Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Of course, the big rip would give us a reason not to procrastinate for billions of years, so I guess there's something to be said for having a literal drop-dead timeline to motivate you.
The last decade has shown exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Less vaccinations has resulting in outbreaks of diseases in the last decade that were basically extinct 20 years ago.
you see a point you disagree with and go into attack mode.
No, to paraphrase your original post:
There is reason to allow this abhorrent practice.
There has to be oversight if it's done though.
There likely cannot be effective oversight so we shouldn't do it.
The first line is the problem. The rest means nothing in that context. If you meant otherwise you failed to clearly articulate it.
who are you/anyone come to the idea that atheists flock to science.
Why, I am ME. I have both the ability and the right to come to any idea or notion that I damn well choose. The question is who are you to imply otherwise? You must be from a place that tries to restrict what a person thinks. Welcome to freedom of thought and expression, it's a warm and inviting place that people flock to.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you are getting hung up on semantics. Perhaps I should have said science tends to draw people that have a greater tendency question everything. The complete lack of credible evidence for religion eventually persuades them to release that belief in a deity. Drawn to, flocked, whatever.
Was that your attempt to illustrate what a straw man is?.
No. That statement stood on it's own.
What has the national academi of science to do with that?.
Ummm, it was a response to the question you asked. It is representative of the number of scientists that are atheists versus the number of theists, showing markedly "less" religious people in science, ergo less religious people "flocking" to science.
And science is always presenting us with new and wondrous things on an almost daily basis.
Any references why/where/when Atheists flock to science and religious peolple not?
I didn't say religious people didn't, actually, only that atheists as a whole do, so perhaps you are reading into it a bit. But, I can't say I've ever hear an atheist denouncing evolution... Just saying.
As far as I know many top scientists proclaim to believe in god
Here's a quote, that I believe to be reasonably accurate, from Wikipedia: "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts" I don't really need to elaborate any more on that one, do I?
Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a noring summer void. There is nothing 'special' about atheists, they are just irdinary people.
Agreed, and I certainly never said otherwise. Seems like you are a bit sensitive about atheism. Take a breath, relax, and remember his noodly goodness loves you even if you don't believe in him.