Editor of Nature institutes open warfare against Christianity.

[Granite]

I believe that Christians have been too tolerant of the ravings of atheists and need to wake up. The editorial in Nature should serve as a wakeup call as to what these people are up to.

When atheists misuse their positions of trust in society to try to impose their world view on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out that they are doing so.

Give me a break. The "ravings" of which you speak consist of an editorial (that you seem not to have even read in its entirety) which critiques a theological concept even you claim not to fully understand. If anyone needs a clue here, Bob, it's you.

These people are "up to" trying to understand the cosmos and its origins, a subject of disinterest to Christians with stunted curiosity. Your whining and griping is typical of thin skinned Christians who can't hold their own in the court of intellectual inquiry. Secularists, free thinkers, and skeptics can challenge you guys all they like, and your sob sister routine won't change that.

 

[bob b]

Give me a break. The "ravings" of which you speak consist of an editorial (that you seem not to have even read in its entirety) which critiques a theological concept even you claim not to fully understand. If anyone needs a clue here, Bob, it's you.

These people are "up to" trying to understand the cosmos and its origins, a subject of disinterest to Christians with stunted curiosity. Your whining and griping is typical of thin skinned Christians who can't hold their own in the court of intellectual inquiry. Secularists, free thinkers, and skeptics can challenge you guys all they like, and your sob sister routine won't change that.

So you agree that it is perfectly appropriate for an editorial in a scientific journal which claims neutrality regarding religion "critiques a theological concept"?

 

[Skeptic]

But let's cut to the chase here: it's much more fun to get up in arms about the evil evolutionists declaring open war on the Bible than to accurately portray an opinion, isn't it?

That's Bob's MO.

Bob, you can do better than this.

I'd like to think so, but I have serious doubts.

 

[Skeptic]

Remember that it is Christians who declared war on secular society long ago. The idea that they're surprised, and stung, when secularists push back is more than a little amusing. Christendom has pushed around skeptics, intellectuals, and free thinkers for centuries. Now they're getting a taste of their own medicine. About time!

:thumb:

 

[bob b]

"a few small Jewish sects"?! I find that insulting. This is in the Jewish Bible. Remember where you got your Bible from.

Give me a break Chair. You know yourself that the majority of Jews, especially in the US, no longer believe in the Bible, especially Genesis.

--------

Correction: many Jews believe in Genesis in apparently a similar manner that old earth creationists do.

 

[Granite]

So you agree that it is perfectly appropriate for an editorial in a scientific journal which claims neutrality regarding religion "critiques a theological concept"?

Has it actually claimed neutrality or is this an invention or yours?

Nice way to ignore my post, by the way.

 

[Skeptic]

I believe that Christians have been too tolerant of the ravings of atheists and need to wake up.

I believe that atheists, agnostics and skeptics have been too tolerant of the ravings of Christians and need to wake up!

Bob, your response to this editorial should serve as a wakeup call as to what people like you are really up to.

When atheists misuse their positions of trust in society to try to impose their world view on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out that they are doing so.

When Christians misuse their positions of trust in society to try to impose their world view on the rest of us, it needs to be pointed out that they are doing so.

 

[Skeptic]

So you agree that it is perfectly appropriate for an editorial in a scientific journal which claims neutrality regarding religion "critiques a theological concept"?

Do you think the journal Nature should be neutral with regard to the literalist Christian creation myth of Genesis?

Should it not point out that a literal interpretation of Genesis runs contrary to established science?

Or would it serve its readers better by ignoring the efforts of Christian creationists to misinform people about what science has discovered about cosmology, geology and evolution?

 

[SUTG]

Thanks for providing the context, johnny. I was suspicious when bob provided such a short standalone quote. When I went to Google for the phrase ""the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside", I was taken to tha magazines website, which required login. Then I noticed several Intelligent Design blogs that seemed to have isolated the same, short quote with a suspicious lack of content.

BTW, does anyone know who the editor of Nature is? Is he even an atheist?

 

[GeneCosta]

Again, why does every difference of opinion have to incite violent language. Haven't we had enough stupid wars? It's an editorial.

 

[bob b]

Again, why does every difference of opinion have to incite violent language. Haven't we had enough stupid wars? It's an editorial.

It was an editorial in a science journal that is supposed to be about science and not the promoting of an atheistic agenda.

 

[Granite]

Says who? You've yet to prove that the journal is or was supposedly "neutral" on matters of religion--outside your own opinion, anyway.

 

[bob b]

Says who? You've yet to prove that the journal is or was supposedly "neutral" on matters of religion--outside your own opinion, anyway.

"However, science as a way of knowing about the natural world, restricted to explanation through natural processes, is neutral, not hostile toward religion. The primary interests and goals of science and religion are quite different. Science is restricted to using methodological materialism to understand and explain the natural world, whereas religion is concerned with the relationship of human beings to supernatural powers."
Eugenie Scott, Director of National Center for Science Education

 

[Granite]

Do they have any relationship whatsoever to Nature magazine?

Yes or no.

 

[GeneCosta]

When one's religious beliefs discount science, the adherent is going to view everything s/he disagrees with as "hostile."

As I said, it's an editorial, not a news article. Journalism 101: editorials are usually opinionated. A conservative columnist writing for the Washington Post isn't "instituting open warfare" against liberals. He's voicing an opinion.

 

[Granite]

So, Bob.

Any other foolish observations you'd like to make? You seem to be interested in complaining and then changing the subject whenever someone asks you a question. As this organization has no affiliation whatsoever with Nature I will ask you again: can you prove the journal ever made a pretense of being neutral vis a vis religion, or is this a restraint you pulled out of thin air?

 

[Skeptic]

Bob, do you think the journal Nature should be neutral with regard to the literalist Christian creation myth of Genesis?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It was an editorial in a science journal that is supposed to be about science and not the promoting of an atheistic agenda.

What's the magazines name again? Oh yeah! NATURE! So it would probably be concerned with naturalistic, scientific explainations. That should hip you to their editorial stance on religious content.

 

[bob b]

What's the magazines name again? Oh yeah! NATURE! So it would probably be concerned with naturalistic, scientific explainations. That should hip you to their editorial stance on religious content.

So why would the editor of a science journal feel compelled to blow off Christianity by telling us to not believe that we were created in the image of God?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to stick to editorializing about science?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

So why would the editor of a science journal feel compelled to blow off Christianity by telling us to not believe that we were created in the image of God?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to stick to editorializing about science?

1. Because as was stated earlier it was in response to something said by someone else.
2. Because scientific illiteracy is a real problem in the United States, and a science magazine should take a stand against psuedoscience.
3. Saying that we were not created in the image of God is backed up by our scientific knowledge, therefore he is editorializing about science.