Was the Historical Jesus the First Modern Scientist?

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Gospel of Thomas is decades older than the Christian Gospels. For brevity, 100% of Guggenheim Fellow and Fulbright Scholar type of academic experts in the field think so. They tend to think it dates to about 50CE, when plenty of people that knew Jesus were still around to refute it. His brother James continued to lead his followers until about 62CE. It says it was written when Jesus was still alive, by his twin brother (Thomas is a nickname meaning twin and Thomas was his brother) and that Jesus read it and approved of it. Might be true, no evidence otherwise.

Elaine Pagels has written some best sellers based on the idea that the Gospel of John was written to refute the scientific Gospel of Thomas. That the "Doubting Thomas" of the Gospel of John, that didn't believe in superstition, is in there to show the scientific Gospel of Thomas, written long before, is wrong. One thing's for sure, the Gospel of Thomas has the same scientific viewpoint as the Doubting Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas has a lot of incomprehensible stuff, allegory and parables, but there is no EXPLICIT superstition from the viewpoint of modern science. None. Examples of explicit superstition from the viewpoint of science in the Christian Gospels NOT in Thomas are....

Jesus is the Son of God (other than us all being the son of God.)
Virgin birth.
Raising the dead.
Resurrection.
Walking on water
Multiplying foodstuffs
A God that answers prayers
A God that says things or has opinions
A God that you can't cuss if you feel like it
...in other words a God that's impressed by groveling
Judgment Day
A Heaven in the Clouds (it's here now, this is heaven)
A devil-god
Angel-gods
demon-gods
That Jesus is God (It's not on the Bible that he is, but I need to mention it explicitly says he is NOT.)
All that Gnostic garbage from Paul, not a single solitary parallel to Paul, despite over 200 to the Christian Gospels, mortal enemies.
Etc. etc. etc.

Lots of ways to go wrong, believe in leeches or whatever, things people believed a century ago, much less 2000 years, but it's not in there.

No committee, no revisions over time would create such a thing. It had to be one very unusual man. One of those really smart Jews. Nothing to do with Paul, Jesus (and the Gospel of Thomas) was a big international hit when Paul, after slaughtering all his followers in Israel, headed abroad to slaughter them too.

[Tim Norfolk]

<snip all>

To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.

[passer...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> <snip all>
>
> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.

They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.

Next.

[John Harshman]

What? Are you saying a modern scientist can't believe in gods? Not even one?

[Tim Norfolk]

That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was an atheist.

[Burkhard]

passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Gospel of Thomas is decades older than the Christian Gospels. For brevity, 100% of Guggenheim Fellow and Fulbright Scholar type of academic experts in the field think so. They tend to think it dates to about 50CE, when plenty of people that knew Jesus were still around to refute it. His brother James continued to lead his followers until about 62CE. It says it was written when Jesus was still alive, by his twin brother (Thomas is a nickname meaning twin and Thomas was his brother) and that Jesus read it and approved of it. Might be true, no evidence otherwise.
>
> Elaine Pagels has written some best sellers based on the idea that the Gospel of John was written to refute the scientific Gospel of Thomas. That the "Doubting Thomas" of the Gospel of John, that didn't believe in superstition, is in there to show the scientific Gospel of Thomas, written long before, is wrong. One thing's for sure, the Gospel of Thomas has the same scientific viewpoint as the Doubting Thomas.
>
> The Gospel of Thomas has a lot of incomprehensible stuff, allegory and parables, but there is no EXPLICIT superstition from the viewpoint of modern science. None. Examples of explicit superstition from the viewpoint of science in the Christian Gospels NOT in Thomas are....

My programme for the Six Nation games, the review of last nights
performance of the Scottish national orchestra in the Scotsman
newspaper, Ian Rankin's latest Inspector Rebus novel or the announcement
and description of this year's new bottlings from the malt whiskey
society also contain no explicit superstition.

Nonetheless, I'd call neither of them a science text. Mere absence of
explicit superstition seems to be too low a bar for that.

[Burkhard]

As a scientist, you can believe in whatever god you want as long as it
doesn't interfere with your day job.

[J. J. Lodder]

I did happen to see some 'international sheep dog trials' on BBC
sometime ago.
The participating nations were England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland,

Jan

[Burkhard]

That were just the regionals. The international event has 25
participating nations. This year, the Dutch team of Wiet van Dongen with
"Treloss Blaze" unfortunately just missed the cut after day one,
when they lost 7 on the outrun, two off the lift and 15 off the fetch.
Bad luck really, the sheep were tricky at the pen and wouldn’t settle.
Otherwise they could have been a contender.

The event was won, in convincing fashion by my compatriots Michael
Shearer and Bob

Bob started with a good lift but lost 20 on the first outrun, had a
clean lift and lost 29 on the fetch. Michael flanked Bob around the
sheep after the gates, he took the look back, gave him a flank command
and Bob started out well. The sheep were moving and a bit unsettled at
the top when Bob set off on the second outrun. After the lift, an ok
line back, got the fetch. They lost 30 on the second outrun, 18 on the
lift and 23 on the fetch.

Bit of a worry then, when the first packet drifted to the bottom
left-hand corner of the field, but the shepherd on duty pushed them
back towards the course.
Nonetheless that unsettled the game flow, and they looked a bit low on
second half of the cross drive but got it and had an ok turn with a good
line back to the ring, losing 33 points.
They completed their run with a clean pen to give a total of 691.

The only Dutch left in the final (bit of a surprise candidate) had a
mixed day, In the ring, they shed off a bunch with a collared ewe, so
they had to start again, then got a good bunch off.
They got two more off, but the remainder was out of ring. They were left
with two uncollared ewes to get off and only got them after quite a bit
of time, so they lost 50 in the shed.

[Ernest Major]

Extreme sheepherding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qniwI2hNhDs

--
alias Ernest Major

[J. J. Lodder]

Yes, I know the event has greatly expanded.

> This year, the Dutch team of Wiet van Dongen with
> "Treloss Blaze" unfortunately just missed the cut after day one,
> when they lost 7 on the outrun, two off the lift and 15 off the fetch.
> Bad luck really, the sheep were tricky at the pen and wouldn't settle.
> Otherwise they could have been a contender.

Google tells me they are European champion.
(that is, continental)

> The event was won, in convincing fashion by my compatriots Michael
> Shearer and Bob
>
> Bob started with a good lift but lost 20 on the first outrun, had a
> clean lift and lost 29 on the fetch. Michael flanked Bob around the
> sheep after the gates, he took the look back, gave him a flank command
> and Bob started out well. The sheep were moving and a bit unsettled at
> the top when Bob set off on the second outrun. After the lift, an ok
> line back, got the fetch. They lost 30 on the second outrun, 18 on the
> lift and 23 on the fetch.
>
> Bit of a worry then, when the first packet drifted to the bottom
> left-hand corner of the field, but the shepherd on duty pushed them
> back towards the course.
> Nonetheless that unsettled the game flow, and they looked a bit low on
> second half of the cross drive but got it and had an ok turn with a good
> line back to the ring, losing 33 points.
> They completed their run with a clean pen to give a total of 691.
>
> The only Dutch left in the final (bit of a surprise candidate) had a
> mixed day, In the ring, they shed off a bunch with a collared ewe, so
> they had to start again, then got a good bunch off.
> They got two more off, but the remainder was out of ring. They were left
> with two uncollared ewes to get off and only got them after quite a bit
> of time, so they lost 50 in the shed.

I really haven't kept up. Is it still on BBC?
Thanks for the reporting,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Mostly fake, probably, for the dark scenes,

Jan

[Burkhard]

Ach, in 2013 they decided to scale it down - what used to be "A man and
his Dog" not gets a short slot in Countryfile.

I wrote of course a letter to the BBC:

Sir!
I read with dismay in your esteemed organ that henceforth that great
British institution, One Man and his Dog, won't have a place any longer
on your regular schedule. It is with great regret to note the demise of
anther programe that gave us hours of fun as children and was one of the
icons that made Britain great, together with cricket and cress
sandwiches on a summer lawn.

So you better put it back on, you English pig-dog or I invade your
office with a technologically vastly superior army - and then I'll haff
vays of making you talk!

yrs respectfully

On reflection, I should probably have omitted that last paragraph - old
habits, you know...

[Mike Dworetsky]

Back in the late 1960s when US grad students were being drafted for VietNam,
a fellow student, not having a married or overage exemption, discovered that
ordained clergy were exempt from the draft. He wrote to some outfit that
did quickie ordinations and received an official certificate stating that he
was now an Ordained Minister in the First Church of Jesus Christ,
Astronomer.

And he wasn't even Jewish, nor was his mother a virgin (AFAIK).

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[passer...@gmail.com]

A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.

(And the Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism Award for the first forum atheist that lists not believing in praying to god as being an atheist. Jesus didn't believe in praying, in fact it infuriated him if you did.)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:36:54 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

Those statements are unrelated, unless you contend that
"modern" includes 2kya but not 2.2-2.5kya, and/or that a
modern scientist cannot believe in, say, Odin.

>Next.

Yes, let's hear your next non sequitur/waffle/tapdance.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Tim Norfolk]

Not according to the Bible (Luke 11)

As for your claim, it depends on your definition of scientist. Around 93% of the National Academy of Science claims no belief in God. Tiny minority?

[passer...@gmail.com]

The historical Jesus, not the Christian Jesus. And yes, I know you are totally ignorant of it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

FALSE! What a moron.

[John Harshman]

On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>> <snip all>
>>>>
>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
>>>
>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
>>>
>>> Next.
>>
>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was an atheist.
>
> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.

Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I recall,
the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%, with
increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted. The
percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was 92%.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, you get the aforementioned "Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism Award". That poll you are referring to never mentions "atheist" it asks if they believe in a personal god that answers prayers. Jesus didn't believe in that either.

Multiple choice polls, it's more like 17% that choose "atheist".

Now, dig yourself in deeper with your moronic ignorance of the questions on that poll and that I predicted you would demonstrate that same precise ignorance.

Forum atheists.

[John Harshman]

I am not acquainted with the polls that give you your 17%. Can you
provide a reference? And since when is 17% a tiny minority?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Completely ignorant of it are you? And don't know how to use Google?

No problem, I'm not a scientifically ignorant forum atheist, I have the facts and understand science...

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

17%

Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll that asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the typical forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about "atheist".

Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly

[Burkhard]

according to your own link, that is the number in the wider population,
not amongst scientists. Indeed, your source explicitly contrast the much
higher percentage of atheists amongst scientists with the much lover
(your 17%) number in the general population:

"Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll
(48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe
themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with
only 17% of the public."

[Malygris]

passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

>> I am not acquainted with the polls that give you your 17%. Can you
>> provide a reference? And since when is 17% a tiny minority?
>
> Completely ignorant of it are you? And don't know how to use Google?
>
> No problem, I'm not a scientifically ignorant forum atheist, I have the
> facts and understand science...
>
> http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
>
> 17%

According to that poll 33% of the scientists questioned believe in God, a
further 18% in some higher power. Do you ever actually read the links you
post?
--
Malygris

[John Harshman]

Thanks for the clarification. I see we're fighting over terminology.
Atheist, agnostic, whatever.

But to return to the original. Why does believing in pagan gods
disqualify you from being a scientist?

> Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll that asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the typical forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about "atheist".

Actually, I see nothing in there about a god that answers prayers, just
a god, period. Why did you add the qualification?

> Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly

I will refrain from spelling flames if you will answer the question
about those Greek dudes.

[Mark Isaak]

Were those polls for "atheist" or "not religious? It makes a big
difference, and my (very vague and unreliable) memory favors the latter.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[passer...@gmail.com]

17% say they are atheists, just exactly like I said, pinhead. You really cling to your fetid ignorance, don't you?

[passer...@gmail.com]

No Moron, you fail the reading comprehension test. Just look at the graph, the pretty colored thing, the words are far too complicated for you. The 17% is the scientists, not the general public.

Someone tell him before he embarrasses himself some more. A friend would tell him.

Got it?

[Burkhard]

Which of the words "compared: "with" "only" "of" "the" "public" do you
have difficulties with? I;m here to help.

[Burkhard]

sure, that's why they wrote"general public" just to the left of it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

General public, it's 2%.

You morons can't even read the graph, it's pathetic. I never cease to be amazed a the stunning stupidity of forum atheists. You all have to be ex-BibleThumper Jr. High School dropouts, that lost your faith or something.

[Chris Thompson]

About now is when we'll hear, "I don't do segmented posts!"

Chris

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:28:27 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

Yes, let's do look at the graphs:

Line graph:

General populace - 95% believe in a deity
Scientists - 51% believe in a deity

Pie charts:

General populace:
2% atheist
2% agnostic
12% nothing in particular
1% don't know or refused

Total 17% non-religious

Scientists:
17% atheist
11% agnostic
20% nothing in particular
4% don't know or refused

Total 52% non-religious

>Someone tell him before he embarrasses himself some more. A friend would tell him.

What was that about someone embarrassing himself?

>Got it?

Your number? Apparently, yes.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:39:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:36:54 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
>>On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>> <snip all>
>>>
>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
>>
>>They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
>
>Those statements are unrelated, unless you contend that
>"modern" includes 2kya but not 2.2-2.5kya, and/or that a
>modern scientist cannot believe in, say, Odin.
>
>>Next.
>
>Yes, let's hear your next non sequitur/waffle/tapdance.

What, no further idiocies, not even an attempt to justify
your comments above? Color me astounded.

[John Harshman]

Damn. Forgot his obsession.

[John Harshman]

On 2/15/15, 8:24 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/14/15 4:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, passer...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>>>> <snip all>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras,
>>>>>> Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Next.
>>>>
>>>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was
>>>> an atheist.
>>>
>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
>>
>> Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I recall,
>> the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%, with
>> increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted. The
>> percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was 92%.
>
> Were those polls for "atheist" or "not religious? It makes a big
> difference, and my (very vague and unreliable) memory favors the latter.
>

I don't think they made that distinction. It was god, no god but some
kind of spiritual thing, and nothing at all. But it didn't divide the
"nothing at all" group into atheists and agnostics. Passerby is being a
lawyer here.

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <hnp1ea55h04hp4l8s...@4ax.com>,

Well over 90% of Both the British Royal Society and the American Academy
of Science are openly non-theist.

[Virgil]

In article <0oSdndObbtpJeX3J...@earthlink.com>,

Chris Thompson <the_th...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> >>>>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.

Well over 90% of the scientists in both the British Royal Society and
the American Academy of Science are openly non-theist!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Malygris]

So, what do you call someone who does not believe in a god or any kind of
higher power?

--
Malygris

[Burkhard]

I object, your honour, on behalf of the profession

[John Harshman]

Sustained. Are you a sophist?

[passer...@gmail.com]

You reek of fetid ignorance, pinhead. Unlike you, I'm not stinking ignorant of this stuff. I don't eagerly seek ignorance like you. I know all of this, and I remember it perfectly. You have to have encountered it before, but you chose ignorance just like you wallow in it now.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's not just the repeated big bangs and crunches of GR and Membrane Theory and the identical Worlds of Many Worlds QT and their cyclic Universe there's this now...

Big Bang Didn't Happen? New Theory Suggests Universe Has No Beginning, No End
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/32659/20150214/big-bang-didnt-happen-new-theory-suggests-universe-has-no-beginning-no-end.htm

And in the case of the historical Jesus, he was right about everything...

Thomas 18
(1) The disciples said to Jesus: "Tell us how our end will be."
(2) Jesus said: "Have you already discovered the beginning that you are now asking about the end?
For where the beginning is, there the end will be too.
(3) Blessed is he who will stand at the beginning.
And he will know the end, and he will not taste death."

Everything Jesus said in Thomas is straight out of Many Worlds Quantum Theory. The entire thing.

[John Harshman]

Hey, I came for an argument. This is abuse!

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <qr2dnd6QjZ-sjXzJ...@giganews.com>,

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > You reek of fetid ignorance, pinhead. Unlike you, I'm not stinking ignorant
> > of this stuff. I don't eagerly seek ignorance like you. I know all of this,
> > and I remember it perfectly. You have to have encountered it before, but
> > you chose ignorance just like you wallow in it now.
> >
> Hey, I came for an argument.

YOU GOT WHAT YOU CME FOR!

[Burkhard]

and proud of it! (or was that "Sophie"...)

[passer...@gmail.com]

I didn't start it. You forum atheists are something else.

[Mike Dworetsky]

So lemme get this straight, you believe you are the only person who has the
ability to interpret this poll of scientists' religious belief, and everyone
else here (especially all the folks with PhDs in maths or hard sciences)
fails at graph reading 101?

This would be hilarious, except that you continue to stick to your
interpetation despite the fact that the pretty coloured graphs (pie charts)
say exactly what everyone else is saying, and the text accompanying the
tables and charts says exactly what everyone else is saying as well.

Pie charts:
General public: atheist 2%, agnostic 2%, nothing in
particular 12%, don't know/refused 1%, total 17%;
Scientists: atheist 17%, agnostic 11%, nothing in
particular 20%, don't know/refused 4%, total 52%.

If you can point to some invisible fact that I just don't seem to see in the
data exactly as presented, be good enough to non-abusively show me the error
of our ways.


--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Mike Dworetsky]

That's a devastatingly logical clinching argument, and I recommend
unreservedly that all my lawyer friends use it next time they are pleading a
case in court. They are bound to gain favour from the judge and jury, and
win!

PS your true colours are showing.

[passer...@gmail.com]

On the Cretin's Delight Poll, that I precisely predicted the Cretin of the week would claim said "atheist", the one that has asked for a century if you believe in a personal god that answers prayers, and never mentions atheist in the question. That poll, Einstein, the historical Jesus and I would say NO. It would list us all as atheists. And we aren't.

In the Pew Poll, not a true/false Cretin's delight, with many options, Einstein, the Historical Jesus and I would be in the "Other" category. Strong feelings about God, but not like any of those.

[passer...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:05:52 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:
> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/14/15, 4:27 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 7:20:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>> On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <snip all>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Next.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was an atheist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
> >>>>
> >>>> Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I recall,
> >>>> the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%, with
> >>>> increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted. The
> >>>> percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was 92%.
> >>>

> >>> Ok, you get the aforementioned "Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism Award". That poll you are referring to never mentions "atheist" it asks if they believe in a personal god that answers prayers. Jesus didn't believe in that either.
> >>>
> >>> Multiple choice polls, it's more like 17% that choose "atheist".
> >>>
> >>> Now, dig yourself in deeper with your moronic ignorance of the questions on that poll and that I predicted you would demonstrate that same precise ignorance.
> >>>
> >>> Forum atheists.
> >>>
> >> I am not acquainted with the polls that give you your 17%. Can you
> >> provide a reference? And since when is 17% a tiny minority?
> >
> > Completely ignorant of it are you? And don't know how to use Google?
> >
> > No problem, I'm not a scientifically ignorant forum atheist, I have the facts and understand science...
> >
> > http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
> >
> > 17%
> >
> > Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll that asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the typical forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about "atheist".
> >
> > Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly
> >
> according to your own link, that is the number in the wider population,
> not amongst scientists. Indeed, your source explicitly contrast the much
> higher percentage of atheists amongst scientists with the much lover
> (your 17%) number in the general population:
>
> "Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll
> (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe
> themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with
> only 17% of the public."

You are so stupid you still don't get that the 17% is scientists, not the general public?

Well, looks bad, maybe it's permanent.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yes, if they still don't realize that chart says 17% atheist for the scientists, they are dumber than a box of rocks. Real real stupid. It's a fact.

[Tim Norfolk]

And, according to the message with which you began, 17% is a 'tiny minority'. Under that reasoning, females under 18 constitute a 'tiny minority' of the population, since they are about 12% of the population. Strangely, I seem to see them everywhere.

[John Harshman]

Would you object if I said Passerby was being a sophist here?

[John Harshman]

Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your kind makes me puke! You vacuous,
toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!

[Burkhard]

Even more so. He is neither skilled nor wise, and even more crap at
communicating his ideas, a crucial skill in an itinerant teacher.

That they got much maligend later is just the victor writing history,
for all we actually know about them, they combined great intellectual
curiosity and a deep interest in learning with a rather kind and
accommodating outlook on human nature - that we stopped punishing
accidents like intentional crimes is amongst other things their
invention. .

[John Harshman]

Sophist is another of those words that's changed its meaning in the last
couple thousand years. I say deal with it. Otherwise, it's sophistry.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 7:30:49 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
<snip>

> Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your kind makes me puke! You vacuous,
> toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!

... and your mother smells like elderberries.

[passer...@gmail.com]

At least you can read a chart and admit it's 17%. You go to the head of the class in this demented monkey cage.

Well, debating the meaning of the words "tiny minority" while inane, is certainly a step ahead of the knuckledraggers.

[jillery]

I fart in your direction, you stupid pig-dog.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Mike Dworetsky]

You are committing a category error.

The comparison is not between self-declared atheists only, but between the
combined groupings of all who are atheist, agnostic, no particular religion,
or decline to declare. For the general public, this total is 17%, but for
scientists, it's 52%.

> Well, looks bad, maybe it's permanent.

Your problem certainly seems to be permanent.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <mbregh$e73$1...@dont-email.me>,

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> > Would you object if I said Passerby was being a sophist here?
> >

> Even more so. He is neither skilled nor wise, and even more crap at
> communicating his ideas, a crucial skill in an itinerant teacher.

Hey, if your ideas are bad, it's better to not explain them clearly.

>
> That they got much maligend later is just the victor writing history,
> for all we actually know about them, they combined great intellectual
> curiosity and a deep interest in learning with a rather kind and
> accommodating outlook on human nature - that we stopped punishing
> accidents like intentional crimes is amongst other things their
> invention. .

Didn't you leave a not out of that ultimate sentence?

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[Burkhard]

>> That they got much maligned later is just the victor writing history,

>> for all we actually know about them, they combined great intellectual
>> curiosity and a deep interest in learning with a rather kind and
>> accommodating outlook on human nature - that we stopped punishing
>> accidents like intentional crimes is amongst other things their
>> invention. .
>>
> Sophist is another of those words that's changed its meaning in the last
> couple thousand years. I say deal with it. Otherwise, it's sophistry.
>

True in general, but in this case I thought might have wanted to join
the barricades. One of the reasons the sophists were maligned was their
insistence on precision in expressing ideas, the other that they thought
it was col to know thinks and find out stuff - they were much more
empirically minded. So when they were later accused of "sophistry", that
was essentially "how dare you confuse me with facts, and point out that
what I say doesn't make sense". The other reason though was that they
also applied this to the gods, and poked holes in the belief in them.

[John Harshman]

I'm going back to "lawyer", then.

[Burkhard]

Why not something uncontroversial like "Jesuit" - I hang out mainly with
Dominicans these days, so won;t object :o)

[John Harshman]

I had actually considered that. OK, Jesuit it is.

[John Harshman]

On 2/15/15, 4:03 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 2/14/15, 4:27 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 7:20:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>>>>>> <snip all>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was an atheist.
>>>>>
>>>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
>>>>
>>>> Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I recall,
>>>> the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%, with
>>>> increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted. The
>>>> percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was 92%.
>>>

>>> Ok, you get the aforementioned "Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism Award". That poll you are referring to never mentions "atheist" it asks if they believe in a personal god that answers prayers. Jesus didn't believe in that either.
>>>
>>> Multiple choice polls, it's more like 17% that choose "atheist".
>>>
>>> Now, dig yourself in deeper with your moronic ignorance of the questions on that poll and that I predicted you would demonstrate that same precise ignorance.
>>>
>>> Forum atheists.
>>>
>> I am not acquainted with the polls that give you your 17%. Can you
>> provide a reference? And since when is 17% a tiny minority?
>
> Completely ignorant of it are you? And don't know how to use Google?
>
> No problem, I'm not a scientifically ignorant forum atheist, I have the facts and understand science...
>
> http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
>
> 17%
>
> Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll that asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the typical forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about "atheist".
>
> Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly

The Pew poll that passerby cites doesn't ask the question he thinks. No
mention of "a god that answers prayers" appears. There are two relevant
questions. The first is "What is your present religion, if any?"

Various religions: 48%
Atheist: 17%
Agnostic: 11%
Nothing in particular: 20%
No answer: 4%

The second question is "Which of the following statements comes closest
to your belief about God?"

I believe in god: 33%
I don't believe in god, but I do believe in a universal spirit or higher
power: 18%
I don't believe in either: 41%
No answer: 7%

There are some odd things here. Apparently at least 15% of scientists
have a religion but don't believe in god. (The percentage of Buddhists
is much lower than that, in case anyone was wondering.) I think we can
say that at least some of the "nothing in particular" people have a
vague belief in a higher power. But we can also say that some of them
don't believe in either.

Anyway, 41% of scientists have no belief in any sort of god. You might
not want to call that 41% atheists (and a lot of them do not so
identify), but I would consider that a quibble. 41% of scientists might
as well be called atheists.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:44:39 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

Could you elaborate, please?

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:22:19 +0000, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

I thought the reason sophist are maligned is that they wound up on the
wrong side of Plato?

Mitchell Coffey

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:00:23 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 2/15/15, 10:26 AM, Chris Thompson wrote:

>> On 2/15/2015 10:36 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/15/15, 4:03 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/15, 4:27 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 7:20:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman

>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5,
>>>>>>>>> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> <snip all>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes,
>>>>>>>>>>> Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern
>>>>>>>>>> scientist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Next.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus
>>>>>>>>> was an atheist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I
>>>>>>> recall,
>>>>>>> the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%, with
>>>>>>> increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted. The
>>>>>>> percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was 92%.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ok, you get the aforementioned "Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism
>>>>>> Award". That poll you are referring to never mentions "atheist" it
>>>>>> asks if they believe in a personal god that answers prayers. Jesus
>>>>>> didn't believe in that either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Multiple choice polls, it's more like 17% that choose "atheist".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, dig yourself in deeper with your moronic ignorance of the
>>>>>> questions on that poll and that I predicted you would demonstrate
>>>>>> that same precise ignorance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forum atheists.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I am not acquainted with the polls that give you your 17%. Can you
>>>>> provide a reference? And since when is 17% a tiny minority?
>>>>
>>>> Completely ignorant of it are you? And don't know how to use Google?
>>>>
>>>> No problem, I'm not a scientifically ignorant forum atheist, I have
>>>> the facts and understand science...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
>>>>
>>>> 17%
>>>

>>> Thanks for the clarification. I see we're fighting over terminology.
>>> Atheist, agnostic, whatever.
>>>
>>> But to return to the original. Why does believing in pagan gods
>>> disqualify you from being a scientist?

>>>
>>>> Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll
>>>> that asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the
>>>> typical forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about
>>>> "atheist".
>>>

>>> Actually, I see nothing in there about a god that answers prayers, just
>>> a god, period. Why did you add the qualification?

>>>
>>>> Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly
>>>

>>> I will refrain from spelling flames if you will answer the question
>>> about those Greek dudes.
>>>
>>
>> About now is when we'll hear, "I don't do segmented posts!"
>>
>Damn. Forgot his obsession.

It's not an obsession; it's a copout for those times when
he's cornered. I suspect even he knows they're not segmented
posts.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 12:22:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by A Nony Mouse <a...@cef.ghi>:

>In article <hnp1ea55h04hp4l8s...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 09:28:27 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>>
>> >On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:05:52 AM UTC-5, Burkhard wrote:

>> >> > Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll that
>> >> > asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the typical
>> >> > forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about "atheist".
>> >> >

>> >> > Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly
>> >> >

>> >> according to your own link, that is the number in the wider population,
>> >> not amongst scientists. Indeed, your source explicitly contrast the much
>> >> higher percentage of atheists amongst scientists with the much lover
>> >> (your 17%) number in the general population:
>> >>
>> >> "Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll
>> >> (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe
>> >> themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with
>> >> only 17% of the public."
>>

>> >No Moron, you fail the reading comprehension test. Just look at the graph,
>> >the pretty colored thing, the words are far too complicated for you. The 17%
>> >is the scientists, not the general public.
>>

>> Yes, let's do look at the graphs:
>>
>> Line graph:
>>
>> General populace - 95% believe in a deity
>> Scientists - 51% believe in a deity
>>
>> Pie charts:
>>
>> General populace:
>> 2% atheist
>> 2% agnostic
>> 12% nothing in particular
>> 1% don't know or refused
>>
>> Total 17% non-religious
>>
>> Scientists:
>> 17% atheist
>> 11% agnostic
>> 20% nothing in particular
>> 4% don't know or refused
>>
>> Total 52% non-religious

>Well over 90% of Both the British Royal Society and the American Academy
>of Science are openly non-theist.

Could be. So your claim is that the poll, which contradicts
that, is not representative? If so, do you have a cite to a
similar poll, but only among those two groups?

>> >Someone tell him before he embarrasses himself some more. A friend would
>> >tell him.
>>

>> What was that about someone embarrassing himself?
>>
>> >Got it?
>>
>> Your number? Apparently, yes.

[John Harshman]

Has he ever responded to a "segmented" post, other than to say he won't
respond?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 14:44:28 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

The graph shows that 17% of the *general population* falls
into the *three* categories stated. Direct quote from *your*
cited page:

"Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research
Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation
(meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or
nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the
public."

See that "17% of the public"? What do you suppose that might
mean?

Learn to read.

>Well, looks bad, maybe it's permanent.

Yeah, I suspect your ignorance, like your unjustified
arrogance, is incurable.

[Robert Carnegie]

If he forgets. And once on purpose, to prove he could,
but was choosing not to.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:02:08 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tim Norfolk
<tims...@aol.com>:

So do I, but I try to avoid staring and drooling. Passerby,
OTOH, probably doesn't even try.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2015 23:04:30 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Be off, or I shall taunt you again!

[Malygris]

John Harshman wrote:

> On 2/15/15, 1:21 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 2:05:50 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 2/15/15, 8:24 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:

>>>> On 2/14/15 4:19 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5,
>>>>>>> passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <snip all>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras,
>>>>>>>>> Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern
>>>>>>>> scientist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was
>>>>>>> an atheist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I
>>>>> recall, the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%,
>>>>> with increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted.
>>>>> The percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was
>>>>> 92%.
>>>>

>>>> Were those polls for "atheist" or "not religious? It makes a big
>>>> difference, and my (very vague and unreliable) memory favors the
>>>> latter.
>>>>
>>> I don't think they made that distinction. It was god, no god but some
>>> kind of spiritual thing, and nothing at all. But it didn't divide the
>>> "nothing at all" group into atheists and agnostics. Passerby is being a
>>> lawyer here.
>>

>> You reek of fetid ignorance, pinhead. Unlike you, I'm not stinking
>> ignorant of this stuff. I don't eagerly seek ignorance like you. I know
>> all of this, and I remember it perfectly. You have to have encountered it
>> before, but you chose ignorance just like you wallow in it now.
>>
> Hey, I came for an argument. This is abuse!

No, you didn't!

--
Malygris

[Burkhard]

OK, I'm doing this from memory. But that's how I learned it in law
school. An athlete had been accused of murdering a fellow athlete with a
spear during training. The charge was "killing" (at the time
undifferentiated), the rule was simple: take a life, lose a life. One of
the sophists (whose job also was to double as prototypical defense
solicitors" gave a speech suggesting that there is a distinction to be
made between what actions we do and what state of mind we have when
doing them, and that it is proper only to kill those who not only
killed, but had wanted to do so.

A bit of this is backwards projection, there was no differentiated court
system at the time, no formal "charges" as we understand them, and no
formal defense solicitors. More a public spectacle where lots of people
gave speeches, and then "the stones were cast"

[Walter Bushell]

In article <mbt1i3$iqa$1...@dont-email.me>,

Neither would the Franciscan's I expect.

[Burkhard]

Same thing. Plato had argued in the "laws" that even if gods don't
exist, we should believe in them to maintain order in the city. (three
things are necessary to believe, that gods exist, that they care, and
that they cannot be bribed)

That made the sophists not just heretics, it made them anarchists.

Plato's own conception of god and gods is..complicated, and you could
debate (philosophers do this no end) what type of thing(s) he really
believed in this regards.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <ckep2q...@mid.individual.net>,

That's not an argument or even a step in one. "An argument is a
connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition."

Must we always be referencing the Python?

[Robert Carnegie]

As I recall, the Greek gods seemed to be pretty
corrupt - biased in favour of their children,
their favourites, and anyone who built a nice
temple. Just saying. Of course, if you can't
buy the gods' favour with sacrificial offerings,
then why make offerings?

[Burkhard]

In that respect Plato differed indeed from the prevailing view at his
time. Makes sense too - if you think religion is necessary so that
people behave, you don't want them to be able to behave anti-socially
nonetheless, but bribe the gods. Same way as when you think we need
criminal law and prison sentences to ensure norm following, you take a
dim view on bribing judges.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 08:52:03 -0800, the following appeared

Yes, but only when he thought (mistakenly) the he had a
"giant-killer" riposte. That's why I called it a copout.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:58:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

[Crickets...]

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:50:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Well?

[John Harshman]

There are similar polls. The general result is that the more eminent in
his/her profession a scientist is, the less likely he/she is to be
religious. Given that, there's no contradiction. Scientists are not
representative of the public, and eminent scientists are not
representative of scientists. Should that be surprising.

Now, your whole conflict with passerby, who at any rate seems to have
scarpered, is about words. He says atheist, and self-identified atheist
at that, while you say non-religious. You combine all non-religious into
a single category, he keeps the categories separate. You are both right
about your claims of what the poll says.

The only possible question is which category is appropriate for the
argument in which he brought up the poll originally. Since that argument
has long been forgotten, it probably doesn't matter. But for the record,
your categorization is the better one. But who are you arguing with now?

[broger...@gmail.com]

It's not hard to find. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:33:15 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Nope; point taken.

>Now, your whole conflict with passerby, who at any rate seems to have
>scarpered, is about words. He says atheist, and self-identified atheist
>at that, while you say non-religious. You combine all non-religious into
>a single category, he keeps the categories separate. You are both right
>about your claims of what the poll says.

My initial objection was to his refusal to accept the words
in his own cited reference. Requoted from above:

[Burkhard (quoting the poll)]

" 'Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research

Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation
(meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or
nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the

public.' "

[Passerby's response]

"No Moron, you fail the reading comprehension test. Just
look at the graph, the pretty colored thing, the words are
far too complicated for you. The 17% is the scientists, not
the general public."

It was passerby's first sentence which caught my eye, since
he was essentially denying what his own cite said, ignoring
the grouping cited by Burkhard, and shifting to "atheists"
only. It seemed to me it was p'by who failed reading
comprehension, probably with intent.

>The only possible question is which category is appropriate for the
>argument in which he brought up the poll originally. Since that argument
>has long been forgotten, it probably doesn't matter. But for the record,
>your categorization is the better one. But who are you arguing with now?

No one, apparently; as you noted p'by has run away, at least
from this issue. I'm mildly surprised he didn't invoke his
usual "segmented post" canard as a (wildly unaimed) Parthian
shot.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:33:59 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by broger...@gmail.com:

>It's not hard to find. https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Thanks. Harshman pointed out that "scientists" and
"scientists who are members of the BRS and AAS" are not the
same, and I'd suppose that the cited results from the NAS
poll ("leading scientists") are similar to the latter.

[Inez]

On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:05:52 AM UTC-8, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> > On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> > > > <snip all>
> > > >
> > > > To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
> > >
> > > They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
> > >
> > > Next.
> >
> > That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was an atheist.
>
> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
>

> (And the Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism Award for the first forum atheist that lists not believing in praying to god as being an atheist. Jesus didn't believe in praying, in fact it infuriated him if you did.)

You're an angry little guy aren't you?

The mark of a scientist is that their job is doing science things. Simply not being religious doesn't make you a scientist.

[wpih...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 8:10:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> As I recall, the Greek gods seemed to be pretty
> corrupt

No, by definition if you are a god then you are
not corrupt whatever you do. (admittedly the
gods did things that would be corrupt if not
done by a god or king).

Being King of course, he couldn't do wrong,
But, by gum, he'd a proper good try.

-Edgar

This holds for gods as well (and obviously for god kings)

-William Hughes

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:57:05 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> Was the Historical Jesus the First Modern Scientist?

Was There A Historical Jesus?

--
"We've seen the fastest economic growth in over a decade." [Repulicans
stare silently] "This is good news, people." [A few polite claps.]

[J. J. Lodder]

Desertphile <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:57:05 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Was the Historical Jesus the First Modern Scientist?
>
> Was There A Historical Jesus?

But of course. This is christian science,
which proceeds by assuming what has to be shown.

It is always a great succes, by its own standards,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:50:35 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Desertphile <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:

>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:57:05 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > Was the Historical Jesus the First Modern Scientist?

>> Was There A Historical Jesus?

>But of course. This is christian science,
>which proceeds by assuming what has to be shown.

It's a bit more than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

>It is always a great succes, by its own standards,

Of course, but assuming that this is the case in this
instance is also an assumption, one which (if the Wiki
article is accurate) is at best questionable.

BTW, passerby has already had his question answered, several
times, with a definite "No".

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 16:50:35 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Desertphile <Deser...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:57:05 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Was the Historical Jesus the First Modern Scientist?
>
> >> Was There A Historical Jesus?
>
> >But of course. This is christian science,
> >which proceeds by assuming what has to be shown.
>
> It's a bit more than that.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Of course, you can talk about it forever.
Round and round, on the same finite corpus of text.

> >It is always a great succes, by its own standards,
>
> Of course, but assuming that this is the case in this
> instance is also an assumption, one which (if the Wiki
> article is accurate) is at best questionable.

If you start speculating (as passerby does) about what a possibly
historical person may or may not have done here is no end to it.

> BTW, passerby has already had his question answered, several
> times, with a definite "No"

Of course, there are no 'modern scientists' before modern times,
with a modern interpretation of 'modern',

Jan

[passer...@gmail.com]

No moron, the question of a personal god that answers prayers is the bogus poll you morons quoted, precisely as I predicted you would. YOU turned no belief in a god that answers prayers into the deliberate lie "atheist".

And of course, I was right about the 17% too, because unlike forum atheists, I pursue truth, not some moron agenda and have the facts.

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 11:25:47 AM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/15/15, 4:03 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> > On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 9:50:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 2/14/15, 4:27 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 7:20:52 PM UTC-5, John Harshman wrote:

> >>>> On 2/14/15, 9:01 AM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:30:56 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:40:55 PM UTC-5, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 8:30:55 PM UTC-5, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> >>>>>>>> <snip all>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> To answer the question posed by the title, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes and a bunch of others came much earlier.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They believed in the pagan Greek gods. Not exactly a modern scientist.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Next.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That makes absolutely no sense, unless your claim is that Jesus was an atheist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A tiny minority of scientists call themselves atheists.
> >>>>

> >>>> Polls of scientists on this question contradict your claim. As I recall,
> >>>> the lowest percentage found by any poll was greater than 50%, with
> >>>> increasing percentages as more eminent scientists were counted. The
> >>>> percentage among members of the National Academy of Science was 92%.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, you get the aforementioned "Monkey Brain Outstanding Cretinism Award". That poll you are referring to never mentions "atheist" it asks if they believe in a personal god that answers prayers. Jesus didn't believe in that either.
> >>>
> >>> Multiple choice polls, it's more like 17% that choose "atheist".
> >>>
> >>> Now, dig yourself in deeper with your moronic ignorance of the questions on that poll and that I predicted you would demonstrate that same precise ignorance.
> >>>
> >>> Forum atheists.
> >>>
> >> I am not acquainted with the polls that give you your 17%. Can you
> >> provide a reference? And since when is 17% a tiny minority?
> >
> > Completely ignorant of it are you? And don't know how to use Google?
> >
> > No problem, I'm not a scientifically ignorant forum atheist, I have the facts and understand science...
> >
> > http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
> >
> > 17%
> >
> > Just like I predicted the forum atheist morons would post that poll that asks if you believe in a god that answers prayers and spew the typical forum atheist deliberate lies saying it says anything about "atheist".
> >
> > Forum atheists, the dumbest rocks in the box. Consistantly
>

> The Pew poll that passerby cites doesn't ask the question he thinks. No
> mention of "a god that answers prayers" appears. There are two relevant
> questions. The first is "What is your present religion, if any?"
>
> Various religions: 48%
> Atheist: 17%
> Agnostic: 11%
> Nothing in particular: 20%
> No answer: 4%
>
> The second question is "Which of the following statements comes closest
> to your belief about God?"
>
> I believe in god: 33%
> I don't believe in god, but I do believe in a universal spirit or higher
> power: 18%
> I don't believe in either: 41%
> No answer: 7%
>
> There are some odd things here. Apparently at least 15% of scientists
> have a religion but don't believe in god. (The percentage of Buddhists
> is much lower than that, in case anyone was wondering.) I think we can
> say that at least some of the "nothing in particular" people have a
> vague belief in a higher power. But we can also say that some of them
> don't believe in either.
>
> Anyway, 41% of scientists have no belief in any sort of god. You might
> not want to call that 41% atheists (and a lot of them do not so
> identify), but I would consider that a quibble. 41% of scientists might
> as well be called atheists.

[passer...@gmail.com]

False, the overwhelming majority of the top physicists believe in an abstract God, as you get to the top, morons with agendas get weeded out. Science isn't the religion you think it is. It's built on sand. Einstein is an excellent example...

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble."

There's hundreds more like that, Einstein spent a lot of time talking about God. So did his best pal, Godel.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yes, there is far more historical evidence for Jesus than Socrates or Josephus or just about any such person in history. What he actually said or did is debated, but fancy historians overwhelmingly think he existed.