Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 19, 2024, 5:02 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
#11
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
Sure just pay your dues, you're in the AAAS. I was in it for several years. Nominally RCC at the time.
If you get to thinking you’re a person of some influence, try ordering somebody else’s dog around.
Reply
#12
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
No. They don’t. Religious views inform who they are and they field of interest informs what they do.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#13
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
(July 4, 2019 at 1:24 pm)tackattack Wrote: No. They don’t. Religious views inform who they are and they field of interest informs what they do.

Only 5% of them claim to be evangelical Christians; Dr. Francis Collins, for instance, is pro-choice and has made quite a bit of $$$ for his public religious views.
Reply
#14
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
We have to realise not all relogious people are fundies. I know a couple of catholic scientists. Usually they compartmentize (halp, spelling) their beliefs and do their jobs perfectly.
Reply
#15
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
@Jehanne my point was the spurious correlation. Here are some just as important statistics https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. Who they are isn't necessarily what they do, nor does it correlate unless you want to use it to build a case that Evangelical Christians can't be good scientists or that good scientists can't be evangelical Christians. I'm glad there's a plurality of beliefs informing the character in the wide fields of science, I just don't think it matters any more than an itch on a dog's balls.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#16
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
The most interesting about the survey is the contrast with the general public, IMHO.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
#17
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
Then why be glad, if it doesn’t matter? There’s no way around the fact that facts are at odds with religious beliefs. Unless those counter factual beliefs have absolutely no effect on the process of inquiry...that’s a problem. Hell its a problem... but only for the religious, if they don’t.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#18
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
(July 5, 2019 at 10:25 am)tackattack Wrote: @Jehanne my point was the spurious correlation. Here are some just as important statistics https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations. Who they are isn't necessarily what they do, nor does it correlate unless you want to use it to build a case that Evangelical Christians can't be good scientists or that good scientists can't be evangelical Christians. I'm glad there's a plurality of beliefs informing the character in the wide fields of science, I just don't think it matters any more than an itch on a dog's balls.

I think it helps explain why evangelical Christianity is declining in the United States.
Reply
#19
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
I don't see anything but a spurious correlation to something about who someone is and what they do for a living. A more accurate correlation to why evangelicals are in decline would be statistics based on beliefs like the fact LGBTQ acceptance is on the rise publicly. Personally I feel, anti-theism as a social movement has done a wonderful job redefining the term religious to mean closed-minded and irrational in social circles and that makes it less acceptable to be religious, thus making it less "in" to be a theist. A relationship between beliefs and beliefs or definitions would be far more convincing and less spurious to me.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post

always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Reply
#20
RE: Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.
(July 4, 2019 at 8:20 am)wyzas Wrote: You should be disturbed by the higher percentage of "don't know". 

And I'm going to guess that they included a high number of chiropractors in the survey.  

Panic


To me "don't know" is one of the most honest answers to the question. I'm a bit disturbed by the rest of the people who claim knowledge that they absolutely do not have.

On a side note, I used to work at a chiropractor's office as an MT. He had this wacky room full of pseudoscientific devices. A few of them were decent... like a stretching machine. But most of them were bogus.

I think the jury is still out on getting your back cracked. (Can anyone correct me on this?) He did it for me for free on occasion (since I worked there). It seemed to offer some relief to me... or felt good at the very least. IDK.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Well....Maybe Minimalist 17 4248 July 22, 2015 at 12:07 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Well This Isn't Good Minimalist 5 1317 January 27, 2015 at 7:55 pm
Last Post: Ben Davis
  Well Said, Doc. Minimalist 4 1326 August 18, 2013 at 8:21 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Meteor Shower This AM (Bonus ISS action as well) The Grand Nudger 3 1524 August 12, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Last Post: MilesTailsPrower



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)