Politesse used to identify as Pagan-Christian and would not provide any details of what that means. So, he may be senstive to isuues with scince.
I believe he said he teaches college.
Such spokespersons have already spoken. They include Richard Dawkins, Sean B. Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Isaac Asimov, Stephen Jay Gould, and Carl Sagan, of course. What they've written forms the basis of the list or at least the list items regarding science in the OP.
I would not call them spokespersons. I read Gould's books except that last tome and saw him speak in Seattle not too long before he died. One of his prized possessions was an autographed Yankees baseball from when he was a kid. As he put it takes a lot of time to get a PHD and get started. After that you hvae a limited time for yiur work, who hs the time to deal with issues like religion?
Dawkins is a popular writer and Sagan was a terrible face on science IMO. Pop science.
There are no spokespersons, there are peole with views on science.
When did I ever "not provide any details of what that means"? It's no mystery or secret, I was practicing with two religious groups at the time, one Anglican and the other Wiccan. These days I hang out with some cool Jedi folks in the city and turn up for church every now and then. Belief-wise I am and always have been a resolute agnostic, the only philosophy I'll defend to the death. And yes, I'm a professor of anthropology at a community college, which has a
lot more with why people misrepresenting the sciences pisses me off. I'm also queer and prefer jazz to pop. But so what? If you can't think of any argument except to vaguely attack the poster for being too weird, you probably don't have much of a point to begin with.
So, you do believe in the supernatural of some kind? That would explain your sciencey comment. Science does not support magic spells at least not yet
What part of agnostic was unclear?
If you think science is a belief system, or a club that only card-carrying atheists belong to,
you do not understand science. Science is a method, not a religion. If a scientific conclusion cannot be objectively demonstrated through reprodcible experiment or observation regardless of the observere's personal ideoogy, it either isn't science or it isn't correct.
And no, what someone believes about Jesus or karma or whatever has nothing to do with why the OP was wrong or misleading about nearly every one of their "facts". Their own sources contradicted them. Do you believe that Wikipedia is willfully misrepresenting the current consensus age of the cosmos for the sake of religious apologetics?
Your logic here just fails me, dude. Like, I really just I don't grasp this argument. Since I am (I guess?) a secret evangelical, I would want the OP to say that the universe was somewhere between 13.787±0.020 billion yeas old, with some as yet unexplained data that appear to contradict this with respect to the local galactic neighborhood. But, if I loved science and atheism, and maybe sucked a dildo the shape of Richard Dawkin's cock every night, I'd be fine with the OP "approximating" it at 13.6 and refusing to further discuss the matter.
Is the idea that only religious people care about accuracy, whereas atheists are sloppy/lazy with their facts and therefore superior to those annoying, pretentious, ivory tower Christians due to being more polite, or more approachable or something? If so, this is accomplishing the opposite of convincing me to want to convert to your worldview. I'll keep the science and dump the social malformation, thanks.
I'm glad I know some other atheists, and thus that this is not actually a common perspective among atheists. If all I knew were you and Unknown Soldier, I would not be impressed! But, like, lpetrich on this forum would never have posted lazy slop like the OP. Actually, he
did start a thread on the age of the cosmos, and it's a very good read. Follow his lead, and you'll be on a much more sturdy path in terms of apologetics.