T-14 Christian Environment Forum

[BaiAilian2013]

One might also say that human psychology contributes to the popularity of atheism.

!!

[SuperCool23]

If you want to law school then go, but dont base your decision on what churches are close by or around the school. And the taking taking credit for yourself and not always say its God, " God help those whom help themsleves". You can do it go to law school and if there is not a church , you still can read your Bible and call it a day .

[Hiei]

You know I shouldn't do this but I'm generally curious. I always here atheist and those who view science as their only system of faith use reason to explain why there is no God. However, in all seriousness when using logic and reason, the idea that everything that exists stems from essentially random events actually seems a lot less logical than there being a being/deity/creator/ whatever you want to call it that set everything up. I mean the conditions required for life (based on what one learns from science---what many on here say is absolutely true and has been "proven") are so exact that them arising from random events with nothing ordering them actually seems extremely unreasonable and illogical doesn't it? To me it actually seems like far less of a stretch that there is a deity/ creator, but admittedly I am Christian (though I need to be a much better one ).


Oh and OP this is one of the reasons I ED'd to UVA and not Columbia!

[DelDad]

I'm not saying one HAS to be an atheist if they're a scientist, but most are. The evidence for "intelligent design" is weak at best, and anytime a school system tries to implement it, the general scientific community comes running with arguments against it.

FWIW, just wanted to find out if the bolded was true. Best I could find was an article on a pair of studies from 2005:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.

The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

Those in the social sciences are more likely to believe in God and attend religious services than researchers in the natural sciences, the study found.

The opposite had been expected.

Nearly 38 percent of natural scientists -- people in disciplines like physics, chemistry and biology -- said they do not believe in God. Only 31 percent of the social scientists do not believe.

In the new study, Rice University sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund surveyed 1,646 faculty members at elite research universities, asking 36 questions about belief and spiritual practices.

"Based on previous research, we thought that social scientists would be less likely to practice religion than natural scientists are, but our data showed just the opposite," Ecklund said.

Some stand-out statistics: 41 percent of the biologists don't believe, while that figure is just 27 percent among political scientists.

In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife.

[d34d9823]

You guys who are bashing religion realize that you're reinforcing the OP's point, right?

I'm an atheist myself, and think a lot of what religion puts forward is nonsense, but bashing someone based solely on what they believe is the height of douchebaggery. And no, it doesn't matter how ridiculous it is. One of the unwritten rules of polite society is not to criticize unless you are given permission to.

[Bildungsroman]

Edit: I actually am religious, and I do believe that, even with the majority of Americans being religious, some campuses do develop a climate that is openly hostile to Christianity.

[d34d9823]

You know I shouldn't do this but I'm generally curious. I always here atheist and those who view science as their only system of faith use reason to explain why there is no God. However, in all seriousness when using logic and reason, the idea that everything that exists stems from essentially random events actually seems a lot less logical than there being a being/deity/creator/ whatever you want to call it that set everything up. I mean the conditions required for life (based on what one learns from science---what many on here say is absolutely true and has been "proven") are so exact that them arising from random events with nothing ordering them actually seems extremely unreasonable and illogical doesn't it? To me it actually seems like far less of a stretch that there is a deity/ creator, but admittedly I am Christian (though I need to be a much better one ).


Oh and OP this is one of the reasons I ED'd to UVA and not Columbia!

Go read this and come back. Probability based arguments fail in the absence of an external observer.

Also, when you say "logically," you really seem to mean "what seems intuitive to me." These are not the same thing. If you wanted to have an informed viewpoint on the subject, you should read some solid summaries of both sides of the argument and go from there. Doing that is pretty convincing for me, but you obviously have to come to your own conclusions.

[romothesavior]

I'm not saying one HAS to be an atheist if they're a scientist, but most are. The evidence for "intelligent design" is weak at best, and anytime a school system tries to implement it, the general scientific community comes running with arguments against it.

FWIW, just wanted to find out if the bolded was true. Best I could find was an article on a pair of studies from 2005:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916982/

A lot probably depends on the questions asked and how they were asked. But as I said above, the number I referenced was just the National Academy of Science and the study is cited by Sam Harris in one of his books. I'm not sure who did the actual study, but I could probably find out for you. Also, this is a bit old (1998), but I doubt things shifted dramatically in the scientific field in 7 years:
--LinkRemoved--

[A'nold]

Here's the thing:

Science does not exclude religion, nor does (most?) religion exclude science. You can make a pretty convincing argument that our best scientific data makes a very strong case for a creator. Likewise, you can make a very strong argument that science has been progressively making God "obsolete." So people on the one side who are quick to label religion as fairytale are, well, idiots. And people on the other who refuse to acknowledge scientific breakthroughs are just as foolish.

So just drop it. I'd be willing to bet serious money that no one (myself included) on this thread has done ample research to make an educated conclusion on such a fundamental, powerful life philosophy. So don't press the issue.

With all due respect, the bolded is just false. The VAST majority of the top biologists, astronomers, and other scientists who have studied the issues of life and creation are not religious. Something like 90%+ of the members of the National Academy of Science do not believe in a deity, while the number of people in the general American public who believe in a deity is around 90%. Clearly, science tends to undermine religious beliefs, not support them.

I'm not saying one HAS to be an atheist if they're a scientist, but most are. The evidence for "intelligent design" is weak at best, and anytime a school system tries to implement it, the general scientific community comes running with arguments against it.

Or perhaps this widespread atheism in the scientific community is due to the inability to objectively prove the existence of a creator- sort of like the opposite of Pascal's wager? (I.e. If you can't prove it through the scientific method, better to side against it). One might also say that human psychology contributes to the popularity of atheism. Religion played a very large role in past societies; we like to believe that we are more advanced, superior in our knowledge and understanding. Thus, we like to make obsolete those unproven systems which have colored our past.

But if one were so inclined, one could put together a convincing argument for the existence of a creator using some of the most current research in physics, cosmology, and biology. And while one cannot prove that "God" exists, one can put together the data that might lead one to the natural assumption of intelligent design.

In the end, I think one of the better arguments concerning the exclusivity (or lack thereof) of science and religion is this: Science explains how. Religion explains why.

This. Lulz at the assertion that most scientists are atheists = science and religion being mutually exclusive and that scientists just have a "superior understanding" about reality. If I were not a Christian, I would still believe in intelligent design. My belief in Christ and my belief in a creator are completely unrelated.

[johnstuartmill]

But if one were so inclined, one could put together a convincing argument for the existence of a creator using some of the most current research in physics, cosmology, and biology.

No, unless by "convincing" you mean "convincing to people who are not well-versed in philosophy". The fact is, Intelligent Design arguments are all illegitimate arguments from ignorance. "We have no naturalistic account for X, therefore God did it, therefore God exists" is just as fallacious in the 21st century, when X is the origin of the first self-replicating organism, as it was in the 15th, when X was thunder and lightning.

In the end, I think one of the better arguments concerning the exclusivity (or lack thereof) of science and religion is this: Science explains how. Religion explains why.

Who says the universe must have a purpose? Your aphorism is cute but logically impotent, for it rigs the debate from the get-go.

[James Bond]

Cooley has sweet churches and pastors. go there

har

har har

[06132010]

Fucking magnets! How do they work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lying and gettin' me pissed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

[Bankhead]

Good post, A'nold.

I think some people are missing the point. I think Christianity is a bunch of bologna -- I just can't go there. Hell (no pun intended), I wish I were a Christian. They seem a hell (ok maybe pun intended this time) of a lot happier than I am. I think religion is colorable though.

It just pisses me off that a bunch of snot nose 22 year olds who think they have it all figured out can come on here and anonymously berate a Christian girl who asks a productive question.

I'm sorry to hear you're unhappy. But your anecdotal tale of unhappiness is not conclusive on this issue. Most atheists are very, very happy, and I personally feel like losing religious meant I didn't have to ask questions like, "Why did this happen to me?" or "How could god let that happen?" I'm a lot happier and more confident as a result. I hope you reach this point in the future too.

And I wish the OP the best of luck. I'm not trying to "berate" anyone, I just think it is odd to pick a school based on finding a good church (as some posters noted above).

I never said I was unhappy. I'm just not as happy as I would be if I knew I could live forever in heavenly bliss.

[IAFG]

I can't believe the rudeness -- these are people's religious beliefs.

I'm an atheist myself, but what the fuck guys.

Who the fuck cares. What is special about religious beliefs. I'll make fun idiots who believe in crystal power or homeopathy, why does calling it a religion make beliefs untouchable.

Also these same churches I make fun of, tell their flock that people like us are evil, so fuck them.

but you actually are evil

[20121109]

I'm trying my best not to derail this thread (although I really want to) out of respect for the OP and her views...

Anyways, let's get this back on track. I don't want to be held responsible for trolling this thread.

I didn't want to turn the thread into a religious debate, and I had hoped to slink quietly out of this thread, but I wanted to respond to this.

OKAY! Now seriously guys... I'm gonna drop it and hopefully this thread hijack that we are all a part of will cease. If you want to debate religion, start a thread in the lounge and I will happily join you. Or PM me and we can discuss it further. I'm sorry this thread got out of hand, and I apologize for my part in it. Let's try to keep responses within the scope of the OP.

You try so hard to not sound like a douche, Romo, but you are. You randomly start derailing the thread, disrespecting other people's views and faiths just because you disagree and you try to hide behind the "good guy" image by prefacing all your antagonistic posts with these words. We all see through your bullshit. If you wanna be an asshole, just be an asshole. Admit it and accept it...don't try to fool us into thinking you weren't hoping to troll this thread from the very start. But well done, you finally succeeded in derailing a very decent thread.