For those that feel some need for the “ultimate meaning” behind life, I simply ask you this:
Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? -Douglas Adams
WOE - That is an interesting way to see it -
Danielsangeo - Fairies are my favorite of the myths - Just the same, I don’t spend a whole lot of time looking for them - (Excellent quote)
So, what is the ultimate meaning behind gardens if there were no fairies?
(See how silly the “ultimate meaning” question is to atheists like me?)
(Gasps)
;-0
I see what you mean.
here’s a question for certain atheists - why do you feel “a biology textbook” is conclusive proof that theism is false, and how do you account for surveys showing people with doctorates in biological sciences having a 40% incidence of religious faith?
I account for that by asking “How does one account for 40% of biology textbook authors contradicting the literal word in their holy books”.
Perhaps I’m not the certain atheist to ask, when I answer that biology textbooks exist to convey what has been successfully researched, and not to prove them to the usual readers, while on first glance your other question leads me to observe that people currently with doctorates in biological sciences grew up in a previous generation (as doctorates require a multitude of years of study, just to even enter the measured pool), when religion was common in every household (if not violently mandatory) and atheism was evidence enough to prove someone’s allegiance was with the Soviet enemy (whose scientists, if they’re even counted, hardly had a counterbalancing influence as the Russian Orthodox church persisted with marked popularity).
I’m not certain what you’re trying to clarify with that second question. Without a link to this 40% figure, a date, or even a setting for this sample of scientists (are we counting Mumbai as well as New York?) then there’s not much that can be reasonably speculated about and answered by these certain atheists.
My mistake for quoting specific numbers and not specifying the source - lets just say studies show “significant percentages” of people who know more about biology than you do (by virtue of their doctorates) don’t think it contradicts the word of their holy books. That’s what I’m trying to clarify with the question.
And i couple seconds of googling reveals the studyi was thinking about
Further reading (via wikepedia) on how the idea of a fundamental conflict between religion and science is widely considered false by historians.
Facts and history aside, my point is that the claim that biological science disproves theology rests on the incredibly narcissistic assumption that the person making the claim has a perfect understanding of both subjects, when in fact it’s more likely the exact opposite is true.
First of all, a biology textbook does not contain any proof that theism is false as far as I’m concerned. Second, “incidence of religious faith” has nothing to do with your degree or your profession.
And can I ask which region the study is about? The US? The whole world? (I cba to go read it myself).
Yes, United States. Here’s the sentence that details:
If you take into account all that has been researched and found out through science about the natural world, the mechanics of how nature and our universe are functioning leave almost no space for a “creator” whatsoever - even less for a creator like he is described in the Bible, that is, with a certain interest in the well-being of mankind or even certain single humans. Which makes faith absolutely obsolete.
To assume that behind all of this, there can still be a greater purpose and a supreme being, is a foul compromise employed by scientists who are either too conservative and too traditionally educated (and, therefore, close-minded to a certain extent), or are just too afraid to piss off potential Christian investors who might grant funding for their research.
On topic: Richard Dawkins planning to have the Pope arrested over “crimes against humanity” <<< this would be so much win! 
Is there a study that includes scientists from around the world? Studies like these are fairly one-sided (cba to look for one myself :p).
edit: the pope should be held accountable for crimes against humanity. You know, the ones he committed.
I know. I sincerely hope that Dawkins gets through with this. It’s about fucking time.
I think it’s a bit needless. THIS Pope has been pretty mild compared to Popes past.
He is still the representative of an institution which has tried to cover up the fact that its associates have frequently committed the crime of child rape, molestation and other forms of physical or mental abuse of children.
He is to be held responsible.
Brace for buck passing to God.
There is no God.
…was that a summary of this thread?
How do you prove something (Anything) does not exist?
Is it not more to the point “There is no God that we can detect using the methods of science as we understand them”?
Again, I would love to know that someone found a pixie or some such - so far no… but does that mean there has never been one?
Just threw that one in - becuase as unlikely as that may be, how can anyone say that for sure? When it comes to God, maybe we are looking for the wrong thing?
You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist (god, pixie, Star Trek), but that doesn’t mean that it might exist.