rationalskepticism.org

Spearthrower wrote:

Pridefel Knowitelz wrote:
Science, the progression of it, would it have advanced further if atheists had been the majority of scientists, is what I'm asking.

Yes, I saw you asked that, but the problem is that it is largely a meaningless question because you have failed to define any of the working pieces in your question.

As such, I replied explaining why you would need to unpack those components. Note that I didn't say 'could you repeat yourself'?

You might be reifying science.... I don't know, but as I can't be expected to engage in some half-grasped incomplete comprehension, I would need to be able to challenge any assumptions you're making... in the appropriate place which is not this thread as this thread has a clear topic and remit.

I realize you just signed up to this forum... ... but you must have also noticed you signed a forum user's agreement when doing so?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/old-a ... t-t76.html

Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to:

1.2 not...

g. try to take threads off-topic

So I will ask you courteously again. Please feel free to start your own thread on a topic of your choosing in a relevant subforum where I will be happy to answer your questions once we've made some sense of them.