haha A flood killed the dinasours?

Quote from jem:

As of now... I think that one is not in jeopardy in my lifetime. So bring on the discoveries. Finally let me note that if you do a quick check on the internet surveys find that about 33 to 40% of scientists believe in God - according to recent studies.

So being an atheist does not make you more "scientific".

If fact I would bet that within the non believers category... most intelligent people would be agnostic.
More...

Ninety five percent of our best biologists reject the Delusion - but not 100%.

OUR LATEST SURVEY FINDS THAT, AMONG THE TOP NATURAL SCIENTISTS, DISBELIEF IS GREATER THAN EVER — ALMOST TOTAL.

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).

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0_fs.html

http://ncseweb.org/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
 
well the same study is quoted in other places is quoted as saying about 40%.

one issues seems to be greater scientists vs scientists and


one of your links said this....


the percentage of "yes" answers in 1998 is strikingly lower than that in 1914. Does this mean that fewer scientists believe in God? Not necessarily. Consider how specific this question is. To answer "yes" to this question, one would have to believe that God is not only in communication with humankind, which many religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual and effective communication. What is the meaning of "intellectual" communication? "Effective" communication? Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means) would have to answer "no." Is "effective" used in the modern sense of the word meaning "something that works well", or in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning "to bring about"? Do scientists reading this question today interpret it in the same way as those in 1914?

The clause about answering prayers is also problematic.There are schools of theology that hold that God is personal in the sense of watching over and caring for humankind, but nonetheless, does not answer prayers. We do not know whether members of the general public would respond similarly or differently than scientists do to this definition of God: we do know that there is a wide variety of definitions of God.

the percentage of "yes" answers in 1998 is strikingly lower than that in 1914. Does this mean that fewer scientists believe in God? Not necessarily. Consider how specific this question is. To answer "yes" to this question, one would have to believe that God is not only in communication with humankind, which many religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual and effective communication. What is the meaning of "intellectual" communication? "Effective" communication? Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means) would have to answer "no." Is "effective" used in the modern sense of the word meaning "something that works well", or in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning "to bring about"? Do scientists reading this question today interpret it in the same way as those in 1914?

The clause about answering prayers is also problematic.There are schools of theology that hold that God is personal in the sense of watching over and caring for humankind, but nonetheless, does not answer prayers. We do not know whether members of the general public would respond similarly or differently than scientists do to this definition of God: we do know that there is a wide variety of definitions of God.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

To what lengths will the atheist go trying to convince people that there is no God? Puddle logic? And yet you'll laugh at the true believer with their image of Jesus on a piece of toast. What tragic irony. You deserve each other.
More...
I know. Infuriating isn't it?

First one gets nonsensical superstitious ideas put in one's head about an imaginary magical sky God creator.
Then all it takes is one of destroyers grey bunny rabbits or an ordinary dumb puddle to come along, and the invisible Father in the Firmament gets rendered superfluous.

What a bummer.
 
Quote from jem:

I pointed out that being an atheist does not make you more "scientific".

But I am not sure what you are saying..

Just to understand how your "scientific" (those are your words) brain works. Are you representing that because more scientists are non believers that makes you more scientific?

Note -- I am not sure if you ever competed at anything meaningful, but when you do you are likely to experience emotions. The key to performing well in those situations is not to act like you are some sort of zen master with zero emotions.

The key is to accept the fact you have emotions and still be able to execute your routines which allow you to make your shot or execute your trade.

emotions are not just for women we all have them we just have to be able to think and execute through them.
More...

You need to get a sense of humour, Mr. Creationist. I am human, obviously I have emotion, and am not some sort of "zen master". My point was that neither you, nor this discussion, are important enough to bring out my emotional side.
 
Quote from Kassz007:

You need to get a sense of humour, Mr. Creationist. I am human, obviously I have emotion, and am not some sort of "zen master". My point was that neither you, nor this discussion, are important enough to bring out my emotional side.
More...


Note: I am not a 5000 year old earth Creationist. I have no idea why the evangelicals think a catholic monk could count generations and guess how old the earth was. especially when they know generations are not all accounted for.

However, I do believe in the God of the bible and that you can know who he is is by seeing that he fulfills his promises to the Isrealites and that he had a plan even for your salvation.

I am not so sure about Stu...
just kidding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top