Host Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson concluded the show by presented a short
but excellent commentary of the current state of science as asking
questions and looking for answers rather than sticking one's head in
the sand afraid of new information
He used the analogy of scientists looking for NEO's and learning how
to deflect them rather than running around in circles hoping that by
not thinking about them, they will go away

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/

Unfortunately there's a two week delay before it's presented on the
web but I'll post a link when availabler if anyone is interested .ken

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
wrote:

>Host Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson concluded the show by presented a short
>but excellent commentary of the current state of science as asking
>questions and looking for answers rather than sticking one's head in
>the sand afraid of new information
>He used the analogy of scientists looking for NEO's and learning how
>to deflect them rather than running around in circles hoping that by
>not thinking about them, they will go away
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
>
>Unfortunately there's a two week delay before it's presented on the
>web but I'll post a link when availabler if anyone is interested .ken

I've seen him speak. He is _very_ good. He's an astrophysicist who is
the head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City.

He's as outspoken as Dawkins but not as abrasive.

In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.

On Jul 3, 11:11 am, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:

> He's as outspoken as Dawkins but not as abrasive.
>
> In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
> is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
> the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
> Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.


A 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the
American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of
fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in
God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general
UK population were believers.

Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population?
Is it simply a matter of the IQ.
Academics have higher IQs than the general population.
Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that
those with higher IQs tend not to believe in god
There is evidence that higher levels of intelligence are associated
with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and
overturn strongly felt intuitions.

Then there's a statement (possibly a joke) that only one of 700 recent
Noble Prize winners in Chemistry-Physics-Biology (?) still believed in
god with comment: "What's wrong with that person?"

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:54:04 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
wrote:

>On Jul 3, 11:11 am, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>
>> He's as outspoken as Dawkins but not as abrasive.
>>
>> In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
>> is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
>> the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
>> Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.
>
>
>A 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the
>American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of
>fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in
>God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general
>UK population were believers.
>
>Why should fewer academics believe in God than the general population?
>Is it simply a matter of the IQ.
>Academics have higher IQs than the general population.
>Several Gallup poll studies of the general population have shown that
>those with higher IQs tend not to believe in god
>There is evidence that higher levels of intelligence are associated
>with a greater ability - or perhaps willingness - to question and
>overturn strongly felt intuitions.
>
>Then there's a statement (possibly a joke) that only one of 700 recent
>Noble Prize winners in Chemistry-Physics-Biology (?) still believed in
>god with comment: "What's wrong with that person?"

There are different kinds of religious belief, varying from the
"there's probably something out there" to fundamentalist absolute
certainty.

There  is also the partition in the mind, where people suspend
disbelief when they enter a service and return to reality afterwards,
versus those who don't return to reality.

As well as a spectrum with cultural allegiance at one end and
fundamentalism at the other.

When I still lived in England I knew plenty of Christians who didn't
really believe but retained the cultural part of it - Christenings,
weddings and funerals. If they went to church any other time it was
usually Christmas. Heck, I've been atheist for 60  years and I like
some of the music including carols.

I have no problem with people believing, as long as they keep it where
it is appropriate. 

We were talking about scientists - but those who are religious manage
to keep their science and their religion separate.

Heck, there's even a Pakistani Muslim Nobel laureate who did that -
Abdus Salaam.

Apart from a few like Polkinghorne who IMO dishonestly get introduced
to church audiences as scientists and then talk religion instead of
science, leaving the audience thinking it's science.

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> 
> Apart from a few like Polkinghorne who IMO dishonestly get introduced
> to church audiences as scientists and then talk religion instead of
> science, leaving the audience thinking it's science.

He seems to have good credentials as a scientist. You can't debar 
him as a scientist just because he has gotten religion.

regards, Ian

"Christopher A. Lee"  wrote in message 
news:l75q6459gdpugk4behajvuv2e2gtgpl0ko@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
> wrote:
>
>>Host Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson concluded the show by presented a short
>>but excellent commentary of the current state of science as asking
>>questions and looking for answers rather than sticking one's head in
>>the sand afraid of new information
>>He used the analogy of scientists looking for NEO's and learning how
>>to deflect them rather than running around in circles hoping that by
>>not thinking about them, they will go away
>>
>>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
>>
>>Unfortunately there's a two week delay before it's presented on the
>>web but I'll post a link when availabler if anyone is interested .ken
>
> I've seen him speak. He is _very_ good. He's an astrophysicist who is
> the head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City.
>
> He's as outspoken as Dawkins but not as abrasive.
>
RD isn't abrasive!!!  I've seen this accusation levelled at him so many 
times but whenever I've seen/heard him, he is very mild mannered.  Hitchens 
can be absive but then, neither is as bad as those TV preachers.  The BBC 
news (US) last night carried an item on some of these con-men and shysters 
living in unimaginable luxury.  Apparently, the Revenue Service is looking 
at some of them very closely - and about bloody time too!
Graham

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:28:22 +0100, Ian Smith
 wrote:

>Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> 
>> Apart from a few like Polkinghorne who IMO dishonestly get introduced
>> to church audiences as scientists and then talk religion instead of
>> science, leaving the audience thinking it's science.
>
>He seems to have good credentials as a scientist. You can't debar 
>him as a scientist just because he has gotten religion.

I don't.

I call him dishonest when he talks religion, letting an ignorant
audience think he talks science.

>regards, Ian

On Jul 3, 12:15 pm, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:

> I have no problem with people believing, as long as they keep it where
> it is appropriate.

Neither do I, BUT when people bang on your door and start off reading
the bible to you as soon as you say: "Hello" or walk thru a mall
babbling out scripture at ya (happen last week to us)

Has anyone here ever invaded a Xtian group (without being goaded into
it) and tell 'em they're all fucked up? I doubt it.

Don't really care if a cult feels the need to worship a pet goat as
their "Second Comming" but when they start trying to convince everyone
else within earshot to share their delusion, that's when I get a
slight bit testy.

If they purposely lie, issue false statements as "The Truth" or alter
quotes to support "their" views, then I get downright hostile

Now we have this frikkin halfwit (with my apologies to all true half-
wits) who never ceases with his constant mindless endless repetitive
hypocritical X-tian bullshit and pseudo-science crap!
So I ask you: "Is it any wonder I call him an asshole"?

On Jul 3, 1:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
> wrote:
>
> >Host Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson concluded the show by presented a short
> >but excellent commentary of the current state of science as asking
> >questions and looking for answers rather than sticking one's head in
> >the sand afraid of new information
> >He used the analogy of scientists looking for NEO's and learning how
> >to deflect them rather than running around in circles hoping that by
> >not thinking about them, they will go away
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
> be
> >Unfortunately there's a two week delay before it's presented on the
> >web but I'll post a link when availabler if anyone is interested .ken
>
> I've seen him speak. He is _very_ good. He's an astrophysicist who is
> the head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City.
>
> He's as outspoken as Dawkins but not as abrasive.
>
> In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
> is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
> the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
> Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.

REPLY: Every scientist in the world and everyone in the world knows
that, fundamentally, there has to be  some sort of master intelligence
out there for what we have.  This universe , earth, us, etc...  sure
doesnt resemble a bunch of random accidents that materials and
naturalism brought about as an 'atheists' faith demands.

On Jul 3, 2:15 pm, Ken  wrote:

> Don't really care if a cult feels the need to worship a pet goat as
> their "Second Comming" but when they start trying to convince everyone
> else within earshot to share their delusion, that's when I get a
> slight bit testy.
>
> If they purposely lie, issue false statements as "The Truth" or alter
> quotes to support "their" views, then I get downright hostile


So do you feel when "they start" telling you how to live your own
life, POed or homicidal?
Sandy

On Jul 3, 2:55 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> On Jul 3, 1:11 pm, Christopher A. Lee  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Ken 
> > wrote:
>
> > >Host Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson concluded the show by presented a short
> > >but excellent commentary of the current state of science as asking
> > >questions and looking for answers rather than sticking one's head in
> > >the sand afraid of new information
> > >He used the analogy of scientists looking for NEO's and learning how
> > >to deflect them rather than running around in circles hoping that by
> > >not thinking about them, they will go away
>
> > >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/
> > be
> > >Unfortunately there's a two week delay before it's presented on the
> > >web but I'll post a link when availabler if anyone is interested .ken
>
> > I've seen him speak. He is _very_ good. He's an astrophysicist who is
> > the head of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City.
>
> > He's as outspoken as Dawkins but not as abrasive.
>
> > In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
> > is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
> > the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
> > Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.
>
> REPLY: Every scientist in the world and everyone in the world knows
> that, fundamentally, there has to be  some sort of master intelligence
> out there for what we have.  This universe , earth, us, etc...  sure
> doesnt resemble a bunch of random accidents that materials and
> naturalism brought about as an 'atheists' faith demands.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Now what's the word I'm looking for?..
Yes
That's it.
Bullocks!
Another lorry load of pure and unadulterated Dave Shite
Sandy

IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote:
e.
>>
>> In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
>> is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
>> the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
>> Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.
> 
> REPLY: Every scientist in the world and everyone in the world knows
> that, fundamentally, there has to be  some sort of master intelligence
> out there for what we have.

Funny that, Dave. You make an assertion that is completely counter 
to the evidence presented. In fact, it is counter to all the 
evidence we see.

Then, you provide no evidence to support your assertion.

Why? Because it is completely wrong.

Can't you see that you have built a layer of delusion and, as the 
facts are presented, you have to add further layers of delusion to 
your world of mythology to obscure the facts from view?

You and your friends have lost Dave. Circulating in a world of 
delusion that has to be defended by propagation of outright 
dishonesty and lies.

Religion is now seen for what it is - superstition and mythology, 
just fairy belief. We just now need to sweep away the last remnants, 
people like you, still kicking and screaming but with no real 
ability to think or reason, headless chickens in the land of the 
living dead.

regards, Ian

On Jul 4, 12:38 am, Ian Smith 
wrote:
> IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> e.
>
>
>
> >> In response to the usual statistic that belief in God among Americans
> >> is less among scientists than the general population, and decreases
> >> the higher up the food chain until it is only 16%(?) in the National
> >> Academy of Science, he asks why it is as much as that.
>
> > REPLY: Every scientist in the world and everyone in the world knows
> > that, fundamentally, there has to be  some sort of master intelligence
> > out there for what we have.
>
> Funny that, Dave. You make an assertion that is completely counter
> to the evidence presented. In fact, it is counter to all the
> evidence we see.
>
> Then, you provide no evidence to support your assertion.
>
> Why? Because it is completely wrong.
>
> Can't you see that you have built a layer of delusion and, as the
> facts are presented, you have to add further layers of delusion to
> your world of mythology to obscure the facts from view?
>
> You and your friends have lost Dave. Circulating in a world of
> delusion that has to be defended by propagation of outright
> dishonesty and lies.
>
> Religion is now seen for what it is - superstition and mythology,
> just fairy belief. We just now need to sweep away the last remnants,
> people like you, still kicking and screaming but with no real
> ability to think or reason, headless chickens in the land of the
> living dead.
>
> regards, Ian

DImwit refuses to accept reality, won't accept anything that will
exposes the fallacious nature of his religious delusions, and can't
process new information.
Instead he prefers to shove his head up his ass, pretend that
everything in his little world still smells great and looks good

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 22:55:46 +0100, IlBeBauck@gmail.com wrote
(in message 
):

> everyone in the world knows
> that, fundamentally, there has to be  some sort of master intelligence
> out there for what we have

Wrong. I don't, for one.