The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Atheist Fools

URL:  https://boards.fool.com/eds-primary-problem-loren-and-that-of-most-22200791.aspx

Subject:  Re: Religionists miss the scale of things Date:  3/13/2005  7:13 PM
Author:  schickbrithouse Number:  143668 of 515479

Ed's primary problem, Loren -- and that of most theists -- is that they lack even the most rudimentary exposure to or understanding of the very disciplines you enumerate. They are, to all intents and purposes, living at the time of Newton and, if they have any tentative ideas about science, they are pretty much limited to Newton's Laws. Most theists have never taken a class in formal logic. Most theists have no grounding in advanced mathematics. Few, I would guess, even took chemistry in high school and have only the shallowest understanding of the scientific realm as it existed in the 17th century, much less today.

Gee, Sandy.

Lessee, I read Scientific American, hardly a bastion of Newtonian physics or creationist biology. Interesting article this month positing that the discovery and spread of agriculture actually prevented a natural cooling cycle leading to a new ice age. Not sure I buy the author's argument, but it was a good read. Several months ago, there was an entertaining article on multiple universes.

Advanced mathematics? Does calculus count?

Chemistry? Yup.

Formal course in logic? Yup.

Physics? Yup.

Granted these were all years ago (I am, after all in my late 50's), but they qualify under your criteria.

You're painting with a large brush in mighty big strokes.

Wonder how many nominal atheists actually have taken courses in chemistry, physics, biology, chemistry, logic and advanced math.

Or is this just another tactical weapon to be used to beat on people? From the way you write, it would appear that you believe that most (if not all) atheists have been the beneficiaries of a broad grounding in math, science and logic.

Pardon me if I don't share your faith in the advanced education of atheists. After all, I haven't seen the evidence to prove that particular assertion. ;-)

schick.






Copyright 1996-2019 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us