GammaGlobulin

Did you say they died at age 76? How odd. The periodicity of Halley's comet is only 75 years. Twain lived 74 years. Therefore, numerologically speaking, this is rather a coincidence. Maybe there actually IS a god, after all.

Please don't remind me.

This might be helpful for those pondering about whether or not they should become atheists, and why. This is why this scientist IS an atheist.

You mean that you entirely MISSED the Scientific Method video, a lecture by Feynman? It was posted there, plain as day.

My pleasure. Feynman is great. Far better than counting sheep, and you can actually learn something before you nod off.

If you want to know about Cognitive Dissonance, then you should start with FESTINGER, so that you actually KNOW the meaning of the term. Cognitive Dissonance is not as simple as some might imagine.

This topic is NOT about religion. This topic is about SCIENCE, and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and also about super-smart people who demand evidence before forming opinions, and about Feynman. How did you like the Feynman video, by the way?

As for Einstein: When he uttered, "God does not play dice with the universe.", he was NOT speaking of GOD in the "literal sense", and ALL scientists realize this. "One of Albert Einstein's most famous quotes is, "God does not play dice with the universe." But there are two huge errors in the way many people have interpreted this quote over the years. People have wrongly assumed Einstein was religious, believed in destiny, or that he completely rejected a core theory in physics. First, Einstein wasn't referring to a personal god in the quote. He was using "God" as a metaphor." (https://www.businessinsider.com/god-does-not-play-dice-quote-meaning-2015-11) It's just INCREDIBLE how NAIVE some people (so many people) can be!!!!

Your statement is COMPLETELY FALSE!!!!!! Bohr was a complete atheist! "Bohr enjoyed Kierkegaard's language and literary style, but mentioned that he had some disagreement with Kierkegaard's philosophy.[87] Some of Bohr's biographers suggested that this disagreement stemmed from Kierkegaard's advocacy of Christianity, while Bohr was an atheist." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr#:~:text=Bohr enjoyed Kierkegaard's language and,while Bohr was an atheist.)

I stated: 'As everybody knows, there is still great stigma attached the word "atheist"' Do you disagree with my statement? I do not see how you can. There is stigma attached to self-identifying as an atheist. Everybody knows this.

This is sometimes true, and religiosity in China during the past years, since 1949, is just one example of what you suggest.

I am suggesting NOTHING, REPEAT NOTHING, of the kind. There are PLENTY of dumb atheists, one can reasonably assume.

By "people", do you mean "super-smart" people and/or scientists? Because we are not talking about religion, belief in god, and the opium of the masses.

Please feel free to present your EVIDENCE for your statement in your next comment. Thank you!

This topic is really NOT about the general population, as should have been CRYSTAL clear from the Topic Heading: "Why IS It That Super-Smart People, Almost INVARIABLY, Turn Out to Be Atheists?"

Please clarify what you mean by "physical", because otherwise your question is impossible to address.

This OLD DEBATE about there being any SIGNIFICANT difference between an agnostic and an atheist is already just pointless. As everybody knows, there is still great stigma attached the word "atheist", and therefore it is just a matter of convenience for some to admit to being an agnostic when, actually, they DO NOT BELIEVE in a god, or gods... But of course, we know their true position.

Well, PLEASE do not tell me that you are agnostic about the TEAPOT, too! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Do you admit that Entropy exists? If so, then science tells us that NOTHING can be eternal.... And, although it's off-topic... I do NOT believe in evil as you seem to use the term.

Well, I guess most guys on this forum are old enough to clearly recall this great article published in the journal, Nature, in 1998: "Sir The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever — almost total." You can find all the above in the Nature article here: https://www.nature.com/articles/28478 And, My Fellows... This article is 25 years OLD! Obviously, the trends are going in just one direction, as you can plainly see. These days, among scientists, it's about 99% agnostic/atheist, if I am not mistaken. I will post the corroborating newer article as soon as I find it.

Where??? Someplace down south, maybe? 55555

Are you saying that belief in that for which there is no evidence is "super-smart"? And then, what about the Teapot? Belief in teapots in space is "super-smart"?

It is my opinion that any scientist who truly believes there is a god is ipso facto NOT a scientist, but something else. And that, furthermore, that "something else" is a stain upon the very name of Science!

"Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion." All the above is taken from: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33#:~:text=Interestingly%2C this difference is far,in God or higher power.

Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists Sean M. Carroll, California Institute of Technology https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/ "Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description. In the various ways in which God might have been judged to be a helpful hypothesis — such as explaining the initial conditions for the universe, or the particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle physics — there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description. I am therefore led to conclude that adding God would just make things more complicated, and this hypothesis should be rejected by scientific standards. It’s a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer."