Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Give me a break Chair. You know yourself that the majority of Jews, especially in the US, no longer believe in the Bible, especially Genesis.

    --------

    Correction: many Jews believe in Genesis in apparently a similar manner that old earth creationists do.
    You should be giving apologies, not receiving breaks.

    1. Many Jews do "believe in the Bible" . Some quite as literally as you do. Though I personally think they are mistaken.
    2. Outside of a few "Christian Sects" in the US, no Christian takes Genesis literally.
    3. Actually, many 'liberal' Jews will use the verse about Man being created in God's image to show that men have a common element. The more liberal and universalistic you are, the more likely it is that you will understand the verse that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b
    ...it follows logically that scientific journals should stick with the subject of science and hence be neutral about religion.

    But of course this example proves they are not.
    How can science be neutral about a religion whose teachings directly contradict science?

    At the time of your original post, had you read the whole article, or just the first sentence?

    Leave a comment:


  • Andre1983
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    I don't think it was very wise of him to state his contempt for Christianity by utilized wording so close to Genesis. Biology textbooks, at least in public schools are not quite that blunt.

    Apparently he felt safe in doing what he did because he knows that the vast majority of leading biology scientists would cheer his words.

    But he forgot about the internet, where others are listening in and will quote his words to alert the masses that there is indeed a war going on with the objective the minds of the children.

    Hitler had a more direct approach: have the State directly raise the children.

    The next best thing is to control what is taught in the public schools and what is pumped into the minds of the children.
    Now... Let me borrow your post and see if it fits another bill...

    Apparently everyone feel safe in doing what they do because they know that the vast majority of leading christian believers would cheer their words.

    But they forgot about the internet, where others are listening in and will quote their words to alert the masses that there is indeed a war going on with the objective the minds of the children.

    Hitler had a more direct approach: have the State directly raise the children.

    The next best thing is to control what is taught in the public schools and what is pumped into the minds of the children.

    --
    The funny thing is -- this version is already happening.
    Children are taught that the god God exists before they have the chance to make up their own mind...

    Leave a comment:


  • Punisher1984
    replied
    Sorry Bobby, but an editorial statement in an article hardly constitutes open warfare against an ideology. At best, it's a joke at the expense of a commonly held belief...

    Leave a comment:


  • Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Please satisfy my curiousity and show me where "scientific knowledge" has shown that the first humans were not created in the image of God.
    Bob, do you believe that God has all of the anatomical features of man?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skeptic
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    So why would the editor of a science journal feel compelled to blow off Christianity by telling us to not believe that we were created in the image of God?
    What if he said this?:

    "If it is rational to accept the empirical evidence regarding the nature of the human body, then the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside, ... that is unless one believes that God has all of the anatomical features of man."

    Would you find this statement less offensive?

    Leave a comment:


  • PlastikBuddha
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Please satisfy my curiousity and show me where "scientific knowledge" has shown that the first humans were not created in the image of God.
    I doubt you will be satisfied, but the rest of the scientific community is on board with modern biology. Do you think because you and a few other religiously motivated hold-outs should make the final decision on what is and what isn't science and what can or can't be printed in a scientific journal? Should we always tread carefully in our PC shoes for fear of saying anything that might contradict someone's faith- should we make special provisions for scientoligists and their freaky UFO garbage- or are you saying we should make an exception just for the literal Genesis?

    Leave a comment:


  • Granite
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    Since the majority of scientists take a public stance that science cannot deal with the supernatural, it follows logically that scientific journals should stick with the subject of science and hence be neutral about religion.

    But of course this example proves they are not.

    I will continue to search for statements of their supposed neutrality toward religion.
    I asked for a demonstration showing that Nature had ever made a pretense of being neutral regarding religion. The best you could do is quote an organization with no ties to the journal at all. This complaint of yours is manufactured from your own assumptions, making it not much of a complaint at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob b
    replied
    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    3. Saying that we were not created in the image of God is backed up by our scientific knowledge, therefore he is editorializing about science.
    Please satisfy my curiousity and show me where "scientific knowledge" has shown that the first humans were not created in the image of God.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob b
    replied
    Originally posted by Granite View Post
    So, Bob.

    Any other foolish observations you'd like to make? You seem to be interested in complaining and then changing the subject whenever someone asks you a question. As this organization has no affiliation whatsoever with Nature I will ask you again: can you prove the journal ever made a pretense of being neutral vis a vis religion, or is this a restraint you pulled out of thin air?
    Since the majority of scientists take a public stance that science cannot deal with the supernatural, it follows logically that scientific journals should stick with the subject of science and hence be neutral about religion.

    But of course this example proves they are not.

    I will continue to search for statements of their supposed neutrality toward religion.

    Leave a comment:


  • PlastikBuddha
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    So why would the editor of a science journal feel compelled to blow off Christianity by telling us to not believe that we were created in the image of God?

    Wouldn't it make more sense for him to stick to editorializing about science?
    1. Because as was stated earlier it was in response to something said by someone else.
    2. Because scientific illiteracy is a real problem in the United States, and a science magazine should take a stand against psuedoscience.
    3. Saying that we were not created in the image of God is backed up by our scientific knowledge, therefore he is editorializing about science.

    Leave a comment:


  • bob b
    replied
    Originally posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    What's the magazines name again? Oh yeah! NATURE! So it would probably be concerned with naturalistic, scientific explainations. That should hip you to their editorial stance on religious content.
    So why would the editor of a science journal feel compelled to blow off Christianity by telling us to not believe that we were created in the image of God?

    Wouldn't it make more sense for him to stick to editorializing about science?

    Leave a comment:


  • PlastikBuddha
    replied
    Originally posted by bob b View Post
    It was an editorial in a science journal that is supposed to be about science and not the promoting of an atheistic agenda.
    What's the magazines name again? Oh yeah! NATURE! So it would probably be concerned with naturalistic, scientific explainations. That should hip you to their editorial stance on religious content.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skeptic
    replied
    Bob, do you think the journal Nature should be neutral with regard to the literalist Christian creation myth of Genesis?

    Leave a comment:


  • Granite
    replied
    So, Bob.

    Any other foolish observations you'd like to make? You seem to be interested in complaining and then changing the subject whenever someone asks you a question. As this organization has no affiliation whatsoever with Nature I will ask you again: can you prove the journal ever made a pretense of being neutral vis a vis religion, or is this a restraint you pulled out of thin air?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X