Strategically communicating science

Personally, I don't think the point is made nearly enough that creationists lie. Too many times the creationist "arguments" are addressed as valid concerns, and in doing so are made to appear as merely aspects of an opposing, but legitimate perspective.

But creationism is not legitimate. It is 100% disinformation. It's not simply a different conclusion based on the same evidence, it's a cover-up of the evidence, and it needs to be outed as such.

In my opinion, scientists need to start using the "L" word a lot more when explaining creationism to an uninformed public. At the very least, people should come away knowing that scientists don't feel creationists are merely wrong, but that they lie.

When this website uses the word "science" they always mean evangelizing the religion of evolutionism. The evolutionists have a global audience of captive schoolchildren to whom they not only dessimate their degenerate propaganda but make them take exams to make sure they have mastered it.

To further add insult to injury, they control the doors to an increasing number of professions through their Satanic seminaries called univerisities. If you want to become a doctor/lawyer/accountant you must start with four more years stuffing yourself with the rotten goat meat of Darwinism and vomit it up on each exam day--and pay through the nose for this "privilege!"

Juxtapose this with the street corner and internet evangelizing efforts by Christians. We lack the bottomless budgets of taxpayer loot and coersive state power of the evolutionists, yet we're winning--at least in this country! Only about 9% of Americans believe in the religion of evolutionism according to polls.

Pumpkinbrains:

You must be aware that many scientists in general, biologists, and science educators are Christians, and have no difficulties reconciling their faith with the facts.

Why, in your view, do these individuals go along with this heinous conspiracy?

cui bono

ps. I think the word you were looking for is disseminate?

faster than a lit match dropped into a five-gallon can of kerosene.

Pumpkinbrains: You must be aware that many scientists in general, biologists, and science educators are Christians, and have no difficulties reconciling their faith with the facts. Why, in your view, do these individuals go along with this heinous conspiracy? cui bono ps. I think the word you were looking for is disseminate?

Thank you for this article; it was quite good. But I disagree that this is anything like spin. It sounds to me like simply very good pedagogy. Get a student engaged, get them interested, and they learn more. How do you get them interested? Help them see that what you are teaching relates in some way to what they already know. The public we want to teach is the same way.

Pumpkinhead:

Is this another April Fools parody? I can't tell anymore.

Pumpkinbrains:

Is this another April Fools parody? I can't tell anymore.

The facts on acceptance of evolution form polling: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." It's fair to describe this as the creationist view. "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process." We'll call this the theistic view. "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." I'll term this the naturalist view. Between 1982 and 2006, the number subscribing to the creationist view has ranged from 44 to 47 percent, while those who buy the naturalist take on things account for 9 to 13 percent. The middle-ground theistic position gets 35 to 40 percent of the vote. There's no clear trend over the 24 years; if anything, the naturalists have gained a few percentage points. Polls by the Pew Research Center and NBC News have found similar support for creationist belief, while surveys by CBS News from 2004 to 2006 and a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll give it a slim majority, at 51 to 53 percent.

pumpkinhead: Only about 9% of Americans believe in the religion of evolutionism according to polls.

pumpkinhead again: "However, with respect to your second question Satan, as the father of lies has established many fake anti-Christian churches that have formed organizations such as the WCC and the NCC to crush those who preach the true Gospel and sow confusion among the general public."

April 4, 2007 8:54 PM uh words......words....hatred....words....so defensive......insults, and yet a chimp is still a chimp and evolutionists still claim origin of life doesn't apply and you still can't decide if homolgy is proof of common ancestry or not. what happened to your consensus?

Bonobos walk on two legs and are the most humanlike in appearance of the great apes. They have sophisticated language skills...

Is this another April Fools parody? I can't tell anymore.

The problem is that scientists are not as congenial as hucksters such as "Dr" Hovind. science isn't about working a crowd, it's about specific things that the public has a problem understanding. specialization has made it difficult for the layperson to understand.

their article includes at least one paragraph that is likely to set PZ off faster than a lit match dropped into a five-gallon can of kerosene.

I'm willing to listen when these guys offer constructive suggestions on how to better communicate to the public, but I think they crossed the line in a few places where they try to tell us what to communicate (yes, thebrummel, my buttons were pushed). When they suggest that scientists are communicating poorly when we offend the public, they're missing the point: sometimes we want to offend. In particular, I think what they are requesting is a passive, socially conformist science.

But I disagree that this is anything like spin. It sounds to me like simply very good pedagogy.

Framing or spin? I'm not sure, but framing seems to mean to offer a context, often implicitly taken to mean social, that suits certain reader groups. The message is presented within the frame. Spin would seem to imply to distort the message to suit the purpose, for example by leaving out existing data.

Sorry. The correct link above is http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-to-communicate-scienc.html#comment-4269514375704885431 .

Personally, I don't think the point is made nearly enough that creationists lie.

— H. Humbert

Pumpkinhead wrote: Juxtapose this with the street corner and internet evangelizing efforts by Christians.

We lack the bottomless budgets of taxpayer loot...

...and coersive state power of the evolutionists, yet we're winning---at least in this country! Only about 9% of Americans believe in the religion of evolutionism according to polls.

pumpkinhead = JAD?

Well I have no doubt that you have no trouble making it up with the taxfree, bottomless collection plate. All the anti-science organizations have budgets of millions and access to wealthy fundy supporters looking for charity deductions. Did I mention that they held that church rally at the Florida SunDome. I wonder how much it cost to rent that?

Ummm, about those lies. According to recent polls, roughly 50% of the US population accepts evolution with or without a deity guiding it. Not 9% as you state.

A distinction needs to be made between promoting science education and USING science as part of front for a political/religious agenda, in the manner of Dawkins, Sam Harris (who claims to be working on a Ph.D. in neuroscience but won't say where) and PZ Myers.

After all Dawkins tries to tell us most of the "best" scientists are atheists

they want much more than that; to label religious people as delusional, child abusers, etc, with most likely an eventual goal...were they to achieve actual political control...of caging religion and seeing it preserved only in zoos. (Dennet, Darwins Dangerous Idea)

I haven't read Dennet either, but you seem to conflate his ideas with the others. What I recognize is the common labeling of religious ideas as delusional and that Dawkins argues to label a child accordingly to the surrounding society, specifically its family, amounts to child abuse. The former isn't controversial (or at least it shouldn't be, since there are no facts to back them up), and the latter seems rather fair as well - a child should not be abusively labeled.

Prelaw and accounting majors are required to take little or no science classes in most institutions. These are humanities subjects. Evolution is not a religion.

A distinction needs to be made between promoting science education and USING science as part of front for a political/religious agenda, in the manner of Dawkins, Sam Harris (who claims to be working on a Ph.D. in neuroscience but won't say where) and PZ Myers.

After all Dawkins tries to tell us most of the "best" scientists are atheists

they want much more than that; to label religious people as delusional, child abusers, etc, with most likely an eventual goal...were they to achieve actual political control...of caging religion and seeing it preserved only in zoos. (Dennet, Darwins Dangerous Idea)

"were confirmed believers in the religion of evolutionism." raven: evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. "Evolutionism dominates the whole curriculum. Darwin's disciples, Marx and Freud, inform the humanities the same way the godfather himself informs the natural sciences." raven: You've never been to a university for more than 5 minutes. Universities generally reflect the society they are part of. Marx and Freud are about as important in universities these days as they are at Walmart.

Oh, the irony! Christians rent a building from the evolutionists' university to have a conference. While the Christians shell out their money to preach the Gospel of Christ for one day the evolutionists who run the university teach their doctrines in classes day in and day out to students who are paying a whole lot more for that charade than the price of tickets to this conference.

Let's reverse the roles, shall we? What if Christians could establish as a prerequisite for entering all the professions that now require a college degree a detailed knowledge of the Bible for which people would have to pay five-figure per semester sums to churches to lecture and administer exams on this topic?

What if the churches also rented their buildings to evolutionists once in a while for one day conferences to increase their bottom line? What would you think of that?

Well, check out this poll! In 1991, only 9% were confirmed believers in the religion of evolutionism. The theistic evolution group are a bunch of confused thinkers bamboozled by Darwinian propaganda from the schools and their "churches"---a la Ken Miller. They don't know what to think.

Raven and Pumpkinhead -

Putting aside the obvious parody nature of Pumpkinhead's comments, those polls about human origin understate the US public's acceptance of evolution. I'm sorry not to have a link, but the percentage goes way up when people are asked whether plants, bacteria, insects, or the like evolved or were created in their present form.

There is a well-known bias in polling (among many others) which is sometimes refered to as "social desirability bias". It probably explains the reluctance of Americans to admit that humans evolved. It is obvious that in American popular culture, images of hominids, pre-historic "cavemen", and the like are widespread and provoke little or no negative reaction. So implicitly, Americans seem to accept that humans evolved, but be reluctant to admit this to pollsters.

Here's a related old link that suggests that Americans over-report religiosity in polls -

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/survey.html

Larsson -

"Delusional" is best used as a clinical term, and clinical defitions of it correctly exclude widespread cultural beliefs. It most certainly does not mean "holding any belief for which there is no evidence". If it did, we would all be delusional, and the term would have no meaning.

The definition of a delusion in the most recent DSM, which is widely available in many public venues, is...

"A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture."

Of course, the term can be used colloquially, as an insulting way of describing another person's beliefs or attitudes. It is common for words from psychiatry and psychology to be appropriated as playground taunts, and in the case of some adults, especially those who seek to gain publicity by making exaggerated, outrageous, insulting comments about large groups of people, we see persistence of this behavior.

(Incidentally, I am not now, have never been, and have never claimed to be either a psychiatrist, psychologist, or mental health counsellor of any sort.)

All -

Hopefully I haven't started a Dawkins war. If so, I surrender in advance.

It's worth noting that "Pumpkinhead", were he not a rather entertaining parody poster, would probably meet even a stringent definition of "delusional".

Well, sure, you can't have "Religiosity" in the DSM.

But try another venue. Supposing a witness on the stand made continual reference to "God's will" and "God's plan for [the defendant]"

How hard would it be for opposing counsel to discredit that testimony, even if every single individual in the courtroom was a convinced theist?

So, I would say that belief in God, per se, couldn't be called a delusion under the DSM, but that a wide range of beliefs about God could be. In a nutshell, modern society coddles belief, as long as you don't think the Big Omnipotent Dude can actually do anything. Or, perhaps more accurately, as long as you don't think that you're a reliable detector of Deific activity.

Which just makes belief even more pointless, but that's me.

CJO -

I don't understand your point.

If you're saying that a religious comment would necessarily negate otherwise credible court testimony, I disagree. If a person states that events that they witnessed (and accurately describe) must have been due to the will of Allah or karma or the like, that would tend to be irrelevant, but would not necessarily negate the testimony. In some cultures, making such a statement would be considered the norm. In fact, witnesses in court take an oath on the Bible.

If you're saying that some religious views can meet the DSM definition of delusional, of course that's true. What I said was "it is not true that all religious people are delusional (it is not true that all men are Greeks)". I did not say "no religious people are ever delusional (no men are ever Greeks)".

If you're trying to say that in your opinion, it is reasonable to state that all religious people or beliefs are delusional, why don't you come right out and say so? I've already explained why I disagree with that.

You know what they're teaching? Evidence. You wouldn't understand, it's a science thing.

Let's reverse the roles, shall we? What if Christians could establish as a prerequisite for entering all the professions that now require a college degree a detailed knowledge of the Bible for which people would have to pay five-figure per semester sums to churches to lecture and administer exams on this topic? The reason you want to "reverse roles"

that is exactly why science is taught instead of religion.

It's worth noting that "Pumpkinhead", were he not a rather entertaining parody poster, would probably meet even a stringent definition of "delusional".

Pumpkinhead -

I agree, it has been a bit dull around here since the creationists gave up.

"The whole system is just an untreated septic tank of Darwinian drivel." :-).

That may be the best line I've ever seen on PT (or perhaps even the internet, for that matter).

Looks as if we've got a Pumpkinhead and a Pumpkunhead.

"This is what psychology is about---defining beliefs contrary to the Darwinian worldview as medical conditions"

Not bad, but "The whole system is just an untreated septic tank of Darwinian drivel" is a tough act to follow.

You mean like the Phallus at Occidental College or Taking Marx Seriously at Amherst? Evidence my arse! The whole system is just an untreated septic tank of Darwinian drivel.

(PT) Should Marx be given yet another chance? Is there anything left to gain by returning to texts whose earnest exegesis has occupied countless interpreters, both friendly and hostile, for generations? Has Marx's credibility survived the global debacle of those regimes and movements which drew inspiration from his work, however poorly they understood it? Or, conversely, have we entered a new era in which post-Marxism has joined a host of other "post-" phenomena? This seminar will deal with these and related questions in the context of a close and critical reading of Marx's texts. The main themes we will discuss include Marx's conception of capitalist modernity, material and intellectual production, power, class conflicts and social consciousness, and his critique of alienation, bourgeois freedom and representative democracy. We will also examine Marx's theories of historical progress, capitalist exploitation, globalization and human emancipation.

If you're trying to say that in your opinion, it is reasonable to state that all religious people or beliefs are delusional, why don't you come right out and say so?

You mean like the Phallus at Occidental College or Taking Marx Seriously at Amherst? Evidence my arse! The whole system is just an untreated septic tank of Darwinian drivel.

Read for comprehension.

I never said I wanted to reverse roles.

I am merely illustrating absurdity by being absurd. You think having Christians as gatekeepers to many decent jobs would be some violation of freedom of thought and the marketplace of ideas. Well, that is how Christians view the current system.

This is a distinction without a difference.

All scientific "facts" are interpreted in the light of religious presuppositions.

Whether one accepts the presuppositions of Jesus or Darwin determines the conclusions you will come to in science and everything else.

The authors point out that when scientists discuss science-related policy questions in technical language, many members of the public tune it out.

Moreover, even while continuing to employ traditional modes of communication, scientists themselves have come under increasing attack for being too atheistic, too self-interested and/or too liberal.

They also point out that the opponents of good science are very good at framing their views on stem cell research, the environment, teaching evolution, and other areas that fall at the intersection of science and politics.

CJO -

A reasonable point, although I would point out...

1) Robertson is regarded by many, including me, as either severely mistaken or dishonest, with regard to the statements you mention. It is possible that he suffers from a delusional disorder (and it would be unethical for his doctors to release that private information without his consent), but there is no evidence that he does, beyond his making of these controversial statements.

2) There are many instances where claiming to know the intentions of God would be regarded as delusional, but also many instances where it is not so regarded.

3) It's easy to forget that the dominant religions of rich European and North American countries aren't the only religions in the world.

Glen Davidson -

Everything about Pumpkinhead suggests, to me, a (successful) humorous parody. Including that fact that he seems to have picked out the most comically over-the-top course descriptions he could find (yes, I know, they're real courses), without regard to their relationship to evolutionary biology.

I seem to agree with you with respect to the article that this thread is actually about. Just another "scientists should be better salesmen" load of tripe.

Reality is almost the exact opposite of what the authors imply. The politically and financially motivated machinations against stem cell research, climate science, evolutionary biology, and the like are either widely disliked and disdained (the first two) or politely ignored by the vast majority (ID and creationism, and if you don't believe me, ask a few regular people in the street about them).

Real science, on the other hand, is quite popular. There's a range of broadcasts, web sites, and publications devoted to providing news about science. There tends to be a spectrum of sophistication levels, ranging from things that present science almost at the level of an actual graduate course (some of the sites linked here) to more oversimplified presentations (which are not necessarily a bad thing in every case).

Real science, on the other hand, is quite popular. There's a range of broadcasts, web sites, and publications devoted to providing news about science. There tends to be a spectrum of sophistication levels, ranging from things that present science almost at the level of an actual graduate course (some of the sites linked here) to more oversimplified presentations (which are not necessarily a bad thing in every case).

Once again, a creationist resorts to insults, lies, and polling of a dangerously uneducated public. Did you know the southern states make up the lowest test scores when it comes to education? And that is the area where creationist have the strongest foot hold. This is the awesome link of statistics many here have been quoting:
http://www.jtsa.edu/research/finkelstein/surveys/evolution_results.shtml
You can see there is a direct correlation between the lower the education level, and the higher belief in creationism. Acceptance in evolution goes up as education does. Its true that most medical schools look down on applicants applying from most (but not all) christian colleges (especially the southern ones). But that is due to the fact that most of the graduates have a below average education, lower comprehension, and a much lower ability to accept people that are different. Which is crucial to take that wonderful oath that doctors take to help EVERYONE, not just those that believe what they do. And yes, I'm from the south so I know. You want to talk about oppression? How about being fired from a job for being Buddhist? Yes, that does happen in NC, A LOT. You want to see book burnings, ranting fools, and the KKK walking around free? Come to the south. Don't talk to me about oppression Pumpkin. You obviously haven't experienced it first hand.

Okay. That phallus class at my alma mater is a bit weird.

Pumpkinhead says: You mean like the Phallus at Occidental College or Taking Marx Seriously at Amherst? Evidence my arse! The whole system is just an untreated septic tank of Darwinian drivel.

Pumpkinhead obviously has no use for higher education (perhaps that is the REAL reason why he and others of the same ilk can't get past the "gatekeepers to many decent jobs"???), and he (or maybe she) implies that the courses mentioned are typical of the majority of courses offered at universities. That is the usual straw-man hogwash type of "evidence" that these types of cranks and wacko conspiracy theorists use. I managed to earn 4 science degrees from 2 well-known and well-respected public universities without ever taking any such courses. No instructor of any class I ever took ever tried to change my religous or political views. Maybe because I was studying science I didn't have time for frivolous electives. Evolution never seemed controversial to me, because its explanations so well fit the evidence, including what I can experience with my own brain and senses. The Bible contains a lot of good moral lessons, but a literal reading of it just does not fit with my experience of reality. I don't have any problem reconciling my religous views with my knowledge of science and experience of the natural world, including evolution. Apparently, some Christians do not have enough faith to accept the possibility of God UNLESS the Bible is literally true. Also, the mere possibility of no God scares them s***less, because without a belief in THEIR God, they can't keep their image of themselves as superior, immortal beings that have a special place in the universe. To such people, who seem to me to have been hopelessly indoctrinated into some sort of religious belief that I cannot begin to reconcile with MY experience of reality or MY sense of what God is, science must seem a terrible threat to their very existence. I suspect there's no reaching such fearful, willfully ignorant people, no matter how good you are at communicating science.

Pumpkinhead says: You mean like the Phallus at Occidental College or Taking Marx Seriously at Amherst? Evidence my arse! The whole system is just an untreated septic tank of Darwinian drivel.

Matt (who used to be here at OSU) and Chris hit the nail on the head. Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have not done a good job of public education. The problem is that evolution was deemed "controversial" for the public school system, and was therefore ignored ... leaving vast numbers of people in ignorance (hence the poll numbers we get today). Meanwhile, spin-machines such as the DI churn out balderdash and poppycock at an alarming rate, and they succeed in engaging the scientifically uninformed.

I think the tide is changing. Cable TV channels such as Discovery, etc., generally put forth a more objective view of science. Students in most states, thankfully including Ohio at last, are teaching sound evolutionary theory ... or at least have the state mandates to do so.

The next generation of Ohioans, and the next generation of adults in many states, will finally have a realistic view of evolution, and the tripe put forth by the DI and AIG and IRC will be distant memories. Meanwhile, we need to do better job of educating the adults who have never been exposed to the truths associated with evolutionary theory.

In other words, those of us who are educators, must educate beyond the classroom, and beyond the like-minded organizations.

Cheers,
Jeff

You want to talk about oppression? How about being fired from a job for being Buddhist? Yes, that does happen in NC, A LOT.

Its true that most medical schools look down on applicants applying from most (but not all) christian colleges (especially the southern ones).

I don't know why a Christian would be upset about a class on taking Marxism seriously. After all, cladistically speaking, Marxism is a a form of Christianity in much the same sense that pelicans are dinosaurs. The four great Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Marxism.

You can worry all you want how best to frame science but in the end the single most effective current means of conveying the fact of human evolution in America will turn out to be the Geico insurance caveman ads and all the spinoffs they're likely to spawn. To me the problem is very basic and really not one of evolution at all. The problem is that Americans (and perhaps others) have no idea what science actually is, even though they have studied these subjects in high school and college. They learn the conclusions not knowing that the conclusons and the resultant theories are tentative and probablistic. Most think that the purpose of science is to explain away the phenomena observed in nature in order to find some "TRUTH" about the ultimate causes of reality and not that theory and empiric evidence guide hypothesis generation and make unique predictions about the outcomes of experiments/observations not yet done. Evolution is singled out because those who detest the scientific method (as being "philosophically materialistic") correctly percieve it as not being believed as much as the other centrally organizing theories of the other sciences. Most people will not admit that they don't believe in the atomic structure of matter, even though no one has ever seen an electron, a neutron, a proton, or a force carrying particle that constructs these atoms. There is nothing about evolution that is any more athiestic, materialistic, humanistic, naturalistic or liberal than any other theory in basic science (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy). BTW its nice to see Lenny's Pizza Guy again, I kinda missed th' little dude.

Pumpkinhead said: According to an evolutionist, this is oppressive: You want to talk about oppression? How about being fired from a job for being Buddhist? Yes, that does happen in NC, A LOT. but this is not: Its true that most medical schools look down on applicants applying from most (but not all) christian colleges (especially the southern ones). So it is an act of oppression for mom-and-pop Christian businesses to only hire their own but it's all right for the Darwinian medical establishment to prevent those who love Jesus too much to even enter their trade at all.

Pumpkinhead is a perfect example of the whole "scientific" creationism movement. Hey, kids! Here's how you can make easy money while destroying American education in seven easy steps;
1. Make a completely indefensible accusation against legitimate science educators.
2. Wait until you receive a reasoned rebuttal.
3. Scream that you've been attacked by the establishment.
4. Ask for contributions from the faithful so you can defend yourself. (Tell the faithful they'll burn in hell if they don't shell out.)
5. Cash the faithfuls' checks. (The most important step, obviously.)
6. Repeat steps 1 through 5 until the scientists trying to reason with you give up in disgust.
7. Claim victory.
Repeat as many times as you like, or until the IRS catches up with you. (Condolences, "Dr." Dino.)
Try it, kids! It's easy, it's fun, it makes sincere Christians look like idiots, and best of all-- you don't have to do your homework!

Second, Christian colleges don't have a reputation for being especially rigorous in the sciences, so it is totally rational to treat them a little more skeptically when admitting students into a science-based curriculum.

From the POV of a Canadian layman, I have to say almost everyone I know has heard of Discovery Channel, but almost no-one knows what "Intelligent Design" means. The only time they've heard of it is from watching "Man of the Year".

Including but also beyond evolution sciences, for the most part it seems that the loudmouth wackos spend their time on Bill O'Reilly, while real scientists are just too busy getting the job done. The job that produces results, and not just in biology. Pharmaceuticals and medical treatments, sure, but also energy efficiency, improvements in communication systems, civic environmental testing and cleanup, better understanding of ecosystems interdependence...

Maybe we should just pray the bugs away instead? (shakes head)

You can see there is a direct correlation between the lower the education level, and the higher belief in creationism. Acceptance in evolution goes up as education does.

Pumpkinhead obviously has no use for higher education (perhaps that is the REAL reason why he and others of the same ilk can't get past the "gatekeepers to many decent jobs"???)

If evolution is real, why are there still cavemen making Geico commercials?

You Satanists think you're so smart!

Okay, now that's just carrying it too far. You ruined it. :(

The last post was by some cheap imitator. I know dang well even if cavemen exist they probably wouldn't drive.

The reason that evilutionists can't communicate science is that they're cavemen who can't drive, though they can use cell phones. By cavemen I mean all the humanoids who can't drive cars but do ride dinosaurs powered by nonphysical energy.

I find that I can communicate my ideas much better by making them up as I go along, since that means that I'm increasing the amount of information, which weighs more than things that aren't as complex. But only on Thursdays.

Congratulations, Realpc Pumpkinhead. That's the most sensible statement by a creationist I've ever read.

I am giving my real name. Also, since sarcasm does not "transmit" well through the internet, I will type truthfully:

Christians have absolutely NOTHING in this world to complain about. They never have. Why don't all those christian churches pay taxes on their property just like everybody else has to? Why don't all those baptist churches let scientists and atheists in there to speak about what THEY believe and know?

Why don't you christian discuss and analyze REAL unexplained events in this world:
extraterrestrial visitations, bigfoot, etc? Events which have had hundreds of independent witnesses?

For centuries dumbf*** christians kept non-christians out of universities.

The one great thing about Communist countries like China was to forbid christianity.
Yet, crimimal christians there still decide to break the law there and get arrested.
They deserve to be punished.

I am a proud atheist and mathematician (PhD). Even *I* know the difference among various levels of proof and logical consistency with our everyday world, regardless of my level of belief or disbelief in them. From conjecture (I believe the Goldbach conjecture is true, but have no way to prove it), to loads of indirect evidence (I strongly believe the ET Hypothesis for many UFO sightings; I even more strongly believe astrology is a total load of shit), to

On a related subject, do you dumb subhuman christians ever analyze what it means "to believe" something, from a neurological point of view? Seriously, if someone comes up to me and asks me, "Do you believe Japan exists?", and I say, "yes" or I say "no" --
1) does either answer really matter to the outside world
2) is one, but not the other, answer somehow "encoded" in my brain?
3) I have personally never been to Japan. I have received only secondhand information.
So, my belief has to be consistent if I replace the question with
"Do you believe many UFO sightings are alien craft?" for which I also have received only second-hand information. If it LOOKS like a craft and ACTS like a craft, then why the hell shouldn't I call it an (alien) craft?

Now replace that question above with a more emotional equation, such as
"Do you believe the Holocaust against Jews and Slavs and gypsys by the Nazis happened?"
Same analysis has to follow.

Does "belief" ultimately mean some sort of EMOTIONAL response of the brain?

I doubt christians can even begin to ASK these questions.
I'm sorry.. I mean, I KNOW christians are too stupid to think about these questions.