Only 10% Of The Nobel Prize Winners Are Atheist ?

[Flummoxed]

Interesting conversation you two have going.  It says a lot.  Like, first, you must agree n who/what is god.  And that goes much further than either of you have gone.   Especially when you spell the word "god" instead of "God". 

 

 

 

Yes exactly there is no clear definition of what a god is, even within people of the same religions.

 

I am sticking with little g, you missed my other deliberate miss spellings in the sun of god, The sun being what most christian festivals are based around probably because the religion was brought into existence by emperor constantine who was involved with sun worship. He called the council of narceu in about 322 AD and created from all the factions what he hoped would be a unifying religion for everyone in the Roman empire, the rest his history. 

 

The Pantheist or new age definition of god is basically in line with Daniels old testament definition, but no miracles. If you believe the universe exists and you are a part of it and then you are pantheist. Amusingly the Pantheist definition of god would include demi gods as described in the various religions if they existed also :) 

 

 

Some one who believes in the old testament god would define a Pantheist as an Atheist 

 

As for your afterlife,

in Zen Buddhism, what you do in this life echos through into the next.

In Pantheism, what you were when you were alive still exists and gets reused eventually ie recycled.

In Valhala, you get to go and fight then die then come back to life again and do it all again for eternity, interspersed with feasts etc.

In Christianity and I think also Islam, you get to burn in hell

or in Christianity listen to harps sat on a cloud or in Islam have 20 virgins waiting on your every need(dont know where the virgins come from, and dont ask a moslem, they dont like it, also dont mention bacon sandwiches).  

Which of the above is most plausible.

Some one who believes in the old testament god would define a Pantheist as an Atheist 

[Flummoxed]

Point the third: Skepticism is proportionate to intelligence. Byt where science does not yet tread lots of the big brains follow the same logic as Roko's Basilisk.  Essentially the MOST logical thing to do is to worship every possible god you are aware of "just in case" and ESPECIALLY worship the evil ones like The Basilisk or Kek, That Basilisk link will lead you to understand WHY that logic holds sound(and also why it's stupid).

 

 

 

I must be a genius :) BUT surely the most logical thing to do is to ignore the existence of gods, unless they prove their existence to you, in which case you can request mental help, oe become a prophet and create a religion of your own like Mohammed did. If you were an emperor and thought it would be good for your empire to have a common religion you could create one like Constantine did. If you hoped the Egyptians would allow you back after kicking you out, you could wander around in the desert for 40 years before deciding to follow the well establised trade route between Egypt to Palestine and settle a new country like the Jews did.  

[hazelm]

Yes exactly there is no clear definition of what a god is, even within people of the same religions.

 

I am sticking with little g, you missed my other deliberate miss spellings in the sun of god, The sun being what most christian festivals are based around probably because the religion was brought into existence by emperor constantine who was involved with sun worship. He called the council of narceu in about 322 AD and created from all the factions what he hoped would be a unifying religion for everyone in the Roman empire, the rest his history. 

 

The Pantheist or new age definition of god is basically in line with Daniels old testament definition, but no miracles. If you believe the universe exists and you are a part of it and then you are pantheist. Amusingly the Pantheist definition of god would include demi gods as described in the various religions if they existed also :)

 

 

Some one who believes in the old testament god would define a Pantheist as an Atheist 

 

As for your afterlife,

in Zen Buddhism, what you do in this life echos through into the next.

In Pantheism, what you were when you were alive still exists and gets reused eventually ie recycled.

In Valhala, you get to go and fight then die then come back to life again and do it all again for eternity, interspersed with feasts etc.

In Christianity and I think also Islam, you get to burn in hell

or in Christianity listen to harps sat on a cloud or in Islam have 20 virgins waiting on your every need(dont know where the virgins come from, and dont ask a moslem, they dont like it, also dont mention bacon sandwiches).  

Which of the above is most plausible.

Some one who believes in the old testament god would define a Pantheist as an Atheist 

No,  I didn't miss your "sun of....".  It registered.  As for the rest, that ties right in with the old adage:  You should never talk  religion or politics in a gathering unless you know exactly to whom you are speaking.  Especially not religion , although I think politics is more flammable.  Politics is best avoided.  But discussing religion can be interesting if - as you are showing - you can first agree on definitions.  Or be constantly identifying from where you are coming. 

[hazelm]

I must be a genius :) BUT surely the most logical thing to do is to ignore the existence of gods, unless they prove their existence to you, in which case you can request mental help, oe become a prophet and create a religion of your own like Mohammed did. If you were an emperor and thought it would be good for your empire to have a common religion you could create one like Constantine did. If you hoped the Egyptians would allow you back after kicking you out, you could wander around in the desert for 40 years before deciding to follow the well establised trade route between Egypt to Palestine and settle a new country like the Jews did.  

Then, too, it may depend on why the person started the conversation.  He/she may be interested in worshiping.  Or, he may simply be curious about how and why people worship as they do - if they do.  Like discussing philosophy, maybe?  In fact,  I have a philosophy book around here somewhere that lists Jesus as a great philosopher.  Never gets into religion, just presents his philosophies about how we can  live the best life.

 

It really is possible to simply be interested in something - how it works and maybe why - without wanting to be part of it.   An open mind?  A curious mind?

Edited January 19, 2020 by hazelm

[GAHD]

I must be a genius :) BUT surely the most logical thing to do is to ignore the existence of gods, unless they prove their existence to you, in which case you can request mental help, oe become a prophet and create a religion of your own like Mohammed did. If you were an emperor and thought it would be good for your empire to have a common religion you could create one like Constantine did. If you hoped the Egyptians would allow you back after kicking you out, you could wander around in the desert for 40 years before deciding to follow the well establised trade route between Egypt to Palestine and settle a new country like the Jews did.  

just to be clear: skepticism is proportionate to intelligence, but intelligence isn't always proportionate to skepticism... ;) It's one of the darkly funny things about the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

As for most logical...philisophy on that really comes down to your stance on causal vs acausal actors and weather you find spiritual blackmail to be effective and/or justified.

Edited January 20, 2020 by GAHD
actors

[Vmedvil2]

just to be clear: skepticism is proportionate to intelligence, but intelligence isn't always proportionate to skepticism... ;) It's one of the darkly funny things about the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

As for most logical...philisophy on that really comes down to your stance on causal vs acausal actors and weather you find spiritual blackmail to be effective and/or justified.

I agree with GAHD, all you got is basically that , "God will send me to hell" , I have already proven that using virtual hell's and digital immortality anyone with sufficient computer science or programming knowledge can send someone to hell forever inside a computer(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34693-should-rapist-be-sent-to-pain-amplifiers-for-the-crimes/), furthermore using the 666 mark in my Bible:Spells thread anyone can send anyone to hell under that dogma(http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/36149-bible-spells-satanic-mark/), do you have anything else worse than that cause that seems to be kinda played out? Basically sending people to hell is something that only God used to be able to do but with modern technology we have creeped up on the powers of God meaning if humans can do it what makes it special? God's Power is waning....... To the point that anyone can do it Good or Evil so whats the point of believing in God or that archaic religion. The reality of it is a mind bent on doing Evil could torture you for no reason without any access to God's Power and Jesus wouldn't save you from being tortured either in real life it is much more dark, you would pray for a nice Police Officer or Federal Agent with computer knowledge rather than God or Jesus.

Edited January 20, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[LaurieAG]

I read an article about a survey that found atheists were immoral when compared with religious people but when they added a promiscuity attribute to all the survey profiles being rated all of the promiscuous people, regardless of however religious they were or not, were regarded as the most immoral people.

[Flummoxed]

just to be clear: skepticism is proportionate to intelligence, but intelligence isn't always proportionate to skepticism... ;) It's one of the darkly funny things about the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

As for most logical...philisophy on that really comes down to your stance on causal vs acausal actors and weather you find spiritual blackmail to be effective and/or justified.

 

I must admit I only read the first few paragraphs of your link, before becoming skeptical of its worth.

 

I think some religions would like to declare exactly what a god is. The various old testament based religion versions of god do not agree, individual members of a faith do not agree. God is what ever a person wants it to be, and anyone who does not believe in said god are atheists. The Pantheist view is the only true God all others are inferior, or just a small part of the Pantheist view. Of course some would argue that Pantheism is sexed Atheism, but they are Atheists them selves :)

[Dubbelosix]

Ah the age old question... Bias Flummoxed said, or maybe a collective intelligence that exists subconsciously and we often ignore? God can come in any form, it's religion that divides nations.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Dubbelosix

[Flummoxed]

Ah the age old question... Bias Flummoxed said, or maybe a collective intelligence that exists subconsciously and we often ignore? God can come in any form, it's religion that divides nations.

 

Religion is just smoke and mirrors, intended to control and indoctrinate people to foolish ideas. If a person is imprinted with incorrect truths as a child it is difficult for them to cast them off. If a person was never imprinted it is difficult for them to accept said incorrect truths. 

 

Collective consciousness. That would have to do with mind in Theravada Buddhism, or the herding instinct in animals perhaps. The concept of collective mind under Pantheism, might be viewed as a connection of brain to an entangled universe perhaps.

 

Apparently under dhamma buddhism which might be theravada buddhism by a different name a feeling in the chest is where the mind manifests itself(just read this 5 minutes ago) giving one premonitions of responses to emails, winning hands at cards  etc :)  

 

Lots of mysticism smoke and mirrors lies in religion not unlike physics. The fanatics of both groups get upset when you dont believe them, perhaps its a feature of human nature. agree or die :( 

[Dubbelosix]

Don't forget collective consciousness also has another definition rooted in psychology.

 

Though psychology by means is no accurate science.

[hazelm]

Religion is just smoke and mirrors, intended to control and indoctrinate people to foolish ideas. If a person is imprinted with incorrect truths as a child it is difficult for them to cast them off. If a person was never imprinted it is difficult for them to accept said incorrect truths. 

 

Collective consciousness. That would have to do with mind in Theravada Buddhism, or the herding instinct in animals perhaps. The concept of collective mind under Pantheism, might be viewed as a connection of brain to an entangled universe perhaps.

 

Apparently under dhamma buddhism which might be theravada buddhism by a different name a feeling in the chest is where the mind manifests itself(just read this 5 minutes ago) giving one premonitions of responses to emails, winning hands at cards  etc :)  

 

Lots of mysticism smoke and mirrors lies in religion not unlike physics. The fanatics of both groups get upset when you dont believe them, perhaps its a feature of human nature. agree or die :(

And your last sentence puts the finger on why we should just let it go, not try any hard persuasion.  Especially if you know the believer to be overly sensitive or whatever.  I can't really explain it well but there are people who cannot deal with losing their faith.  It is all they have. A psychologist could explain it.  My grandmother would have dealt with you well, using her very strong will.   But her son, my uncle, a very gentle soul and one of the finest people I ever knew, could not have. He had a deep love of his God that Grandmother did not have.  For her, God was just someone to demand of.  Uncle would literally have fallen apart if he had lost his faith in God.  It would have been tragic.  You really have to know your people before you try to change their minds.  Let them grow though it.

 

On the other hand - physicists (scientists) - I should think anyone with the intelligence to dig into facts that far, would know part of their learning is to look at all sides and then make their choices.    Once they have made their choice?  What difference does it make if they disagree with me?  To each his own.

[Flummoxed]

If somebody posts a question or starts a thread I would assume they want to discuss the subject of their OP, regardless of their sensitivity. 

[hazelm]

If somebody posts a question or starts a thread I would assume they want to discuss the subject of their OP, regardless of their sensitivity. 

I agree but aren't we far removed from that?  Seems to me we have veered into judging those with the vaiious beliefs.  Maybe I am wrong.

[Dubbelosix]

All of you have points that need recognition.

[Flummoxed]

I agree but aren't we far removed from that?  Seems to me we have veered into judging those with the vaiious beliefs.  Maybe I am wrong.

 

I dont think so! The claim was that lots of nobel prize winners believed in god/gods. My question to the OP was please define what your god it is you are referring too, as different religions have different versions of gods. The OP eventually responded with I think the version of god in the old testament, sentient, omni everything, which is not the same definition of god / gods in many other religions. This showed his claim to be wrong I think.  

[Thoth101]

I wonder how many of the noble prize winners are Masons. I would bet it is a high percentage. And a Mason must believe in some kind of higher power or god.