You think I should start a conversation over every time someone new joins in? Get over yourself. And yes; you are proselytizing. You are trying to push your own religious belief, that there are no gods, on others.

The author gets to decide if it follows, as it’s the author’s own opinion and personal interpretation.

Doubt you’re a forum admin. But there’s also cursing all over the forum, so if you were, and if you did, that would be clear bias.

And I have provided two links, in this thread. Go find them.

First, let me once again point out that I am an atheist, you brain dead twit. And the only one proselytizing here is you.

Is there an uproar in the scientific community, or is it mainly from people like the author, who probably have little experience in the area?

Unfortunately it was a lot like playing chess with a pigeon.

*waves*

Oh, and thanks for the compliment.

Again, proof, in its absolute sense, only exists in mathematics. You can support with evidence, or falsify with evidence. But in the “real world” nothing is absolute proof. There is only suggestive evidence.

“You can’t disprove the imaginary.” If you mean that you cannot disprove that which doesn’t exist, i.e. you can’t prove a negative, that’s actually not correct. In mathematics, we prove negatives all the time, and it is only in mathematics that true proof exists. Outside of mathematics, we can find evidence against…

> The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim.

> This isn’t entirely correct. If the God in question is a man made one, often the holy scripts will have claims that can be disputed with historical/current knowledge. An example would be the Kings David and Solomon fable which is unsubstantiated by archaeological or historical evidence. Another would be the flood…

> Science is not about stating opinions that cannot be disproven.

> You do realize there are entire academic disciplines that are religious, right?

> The abstract is suppose to be used for the presentation of conclusions drawn from the data.

Because that was not the purpose of the paper. And the title is not a place for opinion. The discussion is a reasonable place for opinion, and if it’s in the discussion, the abstract is also a reasonable place to include it, as the abstract is a summary of the entire paper.

Actually, there is a bias in academia, and in science education. You might want to check out Compromising Scholarship, which addresses the former. I’ll see if I can find the paper, but research has been done, which suggests that both science educators, and Christian children, believe that Christians are poorer in the…

Either way, I have a feeling they’re ignoring the flags anyway.

> Where reports go I’ve no idea (I don’t work at Gawker), but presumably either to the post author or a dedicated set of “firefighters” tasked at curbing abuse of the commenting system.

> there are no moderators here, so they can’t get off on any attacks on anything. Except unless you post stuff like nudity/porn or terrorist threats or such, then that will get moderated.