Majority scientists don't believe in God?

their is more than this natural selection called feelings .
here in India we have concept of Maya ( illusion).
in this concept the ancient India physicsts have questioned our very existence and perception.
they have questioned the presence of matter, but they never questioned the consciousness.
The consciousness is true thing we have or else we are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

deleted for duplication

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because it's in the title of this thread, and the question asked in the first post. No other reason in particular.

Lots of vetted scientific ideas were once popular and then, for whatever reason, were dropped, even ones widely popularized in scientific journals.

Blessings to all of us in this festive season, whatever and wherever you find comfort in your faith (or somewhere else).

It doesn't really matter where you worship (or go) to gain a sense of community and morality. These are individual decisions, and they have a place in all of our lives, whether we admit to it or not.

 

If anything, that should make him more qualified to comment. He actually tried to practice what he preached, just like Buddha, who wanted to overcome "suffering" by mental enlightenment.. But Buddha also gave up asceticism (self-torture) in favor of a more "balanced view" of the universe and how it seems to work. Suffering is an unavoidable human condition.
As Kahlil Gibran wrote: "We weep for that which was once our delight".

Moreover, Buddha did not see himself as divinely inspired and acted only as a teacher of certain fundamental truths, but left the method of finding one's own "balance" up to the practitioner.

Buddha has my deepest respect because he spoke from personal experience, and not from divine authority.

 

If you are completely objective with oneself, the question is not if there is a God, the question is to what the reality of a ''God'' is.

There is no reason for or against in reality that says that ''God '' exists has an eternal being, with powers to create matter and existence of biological life.

There is a reality to real life, that could define ''God'', as a process by science.

Cloning, is playing ''God''.

Particle accelerators , particle collisions, all a process of playing ''God'' in the aim of discovery.

In reality with limited visual observation range, there is nothing to say that no different than trying to be a creator and trying to create a new existing particle,
that the entire visual Universe, including ourselves, is inside a Nuclear reactor. Size and distance being relative to the observers.

How could we ever perceive any different by our reality, when a giant compared to us is large, but from another observer looking through a microscope at the giant and us, we are really small.

How far could the Chinese dolls. inside dolls , possibly extend.

The whole concept of God, is perception based, and not really a reality.

If I could travel back in time, with modern technology , to an age of dinosaurs, I would be deemed your god, because without understanding the context to reality, this is what is perceived.

 

)

I get and agree with the gist of what you are saying. One minor correction, during the time of the dinosaurs, humans had not yet evolved, so more that likely you would have become a tasty tidbit for a Rex...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with you.
God is not a personality. God is you. God is your perception. I am not talking about "Sky God'.
The 'Super Consciousness' is God. Aside from the evolutionary purposes, people have feelings, people laugh, people cry isn't it enough to call it as God.
Your love for your parents is God.

 

I disagree, you love your parents because you are bound by blood and DNA, and if they were good parents, you would love them for the care they gave you.
What you call God is an implaccable function of the universe and far removed from the common conception and definition of God (the creator).

If you want to substitute the word God with a more accurate term, I can suggest the word Universal Potential. Which is the single common denominator of all things and events, including the beginning of the universe itself.

 

I watch to many movies, I never considered that Humanity did not exist when the Dinosaurs existed. On that note, it sort of proves the bible wrong,
should it not be wrote , then there was light, then there was dinosaurs and Humanity was added later?

 

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful reply. Blessings to you and yours.

 

Or we could just call it nature

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Who gives a toss what they believe in.

Most science people believed al gore rubbish, and it never existed period, that rubbish.

So there judgement is useless.

Everyone is an expert in this world, shame all of them know nout about anything.

Why should anyone care what any person calling themselves a scientist thinks or believes in? Just because they have some letters after there name, why should there opinion matter, any more than some tramp on the street in this issue.

 

i'm sorry, i'm just so used to die hard atheists trolling threads like this.
some of them can be quite disgusting.
we once had a poster by the name of syne and he eventually became mod of the religion forum.
the atheists here ridiculed him so bad that he was dropped as a mod and i haven't seen him since.

like i said in one of my posts, accumulating small changes is a crock of shit, the fossil record doesn't support it.

 

I worked wit a guy from Jordan... he was raised wit Muslim beliefs but he was doin poorly in his religious studies at school... his teechers told his parents that if he did not improve he woud have to repeat those religious studies... the guy was terrified at that thout... so then he studied very hard to bring up his grades so he woudnt have to repeat the class for anuther year... his grades then improved to superior... an his teechers then told his parents that he has a true gift an shoud take extra classes an become a religious teecher... when the guy found out he was scared sht-less an begged his father to make it posible for him to come to America to escape what his teechers wanted for him.

The rest is history... he came to America an became a college professor of microeconomics.!!!

He told me that durin all those religion-study-fears that he realy realy tried to believe in "God" but it just never hapened for him.!!!

So George realy tried to believe in God... my Jordan frind realy tried to believe in God... an i didnt try at all to believe that "God" is real.!!!

We are all 3 atheists... but a diference is... i was "lucky" enuff to skip the sillyness of bein taught that i needed to realy realy try to believe nonsinse

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i can love my enemy, i can love my death.
You are making of yourself as a machine if you think you are not responsible. You don't want to be responsible for yourself thats why you want to become bot.
These things aside i siad LOVE not attraction. First must know what love is and attraction is. Love does not need a cause it happens, like this universe which does not need cause for our physical existence.
This DNA thing has effect but I have feelings too. And most important what DNA has to do with witnessing each other ? we in human body perceive each other, we observe. I have experienced.
Can "science define feelings ?
My science can.
In ancient Vedas it is written that ' may be God even doesn't who has made him so our search to find a different entity is useless unless we stop and go deep in ourselves'.
Why a person is born ? What is the purpose of birth ?
Wouldn't it be better, people without feelings who can sustain an endless chain of evolution or simply can kill each other when needed to sustain evolution.
There are lots of examples of such people but their were people like Adi Da who were not concerned with just matters of earth.
You too know your, mine and everyone's DNA is made of matter ~ energy, we are not isolated from each other.
"There is a single event and you are not rightly involved in it " ~ Adi Da
The above lines are of so much importance. The person who said these lines was a mystic. These lines cannot be refuted by any physicist.
The rightly not involved is not our flesh but our consciousness as you too know matter ~ enery won't change.
Their are things besides matter that is consciousness, feelings.

 

I know of at least 1 atheist who didnt try an run Syne off... ME... i thank he woud have been one of best moderators Sciforuns has had.!!!

Im not sure that he was "dropped as a mod"... i thank he may have just seen the position as pontless under the circumstances... but he has been back an posted sinse then.!!!

 

Well no, it most certainly does. I'm neither a Richard Dawkins fan, atheist, nor agnostic. I have a strong belief in the forensic scientific evidence provided by fossil record, the theory of evolution as revealed by genetics, the science started by Gregor Mendel and culminating in the decoding of a large portion of the DNA genomic record of life on this planet including ourselves in the first decade of the 21st century by Craig Venter and others (which makes Darwin's generalities irrelevant and unnecessary even to mention, much less debate), and also in a creator whose first commandment was not to make idols of any of these things. I have zero faith in the sanctity of the scripture that was part of my former faith, the assertion that it is in any manner the holy, unerring or inspired word of a deity or deities, the book of Genesis or idea that the Earth is only a few thousand years old when science has proven it isn't true in at least a dozen (and perhaps more) ways. I know where these writings came from. It wasn't a God. In many instances, it did not even derive of a monotheistic religious culture. The Greek polytheistic influence is evident even in the Torah. The New Testament was not really much an improvement over its predecessor. The various councils of Nicea were not very nice. Those are the real 'fossils' of the faith you seem invested in. I understand what they changed and also why. Isaac Newton refused to do the calculation for the beginning of time for the New Testament that Ussher eventually produced. A more flawed calculation is hard to imagine. And because of this, you doubt the fossil record? What is YOUR justification for such ignorance?

I believe in immunizations to prevent disease and loathe those inclined to use ignorance, quackery and/or prayer to avoid medical intervention for themselves or others in life threatening medical conditions which are easily remedied if treated in time.

I do not idolize science. I understand that science is only a glorified system trial and error, but it is much better than sheer guesswork or superstition, particular when there is supporting math. Knowledge replaces fear, and it is science that assures us that planets will not fall out of the sky, that tomorrow the sun will rise, and that our survival ultimately depends upon understanding as much as we can about everything.

There is a spirit in this place and we are all part of it, but only a small part. I try not to be judgmental about what its purpose is, either for life itself or for me. It would do me no good even if I did. I am skeptical of religious ideas like a savior posthumously saving the souls of Adam and Eve. In some religions, this is an article of faith. And I try to keep an open mind about where science will find the next clue to questions about what is it all for? That was the last question my late older sister ever asked me about a week before suffering a fatal heart attack in early 2002. I had no answer for her then, and I still don't. I doubt there really is one that any of us would understand.

 

As a book of science, the bible is useless. But IMO, it was not designed that way. It speaks in metaphors without regard to time frames and factual observations.. Always remember it was written by non-scientists to whom any unexplaned phenomenon was the work of God.

One example is the old notion that illness was due to demon possession, which had to be exorcised with ritual and prayer. Today we know better and can actually treat illnesses through scientific medical procedures.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ Leopold,

I shall never get used to theists trolling a "science" forum. The reason that many atheists frequent science fora is because they are interested in how the universe actually works, rather than defend an antiquated world view. Atheism has not changed one iota, it is Theism that has been forced to modify its claims over and over again as our knowledge accumulates.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

I have yet to meet a theist who can logically explain the properties of a God. That is because the word God is an abstraction of that which we cannot prove or for that matter, disprove. But in science, unsupported claims cannot be considered as facctual and therefore useless in the practice of "critical thinking". And just in case you do not understand the term, I'll link you to an explanation of what the term "critical thinking" means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

OTOH, below is the definition of Faith.

Perhaps in that respect belief in a God is comforting, but that does not make it true.

Leopold, ask yourself honestly, today, with all the information we get from all over the world; is ISIL waging an atheist war or a religious war against all who believe differently, including yoursef? Is this a cause for assuming that belief in a God is good thing, or results in the slaughter of thousands of innocents.

This may sound harsh, but before you judge atheists, religious people need to clean up their own back yard, IMO.

I have found that many atheists know more about scripture than theists do. Moreover, most theists I know refuse to look at hard scientific evidence which disproves the necessity of a "motivated sentient creator".

 

I also think that theists today probably take the Bible much more literally that the people did closer to the period in which it was written.

The Bible is written in a similar way to which many other books were written at that time. People were used to myth, allegory and as the post above points out they weren't looking at it as "science" as "God did it" was their explanation for anything that they didn't understand anyway.

It's remarkable that now that we do have many more answers that there are those who would simply refuse to face the facts and remain ignorant and it is supremely ignorant to "believe" in a young earth.