By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 18 March 2011
Edit Thread
ManusJustus said:
Kasz216 said:

So your of the opinion that if you read a history book that says "Christopher Columbus couldn't get people to fund his voyage because people thought he was going to fall off the earth."

You also aren't going to believe World War 2 happened.

I'd like to see that stat sourced.

Can't find the article, all I can find is random articles about atheist physisists converting to religions and various physists who don't believe in any religous dogma, but also believe their is a "purpose" behind the universe.

Like Roger Penrose.  Who is an "atheist", but believes the above and believes not all things can be converted into matter... with consiousness somehow existing in a different "dimension".  Which isn't really atheism so much as it is a non belief in the "advertised" gods.

Really when i've seen the stats, the largest concentration of atheists were Evolutionary Biologists, and it wasn't near 95%. (around 80% i believe)  Though evolutionary biology does make the most sense to have the most amount of atheists, since evolutionary biolgy basically rejects true consiousness and free will.

Though I don't see where much of your post was going, I searched hard for the study I referenced.  I eventually found an article that was similar, but from 1998.  You were right about biologists, but off on your numbers.

6% of biological scientists believe in God and 7% of physicists believe in God.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

If I read a book that said it was the absolute truth, but also said that 2 plus 2 equals 5, then I would deny it being the book of absolute truth.

A) You do realize that believing in god =/= atheism.   So you were wrong.

B)  The problem you have listed in that study is it's "Personal belief"  "Personal Disbelief" or Agnostic. 

Which as more recent polls have found skews towards disbelief because...

"A primary complaint of scientists who answered the earlier polls was that the concept of God was limited to a "personal God." Leuba considered an impersonal God as equivalent to pure naturalism and classified advocates of deism as nonbelievers. We designed the current study to distinguish theism from deism—that is to day a "personal God" (theism) versus an "impersonal God" who created the universe, all forces and matter, but does not intervene in daily events (deism). An evolutionist can be considered religious, in our poll, if he calls himself a deist. ..."

In otherwords, Deists were classfied as atheits.

Which was actually largely my point.   I mean, that should of been obvious based on the fact that more people believed in Immortality then god.  I mean that didn't stand out and make you go... "huh?"  You've got to have a more scientific thought process when reading this stuff.  Note the 78% as Naturalists (about 80%) and the rest leaving at least some room for theism and/or deism.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/06/evolutionary-biologists-flunk-religion.html

(Note that the URL is saying that scientists are flunking religion, not that scientists have flunked on the case of religion.)

It's funny that the study you quoted ended up being the exact study that was cited by the articles I found as one that was primarily flawed and needed reworking.