Ed Kroc: Another Atheist Bigot

Posted in Religion, Science on  | 2 minutes | 2 Comments →

Sorry, I was on the internet too much today. I found this kookery over at Paul Zachary’s “free thought” blog, and I felt it needed to be called out for the small-minded bigotry it is:

There are three kinds of religious scientists (and mathematicians): cowards, liars and idiots. The cowards need to be reassured and rescued, the liars need to be challenged and contested, and the idiots need to be exposed. It is because of this that I have become an engaged atheist, outspoken and loud, a “new” atheist if that’s what you want to call it. As long as the cowards, liars and idiots are protected by our silence and general disinterest in anything not directly related to our research, they will continue to compromise the credibility of our fields. You can be a brilliant scientist and still believe in god, but you can’t do it sincerely. That’s a problem. Sooner or later will be a clash, whether it’s in the form of muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality in a public statement or lecture. If you’re going to devote your life to the pursuit of truth, then you better have enough guts to stomach the implications, all of them.

Right, because conflicts of interest *ONLY* arise when scientists are religious. Bigoted kookery! And only the super-rational atheist scientists are metaphysically sincere! Bigoted kookery! Of course, Ed Kroc the bigot forgot all about the fourth kind of religious scientist: the ones who contribute more knowledge to science to science than Dawkins, Myers, Harris and Coyne combined. Who cares though, because, via revelation from Ed Kroc, we can be certain Francis Collins will be out there muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality, sooner or later. After all, only *THEIST* scientists do that!


2 comments

  1. George Henry Shaft

     says...

    Of course, Ed Kroc the bigot forgot all about the fourth kind of religious scientist: the ones who contribute more knowledge to science to science than Dawkins, Myers, Harris and Coyne combined.

    I wouldn’t even go that far; just ask him which of the three were Galileo, Newton or Copernicus.

    Loving the comments at that link, too. “So he made more contributions to science than several loud evangelical atheists? Big deal! That could mean anything! How does that disprove that all religious people are bigots? Anyway, teaching Christianity is child abuse and if you don’t agree I won’t speak to you! Ner!”

    One of the reasons I cannot reasonably back atheism is their proponents’ continuous demonstrate inability to argue a point with any measure of honesty, let alone coherence.

  2. Thomas Knuckemyer

     says...

    One of the reasons I cannot reasonably back *[a]* is their proponents’ *[b]*

    In other words, the “b” behavior is the criteria you use to decide whether “a” has merit?

    So what things do you “back”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *