Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your error here is in thinking "religious" is the same thing as "believe in gods or higher powers". Many people do the latter but not the former. So you end up simply misrepresenting the data.
Religious - rather than merely nebulous ill defined believes in a "something" - tend to be build around a god specifically. The data you present does not in any way show that scientists are religious. But they do show that 33% of them specifically believe in a god - compared to 83% of the general public.
So the answer to "Where did you get that idea?" is from the same link you did! I just know how to read that link correctly without distorting it or lying about it like you do.
Correct. And 93% of members in the National Academy of Sciences (the "cream of the crop" if you will, taking nothing away from those who have not been so honored)... do not believe in a personal God. The kind you pray to and worship, as opposed to that nebulous sense there might be a "higher power," as referenced by monumentus.
Regardless of the numbers, scientists are people too... raised by their parents to believe whatever they in turn were raised to believe. I haven't gone in search of data, but we have no reason to think people who grow up to become scientists were raised any differently than their family members or neighbors, with respect to religion. Some remain there, for the same reasons as their non-scientist neighbors. But the majority apparently think their way out of that upbringing, supported no doubt by a worldview that relies on evidence and rational thought.
Your error here is in thinking "religious" is the same thing as "believe in gods or higher powers". Many people do the latter but not the former. So you end up simply misrepresenting the data.
Religious - rather than merely nebulous ill defined believes in a "something" - tend to be build around a god specifically. The data you present does not in any way show that scientists are religious. But they do show that 33% of them specifically believe in a god - compared to 83% of the general public.
So the answer to "Where did you get that idea?" is from the same link you did! I just know how to read that link correctly without distorting it or lying about it like you do.
The word "religious" is used in various ways. To me, a person who believes in a higher power is religious, since they feel they are part of something greater.
Others define "religion" as belonging to one of the traditional organized religions, usually one of the Western religions.
My point was just that about half of scientists believe in some kind of supernatural power, so they are not atheists.
If you are holding a reasonable belief based on observation, more power to you. We don't have to deny everything, it's just not rational. But we also do not have to push a dude died, woke up, and flew away because of an "if your not with me, you're against me type thinking.
last example. compare an anti-religious socialist and a fascist theist. how would these types of personality disorders confront people that don't think like them?
what type of person would side with these two? Do you want to side with either of these two?
The logic is undeniable. Its why people in both camps kill people, the logic is so undeniable that the only way they contain it is to kill it.
My goal is always to find the common ground, and to avoid extreme absolutist thinking. That is why I disagree with atheists.
The word "religious" is used in various ways. To me, a person who believes in a higher power is religious, since they feel they are part of something greater.
Others define "religion" as belonging to one of the traditional organized religions, usually one of the Western religions.
My point was just that about half of scientists believe in some kind of supernatural power, so they are not atheists.
But that is not the point. You have to explain what the point is. It is undoubtedly that 'half the scientists believe in a Higher Power' so, we should assume that they know what they are talking about and be receptive the the idea of a 'Higher power'. The view of the just about half who don't presumably count for nothing.
If that isn't the point, what is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
My goal is always to find the common ground, and to avoid extreme absolutist thinking. That is why I disagree with atheists.
If you persist in seeing atheism as based on 'absolutist thinking' you are never going to get it right, The 'common ground' ploy is a neat trick by theists to get what has no real evidence given equal weight to that having no decent evidence and claiming that this is being a reasonable compromise.
In fact, there is no compromise between whether a thing exists or whether it doesn't other than 'we don't know'. And the logic of 'Don't know' id 'don't believe until you do'. Which is the 'absolutist thinking' that you refer to. It is dictated by the rules of logic.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-03-2018 at 02:09 PM..
My goal is always to find the common ground, and to avoid extreme absolutist thinking. That is why I disagree with atheists.
Wanting evidence before believing in something is "extreme absolutist thinking". It makes more sense to just believe in things with no evidence, because someone said so?
Wanting evidence before believing in something is "extreme absolutist thinking". It makes more sense to just believe in things with no evidence, because someone said so?
This is the way it works.
Godfaith must be taken as true without good evidence until it is proven 100% false. Which can never happen because, see below.
Anything that conflicts with this belief is to be dismissed as fallible human opinion, no matter how sound the evidence.
Godfaith must be taken as true without good evidence until it is proven 100% false. Which can never happen because, see below.
Anything that conflicts with this belief is to be dismissed as fallible human opinion, no matter how sound the evidence.
That's the way it works.
Super-physical realities do not exist to you, because you don't experience them, because your mind doesn't work that way.
Why can't you just say that atheism is your personal truth? Why try to make it something universally true, just because it's your personal experience?
People experience the super-physical all the time. Just not you, and maybe not most atheists. There is no reason at all to try to impose your personal belief on anyone else. And no reason at all to express contempt for everyone whose experiences are different from yours.
Super-physical realities do not exist to you, because you don't experience them, because your mind doesn't work that way.
Why can't you just say that atheism is your personal truth? Why try to make it something universally true, just because it's your personal experience?.
Some things are universally true. It is universally true that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. Why should an atheist have to walk around clarifying their lack of belief in god as personal experience? This is nit a standard we hold theists to. Why the additional restriction? Is it because you don’t like our viewpoint?
Quote:
People experience the super-physical all the time. Just not you, and maybe not most atheists. There is no reason at all to try to impose your personal belief on anyone else. And no reason at all to express contempt for everyone whose experiences are different from yours.
How is Transponder imposing his personal belief on anybody else? How is any atheist?
Contempt I will concede. This does happen, but it is a universal human emotion, not only limited to the realm of religious belief. People feel contempt for criminals, for people who eat meat, for people who earn their living in certain ways, for people who choose to live in cities vs rural areas, or vice versa. Why should your belief, of all beliefs possible in the realm of human experience, be protected from Transponder’s opinion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
