Unprepared arguement. Tell 'em Dawkins! Richard Dawkins on militant atheism | Video on TED.com Tesla was religious. Newton was religious. What did Einstein say... Honestly. Science and Religion can coincide, and coexist. The boat will still float. You just need to throw the idiots overboard. No such thing as Atheism!!
Show me a picture of Tesla being religious and I'll believe you. Not that any of these "look, a person widely regarded as intelligent 90 or so years ago" examples prove that generally the intelligent lean towards religiosity. What it proves is that there was much more of a social pressure into believing in god, even in the 20th century. It's like using Einstein and Newton as proof that women are stupid.
So anyone who draws their own opinions believes what you do? I think I can see what you're trying to say, that most people just believe in religion because they are told to, but I've drawn my own conclusions and I firmly believe in God. My thoughts are probably far removed from those others believe but I do believe.
I've been a Christian most of my life and a lot of my life and what I do stems from my relationship with Jesus and what I believe about it. That said a lot of religious people don't do the world any favors by dismissing science in the name of God. I have never felt that God and science are mutually exclusive. The way I see it (in other words what I personally believe) is that all of the Bible is true, but not all truths are in the Bible (aka much of what we know through modern science and philosophy).
That video buggs me. I was going to pick a certain section of it apart line-by-line and dispute it once for another such discussion. Anti-religion is misplaced, in a culturally-insensitive kind of way.
It appears this person/whoever made that chart interviewed a group of religious people and a group of not religious people considering the lack of people around 50%, or more likely this is just made up considering the normal human numerical value associated with IDK is 50%, and those associated with wanting to stand out are 0% and 100%, none of which appear in this chart. The following is a humorous way of expressing my actual view, not spam or trolling so don't infract me sarge. 1. "I noticed you have a bible with you. Do you actually find time to read it?" "Every god damned day." --George S. Patton 2. Spoiler
My philosophy, kill everyone, their gods will know who belongs to who. Nothing wrong with religion in it's most basic form. However, give a human being a ambiguous book that is able to be interpreted in anyway possible allowing said person the ability to inflict their own views into the words of a deity to justify their own insecurities and allowing them to believe it is right to destroy the assumed cause of their fears is a retarded notion and should be burned from our collective memories.
All I can say is that this is another never ending discussion. I am a man of both, over the past year I have doubted my Christian beliefs because I was being told in school and by everyone that Naturalism is a fact. I had almost jumped on the band wagon of Naturalism, until I made a stand and told myself to read the facts. I discovered that evolution within a kind is proven, but there is no evidence in the fossil record for evolution between kinds, whether it is because of Natural Selection, Mutation, Adaption etc. On the contrary there is no evidence for a God either. To be on topic you can't say that religious people are stupid. I for one aren't stupid, neither is my uncle who is the head Pharmacist of an Irish Pharmacy. Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Richards, just to name a few are all very very smart Journalists/Philosophers that believe and give amazing arguments in the Science of Intelligent Design. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008) - IMDb This documentary is really informative about the relationship between Schools and Universities firing Scientists because they brought in a perspective of Intelligent Design to class. Carl Sagan in his book, 'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' said, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs … in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” He admits that his Materialistic beliefs have lead him to dead ends in means of Science, for one it lead me there. I'm not saying all Atheists, but Carl Sagan, Dawkins, Darwin, to name a few have all said that they can't let a Divine Foot in the door of Science or even in our world. Why would you want to get rid of something that brings countless people joy, hope, love etc. To be honest doing such a thing will destroy families, countries, it'll start wars. They are (very smart) men of Science, but would you say these smart men are making smart decisions?..
As with every rule there are exceptions. Personally I think any information found on a graph on the internet is to be taken as someones opinion. Not actual fact. But then, I have never considered surveys to be an accurate way to collect data. All they prove is that of the 100 (or whatever number) of people you spoke to (or took a test or whatever) a certain number of those said one thing, some said another and still more said something else. Is it a true representation of the entire population? Hell no. Not even a close estimate or approximation. It all depends on who you ask, where you ask it, even what time you ask it. population densities, different cultures in the area... Far too many uncontrollable variables to even begin to get an understanding of what you are trying to research. [br][/br]Edited by merge: And religion has not done those things? Keep in mind my other posts when you reply. I'm not saying either of these two things are inherently bad, but people distort them. So don't go saying science is being unfair to religion. Specially when many religions refuse to let their followers examine science, to the point where they cannot even go to the doctor when they have a serious illness.
I wasn't aware that some religions do such a thing. As you said, people distort them. All I can say to that is there are bad people and there are good people. I apologise if I said Science was being unfair to Religion, I didn't intend it. The Religious leaders that don't allow their followers examine since are blind and fall under the category of Religious Extremism, which in my opinion is just if not worse than Terrorism.
Terrorism is a byproduct of extremism. Christian Science is the main one I know of but I'm certain other segments of other religions do the same. Too many of them not to. James Hetfield (singer/guitarist for Metallica) grew up as such. Personally I grew up a Mormon but found their views to be too narrow minded, though they were nicer about trying to spread their version of "The Word" than many others. If god is out there, I think he/she/it just wants us to live full, productive lives without causing undue harm to others around us. Religion, science. None of it really matters in the long run as long as you can find contentment.
There are many definitions of smart. You can be scientifically, religiously, street smart etc. but at the end of the day what you just said makes you one heck of a smart person. There is extremism on either side of the spectrum, Hitler was an atheist, he killed all of the darker coloured humans, the homosexuals and the major or minor mentally retarded, he placed all religious humans into concentration camps to convert them, if they didn't they were killed. He did this to allow his country to move forward and be what you could say the "gods" of the human species. The Crusades killed in the name of Christianity. I would say they are bad people, yet there are so many good people that are men of science and or religion. How much easier would it be if everyone would categorise people in terms of good and bad and not from beliefs, skin colour, sexuality etc.
Good and bad can be just as much of a pitfall as religion and science mate. Hitler probably thought he was doing good, those crusaders most certainly did. Just as today, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. To really judge good or bad you have to bring motives and intentions into it. It's all just one big quagmire (giggity) and there is no one solution to it. Everyone just has to find their own way, while looking after their own. I just realised how very simmilar I look at things to how Captain Reynolds does. Some will get the reference, Sarge in particular if he bothers to read this whole thread before locking it.
Yes, because as Christian, you're *completely* free of bias. Nice job, Einstein. And you're off topic, which is: Spoiler % of Countries' belief in a god/ average Intelligence Quotient
That is Hitler and the Pope. If you look carefully you may notice that they aren't in a concentration camp, nor is the Pope being murdered. I think the Pope qualifies as a religious person. As for your accusation that Hitler was an atheist, that is also false, but it doesn't matter what his specific religious beliefs were because that has no bearing on whether said beliefs are true or not.