how does a so called educated man in 2012 still fear the concept of eternal torment in a lake of fire? surely we have progressed beyond the point where imaginary scare tactics work?
I don't mind stu actually. His arguments are generally well executed and logical. They are biased, but so are mine.
Proof that scientists are stupid and EVIL............or just stupid. Originally appeared in Nature, Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 "The question of religious belief among US scientists has been debated since early in the century. Our latest survey finds that, among the top natural scientists, disbelief is greater than ever â almost total. In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature[3]. 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 â a mere 7% of respondents. Leuba attributed the higher level of disbelief and doubt among "greater" scientists to their "superior knowledge, understanding, and experience" [3]. 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."[4] 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 here: Comparison of survey answers among "greater" scientists Belief in personal God 1914 1933 1998 Personal belief 27.7 15.0 7.0 Personal disbelief 52.7 68.0 72.2 Doubt or agnosticism 20.9 17.0 20.8 -- Belief in human immortality 1914 1933 1998 Personal belief 35.2 18.0 7.9 Personal disbelief 25.4 53.0 76.7 Doubt or agnosticism 43.7 29.0 23.3 Figures are percentages. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism
the word"need"is key here. the interesting thing is that as people become more educated there is less need. as science answers more and more of the "god did it" questions there is less "need" to fear the unknown.
Doesn't it seem odd that the "evidence for the existence of god" is completely hidden from the greatest human minds who spend their professional lives exploring how the universe functions, yet it is perfectly clear to uneducated simpletons who have access to internet-linked terminals? i wonder if it bothers the religious that atheists have brilliant physicists, biologists, mathematicians arguing for the atheist side, while they have, really, no one of credible intelligence.
Your point is kinda moot since those beliefs are a strawman argument you have attributed to me. I can assure you it's not my beliefs that are wildly misplaced with respect to reality, so guess who's are? (as evidenced by your post)
The use of the word "need" was intentional. The need is real, the debate lies in why they have such a need. Atheists will argue that they are just too ignorant to know better. Theists argue that each person was created with an inborn desire to find their creator.
It doesn't bother me at all. It's to be expected (publicly at least) from that group think bias in academia which leads to such career success.
That is a completely biased and false statement. Not only that but it is self-fulfilling. As soon as a "brilliant" scientist claims to be a believer, he automatically becomes someone of "no credible intelligence". Very poor argument, and it discredits you.
shouldnt the desire be to understand how the world works rather than some need based on the writings of primitive men? Beliefs should be a search for truth and understanding, not denying reality so you can have faith in a compendium of books written by unknown authors over hundreds and hundreds of years complied much later by other fallible men, as 100% literally correct. That is a faith that is truly blind