Lets talk about how religious people front like scientists hate them or something

[El Bombi]

Except that we can test what religious people claim...

There nothing to prove that prove or disprove religious claim. Nothing but theories.

 

[MegaTronBomb!]

Uh, no. Most scientists are not religious. http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ That 2009 poll showed that 51% of scientists believe in some form of a higher power and 33% said they believe in "God." There's a difference between believing in some form of deistic higher power and believing in religion. Scientists have always been on average considerably less religious than the general public.

You said "science doesn't support or deny anything claimed" by religion, which is utter nonsense because science has disproved a lot of things claimed by religions, most notably their respective creation myths.

You should probably sit this one out.

We can do this all day breh... you can't prove me wrong.



http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml

• 
  The first study of physician religious beliefs has found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife. The survey, performed by researchers at the University and published in the July issue of the

• 
  Journal of General Internal Medicine

• • 
    , found that 90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults. Fifty-five percent of doctors say their religious beliefs influence how they practice medicine.
    
    These results were not anticipated. Religious belief tends to decrease as education and income levels increase, yet doctors are highly educated and, on average, well compensated. The finding also differs radically from 90 years of studies showing that only a minority of scientists (excluding physicians) believes in God or an afterlife.
    
    “We did not think physicians were nearly this religious,” said study author Farr Curlin, Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University. “We suspect that people who combine an aptitude for science with an interest in religion and an affinity for public service are particularly attracted to medicine. The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.”
    
    Although physicians are nearly as religious as the general population, their specific beliefs often differ from those of their patients. While more than 80 percent of patients describe themselves as Protestant or Catholic, only 60 percent of physicians come from either group.
    
    Physicians are 26 times more likely to be Hindu than the overall U.S. population (5.3 percent of doctors vs. 0.2 percent of nonphysicians). Doctors are seven times more likely to be Jewish (14.1 percent vs. 1.9 percent), six times more likely to be Buddhist (1.2 percent vs. 0.2 percent) and five times more likely to be Muslim (2.7 percent vs. 0.5 percent).
    
    Although doctors are more likely than the general population to attend religious services, they are less willing to “apply their religious beliefs to other areas of life,” the researchers found. Sixty-one percent of doctors say they “try to make sense” of a difficult situation and “decide what to do without relying on God,” while only 29 percent of the general population say the same.
    
    “We have paid a good deal of attention to the religious beliefs of patients and how their faith influences medical decisions,” Curlin said, “but until now, no one has looked in the same way at physicians, the other half of every doctor-patient relationship. These findings lead us to further wonder how doctors’ faiths shape their clinical encounters.”
    
    Inquiries into the religious beliefs, or the lack of them, among U.S. scientists date back to a landmark 1916 survey by psychologist James Leuba that documented widespread disbelief. Leuba found that only 40 percent of scientists believed in a personal God, 15 percent were uncertain and 45 percent disbelieved.
    
    Surveys published in Nature in 1997 and 1998 showed little change since 1916, with only 39 percent of all scientists declaring a personal belief in God. Belief among “leading” scientists, however—defined in this case as members of the National Academy of Sciences—was far lower: only 7 percent in 1998. Curiously, among scientists, mathematicians were the most likely to believe in God and biologists the least likely.
    
    Although physicians have extensive training in biology, the study by Curlin and colleagues paints a very different picture, showing high levels of belief.
    
    The survey revealed considerable variation between different medical specialties. Doctors in family practice and pediatrics were far more likely to carry their religious belief into “all my other dealings” and to look to God for “support and guidance.” Psychiatrists and radiologists were the least likely.
    
    Christian, Mormon and Buddhist doctors were the most likely to report, “My religious beliefs influence my practice of medicine.” Jewish and Hindu physicians were the least likely. Physicians from the South and Midwest were slightly more religious than those from the East and West.
    
    The survey used a 12-page questionnaire mailed to a random sample of 2,000 U.S. practicing physicians; 63 percent responded to one of three mailings. The researchers did not find evidence that religious physicians were more likely to respond than those who are not religious. Results from this survey were compared with the 1998 General Social Survey, which examines demographic and opinion variables in a sampling of U.S. households.
    
    The next step, said Curlin, who describes himself as an “orthodox Christian in the Protestant tradition,” is to begin to look at how doctors’ religious (or secular) beliefs and values might influence the way they care for patients.
    
    The Greenwall Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program funded the study. Additional authors include John Lantos, Professor in Pediatrics and Medicine; Chad Roach, S.B.; Sarah Sellergren, A.M.; and Marshall Chin, Associate Professor in Medicine.
    
    
    
    

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Most bible stories are peoples accounts of events science dont make them false.

We can test if some of those claims happened. Lets start with genesis.

A lot of things In science require connecting the dots too, like the missing link and the big bang

"The missing link???"

1. There is no "missing link." If I have 4 items and three spaces between them, if I add another item, there becomes 4 spaces between them. You just find more evidence to support the lineage. There is no absolute missing link

2. The big bang is a result of evidence showing the expanding universe...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

We can do this all day breh... you can't prove me wrong.


http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml

Physicians aren't scientists. Even they will tell you that.

 

[Ain't That Something]

I love how you ignore how much Newtons religious views changed by the time he died. he was seen as a borderline heretic.

keep sleeping though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views

Knowledge shifts beliefs.

Know that.

Many religious people have been considered heretics. Marthin Luther the reformationist was also considered a heretic. And Like most college professors I don't accept wikipedia as a legit source of information

 

[Snitchin Splatter]

You can really tell their is a Void in this @Napoleon character's life that he feels the need to attack religion with literally every post he has made at this forum. Probably had some hard times as a child and instead of being strong enough to persevere decided to become EMO and blame God for his unhappiness with life.

God still is waiting for you to find him Napoleon, I can tell you are at a very unhappy place and you think lashing out at people who are content with their relationship with the lord will make you feel better. But everyday when you log off I know that emptiness and sadness is still there. Don't worry our god is a forgiving God and he will still be there waiting for you when you are ready to take that next step.

When you finally realize that leading some crusade against godly people on an online forum is not what you would like the highlights of your days to be of, feel free to PM one of several born again believers and we will happily walk you through the Romans Road and show you how to repent for your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior

 

[El Bombi]

Atheism has nothing to do with eugenics.

Try again though.

So, eugenics is not science now?

Atheist scientist like Charles Darwin wasn't racially bias?

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

We can do this all day breh... you can't prove me wrong.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/050714/doctorsfaith--.shtml

lol...we can do what all day? Me debunk your initial demonstrably false claim that science doesn't support or deny anything claimed by religion while you switch the subject and make strawman arguments?

You said most scientists are religious. Most scientists are not religious. That has been proven time and time again through various polls. I'm not sure what you posted a poll from 2005 about only DOCTORS specifically for.

Your initial claim that started this conversation, that science does not support or deny religious claims was stupid and easily proven false. There's really nothing else for you to say other than "My bad, I was wrong about that" and perhaps clarify if you meant to say something different.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

You can really tell their is a Void in this @Napoleon character's life that he feels the need to attack religion with literally every post he has made a this forum. Probably had some hard times as a child and instead of being strong enough to persevere decided to become EMO and blame God for his unhappiness with life.

Actually...not. I never had a bad experience with religion. I just like fukking with silly religious people.

Like...you.

God still is waiting for you to find him Napoleon,

LOL

I can tell you are at a very unhappy place and you think lashing out at people who are content with their relationship with the lord will make you feel better. But everyday when you log off I know that emptiness and sadness is still there. Don't worry our god is a forgiving God and he will still be there waiting for you when you are ready to take that next step.

I find it funny that you can't be altruistic without employing "god" to substitute you just being a decent person.

When you finally realize that leading some crusade against godly people on an online forum is not what you would like the highlights of your days to be of feel free to PM one of several born again believers and we will happily walk you through the Romans Road and show you how to repent for your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior

I'm sitting here chilling with my lady friend, shooting the shyt on a sunday...Life is great.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

So, eugenics is not science now?

Atheist scientist like Charles Darwin wasn't racially bias?

Eugenics didn't uncover anything and was thus discredited. thats kinda the point.

and darwin didn't support eugenics. Racism motivated eugenics.

i.e. why Jesse Owens shytted on Hitlers expectations?

keep up, kids.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Many religious people have been considered heretics. Marthin Luther the reformationist was also considered a heretic. And Like most college professors I don't accept wikipedia as a legit source of information

Good. So read the sources on the bottom.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

So, eugenics is not science now?

Atheist scientist like Charles Darwin wasn't racially bias?

No, eugenics is not science. Eugenics is a social philosophy.

Darwin was racially biased, as was probably every white man on the planet in the 1800's. He was less racist than most though. He came from a family of abolitionists and was one himself. He never advocated so-called "social darwinism" and was firmly opposed to it, and he thought that his research would bring people closer together based on the knowledge that every living thing stems from a common ancestor, and we're all inter-related.

 

[El Bombi]

Eugenic

No, eugenics is not science. Eugenics is a social philosophy.

Darwin was racially biased, as was probably every white man on the planet in the 1800's. He was less racist than most though. He came from a family of abolitionists and was one himself. He never advocated so-called "social darwinism" and was firmly opposed to it, and he thought that his research would bring people closer together based on the knowledge that every living thing stems from a common ancestor, and we're all inter-related.

Check the Oxford dictionary breh.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No, eugenics is not science. Eugenics is a social philosophy.

Darwin was racially biased, as was probably every white man on the planet in the 1800's. He was less racist than most though. He came from a family of abolitionists and was one himself. He never advocated so-called "social darwinism" and was firmly opposed to it, and he thought that his research would bring people closer together based on the knowledge that every living thing stems from a common ancestor, and we're all inter-related.

Facts son.

Facts.

Even Lincoln hated nikkas for the most part.

 

[El Bombi]

Eugenics didn't uncover anything and was thus discredited. thats kinda the point.

and darwin didn't support eugenics. Racism motivated eugenics.

i.e. why Jesse Owens shytted on Hitlers expectations?

keep up, kids.

Check the Oxford dictionary breh. They call it a science.