Only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist ?

[brewer]

No, it doesn't.  Read the bolded portion.  Try to understand the bolded portion. Make the bolded portion part of your inner Being.

Boru

I don't think your interpretation for this section is correct, as I understand it, it doesn't talks about asking the same question in another site.

And I still don't understand why does it so bothering you.

Are you sure you're not religious? Seems you're fitting the profile indicated in this thread more and more.

[Nay_Sayer]

Further research shows he also spammed the same thread here:

https://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/a...re-atheist

How on earth asking this question in another forum making me a spammer?

Is there a limit to ask a question in one forum only?

Is there a reason you're not getting to the actual point anywhere?

Do you think you're the first person to do this bit? That your character is so innovative no one could possibly deduce you're a clueless Christian?


Less I make assumptions I will take you at face value and give you the bullet points you have not addressed yet:

1: There is more than one Nobel prize awarded, Not just science. So do you want to specify or not?

2:Just because an argument is valid does not mean the conclusion is true. A valid argument simply means that the premises are true, the conclusion must be true as well. A sound argument is a valid argument with the additional requirement that the premises (and thus the conclusion) are true. EG:   1:All Baseballs are caught and thrown  2:Fish can be thrown back after catching  3:Therefore Baseballs are fish. So your implication of the correlation between religiosity and intelligence via the small data set of Nobel prize winners is both incredibly lacking and flawed.

3: You're snide attitude. You skip any intro about yourself. Not just here but elsewhere too.  This is a telltale sign you are not being honest and are simply trolling.

4: You spammed (Yes it's spam when you post identical material everywhere) this question instead of maybe rewording it. If you're really earnest about anting an answer you ask a question in different ways. EG: Why does water turn to ice?  I noticed my water turns to a solid what gives? Anyone have some info on this weird property of water in low temperatures? 


 Continued thoughts and prayers.

RAmen

[LastPoet]

I don't think your interpretation for this section is correct, as I understand it, it doesn't talks about asking the same question in another site.

And I still don't understand why does it so bothering you.

From my POV you seem far more interested th the rules than the subject you have created. Hear a common joe out, obey the forum rules or see the door to the way out, eventually.

When you spam a copy pasta across several forums, it clearly indicates you want to publicize yourself, not using the forum for its purpose, that is, discussion. You can always prove me wrong of course.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, it doesn't.  Read the bolded portion.  Try to understand the bolded portion. Make the bolded portion part of your inner Being.

Boru

I don't think your interpretation for this section is correct, as I understand it, it doesn't talks about asking the same question in another site.

And I still don't understand why does it so bothering you.

Yeah, not going to argue this with you.  The relevant rule has been explained to you.  Follow it or not, the choice is yours.

Boru

[no one]

This guy:
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you?

Daniel "The Bozo" Wilson :
How is it to be a big idiot?

Is that a yes?

[Belacqua]

I was very surprised to discover that only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist:

If you've been sufficiently scolded, we can go back to the thread topic.

I think it's fair to say that Nobel Prize winners in any field, not just science, are almost certainly intelligent people. This includes the winners for literature. 

And you're correct to say that this works against the assumption that intelligent people are likely to be atheist. It would be interesting to make a list of non-science Nobel recipients and correlate their religious beliefs. 

But I think we have to face the fact that very intelligent people can be religious, and I think that if we spend time arguing that religion is bad or false we have a duty to understand why such people can reach different conclusions than we have. It would be closed-minded to assume that they choose religion out of ignorance, or mindless fear, or something like that. 

Here's an example I've found recently: The French phenomenologist philosopher Michel Henry. He fought in the Resistance during WWII, then went on to get a brilliant degree from France's most difficult university. His dissertation committee looks like a list of Who's Who in European philosophy. He wrote important books in the tradition of Husserl, analyzing how the experiential lifeworld of humans determines how we see the world, and what implications this has for aesthetics and ethics. 

It would be very difficult to argue that he is not intelligent.

After years of serious thought he came to argue that scientism has had a profoundly bad effect on our culture. And finally he decided that Christianity offered the best alternative to this. He was not a dumb literalist of the type people argue against on this forum. 

They don't give Nobel Prizes for philosophy, but if they did he would have deserved one.

[The Grand Nudger]

 Ted Kaczynski would score high in this study's method.

Because Teddy was smart, whereas the married guy is satisfied.  The two things have a shaky relationship. 

[Fireball]

I was very surprised to discover that only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist:

If you've been sufficiently scolded, we can go back to the thread topic.

I think it's fair to say that Nobel Prize winners in any field, not just science, are almost certainly intelligent people. This includes the winners for literature. 

And you're correct to say that this works against the assumption that intelligent people are likely to be atheist. It would be interesting to make a list of non-science Nobel recipients and correlate their religious beliefs. 

But I think we have to face the fact that very intelligent people can be religious, and I think that if we spend time arguing that religion is bad or false we have a duty to understand why such people can reach different conclusions than we have. It would be closed-minded to assume that they choose religion out of ignorance, or mindless fear, or something like that. 

Here's an example I've found recently: The French phenomenologist philosopher Michel Henry. He fought in the Resistance during WWII, then went on to get a brilliant degree from France's most difficult university. His dissertation committee looks like a list of Who's Who in European philosophy. He wrote important books in the tradition of Husserl, analyzing how the experiential lifeworld of humans determines how we see the world, and what implications this has for aesthetics and ethics. 

It would be very difficult to argue that he is not intelligent.

After years of serious thought he came to argue that scientism has had a profoundly bad effect on our culture. And finally he decided that Christianity offered the best alternative to this. He was not a dumb literalist of the type people argue against on this forum. 

They don't give Nobel Prizes for philosophy, but if they did he would have deserved one.

Please define "scientism" as you see it. As far as his fall into xtianinanity, I'd see that as a failing in any reasoning being. Hardly cause for a Nobel. Also, what is a "brilliant degree"? I do realize that the tarnish has settled in on my degree that was granted in '83. Hmm, we don't seem to have a "stuffed shirt" emoji for which to mock you with. I'll have to settle for. 

[brewer]

I was very surprised to discover that only 10% of the Nobel prize winners are atheist:

If you've been sufficiently scolded, we can go back to the thread topic.

I think it's fair to say that Nobel Prize winners in any field, not just science, are almost certainly intelligent people. This includes the winners for literature. 

And you're correct to say that this works against the assumption that intelligent people are likely to be atheist. It would be interesting to make a list of non-science Nobel recipients and correlate their religious beliefs. 

But I think we have to face the fact that very intelligent people can be religious, and I think that if we spend time arguing that religion is bad or false we have a duty to understand why such people can reach different conclusions than we have. It would be closed-minded to assume that they choose religion out of ignorance, or mindless fear, or something like that. 

Here's an example I've found recently: The French phenomenologist philosopher Michel Henry. He fought in the Resistance during WWII, then went on to get a brilliant degree from France's most difficult university. His dissertation committee looks like a list of Who's Who in European philosophy. He wrote important books in the tradition of Husserl, analyzing how the experiential lifeworld of humans determines how we see the world, and what implications this has for aesthetics and ethics. 

It would be very difficult to argue that he is not intelligent.

After years of serious thought he came to argue that scientism has had a profoundly bad effect on our culture. And finally he decided that Christianity offered the best alternative to this. He was not a dumb literalist of the type people argue against on this forum. 

They don't give Nobel Prizes for philosophy, but if they did he would have deserved one.

Jesus fucking christ. Why do you constantly try to derail into philosophy?

And if you agree with Henry and science is creating barbarism, what the hell are you doing on the internet?

Wait, you/he said scientism. Yeah, an evidence based life/culture really really sucks.

[Deesse23]

Jesus fucking christ. Why do you constantly try to derail into philosophy?

And if you agree with Henry and science is creating barbarism, what the hell are you doing on the internet?

Wait, you/he said scientism. Yeah, an evidence based life/culture really really sucks.

There is a clear trail of "science is overrated" in Bels presence on this forum, at least thats my strong impression.

Yet he is communicating this via internet, watches NASA streaming footage of probes sending hi-res pics from the edges of the solar system, is probably constantly using his mobile and uses (at least i hope so) information gathered by astrophysicists, astronomers and scientists in general to counter the ignorant statements of the religious about all kind of facts of reality.

Imho its easy to underrate the achievements of science once you are comforably living your long lasting prosperous life, provided by the efforts of science. Just like it its easy to dismiss the efforts of any countrymen who fought for your freedom, while sitting comfortably in your home, enjoying the peace provided by them.

Thinking that science is important does not equal scientism. Just because most people (maybe) have higher regard for science than Bel has, does not make them proponents of scientism, it may however make him probably somewhat of what so many of the fundamentalist x-ians are back across the pond. Maybe thats why he comes across as a secret christian to some people on this forum, who knows.