http://www.statepress.com/article/2018/03/spscience-asu-professor-krauss-amid-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct

Another he said/she said situation destroys the reputation of a giant of Atheism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 12:13AM by koriwhore.

Krauss is a "giant of Atheism"? Someone forgot to tell me. Thanks a lot !

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krauss is a "giant of Atheism"? Someone forgot to
> tell me. Thanks a lot !

Richard Dawkins hired him to explain how, the Universe Could Come From Nothing, at the Atheist Alliance International Conference a few years back. He wrote a book based upon that speech by the same name. You may have heard of it.
https://youtu.be/1jY5BjGADv4
If New Atheism were still alive, he'd be riding Hitch's horse into tge apocalypse.
To me this latest accusation sounds a whole lot like taking down a celebrity, like the Aziz Asari incident. Yeah bad date and suprise, entitled famous guys sometimes mistakenly think theyre privilaged to sleep with anybody who expresses an admiration for their ideas/minds.
They probably think, yeah, what about my sexy bod that goes with my mind, package deal.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 12:11AM by koriwhore.

"Richard Dawkins hired him to explain how, the Universe Could Come From Nothing, at the Atheist Alliance International Conference a few years back. He wrote a book based upon that speech by the same name. You may have heard of it."

COMMENT: Yes, Krauss argued that the universe emerged from "nothing." However, the "nothing" here is a vacuum filled with virtual particles and energy fields. No honest theoretical physicist would claim that the vacuum constitutes "nothing" in the ontological sense in which Krauss uses this term to argue against religion and the ontological argument. Krauss' book demonstrates that there are scientists whose agenda of promoting atheism and attacking religion is more important to them than adopting a scientific demeanor that respects intellectual honesty. Dawkins falls into this camp, as do several others, perhaps most notably Jerry Coyne and Victor Stegner.

And your fake "response" demonstrates that your agenda of promoting lies and attacking reality is more important to you than adopting a scientific demeanor that respects intellectual honesty.

Just in case under some remote chance you know how to read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1415727315-pCXR9NUmWeBxo+FViR+NlA


This critique of the Krauss book represents the consensus of scholarly opinion about the book, including Krauss' physicist colleagues. In short, it is ridiculous nonsense. Notwithstanding, Dawkins compared the book to Darwin's "On the Origin of Species." What a joke. These two make being an atheist embarrassing. (And, frankly, you do not help matters in this regard.)

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This critique of the Krauss book represents the
> consensus of scholarly opinion about the book...

No, actually, it doesn't.
It may represent a *philosophical* consensus (though from the "kerfluffle" of discussion that followed, that doesn't appear to be the case). But you cast far too broad a net by claiming one philsopher's review (and yes, the NYT reviewer is a philosopher, not a cosmologist or scientist) represents the "scholarly consensus." It doesn't.

The biggest "arguments" between the various camps (scientists/philosophers, theists/atheists) are about whether the questions being asked are valid. Not about whether Krauss' book is "nonsense."

> These two make
> being an atheist embarrassing. (And, frankly, you
> do not help matters in this regard.)

No, they don't. If they embarrass themselves, that doesn't make being an atheist embarrassing. In this case, though (and btw, I certainly don't agree with everything in Krauss' book -- and how about that, being an atheist doesn't require me to!), I don't see how anything either wrote is "embarrassing."

Here's a different take on both the book and the "arguments":

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 03:24PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"No, actually, it doesn't."

COMMENT: Yes, actually it does. The point made by essentially all such physicists is that the question of why there is something rather than nothing, is a philosophical question, and NOT one answerable by science. Krauss attempted to take this unanswerable philosophical question and pretend that science could answer it, and thereby falsely claim that religion is thereby undermined. All theoretical physicists, including Sean Carroll, acknowledge vacuum energy, and by so doing acknowledge that the vacuum as used in science is not equivalent to "nothing" ontologically speaking. Krauss' suggestions to the contrary, are indeed nonsense, philosophically and scientifically. In short, there is no connection between the vacuum of physics and the "nothing" as proposed by the ontological argument.
____________________________________

"It may represent a *philosophical* consensus (though from the "kerfluffle" of discussion that followed, that doesn't appear to be the case). But you cast far too broad a net by claiming one philsopher's review (and yes, the NYT reviewer is a philosopher, not a cosmologist or scientist) represents the "scholarly consensus." It doesn't."

COMMENT: Read your cited link to the Carroll response. He criticizes Krauss for discounting philosophy, as "silly." (As it turns out, I just finished reading Carroll's book, "The Big Picture," which is laced with philosophy, and there is no claim (of course) that the vacuum represents "nothing" in the ontological, philosophical sense used by Krauss as a weapon against religion.
__________________________________________

"The biggest "arguments" between the various camps (scientists/philosophers, theists/atheists) are about whether the questions being asked are valid. Not about whether Krauss' book is "nonsense."

COMMENT: Yes. Whether they are scientifically valid, or better appropriate for science. But, when Krauss takes the idea of a vacuum and equates this term with philosophical "nothingness" for the purpose of undermining religion, his suggestion is nonsense. The scientific use and description of the vacuum is not equivalent to the philosophical, ontological use of this term in philosophy or religion. The vacuum is manifestly not "nothing" in this sense.
_____________________________________

"No, they don't. If they embarrass themselves, that doesn't make being an atheist embarrassing. In this case, though (and btw, I certainly don't agree with everything in Krauss' book -- and how about that, being an atheist doesn't require me to!), I don't see how anything either wrote is "embarrassing."

COMMENT: O.K. Maybe I over-reacted a bit. I should have said it is disingenuous. And as an atheist, I hate arguments against religion that are disingenuous. It makes atheism look like religion. And that is just what Krauss, Dawkins, Coyne, and Stegner do. They make atheism into a religion that they have to defend at all costs, fair or not: They are essentially apologists for atheism. And by so doing they trick people who do not have the background and knowledge to assess the legitimacy of their arguments.
______________________________________

Here's a different take on both the book and the "arguments":

COMMENT: I am very familiar with Sean Carroll's views. Here he is walking the line between friendships, but he most certainly knows that Krauss is out-to-lunch on this one.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Krauss' book demonstrates that there
> are scientists whose agenda of promoting atheism
> and attacking religion is more important to them
> than adopting a scientific demeanor that respects
> intellectual honesty. Dawkins falls into this
> camp, as do several others, perhaps most notably
> Jerry Coyne and Victor Stegner.


Yep, they are propagandists. Or, I like a phrase that was used to describe another recently: Krauss, like Coyne and others, is a "stupid man's smart person."

I'm guessing you are one of those giants of theism.

And you call Henry a liar?

You're a liar, and a smearer, too.

It’s more like a he said they said, with plenty of theys.

Krauss dresses like a rock star and fancies himself one. But, he’s no Keith Richards. In his world, Little TA still means teaching assistant.

If he wants sex with lots of young girls, he should start a religion.

Babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s more like a he said they said, with plenty
> of theys.
>
> Krauss dresses like a rock star and fancies
> himself one. But, he’s no Keith Richards. In his
> world, Little TA still means teaching assistant.
>
> If he wants sex with lots of young girls, he
> should start a religion.

Where's the line between being a horny old man who just enjoys the pleasures of the flesh, especially with nubile young, adult,admirers, and just being a gd sexual predator?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 09:23AM by koriwhore.

A Perfect Post. Exactly so.

If he's been sexually harassing women, can him.

"Giant of atheism" or not (and it's "not," by the way).

And how does this prove god is real ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how does this prove god is real ?
"An atheist would have to know a lot more than me about the Cosmos." Sagan

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "An atheist would have to know a lot more than me
> about the Cosmos." Sagan

Sagan was an atheist. He lacked belief in a god.

In that quote, he was talking about people who claim there cannot be and isn't any "god." Which isn't what atheism is.

Why would an Atheist be required to know anything about the cosmos ? What part of "I don't believe you" don't you understand ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would an Atheist be required to know anything
> about the cosmos ? What part of "I don't believe
> you" don't you understand ?
Take it up with Sagan.

How is Sagan the authority on whether or not there's a god? I thought he was an astronomer.

The fact that Krauss sexually harasses women has nothing to do with his position as an atheist.

However, televangelists should be judged by a different standard as they purport to know the mind of their "god" and state that sexual misconduct is offensive to said "god." So they are also hypocrites.

Religion is not required to be a predator. Power seems to be the common denominator.

The allegations come from students and colleagues. I hope they are believed.

It's so easy to say, "she's lying". Very few women have anything to gain by going public with a sad, wrenching experience.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 12:16PM by Dorothy.

From a macro viewpoint it doesn't matter that it is a hesaidshesaid situation. The bottom line is that for to long people have been mistreated and specifically in the workplace. I feel for the small few who's actions have been mis-characterized but I admit to not caring beyond my fleeting sympathy. If this is what it takes to drive home the fact that workplace harassment is wrong than so be it. Better that one man should suffer slightly for making a bad decision than millions of women should suffer from silence.

>>"Another he said/she said situation destroys the reputation of a giant of Atheism."

It may have destroyed his reputation as a man, educator, etc. But I don't see that it has anything to do with his atheism. Not sure why you would try and link the two....because it seems to me that you did.

Jonny the Smoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>"Another he said/she said situation destroys the
> reputation of a giant of Atheism."
>
> It may have destroyed his reputation as a man,
> educator, etc. But I don't see that it has
> anything to do with his atheism. Not sure why you
> would try and link the two....because it seems to
> me that you did.

It has to do with more than Krauss.
It seems guys like Sam Harris are complicit because they excuse Krauss's sexual misconduct and continue to give Krauss a platform, despite the fact he's been accused of sexual misconduct = guilty as charged in this #metoo moment.
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/sam-harris-responds-to-allegations-against-lawrence-krauss/

That and Atheism has long had a sexism problem.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/do-atheists-have-a-sexism-problem_n_964354.html

Now it not only has a sexism problem, it has a sexual misconduct problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 02:11PM by koriwhore.

You do realize that atheism doesn't need to be capitalized, and that it's not a religion or organization...

Right?

Humans (mostly males) have sexism problems. Some humans are atheists. Being an atheist doesn't magically make you immune from being sexist, or acting like a jerk.

>>"It has to do with more than Krauss.
It seems guys like Sam Harris are complicit because they excuse Krauss's sexual misconduct and continue to give Krauss a platform, despite the fact he's been accused of sexual misconduct = guilty as charged in this #metoo moment."

Many predators are given a platform, our president for one. This has nothing to do with atheism.

>>"That and Atheism has long had a sexism problem."

So has religion, so has industry, so has academia. This has nothing to do with atheism.

>>"Now it not only has a sexism problem, it has a sexual misconduct problem."

No, atheism doesn't have a sexism or sexual misconduct problem. Some atheists apparently do, but so do many non-atheists.

You're trying very hard to link an atheists misconduct with atheism itself, but it has nothing to do with atheism.

Perhaps judgement should be reserved until all is known.
Here's the latter part of the article:

***

ASU reported no internal complaints or prior investigations into Krauss’s behavior as of March 2.

“What we know is that we have no reports, not a single report, of misconduct from any person associated with ASU made to the University. None,” ASU President Michael Crow said in a March 2 meeting with The State Press. “What we have is a BuzzFeed article. … So now we have launched a full scale investigation of Professor Krauss.”

“We are at multiple levels, in every possible way, attempting to determine what is true,” Crow said.

This story is developing and will be updated as more information is made available. It was last updated at 12:26 p.m. on March 7, 2018 to include an update from the University about the cancellation of the Origins Project decade anniversary event.

***

Are you sure you want to throw the first stone, anyone?

Visitors Welcome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps judgement should be reserved until all is
> known.
> Here's the latter part of the article:
>
> ***
>
> ASU reported no internal complaints or prior
> investigations into Krauss’s behavior as of
> March 2.
>
> “What we know is that we have no reports, not a
> single report, of misconduct from any person
> associated with ASU made to the University.
> None,” ASU President Michael Crow said in a
> March 2 meeting with The State Press. “What we
> have is a BuzzFeed article. … So now we have
> launched a full scale investigation of Professor
> Krauss.”
>
> “We are at multiple levels, in every possible
> way, attempting to determine what is true,” Crow
> said.
>
> This story is developing and will be updated as
> more information is made available. It was last
> updated at 12:26 p.m. on March 7, 2018 to include
> an update from the University about the
> cancellation of the Origins Project decade
> anniversary event.
>
> ***
>
> Are you sure you want to throw the first stone,
> anyone?
Im not judging Krauss, just bringing up the fact that he is probably more of a high profile celebrity atheist than Dan Dennet, and wasn't he one of the 4 riders of the apocalypse?
If "New Atheism" were still a "movement" it might have a tough time with the #metoo movement.
I am in a relationship with an atheist and she cant stand guys like Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Dawkins, et all because its always just a bunch of old white dudes sitting around talking endlessly about how religion ruins everything, instead of doing anything to change the world, like advocate for safe schools, which are under attack in America, ironically by "Free Speech" (White Power/MAGA) advocates,
No demographic is more pro MAGA than MORmONs.

You can read his account here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view

As an atheist myself, I have no position within any atheist hierarchy of either authority or popularity... mostly because there is no such thing.

Silly Wabbit. Strawmen are for fallacies..

HH =)

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can read his account here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IgAGpkAa2vwSMOtFD
> 4iAfwfryTNJbJ_5/view
>
> As an atheist myself, I have no position within
> any atheist hierarchy of either authority or
> popularity... mostly because there is no such
> thing.
>
> Silly Wabbit. Strawmen are for fallacies..
>
> HH =)

I trust Krauss.
More than I trust Aziz Asari.
This smells like the kind od tabloid gossip youd expect to see at the grocery checkout stand, only its a full frontal assault on his character. It kind of sounds like he will be poison on any college campus now. Kind of sad.
I also leave open the possibility that he could be guilty of being a sex starved science geek who clumsily geeks out when a pretty young admirer expresses her attraction to him. But theres no law against inviting a consenting adult up to your hotel room and once there, trying to get laid, right?
Consent is sometimes subjective.
Nobody gets a signed consent form before having sex on a 1st date do they?