“This is more anti-religious bigotry and a shame to the university which is SUPPOSED to seek truth, not sophistry, contrary to what Negy says, "the purpose of the university is to engage in dialogue, debate, and exchange ideas in order to try and come to some meaningful conclusion about the issue at hand"--where is the truth, conviction, facts and objectivity?).”
Matthew Mule on Oct 18, 2013 at 21:03:50
“Anti-religious bigotry, you say? How would that happen to be the case? I wholeheartedly support his message, but maybe you don't quite understand it. He is not against people's religions, nor their freedom to choose any religion they so desire. There are no facts to support any religion. The facts as I see it, and probably how he sees it as well, are that there is no evidence supporting the validity of any religion out there.
As I see it, what he is against is: people blindly accepting something because they were told that it was so, not because it is fact, and those same people trying to shutdown the discussion because they were not comfortable with it or because they thought it insulted or diminished their religion somehow.. If you seek knowledge, discuss and argue, though if you follow by faith then you are doomed to live a life of ignorance. Remember though, his is how I personally see it and I use only facts about nature that I have observed with my own senses:
Since there is no evidence supporting any religion, I choose not to believe in them. If you have a religion, and you have no empirical evidence supporting your beliefs, then there is no argument to be made in favor of its validity. The religious bigotry of which he speaks comes from the students who refused to partake in discussion involving religion.”