First worldwide survey of religion and science: No, not all scientists are atheists

December 3, 2015
Credit: Petr Kratochvil/Public Domain

Are all scientists atheists? Do they believe religion and science can co-exist? These questions and others were addressed in the first worldwide survey of how scientists view religion, released today by researchers at Rice University.

"No one today can deny that there is a popular 'warfare' framing between and religion," said the study's principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University's Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences. "This is a war of words fueled by scientists, religious people and those in between."

The study's results challenge longstanding assumptions about the science-faith interface. While it is commonly assumed that most scientists are atheists, the global perspective resulting from the study shows that this is simply not the case.

"More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious," Ecklund said. "And it's striking that approximately twice as many 'convinced atheists' exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent)."

The researchers did find that scientists are generally less religious than a given general population. However, there were exceptions to this: 39 percent of scientists in Hong Kong identify as religious compared with 20 percent of the general population of Hong Kong, and 54 percent of scientists in Taiwan identify as religious compared with 44 percent of the of Taiwan. Ecklund noted that such patterns challenge longstanding assumptions about the irreligious character of scientists around the world.

When asked about terms of conflict between religion and science, Ecklund noted that only a minority of scientists in each regional context believe that science and religion are in conflict. In the U.K. - one of the most secular countries studied - only 32 percent of scientists characterized the science-faith interface as one of conflict. In the U.S., this number was only 29 percent. And 25 percent of Hong Kong scientists, 27 percent of Indian scientists and 23 percent of Taiwanese scientists believed science and religion can coexist and be used to help each other.

In addition to the survey's quantitative findings, the researchers found nuanced views in scientists' responses during interviews. For example, numerous scientists expressed how religion can provide a "check" in ethically gray areas.

"(Religion provides a) check on those occasions where you might be tempted to shortcut because you want to get something published and you think, 'Oh, that experiment wasn't really good enough, but if I portray it in this way, that will do,'" said a biology professor from the U.K.

Another scientist said that there are "multiple atheisms," some of which include religious traditions.

"I have no problem going to church services because quite often, again that's a cultural thing," said a physics reader in the U.K. who said he sometimes attended services because his daughter sang in the church choir. "It's like looking at another part of your culture, but I have no faith religiously. It doesn't worry me that religion is still out there."

Finally, many scientists mentioned ways that they would accommodate the religious views or practices of the public, whether those of students or colleagues.

"Religious issues (are) quite common here because everyone talks about which temple they go to, which church they go to. So it's not really an issue we hide; we just talk about it. Because, in Taiwan, we have people [of] different religions," said a Taiwanese professor of biology.

Ecklund and fellow Rice researchers Kirstin Matthews and Steven Lewis collected information from 9,422 respondents in eight regions around the world: France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Taiwan, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. They also traveled to these regions to conduct in-depth interviews with 609 scientists, the largest worldwide survey and interview study ever conducted of the intersection between faith and science.

By surveying and interviewing scientists at various career stages, in elite and nonelite institutions and in biology and physics, the researchers hoped to gain a representative look at ' views on religion, ethics and how both intersect with their scientific work.

Ecklund said that the study has many important implications that can be applied to university hiring processes, how classrooms and labs are structured and general public policy.

"Science is a global endeavor," Ecklund said. "And as long as science is global, then we need to recognize that the borders between science and are more permeable than most people think."

Explore further: Nearly 70 percent of evangelicals do not view religion, science as being in conflict

Related Stories

Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study

February 16, 2014

The public's view that science and religion can't work in collaboration is a misconception that stunts progress, according to a new survey of more than 10,000 Americans, scientists and evangelical Protestants. The study by ...

Science and religion do mix

September 21, 2011

Throughout history, science and religion have appeared as being in perpetual conflict, but a new study by Rice University suggests that only a minority of scientists at major research universities see religion and science ...

Recommended for you

Neanderthal boy's skull grew like a human child's: study

September 21, 2017

The first analysis of a Neanderthal boy's skull uncovered in Spain suggests that he grew much like a modern boy would, in another sign that our extinct ancestors were similar to us, researchers said Thursday.

Early trilobites had stomachs, new fossil study finds

September 21, 2017

Exceptionally preserved trilobite fossils from China, dating back to more than 500 million years ago, have revealed new insights into the extinct marine animal's digestive system. Published today in the journal PLOS ONE, ...

164 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

adam_russell_9615
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 03, 2015
The father of genetics - Gregor Mendel - was a christian monk.
Ironically, genetics is the older brother of evolution.
mike74
3.3 / 5 (29) Dec 03, 2015
Well, I guess it depends on which religion, and to what extent (religious fundamentals).

When religion makes claims about the natural world that contradict the discoveries of science, then the two are obviously in conflict.

The book of Genesis, for example, to be taken as a literal account for the creation of the universe and the earth, and all life on it, would be completely inaccurate with what we know.

Also, when religions claim that a supernatural deity is interacting with the natural universe, we should, at least in principle, be able to measure this phenomena. So answered prayers, miracles, virgin births, resurrections, the moon being split in two, and so forth, these are all examples of phenomena that science should be able to test. And so far it has found nothing.

I am of the opinion that science and religion do conflict, especially with a fundamental interpretation of religion.
Science and god don't necessarily conflict. It depends on the belief, and the deity.
BartV
2.2 / 5 (37) Dec 03, 2015
I think it is just the loud atheist scientists that want you to believe that "virtually all real scientists are atheists".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The vast majority of historical scientists were devout Christians.

And we owe a lot to Christianity and the Bible for giving a basis on which science can stand on---the pursuit of truth.

SkyLy
3 / 5 (25) Dec 03, 2015
Let's not compare the meaning of religion in Western/Eastern societies. Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a set of traditions and beliefs in a superior order in things, anyone could be Buddhist, it doesn't ask much faith and you can change your base beliefs anytime easily. For example, Einstein had Buddhist-like beliefs.

Being a real Christian while being a scientists on the other hand, is a proof that you lack scientific rigor in your thinking, because simple questions, interrogations, make the whole tale irrelevant.

But again, i guess this is just another ambiguous study, where how you formulate the question gives you a margin or +-25% in your results.
BartV
2.2 / 5 (36) Dec 03, 2015
SkyLy---I think you are twisting words around.
In another way, Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Christ. It is not a set of moral rules, like the religions of Buddhism and others, but one based on belief in a God of love and justice.
SkyLy
3 / 5 (23) Dec 03, 2015
SkyLy---I think you are twisting words around.
In another way, Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Christ. It is not a set of moral rules, like the religions of Buddhism and others, but one based on belief in a God of love and justice.


Well, maybe you're right, i've been raised in a Catholic country, so the only Christianity i've met and meddled with was the rigid one, where a single interpretation of the Bible translated to a set of rules for everyone.
It's the dominant branch of Christianism though, the one which was used to manipulate populations across the centuries.
mike74
3.1 / 5 (25) Dec 03, 2015
BartV You say "Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Christ."
A relationship you generate based on religion. You'd know nothing about the figure (whether or not he actually existed is another matter) without being informed by the Christian religion.
It's common for Christians to say this (because religion has become a negative term, recently, and for good reason). But they (many) still dislike gay people, fight against sexual and gender equality. Rant against women's reproductive rights, against stem cell research, etc. Everything about Christians and Christianity screams religion. Whether or not you like to call it such.
mike74
3.3 / 5 (23) Dec 03, 2015
BartV
You also make the claim that "The vast majority of historical scientists were devout Christians."
To be a non-Christian (especially an atheist) in a Christian country, until the enlightenment was a pretty dangerous thing to confess. Just look at the treatment of Galileo and Bruno, just for proposing "unchristian" scientific ideas about the solar system. It's also were all the money was back then.
Second, less and less scientists have professed Christianity (or any other religion) as we've learned more about the universe. Other the last three centuries, especially after Darwin, there's been a steady slope of scientists professing religion.
And that's why you'll find that over 90% of both the National Academy of Science (the elite of the elite), and the British equivalent, identify as atheists.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." - Cardinal Bellarmine 1615 - At the trial of Galileo
simzy39
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2015
The study is ridiculous. Just because people claim something, doesn't mean it's true. Maybe in these Asian countries, or Western countries, it is socially unacceptable, or makes you feel ashamed, to deny God. Asian countries are old and values are deep. Also, Buddhism might be what they're referencing, which I don't fully accept as a religion because it has no deity to worship; it is about spiritual teaching and learning 'truths'. Obviously the spiritual world isn't real, but still, it has no deity.
Also, what level of scientists are we talking about? A statistic I want to share is Neil deGrasse Tyson gave a lecture where he said that out of the top scientists in the world--the very top, professors, nobel prize winners, etc.--15% are religious. So, that means 75% of the most highly educated scientists who have excelled in their fields, do not believe in god. This makes me believe that knowledge/a continuation with science eventually overwhelms irrational beliefs in a god. Mike74 = yes
simzy39
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 03, 2015
I was going to say, of course religion and science conflict!!! What nonsense to say it doesn't. One uses observation, experimentation and results to learn what is true while the other uses 'faith' and has no evidence for its claims. Mike74, the first comment, says it how it is. I'm sick of people saying they aren't in conflict. All religion is slowing mankind's improvement down. Stemcell research got hindered. Now we have 46% of America's population claiming to be creationists, trying to get evolution and other proven scientific facts banned from schools. To hell with them them.
Also, if you need religion to tell you what is right and wrong, then what the heck is wrong with you? We as a society, especially with our parents, teachers, fellow citizens, government, laws and policemen should be able to get morality across. Obviously if you don't like being raped or murdered or robbed, then don't do it to others.
Pooua
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 03, 2015
The book of Genesis, for example, to be taken as a literal account for the creation of the universe and the earth, and all life on it, would be completely inaccurate with what we know.


Science does not have ultimate truth, or the final answer, so claims that one knows something by means of science should be taken figuratively. More appropriate is finding how to reconcile what we believe is true.

Also, when religions claim that a supernatural deity is interacting with the natural universe, we should, at least in principle, be able to measure this phenomena.


We don't have the resolution to see everything that happens in the world, and we don't have the power to command a performance from God.
mike74
2.9 / 5 (25) Dec 03, 2015
@Pooua

"Science does not have ultimate truth, or the final answer...."

I never claimed that science had the "ultimate truth", (if such a thing exists). What science can do, is rule things out. Science works by falsifying ideas. We know that the book of Genesis, is scientifically inaccurate as an account of creation, when it comes to how the universe, the planet, and life evolved.

"We don't have the resolution to see everything that happens in the world, and we don't have the power to command a performance from God."

That's not the point I was making.
The point is not what we are physically able to do now in practice, but what can be done,at least in principle. If a religion makes the claim that god interacts with nature in such a way, science is the study of nature, we should be able to test this phenomena. AT LEAST IN PRINCIPLE.

So it is erroneous to state that science are not in conflict when they often are.
mike74
2.6 / 5 (20) Dec 03, 2015
^science and religion
foolspoo
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 03, 2015
As its already been eluded to, this study is next to worthless. Eastern countries do not recognize religion as dogma. It is philosophy more than faith. Science will continue to force religion to evolve and we will continue to hear drivel like this.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (19) Dec 03, 2015


Being a real Christian while being a scientists on the other hand, is a proof that you lack scientific rigor in your thinking, because simple questions, interrogations, make the whole tale irrelevant.

@SkyLy

Not "being a real Christian" is what creationist tag scientist that happen to be evolutionists and Christians. Francis Collins is a devout Christian and led the Human Genome Project and as director of NIH there have been zero complaints that his leadership has been corrupted by his religion.

I've been an atheist for 49 years and I'm disgusted by the intrusion of religion into politics, education and science. But there are lots of Christians that believe the bible is not to be taken literally, especially the old testament. I don't pretend to understand how individuals can be rational in every way but still hold religious views. That's beyond my pay grade.

FainAvis
4 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2015
The article is drivel. The same drivel as came out of Rice University a year ago.
"Misconceptions of science and religion found in new study
February 16, 2014" (Phys.org)

asbrophy52
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 04, 2015
Mike74 and Simzy39 above:
Good Morning. Well said... pretty straight forward description of the matter. Only two points I might add to hopefully complement your input:
1) A basic structural level difference between science and religion is that science, followed rigorously and honestly, understands that at times, based on new input/observations/ results/ data, may have to, and does, change it's theories/notions/ideas/concepts .. if something new is learned and validated about a topic, that changes our previous understanding, it is incorporated and accepted, we change our understanding, and go forward .... still constantly challenging and testing all data as we should.
Religion, at least at the most basic family structure level, is nothing like that. We are simply told to believe certain things, period.
2) Simzy39 - you seemed a bit frustrated at one point, which I can totally sympathize with. I just wanted to say that I hope we never "give up the fight" though, too much at stake.
Brown
2.9 / 5 (19) Dec 04, 2015
Some of the posters here seem to confuse *science* with *scientists*.
Scientists are human beings and are perfectly able to believe all kinds of crazy things. Science is a method which tries to improve our understanding of the universe by minimising the effects of human fallibility.
For me there is a clear incompatibility between science and a belief in some kind of god.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2015
@Pocua: "Science does not have ultimate truth, or the final answer,".

Well, there isn't any 'final anwer' since observing nature is open ended.

*But as far as 'ultimate' fact goes, it has been observed that science has gotten there.*
Physicist Sean Carroll: "The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood. Not sure why people don't make a bigger deal out of this fact. ...

A hundred years ago it would have been easy to ask a basic question to which physics couldn't provide a satisfying answer. "What keeps this table from collapsing?" "Why are there different elements?" "What kind of signal travels from the brain to your muscles?" But now we understand all that stuff. (Again, not the detailed way in which everything plays out, but the underlying principles.)

[ tbctd]
bluehigh
Dec 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ultron
4.4 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2015
This study does not cover broad spectrum of religious views. There is big difference between scientist who believes in some very general and distant god creator and some fundamentalistic moslim, who will kill his doughter because she had premarital sex.
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (15) Dec 04, 2015
the study's principal investigator, Elaine Howard Ecklund, founding director of Rice University's Religion and Public Life Program and the Herbert S. Autrey Chair in Social Sciences

Yes, and I'm sure the "founding director" has no agenda at all. I couldn't find the actual paper, but I'd be curious as to her actual definitions for "religious".

I can only speak for my experiences in the USA, but I've basically never met anybody in physics who was also seriously religious. Sometimes this absence is brought up somewhat laughingly among the grad students.

It is considerably more common to see religious engineers. I suspect that this is because they are told to "just follow the equations" to a greater extent.
El_Nose
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2015
@axemaster

When pursuing my degree in CS most of my physics / math / cs department was a member of a faith based organization. the ph.D's were Chistian/Muslim/Buddist/Hindu it was all accepted.

I have often found that science and religion only clash with extremists on both ends. People that believe that their religion incorporates some symbolism don't tend to have these phys.org debates on the topic
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 04, 2015
In my view atheists who state, in a positive sense, that there is "no god" even if on the basis of "lack of evidence",... is making use reason that is of no better quality than that of theists. I am an agnostic for this reason.

It's a matter of what is amendable to scientific investigation and what is not, ..physics vs metaphysics.

Once religion encroaches on the territory of science by making specific claims, it's truth can be investigated, but science is not science if it encroaches upon metaphysical questions, so can never disprove such beliefs.

The point here is, if one thinks there is operational incompatibility between metaphysical religious beliefs and science, then they don't understand neither science nor religion.

gkam
2.2 / 5 (20) Dec 04, 2015
Once again, we will not survive as a species unless we learn to outgrow this pathetic need for phony stories to lie to ourselves.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2015
Once again, we will not survive as a species unless we learn to outgrow this pathetic need for phony stories to lie to ourselves.


Well, it's happening naturally. Who's "we"? The real danger is thought-police,... not ignorance or legitimate questions.

OdinsAcolyte
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2015
A great many scientist are not are not atheist.
Faith has little to do with science and science is NOT faith.
I have never perceived a conflict between the two but I have never been a literalist when it comes to faith. I recognize allegory when I read it.
OdinsAcolyte
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2015
A great many scientist are not are not atheist.
Faith has little to do with science and science is NOT faith.
I have never perceived a conflict between the two but I have never been a literalist when it comes to faith. I recognize allegory when I read it.
day2knight56
2 / 5 (16) Dec 04, 2015
The father of genetics - Gregor Mendel - was a christian monk.
Ironically, genetics is the older brother of evolution.


Darwin began writing Origin of Species nearly 30 years before Gregor Mendel did his work on pea plants.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Dec 04, 2015
I can only speak for my experiences in the USA, but I've basically never met anybody in physics who was also seriously religious.

I've never personally seen anyone in science (in the workplace, in research collaborations or in conferences) bring their religion to the table. It might be part of private conversations but while doing science they're all pros.

One of the people I studied EE with me is very religious (some fun discussions there). But none of the others had any truck with it.
day2knight56
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 04, 2015
In my view atheists who state, in a positive sense, that there is "no god" even if on the basis of "lack of evidence",... is making use reason that is of no better quality than that of theists. I am an agnostic for this reason.

It's a matter of what is amendable to scientific investigation and what is not, ..physics vs metaphysics.

Once religion encroaches on the territory of science by making specific claims, it's truth can be investigated, but science is not science if it encroaches upon metaphysical questions, so can never disprove such beliefs.

The point here is, if one thinks there is operational incompatibility between metaphysical religious beliefs and science, then they don't understand neither science nor religion.



Right. That's why very few atheists make such a bold statement.
day2knight56
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 04, 2015
I wasn't aware that anyone, other than some wingnut religious fundies, made the claim that ALL scientists are atheists. It is interesting to note, however, that in a survey of physical scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences the proportion of atheists vs non-atheists was just about the inverse of the proportion of atheists vs non-atheists in the general population of the US.
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (16) Dec 04, 2015
@Bluehigh

In no way, shape or manner am I a pedeophile supporter, they are evil scum. Your rage is misplaced, as is your insinuation that atheist can't be moral and ethical.

I will admit to little tolerance for cranks, JVK being a prime example, someone you have defended in the past, and is now in PO purgatory.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (25) Dec 04, 2015
my view atheists who state, in a positive sense, that there is "reason that is of no better quality than that of theists. I amean an agnostic
Well your don't know enough about the subject to reach that conclusion.

For instance you're the kind of guy who uses deistic arguments to justify his favorite theistic god. Do you know the difference?

Deistic gods were invented by philosophers so of course they are unresolvable.

Your favorite theist gods however wrote books about people who never existed and things that never happened. This means that either they didn't know history and chose to make it up, or they knew it and chose to lie about it, or they obliterated all evidence FOR it and substituted totally contrary evidence.

Either way they are liars. They are certainly not the moral paragons they describe themselves to be in their books.

IOW they don't exist and you can't trust anything that is said about them.

And theist gods are the only ones that matter.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (14) Dec 04, 2015
@Noumenon

On 20, Sept. 2015 you wrote:

"All animals have their heart on the left side. This is proof of creation because evidently God was only using one hand during creation,... which also implies he was probable masterbaiting with the other hand. I'm I doing science now?"

You also wrote:

"That something is so complex, only serves to demonstrate that it's existence is even more contingent upon physical processes than upon a sky-fairy."

You received well deserved "5s" for that, including from me, though your language is stronger than I'd expect from a mere agnostic.

http://phys.org/n...ies.html

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (23) Dec 04, 2015
You also make the claim that "The vast majority of historical scientists were devout Christians."
To be a non-Christian (especially an atheist) in a Christian country, until the enlightenment was a pretty dangerous thing to confess
Yeah it's so funny how xians will continue to argue this even after they are reminded of it time and again.

It shows what a powerful effect faith can have on reason.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 04, 2015
Psychosis is an imbalance between knowledge and senses. Too much reconstruction of perception from the brain's knowledge causes hallucinations, while excess inhibition of knowledge while reconstruction perception causes delusions and religion. Religion is one form of psychosis
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (23) Dec 04, 2015
The point here is, if one thinks there is operational incompatibility between metaphysical religious beliefs and science, then they don't understand neither science nor religion
Well of course. Theism is not metaphysical (nothing is metaphysicalled - the concept is a ruse), which is the kind of god you are talking about. Religions purpose is to make you feel good while the purpose of science is to explain how the world works.

Religionists are deathly afraid to learn how the world works. This explains why scientists who are firmly committed to following the scientific method wherever it leads them will nevertheless refuse to give up their eternal place in heaven.

They're only human.
DavidW
2.4 / 5 (23) Dec 04, 2015
@Pocua: "Science does not have ultimate truth, or the final answer,".

Well, there isn't any 'final anwer' since observing nature is open ended.

*But as far as 'ultimate' fact goes, it has been observed that science has gotten there.*
Physicist Sean Carroll: "The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood. Not sure why people don't make a bigger deal out of this fact. ...

A hundred years ago it would have been easy to ask a basic question to which physics couldn't provide a satisfying answer. "What keeps this table from collapsing?" "Why are there different elements?" "What kind of signal travels from the brain to your muscles?" But now we understand all that stuff. (Again, not the detailed way in which everything plays out, but the underlying principles.)

[ tbctd]


Only if you ignore the most important truth of all, that you need life to observe anything. Then, as you can see, what you said is actually a lie.
DavidW
2.4 / 5 (23) Dec 04, 2015
@Noumenon

On 20, Sept. 2015 you wrote:

"All animals have their heart on the left side. This is proof of creation because evidently God was only using one hand during creation,... which also implies he was probable masterbaiting with the other hand. I'm I doing science now?"

You also wrote:

"That something is so complex, only serves to demonstrate that it's existence is even more contingent upon physical processes than upon a sky-fairy."

You received well deserved "5s" for that, including from me, though your language is stronger than I'd expect from a mere agnostic.

http://phys.org/n...ies.html



You have the most responsibility for people that say these things, as you don't publicly uphold the truth, and hurt the minds of others by not reaffirming that which is correct. Must be your ego truthfully telling you that you really don't have clue about anything truthful.
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (24) Dec 04, 2015
Some of the posters here seem to confuse *science* with *scientists*.
Scientists are human beings and are perfectly able to believe all kinds of crazy things. Science is a method which tries to improve our understanding of the universe by minimising the effects of human fallibility.
For me there is a clear incompatibility between science and a belief in some kind of god.


There can only be a true living god. All the other types, sure, they are not true nor are they alive.
Your logic has failed you because your faith was not in the truth itself. The only real hope is the truthful hope. Yet, for all the terrible things that have happened in the name of religion, and why it's so hated by many, science is doing far worse right now. Look at all the women dropping dead from gardasil, for one example, not stopping people from eating cows...heart disease for another, and nukes and the rest come to mind. Seriously, guns, bulllets, gas chambers. Truth must be first in science.
kochevnik
3.8 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2015
@david There can only be a true living god.
Bullshiyte
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2015
@day2night,... I'm sure most atheists don't think about the logical distinction between atheism and agnosticism. I would suspect that most atheists would cite "lack of evidence" for their disbelief in god. Agnostics would not find any rationality in expecting evidence to begin with.

@ghostofotto,... the comparison was wrt citing evidence or lack thereof. Deists would never claim any evidence. I've never claimed any "favorite god" as I find such metaphysical things meaningless. I don't have to believe in anything metaphysical to know that it is a word that has meaning.

@veitvet,... As I recall pointing out, JVK's creationism was in effect implying an incompatibility defect between the discoverable laws of nature and gods-will,... so [presuming his premise and logic] this would imply that "creationism disproves the omnipotence of god". I can Know his logic was faulty because reference was made to the realm of scientific understanding.

kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2015
@Noumenon As usual you conflate nonbelief with disbelief
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (15) Dec 05, 2015
@Noumenon

Your assumption that most atheist would site "lack of evidence" is faulty, especially for former believers. Not every atheist follows the same path but a commonality is the capricious, vengeful
and cruel nature of a god, any god of any religion. Atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief, but I'm not surprised you think agnosticism is superior, you do tend to be snobbish that way.
DavidW
2.4 / 5 (25) Dec 05, 2015
Whether a person believes in a god or not is not a religious issue. Religious views we developed to help life. On one hand religions educated, cured and fed people. On the other they enslaved, tortured and murdered. The defining differences occurred not because it was this god or that god, or if someone believed in go at all, but whether or not the people accepted that life is most important in life or not.

The same can be said for science. If people that promote science do not accept that life is most important in life then they cause harm too.

The difference between religious belief and scientific belief is far more dead when the people that promote science do not accept the most important truth in life itself; that life is most important in life. The egregious behavior is the same, but the suffering and death is far worse.

DavidW
2.3 / 5 (25) Dec 05, 2015
This study does not cover broad spectrum of religious views. There is big difference between scientist who believes in some very general and distant god creator and some fundamentalistic moslim, who will kill his doughter because she had premarital sex.


And what is the difference? It is because the person in science you speak of has no conflict with the truth that life is most important in life? Saying what you did ignores the underlying issue at hand that causes the problems, and wholly ignores the fact that many people in science also ignore the most important truth in life too.

This bears mentioning as far more life is enslaved, tortured, and killed by the people in science that ignore the most important truth in life, than than people with religious beliefs.

Just look at the posts here from the people who have degrees. Not a single one of them has stepped forward and said, "yes, that is true, life is most important in life" Not even one person here!
DavidW
2.2 / 5 (23) Dec 05, 2015
I All religion is slowing mankind's improvement down. Stemcell research got hindered. Now we have 46% of America's population claiming to be creationists, trying to get evolution and other proven scientific facts banned from schools. To hell with them them.


Perhaps this slowing is a gift? With people in science inventing a new way to kill all life on earth each day and not acknowledging that life is most important in life the most important truth in life...I would say you have your priorities backwards.
DavidW
2.4 / 5 (25) Dec 05, 2015
I can only speak for my experiences in the USA, but I've basically never met anybody in physics who was also seriously religious.

I've never personally seen anyone in science (in the workplace, in research collaborations or in conferences) bring their religion to the table. It might be part of private conversations but while doing science they're all pros.


I have conferred with you before. You dismissed life is most important in life as true. People are not "pros". We are life, most important in life. As such, your statement was a lie.

You hold responsibility for every piece of nonsense that is posted here because you don't uphold truth, and as such, attempt to, and cause, the breaking of the minds of others.

You also have no foundation/cause for the use of science.

You have so much we as people could benefit from. Yet, you have publicly chosen evil by not upholding the most important truth we have in conversation and action.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (12) Dec 05, 2015
Your assumption that most atheist would site "lack of evidence" is faulty, especially for former believers.

I disagree. It's the primary reason imo.

Not every atheist follows the same path but a commonality is the capricious, vengeful
and cruel nature of a god, any god of any religion.


While it is valid to make arguments based on believers own reasoning, as in reductio ad absurdum, as I had attempted to do with JVK, above, most atheists don't go beyond simple lack-of-evidence claims.

Atheism isn't a belief, it is a lack of belief


Both are, however, there is a reason for the distinction between atheism and agnosticism. It's about 'WHY' one is the latter vs the former. Most atheists would cite lack of evidence,... while agnostics would say metaphysics 'is not even wrong', meaningless or not applicable to scientific investigation to begin with.

you do tend to be snobbish that way

You can tell this through the internet? Explains a lot.

Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2015
.... in any case,I had qualified my above statement for reference to ,.... "atheists who state, in a positive sense, that there is "no god" even if on the basis of "lack of evidence" ".

hashtagslooklikewaffles
2.5 / 5 (8) Dec 05, 2015
I think there's a huge difference in the meanings of religion and the fundamental religious, which I think a lot of people get confused. Even we Atheists. Religion is subjective where science is objective. Science doesn't care if religion gets along with it. Science serves one purpose, and that is "to know". Religion, on the other hand, sometimes tries to get science to fit within its ideology, and that can not happen due to the fact that one is subjective and the other is objective. So there is a contradiction right off the bat.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2015
@DavidW Gods were developed to explain celestial mechanics. Heaven was generally agreed upon to exist as stars were considered souls. With every death another star mysteriously appeared in the heavens. Gods warred to produce daytime and eclipses Horus fought Set to make day and night. Horus fell into the ocean which is the world of Dagon, the fish god. Thus Vatican priests wear fishhead hats. Their regularities inspired regularized human activities such as crop planting and war regular events. Monotheism came about because Amen Ra was a shape-shifter. Hence you christians give all your prayers to Amen Ra
@Noumenon .... in any case,I had qualified my above statement for reference to ,.... "atheists who state, in a positive sense, that there is "no god" even if on the basis of "lack of evidence" ".
That would be positivism
DavidW
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 05, 2015
@DavidW Gods were developed to explain celestial mechanics. Heaven was generally agreed upon to exist as stars were considered souls. With every death another star mysteriously appeared in the heavens. Gods warred to produce daytime and eclipses Horus fought Set to make day and night. Horus fell into the ocean which is the world of Dagon, the fish god. Thus Vatican priests wear fishhead hats. Their regularities inspired regularized human activities such as crop planting and war regular events. Monotheism came about because Amen Ra was a shape-shifter. Hence you christians give all your prayers to Amen RaThat would be positivism


You already publicly dismissed truth and life and so have no truthful cause to defend. You ramble for your ego. Without defending the truth you have nothing truthful to defend and stand up for. Try reading a book about honesty and truthfulness.
DavidW
2.5 / 5 (21) Dec 05, 2015
I think there's a huge difference in the meanings of religion and the fundamental religious, which I think a lot of people get confused. Even we Atheists. Religion is subjective where science is objective. Science doesn't care if religion gets along with it. Science serves one purpose, and that is "to know". Religion, on the other hand, sometimes tries to get science to fit within its ideology, and that can not happen due to the fact that one is subjective and the other is objective. So there is a contradiction right off the bat.


No one is really an atheist or believer. We are really equal and most important. After that these are things we do. Subjective? Objective? Apples to apples and oranges to oranges. The = sign goes both ways
Bongstar420
3 / 5 (14) Dec 05, 2015
The term "religious" in the survey needs to be replaced with supernaturalism. This data speaks for nothing other than established "religions."
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (11) Dec 05, 2015
The default religions are not the three Semitic cults, despite their vociferous claims.
We have been Odinist for 38 of 40 thousand years.
Our gods are manifestations of ourselves, and our friends.
Quantum Physics points the way to God.
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (22) Dec 05, 2015
It would be absurdly comical if it wasn't so sad. Does it matter if the person you work with sacrifices animals and steals, so long as they don't do in the middle of science experiment? Isn't that what they do? Sacrifice the animal's lives. Isn't that what they do, steal the animals lives? All in the name of science that according to some commenting here is based on no cause at all? However, they may discus science with you with a tendon between their teeth and try to tell you a belief is in a true living god is absurd while attempting to destroy the minds of others under the guise of science. Absurd beliefs require questioning and evidence of a valid foundation. Life is most important in life is valid.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 06, 2015
Especially so for christians, this comparative assessment re islam is a sad sad indictment
https://www.youtu...Ww_lH4tQ

ie Why would anyone, these days especially, be a more follower of *any* religion and NOT exhaust rational enquiry at least on this one indisputable fact as clearly evident attribute of All claimed deities ?

1. All deities are very bad communicators.
2. All deities rely on mere human methods of distribution
3. All deities cannot be contacted by *anyone* for *any* sort of confirmation of *anything*
4. All mainstream religions write primarily of: Status, Authority & Punishment

In respect of foreknowledge the direct inference on the actions of the deity of the old testament Prove he/she/it is a mere Devil who made unsupportable claims & continues to be the case (if it ever existed) as time goes on because its "punishment" continues unabated.

There is clearly only one rational conclusion:- "All deities are mere unsupportable claim"
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 06, 2015
I think it is just the loud atheist scientists that want you to believe that "virtually all real scientists are atheists".

Nothing could be further from the truth.


Which truth? You delusion or the truth of the rest of the world?
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (19) Dec 06, 2015

Only if you ignore the most important truth of all, that you need life to observe anything.

Indeed, dead people do not observe anything. I agree. You are making progress.
It also means that there is no such thing as eternal life ?
Then, as you can see, what you said is actually a lie.

You are very good at spotting lies with others, overzealous even.
Here a bible quote can help. Luke 6:41-42:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
my2cts
3 / 5 (20) Dec 06, 2015
Does it matter if the person you work with sacrifices animals and steals, so long as they don't do in the middle of science experiment? Isn't that what they do?

DavidW, the problem with science and religion is that some religious people talk absolute nonsense. You are one of those.
my2cts
3 / 5 (20) Dec 06, 2015

Perhaps this slowing is a gift? With people in science inventing a new way to kill all life on earth each day and not acknowledging that life is most important in life the most important truth in life...I would say you have your priorities backwards.

From this quote it is clear that DavidW opposes all science on delusional grounds.
I do not trust him near a scientific institute.
my2cts
3 / 5 (20) Dec 06, 2015
religions educated, cured and fed people

Religion destroyed libraries and held back the heliocentric model for about 2000 years. It was quite a struggle to free education from religious doctrine. In some countries the struggle still has to begin. It is a proven fact that religion does not cure. It never did. Hardworking people feed improductive religious functionaries, not the other way around.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (21) Dec 06, 2015
phys.org is always instructive. As the article shows, there is no war among people who believe in a god against science and many scientists do believe in a god. Much of the base of science today was developed by religious scientists. But there are atheists who always attack religion and always promote the fiction that religion is against science. As expected, they swarmed to this article to continue their fiction of a war between religion and science. A war which they are fighting alone against an imagined foe which has no problem with science as a method.

Science as a religion wars against other religions. Scientists who are concerned with doing science (the method) are often quite comfortable with the concept and even the belief in a god.

Public forums like this attract a disproportionate share of the science as religion types who attack god.
BartV
2.6 / 5 (23) Dec 06, 2015
Dogbert---I would agree with you. The rantings on this forum by atheist scientists show that their religion is indeed atheism. But please note that there is a big difference between believing in a god, and and believing in God.

Please take a look at this (very partial) list, and see how many scientists you recognize:

https://en.wikipe...chnology

Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 06, 2015
Ah ha, I see BartV being unchristian & 'rage' voting again, going against your god - tut tut :-(

How about answering my key questions or are there so many evidently serious failures of logic of the circumstances of your particular deity its just Too overwhelmingly impotent ?

Answer just a basic question please: "Why are All gods such very Bad communicators" ?
----

This too is of immense interest, so whilst at it if you have the intellectual mettle ie depth of understanding congruent with highest level of training your god offered you, explain why your god presides over so Very Much suffering without *any* relief ever regardless of whether you believe an omnipotent god can only have one son and he refused to offer *any* useful education ?

Pity dad failed to teach jesus {ie himself} to write (anything ever) AND failed to preserve such that work ?

Why do think jesus didnt write a damn thing ?
dogbert
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 06, 2015
BartV,

Nice link. I intentionally did not capitalize the term 'god' because use of the capitalized term might cause rejection of the argument out of hand. When I speak of a personal belief, I generally disambiguate by using the phrase 'the God of Abraham'.

It is instructive to note how many people who attack religion capitalize Evolution, Science, Nature, Mother Nature, etc., thus clearly showing how their science is also their religion.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015
dogbert states
It is instructive to note how many people who attack religion capitalize Evolution, Science, Nature, Mother Nature, etc., thus clearly showing how their science is also their religion
Lol !

Instructive to note how all religious zealots cannot or refuse to answer very basic queries of logic re their muslim/christian/judaic gods, all are different of course from Their perspectives but which all act actually the same - mere claims of emotional people, mostly men

Answer pls ?
1 Why are all deities bad communicators
2 Why do all deities rely on mere human distribution
3 Why can't any deity be contacted by *anyone* for *any* sort of confirmation of *anything* ever
4 Why do All mainstream religions/leaders focus on: Status, Authority & Punishment

Re: Foreknowledge, the direct inference on the actions of the deity of old testament Prove he/she/it is a mere Devil who made unsupportable claims & continues to be the case (if it ever existed)

Logic ?
Benni
2.8 / 5 (25) Dec 06, 2015
How appropriate, to come here on a Sunday morning reading about which of the two camps, of either the religious or the irreligious, are the most ardent aficionados of science. Neither side gains credibility no matter where you got your degree, or in what you got your degree, or whatever other reason you presume you are so much more enlightened a human being because you believe or disbelieve anything about religion versus science.

Time to go split some more firewood for the fireplaces before more snow hits the woodpile.
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 06, 2015
BartV demonstrating pathetic comfirmational bias attempt found the dumbest of all lists
Please take a look at this (very partial) list, and see how many scientists you recognize
https://en.wikipe...chnology
Almost too dumb to articulate your immense failures of cognition but,a start:-

1. 99% of all scientists who ever lived in all of human history are alive today
2. It was and sometimes a lot safer even in so called modern times to state you are a christian in many places eg Southern USA and the bible belt, Utah, etc
3. Why can't you ask your god/deity/Devil to tell us how many truly accept mere claim so we can add them to the list of people to avoid expediently
4. Science = "Discipline of the Acquisition of Knowledge" whilst all religions have only blind belief and often kill each other:- Shia/Sunni, Protestant/Catholic, Muslim/Christian, Muslim/Jew etc etc
5. Have any scientists ever PROVEN prayer works

Evidence !
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 06, 2015
Benni, another purveyor of mere claims
.. Neither side gains credibility no matter where you got your degree, or in what you got your degree, or whatever other reason you presume you are so much more enlightened a human being because you believe or disbelieve anything about religion versus science.
Time to go split some more firewood for the fireplaces before more snow...
Ah yes puerile old Benni who writes like a late developed teen who claimed gas is not a fossil fuel & who claims to be a Electrical engineer, then a Nuclear engineer & often goes on about differential equations implying others can't - holiday today ?

Benni, asked you ofen, show us your Calculus Mettle & solve the basic radiative transfer equation taught at 1st or 2nd year uni Physics as pre-requisite re engineering ?
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Tell us please Benni should we accept or reject this:-
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Or don't you know ?
Benni
2.6 / 5 (28) Dec 06, 2015
Muttering Mike,

Never wonder why I don't click to links supplied via the worshipers of the Dark Matter gods.
my2cts
3 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015
@Benni
Because you are incapable of understanding physics anyway.
vidyunmaya
3 / 5 (12) Dec 06, 2015
WHAT IS COSMOLOGY?
A Borderland between Science and Philosophy. Both Scientists and Philosophers could be ignorant with the exception of a few Noble Souls. Both of these groups do not wish to enter in to the other side of the fence. How to break the barrier?
If we need to strive for completeness: i.e., total comprehension with divine understanding of 1. Science in Philosophy 2. Philosophy of Science, one needs direction, search further:http://archive.or...osmology
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015
Benni oh so predictably evading the question yet again
Muttering Mike,
Never wonder why I don't click to links supplied via the worshipers of the Dark Matter gods
So you avoid Physics links that also have nothing to do claims of Dark Matter ?

Why do you shift to an off topic matter ?

Why didnt you notice the links have nothing to do with Dark Matter ?

They are both about radiative transfer & forcing, something the bulk of engineering students at uni have to do as part of Physics pre-requisites for their graduation !

Why do you continue to evade the questions ?

What can't you prove your claimed qualifications in Electrical/Nuclear Engineering ?

Why have you confused mere claim with actual Evidence ?

Why are you here - at all ?

What do you gain claiming people "..havent seen a DE they can solve.." :P
my2cts
3 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015
phys.org is always instructive. As the article shows, there is no war among people who believe in a god against science and many scientists do believe in a god. Much of the base of science today was developed by religious scientists. But there are atheists who always attack religion and always promote the fiction that religion is against science.

BartV is against science. That is not a fiction.
BartV also disregards any facts that disagree with what he calls "truth" and calls these facts "lies".
I have a problem with his brand of religion.
Bigbangcon
2.4 / 5 (19) Dec 06, 2015
If you believe in causality and a finite universe, then you believe in a "first cause" - a beginning. That beginning is the "effect" of a "cause" that is unknown and is a mystery. Whether you call it Big Bang, "quantum fluctuation in the vacuum" or the act of God or anything else you can fancy - all are the one and the same - they only differ in semantics and the level of hypocrisy. The so-called atheist official physicists and biologists are the most hypocrites of them all!

Only in an infinite and a dialectical (contradiction of the "unity of the opposite") and a "living" universe, in which matter as fundamental particles eternally "comes into being and passes out of existence" (Heraclitus) as quantum mechanical and dialectical necessity; the need for one-time mega creation or an act of God can be eliminated. The virtual particles of the quantum vacuum is a clue: http://www.amazon...0414445.
my2cts
3 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015

5. Have any scientists ever PROVEN prayer works
!

They have proven that it does _not_ work.
The wikipedia article is prudent but the conclusion is "no effect".
https://en.wikipe...f_prayer
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 06, 2015
If you believe in causality and a finite universe, then you believe in a "first cause" - a beginning. That beginning is the "effect" of a "cause" that is unknown and is a mystery. Whether you call it Big Bang, "quantum fluctuation in the vacuum" or the act of God or anything else you can fancy - all are the one and the same - they only differ in semantics and the level of hypocrisy. The so-called atheist official physicists and biologists are the most hypocrites of them all!

What does it matter? As long as we all agree that this was also his very _last_ act we can't go wrong.
By the way, that quantum fluctuation idea is bs.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015
my2cts,

Since effective prayer is predicated on many requisites such as righteousness and faith, you should expect that any such study would fail to find prayer to be effective.

God is not a theory which succeeds or fails based on the next test.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 06, 2015

... (Heraclitus) as quantum mechanical and dialectical necessity; the need for one-time mega creation or an act of God can be eliminated. The virtual particles of the quantum vacuum is a clue: http://www.amazon...0414445.

Much as I respect Heraclitus for inventing physics, he is a bit outdated on the subject.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 06, 2015
my2cts,

Since effective prayer is predicated on many requisites such as righteousness and faith, you should expect that any such study would fail to find prayer to be effective.

God is not a theory which succeeds or fails based on the next test.

Ach so that is why prayer does not work. No one is truly righteous and any faith is troubled by doubt.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (21) Dec 06, 2015
my2cts,
Ach so that is why prayer does not work. No one is truly righteous and any faith is troubled by doubt.


No, actually, prayer does work.

As with most things worth doing, it is worth doing right.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 06, 2015
dogbert claims
No, actually, prayer does work
Prove it ?

& for progenitor or recipient ?

dogbert also claims
As with most things worth doing, it is worth doing right
Details of how any deity said to do it "right" ?

ie Comes back to any claimed omnipotent god that cannot in any way at all communicate *any* better way than via only writings of men who make claims & in so doing obtain benefits for themselves

ie Status/Authority gaining: Food, Shelter & Sex, exactly the fundamental pattern of Nature

Its simple direct inferential logic & rational deduction (& at so many levels), you Cannot escape that *all* gods have been silent since first ever claimed !

Tell us dobgert why can't *any* claimed deity communicate better than *any* human ?

Re Bigbangcon's post

Causality has some evidence but, it does not mean that whatever started the whole pattern of existence long ago is the same being/deity that men claim exist, esp as it can't communicate at all well !
SuperThunder
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 06, 2015
"More than half of scientists in India, Italy, Taiwan and Turkey self-identify as religious," Ecklund said. "And it's striking that approximately twice as many 'convinced atheists' exist in the general population of Hong Kong, for example, (55 percent) compared with the scientific community in this region (26 percent)."

I require a breakdown by religion, because Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not religions like the Levant religions are. There is a huge cognitive difference in Manichean and transcendental religion. I would argue the scientific method is only incompatible with Levant religions.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (18) Dec 06, 2015
Mike_Massen,
Here we go again.
No, actually, prayer does work


Prove it ?


You should actually read what I wrote before commenting. Prayer is not subject to scientific examination. Since it requires a measure of faith, any attempt to examine it scientifically must fail since the required faith is lacking in the test.

As with most things worth doing, it is worth doing right


Details of how any deity said to do it "right" ?


Again, you should actually read what I wrote before commenting on it.
rjriley
3.2 / 5 (9) Dec 06, 2015
My observation, that many people compartmentalize religious and political beliefs, never using their analytical skills, if they actually have any. As I see it, those who refuse to critically examine everything in life, will inevitability be less effective scientists than they could have been whenever they find a conflict between doctrine and science.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (25) Dec 06, 2015
Muttering Mike,
Never wonder why I don't click to links supplied via the worshipers of the Dark Matter gods


So you avoid Physics links that also have nothing to do claims of Dark Matter

Why do you shift to an off topic matter?
I didn't, anything unobservable & undetectable is faith, I don't come here for you to share your DM faith with me.

Why didnt you notice the links have nothing to do with Dark Matter?
....... because I don't click onto your links, ever.

Why do you continue to evade the questions ?
I will when you change your name calling foul mouthed profanity filled postings, & then apologize for the past ones, at which time I will stop challenging your aptitude in Differential Equations.

Scientific dialogue is about having civil communication skills, you have yet to learn those skills.

Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 06, 2015
dogbert says
You should actually read what I wrote before commenting
Of course but, you are tangential, vague & indistinct, you hand wave casually minus detail

dogbert claims
Prayer is not subject to scientific examination
Ah, given Science uses same senses as humans as utilised by instrumentation then you seem to imply (beneficial) effect upon progenitor and/or the recipient is other than able to be validated by instruments ?

dobgert claims
Since it requires a measure of faith, any attempt to examine it scientifically must fail since the required faith is lacking in the test
How does one measure any faith ?

Why *must* it fail ?

Why *any* attempt, Eg Recipient is unaware but, progenitor is sincerely "full of faith" ?

dogbert says
Again, you should actually read what I wrote before commenting on it
When I said "Details of how any deity said to do it 'right'? How did any god ever communicate any sort of "best method" other than by mere claim ?
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 06, 2015
Benni claims
Why do you shift to an off topic matter?
I didn't, anything unobservable & undetectable is faith, I don't come here for you to share your DM faith with me YOU raised DM subject here, in any case you fail to understand DM is a place holder, you are ignorant of "inference" in Physics re Einsteins field equations solution which squarely points to DM !

Benni says ....... because I don't click onto your links So details/dialectic is not important to you & make excuses, why are you here ?

Benni with a false claim
I will when you change your name calling foul mouthed profanity filled postings
Have asked before without *any* critique but, you fail & only make claim, just like the religious !

Benni claims
... at which time I will stop challenging your aptitude in Differential Equations
YOU are the one making claims, why can't you solve *any* radiative transfer Calculus ?

Benni you so often are mere claim, excuses & nothing substantive.
mike74
2.3 / 5 (16) Dec 07, 2015
@ dogbert
" Prayer is not subject to scientific examination."

It depends. If your claim is that prayers are answered in any way, or there's a real connection between the prayer and the recipient entity.

Science is the method we use to gather empirical data about nature. If there's a violation of the natural world by a supernatural agency of some kind, then we should be able to measure this phenomena - at least in principle. And so it becomes a scientific claim.
mike74
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 07, 2015
BartV
"The rantings on this forum by atheist scientists show that their religion is indeed atheism. "

Atheism is no more of a religion than theism is. They're both single positions on a single claim.
Religions fall under theism. It is possible that ideologies can form under atheism, but that would still not make atheism a religion, any more than theism is a religion.
Let's not abuse words in such a way to try make a cheap shot at someone with a different opinion.
Atheists may or may not be passionate about speaking out against religion. They might champion science, or they might not. But none of these make atheism a religion, any more than being obsessed with sports makes sports a religion.
mike74
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 07, 2015
Noumenon
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions.

(A)gnosticism addresses what one claims to *know* Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge.
And (a)theism addresses what one claims to *believe* Theism is the Greek word for belief in god.
And then the prefix 'a' in atheism, means "not", or "without". So an atheist is literally someone who has no belief, is is without a belief in any gods.
An agnostic is someone who claims not to know. And a Gnostic is someone who does claim to know for certain - you'll find many theists in this camp.

And an agnostic atheist (like many atheists), claims not to *know* for certain, but based on the low probability, they lack a *belief* in god(s), anyway.
Job001
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 07, 2015
Extremist Science and Religion both suffer from one poor assumption. The poor assumption is that " Universal TRUTH exists" is evidentially universally absurd. Extremists apparently make this absurd inherent assumption.

Contrary Religious evidence: Thousands of dogmas, Thousands of cults and sects, thousands of fatwas, thousands of religious stories, testimonies(hearsay =weak evidence), interpretations, etc.
Contrary science evidence to the existence of absolute TRUTH;
Nothing is statistically proven that another hypothesis cannot also agree with and a study once published is immediately challengeable with new data(all data is immediately obsolete and challengeable as to time, place, and interpretation). Additionally, infinite data sets are required to eliminate all residual error(R^2>0), infinite data sets do not exist. Therefor absolute TRUTH does not exist.
saccoflame
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
Some psyicists that I know are thistists and some go to church. They don't like to talk about it becasue the fundamentalists made scientists choose between God and science. It is only the lie that man must reject science or God that makes them say they are atheists.
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (16) Dec 07, 2015
saccoflame,

It is actually the other way around. Most people who believe in God see no conflict between religion and science. The naturalists have insisted that there is a conflict and have worked to modify regulations to insure that there is a barrier to belief in God and science.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2015
@mike74,

Yes, I know what the terms mean, which is why I qualified whom I was addressing by "atheist" by stating clearly the following .....

.... "atheists who state, in a positive sense, that there is "no god" even if on the basis of "lack of evidence" "....

In order to substantiate the point ...[[those] atheists are] " making use reason that is of no better quality than that of theists.".

Because, by tacitly establishing the criteria of 'physical evidence' as a condition for metaphysical propositions to be established as positive knowledge, [those atheists] are erroneously applying the scientific method,.... [which is intrinsically contingent upon the minds ability to observe and synthesis experience using [effectively artificial] concepts that are a structural component of the understanding, and therefore fundamentally limited],... which is not intended to establish absolute ontological omniscient knowledge.
Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2015
.... and those who do not acknowledge this epistemological condition [that delimits phenomenon from noumenon], are ironically the very same who are susceptible of interjecting or accepting metaphysical notions in science itself,... in parallel universe theories, multiverse, pilot-wave, physical-wavefunction etc,.... even while the epistemological limits on which scientific principles are based are in fact established by experiment,... in the struggle to intuitively understand the underlying reality of non-locality in entanglement and quantum wavefunction dynamics, space and time dilation, indeterminacy or failure of causality, failure of absolute simultaneity, failure of counter-factuality, conjugate concepts ...etc.

snerdguy
2 / 5 (8) Dec 07, 2015
Religion is a form of government and is still very important in a world where so many people still lack education and resources. It can exist with science because it is human nature to live in denial to maintain societal connections. The survey is probably inaccurate simply because there are so many reasons for scientists to claim to have religious beliefs. In many places, it's the only way to avoid persecution of self and family. But, there are many social benefits to being part of a religious group as well. Religion will still be prevalent in many parts of the world for a long time to come. Science can provide an understanding of human nature in order to keep religious followings from becoming destructive. Just because religious leaders predict the fall of mankind, it doesn't mean that scientists can't delay it as long as possible.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2015
Religion is a form of government and is still very important in a world where so many people still lack education .... [.....] Just because religious leaders predict the fall of mankind, it doesn't mean that scientists can't delay it as long as possible.


In the hands of government political forces [liberal-progressive ideology in particular], science is used to "predict the fall of mankind" routinely, and for the same basic reasons as the religious ,... to establish control of the masses, as a means of social engineering of human behaviour and redistribution of wealth.

This is just the modern back-door method of the same historical methods of either outlawing religion on account of its competition with dictatorial government , or making government law contingent upon religion itself. Now, scientific speculation in the hands of politics is the new "opium of the masses".


Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2015
.... clearly exposed in alarmist-climate-change in the hands of socialists, both politicians and scientists, when they call for islamic-sharia-law'esque prosecution of non-believers, and the revoking of credentials of skeptics.

Noumenon
3.4 / 5 (10) Dec 07, 2015
...and occasionally, science, politics, and religion,.... when the distinction in teleology coincide,... can work together harmoniously, and dangerously.
jeffensley
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
In an ideal world, all scientists would be agnostic.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 07, 2015
Extremist Science and Religion both suffer ...

What is extremist science ?
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 07, 2015
...and occasionally, science, politics, and religion,.... when the distinction in teleology coincide,... can

I am atheist but, omg, so much text, so many difficult words. The whole difficult word section of the dictionary.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
Noumenon, why don't you simply say that religion can not be analyzed? If that is what you say here are a few corollaries: religion, faith or whatever can not be used to analyze the physical world, even the faithful can not reason about the existence or character of their god(s) and last but not least, religion is quite useless.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2015
@my2cts,.... If I were to walk into a bar looking for a fight, I would out of efficiency, seek out the one who thought they were the superior, rather than the one easily defeated. The point was more relevant to the atheists [as qualified], than the religious. In fact I would fault them more so, because they should know better and if they purport to have faith in the scientific method, they should at least understand it.

Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 07, 2015
why don't you simply say that religion can not be analyzed

Why would I say that, when it is not true in general. See my first post. Religious claims can be refuted if they encroach upon the territory of science,.... but the reverse is not true, .... that if science encroaches upon the territory of metaphysics it can not disprove such beliefs.

I wouldn't say religion is useless. It is an ethical philosophy. Atheists would wish to tare down religion, without replacing its ethical foundation and respect for human life. I would say that significantly less religious would advocate for abortion than atheists for example.

my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
I quoted what I believe you were trying to say, but I do not agree. Science applies very well to religion and faith. Religion is culture so can be analysed with sociological, economical, historical and archeological techniques. Faith is a personal or collective emotion and can be analysed with psychological, sociological, economical, historical and neurological techniques.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 07, 2015
I quoted what I believe you were trying to say, but I do not agree. Science applies very well to religion and faith. Religion is culture so can be analysed with sociological, economical, historical and archeological techniques. Faith is a personal or collective emotion and can be analysed with psychological, sociological, economical, historical and neurological techniques.


I'll requote my first post for you,....

"Once religion encroaches on the territory of science by making specific claims, it's truth can be investigated ....

I made the distinction between religious claims that fall within the realm of scientific inquiry and metaphysical beliefs (eg. god) that do not.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 07, 2015
"Atheists would wish to tare down religion, without replacing its ethical foundation and respect for human life."
Since atheists generally respect human life and base their lives on ethics, why would they want to do that ? Speaking for myself, I do not want to tear down religion. I want to tear down religious folks who fight science (DavidW), who sabotage scientific discussions (viko), who impose their teaching in public schools, who ban atheists from public office (Texas etc.), and who vacuously claim to be the source of ethics and respect for human life.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 07, 2015

I made the distinction between religious claims that fall within the realm of scientific inquiry and metaphysical beliefs (eg. god) that do not.

Only if the existence of god is without any consequences it can not be scientifically tested. However, religious folks are not that modest at all. There are claims there was a creation, that the world is only 5000 years old, that homosexuals cause earthquakes, that praying cures. Those claims have been investigated and disproven by science which is why they want to destroy science now as in history. Those claims must be fought and the folks who make them must be exposed as the vacuous narcissists they are.
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (14) Dec 07, 2015
I want to stop the political leadership from praying in office. I want to separate religion from the education system and send it to the private domain. I want access to Mecca. I want to be able to move about the planet without being confronted by religious mobs. I want the freedom to be atheist or to choose a non-majority religion for everyone. I want madrassa's to be closed, girls and women to have access to schooling and work.
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 07, 2015
There are claims there was a creation, that the world is only 5000 years old, that homosexuals cause earthquakes, that praying cures. Those claims have been investigated and disproven by science which is why they want to destroy science now as in history. Those claims must be fought and the folks who make them must be exposed as the vacuous narcissists they are.


Well I certainly don't disagree with this.

I want to stop the political leadership from praying in office. [.....] I want the freedom to be atheist or to choose a non-majority religion for everyone.


You want to be thought-police? If so, you're several orders of magnitude more despicable and dangerous than one who advocates freedom of thought. If either religious government, secular government, or the atheist, desires oppression of thought, they are the ones who are dangerous and should be defeated.

kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2015
@DavidW You already publicly dismissed truth and life and so have no truthful cause to defend. You ramble for your ego. Without defending the truth you have nothing truthful to defend and stand up for. Try reading a book about honesty and truthfulness.
The only truth you know absolutely is the truth about christ psychosis, David
DavidW
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 07, 2015
]The only truth you know absolutely is the truth about christ psychosis, David


I will accept that as kneeling down unless you can explain to us all the foundation of the reason why you post here at all is most important than life itself.

How many times must I remind a person who they really are, "MOST IMPORTANT' and it's the ONLY reason why they really are, and they tell me I have psychosis, before they realize the extremely embarrassing error of their logic and ways.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 07, 2015
@David I will accept that as kneeling down unless you can explain to us all the foundation of the reason why you post here at all is most important than life itself.
Kneeling down and putting your hands together represents bequeathing fellatio, David. Maybe you bend that way

Why do I post here? Mostly to watch fascist USA empire collapse but also to kill time while between projects
AGreatWhopper
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 08, 2015
No, not all scientists are atheists. There are bad apples in every barrel. There are a lot of "scientists" that are technicians without any ability to consider context or question assumptions. There are a lot of humans that will prostitute anything they know for group affiliation. It also should be looked at by country. In the "proud to be anti-intellectual" US it would have less affect on one's career than in a country like the Netherlands that enjoys a much better education system.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 08, 2015

You want to be thought-police? If so, you're several orders of magnitude more despicable and dangerous than one who advocates freedom of thought. If either religious government, secular government, or the atheist, desires oppression of thought, they are the ones who are dangerous and should be defeated.


A thought police invades peoples thoughts. I was not talking about thoughts I was talking about abusing power to publicly link your religious organisation to the state.
Your serious accusations are void and baseless. You are playing the victim again and crying wolf as a placeholder for the christian fundamentalists because they are your political allies.
I resent your post and your position.
my2cts
3 / 5 (16) Dec 08, 2015
]The only truth you know absolutely is the truth about christ psychosis, David


I will accept that as kneeling down unless you can explain to us all the foundation of the reason why you post here at all is most important than life itself.

How many times must I remind a person who they really are, "MOST IMPORTANT' and it's the ONLY reason why they really are, and they tell me I have psychosis, before they realize the extremely embarrassing error of their logic and ways.

I hope your god knows what you are talking about, DW. No one else does including you yourself.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 08, 2015

"Once religion encroaches on the territory of science by making specific claims, it's truth can be investigated ....


I made the distinction between religious claims that fall within the realm of scientific inquiry and metaphysical beliefs (eg. god) that do not.

I have no problem with religion if it respects the facts, stays out of public institutions and is not funded from tax money.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (12) Dec 08, 2015
You want to be thought-police? If so, you're several orders of magnitude more despicable and dangerous
A thought police invades peoples thoughts. I was not talking about thoughts I was talking about abusing power to publicly link your religious organisation to the state.
Your serious accusations are void and baseless.


They were not accusations, they were a response to what you wrote as follows,...

- "I want to stop the political leadership from praying in office." - my2cts

- "I want the freedom to be atheist or to choose a non-majority religion for everyone." - my2cts

Did I read these wrong or did you write them wrong? What then did you mean here? We agree that gov should be secular, but why stop a politician from his own beliefs, why choose a non-religion for everyone.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2015
You are playing the victim again and crying wolf as a placeholder for the christian fundamentalists because they are your political allies.

In fact I can't stand "evangelicals" because they associate conservatism with religion. I am an conservative/libertarian agnostic.

I have no problem with religion if it respects the facts, stays out of public institutions and is not funded from tax money.

We agree on this point.

EDIT: "but why stop a politician from his own beliefs, why choose a non-[majority] religion for everyone."
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 08, 2015
"The book of Genesis, for example, to be taken as a literal account for the creation of the universe and the earth, and all life on it, would be completely inaccurate with what we know."

Will you support your declarations imbued with the spirit of wishful thinking with facts ?

In what way Genesis contradicts the known from science? Be more specific if you can.

viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (19) Dec 08, 2015
I have no problem with religion if it respects the facts, stays out of public institutions and is not funded from tax money.

Yes , but the religios atheism is funded from tax money when evolution theopry is never porven. It have monopol in "school" turned into indocrination institute.
my2cts
3 / 5 (16) Dec 08, 2015
Indeed, I do have a problem with viko_mx and his fellow delusionists. Thanks viko. You have me confused, by the way. What on earth is religiou sath

They were not accusations, they were a response to what you wrote as follows,...

- "I want to stop the political leadership from praying in office." - my2cts

- "I want the freedom to be atheist or to choose a non-majority religion for everyone." - my2cts

Did I read these wrong or did you write them wrong? What then did you mean here? We agree that gov should be secular, but why stop a politician from his own beliefs, why choose a non-religion for everyone.

No praying or drinking while while on duty.
Freedom for everyone to choose is what I meant, obviously.
my2cts
3 / 5 (18) Dec 08, 2015
Viko, what is this "religious atheism" that you are talking about?
You mean science, don't you.
Now you want your delusion to be funded and put in the constitution.
The wet dream of the fundamentalist, a theocracy !
NiteSkyGerl
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 08, 2015
I will admit to little tolerance for cranks, JVK being a prime example, someone you have defended in the past, and is now in PO purgatory.


Is there a petition about to send him to hell?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (12) Dec 08, 2015
I will admit to little tolerance for cranks, JVK being a prime example, someone you have defended in the past, and is now in PO purgatory.


Is there a petition about to send him to hell?


No, but he had been warned about his spamming with links to his creationism filled sites. The closest to a petition is using the "contact" button at the bottom of every page. I and others have
taken the time to point out his violations, the mods finally had enough of his behavior.

Unfortunately his term in PO purgatory will be ending in a few days and by the weekend he'll be
polluting the site again.
FredJose
2.8 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015
A belief in the big bang and darwinian evolution is simply pure religion. Neither concept has any observational evidence to support their religious claims. You have to take it on faith.
So-called atheist scientists are quick to discard the rigid scientific method when it comes to issues of origins and then want to force their completely unsupported viewpoint on those who disagree. These want to talk about believers in God having faith but neglect to reflect on the fact that they need to have even more blind faith than Christians. At least Christians have a the concept of an intelligent, all powerful and live mover as first cause. The atheist have to invoke sheer magic firstly with the existence of all matter and secondly with the existence of life.
We have about 6000 years of confirmed, repeated observed and well documented evidence to support the fact that once dead, nothing comes back to life again all by itself. In other words, life does not come from dead things i.e. abiogenesis.
FredJose
2.9 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015
For those who want to get excited that I've mentioned evolution and abiogenesis in the same breath, please be relieved to know that I fully understand how you want to divorce abiogenesis from evolution because you simply have no answer for that absurdity.
You cannot have ANY biological evolution until you have life, hence you NEED abiogenesis to be true for evolution to start.
Mathematically it's stated as follows:

Darwinian evolution is true if and only if abiogenesis is true.

They both depend on the same concept of abstract information and coding[logic] being produced from purely materialistic, physical and chemical processes. Have you ever wondered how on earth THAT can happen?
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (10) Dec 09, 2015
@FredJose

Why do you bother posting on a science site? Your claims are a refutation of every thing known about biology, chemistry, physics, geology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, etc.

Remember it was a Christian who stated "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution".
https://en.wikipe...volution
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2015
FredJose says
. Christians have a the concept of an intelligent, all powerful and live mover as first cause.
Sure, thats all they have, nil communication from any actual deity, only claims in a book ie The "concept".

Tell us why every deity is a very bad communicator ?

Tell us why all animals down to bacteria etc suffer & face life/death cycle ?

Tell us why we shouldnt accept that the very important DNA bases of which we are made come easily & often from non-living matter by simple chemical self-assembly ?

Eg Formamide, from early earth's atmosphere with benefit of heat, light, lightning etc which given a short time goes on to form Guanine,

Do you deny universe is replete on self-assembly at all levels & easily so, Earth is a thermodynamically open system, so complexity arises easily from mere non-living building blocks = atoms +, time & permutations all according to Physics/chemistry's "Activation Energy"

Get an education, learn Physics (for a change) !
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2015
A belief in the big bang and darwinian evolution is simply pure religion. Neither concept has any observational evidence to support their religious claims.

In order to promote religion on phys.org (go away!) you want to discredit the big bang theory and evolution by calling these religions. Then you claim that because of this these lack credibility.
I give you that religion lacks credibility. I disagree on the Big Bang theory and evolution, these are science and based on observation.
my2cts
3.1 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015

Darwinian evolution is true if and only if abiogenesis is true.

I disagree. Evolution is a proven fact. Abiogenesis is not. I do not see how the latter circumstance would invalidate the former.
What you call mathematics is really deluded wishful thinking.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2015
Have you ever wondered how on earth THAT can happen?

Yes I have. It is also a subject of active research.
It must have happened as the only alternative is the delusion of an "intelligent, all powerful and live mover", in whose image every borderline narcissist on the planet was created.
SuperThunder
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015
Hey everybody, today God spoke to me, he said :
"SuperThunder, I want you to spread the scientific method to all the heathens, because I hate stupidity and the ways of the stupid. Go forth to the nations of the stupid and cast the stupid from their stupid churches and stupid halls of stupid unlearning. Screw those guys."

and I said

"Wow, God, you hate all the exact same stuff I do! What are the odds?!"

and God said

"Never tell me the odds."

I think God is Han Solo.
Benni
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 09, 2015
Hey everybody, today God spoke to me, he said :
"SuperThunder, I want you to spread the scientific method to all the heathens, because I hate stupidity and the ways of the stupid. Go forth to the nations of the stupid and cast the stupid from their stupid churches and stupid halls of stupid unlearning. Screw those guys."


........and "God" should also be kicked out of all the Mosques, Jewish Temples, & Hindu as well? Or are you just going after one religion here, because that is certainly what it sounds like. If you're going to bash one, you may as well go after the rest of them, otherwise your biases are plain to see.
SuperThunder
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015
Benni, nothing you just said makes any sense. God said to kick out the stupid, you equate that with kicking out God.

Why do you think God is stupid? That's harsh.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2015
Benni inchoerently claimed
Or are you just going after one religion here, because that is certainly what it sounds like
Beg pardon, are you ill, SuperThunder made no delineation re a particular religion

Benni said
If you're going to bash one, you may as well go after the rest of them, otherwise your biases are plain to see
There you go again, problems in comprehension, which particular words point to which particular religion ?

Of course I concede that in your mind the three mainstream ones have common attachment to a base often attributed to moses & will grant that but, still no delineation there re judaism, christianity, islam - all have same Core Failure ! Their claimed deity is pathetic & impotent communicator & Silent - consistent with non-existence, mere claim.

Similar hiduism, mere claim, buddhism (more a overall philosophy) but aspects, also mere claim, then their is joseph smith's claim re mormons ugh !

Analysing attributes, all gods fail :-(
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2015
FredJose claims
You cannot have ANY biological evolution until you have life, hence you NEED abiogenesis to be true for evolution to start.
Mathematically it's stated as follows:
Darwinian evolution is true if and only if abiogenesis is true
What Possible Proof or rationalisation is there ???

FredJose said
..being produced from purely materialistic, physical and chemical processes. Have you ever wondered how on earth THAT can happen?


Please read earlier post "Activation Energy" is base Physics of all bonding which we understand as fundamentals of Chemistry. Key issue is reaction potentials, byproducts, one way delta, intermediate molecular configurations etc All testable, some only recently with X-ray pulse lasers & confirm simple chemicals Eg Our amino acids arise from very complex bonding behaviour "ALL the Time" !

Ask yourself question:-

"Should a smart deity make universe so it *has to* step in sporadically or instead build self-assembly in ?"
Benni
3.5 / 5 (16) Dec 09, 2015
Benni inchoerently claimed


Or are you just going after one religion here, because that is certainly what it sounds like


Beg pardon, are you ill, SuperThunder made no delineation re a particular religion


There you go again, problems in comprehension, which particular words point to which particular religion?


Hey everybody, today God spoke to me, he said :
"SuperThunder,..... Go forth to the nations of the stupid and cast the stupid from their stupid churches and stupid halls of stupid unlearning. Screw those guys."


Muttering Mike, the reading comprehension is yours: "cast the stupid from their stupid churches" is his quote. Muslims do not worship inside "churches", or any other religion for that matter, only Christians worship inside those buildings.

Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (14) Dec 09, 2015
Benni oh god doesnt "get it"
Muttering Mike, the reading comprehension is yours: "cast the stupid from their stupid churches" is his quote. Muslims do not worship inside "churches", or any other religion for that matter, only Christians worship inside those buildings
Doh, wasnt it obvious the term "church: is an efficient contraction/metaphor for synagogue, mosque ie & All others

Arbitrarily pedantic Benni, doesnt help you, you went off half cock at a singular word rather than appropriate context, churches incl protestants, catholics, mormons, prebyterians still no delineation

Its abundantly clear focusing on narrow singular word as a pedant isn't commensurate with your generalisation re a claim of focusing on just one of so very many since you missed all the cults within all relgions...

Was that the best you could do, can't you see all religions are false... ?

Tell us about your claimed degrees first Electrical then sometime later Nuclear Engineer ?
Benni
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015
Was that the best you could do, can't you see all religions are false... ?


........I don't care. Is there some reason I should?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 09, 2015
Benni says
Was that the best you could do, can't you see all religions are false... ?

........I don't care. Is there some reason I should?
So why the hell do you comment on religion at ll & why even try to engage in any discussion on topic etc ?

Tell us please when you got your claimed degree(s), ie 2 is that correct ?

And just why you so often have commented on differential equations re others NOT being able to do them implying (only) you can ?

You realise its only a part of Calculus, not complete by any means ?

Tell us why you cannot/refuse to comment on radiative transfer & CO2 forcing ?

And just like religion you make off hand weird comments re climate change issues but, still refuse to acknowledge basic Physics - just as if you never got that claimed Nuclear Engineering degree in first place, where & when please Benni did you graduate ?

Religion is the topic here Benni, not DE's or Nuclear engineering and it has this thing called context...
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 09, 2015
People calm down. Benni is always wrong.
Save time, only react when he/she is right.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 09, 2015
So why the hell do you comment on religion at ll & why even try to engage in any discussion on topic etc?
All for the entertainment value of getting people like you all up in a rant.

And just why you so often have commented on differential equations re others NOT being able to do them implying (only) you can?
All for the entertainment value of getting people like you all up in a rant.

Tell us why you cannot/refuse to comment on radiative transfer & CO2 forcing ?
All for the entertainment value of getting people like you all up in a rant.

You see Muttering Mike, you don't know the language of science does not include the vast quantity of the foul mouthed language & profanity for which you have such a propensity. I know your foul mouth is not found in Einstein's GR because I've studied it, you on the other hand don't know your language is not found in GR, so you use the language you comprehend best.


my2cts
3 / 5 (14) Dec 09, 2015
We can all help Benni by using the ignore button.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 09, 2015
They both depend on the same concept of abstract information and coding[logic] being produced from purely materialistic, physical and chemical processes. Have you ever wondered how on earth THAT can happen?
With laws of physics
my2cts
2.7 / 5 (12) Dec 10, 2015
Did not read your comment Benni. You're on "ignore".
Benni
3.7 / 5 (15) Dec 10, 2015
December 9, 2015, 11:07 am 2.3 my2cts DQM Captain Stumpy

Did not read your comment Benni. You're on "ignore".


.........so how did you manage to vote? You can't vote someone on the Ignore, you overlooked that. And look, a member of your 1 Star Vote Brigade is there too. He must be on temporary "ban" by the site moderators for so much off topic & foul mouthed profanity laced postings.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (15) Dec 10, 2015
Benni betrayed himself again
..so how did you manage to vote? You can't vote someone on the Ignore, you overlooked that. And look, a member of your 1 Star Vote Brigade..
No Physics, didn't answer my questions, preoccupied with appearance over substance, votes don't mean a damn here Benni !

If you really had the 4 or more years of real uni study to graduate as a Nuclear Engineer you wouldn't be so preoccupied with facile appearance but, would instead address the topic head-on ie with base Physics

ie. Physics of bonding behaviour as a start which shows definitively personal deities are not at all necessary for the universe vis a vis Nature to do its thing & very well indeed, from water to Formamide to Guanine etc

ie Physics & differential equations Benni, bonding interactions/permutations go a long way to establishing core paradigm of self-assembly in fully thermodynamically open system proving its Not necessary for any deity to step in & interfere Ever - amen !
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2015
Newton believed that a deity was not only a necessary teleological motive in nature, but an intervening one as well, in it's laws....

"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and [DOMINION] of an intelligent and powerful being" - Isaac Newton

Newton was intelligent enough to understand the limits of physical understanding. However, Leibnitz correctly pointed out the absurdity of "laws of nature" that weren't self sufficient....

"According to [Newton's] doctrine, God Almighty wants [i.e. needs] to wind up his watch from time to time; otherwise it would cease to move. He had not it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion" - Willhelm Leibnitz

Baruch Spinoza had already solved the problem, by equating "physical laws" themselves (or nature itself) as being in all respects, God......
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2015
..... This way of thinking is perfectly compatible with modern physics understanding.....

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind..." - Albert Einstein

Although Spinoza was regarded as a "God intoxicated man", his was not an anthropocentric god.

This distinction needs to be made by (1) everyone of faith, as well as (2) combative atheists [as qualified above], inorder to be logically consistent (assuming that was ever a concern), because god-intervening theories, as in creationism et al, disproves the supposed (1) omnipotence of god, while (2) inescapable epistemological reasons delimit valid knowledge to laws that Descriptive of Experience, as opposed to Explanatory of Independent-Reality,.. leaving metaphysical questions unanswered and therefore necessarily relegated to the quality of belief.

I would be interested in believers take on this.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 11, 2015
As it turns out, in a way, Newton was more correct [not necessarily his teleology] than Leibnitz, because I think Newton understood that what we call "laws of nature" are not substantive things but rather the most general means of modeling experience, while Leibnitz critique seems based on the presumption that "laws of nature" are things-in-themselves, rather than emergent and based on experience.

Both GR and QFT developed independently for this reason. To get rid of this "seam" in understanding is merely an excercise in mathematical idealism. There are many modern theorists who take "laws of nature" to be emergent rather than absolute things-in-themselves,... Smolin, Penrose,... and therefore liable to change. Imo, they would change based on the conditions for observables to be possible.

Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 11, 2015
"I want the freedom to be atheist or to choose a non-majority religion for everyone." - my2cts

Did I read these wrong or did you write them wrong? What then did you mean here? We agree that gov should be secular, but why stop a politician from his own beliefs, why choose a non-religion for everyone.

Freedom for everyone to choose is what I meant, obviously.

Oh I see, yes. Here are some commas that you can copy/paste for next time, that might help others to comprehend your posts, , , , , , , , . A comma can completely change the perceived meaning of a sentence. If your keyboard is missing that key, try breaking your posts into more sentences.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2015
@Noumenon
You are misreading my posts on purpose and resort to discussing comma's.
You are not the greek-philosophy-savvy intellectual you pretend to be.
my2cts
3 / 5 (10) Dec 13, 2015
Newton believed that a deity was not only a necessary teleological motive in nature, but an intervening one as well, in it's laws....

"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and [DOMINION] of an intelligent and powerful being" - Isaac Newton

Stating otherwise would have been very dangerous in his time and political environment.
The king was (and is) head of the church in England (UK).
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 13, 2015
..... This way of thinking is perfectly compatible with modern physics understanding.....

"I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind..." - Albert Einstein

Although Spinoza was regarded as a "God intoxicated man", his was not an anthropocentric god.

This distinction needs to be made by (1) everyone of faith, as well as (2) combative atheists [as qualified above], inorder to be logically consistent (assuming that was ever a concern), because god-intervening theories, as in creationism et al, disproves the supposed (1) omnipotence of god, while (2) inescapable epistemological reasons delimit valid knowledge to laws that Descriptive of Experience, as opposed to Explanatory of Independent-Reality,.. leaving metaphysical questions unanswered and therefore necessarily relegated to the quality of belief.

And to avoid this kind of text, we Dutch became atheist.
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (9) Dec 14, 2015
We have to fight religion in the public domain because if we don't they will undermine the constitution with their hatred and bigotry:

http://mic.com/ar...5LwWnDZi
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2015
why don't you simply say that religion can not be analyzed?
But it can be analyzed. You havent yet learned the difference between theism and deism. Youre trying to conflate the 2. You have learned this from philos and preachers desperate to preserve their source of income. Philos INVENTED deism for this very purpose.

The books say that solomon had a kingdom. Archeologists go out and dig and find nothing. Historians read ancient texts and find nothing. Exegists analyse the books and find that they are not reliable.

Conclusion - solomons kingdom never existed and god made it up. OR, an all-powerful god who could choose to do anything he wanted, nevertheless decided to obliterate all evidence for this kingdom and replace it with totally convincing contrary evidence.

Either way he lied.

Psalm 111:7
"The works of His hands are truth and justice; All His precepts are sure."

-THIS god has proven himself nonexistent. Most all major stories fail this test.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2015
Newton believed that a deity was not only a necessary teleological motive in nature, but an intervening one as well, in it's laws....

"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and [DOMINION] of an intelligent and powerful being" - Isaac Newton

Stating otherwise would have been very dangerous in his time and political environment.
The king was (and is) head of the church in England (UK).
Note how the philo argues in circles, using undefinable terms that imply meaning and logic where none exist.

The philo pretends that theism and deism are one and the same even though he knows full well that they are no such thing.

Deism was concocted to enable this deception.

Do not look into his eyes.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 14, 2015
I am an conservative/libertarian agnostic
No, you are an conservative/libertarian DEISTIC agnostic. You doubt prime movers and blind watchmakers, and think this doubting automatically extends to allahs and jehovahs and godmen.

It doesnt.

Job 27:4
"My lips certainly will not speak unjustly, Nor will my tongue mutter deceit."

-But it did. Over and over. This god is not the righteous paragon he describes himself to be... ie, he doesnt exist.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.