Keep in mind that we're talking top-line scientists here, not just run-of-the-mill types.

"Leading Scientists Still Reject God"

(letter from co-authors Edward J. Larson, Department of History, University of Georgia, Athens GA; and Larry Witham, Burtonsville, published in "Nature," Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313, 1998, under "Correspondence;" see link for citations, at: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html):

"Sir — The question of religious belief among U.S. 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.

"Research on this topic began with the eminent U.S. psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively.

"In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in 'Nature.' We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among 'greater' scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents.

"Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among 'greater' scientists to their 'superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.' Similarly, Oxford University scientist Peter Atkins commented on our 1996 survey, 'You clearly can be a scientist and have religious beliefs. But I don't think you can be a real scientist in the deepest sense of the word because they are such alien categories of knowledge.' Such comments led us to repeat the second phase of Leuba's study for an up-to-date comparison of the religious beliefs of 'greater' and 'lesser' scientists.

"Our chosen group of 'greater' scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality). Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1.

"Table 1 Comparison of survey answers among 'greater' scientists

"Belief in personal God: 1914, 1933, 1998
Personal belief 27.7, 15, 7.0
Personal disbelief 52.7, 68, 72.2
Doubt or agnosticism 20.9, 17, 20.8

"Belief in human immortality: 1914, 1933, 1998
Personal belief 35.2, 18, 7.9
Personal disbelief 25.4, 53, 76.7
Doubt or agnosticism 43.7, 29, 23.3

"(Figures are percentages).

"Repeating Leuba's methods presented challenges. For his general surveys, he randomly polled scientists listed in the standard reference work, American Men of Science (AMS). We used the current edition. In Leuba's day, AMS editors designated the 'great scientists' among their entries, and Leuba used these to identify his "greater" scientists. The AMS no longer makes these designations, so we chose as our 'greater' scientists members of the NAS, a status that once assured designation as 'great scientists' in the early AMS. Our method surely generated a more elite sample than Leuba's method, which (if the quoted comments by Leuba and Atkins are correct) may explain the extremely low level of belief among our respondents.

"For the 1914 survey, Leuba mailed his brief questionnaire to a random sample of 400 AMS 'great scientists.' It asked about the respondent's belief in 'a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind' and in 'personal immortality.' Respondents had the options of affirming belief, disbelief or agnosticism on each question. Our survey contained precisely the same questions and also asked for anonymous responses.

"Leuba sent the 1914 survey to 400 'biological and physical scientists,' with the latter group including mathematicians as well as physicists and astronomers. Because of the relatively small size of NAS membership, we sent our survey to all 517 NAS members in those core disciplines. Leuba obtained a return rate of about 70% in 1914 and more than 75% in 1933 whereas our returns stood at about 60% for the 1996 survey and slightly over 50% from NAS members.

"As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools, an ongoing source of friction between the scientific community and some conservative Christians in the United States. The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.' NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.'

"Our survey suggests otherwise."
_____


Other, more recent studies bear out the earlier findings:

"In 2009, the 'Pew Research Center for the People and the Press' polled members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science on belief in a higher power. The study found that 51 percent of members polled expressed such a faith, compared to 95 percent of the American public. Additionally, the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study."

("Are Scientists Atheists?," by Robert Lamb, "Discovery News," 23 November 2010, at: http://news.discovery.com/tech/are-scientists-atheists.htm)
_____



Incensed Believers in the Beyond angrily admit that the National Academy of Sciences is dominated by atheists--and therefore in unintentionally humorous fashion accuse the NSA of being, well, anti-scientific.

The super-conservative, super-nonscientific magazine, "Human Events," in an article published in 2010, loudly complained about the continuing survival-of-the-fittest-the-bestest-and-the-brightest reality, with atheists maintaining an overwhelming numerical membership advantage in the NAS.

Howls "Human Events":

"The pseudo-scientific method of the NAS begins, not with a valid hypothesis or empirical evidence, but rather with the arbitrary rejection of a Creator/Designer and atheist materialism deduced as a fact. One of the 18 NAS book committee members, Neil deGrasse Tyson, revealed this at a friendly atheists’ conference in 2006. At 40:45 of his presentation, Tyson remarked to fellow atheist, Lawrence Krause:

“'I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here. Otherwise, the public is secondary to this… Lawrence, if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?'

"A few moments later, atheist panelist Michael Shermer suggested that the true figure of NAS scientists who reject God is 93%."

("The Atheist-Dominated National Academy OF Sciences," by jjohnsonjr, in "Human Events," under "Politics," 17 June 2010, at: http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/17/the-atheistdominated-national-academy-of-sciences/)

*****


The uber-religious, anti-scientific, quote-the-scriptures creationist crowd can fume and foam until their Messiah comes home (which will be a helluva long time coming, if ever).

The reality is that reasonably compelling scientific evidence for the God hypothesis simply isn't there.

Oh, what to do?

The following is attributed to noted Harvard Law School profgessor Alan Dershowitz (although its origins are said to go back several decades):

". . . Dershowitz shares with his students a strategy for successfully defending cases. If the facts are on your side, Dershowitz says, pound the facts into the table. If the law is on your side, pound the law into the table. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table."

("Legal Advice: Pound the Facts, Pound the Law, Pound the Table," in "Quote Investigator: Dedicated to Tracing Quotations," at:http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/04/legal-adage/)
_____


Pound away on that table, Bible purists, pound away.

Meanwhile, back to the lab. :)



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 11:52PM by steve benson.

Wasn't it the imaginary god who created the malaria, flu, small pox and other fun things.

Also "it" created the earth that quakes and destroyes buildings with people in them who are laying in the ruins with smashed limbs and cannot be reached and lay there until they are dead.

But "it" does love all his children. I hope "it" does not love me.

My TBM mother thinks my severely autistic son is Mormon Jesus teaching me a lesson. If anything, my son has confirmed my atheism.

Mormon prayers and tithes did squat for him. Using the $ from a two career family that doesn't pay tithes or waste time on make-work callings, to fund evidence based behavior therapy has seen him make huge social and communication gains over the past few years. Thank Science I am not a Mormon.

Thank you Steve for your interesting comments. You certainly put in the hard yards.

Should I feign surprise? Shock? Perhaps throw in a measure of horror at your most recent discovery? A majority of scientists don't have much time for God, who would have thunk it!

I note that both Leuba and Larson are atheists but I am sure that would not be reflected in their findings. As for Witham every good atheist study needs a token religionist to give it balance and respectability.

You seem to place so much faith in these findings. May I suggest you acquaint yourself with the work of the also emminent and very scientific biologist (unfortunately no longer with us) Ernst Haeckel who started with the assumption that evolution is true and then made his finding fit his faith in this solid and infallible scientific theory.

Here are a few words from his own lips:

" To cut short this unsavoury dispute, I begin at my numerous drawings of embryos, perhaps six or eight percent are in a sense falsified - all those, namely, for which the present material of observation is so incomplete or insufficient as to compel us, when we come to prepare a continous chain of the evolutionary stages, to fill up the gaps by hypotheses, and to reconstruct the missing links by comparative synthesis...After this compromising confession of "forgery" I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. the great majority of all diagramsin the best biological textsbooks, treatises and journal would incur in the same degree the charge of "forgery" for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed."

Even though Haeckel has been shown to be a fraud in this regard his work continues to carry weight in support of evolution. Outstanding! Forget the God of the gaps, who needs him when we can have the science of the more or less!

It brings to mind the furore that erupted not long ago when emails surfaced showing how balanced supporters, scientists one and all, of climate change were doctoring the figures, that's right they were fudging the figures and suppressing any thing to the contrary, to "prove" how right they were.

You should know Steve that scientific studies are only as good as intellectual honesty that underpin them. If the prevailing majority wish a study to prove they are right they will find the evidence to support their way of thinking. It takes a brave person to stand against the tide, they may even lose their standing in their community of peers.

Nevertheless, lets say that a majority of scientists have no belief in God, so what? My faith isn't based on what a majority tells me to believe or think. It is based on observation and evidence. The atheist mantra that is supposed to silence all their critics - show us the evidence! Let God come down now and kick me in the gut!

Well Steve the evidence is all around you, it stares you in the face every day as you go to work, as you stand in a line at the supermarket.

One of the evidence for God's existence I use is called the evidence of order. You atheist believe in order through chaos, luck and chance are the caustive agents of all the incredible order and complexity we see in the world and beyond. Now if you believe that I have a bridge I'd like to sell you....

Really Steve is that the very best you and your colleagues have got?

Inquirer: So how did life begin?
Atheist: well we just don't know.

Enquirer: Do you have any proof that it began in a primordial soup?
Atheist: well, no but we do have a hunch and a few theories.

Enquirer: So how do adaptive mutations, micro evolution, lead to macro evolution?
Atheist: Not sure.

Enquirer: do you have any evidence or links that indicate such a theory of evolution may be true?
Atheist: No, not at this time, but we do have some old bones.

Enquirer: so how do new species come into existence?
atheist: well we really don't know exactly.

Enquirer: how do you explain the order and complexity we see in the world.
Atheist: well it's just pure luck, happenstance, good fortune, the hand of serendipity.

Enquirer: right! you want me to believe that it all came by luck?
Atheist: look son, just don't think too deeply about this and just launch yourself in a great leap of faith, you need to have faith that what we tell you is true.

Enquire: right!But if it's all luck what meaning is thre to anything?
Atheist: None, that's the beauty of it all. No meaning whatsoever.

Thank you Steve and try not to place too much faith in your new cult it may also prove to be hoax.

If the evidence is all around for the proof of God, then point out God, specifically. Pointing to roses or rainbows doesn't count.

Introduce God, not the stuff God supposedly created.

Show us your God, not more of your religious-fable gobbledeegook.

So far, all we get from you is huff and puff--with no stuff.

God, goddammitt. Why is he always your personal no-show? :)

(Oh, and by the way, this thread is not about your personal belief in the Big Sky Daddy. It's about how the vast majority of U.S. scientists in the National Academy of Sciences don't buy your personal belief in the Big Sky Daddy).



Edited 12 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 11:44PM by steve benson.

Sorry, I respect you and your work a great deal but in this instance you are wrong Steve, I love science, it enthralls me. I am not anti-science, I am all for it. I just don't see the great gulf between science and religion that atheists and religionists seem to think exists.

Having said that, I believe that the only real "problem" between science and religion is the theory of evolution which is itself built on very shaky ground. Science is evidence for the existence of a creator. It's not science that tries to bury God it's all those undertakers who use science as an excuse to keep shoveling.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:06PM by steve benson.

Hi Steve, I appreciate all the time and effort you put into the research and thoughts you post on RfM. You're by and far one of those posters who I look forward to reading, not to suck up but it's true.

I'm afraid however that I must agree with Mordecai on this one. Although I no longer believe in the Mormon god, or any supreme being for that matter, it is my firm belief that, as Mordecai alluded to, science and religion can and often do exist side by side. Religion is a bunch of theories, and so is science, albeit more logical (although "logic" too is a somewhat subjective term) and both have changed dramatically over time. People are free to agree with what they want, and if they want both religion and science, by all means go ahead. The Bible and other religious texts should not be used in lieu of a proper scientific journal, but neither should scientific material be used to discredit the harmless beliefs of others.

Basically everyone is entitled to their own views, and sometimes it's just best to agree to disagree.

Take it away!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDZFf0pm0SE



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:15PM by steve benson.

Please don't kid yourself.

Mord needs to pull himself out of his gourd and realize that he is confusing "theory" with "hypothesis."

This is basic grade-school stuff.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:35PM by steve benson.

I am sorry, it must be so frustrating for you. Isn't it funny that you and I can both see a rose and a rainbow and one sees the existence of God in these ( and yes I know there is a scientifc explanation for rainbows) while the other does not.

You want me to conjure up God for you? Serve Him up on a plate? Introduce Him to you? Well Steve why is it that you can so readily believe what science tells you exists or is true even though you may not have any hard evidence yourself to its existence or to the veracity of the claim? Just because science told you so? The word science binds you in a hypnotic spell?

It's science, it must be true. the universe consists of dark matter, check, science told me so it must be true (have you ever seen dark matter?); science tells me we are part of the Milky Way Galaxy, check that, it's true (but you don't really know do you? you look up and all you see are a collection of stars); science tells me we started as primordial soup descended from monkeys and are the result of some pretty amazing luck, check, it's all good it's science after all.

While the scientific method can verify most of what science encompasses some of it is simply conjecture, speculation based on what may or may not be honest work.

At the end of the day I'll continue to see the rainbow as a beautiful gift and you'll see it as the refraction of light caused by rain (as I do also, but it is still a gift).

At the end of the day faith will remain a mystery to you and your colleagues, the only mystery that continues to puzzle you in a world filled with mystery and wonder.

You want to find God? Then go in search for Him, you may find Him in the most unexpected places - "You shall seek me, and find me, when you search for me with all your heart." Why does He make it so hard? Well I don't know Steve, perhaps we need to be sure ourselves that He is what we really value in this world.

Mormonism was a bitter, rock strewn road we all took, a deviation on our journey, perhaps we learned something from it that made us better individuals.

This is probably completely unsatisfactory for you. Sorry I could not introduce you to God. If I can offer some suggestions though, apparently he was born in a stable and seen by humble shepherds, he lived in a little village called Nazareth as a carpenter and he was seen in the backwater of the Roman empire called Jerusalem, I believe he came to a rather nasty and untimely death.

All the best on your journey Steve.

. . . on science and its methodologies.

And I still see you speaking for your God, since he continues to be a no-show.

THis is what happens, Mordecai, when humans make up silly stories and thn have to provide ventriloquist voice-overs for the fictional characters they create.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 12:36AM by steve benson.

Mordecai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> It brings to mind the furore that erupted not long
> ago when emails surfaced showing how balanced
> supporters, scientists one and all, of climate
> change were doctoring the figures, that's right
> they were fudging the figures and suppressing any
> thing to the contrary, to "prove" how right they
> were.
>

This right here proves how uneducated you are on the subject. The furor that erupted over this was because of uneducated people - mostly Republicans and climate change deniers - who don't understand the meaning of certain words.

I'm a software engineer. I could easily ask a colleague the following: "So what is the trick for setting up this server?" That doesn't mean I'm somehow doing something underhanded, it means I want to know what the best method is.

This meaning is exactly what the scientist was asking in the released emails. It has nothing to do with fitting an agenda or fudging numbers... he wants to know the best way of going about a problem. If you read the emails instead of listening to Fox News, you'd see this plain as day.

Does your neck ever get knotted from looking down from your higher place of superiority?

The old question is why doesn't God ever heal amputees?

Maybe because he/she/it doesn't exist.

Belief in God is a form of schizophenia.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:22PM by lostinutah.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 08:22PM by steve benson.

The evolution deniers should read one of the most recent books aimed at the lay audience assembling the evidence for evolution in one place with colour photos. Haeckel and other nontroversies are discussed:

The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins

Dawkins has gone to great pains to be respectful of believers and has considerable support from mainly Anglican church leaders for the book. I don't see how anyone could claim to debate evolution without having gone through the arguments of it lead proponent. Certainly all the tired old arguments trotted out so far on this thread are addressed in detail by Dawkins.

The book does not address God or Atheism. Just evolution. Even my TBM mother read it. It is thick, but easy to read. Try it :-)

Sometimes digging into the details provided by some posters is like digging into claims by our former favorite church. There's more significance in the information omitted than what's provided.

Example:

When Ecklund and Scheitle repeated Leuba's study, "Measuring Unbelief among Scientists (2004-2007)." They found the following very significant fact:

The best predictor of their scientist's religious practice is the scientists childhood religious practice and conclude, more or less in agreement with Thalheimer, that freethinkers or doubters to some extent self-select when they become scientists. Thus, science may not lead to disbelief; rather, disbelievers or skeptics are led to science.

So, it's contrary to the available data to intimate that somehow scientific insights lead to a greater degree of atheism. Quite the reverse is true. Atheists are drawn in larger numbers to science. As a significant number of unrelated studies have shown, childhood socialization is perhaps the strongest factor in determining the religious leaning of adults.

Even so, it's still telling.

I read nothing about the study that sought to mislead or indicate otherwise. At least, nothing that said anything to the effect of science makes disbelievers and atheists out of religious folk and believers.

I’m guessing that the evidence wouls show that one’s profession Rarely ends up changing their religious believes regardless of their profession.

Everybody who studies the evidence with an open mind believes in evolution theory- so those who don't either haven't analyzed the evidence or have closed minds that have been damaged by religion.

Jesus Effing Christ. Sometimes I feel like I'm reading crap from the Dark Ages. Evolution is about as proved as it gets. WAKE UP PEOPLE and read some science instead of watching Faux News.

I'm an atheist.

Who cares what Pre-eminent US members of the National Academy of Sciences believe or don't believe in regards to God?

My lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy and Gingerbread Man don't need validation from anyone either.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 12:33AM by steve benson.

It's unscientific to believe in something that doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't believe pink unicorns ever existed, but I'm open to the possibility, and I will believe it when I see it. Many scientific-minded people fail on at least one of those counts.

... even though there has never been any observable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, empirical evidence for the actual physical existence of pink unicorns.

It sounds like you fail on the big count of basic critical thinking.

What do you think of the possibility that Maytag washing machines from the year 1925 may be orbiting Venus?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2018 06:14AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What do you think of the possibility that Maytag
> washing machines from the year 1925 may be
> orbiting Venus?

There's a Telsa orbiting the earth.

You never know . . . . :)

Of course, mainstream prominent scientists reject the God of the Bible because it is utterly ridiculous to consider otherwise. Funding for projects would dry up very quickly to express any belief in a higher power. However, they have not all abandoned the idea of an intelligence in the cosmos. Some sort of mathematician, physicist, chemist, geologist, and biologist -- all rolled into one! An intelligence that obeys the laws of the universe. With such known laws that can all fit onto a single piece of paper! watch this video here:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742567/PROOF-of-God-real-Michio-Kaku

I am with the latter camp. I marvel at the periodic table of the elements, earth's magnetosphere, the petroleum system paradigm, and the evolution of spiders amongst other things. Many scientists make this reconciliation without going public about it. What's the big deal? It's not the God of the Bible, right?

https://www.futurity.org/spiders-hawaii-evolution-1699362-2/

76% of US medical doctors in the US believe in some sort of God!

I believe 'miracles' happen to 'people not theories' and that accounts for why so many doctors believe in a God.

Unfortunately, 'scientists' that work with 'theories' do not believe. Obviously, 'theories' don't have many 'miracles' occur!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8318894/ns/health-health_care/t/survey-most-doctors-believe-god-afterlife/#.WqLsPK2Wziw

Of those medical doctors that believe is some sort of god, I would bet that nearly all of them accept the Theory of Evolution as the best explanation of the present distribution of life on earth.

I'd bet really good money that they "believe" in Germ Theory.

I'll bet my last dollar that they also accept the Theory of Gravity.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2018 12:27AM by steve benson.

I believe it is very possible to believe in both 'evolution' and God.

I do!

But then there is how evolution actually worked ----- I believe it worked like scientists may say 'natural selection', etc.. However, based on my 'after life experiences' who mates with who or what is 'planned'. Spirits chose there and the 'bodies, etc.' are provided by the 'divine' on earth. It certainly is not random!!!!

This is similar to a scientist crossbreeding plants to get an 'improved' variety.

You say it was all science I say the mating, if significant, was also planned. I even believe the 'significant things' that 'science. inventors, creators, musicians, artists, etc.' do are all 'planned' before they came here. Even though the 'humans' may not be 'consciously aware' of the 'help' they get if they need it.

Some of the above creative people do admit they got the idea out of the 'blue, etc.' but probably few. The 'help' is very subtle. You all should know as you have all been helped. But few realized it or the extent of help (some good and bad).

Obviously, these are 'beliefs' but based on what I have 'experienced' concerning the 'between lives' and what goes on there. You can have some 'recreation' but most of even that is geared to learning.

In science, a theory is an assemblage of known facts that are used to test,validate or disprove a given hypothesis.

You—as with most scientifically uninformed members of the general public-are confusing the word “theory” with the word “guess.”

If you want to be taken seriously in scientific discussions, you first need to get the terminology right. This is a basic mistake on your part, which indicates that you really are not very familiar with the scientific method of testing and the words used within scientific circles to describe that testing.

F

Try for at least a D next time.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2018 12:49AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> If you want to be taken seriously in scientific
> discussions, you first need to get the terminology
> right.

And, brush up on use of quotation marks!

Thank you.

I do not know what is experienced vs. ‘experienced’, for example. It reads, spiritist, that your experience is indirect, and fraudulent.

You along with Steve would be 'wrong'.

But that sort of goes without really having to say!

You have a 'valid spiritual experience' then we can talk!

Actually, science is really missing out. It would really help if they understood some of their 'theories' from both the spiritual/in-between life and provable science side.

I believe if 'scientists' at least had a better 'theory' of what happens on the 'between life side' they would be better able to move forward faster on the science and provable side of the equation.

Like I have expressed before, I have had 'help/experiences' (family, investments, protection, testing, job, etc.) from the other side throughout my life. Dropping Mormonism and studying 'spiritual/supernatural/intuition, remote viewing, etc.' directly increased my experiences and assistance significantly (multiple of times) from what I was getting as a Mormon.

However just reading/studying doesn't cut it in this 'non-spectator' area to get real results.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2018 03:10PM by spiritist.

What science classes have you taken, “spiritist,” where you have learned about the nature and purpose of scientific theories, how they work, and how they are applied? List those classes by name.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2018 05:35PM by steve benson.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 76% of US medical doctors in the US believe in
> some sort of God!
>
Doctors like PROPHET NELSON?

Bwahaha...

God can’t be proven (or disproven), it’s a matter of having faith (or not). Are there rational people who think otherwise? I guess I don’t understand the need to insist that everyone agree with you on something that humans have been arguing over for thousands of years. Are there Christian “believers” who are antagonizing you in some way? I don’t think you’re going to get a consensus on disbelief in God! Seems to be an exhausting way to live.

Dog Is my Copilot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God can’t be proven (or disproven), it’s a
> matter of having faith (or not).

Well, some kind of non-specific, general, undefined "god" maybe. But that's not the case with the tens of thousands of specific claimed "god" things.

For example, Zeus was claimed to live on the top of Mt. Olympus. Lots of humans have been to the top of Mt. Olympus -- there's no sign any Zeus ever lived there. That's strong evidence that Zeus, as claimed, does not exist.

The situation is similar with many thousands of other claimed god-things: evidence showing claims about those god-things false is evidence they don't exist. Such as OT Yahweh being claimed to have led the Hebrews out of slavery in Egypt...the Hebrews never were slaves in Egypt, and the whole story has been shown to be false. Now apologists will just retreat to, "Oh, that story was never meant to be literal, it's just figurative..." But that's simply an excuse to maintain belief in the face of contradictory evidence. The simple fact is that claims about OT Yahweh show it does not exist as claimed, since so many of the claims about it have been shown to be false.

So, sure, you can still back into "faith" in SOME kind of god-thing, somewhere, unspecified, unknown, and leaving no evidence of itself, and not leaving any evidence of any intervention in the universe or the lives of human beings of any kind, and say that can't be "disproven." But since there's no evidence there IS any such thing, why believe it? And since, if it does exist, it doesn't leave any evidence of actually DOING anything, ever, why believe in it -- or call it "god?"

The only things that demand "faith" are things that people can't show are real. Making "faith" no virtue of any kind, but simply an excuse to engage in wishful thinking and pretend it's reality. If that floats yer boat, enjoy. It sinks my boat.

“There are those who scoff at the school boy, calling him frivolous and shallow. Yet it was the school boy who said, ‘Faith is believing what you know ain't so.’”

(Mark Twain, “Following the Equator, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar”)