Why IS It That Super-Smart People, Almost INVARIABLY, Turn Out to Be Atheists? Hear it HERE…Straight from the Horse’s Mouth!

[NoDisplayName]

17 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

It is a well known fact that ALL scientists are atheists;

No supporting evidence, so I'll have to assume you're taking this "on faith."

[Woof999]

4 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

One thing is certain, the existence of the universe will never be explained by science, and most of the theories read like fairy tales.  

There I have to disagree. Science has brought us things that could never have been imagined beforehand. The atomic bomb being a good example (discounting it's potential evil use). Imagine someone who had only ever seen the power of a bow and arrow then seeing the power of an atomic bomb. Much of what science has discovered in the last 30 years would have been deemed magical just a few decades earlier.

 

Science might not ever explain the universe. We might not be around long enough as a race to find out, but we can't say any of that for absolute certainty.

 

No theory is a fairy tale. I think you might have meant hypothesis?

[Neeranam]

Many change their minds, like AntonyFlew.

 

Actually, I think many uneducated people are atheists. 

[Neeranam]

https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/fellows/why-atheists-change-their-mind-8-common-factors/

[NoDisplayName]

13 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

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!

 

 

No true Scotsman.

 

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly (wiki)

[Neeranam]

“The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse... By misuse, I mean that people who have never glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what it is they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, and your God is false," or Nietzsche's famous statmeent "God is dead.”
― Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment

[GammaGlobulin]

22 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

No true Scotsman.

 

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly (wiki)

I like Scotsmen but No True Scotsman does NOT apply in this case:

 

A scientist is one who follows the principles of Science, and the process of science which definitely does include the Scientific Method. A pseudo-scientists who calls himself a scientist is free to do what he chooses; however he is NOT a scientist unless he follows the principles and processes of Science....which DOES include the Scientific Method. 

 

This is fundamental.  And, here, we are NOT speaking of "PURITY", or degrees of the Scientific Method.  THIS is why your argument has NO relevance to my statement which you quoted, which is "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!"

 

So, "how is science different from other ways of describing
and explaining nature, such as philosophy or religion? Those
endeavors also seek to make sense of the world around us, and
they often play an important role in society. But the scientific
view of the world is based on hypothesis testing and verifiable
evidence. Indeed, one of the distinguishing characteristics of
science is the willingness to follow the evidence—and to correct
itself when new evidence is found."

(Campbell Biology)

 

 

 

 

[RanongCat]

I just been finished talking with my donkey and he say he asked his cousin ass why stupid people try ask super smart questions. His ass suggest constipation.

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, NoDisplayName said:

No supporting evidence, so I'll have to assume you're taking this "on faith."

Not really.

It is those scientists who base their work on "belief" and that are guided by "faith" who obviously are not relying on any evidence to support their claims who are pseudo-scientists. Pseudoscientists are NOT scientists, obviously. This is by definition.

 

 

[Elkski]

What i dont understand is why do the faithful care what people think?   Why di they need to make laws to support their beliefs?  

[NoDisplayName]

48 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

I like Scotsmen but No True Scotsman does NOT apply in this case:

 

A scientist is one who follows the principles of Science, and the process of science which definitely does include the Scientific Method. A pseudo-scientists who calls himself a scientist is free to do what he chooses; however he is NOT a scientist unless he follows the principles and processes of Science....which DOES include the Scientific Method. 

 

This is fundamental.  And, here, we are NOT speaking of "PURITY", or degrees of the Scientific Method.  THIS is why your argument has NO relevance to my statement which you quoted, which is "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!"

 

So, "how is science different from other ways of describing
and explaining nature, such as philosophy or religion? Those
endeavors also seek to make sense of the world around us, and
they often play an important role in society. But the scientific
view of the world is based on hypothesis testing and verifiable
evidence. Indeed, one of the distinguishing characteristics of
science is the willingness to follow the evidence—and to correct
itself when new evidence is found."

(Campbell Biology)

 

 

 

 

You have moved the goal posts.

 

Is this Xtian Scotswoman NOT a scientist?

Quote

Mary Higby Schweitzer is an American paleontologist at North Carolina State University, who led the groups that discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR 1125,^[1][2] as well as evidence that the specimen was a pregnant female when she died. (source:  wiki)

Note she disavows any claims by the Answers in Genesis cultists that this is proof of a young earf'.

[NoDisplayName]

26 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Not really.

It is those scientists who base their work on "belief" and that are guided by "faith" who obviously are not relying on any evidence to support their claims who are pseudo-scientists. Pseudoscientists are NOT scientists, obviously. This is by definition.

 

 

Damn!  Them goal posts must be on wheels!

 

You said

Quote

It is a well known fact that ALL scientists are atheists;

Can you substantiate that.................."fact"?

 

 

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, JensenZ said:

One thing is certain, the existence of the universe will never be explained by science, and most of the theories read like fairy tales.  

 

However, what an atheist is is well established. They doesn't believe in the existence of a supernatural being. As to what God people believe in... billions of people are touting the existence of one type of God or another, and wars have been fought over it for millenia. There's even a branch of religion called "theistic evolution". 

Oh, I think it will, and be explained in the lifetime of most people alive now, at least those under 70.

 

A great many aspects of existence discovered purely from mathematics have now been proven via the use of the Large Hadron Collider. The Higgs Boson was a mathematical construct, but the LHC found it.

 

Physicists and astrophysicists such as Nima Arkadi-Hamad are at work uncovering the absolute basics of existence, and are on the brink of developing a theory for everything. No deity required, but the concept is as difficult to understand for most people as gravity was to those who absolutely knew the Earth had to be flat.

 

Even when science can fully explain everything, there will still be those who need to believe in deities. They need to believe their collection of atoms has some special meaning and a special friend to watch over them.

[swissie]

There are ony 2 kinds of people. Those with a analytical mind and those with a "believe" mindset. Food for thaught for the latter:

They should get their own God. Amazingly, Christians have adopted the God of Israel as their God as well.  Although the old testament clearly states that God is the God of the Isrealites only. It was the apostel Paul that declared that God is good for everyone. (The greatest PR guy the world has ever seen).

There are over 40'000 sub-christian believes. We sould be able to select our own personal christian God, not having to rely on an adopted God.

My dog has it good. He always gets free meat snacks from the local butcher. Needless to say that to him the local butcher is his personal God.

[JensenZ]

3 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Oh, I think it will, and be explained in the lifetime of most people alive now, at least those under 70.

 

A great many aspects of existence discovered purely from mathematics have now been proven via the use of the Large Hadron Collider. The Higgs Boson was a mathematical construct, but the LHC found it.

 

Physicists and astrophysicists such as Nima Arkadi-Hamad are at work uncovering the absolute basics of existence, and are on the brink of developing a theory for everything. No deity required, but the concept is as difficult to understand for most people as gravity was to those who absolutely knew the Earth had to be flat.

 

Even when science can fully explain everything, there will still be those who need to believe in deities. They need to believe their collection of atoms has some special meaning and a special friend to watch over them.

I'd take a bet that scientiests will never explain how the universe came to exist - but I won't be around collect and even if I was, you'd probably tell me to wait another 100 years. God might be an explanation, but then people will ask, where did God come from. There is no answer to this question, either by science or religion.

 

You certainly have a lot of faith in science. That could be thought of as a religion too. The problem is the physical reality might only be the tip of the iceberg. That's all you can see and experience - the physical dimension. It's the box we all live in.

 

 

[JensenZ]

4 hours ago, Elkski said:

What i dont understand is why do the faithful care what people think?   Why di they need to make laws to support their beliefs?  

This thread was started by an atheist, who seems very concerned about what other people think... or he just wanted to insult religious people, suggesting that they can't possibly be intelligent... and that it's a well-known fact.

[JensenZ]

5 hours ago, Woof999 said:

There I have to disagree. Science has brought us things that could never have been imagined beforehand. The atomic bomb being a good example (discounting it's potential evil use). Imagine someone who had only ever seen the power of a bow and arrow then seeing the power of an atomic bomb. Much of what science has discovered in the last 30 years would have been deemed magical just a few decades earlier.

 

Science might not ever explain the universe. We might not be around long enough as a race to find out, but we can't say any of that for absolute certainty.

 

No theory is a fairy tale. I think you might have meant hypothesis?

No, I did mean they read like fairy tales, despite being called hypotheses by some. These hypotheses are right out with the faries. They are just as far from reality as any fairy tale - possibly further. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

34 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I'd take a bet that scientiests will never explain how the universe came to exist - but I won't be around collect and even if I was, you'd probably tell me to wait another 100 years. God might be an explanation, but then people will ask, where did God come from. There is no answer to this question, either by science or religion.

 

You certainly have a lot of faith in science. That could be thought of as a religion too. The problem is the physical reality might only be the tip of the iceberg. That's all you can see and experience - the physical dimension. It's the box we all live in.

Not understanding how the universe came to exist is a long way from proof that god exists. That's a classic non sequitur.

 

 

[Hummin]

19 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Just curious - can you name some famous scientists who were or are Muslims? It does seem rather strange God should be so selective of the Christian faith.

Orign of Jews, Christians and Muslim, same family religion, same history. It is just the practice and the different tribes pactice their religion slightly different. 

 

 

[ozimoron]

A survey of scientists found that the majority of elite scientists do not believe in God. The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center, found that only 7 percent of scientists believe in God, while nearly two-thirds (64 percent) do not believe in God.

 

https://www.dvaita.org/a-majority-of-elite-scientists-do-not-believe-in-god-survey-finds/

[Elkski]

Would the World be a better place without any religion?  

No religious wars. 

All that tax free property would lower my taxes if they paid like all of us. 

 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Orign of Jews, Christians and Muslim, same family religion, same history. It is just the practice and the different tribes pactice their religion slightly different.

What about the other religions? That's the single biggest argument against religion. Each religion claims their god is the only god, or the true god. All nutcases.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What about the other religions? That's the single biggest argument against religion. Each religion claims their god is the only god, or the true god. All nutcases.

Muslims claim their religion is the last word of God ( Allah ), therefore superior to all others. The penalty for apostasy ( reverting to Judaism or Christianity ) is death.

[Hummin]

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

What about the other religions? That's the single biggest argument against religion. Each religion claims their god is the only god, or the true god. All nutcases.

There is a red line and similarities between most religions. The jews got their inspirations from earlier formed religions, Buddhists from hinduism,....

 

Seems it is in the nature to believe in something that can collect, tribes, societies and also individuals who do not want to believe in a god, choose something else somehow in some way 

 

Cultivate Soccer, rock stars, writers, philosophers, motorbike clans or clubs, work, science

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

There is a red line and similarities between most religions. The jews got their inspirations from earlier formed religions, Buddhists from hinduism,....

 

Seems it is in the nature to believe in something that can collect, tribes, societies and also individuals who do not want to believe in a god, choose something else somehow in some way 

 

Cultivate Soccer, rock stars, writers, philosophers, motorbike clans or clubs, work, science

Can you address my point? The tension between religions about who's is the real god is the crux of the arguement  that religion is false.

[ozimoron]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Muslims claim their religion is the last word of God ( Allah ), therefore superior to all others. The penalty for apostasy ( reverting to Judaism or Christianity ) is death.

Why do Christians hate the Muslim religion then? My issue is that the competition between religion disqualifies them all.

[Hummin]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Can you address my point? The tension between religions about who's is the real god is the crux of the arguement  that religion is false.

Why is one soccer team better than another in somones eyes, even statistics says it is not. Why some believe in proved science others not? 

 

People are people, like two brothers who have same origins goes separate ways!

 

Two motorbike clubs have same inerests fighting about the same thing, control of people and districts. 

 

Realigion is just scaled up

[ozimoron]

Just now, Hummin said:

Why is one soccer team better than another in somones eyes, even statistics says it is not. Why some believe in proved science others not? 

 

People are people, like two brothers who have same origins goes separate ways!

 

Two motorbike clubs have same inerests fighting about the same thing, control of people and districts. 

 

Realigion is just scaled up

Then I should no more believe in religion than worship a soccer team? Which religion is the real one?

[Hummin]

Just now, ozimoron said:

Then I should no more believe in religion than worship a soccer team? Which religion is the real one?

Nature, what you se, can touch and discover. Planet earth ????

[ozimoron]

Just now, Hummin said:

Nature, what you se, can touch and discover. Planet earth ????

Atre you being deliberately obtuse? Just don't want to answer the question? Are religions all fake or are some real? Which ones?