Ed Kroc: Another Atheist Bigot

July 8, 2012

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!






Sexual Harassment & Freethought Kookery

Many of us already know that “Freethought” blogs is just a front for groupthink. That should be evident by the way “freethought” bloggers like JT Eberhard, PZ Myers and Greta Christina arbitrarily censor intelligent dissent. While skimming through the “freethought” blogs I couldn’t help but notice they’ve given “Cristina Rad” a forum now. Anybody else sense the irony? To me, the subtext reads:

“We’re sophisticated rational atheists and women should not be objectified!”

“Hey, let’s give this hot, popular blonde a forum!”






Do Reconverts Exist?

I’m not asking, “Has anybody ever stopped believing in God, then started again?” I’m sure those people exist. I’m thinking more along the lines of professionals and academics. Does anybody know of any prominent, vocal or outgoing believers who became prominent, vocal or outgoing atheists, then reconverted? I’m asking because I have this hypothesis that once a deconvert has blasphemed and insulted enough, potential cognitive dissonance outweighs commitment to reason. For example, John W. Loftus. Are we really to believe that somebody like Loftus is true enough to searching that he might reconvert, even after all that crap he’s talked about God and faith? Or, might all that crap-talking have permanently eroded any such chance?

If you are a deconvert, what would it take to reconvert?






Ruby & First Causes?

July 6, 2012

I came across the following in some Ruby documentation and thought it was poignant WRT (a)theism:

This pattern is true of every Ruby object: trace back the class hierarchy far enough and every class in Ruby ultimately inherits from BasicObject, which has no superclass itself.






Question #3: Can God Be Called Bad?

July 2, 2012

Following along from Question 1 and Question 2, In your opinion, can God be rightfully called “immoral” or “bad” for preferring a universe with compassion over a universe without it?






Question #2: A Universe With Compassion

Is a universe with compassion better than a universe without compassion? Why or why not? As with yesterday’s question, I’m looking for direct, “yes” or “no” answers, followed by explanation if necessary.






Question #1: Compassion & Suffering

July 1, 2012

Are empathy and compassion logically possible without experiencing suffering?

In honor of twimfanboy’s obsession with the “firmly cemented goalposts” thing, I’m looking for—and trying to encourage in general—direct, “yes” or “no” answers to questions. This is how you cement firm goalposts, fanboy! Sure, many questions don’t have only yes or only no answers. I get that. Explanations and caveats are welcomed, just prefix them with a “yes” or “no” whenever possible.

To demonstrate my own willingness in abiding by this principle, I say no, neither is logically possible without experiencing suffering.