Atheism is well-represented in the Sciences.

[Anomalocaris]

No. They don’t. Religious views inform who they are and they field of interest informs what they do.

No, for the clear thinking intelligent persons they are who they are, and only then would what they learn in their field of interest informs whether they might continence any belief attributable to any religion.

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

[Belacqua]

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

The most intelligent and creative person I know is a religious Jew. His religion is an important part of what he is. He translates from 13 languages, he is a wonderful poet and a generous man. 

It was my pleasure to know Dr. Yokoro, who was born in Nagasaki and worked in Hiroshima. His Christian faith was an important part of who he was. He was a founding member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. He was a deeply committed Christian, a wonderful and kind man. His friend and fellow Christian Dr. Kawamura founded a hospital for the treatment of radiation victims. 

These are two examples out of many I could name. 

For you to say that these people are "very little" and have "scant hope" of being more is flat out bigoted of you. How can you type such bigotry?

[Jehanne]

Delusion of a few = mental illness
Delusion of many = organized religion, which insists on being respected.

It will be interesting to see if the gap narrows. I doubt I'll be alive to experience it.

In certain areas of the World (such as France), it's happened.

[tackattack]

---

No. They don’t. Religious views inform who they are and they field of interest informs what they do.

No, for the clear thinking intelligent persons they are who they are, and only then would what they learn in their field of interest informs whether they might continence any belief attributable to any religion.

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

---

If your claim is that clear intelligent people just are who they are you must have a blissfully ignorant and simple view of people to include yourself. I'm must confess I'm a little jealous. It's a horribly simplistic view which you have shown to not be true merely from the fact you typed a response. If we just are what we are how did you get the knowledge of how to use a computer to type a sentence? We are a lot of things. Some of which is what we learn through observation, experience, socialization, perspective, geography, etc. An additional one of those things that the royal "we" are based on is what we believe to be true. You and I both would agree that grass is green and poop stinks. Viola shared perspective. The perspective of the scientists do not always share a belief in a God, hence the purpose of the survey. That is just one of trillions of belief that make up themselves. My point was that how well you do your job as a scientist has 0 direct correlation to whether or not you believe in a sky daddy.

The fact is religious views DO inform part of who someone is, and using basic math if you're made up of 1 million beliefs and you add one more you're now 1 belief deeper than your atheist counterpart. I think your bigotry stems from seeing people only as you want to see them, and classifying them by the parts you don't agree with and them over simplifying that generalization to magnify your own ignorance of their beliefs. Have fun with that. For such an incorrect view of what drives people to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

[Belacqua]

---

No, for the clear thinking intelligent persons they are who they are, and only then would what they learn in their field of interest informs whether they might continence any belief attributable to any religion.

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

---

If your claim is that clear intelligent people just are who they are you must have a blissfully ignorant and simple view of people to include yourself. I'm must confess I'm a little jealous. It's a horribly simplistic view which you have shown to not be true merely from the fact you typed a response. If we just are what we are how did you get the knowledge of how to use a computer to type a sentence? We are a lot of things. Some of which is what we learn through observation, experience, socialization, perspective, geography, etc. An additional one of those things that the royal "we" are based on is what we believe to be true. You and I both would agree that grass is green and poop stinks. Viola shared perspective. The perspective of the scientists do not always share a belief in a God, hence the purpose of the survey. That is just one of trillions of belief that make up themselves. My point was that how well you do your job as a scientist has 0 direct correlation to whether or not you believe in a sky daddy.

The fact is religious views DO inform part of who someone is, and using basic math if you're made up of 1 million beliefs and you add one more you're now 1 belief deeper than your atheist counterpart. I think your bigotry stems from seeing people only as you want to see them, and classifying them by the parts you don't agree with and them over simplifying that generalization to magnify your own ignorance of their beliefs. Have fun with that. For such an incorrect view of what drives people to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

It's clear that some of the anti-religion people are just bigots. 

They think like bigots, they write like bigots. They get support on this forum for bigoted views.

[Amarok]

It's clear that some of the anti-religion people are just bigots. 

They think like bigots, they write like bigots. They get support on this forum for bigoted views.

Lol no 

[Fake Messiah]

These are two examples out of many I could name. 

For you to say that these people are "very little" and have "scant hope" of being more is flat out bigoted of you. How can you type such bigotry?

Nice two examples, but the problem is that for each person that is inspired by religion to do something good there are much more lives damaged by it.
So it would be foolish to celebrate and fixate on the beauty of religion while ignoring the ugliness that is also there.

Every time some good religious person does something good there is a preacher out there somewhere who is delivering a poisonous sermon that encourages believers to hate others and to embrace a medieval ignorance of the world. The belief inspired mistreatment of countless millions of girls and women alone proves that.

Or for example, how can a science-literate Christian refuse to call it anything but ugly when other Christians insist on teaching children that the world is ten thousand years old and life does not evolve? How can a sophisticated and worldly Jewish person not cringe at the segregationist behavior of some Jews?

Those who insist on denying that religion is often repulsive are dishonest. Religion was not progressive when an Aztec priest plunged a stone dagger into the chest of a living, breathing human being and then ripped out his still-beating heart. It wasn't beautiful when religion inspired the Crusades and the Holocaust, terrorism, antiscience activists, and prejudice among people who might otherwise be cooperating to build a better future for everyone.
Religion has caused unimaginable suffering for so many people throughout history. For example, can any one of us sense how terrible it really must have been for the women who were burned alive after believers condemned them for being witches? Don't skim over this little historical item just because you have heard about it many times before. Try to imagine how astonishingly evil it is to tie a woman to a wooden pole, pile up branches around her feet, and then burn her alive. Imagine the terror and intense pain they suffered. And this kind of thing didn't just happen to a few people. Thousands of people in Europe and around the world have been killed for allegedly practicing witchcraft. Today, despite the fact that witchcraft is still as unproven as any other supernatural claim, the killing continues. Every few months or so, a news report is published that describes the murder of an accused witch somewhere in the world.

[Haipule]

Interesting results.  It seems, though, that in almost every case, the number of believers are still in the majority (sometimes significantly so).

Boru

The so-called conservative Christians are in a small minority, which is really the most important result.

You mean the ones that voted for Trump?

---

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.

Facts? Is there a universal theory now and no one told me?

---

But that's just it, Russell's teapot is not your idea, not your original claim, the proof is on the other. It's OK to say "I don't know what's there", but I/you don't need to indulge the ideation of the teapot. 

But you be you. I'm certainly not going to give even passing/neutral credence (the maybe) to a fantasy proposition.

If someone has a claim that they propose I adopt as true, they carry the burden of proof. I have no reason to accept their claim as true unless I find the proof they offer satisfactory. We agree there, right?

But that's what I'm, saying, Brew. No one can offer satisfactory proof that giant invisible creator leprechauns don't exist. People who say, "I have no reason whatsoever to believe that giant creator leprechauns exist" are highly reasonable. But people who say, "I know that giant creator leprechauns don't exist" (while also very reasonable) have no basis for the knowledge they claim. The claim that "giant creator leprechauns don't exist" is a positive claim. If you say that, you carry the burden of proof. And (as reasonable as it is to deny the existence of giant creator leprechauns) the claim that they do not exist is just as completely unfounded as the claim that they do.

This isn't lending the leprechaun hypothesis undue credence. It's honestly stating what you do and do not know.

Dude, I've warned you about badmouthing leprechauns and Fairies before! Dude again, Fairies are other dimensional tree lovers with a serious 'tude! Leprechauns live in rocks! Everyone knows this! When was the last time you were in a rock! K'den. 

---

One can be an open atheist and at the same time a well-respected scientist:

Pew Research Center -- Scientists and Belief

In particular, I was pleased to see the percentage of physicists and astronomers who were wholly atheistic:

---

---

Wow, it's almost as if being well-educated and intelligent lessens the likelihood that one is religious. Imagine that!



/sarcasm

Interesting post though... I wonder what god's children have to say about this?

Because religion is stupid! As a Major representative of God's Children...Religion, Theology and Science are all stupid and we know it.

[EgoDeath]

Because religion is stupid! As a Major representative of God's Children...Religion, Theology and Science are all stupid and we know it.

So you don't see the contradiction in saying you're a "Major representative of God's Children" and then calling religion stupid in the next sentence?

Also, how exactly do you figure that "Science [is] ... stupid?"

Please tell me you're being sarcastic and that the joke went over my head.

[brewer]

If your claim is that clear intelligent people just are who they are you must have a blissfully ignorant and simple view of people to include yourself. I'm must confess I'm a little jealous. It's a horribly simplistic view which you have shown to not be true merely from the fact you typed a response. If we just are what we are how did you get the knowledge of how to use a computer to type a sentence? We are a lot of things. Some of which is what we learn through observation, experience, socialization, perspective, geography, etc. An additional one of those things that the royal "we" are based on is what we believe to be true. You and I both would agree that grass is green and poop stinks. Viola shared perspective. The perspective of the scientists do not always share a belief in a God, hence the purpose of the survey. That is just one of trillions of belief that make up themselves. My point was that how well you do your job as a scientist has 0 direct correlation to whether or not you believe in a sky daddy.

The fact is religious views DO inform part of who someone is, and using basic math if you're made up of 1 million beliefs and you add one more you're now 1 belief deeper than your atheist counterpart. I think your bigotry stems from seeing people only as you want to see them, and classifying them by the parts you don't agree with and them over simplifying that generalization to magnify your own ignorance of their beliefs. Have fun with that. For such an incorrect view of what drives people to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

It's clear that some of the anti-religion people are just bigots. 

They think like bigots, they write like bigots. They get support on this forum for bigoted views.