Suppose the athesit, he comes to the assistance or aid of someone who has a flat tire, and they say to him "You're the answer to my prayers". He says "no I'm not the answer to your prayers" fucks things up, (car falls off jack, strips lug nuts) makes matters worse and the religious person loses faith in prayer. This looks like a win for the athiest, he's incompetent and excused because the religious person has prayed and FC knows prayer doesn't work. ------------- Oth, if the atheist is succesful in performing the task, he re enforces prayer for the holy. ----------------It's a complicated life
Very good point. The thing is futureCUNTS does want to go down the Stalin route. He honestly believes we should all think and act alike in lock step.
But nearly every top scientist is an atheist. How do you reconcile this with what you proclaim? You can't because what you're trying to say is wrong. Give it up. The straw you are grasping at is an illusion.
"Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife." "Leading Scientists Still Reject God" A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God. Is it more logical to be a Christian? Is religion the natural choice of a smart person familiar with more of the evidence? Not according to a broad consensus of studies on IQ and religiosity. These studies have consistently found that the lower the IQ score, the more likely a person is to be religious. To place these studies in perspective, it is helpful to know the general religious attitudes of Americans today. According to a February 1995 Gallup poll, 96 percent of all Americans believe in God, and 88 percent affirm the importance of religion. However, the degree of religiosity within this group varies considerably. Only 35 percent can be classified as "religious," using a definition that requires them to consider religion important and attend religious services at least once a week. And a March 1994 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of all Americans belong to that politically active group known as "Christian conservatives." The following is a review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, paraphrased and summarized from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986: (1) Conclusion The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time, subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion. http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm
all these quotes about scientists and religion come from a study in the 90s in which only half of the scientists responded to a questionaire... and that during the time they were responding - the academy sent out a letter which essentially told them scientists should not believe in God. we already discussed this on et. I could produce a list of great scientists who are believers but this whole concept is silly. (an appeal to authority fallacy) We want to know about the science not the scientist. Every scientist already knows science does not extend all the way back to the big bang (science starts a split second after the big bang, when the laws of the universe started kicking in)... so science at best is agnostic to a creator.
Bullshit. The vast majority of relevant scientists are atheists. Period. They do not believe that God as conventionally defined, exists, created the world, fine tuned, made man or told Noah to build an Ark. I don't care if you "discussed" this already. But yes, probably most of them will admit, as will I, that there is some tiny probability for a God. But they say that only to stay true to the essence of science. They will say that on most things no matter how improbable something is, it does not make it impossible. So if you want to define agnosticism as the .001% probability that scientists hold for God, then yes, you're right technically, but not practically.
Utter bullshit. Unsupported undefined supernatural make-believe creator doesn't even fall into the realm of science. That's what religion's for. That's where you can get all illogically agnostic about it.
Extremely dangerous- government will determine proper beliefs, antithetical to liberty While I do think science texts and classes should contain ONLY science and not creationism, I find it incredibly stupid that the very same people will then turn around and fanatically promote multiculturalism. It just shows that the left's politics is just another religion and as such should also be banned.
The problem with Science is that it constantly proves itself wrong with every new discovery. Who is to determine that todayâs Science is the correct Science? You also may have an conflict between Science and Humanitarianism. Science claims that the strongest will survive, resources are scarce. How is it to be decided who gets the best resources.
look at the emotions flying out of the et atheist trolls when the truth about science is declared. They can't even think straight and start creating straw men instead of addressing the truth. I stated science, at best, is agnostic as to a creator. (Most will tell you science actually shows our universe appears very fine tuned.) When you can show me science stating there is no creator.. you can come back and correct my statement.