[Neo] Atheists: How Much Lack of Belief is Required to be an Atheist?

and 18% would answer the question do you believe in god as a 'no', 18+41 is 59 all day long which is a direct response that flushes your claim down the crapper.

The only thing I am suggesting and proving is that your posts are mostly bullshit., sorry, all the rest of the crap you post id fluff that I presume makes you feel more correct,

 

I do not even SLIGHTLY believe that supports your nosense about atheists screwing with science for the reasons said in my immediately previous posts.

No scientist who believes in a higher power is going to help atheists do what you propose has been done.

Beyond that, if something like that were happening, there would be DIRECT evidence - not this nonsense calculus concerning possible motives, recruitment, the nature of religious beliefs of those who aren't theists, etc.

And, that kid of evidence absolutely does NOT exist.

 

thats your nonsense not mine, I never said atheists are 'screwing with science', another of your strawman posts, what is why you dont use the quote function.

You dont know that, posting your funky all over the map opinions as fact again, right back to more argumentum ad lapidem fallacies.

Like a couple other people on this site you fail through ignorance or denial to distinguish between fact and your bald unsupported opinions.

 

Public schools absolutely CAN teach religion in school.

They just can't teach ONE religion or teach that ONE religion is the truth.

We don't have a state religion. The constitution says so.

Our founders knew that having a state religion was not an acceptable direction.

Suggesting it came from atheists is nonsense. It came from our founders, few of whom wer atheist.

As for science, it isn't a matter of some majority of scientists trying to counter religion. A majority of scientists believe in god or other definition of a higher power as YOU demonstrated.

The thing about science class is that it is where students learn how to use the tools of science to address certain kinds of problems.

And, it is where students also learn that the methods of science do not apply to questions of religion.

 

TO YOU,
Only because you have not checked out alpha centuri, I'd bet you will find evidence there

 

FALSE, they cant teach doctrine, not the same as your claim, as usual.

Sure we do, but you have already shown us you dont know what that is. Feel free to update us if you have a new positiojn.

It says yo uh ave 'rights' too!

yep

of course it came from atheists, who else would stomp all over the mormans et al.

spiritualism is not a higher 'power' it has no capacity for volition. The FACTS are regardless how you spin it, 59% do not believe in G/god, which makes you always wrong.

yep they are given 'tools' and taught to use their religion as a foundation to compare and analyse believers religions, with sledge hammers instead of a surgical sponges.

 

Now you're dreaming up results you might like and then claiming they are real.

You can't even accept that polls you present (without so much as a reference concerning methodology or source).

Remember that cool Latin phase you were wearing out?

 

There isn't any federal objection to teaching comparative religion, for example.

There isn't any federal objection to student led prayer or religious statements in school that are consistent with school cirricula and class time.

Are you referring to the massacre carried out by John Doyle Lee?

And no, public school science class absolutely does NOT "analyse believers religions". And, neither does any other legitimate science.

Science stays AWAY from religion. Science doesn't have tools for that.

 

never said anything contrary, are you talking to yourself now too?

no

caomparitive as you just said is analysis. please try to keep your stories straight.

what a load of bullshit.

they think they do, big bang, evolution, its extremely difficult to even take you seriously man.

 

OK - I meant in analyzing what is truth or the "right" answer. Our public education system can compare and contrast, but not judge or argue for or against a religion as to whether it is true. Educators could point out the primary characteristics of world religions, for example. But, they don't get to declear any of them to be correct or incorrect.

Religion doesn't get to stake out sweeping areas of nature and claim it exclusively for religion.

If some religion wants to have an opinion about the big bang, science isn't going to opposed that other than to point out what science has found by evaluating data gathered on the topic.

Various religions have what must be considered mythological explanations of the universe - like Christianity does. Few believe more than one of those various mythologies, obviously. So, there is a lot of disagreement WITHIN religion, too. That's especially true as religion doesn't supply a methodology for answering questions. When there is an absolute dependence on faith, that's pretty much the end of the story.

Science isn't trying to defeat those mythologies. It just tries to figure out how things work using methodology that includes experimentation and testing.

Are Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, etc., upset at science? I hope not. I know some Christians are. I would hope that can be resolved through education concerning what science is doing. As your data shows, there are plenty of Christians who can help Christians with that, and it's human nature to be more ready to accept news from those who share beliefs.

The Pope isn't upset at science! That's great - there certainly have been some times when the Christian church of the era was pretty upset with science.

 

There's a very good reason why no link to the study was provided by that poster. The data in the actual survey contradicts his assertions.

Your dialogue partner also forgot to mention that the chart he posted is from a survey in the US only, not worldwide as his sweeping statements would suggest.

Here's another chart from the survey:


https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

Another study shows that the global scientific community is neither mostly atheistic, nor mostly opposed to religions:

https://phys.org/news/2015-12-worldwide-survey-religion-science-scientists.html

 

oh thats easy! The discussion was with regard to the US, do you think that might have some bearing on it? Then again by your own lacker standards that you champion adding up everything lackerville has determined to be atheist, in your charts we are still at 52%! Nothing like shooting yourself in both feet! Oh make that 3 times because I did post a link, and you proved that you know it know it because you knew where it came from, that leans heavily to lying side of a discussion, and shooting yourself in the foot 3 times! Wanna go for 4?

 

Oh so you agree that the lacker definition of atheism is bullshit? Cool.
Either that or you fail to comprehend what you read.
False I provided a reference piza found it.
Yeh it does not apply to your post in this instance and pointing out the nonstop garbage you post wearing a bit thin.

Thats a awesome page of gish gallop but it does not cover up your error, nor does it refute the matter!

Whos truth? yours? Which has been consistently debunked with a plethora of citations and proven wrong, bullshit, or propaganda? Which?

Thanks for repeating what I said, so you agree with me after all.

Yes it does! Big bang and evolution are both accepted on 'faith'. Its the religion atheists trot out every time they get get into a religious argument with theists about the existence of a God.

Science is the religion of the big bang, its their faith, and strongly held belief.

Big bang is a myth , it cannot be proven by scientific method. Maybe neoatheists and their various religious cults should take a break from their obnoxious arrogance that they have more intellect than theists. What I have seen is these atheist religions demonstrate substantially less intellect than theists and their religion, unless of course psuedo-intellect counts?

 

Guys, he's trolling you.

More to the point, his divorce from reality is complete.

 

This argument is specific, and their attempts to dismiss the facts like you just did is nothing more than another argumentum ad lapidem fallacy. Neither is posting ad hom fallacies, your acccusations of trolling and divorce from reality are no substitute for your failure to effectively argue your positions.

 

The question with any statement is if it's accurate.

I was accurate.

I tried talking to you for a while, but it was a waste of time.

 

Sure, junk positions dont get too much mileage with me, sorry about that. There is nothing inaccurate about my position. Your side on the other hand enjoys the grand art of double-think and new-speak as their facts and outright political propaganda which does not wash with me either. Good luck.

 

Actually, you are remarkably unsophisticated for someone as apparently as educated as you are.

Your emotional needs must be wreaking havoc with, among other things, your collegiality.

I don't see this as political, thus your chracterisation of 'sides' doesn't seem to me to fit. There is a continuity that stretches from the Enlightenment to post-Rorty philosophy of science.

In terms of this discussion, it all goes back to the idea behind the separation of church and state. Which was the idea that the secular and religious need to be kept separate. That was the result of the Dark Ages and the the wars caused by the Reformation.

 

simplicity rules the day

If you dont want to starve dont quit your day job.

Then you dont understand the issues.

useless trivia

which does not exist, see my [previously cited examples.

'Attempted' reformation.

 

Actually, it's a basic tenet of civilisation, and has been for centuries.

 

Even the Pope agrees that religion and science can coexist - including with the specifics you mention here.

And as your data pointed out, there are plenty of theists actively doing science.

Your're going way over the edge when you promote ideas such as that science is a religion, that science is a promotion of atheism, that science could possibly invalidate religion, that science makes statements beyond what is in evidence, or whatever.

And, there is no valid purpose in such cotentions. We need science. The large majority clearly needs religion.

Why would anyone suggest we can have only one or the other?

 

Extraterrestrial intervention or panspermia kicks the can down the road.

​

 

Well spare the tears until you checked everywhere for G/god, and can factually tell me that you looked everywhere and no evidence exists, k?

 

Citation?

nonsequitur

Any nonprovable 'belief' can be a religion, especially one that creates worldviews by its claims, why would you deny it.

why would you post such a stupid remark? Pretentiously implying I made such a claims maybe? You wont see a stupid remark like that come from me, where did it come from?

 

I was referring to evolution,not a deity.