Centifolia's Waterfall
Funny thing is that you show all the signs of it.
By the way, what happened to the other arguments? Are you fleeing from them again?
The theory of evolution works with out a god.
And that brought us back to square 1. Evolution works by adapting to the ever changing environment. The rules of nature dictates that he who is most adaptable will win. But in a humorous feat, the one who sits on the top of the food chain are humans who are unrivaled in their intelligence.
We are the only animals who can create a philosophy, record history and the only species with a sense of responsibility to protect the weak, no matter who or what.
Like what I said before: you can dismiss it as random chance but I will not ignore the elephant in the room
I have not been shown that there be a need for a deity.
This would be a big twist in our argument but we created religion for a reason.
It is a place of haven for the troubled minds, a tool to mend chaos and keep a society united no matter how dim the situation is. Religion is a powerful weapon that when used for good, it can create harmony and peace.
But of course, just like any weapons, it can be used for evil as well.
The polls you have shown have much different wording when compared.
I cant see much differences. There are still more religious scientists today than there were a few decades years ago
What we don't see here is the differentiation between those that believe in God and those that believe in a higher power.
The only thing that conflicts them are the forms of worship. Other than that, I see nothing else that would divide their definition.
In your example of prayer and meditation the Dr doesn't declare one is better
To be fair, both of them serves different purpose.
Prayer is for the one who bears too much, Meditation is for the one who wanted to listen.
Your claim of religious people living the most fulfilling lives is highly subjective.
It's not subjective at all. It is common knowledge
My point was god is not needed to explain how we evolved, adding a creator to design is supurflous.
How can you say he is not needed when you cannot direct the laws of nature into your liking?
If it is impossible to disprove God, then it is impossible to say that he is not required.
More religious scientists now than Darwins time? Not by the link you gave...it stated the percentage is roughly the same.
>In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not.
>According to a survey of members of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center in May and June this year, a majority of scientists (51%) say they believe in God or a higher power, while 41% say they do not
Religious having advantages over non believers when they are in trouble?
I was simply referring to the psychological benefits that religion can bring. All psychologists agree that religion is a drug that can alleviate a person's pain but addiction can result into insanity and ruthlessness. (e.g Westboro Chruch, Old Earth Creationists and Muslim Extremists)
Prayer and meditation are lumped together all the time, and prayer has no advantages over meditation.
As experts put it; Mediation is an enhanced form of listening, prayer is an enhanced for of talking.
When a person is troubled, he seeks someone whom he can open his thoughts to. Similarly, prayer is the act of opening yourself and letting it go. Which explains why religious people lead the most fulfilling life.
Your link simply stated their benefits, none tried to differ one from the other. But I can understand. They are both extremely alike.
Lovely argument from ignorance..."Science supports God therefore it's flawed"
And did you bother to read it? And the rest of the arguments?
Never tested material.
Your favourite fake NASA scientist.
LOL :D
Its amusing how the more evidence you find, the more of an idiotic you become.
Using a deity to fill in blanks is not circular reasoning it is non sequitur.
Considering the fact that it is an argument born out of ignorance, i must say that it makes sense.
A deity just isnt needed to explain how we got here, the system works without it.
And that simply brings us to the topic of human arrogance and narcissism. The ability to explain something does not refute the existence of a celestial being.
First rule of religious debates: "God cannot be proven, nor disproven"
Darwin struggled greatly over his findings and his religion and he had far less evidence and scientific advances at his disposal than we do now.
And yet there is more religious scientists than Darwin's time
Religious people are happier because ignorace is bliss
Thats a disappointing argument coming from you.
A religious person and an atheist can be as intelligent as anyone.
Now about happiness and religion; no, you cant compare praying with meditation. Meditation is simply the art of slowing down your mind so you can focus more attentively. Prayer on the other hand is to leave all your worries behind and have faith in the diety you worship.
Go figure which one has a better effect.
A non believer can be just as happy if not more than some believers and vice versa.
Except when trouble arise, a nonbeliever will not have same advantages as the one who believes
Also humans have been around waaay more than 10k years.
I was referring to the birth of civilization, not the appearance of Homo Erectus
I didn't answer that one, I showed where beliefs used to hold a god accountable for an action but when science found out why that action happens the idea of god had to move to be in charge of the new finding or just cede the idea.
Using a diety to fill in the blanks makes sense if you ask me.
This is not circular thinking, it is just impossible to make progress in an argument that cannot be tested.
By using criteria that is favorable you can claim anything whether others will think it is right or not, all this shows is subjectivity of the speaker.
I am not using a personal criteria. I am pointing out the fact that differs humans from an ordinary animal.We all had the same beginnings but only humans has managed to take over the whole ecosystem of the planet, conquer our predators and travel through space. In less than 10,000 years of existence
Admit it, we are special
And correct me if I am wrong...he is not the majority either.
He is a scientist who made major contributions in the field of biology. Hence I am implying that if biology can cause someone to loose faith, he would be the first one to be.
A 2009 study showed that the population of scientists who believes in a god ranks at 51% while atheists are at 41%, the rest are undecided.
Furthermore, scientists today are no less likely to believe in God than they were almost 100 years ago, when the scientific community was first polled on this issue. In 1914, 11 years before the Scopes "monkey" trial and four decades before the discovery of the structure of DNA, psychologist James Leuba asked 1,000 U.S. scientists about their views on God. He found the scientific community evenly divided, with 42% saying that they believed in a personal God and the same number saying they did not. Scientists have unearthed many important fossils since then, but they are, if anything, more likely to believe in God today.
Of course we all have the same basic needs, beyond that though is personal discrete reasons.
It is a matter of being recognized and valued, my friend.
No matter how many people you allow yourself to be surrounded with, only you can understand who you really are and it is a sad thing to hear no voice other than your own. Here is the part where a believer gains all the advantages and as to why religious people tend to live happier.
