Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 28, 2018, 09:38:01 PM
-
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/university-finds-prominent-astrophysicist-lawrence-krauss-grabbed-woman-s-breast
-
And...?
-
And...?
Who knew? What did they know, when did they know it?
-
Who knew? What did they know, when did they know it?
Since it is being dealt with by relevant authorities why are you so bothered?
-
Since it is being dealt with by relevant authorities why are you so bothered?
Conversely Gordon I could ask you why you are so keen for it not to be discussed.
The supression of Krauss activity and this behaviour in the skeptic and antitheist community has been publicly acknowledged by the Ameican humanist societies.
Finally I have not seen similar intervention in cases of Catholic abuse whi ch is being dealt with.
-
Trolling.
-
Conversely Gordon I could ask you why you are so keen for it not to be discussed.
The supression of Krauss activity and this behaviour in the skeptic and antitheist community has been publicly acknowledged by the Ameican humanist societies.
Finally I have not seen similar intervention in cases of Catholic abuse whi ch is being dealt with.
Nope: the matter is in the public domain, where one clue is the link you yourself posted, which indicates the matter is being pursued.
So, stop being a silly obsessive.
-
Nope: the matter is in the public domain, where one clue is the link you yourself posted, which indicates the matter is being pursued.
So, stop being a silly obsessive.
This, from the poster who is doing exactly what he is claiming shouldn't be done, namely being a silly obsessive
-
This, from the poster who is doing exactly what he is claiming shouldn't be done, namely being a silly obsessive
Fish can't swim.
Thought I would add that as we seem to be in the territory of making completely bogus statements.
-
This, from the poster who is doing exactly what he is claiming shouldn't be done, namely being a silly obsessive
You know you really should read some earlier threads on this before you go on to make a fool of yourself: Vlad is fixated on LK, he's bored us to death on the matter before, and I'm just telling him to stop being so silly.
-
You know you really should read some earlier threads on this before you go on to make a fool of yourself: Vlad is fixated on LK, he's bored us to death on the matter before, and I'm just telling him to stop being so silly.
And Dawkins, don't forget Dawkins!
-
Conversely Gordon I could ask you why you are so keen for it not to be discussed.
The supression of Krauss activity and this behaviour in the skeptic and antitheist community has been publicly acknowledged by the Ameican humanist societies.
What?
If it's been suppressed, how come we all know about it? How come his employers launched an investigation into his actions and instead of hiding them or quietly moving him to a different university are applying sanctions?
-
Nope: the matter is in the public domain, where one clue is the link you yourself posted, which indicates the matter is being pursued.
So, stop being a silly obsessive.
Now we have got past you not commenting negatively on those posting about prominent catholics in abuse cases while calling those who post about prominent antitheists in abuse cases, silly obsessives......let's repeat the 101 on the significant questions the Krauss case raises
Since this happened at a conference who knew? When did they know? what did they know?
Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty distanced themselves from Krauss at around the same time as his suspension from ASU and it's prominently reported in Buzzfeed earlier this year.
Finally what authorities do you think are dealing with this?
I have to inform you that ASU have ruled that he has broken their rules on harassment.
-
What?
If it's been suppressed, how come we all know about it? How come his employers launched an investigation into his actions and instead of hiding them or quietly moving him to a different university are applying sanctions?
What is it you know?
If you all know about it please direct me to a post on this forum condemning it or even raising it...rather than move along it's being dealt with.
Meanwhile, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, The organisers of this years Dawkins/Krauss Australian conference and the American Humanist association have taken concrete action. Whether it is enough and acted as promptly as they should I know not.
-
You know you really should read some earlier threads on this before you go on to make a fool of yourself: Vlad is fixated on LK, he's bored us to death on the matter before, and I'm just telling him to stop being so silly.
O yes Laurence Krauss (It seems noteven Gordon dare speak his name) is a totally inappropriate topic for discussion on a thread about atheism.
-
And Dawkins, don't forget Dawkins!
Be Rational thinks that Dawkins is not a suitable topic for discussion on a board about Atheism!!!
-
You are making yourself look like an arse, Vlad. Shut up.
-
You are making yourself look like an arse, Vlad. Shut up.
Unlikely.
-
If you all know about it please direct me to a post on this forum condemning it or even raising it...rather than move along it's being dealt with.
We had a whole thread about Krauss back in March.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15334.0
Meanwhile, Matt Dillahunty, Sam Harris, The organisers of this years Dawkins/Krauss Australian conference and the American Humanist association have taken concrete action. Whether it is enough and acted as promptly as they should I know not.
Krauss has been under investigation for ages. I really don't know what your point is.
-
We had a whole thread about Krauss back in March.
That was months ago.
-
We had a whole thread about Krauss back in March.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15334.0
Krauss has been under investigation for ages. I really don't know what your point is.
OK.....once more with feeling...…….Who knew?...……….. What did they know?...……….when did they know?
-
That was months ago.
Bingo!
-
OK.....once more with feeling...…….Who knew?...……….. What did they know?...……….when did they know?
Well clearly we knew since we had a thread about it back in March.
-
Bingo!
Is that a quote from Krauss?
-
Is that a quote from Krauss?
No. It's a quote from jeremyp.
-
Well clearly we knew since we had a thread about it back in March.
I'm not talking about the Z list antitheists on religionethics.
-
I'm not talking about the Z list antitheists on religionethics.
Please tell us what special qualifications are required of people whom you will accept as an answer to "who knew?"
-
The victim for one, but Vlad doesn't seem to give a shit about exploiting her distress for his own satisfaction.
-
The victim for one, but Vlad doesn't seem to give a shit about exploiting her distress for his own satisfaction.
You are the one who wants people to...and I quote 'shut up' about this.
-
OK.....once more with feeling...…….Who knew?...……….. What did they know?...……….when did they know?
Don't know. Do you?
-
You are the one who wants people to...and I quote 'shut up' about this.
No, I suggested it because you are making yourself look like an arse.
-
Don't know. Do you?
No, but how can the world of celebrity scepticism escape the march of hashtag Me Too?
-
No, but how can the world of celebrity scepticism escape the march of hashtag Me Too?
It hasn't. He's been found out.
-
It hasn't. He's been found out.
He has...but again....who knew?.....what did they know?....when did they know it?....and what was done?
-
He has...but again....who knew?.....what did they know?....when did they know it?....and what was done?
Do you need someone to explain the article to you?
-
He has...but again....who knew?.....what did they know?....when did they know it?....and what was done?
Why are you asking us?
-
Do you need someone to explain the article to you?
No it explains the course of action being taken at the moment by Arizona state university regarding an incident at The Australian skeptics convention in 2016.
At first the university took no action but apparently reopened the case
Now the point is although the action has been taken by Krauss's university. The incident occurred at a Skeptics convention. The organisers of the event have refused to have Krauss back. Their statement does I move make interesting reading and IMHO is of a completely different approach to that demonstrated by many on this forum. They mention in their statement of policy on sexual harassment that in banning Krauss from their events they experienced opposition from other skeptics.
-
They mention in their statement of policy on sexual harassment that in banning Krauss from their events they experienced opposition from other skeptics.
Who were not in possession of the full facts. What is your point?
-
He has...but again....who knew?.....what did they know?....when did they know it?....and what was done?
I think that is all answered in the news article and the letter/report of the investigation linked to it. I'm not sure what else you are expecting.
Incident occurred - Nov 2016
Complaint raised to the University in July 2017 - investigation was carried out that concluded that there was insufficient evidence for action
New witnesses and new evidence identified in Feb 2018, investigation re-opened
re-opened investigation concludes that he violated their code ACD401 - case closed July 2018
-
Be Rational thinks that Dawkins is not a suitable topic for discussion on a board about Atheism!!!
You didn't give Anthony Grayling a mention Vlad?
Regards ippy.
-
I think that is all answered in the news article and the letter/report of the investigation linked to it. I'm not sure what else you are expecting.
Incident occurred - Nov 2016
Complaint raised to the University in July 2017 - investigation was carried out that concluded that there was insufficient evidence for action
New witnesses and new evidence identified in Feb 2018, investigation re-opened
re-opened investigation concludes that he violated their code ACD401 - case closed July 2018
So.….Do you think that's the last well hear of Krauss then?
-
So.….Do you think that's the last well hear of Krauss then?
No - why should it be
-
No - why should it be
I wonder if the antitheist community will rehabilitate him.
-
I wonder if the antitheist community will rehabilitate him.
What community is that then?
-
What community is that then?
Antitheist, atheist and skeptic groups he has been associated with including the BHA and NSS...although I'm not sure whether the latter two have disassociated themselves from him although Krauss is no longer on the list of honorary Associates of the NSS.
Krauss was a leading celebrated proponent of the old religion makes good people bad business and even declared that science made people good.
Such zeal as the American Humanist associations have pointed out has led, according to them, to atheists overlooking behaviour in order to support zeal.
Are you of the opinion that the circles he has moved in should take him back into their bosom?
-
Antitheist, atheist and skeptic groups he has been associated with including the BHA and NSS...although I'm not sure whether the latter two have disassociated themselves from him although Krauss is no longer on the list of honorary Associates of the NSS.
Krauss was a leading celebrated proponent of the old religion makes good people bad business and even declared that science made people good.
Such zeal as the American Humanist associations have pointed out has led, according to them, to atheists overlooking behaviour in order to support zeal.
Are you of the opinion that the circles he has moved in should take him back into their bosom?
Still not seeing a community here.
-
Antitheist, atheist and skeptic groups he has been associated with including the BHA and NSS...although I'm not sure whether the latter two have disassociated themselves from him although Krauss is no longer on the list of honorary Associates of the NSS.
Krauss was a leading celebrated proponent of the old religion makes good people bad business and even declared that science made people good.
Such zeal as the American Humanist associations have pointed out has led, according to them, to atheists overlooking behaviour in order to support zeal.
Are you of the opinion that the circles he has moved in should take him back into their bosom?
Each organisation will take a view based on their own individual policies and procedures. Remember that Krause was deemed to be on University business at the time of the incident and was therefore subject to disciplinary proceedings by his university. That is now complete and sanction applied by his employer. Whether any other organisation feels that they should (under their policies and procedures) also apply sanctions to him is up to them.
-
Antitheist, atheist and skeptic groups he has been associated with including the BHA and NSS...although I'm not sure whether the latter two have disassociated themselves from him although Krauss is no longer on the list of honorary Associates of the NSS.
Krauss was a leading celebrated proponent of the old religion makes good people bad business and even declared that science made people good.
Such zeal as the American Humanist associations have pointed out has led, according to them, to atheists overlooking behaviour in order to support zeal.
Are you of the opinion that the circles he has moved in should take him back into their bosom?
Just thinking Vlad, L K could be a mass murderer but it wouldn't make a shred of difference to the rightness or wrongness of his point of view about religion.
Regards ippy
-
Further on Krauss
https://physicsworld.com/a/allegation-hit-physicist-lawrence-krauss-announces-retirement/
Also this
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/lawrence-krauss-sexual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/
-
Has anyone else noticed that sexual misconduct allegations against a Scottish politician are fair game for any comment and yet those against a prominent anti theist were not considered a valid subject of comment.
-
Has anyone else noticed that sexual misconduct allegations against a Scottish politician are fair game for any comment and yet those against a prominent anti theist were not considered a valid subject of comment.
No.
-
No.
Is that because the anti theists have bored people who would have off the forum.
-
Is that because the anti theists have bored people who would have off the forum.
No.
-
No.
So. Anti theistic bores are off the hook then?
-
So. Anti theistic bores are off the hook then?
Irrelevant to thread.
-
Is that because the anti theists have bored people who would have off the forum.
No it is because it isn't true. |There was quite a lively thread about an atheist who was accused of sexual misconduct.
-
Has anyone else noticed that sexual misconduct allegations against a Scottish politician are fair game for any comment and yet those against a prominent anti theist were not considered a valid subject of comment.
Nope: in any case, Vlad, you have your very own thread entitled Lawrence Krauss (who isn't a Scottish politician) over on Theism & Atheism.
So why don't you stop derailing this thread and go and play in the thread you started on the subject of your favourite 'prominent anti theist' where you can post about him as often as you wish (and you'd be on-topic too), and anyone else who is interested in Krauss can join in there.
-
No it is because it isn't true. |There was quite a lively thread about an atheist who was accused of sexual misconduct.
Where have I said there wasn't a thread or two on it? And how many people posting quite casually on these allegations expressed opposition to those threads existence and validity?.....And if they aren't posting on this thread why post disapproval on those threads?
-
Everybody's heard of Alex Salmond; hardly anybody's heard of Lawrence Krauss. QED.
-
No it is because it isn't true. |There was quite a lively thread about an atheist who was accused of sexual misconduct.
So what's new about that? Religious, non-religious, singers, actors, directors, social workers - politicians. All have some in their number accused of sexual misconduct.
Everybody's heard of Alex Salmond; hardly anybody's heard of Lawrence Krauss. QED.
Yep. Never heard of him before he was mentioned on here.
-
So what's new about that? Religious, non-religious, singers, actors, directors, social workers - politicians. All have some in their number accused of sexual misconduct.
Yep. Never heard of him before he was mentioned on here.
No, nor me.
-
Everybody's heard of Alex Salmond; hardly anybody's heard of Lawrence Krauss. QED.
The forum has had a long tradition of reporting the allegations against the clergy but many posters wanted to suppress discussion when it came to those against an antitheist.
The abusive behaviour reported in the world of academia and particular science has recieved no comment on this forum and yet the deeds of Alex Salmond have garnered 12 pages.
I wonder why because there is a critical thread on indian science with a pop title science, Indian style, a title which imho shows absoluetely zero taste.
-
So what's new about that? Religious, non-religious, singers, actors, directors, social workers - politicians. All have some in their number accused of sexual misconduct.
Yep. Never heard of him before he was mentioned on here.
There have been many posts concerning people we dont know and havent heard off.An absolutely pathetic argument.
-
The abusive behaviour reported in the world of academia and particular science has recieved no comment on this forum and yet the deeds of Alex Salmond have garnered 12 pages.
I suggest that is because Alex Salmond is a much higher profile figure than Lawrence Krause (I'm in academia and a scientist and I'd never heard of him before you brought him up Vlad). Note too that we have a perhaps disproportionate number of posters from Scotland where Salmond has been a dominant public figure for years.
The point being that on this forum there is an intense interest in Salmond as a public figure and therefore it isn't surprising that the allegations are of interest too. By contrast there is virtually no interest in Krause (many of us wouldn't have a clue who he was before you mentioned him) - not surprising therefore that there is limited interest in allegations about a person most aren't interested in and many hadn't hear of previously.
-
The abusive behaviour reported in the world of academia and particular science has recieved no comment on this forum and yet the deeds of Alex Salmond have garnered 12 pages.
Not true: may I refer the honourable gentleman to the 8-page thread he started on this very issue last year (currently locked - see last post there for details).
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15334.msg724134#new
-
I suggest that is because Alex Salmond is a much higher profile figure than Lawrence Krause (I'm in academia and a scientist and I'd never heard of him before you brought him up Vlad). Note too that we have a perhaps disproportionate number of posters from Scotland where Salmond has been a dominant public figure for years.
The point being that on this forum there is an intense interest in Salmond as a public figure and therefore it isn't surprising that the allegations are of interest too. By contrast there is virtually no interest in Krause (many of us wouldn't have a clue who he was before you mentioned him) - not surprising therefore that there is limited interest in allegations about a person most aren't interested in and many hadn't hear of previously.
This post perpetuates two myths.
First myth that there isn't room on this forum to discuss Krauss
Second myth that discussing one of the most prominent and self declared atheist is somehow not a valid topic.
The crisis in conduct in academic science, reported recently at length in scientific American is also here imho reduced to Krauss. If the Krauss affair is thus diminished then the conduct issue in science is diminished subsequently.
As regards to being valid only because of interest we have to ask why atheists and antitheists are not interested in the reported conduct of a prominent atheist and self declared antitheist who has espoused the widely held belief that religion makes people bad and science makes people good.
-
Not true: may I refer the honourable gentleman to the 8-page thread he started on this very issue last year (currently locked - see last post there for details).
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15334.msg724134#new
No
That thread dealt with Krauss as a prominent antitheist....see title...and did not address the wider issue of abuse in academic science.
-
This post perpetuates two myths.
First myth that there isn't room on this forum to discuss Krauss
Who ever said that - you can start a thread on him any time you want. The point is that if most here aren't interested the thread isn't going to be very active. You can start any topic you like, but you cannot force people to be interested or engaged.
Second myth that discussing one of the most prominent and self declared atheist is somehow not a valid topic.
It is no more nor less valid than discussing any other prominent atheist (or theist for that matter). I think your problem is that most people here have probably either never heard of him before and/or have little knowledge or interest in his views on religion. So it may be valid to discuss him but unless there is sufficient interest in him or his views that thread isn't going to get much traction.
The crisis in conduct in academic science, reported recently at length in scientific American is also here imho reduced to Krauss. If the Krauss affair is thus diminished then the conduct issue in science is diminished subsequently.
Now you are being deeply disingenuous. Your reasons for raising the issues of Krause are entirely because he is an atheist, not because he is a scientist. There are plenty of other examples of issues within the scientific and broader academic research communities that don't involve 'prominent antitheist' (as you describe Krause) - why have you never raised these Vlad.
If you want to raise systemic and institutional issues within academic science and research - happy to do so - I suspect I have a darned sight better insight than you. I do not dismiss them - indeed part of my professional duties involve dealing with such issues and helping to develop a more appropriate culture within the academic community. It is you who diminish the issues by linking them to the religious faith or lack thereof of an individual alleged perpetrator.
-
No
That thread dealt with Krauss as a prominent antitheist....see title...and did not address the wider issue of abuse in academic science.
This thread does not address 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science'. You are only interested in publicising this case because Krause is an atheist.
-
If you want to raise systemic and institutional issues within academic science and research - happy to do so - I suspect I have a darned sight better insight than you. I do not dismiss them - indeed part of my professional duties involve dealing with such issues and helping to develop a more appropriate culture within the academic community. It is you who diminish the issues by linking them to the religious faith or lack thereof of an individual alleged perpetrator.
This is the religionethics website so obviously Krauss is a valid topic particularly considering his views on religion and science and morality.
As you say you are in a better position to raise the issue of conduct in the world of academic science but the reality is that I am the first to flag it up.Is it less important or valid than Salmond who must only be of interest to viewers in Scotland? Or more pertinent to a forum on which imho many hold that religion causes immorality whereas science imputed righteousness?
-
This is the religionethics website so obviously Krauss is a valid topic particularly considering his views on religion and science and morality.
As you say you are in a better position to raise the issue of conduct in the world of academic science but the reality is that I am the first to flag it up.Is it less important or valid than Salmond who must only be of interest to viewers in Scotland? Or more pertinent to a forum on which imho many hold that religion causes immorality whereas science imputed righteousness?
You seem a tad confused - which is it Vlad are you:
1. Interested in discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science', which would be a perfectly appropriate topic on this MB
or
2. Are you only interested in discussing selected individuals alleged wrongdoing to maintain your bizarre obsession with (as you describe them) prominent antitheists.
I suspect the latter - there have been a number of very high profile cases recently in the scientific community, involving people far more eminent in their scientific fields than Krause, yet not a murmur from you. Why - is it perhaps because these individuals have never made public statements about the religion or lack thereof.
-
Is it less important or valid than Salmond who must only be of interest to viewers in Scotland? Or more pertinent to a forum on which imho many hold that religion causes immorality whereas science imputed righteousness?
Why is Salmond only of interest to viewers in Scotland? Does this mean the Trump thread is only of interest to Americans? Sounds to me like you're talking bollocks.
Your 'imho' is wrong. The first part is nonsense, immorality (however you like to define that, but let us not go there for the moment) is part of the human race. That religious people are "immoral" is no more of a shock to me than the fact that non-religious people are immoral.
As to science imputing righteousness - you are presumably forgetting all the times when "atheist" posters have told you that science is neutral in such matters as morality or righteousness.
Really you are very confused.
-
You seem a tad confused - which is it Vlad are you:
1. Interested in discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science', which would be a perfectly appropriate topic on this MB
or
2. Are you only interested in discussing selected individuals alleged wrongdoing to maintain your bizarre obsession with (as you describe them) prominent antitheists.
I suspect the latter - there have been a number of very high profile cases recently in the scientific community, involving people far more eminent in their scientific fields than Krause, yet not a murmur from you. Why - is it perhaps because these individuals have never made public statements about the religion or lack thereof.
The moral conduct of prominent commentators on religion is a valid topic of discussion on this board.
Religious founders and lesser personnel are regularly discussed here in that context even God almighty.
The fact is that from early on in his antitheism Krauss, a commentator on religion, has numerically had a far far bigger following than Christ or Mohammed or Buddha at a comparable stage and yet as the threads on Krauss show here the impulse is to not wish to discuss the issue when applied to antitheists.
And lastly may I remind you this is the religionethics forum. There is therefore no reason for me to discuss the issue of abuse in science although it seems I am the first to mention the issue.
-
The moral conduct of prominent commentators on religion is a valid topic of discussion on this board.
But I thought your point was in discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science'. Still a tad confused Vlad.
-
And lastly may I remind you this is the religionethics forum.
May I remind you that this is the Religion and Ethics MB and therefore any topic related to either religion or ethics is equally welcomed.
Indeed the topic supports topics that are much broader again, e.g. sport.
There is therefore no reason for me to discuss the issue of abuse in science although it seems I am the first to mention the issue.
There is no requirement to discuss any topic, but you have raised the issue of abuse in science - so why not discuss it, rather than use an individual example of alleged wrongdoing as a tool to further your bizarre crusade against (as you see them) prominent antitheists.
-
The fact is that from early on in his antitheism Krauss, a commentator on religion, has numerically had a far far bigger following than Christ or Mohammed or Buddha at a comparable stage ...
Impossible to support this claim with evidence and also irrelevant.
... and yet as the threads on Krauss show here the impulse is to not wish to discuss the issue when applied to antitheists.
We are discussing it, and have done so on this thread for some 3 pages.
Why aren't you interested in discussing other prominent scientists accused of abuse who aren't (in your words) prominent antitheists?
-
As to science imputing righteousness - you are presumably forgetting all the times when "atheist" posters have told you that science is neutral in such matters as morality or righteousness.
Really you are very confused.
Hi Trent
I have taken the liberty to dismiss the first two paragraphs.
I have not forgetten those atheists who have said that science is neutral and, in this matter they are the good guys. I feel confident though that there are those who feel religion does make good people do bad things and that is prevented by science and could watch Krauss's uttering on that famous YouTube video on religion and find themselves agreeing wholeheartedly
-
... could watch Krauss's uttering on that famous YouTube video on religion ...
Famous? Really? Or just a video that the vast majority of people have never seen (including me) but is the subject of Vlad's bizarre obsession.
-
May I remind you that this is the Religion and Ethics MB and therefore any topic related to either religion or ethics is equally welcomed.
Indeed the topic supports topics that are much broader again, e.g. sport.
There is no requirement to discuss any topic, but you have raised the issue of abuse in science - so why not discuss it, rather than use an individual example of alleged wrongdoing as a tool to further your bizarre crusade against (as you see them) prominent antitheists.
If you are eager for it to be discussed then start a thread. I have no objection to your doing so in fact on a forum where there can be a thread title called Science Indian Style focussing on a select group of pseudoscientists and imputing their error on the whole of Indian science in a ridiculous thread title.....a thread on the issue of abuse in science will be refreshingly uplifting.....be my guest....
-
If you are eager for it to be discussed then start a thread.
I might, but that is besides the point.
It was you who claimed in replies 65 and 66 that you were, in this thread, discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science'.
In which case please go ahead, let's discuss it.
-
Famous? Really? Or just a video that the vast majority of people have never seen (including me) but is the subject of Vlad's bizarre obsession.
Ok let's have a look at YouTube numbers.
The video in question had 429 000 views.
A few hundred thousand more than Jesus had in his lifetime.
The greatest number of views at the brief glance I had for Krauss is 2 000 000 views. Far more than his exclusively scientific vids.
-
I might, but that is besides the point.
It was you who claimed in replies 65 and 66 that you were, in this thread, discussing the 'the wider issue of abuse in academic science'.
In which case please go ahead, let's discuss it.
What?
On this thread?
After all your complaints about focussing on Krauss?
No, if you have the cojones, start a new thread.
-
Hi Trent
I have taken the liberty to dismiss the first two paragraphs.
I have not forgetten those atheists who have said that science is neutral and, in this matter they are the good guys. I feel confident though that there are those who feel religion does make good people do bad things and that is prevented by science and could watch Krauss's uttering on that famous YouTube video on religion and find themselves agreeing wholeheartedly
There is a difference between science and scientists.
Never heard of or seen this 'famous' video.
-
The forum has had a long tradition of reporting the allegations against the clergy but many posters wanted to suppress discussion when it came to those against an antitheist.
Haven't seen anyone trying to suppress a discussion. Could you point this out please.
-
Haven't seen anyone trying to suppress a discussion. Could you point this out please.
The threads "prominent antitheist suspended" and " Am I the only one to notice" are available for perusal. Both master classes in diverting attention away from the alleged behaviour and affiliation of their subject and shooting the messenger.
One poster did produce a summary for the consequence and subsequent judgment on the individual concern but none have commented except to suggest we stop discussing the issue.
As I say there are several threads on this open for perusal including this one.
-
The threads "prominent antitheist suspended" and " Am I the only one to notice" are available for perusal. Both master classes in diverting attention away from the alleged behaviour and affiliation of their subject and shooting the messenger.
One poster did produce a summary for the consequence and subsequent judgment on the individual concern but none have commented except to suggest we stop discussing the issue.
As I say there are several threads on this open for perusal including this one.
Diverting attention isn't the same as suppression. You have said people wanted to suppress discussion and suggested we stop discussing the issue. Surely you can give examples of what you mean.
-
The video in question had 429 000 views.
Globally? Since when?
That is a tiny number of views in youtube terms. Hardly 'famous as you claim'. Plenty of obscure daytime tv programmes get more than that in a day.
A few hundred thousand more than Jesus had in his lifetime.
Correct me if wrong, but I didn't think youtube was around 2000 years ago.
The greatest number of views at the brief glance I had for Krauss is 2 000 000 views. Far more than his exclusively scientific vids.
Wong - his top viewed videos (just him) are science ones. Admittedly his most viewed on (2.1M) is perhaps not science - but is a two hander with Richard Dawkins (who is much more famous so I guess the high views are largely due to Dawkins).
-
Globally? Since when?
That is a tiny number of views in youtube terms. Hardly 'famous as you claim'. Plenty of obscure daytime tv programmes get more than that in a day.
Correct me if wrong, but I didn't think youtube was around 2000 years ago.
Wong - his top viewed videos (just him) are science ones. Admittedly his most viewed on (2.1M) is perhaps not science - but is a two hander with Richard Dawkins (who is much more famous so I guess the high views are largely due to Dawkins).
Do you think it would be more appropriate to talk about Krausses conduct in the context of conduct in antitheism or in the context of conduct in academic science?
-
Do you think it would be more appropriate to talk about Krausses conduct in the context of conduct in antitheism or in the context of conduct in academic science?
I would suggest that Krauss's conduct should be discussed/investigated on its own merits/demerits rather than it be linked to philosophical positions(antitheism) they are advocating. If there is a link between his behaviour and the behaviour of academic science then that should be investigated/discussed also, as in the case of certain Catholic priests and the behaviour of their church. I am not aware of any such linkage in this case however.
However the methodology/philosophy/religion/politics that they are advocating should always be subject to rigorous analysis too, as it stands or falls, not on the person proclaiming it, but on the arguments and evidence inherent/associated with that which they are proclaiming.
Fianally the idea that 'many posters wanted to suppress discussion' on Krauss is not borne out by the facts at all. Just because many posters had different views to yourself is not evidence of suppression.
-
The forum has had a long tradition of reporting the allegations against the clergy but many posters wanted to suppress discussion when it came to those against an antitheist.
Which posters? Name names.
-
I would suggest that Krauss's conduct should be discussed/investigated on its own merits/demerits rather than it be linked to philosophical positions(antitheism) they are advocating.
Krauss trumpeted the moral improvement over religion that science brings
There.....not a mention of the word antitheist or antitheism.
-
Krauss trumpeted the moral improvement over religion that science brings
Citation needed.
-
Citation needed.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow
-
Lawrence Krauss on science and morality
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L_y6L0cplLk
-
Findings of ASU investigation as reported by State press
http://www.statepress.com/article/2018/08/spscience-asu-investigation-states-lawrence-krauss-groped-woman-while-on-asu-funded-trip
-
Vlad
Is there any new point to your ongoing obsession with Krauss that hasn't already been discussed when you raised it last March?
As far as I can see nobody is arguing that people who behave in ways that are considered to be inappropriate towards others shouldn't be dealt with by investigation and, if indicated, sanction through legal process or in respect of their working roles and responsibilities: and that this principle applies be they accountants, IT specialists, butchers or scientists, and applies irrespective of whatever their religious affiliations are, or aren't.
It seems that we are in agreement on this, so which part of 'agree' are you still struggling with?
-
Vlad
Is there any new point to your ongoing obsession with Krauss that hasn't already been discussed when you raised it last March?
As far as I can see nobody is arguing that people who behave in ways that are considered to be inappropriate towards others shouldn't be dealt with by investigation and, if indicated, sanction through legal process or in respect of their working roles and responsibilities: and that this principle applies be they accountants, IT specialists, butchers or scientists, and applies irrespective of whatever their religious affiliations are, or aren't.
It seems that we are in agreement on this, so which part of 'agree' are you still struggling with?
Unfortunately for them a major plank of the celebrity antitheist circuit was moral superiority over religions and Krauss was vocal in this direction.
He seems therefore to have blown his own thesis. Can I take it then that your post is acceptance of that fact? Then it just leaves me to express curiosity as to how this matter will eventually play out for the aforementioned antitheist network.
-
Vlad
Is there any new point to your ongoing obsession with Krauss that hasn't already been discussed when you raised it last March?
And yet you are happy to see the same arguments trotted out again and again on the searching for God thread. Looks like special pleading on your part.
-
Unfortunately for them a major plank of the celebrity antitheist circuit was moral superiority over religions and Krauss was vocal in this direction.
I'm sure that is how it seems you.
He seems therefore to have blown his own thesis.
I couldn't possibly comment since I don't know what his thesis is/was.
Can I take it then that your post is acceptance of that fact?
No, since as I've said I don't know enough about either the details of the case or what this thesis you speak of contains.
Then it just leaves me to express curiosity as to how this matter will eventually play out for the aforementioned antitheist network.
In that case you'll need to find someone who belongs to this 'antitheist network' and ask them.
-
Krauss trumpeted the moral improvement over religion that science brings
There.....not a mention of the word antitheist or antitheism.
So? I repeat:
I would suggest that Krauss's conduct should be discussed/investigated on its own merits/demerits rather than it be linked to philosophical positions(antitheism) they are advocating. If there is a link between his behaviour and the behaviour of academic science then that should be investigated/discussed also, as in the case of certain Catholic priests and the behaviour of their church. I am not aware of any such linkage in this case however.
You have not said anything here which challenges what I have said.
-
And yet you are happy to see the same arguments trotted out again and again on the searching for God thread. Looks like special pleading on your part.
Nope: just tolerance, Vlad - and recognition on my part that some topics are never really exhausted even where repetition is involved.
-
Nope: just tolerance, Vlad - and recognition on my part that some topics are never really exhausted even where repetition is involved.
Nonsense.
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3d8NthEFWow
He says "morality based on rationality". Don't you think it is a good idea to have a rational basis for your morality?
-
Nonsense.
Nope: I'd have thought that since SfG has over 34,000 posts and over 1.5 million views that would indicate that there is something in the various subjects that are addressed in the thread, however repetitious, that confirms that some topics can attract a substantial amount of long-term interest.
-
Nope: I'd have thought that since SfG has over 34,000 posts and over 1.5 million views that would indicate that there is something in the various subjects that are addressed in the thread, however repetitious, that confirms that some topics can attract a substantial amount of long-term interest.
Argumentum ad populum.
-
Argumentum ad populum.
No, it isn't. It isn't claiming facts are determined by numbers. It is just stating that SfG is comparatively popular. Factually that is true. BTW why are you detailing the thread from Krauss?
-
No, it isn't. It isn't claiming facts are determined by numbers. It is just stating that SfG is comparatively popular. Factually that is true. BTW why are you detailing the thread from Krauss?
Popularity is non sequitur to the point that it is repetitive. To criticise something else for repetition is special pleading therefore.
I don't understand your last question.
-
Argumentum ad populum.
No really: I'm just pointing out details that confirm the thread has attracted interest, and you can check the numbers yourself.
I'm making no assumptions about the relevance or value of content of SfG based on its popularity. Maybe you need to learn something of fallacies before you accuse others of committing them!
-
Popularity is non sequitur to the point that it is repetitive. To criticise something else for repetition is special pleading therefore.
I don't understand your last question.
why are you derailing from the thread from the subject of Krauss.
Not sure what the rest of the post has to do with your incorrect statement about argumentum ad populum.
-
Popularity is non sequitur to the point that it is repetitive. To criticise something else for repetition is special pleading therefore.
No it isn't: that certain themes are repeated in SfG is an observation based on the content, such as frequently used terms.
I don't understand your last question.
Surely not!
-
NS is right: this thread isn't about your misunderstanding of fallacies - it's about Krauss.
So, Vlad, what points about Krauss would you like to make (other that those you've already made)?
-
NS is right: this thread isn't about your misunderstanding of fallacies - it's about Krauss.
So, Vlad, what points about Krauss would you like to make (other that those you've already made)?
I think the time is nearly ripe to explore Krauss's redefinition of the word "nothing". There I've given you guys a head start.
-
Nope: I'd have thought that since SfG has over 34,000 posts and over 1.5 million views that would indicate that there is something in the various subjects that are addressed in the thread, however repetitious, that confirms that some topics can attract a substantial amount of long-term interest.
You mean like a car crash?
-
I think the time is nearly ripe to explore Krauss's redefinition of the word "nothing". There I've given you guys a head start.
Not really: that would be about science and/or philosophy whereas you started this thread on the topic of Krauss the person. So, can we conclude that you have nothing more to say about the person of Krauss and events involving him?
If so we can look forward to a new thread of yours on 'Science' with an OP that sets out a Kraussian start-point for a discussion of 'nothing' - over to you!
-
I think the time is nearly ripe to explore Krauss's redefinition of the word "nothing". There I've given you guys a head start.
This seems unrelated to any of the allegations of sexual assault, or any relation to a philosophical stance, or assault in academia. You seem confused.
As to the question, Krauss's isn't a redefinition, it's a technical definition.
-
You mean like a car crash?
No.
-
Not really: that would be about science and/or philosophy whereas you started this thread on the topic of Krauss the person. So, can we conclude that you have nothing more to say about the person of Krauss and events involving him?
If so we can look forward to a new thread of yours on 'Science' with an OP that sets out a Kraussian start-point for a discussion of 'nothing' - over to you!
I would be more likely to discuss this as philosophy since to call it a science topic would mean we have unquestioningly accepted Krauss's linguistic imperialism and scientistical assumptions.
-
This seems unrelated to any of the allegations of sexual assault, or any relation to a philosophical stance, or assault in academia. You seem confused.
As to the question, Krauss's isn't a redefinition, it's a technical definition.
When interviewed by Colbert Krauss freely admitted redefinition.
-
I would be more likely to discuss this as philosophy since to call it a science topic would mean we have unquestioningly accepted Krauss's linguistic imperialism and scientistical assumptions.
Super: then you start a thread on 'Philosophy' and we'll see where it goes, and if it stays there or is more about science - time will tell.
Presumably then you've nothing more to say about the person of Krauss, so we can leave this thread to its own devices?
-
When interviewed by Colbert Krauss freely admitted redefinition.
Can you provide a transcript?.
-
Presumably then you've nothing more to say about the person of Krauss, so we can leave this thread to its own devices?
I don't know what you mean by that?
-
Can you provide a transcript?.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlD6Nb3b1wk#
50 seconds in and on....key phrase "physics has changed what we mean by nothing"
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlD6Nb3b1wk#
50 seconds in and on....key phrase "physics has changed what we mean by nothing"
So he doesn't say he redefined nothing. Thank you for showing your wrongness.
-
So he doesn't say he redefined nothing. Thank you for showing your wrongness.
Whatever floats your boat.
-
So he doesn't say he redefined nothing. Thank you for showing your wrongness.
Are you denying Krauss admits redefinition?
-
Are you denying Krauss admits redefinition?
Yep, in any sense you mean it. And I doubt Krauss thinks he is physics so even at the misrepresentation level you are working at here, that would just be misrepresentation squared
-
Yep, in any sense you mean it. And I doubt Krauss thinks he is physics so even at the misrepresentation level you are working at here, that would just be misrepresentation squared
Check back
I said Krauss admits redefinition in response to your claim that the word nothing had not been redefined.
You were rumbled and don't like it.
-
Check back
I said Krauss admits redefinition in response to your claim that the word nothing had not been redefined.
You were rumbled and don't like it.
Incorrect. Nothing has different meanings. That you appear to be unable a coherent view of your nothing is just your issue.
-
Do you think it would be more appropriate to talk about Krausses conduct in the context of conduct in antitheism or in the context of conduct in academic science?
We in reality we either talk about Krause and his case in isolation or we talk about the wider issues of conduct in academic research (note not just science) or in the context of the non religious activist community.
And in the broader context I think the only meaningful topic would be about the academic research community. Why - because there is undoubtedly evidence of a culture within those communities (academic research) which may be conducive to inappropriate behaviours (whether bullying or harassment).
To my mind there is no reasonable debate with the non religious activist community/prominent antitheist community (call it what you like) simply because there is not coherent and meaningful community which rules, conventions etc of a size that leads to a cultural behaviour.
So there are examples of inappropriate behaviours amongst academic researchers, amongst priests, amongst antitheists, within Hollywood etc etc - but only where there is a cultural and institutionalised system that supports and/or facilitates certain behaviours is it reasonable to broad it beyond the individual and into the culture. So that is appropriate for academic research communities, it is for Hollywood, it is for the various churches and religious organisation, but not for antitheists (call them what you like) because that established community doesn't exist.
-
We in reality we either talk about Krause and his case in isolation or we talk about the wider issues of conduct in academic research (note not just science) or in the context of the non religious activist community.
And in the broader context I think the only meaningful topic would be about the academic research community. Why - because there is undoubtedly evidence of a culture within those communities (academic research) which may be conducive to inappropriate behaviours (whether bullying or harassment).
To my mind there is no reasonable debate with the non religious activist community/prominent antitheist community (call it what you like) simply because there is not coherent and meaningful community which rules, conventions etc of a size that leads to a cultural behaviour.
So there are examples of inappropriate behaviours amongst academic researchers, amongst priests, amongst antitheists, within Hollywood etc etc - but only where there is a cultural and institutionalised system that supports and/or facilitates certain behaviours is it reasonable to broad it beyond the individual and into the culture. So that is appropriate for academic research communities, it is for Hollywood, it is for the various churches and religious organisation, but not for antitheists (call them what you like) because that established community doesn't exist.
I take issue with your thesis bout there being no antitheist community. It sounds like the first rule of fight club.
-
I take issue with your thesis bout there being no antitheist community. It sounds like the first rule of fight club.
There is one with the kind of organisations and institutional structures necessary to support and sustain the development of an institutional culture (for good or bad) that might promote best practice, or on the other hand institutionally support inappropriate practice, for example though power structure where those making their way in the institutional are beholden to those with power.
The latter is the case in other institutions and has negative impacts in many including the film industry in Hollywood, various religious institutions and certainly in academic research. The same does not exist in the 'antitheist' community as such power structure and 'patronage' do not exist in a similar manner.
-
There is one with the kind of organisations and institutional structures necessary to support and sustain the development of an institutional culture (for good or bad) that might promote best practice, or on the other hand institutionally support inappropriate practice, for example though power structure where those making their way in the institutional are beholden to those with power.
The latter is the case in other institutions and has negative impacts in many including the film industry in Hollywood, various religious institutions and certainly in academic research. The same does not exist in the 'antitheist' community as such power structure and 'patronage' do not exist in a similar manner.
You are obviously not aware of elevatorgate
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate
-
You are obviously not aware of elevatorgate
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate
And ... an individual incidence of inappropriate behaviour isn't the same as an institutional culture. I'm sure there are example like this in all sorts of places, professions etc. To be clear I am absolutely not dismissing inappropriate behaviour, merely stating that individual examples of inappropriate behaviour do not, necessarily, point to an institutional or systemic problem.
Where there is a difference is where there is a culture of patronage - effectively where there is a career structure and for someone at the bottom of that career structure there is a feeling that their ability to progress is dependent on the patronage of other more powerful people. This occurs (or occurred) in Hollywood, in many religious organisation and in academic research and can lead to an institutional culture that in effect condones inappropriate behaviours.
The same institutional culture doesn't exist in the so-called antitheist community, not least because there is no career structure to be supported by patronage.
-
As it seems to have been forgotten recently can I just remind folks that Vlad’s “obsession” with Krauss is actually just a particularly nasty slur by association: Krauss accused of bad things; Krauss an atheist; therefore atheism bad. It’s insidious and unpleasant stuff, but no more that I for one would expect.
As for discussion about pederastic priests, if there was some kind of global organisation of scientists with a man at its head called, say, The Schlope who issued an instruction that no members should report child abusing scientists to the local police and instead had them removed beyond the reach of the law to – ooh, I dunno – CERN maybe then, but only then, would there be an analogous situation.
As it is, what we actually have is an individual with expertise and strong views across several disciplines facing some serious accusations about his behaviour who’s been referred by his employer to the relevant investigatory authorities and who, if found guilty, would no doubt face the appropriate disciplinary measures. No more, no less.
Why on earth this is on the Theism and Atheism area rather than the General Discussion area is therefore anyone’s guess. Perhaps the Mods would like to consider moving it to its more appropriate home (or better yet consider recognising it for what it is and putting it out of its misery entirely)?
-
Those who doubted that there are those who wanted this issue suppressed would do well to read Hillsides last paragraph
-
As it seems to have been forgotten recently can I just remind folks that Vlad’s “obsession” with Krauss is actually just a particularly nasty slur by association: Krauss accused of bad things; Krauss an atheist; therefore atheism bad. It’s insidious and unpleasant stuff, but no more that I for one would expect.
As for discussion about pederastic priests, if there was some kind of global organisation of scientists with a man at its head called, say, The Schlope who issued an instruction that no members should report child abusing scientists to the local police and instead had them removed beyond the reach of the law to – ooh, I dunno – CERN maybe then, but only then, would there be an analogous situation.
As it is, what we actually have is an individual with expertise and strong views across several disciplines facing some serious accusations about his behaviour who’s been referred by his employer to the relevant investigatory authorities and who, if found guilty, would no doubt face the appropriate disciplinary measures. No more, no less.
Why on earth this is on the Theism and Atheism area rather than the General Discussion area is therefore anyone’s guess. Perhaps the Mods would like to consider moving it to its more appropriate home (or better yet consider recognising it for what it is and putting it out of its misery entirely)?
That's right.....advocate censorship.
-
How is suggesting the thread should be moved censorship or suppression?
-
How is suggesting the thread should be moved censorship or suppression?
You failed to read the last bracketed bit, I think.
-
As it is, what we actually have is an individual with expertise and strong views across several disciplines facing some serious accusations about his behaviour who’s been referred by his employer to the relevant investigatory authorities and who, if found guilty, would no doubt face the appropriate disciplinary measures. No more, no less.
He already has been investigated, and found, on balance of probabilities, to have violated the university's policy against sexual harassment. As a result he has lost his position as Director of the prestigious Origin's project.
-
You failed to read the last bracketed bit, I think.
I did :-)
Wouldn't advocate that.
-
You failed to read the last bracketed bit, I think.
Vlad - you do realise there is a difference between censorship and there being nothing more to say on a topic.
The complaint has been raised, an investigation conducted (involving people unlike us who have been appraised of the full details), the investigation has concluded and found that on balance of probabilities, Krause violated the university's policy against sexual harassment. As a result he has been removed from a prestigious position at the university.
And the findings are public for all to see (indeed I think I linked to them previously):
http://www.webcitation.org/71ePhFDfA
I'm struggling to see what more there is to add. No one is censoring anything.
-
As for discussion about pederastic priests, if there was some kind of global organisation of scientists with a man at its head called, say, The Schlope who issued an instruction that no members should report child abusing scientists to the local police and instead had them removed beyond the reach of the law to – ooh, I dunno – CERN maybe then, but only then, would there be an analogous situation.
There is also a world of difference between child abuse and touching a adult woman's breast (without consent) in public where the woman in question told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."
I am in no way condoning the action and it is entirely correct that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but this is a million miles away from the systematic institutional preponderance of child sex abuse and cover up seen in various churches. I also have no doubt there are many Krause-like incidents involving priests too - but I suspect they never even come close to media attention as they would be seen as so trivial compared to some of the stuff going on, for example, over decade in the RCC.
-
There is also a world of difference between child abuse and touching a adult woman's breast (without consent) in public where the woman in question told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."
I am in no way condoning the action and it is entirely correct that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but this is a million miles away from the systematic institutional preponderance of child sex abuse and cover up seen in various churches. I also have no doubt there are many Krause-like incidents involving priests too - but I suspect they never even come close to media attention as they would be seen as so trivial compared to some of the stuff going on, for example, over decade in the RCC.
One has to laud the speed at which several Atheist and skeptic alike organisation dealt with Krauss removing him from positions, honours and speaking itinerary. Credit is due to those in the skeptisphere who persisted and eventually acting on bad apple, sexist and abusive behaviour in that community to the shame as you point out of the RCC community.
-
You are obviously not aware of elevatorgate
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate
What a complete and utter fuss about nothing! Dawkins's sarcasm was crude and heavy-handed, but he had a point: what on earth is wrong with asking a woman back to your room for a coffee, provided you take a polite "no" for an answer and leave it at that?
-
What a complete and utter fuss about nothing! Dawkins's sarcasm was crude and heavy-handed, but he had a point: what on earth is wrong with asking a woman back to your room for a coffee, provided you take a polite "no" for an answer and leave it at that?
I used that example to remind PD that there was an atheist network since I perceived he was trying to present some atheist groupings as more ad hoc than they really are. Whether it was seen as trivial or symptomatic by all atheists? Atheists would do well to study the works of Rebecca Watson as well as the four horsemen group. I m ho.
This thread though is about Krauss though. Krauss and Dawkins had another tour planned but Krauss was dropped after the revelations
-
Hi Prof,
There is also a world of difference between child abuse and touching a adult woman's breast (without consent) in public where the woman in question told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."
I am in no way condoning the action and it is entirely correct that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but this is a million miles away from the systematic institutional preponderance of child sex abuse and cover up seen in various churches. I also have no doubt there are many Krause-like incidents involving priests too - but I suspect they never even come close to media attention as they would be seen as so trivial compared to some of the stuff going on, for example, over decade in the RCC.
Yes I know – that was my point. When Vlad’s called out on his nasty slur by association he resorts to, “but why then is it ok to discuss allegations of sexual abuse by priests?”. I was merely explaining that the comparison is false for the reasons I gave, and that you have reinforced the same point. Moreover, his slur still has absolutely bugger all to do with "Theism & Atheism", which is what this part of the mb is supposed to be for.
-
Maeght,
How is suggesting the thread should be moved censorship or suppression?
It isn't, and nor is suggesting that they may want to put out of its misery an attempt by a poster at a nasty little slur by association: "Krauss accused of a bad thing; Krauss an atheist; therefore atheism bad." If anyone can identify that there is in fact "an issue" to be discussed, then fine; as it stands though, it's pollution.
-
Hi Prof,
Yes I know – that was my point. When Vlad’s called out on his nasty slur by association he resorts to, “but why then is it ok to discuss allegations of sexual abuse by priests?”. I was merely explaining that the comparison is false for the reasons I gave, and that you have reinforced the same point. Moreover, his slur still has absolutely bugger all to do with "Atheism & Theism", which is what this part of the mb is supposed to be for.
The fact here is that you have almost uniquely called for censorship.
Of course this issue is about atheism.
A leading member of one of its communities which is dedicated to promote the idea that religion makes Good people do bad things and reason and science has the opposite effect....in fact one of that creeds most vociferous preachers....has been found to have blown his own thesis and with it a plank of his entire group.
The idea that I am trying to impute this behaviour to the entire skeptisphere is Balderdash considering I have praised and supported and raised the profile of those seeking to eradicate this from atheism even groups such as the Dawkins foundation and individuals such as Sam Harris and Dillahunty who acted I very appropriately in the wake of the revelations. I also linked to blogs like the friendly atheist.
-
Krauss speaking fluently and persuasively about what he's professionally best known for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKapUWxTvWI
-
And here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDhHK8nk_V0
-
Krauss speaking fluently and persuasively about what he's professionally best known for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKapUWxTvWI
I wonder how appropriate this is here. Firstly If it is science, that being his profession then it should be in the science and technology section rather than here. Secondly if this had been a similar thread on , say, Kevin Spacey would anyone have put links to two of his greatest performances and risk looking like endorsing a reputation? I don't know but this notion of shunning works and performances seems topical March 2019.
-
I wonder how appropriate this is here. Firstly If it is science, that being his profession then it should be in the science and technology section rather than here. Secondly if this had been a similar thread on , say, Kevin Spacey would anyone have put links to two of his greatest performances and risk looking like endorsing a reputation? I don't know but this notion of shunning works and performances seems topical March 2019.
Why is a discussion of a person's alleged sexual misconduct appropriate in the theism and atheism section?
-
Why is a discussion of a person's alleged sexual misconduct appropriate in the theism and atheism section?
The same reason the sexual misconduct of Christian persons is appropriate on the Christian section I would imagine.
To support a forum for the discussion of Christian sexual misconduct and refuse one for atheist behaviour of any stripe would smack of censorship and suppression don't you think?
Don't forget the action of several antitheist and atheist groups against sexual misconduct was praised on this thread. I didn't notice objection to that.
-
The same reason the sexual misconduct of Christian persons is appropriate on the Christian section I would imagine.
What reason is that?
-
What reason is that?
It's traditional
Just like the tradition of not challenging that tradition.
And yet here we are with people debating whether the same should be applied to figures in the antitheist community...….and yes. Before we go through the rigmarole Krauss is a self announced antitheist.
-
It's traditional
Just like the tradition of not challenging that tradition.
What's traditional? That church officials sexually assault children or that we talk about it in the Christian section of the forum?