If I didn't think I might "straighten you out," I wouldn't waste my time here. It's obvious to me that you are confused, disoriented and very angry -- that's why you put as much effort into insulting me as into your silly arguments.
Indeed, you used the term "alpha male" as if you yourself resent being challenged in that role. Well, sorry pal, but I'll warn you to control your anger, least you end up like Coyoteman -- banned for misbehavior. ;-)
Richard Dawkins: “The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no” (emphasis mine).
YHAOS: "In response, you run away and hide, excusing your behavior on the shibboleth “personal opinion.”
Your real problem is, you can't learn anything -- I've repeated the facts here over and over again, and yet nothing sinks into your thick skull, does it? Well, pay attention this time, I'll repeat it yet again:
BY DEFINITION, "science" deals ONLY with the physical, material natural world, not with the supernatural or metaphysical. So, if you ask a scientist a scientific question about God, he must NECESSARILY say that scientifically, by definition, "my answer is no."
This is not a problem, it is not a surprise -- it's a fact. So get used to it, and get over it!
Now if you angrily resent the fact that scientists occasionally hold news conferences where they pronounce their personal opinions on non-scientific subjects, then you might consider that EVER DAY, many thousands of ministers hold forth in public, on the radio, TV, in publications and the Internet their theological views that these scientists are full on nonsense.
So I don't think the voice of religion is being stifled in any way shape or form.
LOL! I’ll give you this: you’ve more brass than a marching band. If you find my behavior objectionable then hit the abuse button. It’s not your place to issue warnings or dictate actions. Leave that to the moderators. It’s beginning to dawn on you that you’re in over your head, I think. Is it that you’re looking for a way out, and your solution is to imitate ’yoteman and exit playing the martyr?
”I've repeated the facts here over and over again . . .”
You state the same talking points repeatedly. When your arguments are refuted, you don’t know anything better than to restate them again. You’re a one-load chamber and when your shot proves a dud, you don’t know what to do next. So you’re left with nothing but to re-chamber and again fire a dud.
By the way, when a scientist is asked a scientific question about God, since he is equipped (by choice) with nothing but a materialistic methodology, as a scientist he must necessarily answer, “I don’t know."
”Now if you angrily . . .”
Yada, yada, yada. As I predicted: great bellowing clouds of smoke and deny, deny, deny.
”So I don't think the voice of religion is being stifled in any way shape or form.”
? Context?