极速赛车168官网 Comments on: Does It Matter That Many Scientists Are Atheists?

极速赛车168官网 By: Roberto Autran Nunes

Roberto Autran Nunes — Sun, 07 May 2023 08:16:00 +0000

In the United States, 97% of scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. While only 3% of the prison population are atheists.

极速赛车168官网 By: Haziko Smicjyv

Haziko Smicjyv — Mon, 04 Oct 2021 15:50:00 +0000

It most certainly should cause you to worry about the correctness of your beliefs.
It seems that the more one understands the universe, the more preposterous it is to believe in a God as described by an ancient, organised religion, even within the scientific community. So you should wonder what do they know that I don't?
To me this is not surprising as, given JUST the scientific consensus of the size and age of the universe, we are highly insignificant.
It would be like a bacterial spore springing into life on leaf cell of a lettuce leaf in a salad bowl in a cafeteria of a large museum. It suddenly becomes conscious and becomes aware that it, the cell and the leaf of lettuce all exist, and imagines that they were created for its purpose by a great all powerful bacteria. But then its scientists became aware of the salad bowl, the cafeteria, and hints of the museum for which this cafeteria exists, and maybe speculates at the city, country and world that it cannot experience beyond the museum walls. Yes, it is still possible that a 19th century philanthropist, funded the creation of the museum, for the sole purpose of the bacteria that sprang into life from a particular spore on a Thursday 200 hundred years later, to live a desperately short life of a lunchtime service. Possible but not remotely credible, especially as the details of why and how the museum was created are not known and maybe not knowable and consequently the existence of that single great bacterial philanthropist who founded this museum is entirely speculative.
So a belief that is reasonable for bacteria that only know the cell and perhaps the lettuce leaf, becomes more fantastic the with the knowledge of the salad bowl, the cafeteria, museum, city and world.

极速赛车168官网 By: towercam

towercam — Sat, 01 Dec 2018 23:08:00 +0000

It disgusts me that you, the writer, didn't have the basic morals to at least present what he suggested he would.
You started with a question. You should have fucking answered the question clearly and well. Instead, you leave us still wondering. Shame on you.
If you were paid for this 'article', give the money back.

极速赛车168官网 By: Dennis Freeland

Dennis Freeland — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 22:15:00 +0000

"the search for God must primarily use philosophy, or careful reasoning," The foundational basis for evidence is epistemology. Before you embark on "reasoning" you need a supernatural epistemology that COULD posit the existence of a deity. So far the only supernatural epistemology I know of that COULD posit such a claim is "faith and the explicit rejection of logical reasoning". We must include the rejection of logic, otherwise we allow the counter claim that "I have faith that a god does not exist". Thus anything that can be claimed to exist in a supernatural world can also be claimed to not exist - using the SAME epistemology. It isn't a very helpful epistemology is it ! And I have a problem with any epistemology that mandates the explicit rejection of logic in order to be able to posit something ! Even ignoring that "minor" inconvenience (!), all the 30 distinct arguments for a deity (approximately 30) have an average of over 3 logical fallacies per argument. Until and unless theists can articulate a foundational epistemology - the issue of evidence is moot. And until then, BY DEFINITION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE EVIDENCE FOR A DEITY ! Is it any surprise that 93% of the NAS reject the notion of a deity ? Actually it is a surprise - it should be 100%. Who are the 7% who reject logic and reason ?

极速赛车168官网 By: BCE

BCE — Thu, 24 May 2018 17:29:00 +0000

In reply to John Johnson.

I'm not debating god but your logic.
You are assuming people 15,,000 years ago believed in god out of fear.
We don't know that.
We know people have fears but we don't know fear led to the creation of religion. We guess that, but don't know as fact that fear and ignorance was the reason. That's a mostly 18th century argument.
A notable feature between humans and primates is greater intelligence. So contrary to what you say, a religious mind does not seem to contradict intelligence, but that intelligence is a key factor in being able to conceive of religion. There's no proof that we are more intelligent then humans
60,000 ago.
To tie religiosity to ignorance is a bias.
I would challenge any real scientist to confirm your understanding
of religion undermining cognition

极速赛车168官网 By: John Johnson

John Johnson — Thu, 24 May 2018 05:19:00 +0000

All of your armchair philosophers and religious nuts need to ask yourself one important question: Why do I fear my own mortality?

极速赛车168官网 By: John Johnson

John Johnson — Thu, 24 May 2018 05:17:00 +0000

In reply to 42Oolon. And science proved that mentalism was a hoax, that mediumship was a hoax, that ether was a hoax, ad naseum! The rigorous discipline of the scientific method is tedious and time consuming, but has proven by far to be the most reliable method of getting at the truth of something. Philosophers just don't want to admit that the power of good science has left them in the dust.

极速赛车168官网 By: John Johnson

John Johnson — Thu, 24 May 2018 05:13:00 +0000

In reply to Norman. You should be worried because your irrational and illogical thinking is polluting the gene pool.

极速赛车168官网 By: John Johnson

John Johnson — Thu, 24 May 2018 05:11:00 +0000

If you consider that developing our cognitive skills is a sign of intelligence, I would propose that religious believers are not intelligent. They do not use critical thinking, analytical thinking, logical reasoning, healthy skepticism, or common sense to challenge their own beliefs. If they did so, they would find their beliefs sorely lacking in credibility, probability, and reliability. Atheists, on the other hand, arrived at their world view after using all these cognitive skills to critically analyze their own beliefs and belief in general. I don't know the statistics on this but if you assume that most of the population are believers, then it is logical to assume that most atheists were at one time believers. The only way they could have made this shift in their world view is to critically analyze their previously held religious/spiritual world view and found it wanting. Viewing reality accurately is about using your cognitive ability to do so. A world view governed by science and what we presently know about life and our world is far more tenable than a world view based on speculation, myth, superstition, fear of mortality, and philosophical assumptions. Our species will not evolve intellectually until we dispel all irrational beliefs from our minds including religious, spiritual, metaphysical, and philosophical beliefs.

极速赛车168官网 By: John Johnson

John Johnson — Thu, 24 May 2018 04:55:00 +0000

In reply to Jonathan. How do you know the difference between hearing the voice of god and auditory hallucinations? How do you know these are not your own thoughts that you tell yourself to convince yourself of your delusional beliefs? You are clearly not using your critical thinking skills by making such a biased and skewed suggestion to pray to an invisible being. You are so deluded by your own beliefs that your argument is ludicrous.