-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should scientist be fired for objectively adhering to evolution while subjectively believing theism?
- Thread starter Spirosmav
- Start date
Curious George
Veteran Member
No
I can't believe this question is even being asked. You do realize that if a scientist was fired for that reason, they could sue, right?
Edit to add in this - Religious Discrimination
No.
They tend to affirm Life interconnected as true. The conflicts come in context to that not is that.
Darwin experienced observation of categories not being literally object/void /object separated. He then created an astrology like projection onto that. But life interconnected was stated 700 years earlier in religious writings of st francis. So Darwin's theory about that is really what is argued most often. In christianity its articulated "family of god" but in an intellectualism community like religion that generally is only human and more specifically at times just their congregational view as opposed to another view.
A lot of scientists who are more field oriented rather than lab, classroom theoretical tend to be more animistic..But animism has zero to do with beliefs really. Environmental studies types tend to be more systems oriented and self select because of that. They also tend to be more like john muir than an atheist. John muir was both a scientist and very very poetic about nature. So should someone be fired for being poetic and scientific? I would think science narrative is already dull enough and meaningless to make it duller and more meaningless is counter productive to science.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that one cannot be both a theist and accept the fact that life is the product of evolution?
Your OP appears to be a bit of a strawman.
Lol wut?
Spirosmav
Member
I am actually pandering to the stereotypical 'intellectual' atheist who assume that theist, deist, and agnostic are all ignorant overtly emotional people who are reduced as irrational fairy tale believers..and that they are intellectuals because they proudly identify as atheist while being fallible due to totally ruling out the possibility of deistic or theistic God or creator. There are many scientist who objectively adhere to evolution while being deist, theist or agnostic
Spirosmav
Member
am actually pandering to the stereotypical 'intellectual' atheist who assume that theist, deist, and agnostic are all ignorant overtly emotional people who are reduced as irrational fairy tale believers..and that they are intellectuals because they proudly identify as atheist while being fallible due to totally ruling out the possibility of deistic or theistic God or creator. There are many scientist who objectively adhere to evolution while being deist, theist or agnostic
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What "stereo typical 'intelligent' atheist" would that be?
And your response still does not explain the strawman in the OP.
Spirosmav
Member
There is no specific one. I have read a lot of articles and met ppl who have Darwinist bumper sticker and t shirts who act intellectually superior to those they assume do not objectively adhere to evolution. Some of them are hypocritically dogmatic as if their Darwinism or atheism is a religion
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Gotta say, this is one of the goofiest posts that's appeared here on RF in a long time. Thanks for the day brightener.
.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Nope.
Spirosmav
Member
Gotta say, this is one of the goofiest posts that's appeared here on RF in a long time. Thanks for the day brightener.
.
Excuse unedited grammar run on sentences. I write so it can atleast be somewhat understandable
Skwim
Veteran Member
So if you want to be understood and recognize that your grammar needs editing, why not do just that? Edit your grammar.
.