They're not suffering discrimination, it is just their religious beliefs don't fit into what the college is trying to do. One girl believes gay people are sinful perverts and yet doesn't see how that could be a problem with becoming a college counselor.
Exactly, "their religious beliefs don't fit into what the college is trying to do", wich leads to them suffering discrimination. Sorry, but considering certain pervs as sinful is basic christianity (old testament, you know), so you either declare christianity evil and descriminate them (very tolerant of you), or you let them take the same posts as non-christians, dispite their divergent beliefs.
But not if their religious beliefs conflict with the college's beliefs and goals. I am a Catholic and understand the importance of religion but that doesn't mean people get to shout discrimination every time their beliefs conflict with a job they want. If we allow that a Neo-Nazi could claim he was being discriminated against because he wasn't allowed to become a professor at a university due to his beliefs.
Who said the people doing the throwing out are atheists?
Further, each and every one of those people were thrown out because of their completely absurd reasoning. You don't need to have anything to do with atheism to know that any so called "professor" who denies evolution has absolutely no business in a teaching position.
Are you trying to tell me that you do not believe climate change is happening? From the selection of links you've given me its pretty obvious that you're a bigot against gays and lesbians, and finally you obviously don't understand evolution either.
What? Am I supposed to take you seriously now? You're a bigot that denies climate change and evolution.
In effect, what you have just told me is that you have the intellectual honesty of a three year old. Congratulations, go away and educate yourself, and when you've done that I might consider taking you seriously.
The way you devolving into insults and name-calling says much of your intelligence and integrity Climate-gate did much to shake my belief in GW, and even if it didn’t, if it is a piece of science and not dogma you hold on to as part of your worldview, you shouldn’t be so agitated. By the way, did I ever say I don’t believe the things you named? Nope, I provided links to people who’s views are being repressed, and I think it’s wrong. Does that means I necessary agree with them? No, it would be retarded to jump to that conclusion. Remember the Voltaire? “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Anyway, keep disgracing atheists like that, and be surprised by meeting more Mormons (or whoever) around next time.
First of all, there view is not being repressed. They are being removed from responsible positions where they have control over the education and beliefs of young and impressionable people. They are still perfectly welcome to spout whatever gibberish they wish, they are not however allowed to spout anti-scientific crap and bigoted trash while retaining those positions where they have unparalleled influence on the next generation of scientists.
And furthermore, it IS completely anti-scientific gibberish, it is most certainly NOT a repressed scientific theory, people are perfectly welcome to try and make people believe their crap, but that does not stop it from being crap.
Both climate change and evolution are scientific theories, indeed they are some of the best proven theories of all time, there is actually LESS evidence backing up the theory of gravity than there is backing up the theory of evolution. I assume that you are not going to complain if members of the flat earth society get thrown out of universities? They believe that the world is flat, that our experience of gravity is nothing more than the world we stand on accelerating upwards at a velocity that simulates our "mainstream" view of gravity, and there is LESS evidence proving them wrong than there is proving creationists wrong.
As to it being retarded to jump to the conclusion that you agree with people when you defend them. Actually you are so far from correct it is really rather hilarious, the human mind is preprogrammed for confirmation bias and self justification. It is extremely likely that you would defend people that you agree with, and much less likely that you would defend those that you do not agree with. Also, the subjects you picked to defend are so ridiculous that I naturally assumed that the only way you would have any pity for them was that you agreed with the content of them.
So tell me, what ARE your views on climate change, evolution and gay rights (or as I like to call them 'rights')?
Further, I would without batting an eyelid protest your right to spout whatever gibberish you prefer, I am all for freedom of speech, but I do believe that peoples views and ideas DIRECTLY impact their suitability for responsible positions overseeing the welfare and education of other people.
As to my de-evolution to insults, it says absolutely nothing about my intelligence what so ever, what it does say is that I have grown resigned to never being able to change the mind of a moron who accepts without question that neither evolution nor climate change have any validity, and I therefore no longer bother to waste my time trying.
It is also worth noting that insults are actually an extremely effective method of making people re-evaluate their personal biases.
I give you the words of Rowan Atkinson, on the right to ridicule religious ideas. "The freedom to criticise ideas - any ideas even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. And the law which attempts to say you can criticise or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.
"It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression."
Keep disgracing the human race like that, and be surprised when religious people decide that climate change doesn't matter because they are going to heaven in the rapture anyway and they therefore don't need to do anything about it. You might even be too late. [link]
So what your saying is that because I can't be bothered to watch an hour and a half video, I am the one who is holding blindly to my beliefs, and yet you can't spend 5 minuets reading 11 small paragraphs?
Hitchens is our Jesus, he preached the wordsof Reason and Logic, brought unholy hell on the heads of Religious debaters all over the world, promoted tolerance and acceptance well drinking down "Jesus' blood" He died to prove a point, that hes not burning in hell. And if he is, I'm happy in the knowledge he already beat up the devil and took over.
You are really starting to annoy me, before you can call anything drivel your going to have to take a good long look at your own beliefs. I would suggest re-reading the bible, starting at genesis and ending in revelation.
The earth since Adam is. Prove differently. We were all created by God. Prove differently. Christ told us to do this in remembrance of Him from time to time. He did not say to make it ritual, as some do.
You are the one made your claim, I said prove it. So far you have not even tried.
Because a few did wrongs, you cannot tar all with the same brush, do you see this being practiced today?
1. Using radiometric dating it has been found that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years (plus/minus 0.05 billion) of age. Please show a scientific method that is commonly accepted by reputable specialists in the field of geology (preferably the historical division) that proves otherwise. Words written by Bronze Age shepherds, put into a book by committee and proclaimed to be holy does not hold much weight with me or any other sane human. 2. Assuming you are a Judaeo Christian creationist which seems to be quite likely, a cursory walk through the local museum is sufficient to disprove this position. The deist position, that the world was set into motion by a non-personal god is still possible but that’s neither here nor there. 3. I'm not sure about the relevance of this but I do agree with you in the symbolism of this act. However in place of a rebuttal I shall beseech you to explain how Christ’s story differs from other figures in history that performed miracles, had virgin births, were god in human flesh, had amazing knowledge etc. Such as Buddha, Dionysus and my personal favourite Horus.
While I personally do not 'tar all with the same brush' (funny you use tar, as I recall it was one of the more interesting methods of punishment the church had to offer during their periods of predominant absolute authority) I find it to be almost poetic how people of the faith espouse to have a higher sense of morality. How they follow the 'one true' faith and have only the highest respect/love for their fellow human beings when the most likely reason they hold said faith is that at some point in time it was brought to either their ancestors or the ancestors of the people they heard it from by the point of a sword over the screams of dying 'heretics'. No, what has historically been the primary method of supplying the masses with religion is not seen today. However what is seen today, shame/scare tactics, the supression of rights based on sexual orientation, lying to Africans about condoms, faith 'healings' etc, still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. While I concede religion has been a source of good, it has also been a source of evil. The good deeds and neutral actions of some who follow a religion does not abscond it from criticism on its less than holy elements.