God: Benevolent or Malevolent?

Nature, 1998

 

^ A 14 year old article that only surveyed 517 of 2100 members of 1 group of scientists?

72.2% of 517 is 373. So 373 of 2100 (18%) "disbelieve"
20.8% of 517 is 108. So 108 of 2100 (5%) are "agnostic"

Hardly a worthwile citation.

Surveys such as these are worthless anyway. If you surveyed a group of theologians, you would get a similar answer about science.

 

:rofl:

Is a basic understanding of statistical analysis and surveys also outside the realm of god-followers ? This "one group" is the brain trust of the United States. Imagine what would happen to this country if the religious parasites had their way and burned this group at the stake, as they are wont to do.

 

It is apparently outside the realm of you. How do you think that surveying a group of 517 scientists 14 years ago is tantamount to anything? You make what you think is a fact based statememt, but it really is a general assumption, and this is what you back it up with?

Some of the greatest minds in the field of science are religious. Even if they arent, what does that matter?

And why must you always be so quick to insult? Oh thats right, because somebody doesn't agree with you. So you automatically label them ignorant, stupid, uninformed etc...

What a pitiful existence, 5,689 posts and so much contempt for others.

 

In many other places and settings it's definitely a respectful question.

Have you been in a situation it's hard to have a pleasant chat because at every turn there is a pointed question? Also known as an interrogation. That question was posed by SageBrush, and like every post at me is in the troll mode.

 

There are a lot of totally needless insults and you have shown the discipline to avoid as much of that approach as possible. It's also true that your starting point was very valid. Specifically, belittling all believers and "religion" as dumb is just flat destructive. But to be fair, every now and comment is brought up that makes me curious about what the poster's actual point is.

It this case I'm entirely motivated to ask just by your post, nobody else's. It was definitely not piling on and starting a whole new thread probably would be worse. It was also honest. Having sent kids through both public and private schools, I have yet to see how any "dual" teachings can work, without the school dividing into two opposing factions. But that's because I have not heard all possible resolutions, of which you may have one.

 

So you have a more recent study which contradicts it? If not, yes it is 'tantamount' to everything. It is the sole piece of evidence on the table. There are of course more. Why are Most Scientists Atheists If There is Evidence for Belief in God? Here is one from a religious website (with lots of rationalizations) A simple Google search will find many more. How many do we need to find before you will concede the point?

Yup. Studies and journal articles. Pathetic huh?

The original point was that if all knowledge comes from god, why does he seem to give it disproportionately to atheists, rather than his chosen people?

More intriguing to my mind is that he seems to give radical new knowledge of Physics only to those who have spent years studying Physics. Not, say, molecular biology.

 

I love sci-fy, this isn't my favorite type, where's the line asking for money?

 

It is a perfectly valid question to ask: If you are going to teach religious creation stories in science class, who gets to choose which religions get represented? In a science class you teach the evidence and you discuss the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence. In a comparative religions class you give equal time to teaching the beliefs of all religions, but you teach them as beliefs, without discussing which, if any, is "true."

An extremely important Constitutional issue with teaching creationism in public school is the use of public funds to promote one specific religion over all others. Directed prayer in classrooms creates the same problem. Any child that wants to can pray, silently, at any time and any place. But a teacher, being a public employee, cannot use classroom time to direct prayer, which would necessarily favor one religion or group of religions over all others, and similarly cannot teach one religious dogma over all others.

So to anyone who wants to bring creation myths into science classes, if you refuse to answer who gets to choose which religion's creation myths get elevated to the status of science, then you are being disengenuous.

Religion is not science, and does not belong in science class.

 

For emphasis, your posts have been with good intentions. I have no doubt if the conversation was just with you or on another forum it would end well.

The problem is as that conversation with you is being conducted, others will go out of their way to attack...some are asking my opinion on everything so they can attack me on everything.

Evolution is one thing, but non-theistic evolution to quote Sagan differently, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Same with the assertions there is no God, spirit, or lifeforce....a number of people here constantly shouting it here has not proven it.

I've noticed there were more people in the past with my viewpoint at PriusChat in the past and attribute that to the ongoing God-bashing.

This could be a topic other than ranting on religion, but some here have been going on for years and they can't stop. The 80% in this world that believe a supreme being are told that idea is stupid, and in the heat of the battle they are effectively told they are stupid.

Again, it could be other topics, but the ones that have harped on it - how can that be healthy?

 

Chuck,

I am one of those that share your viewpoint and have attempted to post in the past but gave up after the bashing and what spiderman rightfully called cyber-bullying by the same handful of long timers on here. They are led by Daniel and cheer him on.

I have been a member on here for going on 3 years and these same anti-religious threads start and end in the same place with the same ones using this site to try to promote their viewpoints and chastise those with opposing viewpoints.

So why bother ? I have not seen a single POV changed in 3 years but the same-old-same-old continues to go on. I thought this was one of the definitions of stupidity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I for one am in favor of having the moderators move these type threads to the FHO Politics. Beyond the anti-religious threads there are other topics on FHO Pancakes that are interesting reads.

Dwight

 

Over a year ago, it looked like a number of people were speaking up to the godless bunch - that's when I got involved.

If I had a clue this would have happened in 2006, I doubt I'd joined - there are better environments for learning about the Prius.

Just want to assure the godless bunch if I go silent here of something: I'll put time and money combating the militant atheism like what goes on here. Never ever would have considered it, but after hearing the likes of Daniel and AirportKid tirelessly screaming as if they are getting persecuted on PC and using it as an excuse to do it to others, I'll do something about it. Just want Daniel and AirportKid, others to know about the results of their efforts.

 

Dwight, I have to agree with you, at least about the futility of these threads. Non-believers will not accept belief as proof, while true believers will not be swayed by logic and physical evidence to the contrary. In fact that last sentence will probably rankle the true believers, as they see their belief as logical. That underscores the nature of the rift.

I have often posted comments such as "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It only wastes your time and annoys the pig." This wisdom applies perfectly to these religious debates, where either side can be considered the pig or teacher - it works both ways.

An inherent issue is that belief is personal. When a person's belief system is challenged, the challenge is often interpreted as a personal attack, whether it is or isn't. The response is often personal as well, and the cycle continues.

While you may feel that you are being bashed for sport, it isn't the case. Your belief system defies understanding for the non-believers. The numerous pointed questions are an attempt to get at the underlying truth. But given the very nature of belief, no amount of discussion will sway those that are truly decided.

It all comes down to a waste of time, unless one enjoys arguing for the sake of argument.

Tom

 

I do take PayPal.

 

Tom, in your case what you mentioned is likely true, but for others, not so much. Their reason for attacking is shear contempt, hatred.

Years ago I backed out of one the first threads of this nature because 1) I was defending the Bible (not my job) and 2) I was taking things personally. A bad situation.

Please elaborate on that statement...

 

In the dozen years I've been on forums, I only have a great issue when it veers from the stated theme and/or members are nasty.

At CleanMPG, we had to remove a young Dr Bermann type because he insisted on agitating on partisan issues...we did not want numerous threads exactly like this in it's disruptive effect...he forgot (or denied) it is mainly a car forum.

The forum's theme usually has enough debates without members badgering additional items to agree on.

Tom, I generally agree with what you said: the flaming on religion is a waste, but continues because some insist on the other side saying uncle.

 

By physical evidence I meant hard evidence. A believer's idea of hard evidence is likely to seem very soft and suspect to a non-believer.

And that's not going to happen. The best we can hope for is a cease-fire.

Tom

 

Thanks for posting.

Here is an interesting study that might explain that phenomenon.