It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

page: 49
24
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Marx read Darwin, Marx agrees with Darwin, change his view of the world. Marx invented Communism That's a relationship.

Marx then influences Stalin That's a relationship

Stalin reads Darwin and is so influenced he renounced his faith and became an atheist.

How can you possibly claim they are not related in any way.


Jesus was the major influence on the new testament. The NT influenced Luther and de Gobineau. Luther and de Gobineau influenced Hitler's anti-semitism and divine race ideas. Hitler was a theist. You cannot possibly claim they are not related in any way.

Really. What's the point of this? It's like groundhog day.



What the hell is with you guys,, you want to have us learn evolution so as Dawkins says we will see no use for god and that we were part of evolution Hitler studies it like a fanatic and guess what !! He quit believing in GOD! See?? Then what happened ?? Again he killed millions and millions

It amazes me how you guys just change the way reality is, history was and are never accountable for JACK I am sorry I just don't see Atheists as some paragon of virtue

-Con




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


You only need to look at the two concepts to see they are in no way related. You can argue by quotation if you like, but so what? Neo-Marxists and Marx attempted to suggest Darwinian theory was supportive of communism. Darwin's theory was like the trendy idea at the time, everyone wanted to jump on board. Later, people like stalin jumped off.

If you look at the two ideas, it's pretty obvious they are not really related. Argue against my points, show me how darwinian theory is like communism. Forget the quotes.



It's not just a quote that's a complete paper by Leon Trotsky. He was the founder and commander of the Red Army. Geeeez you know more than him about communism? See if it was just a quote you would have claimed it was from a creationist site and not dealt with it. But The paper is from The Communist Review. So now you can not just discredit this source and slip away. Do you really expect everyone to just accept your authority over a world class communist leader? Why, because you don't believe in God?
I admit they are related, but his communism trumps your atheism this time.

OK now on your ideas...
Have you considered you are looking at it completely backwards? I think you are. That is why you don't see the connection. Darwin's concept of conflict and struggle is what communism seeks to address. It is trying to artificially level the playing field of society. Its great hope was to stop the conflict. The workers paradise.... But it failed. Capitalism accurately reflects conflict by embracing it instead of trying to correct it artificially like communism did. Seeing it this way it all falls together for me. I have gained new knowledge since the OP. Thanks for the peer review. I will have this argument refined to laser precision now. I hope you learned a little something for a change. I have learned quite a bit of stuff from you and in spite of you; this time I got you.

Can't you see they are intimately related NOW?



[edit on 3/25/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   
'All right, call it a draw, then'


Originally posted by melatonin
I have seen some interesting neuro patients in my time. Such as the guy who confabulated stories, but when challenged understood it's not true. But then will tell the same lie 5 minutes later.

Just like the tag-team. Demolish their canards with fact and their premises with reason; five minutes later they'll be back with the same old twaddle, apparently having taken in absolutely nothing you said. They remind me of Monty Python's Black Knight. Sturdy fellows though, you have to give them that.

Thanks, by the way, for calling me a pedant. With friends like these...

Anyway, time for more pedantry.

Our esteemed OP used the following quote from Einstein to try to prove that Uncle Albert was a believer in Nobodaddy.


Originally posted by Bigwhammy

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein

And it is incontrovertible, indeed, that Einstein said this.

But what, exactly, was Spinoza's God?


Spinoza argued that infinite substance must be indivisible, eternal, and unitary. There can be only one such substance, "god or nature," in which everything else is wholly contained. Thus, Spinoza is an extreme monist, for whom "Whatever is, is in god." Every mind and every body, every thought and every movement, all are nothing more than aspects of the one true being. Thus, god is an extended as well as a thinking substance.

Philosophy Pages


Spinoza's fundamental insight in Book One is that Nature is an indivisible, uncaused, substantial whole — in fact, it is the only substantial whole. Outside of Nature, there is nothing, and everything that exists is a part of Nature and is brought into being by Nature with a deterministic necessity. This unified, unique, productive, necessary being just is what is meant by ‘God’. Because of the necessity inherent in Nature, there is no teleology in the universe. Nature does not act for any ends, and things do not exist for any set purposes. There are no "final causes" (to use the common Aristotelian phrase). God does not "do" things for the sake of anything else. The order of things just follows from God's essences with an inviolable determinism. All talk of God's purposes, intentions, goals, preferences or aims is just an anthropomorphizing fiction.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So that's the 'God' that Einstein said he believed in. Hardly a Bigwhammy kind of God, is it?

Spinoza also explained with great simplicity and clarity why those with a personal stake in religion hate reason and science so much:


One who seeks the true causes of miracles, and is eager, like an educated man, to understand natural things, not to wonder at them, like a fool, is generally considered and denounced as an impious heretic by whose whom the people honor as interpreters of nature and the Gods. For they know that if ignorance is taken away, then foolish wonder, the only means they have of arguing and defending their authority is also taken away.

- Spinoza, Ethics Demonstrated in Geometrical Order

* * *


And another thing:


Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I use the connections between The Dialectics of Nature by Engels, and The Origin of Species by Darwin

The Origin of Species: published 1857

The Dialectics of Nature: unfinished; first circulated 1883

So Engels, who was not a scientist or even particularly interested in science (unless it was 'political science'), drew inexpertly on Darwin to furnish a 'scientific' foundation for his political beliefs. And this implicates Darwin in Communism? How?


Originally posted by melatonin
It doesn't matter, whammy. It really doesn't. If Trotsky said that banana ice-cream was the foundation of communism would it make it true?[/url]

Precisely.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Thanks, by the way, for calling me a pedant. With friends like these...


Guess it came across quite random.

Don't worry, asty. Wasn't meant to be a criticism, I'm a stickler for detail myself generally. I think ash and sizzle dislike my own 'splitting hairs'. Suppose I should I have quoted where it came from: the 'before he's 7' corrected to 'until he's 7', when I said 'it was something like'.


But what, exactly, was Spinoza's God?


Don't ask those sort of questions! Heh.

.......................


Originally posted by Conspiriology
What the hell is with you guys,, you want to have us learn evolution so as Dawkins says we will see no use for god and that we were part of evolution Hitler studies it like a fanatic and guess what !! He quit believing in GOD! See?? Then what happened ?? Again he killed millions and millions


Quit believing in god? If you say so. He probably did fanatically study people like luther and de gobineau. Indeed, he then went on to suggest aryan's are teh bestest and Jews suck. Stating that the jews are devil personified - just like Luther-man.

And Hitler wrote about Darwin where? Hitler's words even suggest he might have been a creationist. Read mein kampf.


The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
Mein Kampf vol 2., Ch 10.

God's will gave men their form? Lord's creation? Not a very atheistic version of human history I must say.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Thought of publishing a book together?

The combination of all the threads of this debate (taking the best parts out of it), would make for an excellent book on the subject of atheism vs. religion and creationism vs. evolution.

You guys could easily publish a book .



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
I am not an authority on Marxism. So I'm going with the source that helped develop the soviet union. I think it is authoritative over your biased opinion. You are trying to defend atheism by breaking the connection. You failed. The man was a founder of the soviet union and you expect me to take your word over his? That is absolutely absurd. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.


But I'm not saying that 'marx/trotsky/Engels never said x'. They did. I can see that easily enough. I'm saying they were talking rubbish. You're using an argument from authority. Almost like discussing by bible verse.

To understand that there is no relationship between them you'd need to get a grasp of what Darwin's theory is, and what marxism/communism basically entails. I tried to outline each earlier, show me how they are related. I think they more thought communism was the apex of human evolution - the most advanced human idea, a worker's paradise. The end-point of some sort of progression of man. I recently read a christian who thought the same of christianity.

But neither are actually anything like darwinism. In fact, that is more like unfettered anarcho-capitalism.

And at this point, I'm not 'defending' atheism, because darwinism =/= atheism. I thought that was pointed out way back numerous times.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
It's not just a quote that's a complete paper by Leon Trotsky. He was the founder and commander of the Red Army. Geeeez you know more than him about communism? See if it was just a quote you would have claimed it was from a creationist site and not dealt with it.


Because it is a very reliable source. No issue with it. I already know they discussed Darwin, it's well known and discussed in academia.

Communism is easy enough to understand.


Have you considered you are looking at it completely backwards? I think you are. That is why you don't see the connection. Darwin's concept of conflict and struggle is what communism seeks to address.


So communism works against darwinian theory? Communism is not anything like darwinism. Someone wanting to work against natural processes like evolution and human nature was darwin's problem?

So when Darwin said that socialism and darwinism are different things he was right?

Cool. Darwinism didn't lead to gulags. Implementing a non-darwinian socio-economic policy led to gulags (doesn't follow, as communism says nothing about gulags). And using non-darwinian agricultural approaches led to famine and death (that does follow more).

Maybe people should have listened to Darwin more closely (not really, as Darwin's theory is not a social theory, but agriculture, yes). In fact, it appears that some capitalist economists did. One of the people who led to the collapse of a building society in the UK was a big fan of natural selection and the power of the unfettered free market (he was a biologist - matt ridley). A very Darwinian process. Do we blame that on the influence of darwin?

New thread: 'Darwin's theory led to the collapse of banks and the possibility of a coming recession: T'was teh Atheist conspiracy!'

[edit on 25-3-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Well... I'm actually in that line, as it happens. But ATS owns the rights to all our foregoing effusions, so maybe you should direct the proposal upwards.

While you're at it, tell them they've a volunteer to edit it.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Lack of belief in the sacredness of life, comes back to bite everybody on the behind:

"The Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh on April 17, 1975. A new government was formed and the name of the country was changed to Democratic Kampuchea. The regime's policies caused the death of around one third of the population, 3 million people, either from starvation, overwork, disease or murder. The Khmer Rouge targeted Buddhist monks, Western-educated intellectuals (apart from themselves), educated people in general, people who had contact with Western countries or with Vietnam, people who appeared to be intellectuals (for example, individuals with glasses), the crippled and lame, and ethnic minorities like ethnic Chinese, Laotians and Vietnamese. Some were thrown into the infamous S-21 camp for interrogation involving torture in cases where a confession was useful to the government. Many others were subject to summary execution. Many of the individuals executed, for example in S-21, were accused of working for the CIA, KGB or the Vietnamese. Confessions forced at S-21 were extracted from prisoners through such methods as removing toenails with pliers, suffocating a prisoner repeatedly, and skinning a person while alive. Out of an estimated 17,000 people imprisoned at S-21, there were only twelve known survivors."

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Skyfloating
 

Well... I'm actually in that line, as it happens. But ATS owns the rights to all our foregoing effusions, so maybe you should direct the proposal upwards.

While you're at it, tell them they've a volunteer to edit it.


Wouldn't that spark another debate? You'd be accused of airbrushing history again.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
shrdlu


Originally posted by undo


Originally posted by Astyanax
While you're at it, tell them they've a volunteer to edit it.

Wouldn't that spark another debate? You'd be accused of airbrushing history again.

Oh, I look forward to it, I look forward to it.

What fun I'll have correcting Conspiriology's typos!



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
I think it's fairly obvious that religion has nothing to do with how intelligent a person is or isn't. If it were true that religious people are less educated and less intelligent, many of the Nobel Peace Prize winners would have to renounce their awards on the grounds that they were jewish and religious people are just less educated/intelligent and couldn't have possibly won the awards on the merits of the data.

Alot of the arguments in this thread are pointless. Whammy, I think you should start a different thread on a happier topic so you don't internalize all the negativity here.


Nobel Peace prize winners win for Peace not IQ, no?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax


What fun I'll have correcting Conspiriology's typos!



i dunno. some people are so hot under the collar to prove anyone they disagree with, wrong, they actually will try to keep them from publishing anything or getting a job for that matter. my husband served in the united states air force for 23 years. he was in both wars (gulf war and war in iraq). he had a top secret clearance, and was sent on several missions unrelated to actual war. he had so many medals and decorations, his rack was up to his shoulder blade. but since he retired, he can't find a job, anywhere. this is what happened:

they gave him anthrax and another shot for japanese tick borne encephalitis. he had an allergic reaction to the anthrax. when he came home, i contracted the supposedly "dead" japanese tick borne encephalitis from him as a result of the little mycoplasms in the vaccination that apparently were not dead. it put me in a coma on total life support, and since then i have not been able to work a job -- i'm disabled.

the war against iraq comes along and they want to give him another anthrax shot. he tells them that he had an allergic reaction to it but he's forced to take the shot anyway. as a result, he develops all kinds of maladies, including sleep apnea. when he comes home, he has a horrible case of post traumatc stress disorder, as he had been stationed at ground zero on the grounds of saddam's palace, where bombs are being lobbed over the walls on a night and day basis and people he knows are getting body parts blown off.

so when he retires, he qualifies for military disability. however, they decide he doesn't qualify for full disability. so he has to get another job to support us (i can't work, they already screwed me up so badly, i'll be lucky if i live to see my first grandchild). he tries to work at the post office but they only allow him 1 week to learn the job well enough to determine if he qualifies. at the end of 1 week they say he's not learning it fast enough, and that they are going to have to let him go, that is, unless he would like to resign and get a different job as a clerk or janitor for the post office. he decides to go for their offer and no sooner has he signed the papers, they claim there's no job openings in those areas, unless he wants to drive an hour and a half a way, for even less pay and only 20 hours of work. we figure out that it would take his entire paycheck to keep the vehicle running and he would essentially be working to pay a mechanic. they knew this. it was a deliberate attempt to keep that man out of the post office job but not take responsibility for firing him. had they fired him, he would have proof that he was fully disabled and be able to support us. but as it stood, they tricked him into signing a resignation on the grounds he could get a different job in the post office (they didn't tell him it would be so far away). get this, he goes back and tells them he's willing to do their job, the one an hour and a half away, and they tell him there's no job.

this is how they treat the disabled vets who apparently don't know the right people or something. and that's nothing. you should see the stuff that happened over the last 10 years. it reads like an episode from nightmare on elm street ad nauseum.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
For the folks that Believe the Bible...
here are some biblical reasons Atheists try to airbrush the truth

· People can know the truth yet suppress it until they are no longer aware of it (Rom 1)

· People can deliberately forget things (2 Pet 3.5)

· People can choose to NOT love truth (2 Th 2.10)

· People can choose only beliefs which please them (too numerous to list)

· People can reject outright miracles, such as resurrection (Luke 16 and John 12.9:

·People can chose to deliberately propagate deception (deceivers)

"You live in the midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me," declares the LORD. (Jer 9:6)

· People can lose the ability and even willingness to perceive truth--especially spiritual truth--by repeated rejection, stubbornness, and insensitivity

Acts 28.27

"For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'"

[edit on 3/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]


The irony that has been perhaps overlooked is that there is no use of the word Atheist there. I would think it pretty easy to argue that a Christian ought to follow the bible and apply those passages to People. Sounds alot like a warning about Christians and Atheists both, no?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I already showed exactly how it is. It certainly does not change on your say so.


And I already showed exactly what it meant. It certainly does not change on your say so.

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:


Not to be rude but you were wrong and apparently seem to be trying to finagle your way around it any way you can.


No-one has EVER claimed hundreds or thousands were killed. The article implies they have.


No it does not. It is showing exactly what I said: With the way the SWT's are constantly thrown in the face of Christians you would think it would have been Christian America's version of the Holocaust (Yes, now I am exaggerating to hit the point home).

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:



What the article does prove however is that some christian site 'articles' exaggerate for dramatic effect.. in this case in order to make people who mention the witch trials look like they're being overly sensitive or something.


I can get picky and twist things around, too. Watch this:

The article does not exaggerate. It admits there were less than 25. It seems you were trying so hard to pick it apart for any little thing by assigning the article's author intentions that simply are not there.

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:


If the author had gone on and on about people claiming the SWT's had killed thousands then I could see your point. However, that is not what he/she does. I do see what you're trying to say but it looks like you're just blowing things out of proportion in order to find something to gripe about. Sort of like whoever it was who entered this thread and then jumped Whammy's butt for using the word 'airbrush' in his title instead of 'revise.'

:shk:
:shk:
:shk:



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
For the folks that Believe the Bible...
here are some biblical reasons Atheists try to airbrush the truth

· People can know the truth yet suppress it until they are no longer aware of it (Rom 1)

· People can deliberately forget things (2 Pet 3.5)

· People can choose to NOT love truth (2 Th 2.10)

· People can choose only beliefs which please them (too numerous to list)

· People can reject outright miracles, such as resurrection (Luke 16 and John 12.9:

·People can chose to deliberately propagate deception (deceivers)

"You live in the midst of deception; in their deceit they refuse to acknowledge me," declares the LORD. (Jer 9:6)

· People can lose the ability and even willingness to perceive truth--especially spiritual truth--by repeated rejection, stubbornness, and insensitivity

Acts 28.27

"For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.'"

[edit on 3/24/2008 by Bigwhammy]


The irony that has been perhaps overlooked is that there is no use of the word Atheist there. I would think it pretty easy to argue that a Christian ought to follow the bible and apply those passages to People. Sounds alot like a warning about Christians and Atheists both, no?


Whammy,, type "Atheist" there for the author assumes the reader would have the common sense to fill in the blank or the default unbelief being born Atheist. We forget how they resist having that name attached to anything other then what ever it is they are against.

I don't think what I see on these boards is Atheism, more like Anti-Christian Extremists

- Con



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by wytworm
The irony that has been perhaps overlooked is that there is no use of the word Atheist there. I would think it pretty easy to argue that a Christian ought to follow the bible and apply those passages to People. Sounds alot like a warning about Christians and Atheists both, no?


Well, atheists are mentioned in the Bible. I think they're referred to as 'fools,' though.


Besides, Whammy was not quoting the Bible precisely but putting a summary on the passages. And some of his passages actually do allude to modern atheistic claims.

But I see what you're trying to say- I'm just being annoying.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by wytworm
 


The Nobel Prizes are awarded by the Nobel Foundation of Sweden to men and women who have rendered the greatest service to humankind. Between 1901 and 2007, more than 750 Nobel Prizes were handed out. Of these, at least 162 are Jews.


Medicine

* 1908 - Elie Metchnikoff & Paul Ehrlich
* 1914 - Robert Barany
* 1922 - Otto Meyerhof
* 1930 - Karl Landsteiner
* 1931 - Otto Warburg
* 1936 - Otto Loewi
* 1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
* 1944 - Joseph Erlanger
* 1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
* 1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
* 1947 - Gerty Cori*
* 1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
* 1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
* 1953 - Hans Krebs & Fritz Lipmann
* 1958 - Joshua Lederberg
* 1959 - Arthur Kornberg
* 1964 - Konrad Bloch
* 1965 - Francois Jacob & Andre Lwoff
* 1967 - George Wald
* 1968 - Marshall Nirenberg
* 1969 - Salvador Luria
* 1970 - Julius Axelrod & Bernard Katz
* 1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
* 1975 - David Baltimore & Howard Temin
* 1976 - Baruch Blumberg
* 1977 - Rosalyn Sussman Yalow & Andrew V. Schally
* 1978 - Daniel Nathans
* 1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
* 1984 - Cesar Milstein
* 1985 - Michael Stuart Brown & Joseph Goldstein
* 1986 - Stanley Cohen & Rita Levi-Montalcini
* 1988 - Gertrude Elion
* 1989 - Harold Varmus
* 1994 - Alfred Gilman & Martin Rodbell
* 1997- Stanley B. Prusiner
* 1998 - Robert Furchgott
* 2000 - Paul Greengard & Eric Kandel
* 2002 - H. Robert Horvitz & Sydney Brenner


Physics

* 1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
* 1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
* 1921 - Albert Einstein
* 1922 - Niels Bohr
* 1925 - James Franck & Gustav Hertz
* 1943 - Otto Stern
* 1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
* 1945 - Wolfgang Pauli
* 1952 - Felix Bloch
* 1954 - Max Born#
* 1958 - Igor Tamm & Il'ja Mikhailovich Frank
* 1959 - Emilio Segrè
* 1960 - Donald A. Glaser
* 1961 - Robert Hofstadter
* 1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
* 1963 - Eugene Wigner
* 1965 - Richard Feynman & Julian Schwinger
* 1967 - Hans Bethe
* 1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
* 1971 - Dennis Gabor
* 1972 - Leon Cooper
* 1973 - Brian David Josephson
* 1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
* 1976 - Burton Richter
* 1978 - Arno Penzias & Pyotr Kapitsa
* 1979 - Stephen Weinberg & Sheldon Glashow
* 1988 - Leon Lederman & Melvin Schwartz & Jack Steinberger
* 1990 - Jerome Friedman
* 1992- Georges Charpak
* 1995 - Martin Perl & Fredrick Reines
* 1996 - Douglas D. Osheroff & David M. Lee
* 1997 - Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
* 2000 - Zhores I. Alferov
* 2003 - Vitaly Ginzburg & Alexei A. Abrikosov
* 2004 - H. David Politzer & David Gross
* 2005 - Roy Glauber

Chemistry

* 1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
* 1906 - Henri Moissan
* 1910 - Otto Wallach
* 1915 - Richard Willstaetter
* 1918 - Fritz Haber
* 1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
* 1961 - Melvin Calvin
* 1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
* 1972 - William Howard Stein
* 1977 - Ilya Prigogine
* 1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
* 1980 - Paul Berg
* 1980 - Walter Gilbert
* 1981 - Roald Hoffmann
* 1982 - Aaron Klug
* 1985 - Herbert Hauptman
* 1985 - Jerome Karle
* 1989 - Sidney Altman
* 1992 - Rudolph Marcus
* 2004 - Avram Hershko, Aaron Ciechanover and Irwin Rose
* 2006 - Roger Kornberg


Economics

* 1970 - Paul Samuelson
* 1971 - Simon Kuznets
* 1972 - Kenneth Arrow
* 1973 - Wassily Leontief
* 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
* 1976 - Milton Friedman
* 1978 - Herbert A. Simon
* 1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
* 1985 - Franco Modigliani
* 1987 - Robert M. Solow
* 1990 - Harry Markowitz
* 1990 - Merton Miller
* 1992 - Gary Becker
* 1993 - Robert Fogel
* 1994 - John Harsanyi
* 1997 - Myron Scholes
* 2001 - Joseph Stiglitz
* 2001 - George A. Akerlof
* 2002 - Daniel Kahneman
* 2005 - Robert Aumann
* 2007 - Leonid Hurwicz, Eric Maskin & Roger Myerson

the fact someone actually starred your post should prove to you that there
are people on both sides of the issue who don't actually think for themselves.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

There's no list of "christian" winners, probably because it would be seen as bragging and also, christianity has basically been seen as a detriment to actual advancements in science. it isn't that christians who are scientists don't understand and study the material, but it's auto-assumed they can't
differentiate between reality and fantasy. in other words, it's a huge,giganto, prejudice against christians in the fields of science.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD



I can get picky and twist things around, too. Watch this:

The article does not exaggerate. It admits there were less than 25. It seems you were trying so hard to pick it apart for any little thing by assigning the article's author intentions that simply are not there.



Jeez ya got to watch every sneaky thing they say. Don't forget he says this too



What the article does prove however is that some christian site 'articles' exaggerate for dramatic effect.. .


Your Atheist smear campaign sites is more to the truth and that goes for the "people" who would try to add a negative slant on ANYTHING Christian. Atheists do this kind of thing like every 25 - 30 years,, then even they get sick of hearing themselves talk like a bunch of emotional tampons. I mean, since WE ARE the very thing they seem to live for these days,, they will get bored with saying, hearing, writing about their staggering intellect confusing their irrational rants for reason and their loudness for logic.

- Con



[edit on 25-3-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
personally, i think the last 8 years of the bush presidency have been a deliberate and concentrated effort to blame christians for everything, and a massive opportunity to get on the national TV and actually call them uneducated louts. I still can't believe I saw this on CNN. What the freak are they thinking?
I was on the Dean's list and the President's list in college. I'm not an idiot.
this is the kinda crap hitler did to the jews. first find someone to blame, then
make sure the press and anything else influential does a thorough job of making them look like a scar on society.



[edit on 25-3-2008 by undo]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join