Hi, I am skeptic and an athiest. I'm not the devil.

[Radagast]

I never said you did, I said nobody has.

In that case, what has it got to do with my point?

And, yet again (given that most Nobel Prize winners are Christian), you don't like "having won a Nobel Prize" as a definition of "expert." I ask yet again: what's your definition?

 

[Silmarien]

so you define my atheism for me then?

Heaven forbid.

of course it has nothing to do with exodus, Gilgamesh was written thousands of years before the bible, the bible seemed to mimic large portions of that story. neither of which I accept as fact

You do realize that Moses shows up in Exodus, right? He's not in Genesis, and certainly not involved in the flood myth. If you're going to write "Epic of Gilgamesh vs. Moses" in one post and then turn around and say that of course it has nothing to do with Exodus, the only alternative is that you have no idea who Moses is, which is even wilder than getting confused about the Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[Radagast]

then what does it mean?

Given the fact that the effect is reversed among the younger generation, it reflects the structure of Western society some decades ago.

 

[Nithavela]

I agree there's an effect. I note it's not a big one. I disagree about what it means. I note that among younger people, the pattern seems to be reversed.

One can't read that article without either having an account or shelling out 36 dollars.

Maybe you should find a different source.

 

[Radagast]

I don't really like to only look at nobel prize winners.

I don't much like it myself, to be honest. The claim was "the intellectual elite are atheist." I've been pointing out that, for a more or less sensible definition of "elite," the claim is actually false.

You seem to be pointing out that the category "intellectual elite" is itself problematic. And I think you're right, actually. I don't put much faith in "elites," particularly self-described ones.

 

[Logicdictates_udumb]

I don't really like to only look at nobel prize winners. For one thing, many winners feel compelled to weigh in on questions they have no expertise in (often contrary to the consensus in that field), and for some reason their opinions carry weight in the minds of some people.

If you wont rely on scientific consensus, which is peer reviewed and verified (preferably by competitors who want you to be wrong) but you will rely a book that cannot be verified because its in the relm of supernatural, then we have nothing to discuss. that's more or less conceding that you don't care about the validity of what you believe.

 

[Radagast]

One can't read that article without either having an account or shelling out 36 dollars.

Maybe you should find a different source.

The abstract is free. I can't find a US source right now, but there's this showing reduced atheism among younger US scientists:

And did you notice how all the objective data is being provided by the Christian here?

 

[Nithavela]

If you wont rely on scientific consensus, which is peer reviewed and verified (preferably by competitors who want you to be wrong) but you will rely a book that cannot be verified because its in the relm of supernatural, then we have nothing to discuss. that's more or less conceding that you don't care about the validity of what you believe.

Now that you knocked down that strawman, I hope you feel a bit better.

 

[Logicdictates_udumb]

I don't much like it myself, to be honest. The claim was "the intellectual elite are atheist." I've been pointing out that, for a more or less sensible definition of "elite," the claim is actually false.

You seem to be pointing out that the category "intellectual elite" is itself problematic. And I think you're right, actually. I don't put much faith in "elites," particularly self-described ones.

We are talking about the scientific leader is the research of the origins of the universe, not people who read an unverifiable book and pass it off as fact.

 

[Radagast]

If you wont rely on scientific consensus, which is peer reviewed and verified

Scientists may make peer-reviewed statements about atoms. Their statements about God are not peer-reviewed. There is no "scientific consensus" about God (although the majority vote among scientists says that there is one).

And, by the way, I am a scientist.

 

[Radagast]

We are talking about the scientific leader is the research of the origins of the universe, not people who read an unverifiable book and pass it off as fact.

Can you reword that sentence to be more comprehensible, please?

You seem to be talking about "scientific leaders in research on the origins of the universe." Presumably you mean this Catholic priest, father of the "Big Bang" theory?

 

[Nithavela]

The abstract is free. I can't find a US source right now, but there's this showing reduced atheism among younger US scientists:

And did you notice how all the objective data is being provided by the Christian here?

Thank you very much. Quite interesting also that in the fields, the more microscopic the field that is observed, the higher the religiosity of the scientists, with Chemists having the highest and astronomists having the lowest.

And yeah, I've noticed. I think that has more to do with your experience, though.

 

[A_Thinker]

I see I creation, I see natural selection as described by Darwin.

There hasn't been enough time for natural selection to create the variety of life we see on the planet.

the universe is not made to fit us, we cannot breath in a vacuume.

We don't live in a vacuum, ... we live on Earth, which seems to be rather perfectly designed for our survival and development.

 

[Nithavela]

There hasn't been enough time for natural selection to create the variety of life we see on the planet.



We don't live in a vacuum, ... we live on Earth, which seems to be rather perfectly designed for our survival and development.

Most parts are actually quite hostile, either to hot, too cold, to watery or too dry. The sea alone covers nearly 3/4 of the world.

Then again, you can always use the "get out of jail free" card and point at "the fall".

 

[Radagast]

Quite interesting also that in the fields, the more microscopic the field that is observed, the higher the religiosity of the scientists, with Chemists having the highest and astronomists having the lowest.

Side issue, but fascinating to me as well.

And yeah, I've noticed. I think that has more to do with your experience, though.

Thanks!

 

[Dirk1540]

I see I creation, I see natural selection as described by Darwin. the universe is not made to fit us, we cannot breath in a vacuume.

Homo sapiens are natural selection enigmas. If we can’t breath in a vacuum it probably means that we belong on Earth lol

 

[A_Thinker]

Most parts are actually quite hostile, either to hot, too cold, to watery or too dry. The sea alone covers nearly 3/4 of the world.

Then again, you can always use the "get out of jail free" card and point at "the fall".

Or ... rather obviously point out that we aren't meant to live upon every square inch of the Earth. Those areas which are too hot, too cold, too watery, or too dry ... all work together to support the ecosystem which does support us.

 

[Nithavela]

Homo sapiens are natural selection enigmas. If we can’t breath in a vacuum it probably means that we belong on Earth lol

And yet we have the brains to make it to the moon and back, and possibly much further.

 

[Nithavela]

Or ... rather obviously point out that we aren't meant to live upon every square inch of the Earth.

Doesn't stop humanity from trying, though.

 

[Logicdictates_udumb]

Heaven forbid.



You do realize that Moses shows up in Exodus, right? He's not in Genesis, and certainly not involved in the flood myth. If you're going to write "Epic of Gilgamesh vs. Moses" in one post and then turn around and say that of course it has nothing to do with Exodus, the only alternative is that you have no idea who Moses is, which is even wilder than getting confused about the Epic of Gilgamesh.

have you looked at the similarities between the epic of Gilgamesh and mosses and the flood?