If that's what they are saying about God, what are they saying about Islam?(which is a religion that considers you dead if you leave it, and usually acts on it)

-Jon

This administration thinks I am unAmerican, racist, and now mentally ill. Pauvre moi,as I do the sign of the cross three times. Wait, the only thing about religion this bunch likes is when we genuflect. Sorry, I have arthritis, dont do that anymore.

Belief in God could only be considered demented if no God exists.  Since it is impossible to know there is no God, any claim of such knowledge is a tacit claim of omniscience - a quality only a Supreme Being could have.

Those who deride people who believe in God are, knowingly or not, claiming godhood for themselves.  This is the essence of Satan's "you shall be like gods" temptation. 

Thus, the people who the NYT refer to as "scientists" are just as "religious" as those they describe as demented.  Their god is Self and their church is wherever their fellow gods hang out and worship themselves together - the Universities, the Newsrooms, etc.

Science is disciplined belief.

Philosophically, it's the same game as a legal courtroom. You may have all kinds of beliefs about guilt and innocence, but in the courtroom, the only thing that counts is what you can prove. Now it's true, "proof" is often swayed by very human pressures - think OJ. But in general, the rules of evidence are well-established, and most courtrooms are sane. In the same way, the "scientific community" is a loosely coordinated group that monitors what counts as scientific proof. They give prizes and awards when a scientist advances a theory that the community approves. They condemn other theories through professional journals, tenure, etc. Like a herd or flock of birds, they move in relative coordination with each other, without needing a tangible command from any central authority.

I'm not trying to be facetious. I'm only trying to point out that a large community (even the scientific community) will inevitably follow group dynamics. Herds are herds.

The scientific community, given that they're dedicated to the discipline of science, is not a culture that will likely approve of religious faith. That's OK. Science isn't religion. Not everything has to be a single discipline.

That's the trick, however. Scientists need to grasp that the rules of science don't trump other disciplines. For example, if you click on the link to the article, you'll see a critic (Dr. Irving L. Weissman) claims that Dr. Collins will one day face a "moment of truth" because therapeutic cloning works. Well, that's not a crisis in science. That's a conflict in moral values, which this Weissman misses. Weissman assumes that the scientific success of cloning trumps the morality of cloning. With that ignorance, Weissman displays his own ignorance of philosophy, rather than any superior knowledge of science.

Oslo-October 9, 2009

The Anti-American Socialist Society of Oslo announced today that the winner of its Lifetime Achievement Award for 2009 is Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.

The Award is given annually to a citizen of the world who best exemplifies the philosphy of the Society so clearly represented by its name. 

A cowboy from Texas attends a social function where Barack Hussein Obama is trying to gather more support for his health plan. Once he discovers the cowboy is from President Bush’s home area, The One starts to belittle him by talking in a southern drawl and single syllable words.

As he was doing that, he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The cowboy says, "Y'all havin' some problem with them circle flies?"

The One stopped talking and said, "Well, yes, if that's what they're called, but I've never heard of circle flies."

"Well, sir," the cowboy replies, "Circle flies hang around ranches. They're called circle flies because they're almost always found circling around the back end of a horse."

"Oh," Obama replies as he goes back to rambling. But, a moment later he stops and bluntly asks, "Are you calling me a horse's ass?" 

"No, sir," the cowboy replies, "I have too much respect for the citizens of this country to call their President a horse's ass.."

"That's a good thing," Obama responds and begins rambling on once more.

After a long pause, the cowboy, in his best Texas drawl says, "Hard to fool them flies, though."

             The only thing scientists care about is the money they can get for their theories. If anyone has dementia, it's liberals. They can't believe in anything. In their opinion, everyone, throughout time, have been demented for their beliefs.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Why be pissed off at the scientists who aren't working to prove your beliefs? Doesn't "faith" mean you believe something without proof or evidence? Do the words and findings of these scientists really inspire such a crisis of faith that you must have them silenced or ridiculed? Science attempts to explain that which is observable, faith attempts to explain that which is not – they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. When you have lost your car keys and do not know it yet, you probably believe you know exactly where you left them; you have faith in that you believe a specific thing – when you look and cannot find them, is your faith not challenged? Do you no longer need your car keys just because you were wrong about where you left them, or do you take this new information , use it to grow and understand that you are not perfect, you did get something wrong, and now you’ve been corrected. Update your faith and move on. Faith cannot explain science, faith explains what’s left.

"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." - G.K. Chesterton, 1933

I just want to say that I found KCMulville's and Warp's comments particularly thoughtful. Thanks, guys.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke

He has apologized for everything America stands for, he has vowed to a "fundamental transformation" of American values. Perhaps this is why he is to receive the Prize.

A true scientist does not tear down what passes for knowledge and wisdom handed down from the ages without proof that the wisdom or knowledge is wrong. We all have to start with what has been understood to be true before. There is no proof, absolutely none that God or some Supreme Being who created the Universe does not exist. In order for God to exist it would mean that he would have been separate from our percieved universe in the first place and beyond sciences ability to either prove or disprove.

 Why is it then that the first book of the Bible has creation in exactly the right order. Forget the 6 days of creation and the 7th day of rest the order in Genisis is exactly correct. I was always impressed by the first passage in creation, "Let there be light" (Big Bang) In fact in some earlier translations the conditions before the Big Bang were described better than most can explain because they refer to God as existing before the begining and after the end and this seperated Gods existence from our own.

The more science advances the more I find correlations in Biblical Text. Riddle me this then how was it possible for primative man to even get the order right without our present day knowledge?

To offset the news that LOTUS is receiving the Nobel Peace prize for doing absolutely NOTHING, we can celebrate the death of one of his hero's.  42 years ago today, Ernesto "Che" Guevara was put up against a wall and shot.  As they say, what goes around comes around.

The Obama Administration: THE most fiscally irresponsible Administration EVER

Gibbs is spinning this Nobel Award as a "Peace in our time" message.

I kid you not! 

Does the White House have a counter-blogger boiler room in operation? Who is paying for it? Is it legal?

The Obama Justice Department's Secret Blogging Team: http://www.redcounty.com

"Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has apparently hired a cadre of left-wing, Democrat campaign bloggers to troll through the Internet looking for news stories and blog posts that denigrate the Obama agenda. After such websites are found it is the job of these secret lefty bloggers to leave comments that come to the support of Obamaism in the comments sections."

Is this responsible for the recent surge in trolling at NB?

I am beyond Obama fatigue.

I hope he fails, too.

To Newsbusters,

About a year ago I saw a post on NB which was along the same lines as this one - one that basically asked - begged - for folks to vomit their anti-science sentiments. I almost quit this blog when I saw it and the subsequent posts.

Instead, I just waited a few weeks and came back to the NB that I know and like.

And then this gets posted.

I'm a scientist. I'm a conservative. I'm an agnostic. 

The conservative community is painted as being anti-science by the left. Unfortunately, some of the posts here do little more than provide fuel for that view.

For those of you who consider themselves people of faith who have a beef with science - I suggest you actually do some thinking and reading about what words like "faith" and "science" actually mean before you throw out your opinions.

As a matter of fact, being anti-religious is probably a better indicator of a mental illness.

Here's why.  All the mono-theistic religions are based on FAITH that there is a God, and that there is an afterlife whose quality depends upon one's actions in this life, to varying degrees, depending upon one's religion of choice.

The point being that there is no absolute proof of any of the above, pardon the pun. That's why it's called faith and not science.

(Although one cannot "prove" anything in science either, if one adhere's to Sir Karl Popper's falsification thesis.)

So, given the choice, that no matter how remote a person may think the possibility of the existence of God, the only logical and rational stance is to acceept the possibility.

Why take the chance that you are wrong? To do otherwise is irrational, why would you deny yourself the possibility of an eternal afterlife.

If the athiest is right, he'll you'll never know that fact anyway. If he is wrong, then he will have all of eternity to regret his foolish skepticism.

Or maybe, it's as simple as only those who believe are granted that gift, non-believers simply fade into oblivion.

Why would you make that irrational choice. Unless you are mentally ill?  

Chicago's 2016 Olympic Games bid... one more example of Obama's SMART diplomacy.