Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye 'the Science Guy' Urges Letters To Obama To Restore NASA Budget Cuts
MarkWhittington writes "Bill Nye, once known as 'The Science Guy' for his 1990s PBS educational television show, has cut a YouTube video in his current capacity of CEO of the Planetary Society urging people to write to President Obama to restore cuts to planetary science. The budget cuts were enacted by the president last February, causing consternation in the scientific community. Nye writes, 'If that proposal continues the steep decline in funding to NASA's planetary program it will gravely endanger the unique capabilities and outstanding people that have delivered U.S. leadership in space. We will lose a capability that took decades to develop and may never be replaced.'"
Write them both, either could be president in January, and maybe they'll bring up NASA funding around job creation during the election.
You could wait until January.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
The House is the body responsible for spending authorizations. If you want an increase in NASA's budget, write to your local congressman/woman first. The nice thing about the House is that with 435 members, it's theoretically possible that you might get some sort of response if there is enough constituent interest on the issue.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
It has been decided that we will be staying here. We will pray to our Gods for nice weather and the forbearance of asteroids.
From wikipedia:
William Sanford Nye was born in Washington, D.C., to Jacqueline (née Jenkins; 1921–2000), a codebreaker during World War II, and Edwin Darby "Ned" Nye (1917–1997), also a World War II veteran, whose experience in a Japanese prisoner of war camp led him to become a sundial enthusiast.[4][5][6] Nye is a fourth-generation Washington resident through his father's side of the family. After attending Lafayette Elementary and Alice Deal Junior High in the city, he was accepted to the private Sidwell Friends School on a partial scholarship and graduated in 1973.[7][8] He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell University (where one of his professors was Carl Sagan[9]) and graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977.
He was "Bill Nye the Science Guy" back when he was a role player on "Almost Live!", which was a Seattle-area comic sketch show in the 80s and 90s.
Most of the time he was just a stock player, but occasionally he'd do a science-comedy mashup; and for each year's New Year's special episode he'd rig up some Rube Goldberg sciency contraption that'd be used to count down to the new year.
Although I think I liked him best as Speed Walker, who fought crime while adhering to the conventions of the International Speed Walking Association.
#DeleteChrome
Dude, I think you forgot your tinfoil hat this morning.
Because Big Bird only needs Millions in support.... NASA's projects require BILLIONS over multiple years.
Big Bird helps little kids... NASA helps rich defense contractors.... They usually vote Republican.
Here's a better idea.
How about NASA setup a portal where citizens can donate money directly to NASA, in exchange for priority access varying on how much they contribute every month. Then NASA is no longer subject to the whims of congress, but by how much people value NASA.
If people want NASA, they'll be willing to pay for it directly, instead of indirectly through taxation.
Umm... Bill Nye actually has a job as executive director of the planetary society, has a degree in mechanical engineering and he's worked as an engineer at boeing. The man knows his physics, just because his acting is why he is well known, does not effect his actual qualifications.
Though the Air force is used for military means rather than exploratory means, it's pretty clear that most of the prototypes in the AF pipeline are space and air...not just air. So many of the advances of shuttles etc that NASA has been pushing toward are being propagated into the Air force portfolio, NASA should just become a sub-arm of the Air force...basically. Then it can get military money (which we know is massive and won't be cut.) It just makes sense. NASA can deal with the interplanetary means of the air force and piggy back off of their funding AND their new air craft hybrids of space and air vehicles.
Bill Nye 'the Science Guy' Urges Letters To Obama To Restore NASA Budget Cuts
"Restoring cuts" sounds like NASA getting less money.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Prove your Deity exists and end all argument.
Do it now. The burden of proof is on those who contend that a thing is fact.
Religion is not based on evidence, therefore it's nonsense and its proponents delusional or liars. Prove your Sky Fairie is real and I'll recant then kiss his/her/its Noodly Appendage. Otherwise, fuck off.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Unlike just about every other branch of government, NASA routinely either broke even or even made money, thanks to all of the stuff they invented. Heck, if they had patented all of it, the government would have a huge cash cow in NASA.
Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion. Sciences looks for answers for things that religion would rather you just shut-up and believe (and give money and power).
Which departments are funded and how much funding they get is up to congress and not the president.
The president is not king or emperor and people need to stop treating the position this way. It is very dangerous because if we do this for too long the president will become emperor.
The majority of power must always reside in the legislature. They make the laws, they set policy, they debate the issues, they cut the deals. The president just runs the show after he's been given the rules.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Believing that writing to Obama to change things will do any good requires a higher level of ignoring all available evidence than does belief in any given diety.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Wait until you see who wins the election. Then write that person. No need to write the loser as he is packing his bags.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You obviously do not know what science is. Science is not religion and does not say anything to religion because religion is full of supernatural claims that Science cannot prove or disprove.
Anyone who truly knows what science is would be indifferent about religion. They simply wouldn't care about it as it does not effect science at all.
The 'climate' thing is a major irritant to the Republicans. http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2011/02/14/2
IMHO, some Republicans are willing to totally bork NASA just to get rid of Hansen.
Moderating the parent to -1 is an example of someone, who doesn't like the message, shooting the messanger.
NASA was impressive, when it was committed to human exploration. They already lost that legacy. They replaced it with the shuttle, and then started doing an endless stream of space research.
Sometimes you have to shoot the scientists and turn it over to the engineers.
You sure wasn't exactly the engineers that cut the manned human space exploration? After all, it's a sensible idea when it comes to pragmatic solutions.
Besides, the "Lose exactly what?" is a good question. Except that the alternatives are not "manned/unmanned space exploration" but the choices are: the "leadership in space" or the "capability"?
Because... you know?... other solutions may exists for maintaining the capability (e.g. collaboration./contracts with other space agencies, be them national or private), but if it's the "leadership in space" then yes, you have to pay for it.
As an engineer, I'd say: pick what you want first (picking also a why would be even better) then assess the solutions from this perspective... in this case, if picking "capability" maybe the "defunding" is a good enough solution?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
That's not how burden of proof works. You are suggesting that the older idea is presumptively correct in the absence of proof. In reality, religion has had thousands of years to prove anything at all, and failed utterly to do so, whereas science has routinely either proven its claims, discarded them, or built more capable equipment for gathering evidence.
If they government takes all of the money currently marked for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (outside any payments for our own stuff, I'm just talking the free money they give away) and gave it to NASA, the organization would likely triple in size.
Keep quiet about science or the religious people who are already undermining science in favor of magic-sky-mannery will get upset and undermine science!
Name a single thing that have in your home, in your pocket, on your desk, or in your car that came directly from whatever the fuck the MIC has been spending $4 Trilion on over the last few years. You can't. Precisely because none of us are getting anything useful out of it. Period.
Funny thing with the logic... if you don't see something happening, it simply does not mean it can not happen!
(a subtle way of Godwining the thread) my car brand started because of a group of people with megalomaniac aggressive mindset wanted it... No, it's not a Humvee... it goes 74.8 MPG and you wouldn't like the people that pushed it into existence.
My point: yes, funding NASA have better chances of progress than waging wars... however, the results of belligerency may not be all bad (e.g. why larger human agglomerations called cities happened? Easier to defend between walls at that time. Why they ditched the walls with the result they could grow unrestricted? Mobile artillery made city walls obsolete).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
The last time we funded NASA, it resulted in three decades of Earth shattering scientific advances, an increase in desire for higher education and an explosion of growth in employment in technology fields. Let's be sure not to make that mistake again.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Except for the couple of years immediately after the president insisted we needed to go to the moon, where NASA consumed more than 4% of the national budget (but still wasn't very much), it has almost never accounted for a significant part of the budget in any way. For the entire life of the agency, the average budget (in 2007's dollars) has been something like $17,000,000,000/yr.
Hell, since 9/11, we have spent TWICE as much conducting war in the middle east as NASA has spent in its entire fifty-five year live time, in which it developed rocket technology. Developed shuttle technology. Helped improve countless other technologies (including those for the military). Helped generate entire new private industries. Shot a man into space. Shot around the moon. Landed men on the moon several times. Built space-suit-jets for men in space. Conducted space walks. Built a space car. Built and deployed a telescope to see to the beginning of time. Built and manned a space station. Built one (wait, two?) little RC cars that we landed on the surface of Mars. Then built an SUV that we landed on Mars. Not to mention the satellites above our heads. The satellites far out in space, exploring the universe for decades, now. . .
All of that is in *today's* dollars.
So, let's not fool ourselves into believing NASA has ever had a "ton of funding". But, just think what we could accomplish if we blew up a few less brown people or facilitated a few fewer corporate (Haliburtin, KDR, etc) contracts in Afghanistan or Iraq with government resources and just funneled that little bit of money to NASA. Maybe push 5% of that "searchin' for WMDs" money over to NASA. Who knows what fucking amazing shit we could do?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Private industry yadda yadda. That'd be fine, if we apply that consistently. But if we're going to be debating what's worth funding, how the fuck is pursuing one of the most primitive needs of mankind not near the top of the list?
Instead, we have to bank the whole of our space exploration on the guy who ships books and kindles to your doorstep, the guy behind Doom and Rage, and the guy behind PayPal. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but . . .
"Tell people there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
Apparently they couldn't afford a tripod to film this. That, or they were trying to go for a in-the-action style film to liven up a boring speech.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Right right right... I've heard Mitt is going to outlaw Tampons also. It'll be just horrible.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
No True Scottsman notwithstanding, I would disagree.
It's not a matter of what science has taught us. It's a matter of methodology. Science is about modeling the observed, proving the model, and proving a better model. Religion boils down to trusting an unobservable and unprovable model to be fact. Attempting to apply scientific rigor to a religion inevitably leads to an outright dismissal. To suggest the concepts are indifferent or not at odds seems only plausible through some sort of cognitive dissonance.
Hey, look! It's Bono's brother.
Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion.
Absolutely false, and incredibly naive. I fully understand science and I am not the slightest bit "anti-religion". I don't believe that a God exist but that does not make me anti-religion. Your mistake is to think of beliefs as being about the truth, rather than about what works. The fact that every single society in the history of human race was based on religion should make a science guy like you at least consider a possibility that it has a strong evolutionary advantages and that it shouldn't be dismissed so callously, not least because the evidence is that as soon as you kill one religion another one (potentially a lot worse than what we have now) will spring up. Once you understand the pitifully small role that reason (as compared to memes) plays in 'thinking' of humans, yes, including you, and the complexity of a society then you will understand that trying to base it on reason (rather than on fixed commands from 'above') is naive and dangerous.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
With us spending more than what we bring in there are 1 of 2 options. Raise taxes which no one wants or make cuts in the budget which no one wants either. Reality is that we need to balance the budget its going to be a hard several years to get it all fixed. We didn't get here over night and we won't be able to fix it over night either. But we DO need to get there.
I can't keep borrowing with no chance of repaying and our govt shouldn't either.
Save the budget cuts! NASA is a dead corporation, so why are we wasting money on them? I am partially kidding.
Perhaps you could explain the mechanism then. You seem to be claiming that there's some sort of observational bias happening in religious people. I think that's unfound though there is a subgroup of religious people who clearly aren't operating empirically and make strange claims about the real world which don't have a scientific basis.
Anyone who REALLY understands science inherently believes it has nothing to say on the topic of religion and vice versa.
Thanks to asteroid impacts, comet impacts, super volcanos, solar outbursts, major biological insults, ice ages and other rare, but dependable catastrophic events, there is every need to find other planets to colonize.
Thanks to huge resources that become almost freely available to us once we definitively get out of the earth's gravity well, the financial case is, if long term, still quite clear.
Thanks to the lack of atmosphere and the availability of incomprehensibly long baselines, astronomy alone will benefit hugely from an actual presence in space, once / if we can pull it off.
The first sign of a complete failure to understand the world we live in is any urge to cut back on our ability to get to, stay in, do science in, and work in, space.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually, they are closer then you think. Religion is about a set of people saying a God told them something and passing it down the ages to others. You cannot do half the science out there, so you are trusting and believing what someone else is telling you.
But you are also wrong. This is because science and religion are separate things. You do not need to apply the scientific method to it or any other thing and religion doesn't require you to ignore the scientific method to anything. So saying someone who truly understand science, would imply that they would also truly understand that religion is not science therefore their scientific understanding would be indifferent to religion in much the same way as it would be indifferent to the Saturday morning cartoons or love or poetry.
Examples of "supernatural" (a.k.a. bullshit) claims that science can help answer:
* Does prayer work to cure the sick? Sciences indicates no.
* Was the world formed in six days? Science indicates no.
* Did Noah get every species onto a boat? Science indicates no.
* Are we reincarnated? Sciences indicates no.
These can all be proved negative to my satisfaction.
I didn't say science has anything to say about religion. Science is merely the act of trying to find answers with reason, and proving it with evidence. It's not a religion - it doesn't say a thing.
I said "Anyone who truly understands science is..." not "Science is...".
People who understand science see people being swindled by religion all the time - people are hurt by religion. Think about the babies raped in Africa to "cure HIV" - this is an extreme example of a false belief that is widely shared - basically a disorganised religion. If these people thought scientifically, they wouldn't do that. Same with faith healers, fortune telling, cold reading, greedy evangelists, stoned women etc.
Yep, but that's not science.
A theory becoming a religion isn't science becoming a religion. Science is a process, not a belief.
Ideological belief in a doctrine while ignoring evidence to the contrary is religion, not science.
Agreed. And what separates the intellectually honest from the converts is the ability to look at evidence that disputes their theories.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I'm very confused as to why it is desirable to restore cuts.
Or even possible.
If cuts exist, how can they be restored?
Perhaps he wants to increase cuts?
Or perhaps everyone at /. failed English as well as Logic.
I'm pretty sure that most of you want FUNDING restored, not CUTS.
...omphaloskepsis often...
You are making a false equivalency, all too common from republicans these days, and unfortunate, for it intentionally keeps reality out-of-sight-out-of-mind for far too many folks. Did NASA land the rover Curiosity on mars based on faith in the unprovable? No, they did it based on mathematical models describing known and proven laws of physics. Zealots see it all as the devil's trickery. Keep zealots out of true power or we're all screwed.
Forget about NASA's sciences budget (especially earth sciences) if Romney gets elected. ADD indeed.
A worth cause, but it's getting to be that whenever Bill Nye passes gas it's a story.
And of course the absurdity of it all is this fallacious argument you seem to hold that is saying because a group of people organized into a religion believes the teachings and eye witness stories from 2000 to 6000 or more years ago to be fundamentally true that they have to ignore science, math, or anything else in their present day tasks.
No one, let me repeat this, No one, thinks that because of their beliefs that something will automagically happen. Even the people who think God will provide what they need, do not sit around waiting or wishing, they actually attempt to accomplish something using the best tools available to them at the time and pray that it was enough. You bring up NASA and yes, there are people working for NASA, even on the mars rover and the Cassini project that are religious.
You and everyone else who thinks so is living in a delusional world that has no connection to reality. The people who achieve things with science do so because they do not confuse science and religion. If you can look at science and claim it mandates a rejection of religion, you have no clue about science or religion at all and are more likely using science as your religion.
Your things that science can answer is not very strong. First, does prayer work, yes it does, about as well as a placebo. But that doesn't mean it hasn't worked either. Second, created in 6 days, well, despite the word used to day is also used to era or time span, the fact that it was created means it can appear to be anything the creator wanted. So if science indicates no, that could be specifically a result of the creation. That is why science and religion are separate things. I think you get the drift, or should be able to get it.
That's fine. Just don't force your opinion on others and we should be getting along just fine.
You said "Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion". This indicates to me that you are saying in order to truly understand science, you must evaluate and reject religion. I said that is false, science and religion are separate and you do not need to think anything about one or the other.
You are really screwed up in the head of you think someone convincing idiots in Africa to rape babies in order to get rid of AIDS is a religious value. Of course I see what you are doing, everything you do not see a support consensus for in science must be a religion right. Just like Eugenics right, just like electromagnetism and all the scientific advancements it brought about with the crazies. Lets cure society with lobotomies by shoving wire rods up someone's knows and turning their frontal cortex into a scrambles egg. oh wait, science kicked that to the curb, it must have all been a religion right?
Get a fucking grip on yourself. You describes fraud and eugenics and claimed it was a religion. (yes, telling HIV and AIDS infected people to rape those too young was little more then a ploy to wipe an entire tribe out of existence just like the forced sterilizations and even the chemical sterilizations that went on in south africa..)
There are likely many things within the bounds of reality that we simply do not know about yet. If we know nothing of it, we cannot theorize about it and so cannot test our theories. Until that changes, it is real but not in the realm of science.
Quantum physics has always existed, for example, but the ancient Greeks had no way of knowing about it. Had they by some coincidence come up with a quantum theory then, it would have been in the realm of religion.
If we ever learn to detect God and gain the ability to test theories about God, then God will be in the realm of science. Unless or until that happens, science has nothing to say about God other than 'we haven't seen one'.
To stop belief in the irrational, you can teach people new ways of thinking about things. And what is religion but a shared set of irrational beliefs (with some rational ones thrown in to entice people)?
There are "recognised" religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism etc) and then there are de facto religions such as the cargo cults, hippie communes, and vague spiritualism. You're right, I am applying the same broad brush to all of these - they're all the same phenomenon: faith without questioning.
And BTW, if "God tell"s people to pray to Him as a placebo, then what type of pathetic god is he?!
As for six days, there are a number of Christians who take this literally. What makes them wrong and you right?
Instead of saying "6 days represents 6 eras", why not just say "the whole thing is a load of shit invented by some Jewish guy thousands of years ago"? I mean "6x = exact age of the universe (for a certain value of x)" is a bit of a cop out!
Fraud, eugenics, lobotomies, stoning, terrorism, Christian rock, baby rape to cure HIV... These are things that result from irrational thinking. They may not fit into a narrow definition of religion, but it's the same process.
I guess the differences are:
1. That there is some sort of plausible process that makes this belief conceivable. (Mail gets read by secretary, passed to the big man himself, he thinks great idea, proposes it to congress, and change happens.)
2. It is testable. If we got a rational person to test it (perhaps getting them to write 1000 unique letters to the President and observing change in laws), they'd probably change their mind.
But you're correct in many cases. I think many people had irrational and poorly considered views on what would happen when Barrack won the election.
I guess my choice of language was ambiguous at the best. (I was using "anti-religion" because that's what the parent said.)
By anti-religion I don't mean church-burning, Mormon-punching, Nativity-banning psychopathy. I meant "anti-" in the same way as used in "antifreeze" or "anticlockwise".
I meant that when approached by someone who tells you that "God will heal that sunburn, and if you believe in Him you'll live forever in eternity. Join now for an obligation free meeting." that you'd have the sense to evaluate what they're saying and reject it as falsehood.
Science only indicates that which it can measure. Any time something falls outside that measure science can't justify it's existence. Like science nowdays would be seen as miracles, when it's clearly not. In the same way prayer could be some supernatural form of science that involves 'willing' things better. Not understood and seems completely like hog wash to the scientific community, yet somehow could still be possible. Perhaps even more so because we don't fully understand how prayer works.
Space is a vast desert like no desert on the face of the Earth. It is an unlimited sink for tax dollars and human effort best expended on the Earth. I applaud the Obama administration for opposing the mindless spending called for by "science-ism-ists". Just because it is science doesn't mean it deserves funding. When spending vital public dollars it is essential to hold the reasons to ones that are practical or promise short term payoffs for the investor, not pie-in-the-sky, sometime-in-the-distant-future-maybe payoffs that merely "provide jobs" for scienceismists. And don't use the argument that the spending is a small part of the budget. The hundred in my pocket is a small part of my expenditures, but that doesn't justify spending it on bubblegum.
E Proelio Veritas.
Do tell me the difference between considering the unprovable to be false and considering it to be null.
You might call that the difference between skepticism and empiricism. Religion violates the principle of parsimony, is untestable, and provides nothing in the way of explanatory power. You're arguing about whether or not science should treat religion as being wrong, or not even wrong.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Republicans have become science-suppressors, not the democrats. To equate the two parties in this manner is a false equivalency. Romney made it clear: he and the neocons don't give a shit about concerns coming from earth sciences. I have a problem with appointing industry lobbyists with religious nutballs that actually think Earth is a temporary testing ground for some binary test. This effectively grants permission for offending corporations to go nuts with reckless destructive processes unimpeded by responsible, rational planning.
Government was designed to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic. When big corporations have their way with our federally protected lands, sea & air, a government agency, the dept. of the interior (in this case) was designed to ensure any management & distribution of these scarce and precious resources be done in a responsible way or not at all. But when you have an administration that cynically appoints big-oil, lumber, cattle, & coal lobbyists along with religious wackos into top positions, including #1 & #2, then things fall apart and you get reckless wild-west mentality that benefits a very narrow bunch of companies at the expense of everyone else, including future generations. Then what do you do? You blame government. That's the Koch Brothers way. Its how you wind up with people voting against their own interests with a passion. But its destructive both near-term and long-term for this country, for this world's finely tuned biosphere, and its immediate future. This world with its comfortable evolved biosphere is all there is for humanity. And humanity cannot duplicate it any meaningful way, any time soon.
Restore budget cuts? That makes it sound like the budget cuts were cancelled and Bill Nye wants them to go ahead. "Restore cut budgets" makes more sense.
...to the redress of past crimes against and grievances by third world victims of U.S. imperialism. These funds will be transferred to the United Nations and what remains in NASA's budget will be used for Muslim outreach. If we need satellites launched, we can always do what the EU does and have the Russians launch them.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
Wow, what a jackass political response to a non political issue. What exactly has Romney said that supports your belief. I'm betting you do not know, or you will bring some contrived scenario up that only makes sense in your mind.
Examples of "supernatural" (a.k.a. bullshit) claims that science can help answer:
* Does prayer work to cure the sick? Sciences indicates no. - As pointed out this actually has been shown to work. Sure it is a placebo effect but it worked.
* Was the world formed in six days? Science indicates no. - Who is defining the days?
* Did Noah get every species onto a boat? Science indicates no. - Actually scientists think he did get all of the species in his region. But remember at that time the world was what was close to you. It never said he got all the animals on the planet. Just in his world.
* Are we reincarnated? Sciences indicates no. Now we are jumping into hinduism? Although I will agree reincarnations does seem to be impossible based on our current scientific knowledge.
These can all be proved negative to my satisfaction.
Then you need to improve your level of deductive reasoning and realize there is so much we still need to learn about the universe.
I didn't say science has anything to say about religion. Science is merely the act of trying to find answers with reason, and proving it with evidence. It's not a religion - it doesn't say a thing.
You are correct it doesn't, yet you seem to be using it as your religion.
I said "Anyone who truly understands science is..." not "Science is...". People who understand science see people being swindled by religion all the time - people are hurt by religion. Think about the babies raped in Africa to "cure HIV" - this is an extreme example of a false belief that is widely shared - basically a disorganised religion. If these people thought scientifically, they wouldn't do that. Same with faith healers, fortune telling, cold reading, greedy evangelists, stoned women etc.
You are making a fatal error here. Religion =/= Organized religion. You have a beef with organized religion. A bastion that uses real religion to accomplish non religious goals. Remember it was the Catholic church (an organization) that was the main oppressor of scientific advance. Not the religion of christianity. Rail against the extreme right and their misguided policies that are not based on their religion but on their "church" all you want and I will support that. But do not state that religion and science cannot co-exist.
Granted. But being a complete doucebag shouldn't be the goal of atheists, as a social group. Obviously, reflecting your input, YMMV.
But yet when Obama hires Jeff Zients, nothing from you on that hypocrisy. I bet you want us all in huts while you dictate literally everything else. Go back to your comedy short films, Satan!
And wikipedia is a bastion of truth right?
Once again religion =/= organized religion. Yes the catholic church is responsible for a multitude of atrocities. Hell pick me a church and I am sure we can find atrocities attributed to them. That is the church(an organization) not the religion. Think of it like statistics. Anyone can take religion and bend it to their point of view. Much like statistics, it does not render the underlying numbers invalid. It just skews the results.
Those beliefs are held by fundamentalist Christians who believe the creation accounts in the Bible to be literally true.
Citation please?
... also, if you're the one that gets to define whaqt a fundamentalist Christian is then your point is mote.
And wikipedia is a source of truth right? Hell even the article you linked to has a disclaimer saying it has weasel words and is unverifiable.
Says the scientist/engineer/entertainer/ethicist? rich.
Or even more so how the brain works.