Do any of you want religion/God to be true?

[QUOTE=Brokenbeat]Nobody said that. :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
not 'every'...but "vast majority" implies what like 95%+ ?

anyway, just wanted to show that there are plenty of scientists that claim a religion.

[QUOTE=~primetime~]I still wouldn't call that the "vast majority"

I'm not religious at all...so I have no bias here

I just don't think it is accurate to portray every scientist as non-religious...there plenty of scientists out there that claim a religion[/QUOTE]
i never said scientists, I said advanced science degree holders. that table was from Edward J. Larson Department of History, University of Georgia,

by 1998 only 7% believed in God
72% were atheists
21 % were agnostic

[QUOTE=Penny37]You have different standards than God does.

You punch a homeless guy -- you get a slap on the wrist.
You punch a teacher -- suspension.
You punch a cop -- jail.
You punch the president of the United States? Something a lot worse.
Now, assuming there is a God, if you offend Him (again let's assume that He does exist), how much more will the punishment be?

[B]God is perfect. He has never done wrong and has no blemish[/B]. So anyone on Earth with even the slightest bit of evil in their life is guilty in front of a perfect God.



For all you atheists out there, just think for a minute -- if there was no God and we advance through evolution and survival of the fittest, why is it wrong to murder our neighbour? Or why is it wrong to lie and to cheat and to steal? Who sets the moral standard? Who decides that murdering someone is wrong and it's not a matter of survival of the fittest?

Yeah, the laws of our nations forbid us from murder and whatnot, but how was the Constitution created? Through the Bible. And even if murder was not illegal, I think we would all agree that murder would still be wrong. Why is that the case and why is it not a matter of survival of the fittest?[/QUOTE]

God created the angel who would be Satan. That's a pretty big screwup.

[QUOTE=~primetime~]not 'every'...but "vast majority" implies what like 95%+ ?

anyway, just wanted to show that there are plenty of scientists that claim a religion.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so maybe not '[I]every[/I]' priest is a child molester, but plenty of them are. I just wanted to show that there's a lot of kiddy-fiddlers running amok in the church. Plenty of them.

Am I doing it right? :D

[QUOTE=~primetime~]not 'every'...but "vast majority" implies what like 95%+ ?

anyway, just wanted to show that there are plenty of scientists that claim a religion.[/QUOTE]
how in the world does a "vast majority" mean all (statistically speaking)? I agree its a pretty poor term, but it means something like 70%. Again, look at the academy of science numbers. 93% of them are non-believers. that is nowhere near the national numbers. Even what you posted shows that over half (around half?) of "scientists" (whatever that means) are non-believers of one stripe or another. That is way off the general population numbers. as a holder of an advanced science degree, my personal experience is that most of my colleagues are non-believers (or, and this is obscured by the stats, hold nominal membership in a faith because its easier to do that [family, society, etc], than come out and reject the faith you were raised in]). Now, is it 90%? perhaps not, but its well over half IME.

[QUOTE=boozehound]how in the world does a "vast majority" mean all (statistically speaking)? I agree its a pretty poor term, but it means something like 70%. Again, look at the academy of science numbers. 93% of them are non-believers. that is nowhere near the national numbers. Even what you posted shows that over half (around half?) of "scientists" (whatever that means) are non-believers of one stripe or another. That is way off the general population numbers. as a holder of an advanced science degree, my personal experience is that most of my colleagues are non-believers (or, and this is obscured by the stats, hold nominal membership in a faith because its easier to do that [family, society, etc], than come out and reject the faith you were raised in]). Now, is it 90%? perhaps not, but its well over half IME.[/QUOTE]
I already acknowledged that he didn't say "all"

over half? okay

again, was just trying to point out that there are scientists out there who are religious, that's all

here is another recent study:

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/religious-understandings-of-science_n_4811085.html"]'Religious Understandings Of Science' Study Reveals Surprising Statistics[/URL]
[QUOTE]Many atheist and agnostic scientists think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually, and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]1. Nearly 50% of scientists identify with a religious label.

2. 14% of scientists have some doubts, but believe in God.

3. 9% of scientists have no doubt of God's existence.

4. 14% of elite scientists are Mainline Protestant.

5. 16% of elite scientists are Jewish.

6. Roughly one-fifth of the atheist scientists Ecklund spoke with say they consider themselves "spiritual atheists."[/QUOTE]

...

[QUOTE=~primetime~]here is another recent study:

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/religious-understandings-of-science_n_4811085.html"]'Religious Understandings Of Science' Study Reveals Surprising Statistics[/URL]



...[/QUOTE]

that study says it includes social scientists, which are not really scientists in the way that a biologist or chemist is.

[quote]Social science is an academic discipline concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. [B]It includes anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology. In a wider sense, it may often include some fields in the humanities[1] such as archaeology, history, law, and linguistics.[/B][/quote]

[QUOTE=The Macho Man]Pt when you die that's it. Dead. Nothin. Deadddd.

Scared homie?[/QUOTE]
If I thought that were true I would be scared...yeah

not existing ever again?...this is all I got?...fkc that

Id rather exist in pain than not exist at all

[QUOTE=Nanners]that study says it includes social scientists, which are not really scientists in the way that a biologist or chemist is.[/QUOTE]
they singled out "elite scientists" whatever that means

[QUOTE=~primetime~]If I thought that were true I would be scared...yeah

not existing ever again?...this is all I got?...fkc that

Id rather exist in pain than not exist at all[/QUOTE]
if that's the case, you just haven't had to endure intense and long enough lasting pain thus far in your life. had you experienced that, hell were you experiencing that right now, death would be as much of a relief as sleep after a long day.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]if that's the case, you just haven't had to endure intense and long enough lasting pain thus far in your life. had you experienced that, hell were you experiencing that right now, death would be as much of a relief as sleep after a long day.[/QUOTE]
true, I would rather not exist than be in intense pain...like burning, etc

I do think I would endure some pretty harsh conditions over not existing though...I'd probably take slavery over not existing

[QUOTE=~primetime~]true, I would rather not exist than be in intense pain...like burning, etc

I do think I would endure some pretty harsh conditions over not existing though...I'd probably take slavery over not existing[/QUOTE]
again these are things you haven't experienced in reality for any significant period of time; nor have i. so making a "would you rather" claim is kinda pointless. i see what you're saying and i'd probably agree for myself.... indentured servitude could still be a worthwhile existence. but it's sort of a spit in the face to anybody who has actually lived through it even to suggest it MIGHT be better than death. i don't feel comfortable making that claim.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]again these are things you haven't experienced in reality for any significant period of time; nor have i. so making a "would you rather" claim is kinda pointless. i see what you're saying and i'd probably agree for myself.... indentured servitude could still be a worthwhile existence. but it's sort of a spit in the face to anybody who has actually lived through it even to suggest it MIGHT be better than death. i don't feel comfortable making that claim.[/QUOTE]
It's not a spitting in anyone's face IMO

"I think" I would endure harsh conditions over not existing...and many humans have endured harsh conditions over suicide.

you're right I have never been a slave so I don't know for sure...but I do know many slaves could have probably chosen death over slavery and they chose slavery...I don't think I would be any different

[QUOTE=~primetime~]
3. 9% of scientists have [B]no doubt[/B] of God's existence.

[/QUOTE]

This is the only number we should be looking at. Only 9%?

So [B]91%[/B] of the scientists that participated in that poll have doubts. That's not too far off from the NAS/Royal Society poll results. :confusedshrug: