DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Elok]

You can still have faith and be a man of science (like JM), but this is a fairly rare breed. In general terms, the more educated one becomes with the science of our world the less religious they are. This is a simple fact.

Last I read, atheists/agnostics were somewhat more prevalent in the scientific community than the general population (in America), but still not a majority. Somewhere around a third, IIRC.

EDIT:

"Studies of scientists' belief in God

Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 believe in God.[52][75][76] Belief also varies by field: psychologists, physicists and engineers are less likely to believe in God than mathematicians, biologists and chemists.[77][78] Doctors in the United States are much more likely to believe in God (76%).[79]

Some of the most recent research into scientists' self reported belief in God is discussed by Professor Elaine Howard Ecklund. Some of her most interesting findings were that scientist-believers generally considered themselves "religious liberals" (not fundamentalists), and that their religion did not change the way they did science, but rather the way they reflected on its implications. Ecklund also discusses how there is a stigma against belief in God in the professional science community, which may have contributed to underrepresentation of religious voices in the field.[80]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science

There's more there, but I figured that was enough to go on. Also says, later on, that religious people with a predilection for science may simply tend to become doctors rather than researchers, as 76% of doctors believe in God according to one study.

[giblets]

You're contradicting yourself. I don't expect you to see it.

You're contradicting yourself. If only you could see it.

Dumbass.

[Kidlicious]

You're contradicting yourself. If only you could see it.

Dumbass.

How so?

[giblets]

How so?

I'm mostly mocking your "I'm going to dismiss your post without bothering to present an argument because I don't want to admit defeat" tactic.

Dumbass.

[MOBIUS]

secondly, my analogy is a very apt one. you (and i don't just mean you personally, i've pulled up mobius on this before) when talking about religion, are like the guy bleating on about BBC basic in a discussion about programming today. the arguments and debates have moved on. the 'base' upon which religion is constructed and argued for has changed. the arguments against have also changed. you are out of date.

I like you. That's why I didn't continue that argument at the time - but I certainly didn't feel 'pulled up'...

The only way that religion has 'moved on' is that it is struggling to keep up with the coat tails of science and society by continually morphing itself into something that is still acceptable/believable to enough people for it to survive. Like when people stopped realising that the Earth was flat or that the Sun orbits around the Earth and not vice versa; or when evolution accepted science; or when it was OK to have women priests; or that ****ing boys is actually frowned upon outside the Catholic church; or that in some situations (like gay sex - but NOT ****ing young boys!) it is OK to use condoms...

That's how religion has 'moved on' (in the West)...

Looking back at the old doctrine and how ignorant religion was of the world without the advances in knowledge from science merely exposes the truth: That a leopard cannot change its spots!

[Kidlicious]

I'm mostly mocking your "I'm going to dismiss your post without bothering to present an argument because I don't want to admit defeat" tactic.

Dumbass.

So you don't see the contradiction in his post either, do you?

[MOBIUS]

I'm mostly mocking your "I'm going to dismiss your post without bothering to present an argument because I don't want to admit defeat" tactic.

Dumbass.

Kid is the new Ben. Somebody had to take up the mantle sooner or later...

[Elok]

So you don't see the contradiction in his post either, do you?

I see oversimplifications in the post quoted, but not contradictions. Nothing's jumping out at me.

[Jon Miller]

I have never found anything in science that has in any way made me doubt my faith or weakened it or changed it in any way.

The only area that might have changed due to science was the literalness of God's creation of the earth. However, that was due to being a modern rational man, it isn't anything to do with who I am as a man of science.

I agree that people of science are less likely to be fundamentalists. I don't think that has anything to do with discoveries of science though.

JM

[Kidlicious]

I see oversimplifications in the post quoted, but not contradictions. Nothing's jumping out at me.

A) Scientific knowledge is not a substitute for faith.
B) The more scientific knowledge one has the less faith they have.

[Elok]

Not necessarily contradictory. The more allergic I am to cat hair, the less likely I am to own a cat. This does not mean that allergies are substitutes for pets.

[Kidlicious]

Not necessarily contradictory. The more allergic I am to cat hair, the less likely I am to own a cat. This does not mean that allergies are substitutes for pets.

It's more like he's saying that dogs aren't a substitute cats, but as more people own dogs they like them better than cats.

[Kidlicious]

At any rate, my point stands that science has not made any religious beliefs seem more absurd than they previously were.

[giblets]

At any rate, my point stands that science has not made any religious beliefs seem more absurd than they previously were.

They've certainly made the stuff in Genesis seem absurd...

[Jon Miller]

There is a big difference between 'the stuff in Genesis' and the literalness of the creation story in Genesis.

As pointed out in the last month on Apolyton, there was already reason to not believe in the literalness of the creation story in Genesis.

And actually, in the last 100 years just as there has been some evidence against the literalness of parts of the Bible (the part which was written 3000 years ago yet talks about some much more distant time) there has been evidence for the literalness of other parts of the Bible (like much of the history of Israel).

JM