Majority scientists don't believe in God?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Saint, Dec 22, 2014.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    With due respct for your sincerity, your examples do nothing to prove there is a god. Let me try to answer some of your statements.
    On the contrary, an atheist takes responsibility for every action he/she takes. OTOH, taking action because God commands it is pawning off that responsibility to a higher authority.
    This is only partly true, and therefore misleading.
    a) LOVE is attraction or more precise "affinity", which is a causal function. We have many examples of what causes LOVE.
    b) You are correct in saying that the universe does not need a cause for our physical existence. It functions implaccably without regard to emotion. E =Mc^2 is a function of the universe, regardless if it is used for good or evil.
    Yes it can, feelings or emotions are a result of observation of people and events. This is a function of the "mirror neural network" which allows us to emotionally (and even physically) experience the observed feelings and emotions in others. Have you ever cringed, when observing someone hurt themselves? This is a function of the mirror neural network which stores memories of our own experiences of pain.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
    Sorry, your interpretation is not scientifically objective.
    Meaning what?
    Procreation and survival of the species and I mean ALL species.
    This happens all the time in the name of God. ISIL?
    Of course not, because they are meaningless. In fact he is plain wrong in saying "There is a single event and you are not rightly involved in it "
    The universe is a single event and we are inextricably connected to it. As you stated yourself, we are not isolated from each other or from the universe.
    Meaning what?

    As an atheist I have very deep feelings about my relationship to the universe and everything in it. I just do not need a god to justify my feelings.
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2014
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    "science", one of 2 of the most respected journals of the field.
    because of this journal, i'm starting to wonder if i stumbled across one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on humanity.

    but, you just keep on believing.

    i would give almost ANYTHING to find out who arrowsmith is.
    no, i'm not talking about the group.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    what i posted has fuck all to do with god or religion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Your own words, my friend.
    And in post #62, when you cite a source which you believe supports your cause, it is standard practice to provide a link to that article so that people know what the fuck you are talking about.
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i no longer have access to the issue, but i do have some quotes from it saved to my HDD.
    i also have the volume and issue numbers if you wish to purchase said issue from JSTOR.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    to the OP,
    i believe that, in general, scientists are far less likely to "believe in god" than the general public.
    scientists are looking for answers and they know they will not find them relying on "magic".
    the issue i raised for example, scientists are hard at work trying to explain this, while others jump off the wagon screaming "see! SEE! i told you so ! !".

    answers, we will never get them pointing fingers at each other.
     
  10. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,985
    Science reveals facts in spite of finger pontin an those who deny facts... ie... the stoopid/ignorant/craazy an/or believers in superstition/magic.!!!
     
    Write4U likes this.
  11. madethesame Banned Banned

    Messages:
    411
    I never said sky god or some different entity. Your relationships are God.
    But thing is don't project your seprateness from universe.
    read this : http://khurmi.com/osho.htm
    http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Artic...nciple/Osho-The-First-Principle-00000006.html
     
  12. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I didn't expect links to the teachings of Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, but his views are as valid as any other. His teachings based on physics once struck a chord with me. I'm into diversity, especially in thinking, and different ways of thinking is one of our divine purposes and duty. That is also one possible meaning of "in his / her image". The Jefferson bible (the bible stripped of miracles and apostles) had only 50 pages. Mine is about a paragraph. There are only two commandments. But that "image" statement is included because it rings true that the way life itself works is commemorated in the way our minds work (when they are working properly, that is). A world in which everyone thinks, acts, and worships alike, like leopold mentioned, would be no different if it were composed of mindless robots.

    There is most fundamentally only energy and time, Rajneesh. Don't make things more complicated than they are.

    Prospero año nuevo.
     
  13. theorist-constant12345 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,660
    When I say like a science book, I do not mean in the nature of experimental testing etc, but in the nature that the bible is a book, that is based on the thinking of creation, like science thinks about creation also, except the bible is based on invisible belief ignoring the science, because science can not account for the unobserved Universe and is based on a visual Universe with the huge limitation of observational distance and the inability to travel to a star that expanded out of our perspective view, to see beyond our limits into the unobservable Universe, that would be clearly observable from a distance star .

    Where as the bible, is based beyond the visual Universe into the unknown and even beyond the unknown. Even if science discovered a million planets outside our observable Universe, the bible and religion still continue to have merit, because then the unobservable has become the observable, and the situation of science would still be the same, because then we all would be considering what was outside of the unobservable now observable Universe, unless we in the unobservable Universe encounter another race, who have more answers than ourselves.
     
  14. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    But which is true? Is there or not? I think both: there is and there is not
    .
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Perhaps most scientists don't believe in god , thats good

    I don't either

    But there is biological energy state

    It doesn't have to imply any god

    To me Humanity can become " god "

    If and only if we have the wisdom to learn ...........do we objectively ?
     
  16. Waiter_2001 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Perhaps because because scientists require evidence, or proof. Unfortunately perhaps there is evidence not to be found, so those searching for certainty will never find it. Perhaps faith, or a form of it, is what is needed. Perhapd only those who have faith truly NEED a higher power.
     
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Fixed...
     
  18. Enoc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    57
    You don't really need to be a scientist to realize that God very probably, does not exist.

    If there was a God then bad things wouldn't happen to good people but the fact is that good people are made to suffer for no reason.

    Death would not exist either if there was a God but the fact is that we all have to die one day.

    The absolute truth is that nothing in life really matters...Life has no meaning really.

    All the memories, all the connections made with others, all the emotions shared...those things are not going to last and one day they will all sink into oblivion...so everything in life is in some sense meaningless and hopeless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2014
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    the bible is no such thing.
    the bible is like you putting together 12 or so good passages from your library.
    some of these passages could have been written while the writer was "in the zone".
    some may be history.
    divine inspiration?
    in as much as creativity and imagination allows.

    a good question to ask is, can we get the same thing from shakespear.
     
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Life has the meaning it gives to itself, and nothing more. That is probably more than you think, but as we are only a small part of it, how would we know? If you think nature cannot possibly bump up the level of intelligence over that of the smartest human being who ever lived, you are no doubt mistaken. I don't think that would even be much of a challenge.

    At least in the case of Shakespeare, no one is telling us that his inspiration is the divine revealed word of our creator and that it is blasphemy against him to doubt for even a moment that "all's well that ends well."
     
  21. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    I have not read all the Posts to this Thread & apologize if any (all?) of my remarks are redundant.

    Belief in any supernatural phenomenon is contrary to science.

    God is surely a supernatural phenomenon: Ergo belief in a diety is incompatible with a scientific POV.

    Scientists who believe in a god or gods either engage in Double Think ala the novel "1984" or have been brain washed while very young & do not recognize the contradictions between science & religion.

    BTW: Einstein once said something similar to the following:
    I am pretty sure that if questioned, he would have explained that his use of the word god in the above context should be viewed as semantically equivalent to nature.

    Note that Einstein was a classical physicist and did not accept some of the notions of Quantum Theory.
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    What Einstein was talking about, was the trend in physics and science away from the method used in the age of reason. Science was moving toward a blind man's prophesy approach based on statistics and casino math. A throw of dice is based on odds, not logic. Physics was changing the collective view of nature from a sense of logical order; Golden Age, into one of Chaos, randomness and casino math. The God or underlying principle behind nature, was changing from an ordered God/principle to a God of disorder.

    For example, in medical studies, casino math might be applied to data and conclude that coffee is not good for you. Tomorrow the same casino math approach might now says it is good for you. The new science allows contradictions, which is irrational. There is no longer the requirement of reasons. It is now connected to blind faith in a god; ordering principle of the universe, who can change his mind. The new God or ordering principle of nature was a moron, without definitive form. This was creating the illusion of no religion, even with the same emotional dynamics, since all religions supposedly had faith in a definitive entity. One cannot name a god that is not definitive.

    Einstein was staying old school; the age of reason, where there needed to be a logical requirement for why coffee is good or bad. This in line with the even older fashion theory of divine design. The old time God formed an ordered the universe, making it the job of science to figure out the logic to this ordered scheme. Einstein did not like the dim witted god of Chaos who prefers dice and had no real plan. He is a moron god without any ordering principle even for himself; This creates the illusion of no religion.

    The problem with the dice approach to science, is the tool of statistics is a powerful tool. Even things that have a logical explanation can be modeled with statistics. With this tool doing all the mental digging for you , what is the incentive to use and exercise the brain for reasoning, if this tool allows you to coast and get a jackpot result here and there? Critical thinking skills diminish.

    The problem is the conceptual foundations of science get weaker since these are not based on reason but jackpots. The Golden age of science came to an end with science going into a silver age; the new random tool does the work. Computers and software resulted in the modern bronze age of science, where anyone can be a scientist since another layer of tools do even more. This may be good for business needs but not the need of truth. Truth assumes a tangible thing that is beyond a moron god of disorder. A moron god is about relative truth than can change on a bet or throw of dice.
     
  23. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    That is a really, really good analysis, Wellwisher. I had never thought of Einstein's comment "God does not play dice" quite that way before, but you are assuredly right.

    Learning about philosophy of science as a young man (basically other folk's opinion about science) is the reason I somehow missed that the scientific method is nothing more than a glorified version of the trial and error method. The only reason we don't all endlessly repeat the earlier mistakes of science history is induction. Even using the power of induction, there is nothing really to assure that tiny errors somehow crept into analysis from limitations of our instruments or methodology.

    This is why Karl Popper used the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection as his model of how science should work in the ideal. Notice that Popper's analysis ALSO means, in the end, that getting the right answers, even in the best science, is pretty much still a hit-or-miss proposition.

    God not only plays dice (WITH US!!!), but also could care less about what direction the outcome of all that gaming may take. That's a fact. So much for a nurturing personal deity with any interest whatsoever in what becomes of us after we have evolved sufficiently to begin modeling how others will behave (which is the real miracle of our evolution, if ever there was one).

    As I said, nice one.
     

Share This Page