist supposedly are without doumenting anything
.
As I said before it is best to have rational constructive discussions on the epistemology concerning the existence of God instead of slinging smelly Red Herrings.

 

[YoursTrue]

We're not talking about actual scientists here.

We're talking about how rude many atheists and especially those who believe in science are.

Et al...It's not just religion that some here criticize. These often insult the poster as well. But as in any opinion, the opinion and the person holding the opinion is intertwined.

 

[YoursTrue]

As a a scientist here... No, I really don't think that many of us care if you speak out against what you see as defective. It's not as if it's effecting us or we can do anything about it.

Edit: I actually don't think anyone complains about the status quo of academia as much as academics do.

Engendering the question, why? My (uneducated) guess is that the status quo is too restrictive for some?

 

[JDMS]

Engendering the question, why? My (uneducated) guess is that the status quo is too restrictive for some?

I haven't heard anyone complain about it being restrictive in the sense that there are things we aren't allowed to study, but there are complaints about funding being poured into a handful of things and not others. For example, someone studying a certain rare genetic disease may get less funding than someone studying Alzheimer's, which is frustrating for many. But that isn't the main complaint for most.

Complaints are wide and varied, but they include gripes about the internal industry politics and pecking order, long education requirements with frustratingly low entry pay, the fetish for working the longest possible hours (often unpaid), etc. It's also difficult to find good jobs and many of the people you may work for will end up being social inept bullies. Publishing journals can be cruel, as well. Your work may or may not be ever acknowledged or made useful. And so on... Honestly, there's way more but it's a laundry list

 

[YoursTrue]

I haven't heard anyone complain about it being restrictive in the sense that there are things we aren't allowed to study, but there are complaints about funding being poured into a handful of things and not others. For example, someone studying a certain rare genetic disease may get less funding than someone studying Alzheimer's, which is frustrating for many. But that isn't the main complaint for most.

Complaints are wide and varied, but they include gripes about the internal industry politics and pecking order, long education requirements with frustratingly low entry pay, the fetish for working the longest possible hours (often unpaid), etc. It's also difficult to find good jobs and many of the people you may work for will end up being social inept bullies. Publishing journals can be cruel, as well. Your work may or may not be ever acknowledged or made useful. And so on... Honestly, there's way more but it's a laundry list

That's kind of like the peer review and editorial review.

 

[JDMS]

That's kind of like the peer review and editorial review.

Exactly, the abuse from journals part of the above post is about peer review and editorial review (and the weird process that comes with). Though, I'd say that the strictness in reputable journals is at the very least somewhat reassuring. But it's very frustrating for many.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly, the abuse from journals part of the above post is about peer review and editorial review (and the weird process that comes with). Though, I'd say that the strictness in reputable journals is at the very least somewhat reassuring. But it's very frustrating for many.

Sometimes we (people like me) shy away from those we know are poised to give abusive answers or responses.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly, the abuse from journals part of the above post is about peer review and editorial review (and the weird process that comes with). Though, I'd say that the strictness in reputable journals is at the very least somewhat reassuring. But it's very frustrating for many.

I worked for a couple of famous publications and know they centered around what authors or types of articles would bring in the most money.

 

[shunyadragon]

Exactly, the abuse from journals part of the above post is about peer review and editorial review (and the weird process that comes with). Though, I'd say that the strictness in reputable journals is at the very least somewhat reassuring. But it's very frustrating for many.

I consider the process of confirming and validating research is the process over time of more research, and letters published that are constructive criticism of the research. I consider "peer review" as OK,and catches some problem research publications but superficial in many cases.

 

[JDMS]

I consider the process of confirming and validating research is the process over time of more research, and letters published that are constructive criticism of the research. I consider "peer review" as OK,and catches some problem research publications but superficial in many cases.

Exactly. As a researcher, I wouldn't want a world without peer review and reputable publishers. But I also see that there are some problems in the current system, as in anything else. I don't think humans will run out if things to improve any time soon.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never imagined I'd have to take a stand against murder or that I'd stand alone!

You hadn't previously taken a stand against murder?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And that frustration gets converted into an endless stream of crackpottery that is so incoherent and incorrect that to rebut any of it gets tiresome. Could it be that is their tactic, much like the Gish Gallop?

That's an interesting idea and one I have suspected is the case for one or two on here. Demands for evidence. Evidence is provided. Followed by demands for evidence that is again provided. All asked as if none were ever provided. And the cycle repeats until you catch on or the next person unwittingly responds to what they think is a sincere request.

 

[YoursTrue]

This goes far beyond mere semantics. Killing hundreds of people and destroying the livelihoods of far more to make a tiny amount of money is far worse than greed or sin. In the old days it was a crime but now days everyone just excuses it.

Unless we can agree that death and destruction are "bad" there's no point in a discussion at all and no point to the continued existence of the human race.

Here is something you may not have heard (I never did when I attended church) but I find it helpful to know there is a Rescuer.

Revelation 11:18 And the nations were wroth, and thy wrath came, and the time of the dead to be judged, and the time to give their reward to thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and to them that fear thy name, the small and the great; and to destroy them that destroy the earth."

But it is foretold.

 

[cladking]

You hadn't previously taken a stand against murder?

It was never necessary in the days before mostly peaceful riots and what the definition of the word "is" is. Almost everybody was against murder and it was safe to assume those who didn't say so were also agin it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

"Magic", they say.
They say "miracles", "supernatural", etc etc etc ... they even say "spaghettis" and in their minds is an insult. So they are.

What is really "miracle" or "magic" or "supernatural" in an atheist mind?
IMHO, they are just things they cann't explain with their current personal knowledge ... and there is soooo much happening in the world right now that most people cann't explain, that I would say miracles are happening all the time and atheists cann't negate it. Insulting is the way their brains deal with it.

You are right there are things that I cannot explain. How does that make them miracles? How would you provide sufficient evidence for a miracle?

 

[cladking]

As a a scientist here... No, I really don't think that many of us care if you speak out against what you see as defective. It's not as if it's effecting us or we can do anything about it.

Edit: I actually don't think anyone complains about the status quo of academia as much as academics do.

Real scientists are nothing like Egyptologists and believers in science. Of course anyone can be a real scientist. I've had real scientists scoff at my ideas (and had them eat those words also) but they rarely or never insult people for having different opinions or even "wrong" opinions. In my experience it's mostly people who don't really understand science or its limits who are rude or violent. I suppose very few people like having their beliefs questioned but this especially affects those studied hard to learn science but have very little experience or understanding.

 

[cladking]

Exactly. As a researcher, I wouldn't want a world without peer review and reputable publishers. But I also see that there are some problems in the current system, as in anything else. I don't think humans will run out if things to improve any time soon.

Funny thing is I never extended the work of anyone else. I've only struck out in entirely new directions. If I were a "normal" researcher I would greatly value peer review journals as well.

My biggest problem isn't with "peer review" but the belief among many that experiment or knowledge doesn't even exist until it is peer reviewed. My second biggest problem with it is that in many cases of what people think of as "science" that anything that doesn't accept dogma can't even be peer reviewed. Many people believe that nothing is even science at all until a committee votes on it. You can't imagine what a low opinion I have of committees. Then to hold them above science and human knowledge I consider appalling.

 

[shunyadragon]

It was never necessary in the days before mostly peaceful riots and what the definition of the word "is" is. Almost everybody was against murder and it was safe to assume those who didn't say so were also agin it.

ridiculous and problems with your English, as well as Math and Science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Real scientists are nothing like Egyptologists and believers in science. Of course anyone can be a real scientist. I've had real scientists scoff at my ideas (and had them eat those words also) but they rarely or never insult people for having different opinions or even "wrong" opinions. In my experience it's mostly people who don't really understand science or its limits who are rude or violent. I suppose very few people like having their beliefs questioned but this especially affects those studied hard to learn science but have very little experience or understanding.

Yes, I seriously question your Medieval views of science So far you have failed to make any scientist eat their words in cncluding me.