Lawrence Krauss Needlessly Shreds His Credibility

Richard Dawkins sidekick, Lawrence Krauss, has been repeating Dawkins crackpot notions about child abuse and religion, this time with a twist:

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss recently doubled down on his claim that teaching creationism to children was a form of child abuse during an appearance on the “The Weekly,” an Australian satirical TV news show.

During the show, host Charlie Pickering recalled that Krauss had described telling children that evolution was a lie as child abuse in a 2013 video. “That’s a fairly brutal way of putting it,” he noted.

“Yeah, exactly, but it got some attention,” Krauss replied, “cus if I hadn’t [used that description] you wouldn’t have read the line.”

“But it’s true. I mean, there are different levels of child abuse,” Krauss added. “It’s like not allowing your children to have medicine, not allowing you children to be vaccinated, for example, is child abuse, because you are doing them harm.”

“In some sense, if you withhold information from your children because you would rather them not know what reality is really like, for fear that it is going to affect their beliefs, then you are doing them harm.”
Like his mentor, Krauss attempts to support his crackpot ideas by abandoning science and replacing it with armchair philosophy.

Below the fold, I will teach the theoretical physicist how to do science.

Krauss is making an empirical claim about reality that can be tested – teaching creationism to children is child abuse. How do we test it? Child abuse has serious negative effects on the development of the human nervous system and these effects can be detected even long after the victimization is over. In fact, there is a large body of scientific literature that has studied the effects of child abuse yet Krauss, who receives money and fame for posturing as a Defender of Science, is oblivious to it. For example, consider the abstract of just this one review:

Since Browne and Finkelhor’s (1986) seminal review of the impact of child sexual abuse, there has been a dramatic increase in the child sexual abuse literature. Because of this tremendous growth in the literature, a more current review is warranted.

Why has Krauss ignored this body of literature? Is it because his empirical claims are rooted in intellectual laziness? Or it is because they are rooted in intellectual dishonesty? Let’s see what the research has shown:

The focus of this paper is a review of the long-term correlates of child sexual abuse published since 1987. Sexually abused subjects report higher levels of general psychological distress and higher rates of both major psychological disorders and personality disorders than nonabused subjects. In addition, child sexual abuse survivors report higher rates of substance abuse, binge eating, somatization, and suicidal behaviors than nonabused subjects. Adult survivors of child sexual abuse report poorer social and interpersonal relationship functioning, greater sexual dissatisfaction, dysfunction and maladjustment including high-risk sexual behavior, and a greater tendency toward revictimization through adult sexual assault and physical partner violence.

Okay, instead of pontificating and moralizing from the comfy seat of his armchair, don’t you think the man who makes money off selling himself as The Scientist ought to lift a tiny pinky and try to back up his empirical claims by doing something called……science?

Let’s do Krauss’s work for him and formulate his scientific hypothesis:

people who have been taught creationism as a child should demonstrate

a. higher levels of general psychological distress and higher rates of both major psychological disorders and personality disorders than nonabused subjects.

b. higher rates of substance abuse, binge eating, somatization, and suicidal behaviors than nonabused subjects.

c. poorer social and interpersonal relationship functioning, greater sexual dissatisfaction, dysfunction and maladjustment including high-risk sexual behavior, and a greater tendency toward revictimization through adult sexual assault and physical partner violence than nonabused subjects.

Krauss, the scientist, should now design an experiment that gathers information to determine if his hypothesis is supported by data or not. He’ll need two sample populations – those taught creationism and those who were not taught creationism. And he’ll need to control for as many variables as possible to ensure the only difference between the groups is their exposure to creationism. He can consult the previous research to see how the dependent variables were measured.

Look, Krauss is a “theoretical physicist.” This basic sociological research should be easy for him. So why doesn’t he do it? If a man who postures as an Ambassador of Science accuses another a group of people of being child abusers, he should not be doing this from a position of bigotry and prejudice, but from a position of acquired, scientific knowledge.

Krauss, undoubtedly, would be nervous about having his views subjected to scientific scrutiny and would retreat into the comfort of his personal philosophy, arguing ” there are different levels of child abuse.” But Krauss is only a theoretical physicist and has no knowledge or training that require us to take him seriously when postulates the ” different levels of child abuse.” In this case, Krauss would need to clearly propose and define the “different levels of child abuse” and then scientifically establish they exist outside of Lawrence Krauss’s head.

As I see it, Krauss has only three options:

1. Retract his unsupported claim.
2. Do the science and support his claim.
3. Acknowledge that science has nothing to offer here and admit his views are personal and philosophical.

Yet, I think we all know he will follow in the footsteps of his mentor, Richard Dawkins, and choose option 4.

4. Keep repeating the claim because it serves his personal and socio-political agenda (“but it got some attention”).

At that point, it should become clear that, like Dawkins, Krauss’s supposed love for science is a media illusion. How can anyone take Krauss seriously when it becomes clear he is so willing to completely abandon science just to score points against people he doesn’t like?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in child abuse, crackpots, Lawrence Krauss, New Atheism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Lawrence Krauss Needlessly Shreds His Credibility

  1. Peter says:

    In some sense, if you withhold information from your children because you would rather them not know what reality is really like, for fear that it is going to affect their beliefs, then you are doing them harm.

    I don’t know because I am not a creationist, but I imagine that if I were and I told my kids that the world was a few thousand years old, it would not be because I don’t want them to know what reality is like or I want to shield them from something that might threaten their faith. It would simply be because I didn’t think the standard geological hypotheses were rooted in fact.

    One could be wrong in this belief, but if we are going to treat creationists as child abusers we’ll have to lock up parents who tell their children about the tooth fairy.

  2. advancedatheist says:

    You could argue that it abuses a child psychologically to teach him the imminent doomsday nonsense promoted by some churches because of the existential anxiety that can cause. I experienced that reaction myself after reading Hal Lindsey’s foolish and ignorant books back in the 1970’s. These beliefs often coincide with young Earth creationist beliefs because Christians who think this way understand on some level that they need to compress the past and truncate the future for their beliefs to make sense.

    Otherwise the standard scientific chronology of our planet diminishes Christianity and makes it look easily losable in time. Why did Jesus arrive after modern humans had already existed for 100,000 years or more? And the prospect of an indefinite future similarly implies that Christianity could disappear some day, while the human race goes on about its business and not notice the religion’s absence. We will probably see the disappearance of the Zoroastrian religion in a few more generations, so a religion’s longevity doesn’t guarantee its survivability.

  3. John says:

    ”You could argue that it abuses a child psychologically to teach him the imminent doomsday nonsense promoted by some churches because of the existential anxiety that can cause”

    Funny how it seems a majority of children aren’t affected by that.I simply do not see how this could be a problem considering how we do not know how many children not only believe such things could be stressful but also experience them in the way you describe.

    Also,I think that the effects of believing in an imminant doomsday as you describe them on children,might be similar to some atheists claiming the doctrine of Hell might be troubling for children as well.

    But as far as we know,the doctrine of Hell does not disturb children in the way actual child abuse could.We don’t even know how many children are troubled by this,and I think it’s safe to assume it doesn’t pose any trouble for the majority of children taught this.

    Also,there are Young-Earth Creationist Catholics out there as well.Catholics don’t believe in anything similar to the rapture or dispensational theology,so it seems that the existential anxiety element falls out.

    ”Why did Jesus arrive after modern humans had already existed for 100,000 years or more?”

    Well for one,according to certain ”studies”,Jesus arrived at the perfect time in humanity where humanity was about to start rising in numbers immensely and the world was gogin to be more connected.

    Second,one of God’s virtues is patience,so that could be another reason as well.

    Third,if the problem is also that many people would not be saved before Jesus arrives,that is also false.

    As people aren’t necessarily not saved if they aren’t Christian.

  4. TFBW says:

    You could argue that it abuses a child psychologically to teach him the imminent doomsday nonsense promoted by some churches because of the existential anxiety that can cause.

    Yeah, but this would just be more of the same evidence-free, speculative, armchair pseudo-psychology that we’ve come to expect from Dawkins and his ilk.

  5. Peter says:

    You could argue that it abuses a child psychologically to teach him the imminent doomsday nonsense promoted by some churches because of the existential anxiety that can cause

    Advancedatheist is right. It is a scary thing to believe the world is going to end soon. Churches aren’t the only ones who do that – when I was a child our school was visited by Greenpeace activists who came and told us exactly what would happen in a nuclear missile attack, presumably because they thought if they get us young we would all grow up to be anti-war. I would rather my children not be exposed to such tactics, whether from churches, peace activists or anyone else. It’s not good to frighten children.

  6. Lucifer says:

    Krauss said there are “different levels of child abuse”, and I don’t think he was claiming “teaching creationism to children” is the same as “child SEXUAL abuse”. I think he was referring to impairing a child, intellectually, in being able to engage with Academic Science.

  7. Dhay says:

    Lawrence Krauss > “During the show, host Charlie Pickering recalled that Krauss had described telling children that evolution was a lie as child abuse in a 2013 video. “That’s a fairly brutal way of putting it,” he noted. “Yeah, exactly, but it got some attention,” Krauss replied, “cus if I hadn’t [used that description] you wouldn’t have read the line.”

    The header to the “The Ugly” mail section of several of the older generations of the RDF website started with an example of insanity which goes beyond criticism and into Crazytown:

    In her latest book “Godless,” Ann Coulter writes “I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell.” This section is dedicated to insanity such as this that finds its way to our inbox. When it goes beyond criticism and into Crazytown, we post it up here for all to see.

    Coulter was outrageous, for sure, but I rather think her response to criticisms of that line would be a (slightly more literate, otherwise functionally identical) version of Krauss’ response — “Yeah, exactly, but it got some attention, “cus if I hadn’t [used that description] you wouldn’t have read the line.”

    The moral of this comment is that Krauss has aligned himself with Coulter in his willingness to spout insanity which goes beyond criticism and into Crazytown, and for the purpose of flaming and trolling. Krauss’ comment belongs in a ‘The Ugly’ section as surely as Coulter’s did.

  8. Michael says:

    Krauss said there are “different levels of child abuse”, and I don’t think he was claiming “teaching creationism to children” is the same as “child SEXUAL abuse”. I think he was referring to impairing a child, intellectually, in being able to engage with Academic Science.

    Please. I knocked that one down in the blog entry:

    Krauss, undoubtedly, would be nervous about having his views subjected to scientific scrutiny and would retreat into the comfort of his personal philosophy, arguing ” there are different levels of child abuse.” But Krauss is only a theoretical physicist and has no knowledge or training that require us to take him seriously when postulates the ” different levels of child abuse.” In this case, Krauss would need to clearly propose and define the “different levels of child abuse” and then scientifically establish they exist outside of Lawrence Krauss’s head.

    Krauss wants to use the word “child abuse.” Stop making lame excuses for him; they work on no one except the Gnu drones.

    BTW, Dawkins says raising a child Catholic is actually worse than sexual abuse. What a crackpot.

  9. Lucifer says:

    Michael, do you believe in Young Earth Creationism?

  10. TFBW says:

    Not many YECs here. Talk to me if you want one. I’m not coy about it.

  11. TFBW says:

    … although I hasten to add that the only relevance this post has to Young Earth Creationism is Krauss’ claim that it’s a form of child abuse. Any change in focus away from that in this context would be a transparently desperate attempt to change the subject rather than address the topic at hand. As such, if you want to have an argument about the merits (or lack thereof) of Young Earth Creationism in and of itself, then I can provide you with my email address, or you can point me to a blog of your own.

  12. Michael says:

    Michael, do you believe in Young Earth Creationism?

    Nope. Are you ever going to defend Krauss’s crackpot notions about creationism and child abuse? Or will you just keep trying to change the topic?

  13. TFBW says:

    Marginally OT (although Krauss does rate a mention), but I really want to share this link. Teaser:

    Our 21st-century scientific priesthood — mostly atheists and materialists to the extent that their metaphysics is coherent enough to be described — is dominated by half-educated technicians with publicists.

  14. TFBW says:

    So much for Lucifer. I guess the fruit here wasn’t hanging low enough.

  15. Dhay says:

    I note that this interview was conducted by “The Weekly,” an Australian satirical (ie comedy) TV news show; Lawrence Krauss was introduced immediately after a clip of “eminent physicist Keira Knightly” expressing her misgivings about possible developments in robotics, as someone to calm the interviewer down.

    But although Krauss’ remarks about child abuse might conceivably have been satirising, say, Richard Dawkins’ tweets on that subject, the other views Krauss presented were clearly Krauss’ own; despite the satirical nature of the show, and the repartee, these views were presented in apparent seriousness.

    Let’s have a look at the several other Krauss ideas presents for serious consideration during the interview:

    Starting about 02:20, Krauss states he reckons computers will one day become conscious: perhaps he should have a chat with his fellow New Atheist, the retired neuroscientist Sam Harris, who in his October 11, 2011 blog entitled “The Mystery of Consciousness” wrote:

    Most scientists are confident that consciousness emerges from unconscious complexity. We have compelling reasons for believing this, because the only signs of consciousness we see in the universe are found in evolved organisms like ourselves. Nevertheless, this notion of emergence strikes me as nothing more than a restatement of a miracle. To say that consciousness emerged at some point in the evolution of life doesn’t give us an inkling of how it could emerge from unconscious processes, even in principle.

    I believe that this notion of emergence is incomprehensible—rather like a naive conception of the big bang. … Likewise, the idea that consciousness is identical to (or emerged from) unconscious physical events is, I would argue, impossible to properly conceive—which is to say that we can think we are thinking it, but we are mistaken. We can say the right words, of course—“consciousness emerges from unconscious information processing.” We can also say “Some squares are as round as circles” and “2 plus 2 equals 7.” But are we really thinking these things all the way through? I don’t think so.

    Consciousness—the sheer fact that this universe is illuminated by sentience—is precisely what unconsciousness is not. And I believe that no description of unconscious complexity will fully account for it. It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness.

    http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness

    So, is telling children what looks, from Harris’ discussion, to be the incoherent bollocks that computers can have consciousness (a very different issue from whether computers can be super-intelligent) – is that a form of child abuse? Is Krauss a child abuser?

    Starting at about 06:15, Krauss asserts that the universe “can spontaneously pop into existence from nothing” (07:00); perhaps he should have a chat with his fellow New Atheist, the retired neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris, who in his October 11, 2011 blog entitled “The Mystery of Consciousness” wrote (This quotation fills in the ellipsis in the quotation above.):

    The idea that everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing seems worse than a paradox. “Nothing,” after all, is precisely that which cannot give rise to “anything,” let alone “everything.” Many physicists realize this, of course. Fred Hoyle, who coined “big bang” as a term of derogation, is famous for opposing this creation myth

    Naturally, it all depends on how one defines “nothing.” The physicist Lawrence Krauss has written a wonderful book arguing that the universe does indeed emerge from nothing. But in the present context, I am imagining a nothing that is emptier still—a condition without antecedent laws of physics or anything else. It might still be true that the laws of physics themselves sprang out of nothing in this sense, and the universe along with them—and Krauss says as much. Perhaps that is precisely what happened. I am simply claiming that this is not an explanation of how the universe came into being. To say “Everything came out of nothing” is to assert a brute fact that defies our most basic intuitions of cause and effect—a miracle, in other words.

    (Other people who think a “universe from nothing” is an absurd idea are philosophers of science David Albert and Massimo Pigliucci; and even Jerry Coyne, no renowned philosopher, had enough about him to spot the obvious flaws – https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/)

    So, is telling children what looks, from Harris’ discussion, to be the incoherent bollocks that “everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing” – is that a form of child abuse? Is Krauss a child abuser?

  16. Dhay says:

    I see that on April 25, 2012, in a Rationally Speaking entry entitled, “Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex”, the philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci commented point-by-point and in a most uncomplimentary manner on an interview of Krauss by The Atlantic’s Ross Andersen. In this passage, Krauss had just been bashing philosophy and philosophy as science.

    Andersen [who had just pointed out that actually philosophers have contributed to a number of science or science-related fields] isn’t moved and insists: “certainly philosophers like John Rawls have been immensely influential in fields like political science and public policy. Do you view those as legitimate achievements?” And here Krauss is forced to reveal his anti-intellectualism, and even — if you allow me gentle reader — his intellectual dishonesty: “Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people’s attention.” Oh really? This from someone who later on in the same interview claims that “if you’re writing for the public, the one thing you can’t do is overstate your claim, because people are going to believe you.” Indeed people are going to believe you, Prof. Krauss, and that’s a shame, at least when you talk about philosophy.

    http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html

    Got that – Pigliucci accuses Krauss of “reveal(ing) his anti-intellectualism”, “his intellectual dishonesty” when Krauss said, “Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people’s attention.”

    That was 2012; Krauss has a long history of “tend(ing) to” make over the top, ill thought out extraordinary claims, and a history of defiant non-apologies for making them; in 2015 Krauss has pulled the same anti-intellectual and dishonest stunt again, as documented above by Michael.

    Pigliucci then moves on to criticise Krauss’ “Universe from Nothing” ideas – which ideas Krauss moved on to in his 2015 interview also, so let’s take a look at them:

    Finally, on the issue of whether Albert the “moronic” philosopher (“a highly respected philosopher of physics at Columbia University, but also holds a PhD in theoretical physics”) has a point in criticizing Krauss’ book, Andersen points out: “it sounds like you’re arguing that ‘nothing’ is really a quantum vacuum, and that a quantum vacuum is unstable in such a way as to make the production of matter and space inevitable. But a quantum vacuum has properties. For one, it is subject to the equations of quantum field theory. Why should we think of it as nothing?” Maybe it was just me, but at this point in my mind’s eye I saw Krauss engaging in a more and more frantic exercise of handwaving, retracting and qualifying: “I don’t think I argued that physics has definitively shown how something could come from nothing [so why the book’s title?]; physics has shown how plausible physical mechanisms might cause this to happen. … I don’t really give a damn about what ‘nothing’ means to philosophers; I care about the ‘nothing’ of reality. And if the ‘nothing’ of reality is full of stuff [a nothing full of stuff? Fascinating], then I’ll go with that.”

    But, insists Andersen, “when I read the title of your book, I read it as ‘questions about origins are over.’” To which Krauss responds: “Well, if that hook gets you into the book that’s great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. … If I’d just titled the book ‘A Marvelous Universe,’ not as many people would have been attracted to it.”

    Odd that Krauss should have denied the book was ‘questions about origins are over’, for Pigliucci wrote:

    Krauss is proud (if a bit coy) of the fact that Richard Dawkins referred to his latest book, entitled “A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing,” as comparable to Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” on the grounds that it upends the “last trump card of the theologian.”

    (That phrase, “last trump card of the theologian” is in quotation marks, presumably Dawkins’ own words – so does Dawkins really see theologians and Theology as holding ex nihilo creation as a “trump card”, a “trump card” which Dawkins is too stupid to see has not been dispelled or upended?)

    So there we have it: Krauss has made his specious claim about the book finally settling ‘questions about origins’ because doing so has earned him the acclaim of Dawkins. Well, I guess the ability to get praise from Dawkins would puff up any New Atheist’s head.

    Jerry Coyne, however, in his blog post dated April 2, 2012 and entitled, “David Albert pans Lawrence Krauss’s new book”, disagrees with Dawkins. Philosopher though Coyne certainly is not, he has here showed himself head-over-shoulders more capable than the abysmal standard demonstrated by Dawkins:

    [Krauss’] padding and poor writing made me peevish, but so too did Richard Dawkins’s afterword, which claimed that Krauss’s book would do for physics and cosmology what The Origin of Species did for biology: dispel the last evidence for God as seen in natural “design” or the idea of ex nihilo creation.

    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/david-albert-pans-lawrence-krausss-new-book/

    In the same blog Coyne makes very clear his opinion that Krauss’ book is primarily a “vociferous” New Atheist tract, an anti-theist polemic:

    … Krauss’s critique of religion that imbues the book. Formerly somewhat of an accommodationist, Krauss (perhaps because of his association with Dawkins) is now a much more vociferous atheist. If you’ve read A Universe from Nothing, you’ll know that it’s larded with critiques of religion and an overweening satisfaction that at last physics has explained the final redoubt of religion: the origin of the universe from empty space. The atheism seemed a bit over the top to me, but I also thought it was directly relevant to the book’s goals.

    Krauss’ book, then, evidences his New Atheist ideological faith that anti-theism must at all costs triumph over Physics fact and Philosophical rationality. How long, I wonder, before Krauss, too, joins the ranks of hypocrites writing reviews of Coyne’s Fedeism Versus Fact book?

    So, is telling children what looks, on the basis of the consensus view of Pigliucci, Albert, and the two New Atheists, Harris and Coyne, to be the incoherent bollocks that “everything (matter, space-time, their antecedent causes, and the very laws that govern their emergence) simply sprang into being out of nothing” – is telling children that a form of child abuse? Is Krauss a child abuser?

  17. Dhay says:

    Lawrence Krauss > “In some sense, if you withhold information from your children because you would rather them not know what reality is really like, for fear that it is going to affect their beliefs, then you are doing them harm.”

    It’s ironic that this part of the interview follows quickly on from the previous section in which Krauss had proclaimed how easy it is nowadays, in these days of the internet, for anyone to come across all sorts of information.

    Krauss having pointed out that children can use the internet to quickly find out pretty much anything they want, and on pretty much any given subject, it then looks like Krauss is trying to pull the wool over our eyes when he claims that parents are able to “withhold information from your children” about evolution. Nowadays, that isn’t possible.

    Perhaps there’s a big market for child protection internet filter programs over there in the USA, programs which filter not just pornography, violence and other adult-only content, as in the UK, but also perform the (I imagine) difficult task of preventing access to the vast number of websites which explain or otherwise refer to those forms of evolution which Jerry Coyne would approve of.

    If anybody knows of such child protection internet filter programs targeting evolution, would you please respond below to let me know. And I would be interested in how they treat the accomodationist™ variants of evolution — do they, for instance, block Shadow to Light.

    I shall take silence to mean there aren’t any. And that Krauss’ claim that some parents deny access to knowledge of evolution to their children is but an outrageous flaming attack, is trolling.

    The purpose of outrageous behaviour is the outrage caused: nasty man!

    Of course, and as Krauss pointed out in that early section, there’s a whole load of bollocks and bullshit (my paraphrase) out there on the internet, and it is wise to be skeptical about everything. Indeed; and some of that bollocks and bullshit is put out by Krauss himself.

  18. Dhay says:

    My thanks to the Richard Dawkins Foundation news for 10 August 2015, for bringing to my attention research at Notre Dame University on which “social practices and cultural beliefs of modern life are preventing healthy brain and emotional development in children”.

    http://news.nd.edu/news/36653-modern-parenting-may-hinder-brain-development-research-shows/

    The absence, from the list of bad parenting practices, of what New Atheists would call ‘religious indoctrination’ is glaring; as is the absence of what Lawrence Krauss would call ‘withhold[ing] information from your children because you would rather them not know what reality is really like’.

    So, no harm to babies from a Christian or religious upbringing, then, no child abuse there; I look forward to Krauss or others publishing corresponding research on children of Nursery, Primary, Secondary and Tertiary education ages.

    Until then, Krauss’s insinuation that Christian and religious teachings are so harmful that children should be kept well away from churches where they might hear those teachings, and from Christians who might teach them — such as their parents — that insinuation is insinuation.

  19. Isaac says:

    advancedatheist asked, “Why did Jesus arrive after modern humans had already existed for 100,000 years or more?”

    I suppose “advanced atheist” status still doesn’t include knowledge of what exponents are.

  20. Dhay says:

    Lawrence Krauss has just (September 8, 2015) published an article in The New Yorker entitled “All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists”.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/all-scientists-should-be-militant-atheists

    There’s probably nothing I can say about this bit of bollocks and bullshit which is not better said in the September 11, 2015 National Review Krauss demolition article entitled “Portrait of a Fanatic”, subtitled “A top physicist’s embarrassing tirade”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423851/lawrence-krauss-physicist-fanatic

    Enjoy.

  21. Larry Olson says:

    ” higher rates of substance abuse, binge eating, somatization, and suicidal behaviors than nonabused subjects.”

    Look up christian porn statistics some time… I can’t be bothered linking to any articles as I prefer not to waste my effort on this site too much, but, try

    “The statistics for Christian men between 18 and 30 years old are particularly striking:

    77 percent look at pornography at least monthly.
    36 percent view pornography on a daily basis.
    32 percent admit being addicted to pornography (and another 12 percent think they may be).

    The statistics for middle-aged Christian men (ages 31 to 49) are no less disturbing:

    77 percent looked at pornography while at work in the past three months.
    64 percent view pornography at least monthly.
    18 percent admit being addicted to pornography (and another 8 percent think they may be).

    Even married Christian men are falling prey to pornography and extramarital sexual affairs at alarming rates:

    55 percent look at pornography at least monthly.
    35 percent had an extramarital sexual affair while married.”

    But of course if you bend your definition of Faith to support Porn as just exploring God’s sex that he created, I guess being addicted to porn as a christian is just being addicted to God, after all sex is part of God and god created sex, and god ultimately created porn, so porn is perfect and it’s godly.

  22. Larry Olson says:

    Also look up christian Prison statistics

    “Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists”

    A lot of people in prison happen to be religious and feel that by being religious they will be forgiven for their crimes – kind of like someone who practices insurance fraud. A lot of these folks go and commit crimes, just so that they can be forgiven in prison.. it’s a get out of jail free card. Commit a bunch of crimes, then go to heaven because you accepted jesus.

  23. Doug says:

    …time for someone to read “Christians are hate-filled hypocrites …and other lies you’ve been told”. But why let actual facts get in the way of a preferred narrative?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s