For bgbarber - posts from other fora

[_bgbarber]

The sample are all atheists. What about the types that are not atheist in the general population. Would this have any bearing on the hypothesis?

Mod note: Original thread here: American online atheists and psychological type

[_bgbarber]

To add my two cents worth the confrontation between religion and atheism has never really made sense to me.

One is concerned with concepts in the natural sciences the other is not? Am I missing something?

Mod note: Original thread here: We can't win by attacking religion

[_bgbarber]

Originally Posted by Sue P

Why would Richard Dawkins say he is NEARLY a 7 on his atheist scale. He obviously doesn't believe in God at all. Is it because he is a public figure scientist and scientists must allow that one day evidence may arise?

Because he is an agnostic by definition.

Mod note: Original thread here: Scale of Atheism

[Logic please]

Mod note:

bgbarber has posted a few items in other forums, which now can't be accessed to reply. These were posted under a deactivated account, which is why "Raptured!" appears under the username.

I will attempt to move them to this thread. This will enable discussion to be pursued. Please stand by...

Thanks.

ADD: and done.

[Loki]

Originally Posted by _bgbarber

To add my two cents worth the confrontation between religion and atheism has never really made sense to me.

One is concerned with concepts in the natural sciences the other is not? Am I missing something?

Mod note: Original thread here: We can't win by attacking religion

One is concerned with making claims not in evidence. The other is the rejection of claims not in evidence.

At base the issue has nothing to do with science, though science and its results may inform one's thinking.