Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

93% of Elite Scientists are Atheists: Is it Obvious Why?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 77 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:02:32 BDT
Lessfatman says:
...according to your logic, darkness is light

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:18:57 BDT
Heretic says:
"Faith still appears to be faith, regardless of whether it's theist or atheist."

I find this absurd therefore I decided to look up the definition in Wikipedia : Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

Nothing about faith there, the only Faith I believe in is a friend of many years standing and she is about as skeptical as they come. Now I will tell you this, I honestly wish there was a god to believe in, a messiah to redeem me (if I need it) and a heaven for me to live in. I really do wish all of that was true because there might be a chance that I would be re-united with my wife but I have to face facts that there are indeed "no fairies at the bottom of the garden" to pinch a turn of phrase and my wife is carried in the heart and memory of myself and my children which is I suspect the only place she would want to live.

SWH

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:21:34 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"C.A. Small comes up with a typical category confusion when he implicitly assumes that today's scientists have more knowledge than Aristotle and Aquinas."
They do. That's just a fact of progress.

"... but arguments about God and religion have absolutely nothing to do with science."
So your god is completely inactive or imperceptable in the natural world.

Posted on 27 Apr 2013 17:39:27 BDT
Bellatori says:
Is it me or does Utasanshin feel a lot like Tom M. Throws a lot of names around but actually not much substance just a slighting dismissal of everyone else.

He is definitely 3 strings short of a guitar.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:40:39 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Arguments about religion and god have a lot to do with science- theists just don't like the reality exposed by science.

Category confusion. Brilliant. You were trying to be funny I presume?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:41:51 BDT
C. A. Small says:
I was wondering the same thing- possibly Tom M has had a name change?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:52:01 BDT
Utasanshin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 17:57:07 BDT
Bellatori says:
You do wonder. That same patronising supercilious tone. Lots of words and long sentences but little of real substance. Maybe its his brother or a reincarnation.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 18:13:41 BDT
Henry James says:
I have faith that I don't believe in a God.

(is it just me, or isn't this use of "faith" absurd?)

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 18:17:18 BDT
Well, I think what is meant is religious faith usually. You can have faith in almost anything, faith in your family, Faith in Nature (shampoo and conditioner range). Atheists insist that their bias isn't a religion, so really it can't be a faith.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 18:21:21 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
Seems a bit full of himself, as my mum used to say.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 18:30:05 BDT
Henry James says:
Even my brother William, who wrote the best book ever about religion and who taught at Harvard, would never use the word "apophatic" in polite conversation.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 18:30:58 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"My God? What makes you think I have one? I'm not aware of having said a single thing that indicates whether I'm a theist or an atheist."
Well you're one or another and regardless of which you are making claims on the magisteria of religion and science, that has implcations and prompts assumptions being made in the absence of you being able or willing to make yourself clear.

"The arguments on both sides seem pretty fatuous."
The important thing is that you are superior to both positions I guess. Well done.

"But I suppose I'd go along with the idea of Pseudo-Dionysus that God is to be found only on the other side of every possible assertion and denial, which means that theists need to subscribe to an 'apophatic critique of idolatry' whereby they need to become every type of atheist possible in order to negate ever possible form of idolatry (i.e. attempting to conceive of God in the first place), a process which ends in silence (or Nirvana if you're a Buddhist)."
Right. Well... OK, I guess all those complaints that the discussion doesn't address your ideas of religion and gods is valid. Totally unself-aware but valid.

"I'm afraid theism and atheism seem to me to be totally redundant, old-fashioned categories associated with a Eurocentric, 19th-century mindset."
I bet everything seems defient in it's profoundity to you.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 18:35:41 BDT
Henry James says:
Non-overlapping Magisteria????
I have just started a thread averring that they are indeed
lapping
and
overlapping
until the cows come home
as far as the process of assessing truth-claims goes

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 19:02:02 BDT
Utasanshin,
Try not to take this the right way, but you are entering a forum wherein the parameters of the debate are ontological. The question here is about the belief in the existence or non-existence of a God and thus God is here understood in terms of a 'being.' And the relation of this belief to a scientific attitude toward knowledge.

If you wish to introduce meontological or transcendent considerations gravitating around such esoteric religious thinkers as Pseudo-Dionysus, Plotinus or more recently perhaps (and less esoterically) Levinas, then it would be sensible to show in what way the debate has to be moved to some different level.
Drew is perfectly correct when he says: 'Right. Well... OK, I guess all those complaints that the discussion doesn't address your ideas of religion and gods is valid. Totally unself-aware but valid.'

Moreover - since I can be with justice accused of this error- could it not be the case that what you perceive as a naïve understanding of religious thought is in fact nothing more than a response to naïve theism? Do not assume that because a person speaks in a plain and simple way that he is therefore simple.

You might perhaps do well to back up and enter more slowly for us slow thinkers. Otherwise you might simply appear to be 'full of yourself' and gain nothing from this forum. It is not too late to be more self-aware.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 19:10:46 BDT
Bellatori says:
Sounds like a polite way to say fart... Karen is probably right then, he is certainly a bag of wind!

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 22:26:22 BDT
A. Bowdler says:
That's not what I had heard, Ian. A scientist of my acquaintance tells me that some 40% of the Royal Society fellows are religious and many of those Christian.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 22:29:42 BDT
A. Bowdler says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 27 Apr 2013 22:38:05 BDT
Yet curiously their findings haven't convinced the wider world.

I wonder why?

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 22:53:45 BDT
Henry James says:
They have found sufficient evidence to "validate the resurrection of Jesus?"

Will someone call an emergency medical technician. I am about to die laughing
(what??? I am *already* dead??? Well, I guess THAT proves the resurrection, don't it then?)

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 23:02:18 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
A.Bowdler - '...studies including a 1990s survey that found that only 7 per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God. A survey of fellows of the Royal Society found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God at a time when a poll reported that 68.5 per cent of the general UK population were believers.'

I thought 40% sounded a bit high.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 23:04:51 BDT
Henry James says:
Thanks Karen
I couldn't believe that British scientists were more gullible than Americans.

Posted on 27 Apr 2013 23:05:15 BDT
K. Hoyles says:
The previous quote is from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 23:22:41 BDT
Pendragon says:
"I've got a shelf-full of books in which the authors ... have found sufficient evidence to [validate ... the resurrection of Jesus]"

Please name just one of the books that does this (excluding the bible and Shakespeare).

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Apr 2013 23:34:45 BDT
TomC says:
"A scientist of my acquaintance" sounds so much more impressive than "a bloke down the pub", doesn't it?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  77
Initial post:  26 Apr 2013
Latest post:  29 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions