backwoods
Hitchens knew all religious texts back to front. Dawkins has never read the Koran.
 
Hitchens should be commended for "knowing thine enemy", Dawkins wshould be commended for not wasting his time I suppose.
 
Jesus Christ is a New Testament character BTW. 
 
Much social structure came from the bible- like it or not, you were raised on Christian ethics guys....

I don't think any atheist would discard the influence of christianity over civilisation. As for social structure? The greeks had quite an influence on us too, didn't they. Without them, I'm not sure that christianity would have prospered as well. Plus, those Christian ethics were (awkwardly) grafted onto the Jewish ethics. 
 
You mentioned before that you are more of a New Testament person, but, if it had not been sold as the accomplishment of the Ancient Testament, the New Testament would not exist. They may often be irreconcilable logically - which is why I guess many Christians just toss the embarrassing Old Testament aside - but, imho, you cannot consequently take one and reject the other. 
 
So Jesus-Christ may be a New Testament character, but the christianity really is about the accomplishment of the Old Testament. Many early christians and many christian scholars made it a point to hunt down anything they could use in the Old Testament to demonstrate that Jesus was the messiah. As far fetched as it got at times. Any mention of a wooden stake in the OT would become a prophecy about the death of Christ on the cross. In fact, many fundamentalist christians still do just that. Everything in the OT has its pendant in the New Testament. 
 
Anyway, what people read and how they understand the Bible is greatly influenced by their familial and social context. 
Some christians condemn gay people. OTOH, I know many gay "christians" who try to follow the teachings of "Christ". All of them think that they have the right understanding of it. If your heart is full of hate and bigotry, you will find the fuel for that in the Bible. If it's full of love, you'll find things which make sense. Personally, I see just as much of both. 
 
 

backwoods
crap science funding is when dumb career academics are given sinecures and paid government money with no expectation of ever producing /anything of any worth for their entire career.
 
The money would be better left in the taxpayer pocket but a country has to be seen to be doing the right thing you know.

That's a political issue, not a scientific one. And, honestly, that's what alarms you? 
 
What about the gazillions $ upon which Vatican is sitting and all the children who've been abused and all the people tortured and murdered in the name of faith?

backwoods
It indicates that most scientists are not productive people.

Do you have data to back that up?

Priests get government funding now do they?
 
p.s. Prayer is very productive for world peace in my opinion.

Do you know what science is rain?

prayer rain.... 

Could you possibly give a few examples of "crap science"? Just curious. NEVER MIND....I see Straummy beat me to that.

Must always read to the bottom.



or type faster....damn iPad.

data collection to introduce bias is common. 
 
If something is presented as being science you guys will eat it up. Alot of data is skewered to gather government funding. 
 
Feynman did some lectures called "The meaning of it all" which is a good read. He was an atheist but considered a document the Vatican put out one of the most important documents of his time. He understood that it doesn't matter how you get there as long as you get there. He gives examples of crap science in the book- scientists who don't understand science- sometimes even the top guys. One of Einsteins assistants for example.
 
Actually his humorous autobiograpghy has a section called Cargo Cult scince that delves into this too. It's not a clean profession by any stretch- withholding non corroborating data is not unusual eg. Wow, that is such an outlier it must be a mistake- we'll just ignore it.Crap science.
 
 
 
 
 

I don't like being lectured about science by guys who don't understand it themselves rain.

I think I know alot more about science than you rain.

Ok - maybe I don't know "science", after all.
Maybe science is something metaphysical which I need to be enlighten about.
Maybe what really matter is not science but it's place in the world, and your understanding of its workings.
 
So I'll ask the rest of the guys to please tell me - do I really miss the point? Am I that stupid that I don't know "science"? I'll step out if I'm that offbeat...
 

 
I have a theory theorum hypothesis.
 
Religion has always sought to stifle science and stand in the way of technological innovation.
 
And it always will.
 
But not because science disagrees directly in so many ways with what the bible says.
 
Oh no...
 
The reason is simple when you think about it a little.
 
Believers know that one day down the line, science will discover how to time travel.
 
And when that happens, we will be able to pop back and see for ourselves that the events described in the bible, specifically those ascribed to a supernatural deity, didn't really happen.
 
The more they can slow scientific progress down, the longer it will take for the time machine to be invented.
 
Simples.
 
=======
 
And no Krist, you most certainly are not missing the point.

Although I can very comfortably accept your premise that there is waste, mismanagement, corruption and downright ignorance in the field of science...just as there is in every other discipline on planet Earth...I'm still totally unclear on what you're arguing for or against by stating it. I mean its like saying "sometimes life's a b i t c h" to which any thoughtful person would have to rejoinder, "yep, sho is."

You certainly can't mean that because there is weak science taking place daily or that there are scientific findings you deem crap or simply choose not to believe that ALL science should be discounted. Can you?

backwoods

Rain
Ok - maybe I don't know "science", after all.
Maybe science is something metaphysical which I need to be enlighten about.
Maybe what really matter is not science but it's place in the world, and your understanding of its workings.
 
So I'll ask the rest of the guys to please tell me - do I really miss the point? Am I that stupid that I don't know "science"? I'll step out if I'm that offbeat...
 

Feynman talks about this common error too. He calls it "how long is the emperors nose". No one had seen the emperor of china and someone wanted to know how long his nose was so he went and asked everyone and averaged it out. 

You didn't have a leg to stand on when you mentioned being a "New Testament" christian. Even your fellow christians know better than that. See BigBen's post. 
 
 
If you can take that kind of liberty with your own system of belief, then you'll just twist every thing to your liking. As you did when you carefully tip toe around the posts that challenged you to further explain that fact and never gave a straight answer.
 
Not only do I know what science is, but unlike you, I'm not delusional enough to believe that others might not know. Heck, even you probably know what science is - though in this discussion you just confuse it and its purpose w/ religion.
 
I also seem to know religion, christianity and your whole distorted personal loose adaptation of that religion much better than you. If it helps you better accept that, I can pull out some metaphor about a Chinese emperor to prove I'm right.
 
Your interpretation of what science is, is, however, yours and yours only. That's something I couldn't possibly know about, you are right. Not that it's be of any use. 
 
FWIW, I don't care that you don't like being lectured by me.
I don't particularly like to discuss w/ someone who doesn't want to make the difference between an argument and a blanket statement.
But FWIW, I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing at you.
 
 
As long as anyone brings religion against the TOS, I'll make sure that the opposite view is heard.

Amen..