A company of atheists.

[mattpegher]

In Medicine you find a slight shift the otherway, toward religious. It may have to do with the need to care for others, but I think that it is hard to be completely atheist when you deal with people, esp the ill and dying. Too often there are events, feelings and perceptions that challange your expectations.

 

[Cookie]

I have no idea. I just assume around here everyone is non-religious until proven otherwise.

The only co-worker I know for sure is muslim and I only know because I got his wife's cousin to take me to their mosque one day during prayer so I could check it out.

 

[TridenT]

Not a clue, but I am pretty sure it is not that atheist/agnostic. I work at Ross.

 

[slayer202]

In Medicine you find a slight shift the otherway, toward religious. It may have to do with the need to care for others, but I think that it is hard to be completely atheist when you deal with people, esp the ill and dying. Too often there are events, feelings and perceptions that challange your expectations.

I'm pretty sure the percentage would be lower than the american average. Though not as low as most scientists. Then again, most doctors aren't as intelligent as most scientists

 

[hans007]

I work at a software firm and by and large everyone was an aetheist in practice.

I did have one friend which was a die hard Christian and I asked him how he could be an engineer and have to be logical while really religious which is based on blind faith which is mostly circular logic. He didn't have an answer for me. 5 years later and he has quit his job went to seminary school and is about to be a preacher. I guess that was the answer

 

[mattpegher]

I'm pretty sure the percentage would be lower than the american average. Though not as low as most scientists. Then again, most doctors aren't as intelligent as most scientists

I hope your last statement is not true, as you and I get older I want the best and the brightest to help my sorry ass.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I don't like to call myself either atheist or agnostic. I know a couple people who interpret the word "atheist" to mean "gnostic atheist." As in, you KNOW there is no God. Which to me is almost as bad as being a "gnostic theist," or being 100% certain that there IS a God. There's no way to be certain.

But I'm not on the fence either, as the term agnostic implies. I just don't talk about it unless I'm asked, and then I say that I'm "not religious." Which is really the best way to describe me anyway; I'm more opposed to religious rituals and dogma than I am opposed to the spiritual beliefs themselves. I think the only thing we can know for certain is that we don't know SHIT about how the universe works. If someone wants to believe in a bearded man sitting on a chair in the clouds because it makes their life easier to deal with, that's fine by me.

 

[Turin39789]

ugh not this again. that's not what agnosticism means.

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

'do not know what to believe' =/= 'believing we can never know'

Beat me to it.

Options are -

agnostic Atheist
gnostic Atheist
agnostic Theist
gnostic Theist

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

As for being illogical, it would seem that aethists are more illogical than the religious as most archaeological studies show that the 3 major religious texts (the bible, the koran, the tanakh) are all very much being historically accurate. Somehow you aethists seem to ignore that.

Exactly how is that being "illogical"?

If I told you I caught a 500lb brook trout down by the old oak tree, I could show you the stream and the oak tree. Hell, I can even show you the fishing pole and the bait I used. Does that mean you are "illogical" if you do not believe I caught a 500lb fish there?

 

[Gibson486]

I frequently bite my tongue when it comes to religious discussions at work. I work with a great many people of different faiths so I just keep my opinions and beliefs to myself. You fuckers aren't so lucky.

Yup, at work, nothing good comes out of discussing sex, politics, or religion. In fact (aside from sex), I do not talk about that stuff with friends.

 

[shadow9d9]

I wasnt aware that being christian affected the value of 4+4, the sin(x), the atomic weight of carbon, the electrical charge between 2 charged particles, or the lift and drag of a swept wing.


the idea that religious folks are less intelligent or dont have logic reasoning, or make poor engineers, is nothing but trolling, IMO.


As for being illogical, it would seem that aethists are more illogical than the religious as most archaeological studies show that the 3 major religious texts (the bible, the koran, the tanakh) are all very much being historically accurate. Somehow you aethists seem to ignore that.

People that are religious inherently have less logic reasoning skills.

As for the 3 major religions, yeah they have some historic accuracy because they were written by humans. What else should that prove? Oh, and please show logical reasoning.

 

[Jeff7]

I don't like to call myself either atheist or agnostic. I know a couple people who interpret the word "atheist" to mean "gnostic atheist." As in, you KNOW there is no God. Which to me is almost as bad as being a "gnostic theist," or being 100% certain that there IS a God. There's no way to be certain.

But I'm not on the fence either, as the term agnostic implies. I just don't talk about it unless I'm asked, and then I say that I'm "not religious." Which is really the best way to describe me anyway; I'm more opposed to religious rituals and dogma than I am opposed to the spiritual beliefs themselves. I think the only thing we can know for certain is that we don't know SHIT about how the universe works. If someone wants to believe in a bearded man sitting on a chair in the clouds because it makes their life easier to deal with, that's fine by me.

I view it as being practically impossible. It's said to be theoretically possible that a tiger could spontaneously come into existence out of the vacuum of space. I'm not really worried about that happening though, since it's so inexplicably unlikely to occur. In that case, I think you could practically say, with good certainty, "A tiger will not spontaneously appear anywhere on this planet."

I'd still say that the tiger-from-nothing is more likely than having any of our religions turn out to be correct.

I frequently bite my tongue when it comes to religious discussions at work. I work with a great many people of different faiths so I just keep my opinions and beliefs to myself. You fuckers aren't so lucky.

You're too good to us, you know that?

 

[mattpegher]

People that are religious inherently have less logic reasoning skills.

As for the 3 major religions, yeah they have some historic accuracy because they were written by humans. What else should that prove? Oh, and please show logical reasoning.

Again with the hubris. Ok I currently find myself at a point in my internal debate that I would say that I am atheistic, meaning that I find logical inconsistencies with an individual, seperate, indivisible noncorporial intelligence that created and monitors the universe. ie no god. I am on the fence about souls, (chakra, living energy, the force, the schwartz). I am attempting to explore the concepts of freewill vs determinism, life as something more than complex machinery. To date I cannot accept that every decision I make is simple the computational output of a million variables. However I am willing to listen to either side to see if anyone can enlighten me to concepts that I have yet to explore.

Ultimately the scientific method drives my action professionally and personally but I have learned that ignorance of ones ignorance is a dangerous thing.

 

[Ryland]

None of us discuss religion at work so I have no clue what if any religion my coworkers follow.

 

[mattpegher]

I view it as being practically impossible. It's said to be theoretically possible that a tiger could spontaneously come into existence out of the vacuum of space. I'm not really worried about that happening though, since it's so inexplicably unlikely to occur. In that case, I think you could practically say, with good certainty, "A tiger will not spontaneously appear anywhere on this planet."

I'd still say that the tiger-from-nothing is more likely than having any of our religions turn out to be correct.




You're too good to us, you know that?

Yet evolution and chaos theory state that a tiger did occur spontaneously (coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency) out of the material of space, it took millions of millions of years at an highly unlikely rate, but it did occur. Granted not floating in the vacuum. Its not like were talking about a sperm whale and a bowl of petunias.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I view it as being practically impossible.

Depends on how you define God. Is there possibly an alien life form that is unimaginably powerful from our perspective? Sure, there could be.

The religious definition of God though is one who is omnipotent and omniscient. I don't think such a thing is actually possible in the universe since such a being would still be bound by the limits of reality.

Think of Q from Star Trek. He's basically as close as you can get to God. But he's obviously just another form of life, enjoying no special status beyond his remarkable abilities. If a being like Q actually existed, he wouldn't be God. He wouldn't even be a god. He's just another inhabitant of the universe.

God by definition must be supernatural, and thus it's impossible for us to prove His existence. Hence the argument by agnostics that we are incapable of proving His existence one way or another, and the argument by religious people that we must have faith in something when there is no evidence.

All sorts of crazy, seemingly-impossible shit could happen and I still don't think I'd believe in God. If the skies parted and a voice addressed everyone on the planet, that could just as easily be a trick by a species much more advanced than our own. Like Q. Which is why Christians will tell you that God does not even attempt to reveal his presence. It wouldn't really change anything.

 

[slayer202]

Again with the hubris. Ok I currently find myself at a point in my internal debate that I would say that I am atheistic, meaning that I find logical inconsistencies with an individual, seperate, indivisible noncorporial intelligence that created and monitors the universe. ie no god. I am on the fence about souls, (chakra, living energy, the force, the schwartz). I am attempting to explore the concepts of freewill vs determinism, life as something more than complex machinery. To date I cannot accept that every decision I make is simple the computational output of a million variables. However I am willing to listen to either side to see if anyone can enlighten me to concepts that I have yet to explore.

Ultimately the scientific method drives my action professionally and personally but I have learned that ignorance of ones ignorance is a dangerous thing.

You are doing what is natural, to look for some meaning or explanation. But just because you want there to be something doesn't mean there is. I am very confident that if there is something out there to discover, we wont find it in our lifetimes. Its a waste of time to worry about it unless you are doing some work and research on the topic

 

[JEDIYoda]

just in case of what? according to christianity agnostics would burn in hell anyway. as an atheist I just consider the absence of a deity to probable and a practical belief to hold. if evidence were to arise confirming the existence of a deity, I'd convert in a heartbeat.

no you wouldn`t...thats what they all say ...if = proof=I would convert......thats why the scriptures your belief in God is through faith......Now FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things unseen.

 

[Blackjack200]

no you wouldn`t...thats what they all say ...if = proof=I would convert......thats why the scriptures your belief in God is through faith......Now FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things unseen.

He didn't ask for proof. He asked for evidence. It is one thing to believe something without proof, it is another thing entirely to believe something without evidence.

 

[AstroManLuca]

no you wouldn`t...thats what they all say ...if = proof=I would convert......thats why the scriptures your belief in God is through faith......Now FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for, the evidence of things unseen.

Exactly what I touched on as well. Faith is required because our puny minds wouldn't know "proof" if it came up and bit us in the face. Go back a few thousand years and show off our modern technology, and you could probably convince at least some people that you're a god.

Given the idea of what God is, there is no way His existence can be definitively proven or disproven. We can guess that his existence exactly as it's been laid out in the Bible is extremely unlikely, but that's it.

Like I said, what you might call "proof" could just as easily be some super-advanced aliens playing a trick on us. People who already believe in God would just reinforce their beliefs, while the truly skeptical among us would never really be swayed by any amount of "proof."

 

[slayer202]

You guys are confusing proof with evidence. You can believe things without being ignorant if there is evidence and reasons to believe in whatever you're talking about. But there isn't the slightest evidence that there is any sort of god, and this is why atheists don't believe in such gods

 

[mattpegher]

You are doing what is natural, to look for some meaning or explanation. But just because you want there to be something doesn't mean there is. I am very confident that if there is something out there to discover, we wont find it in our lifetimes. Its a waste of time to worry about it unless you are doing some work and research on the topic

I still believe that exploring these concepts helps me improve my interactions with others. Specifically but not limited to human interactions. Now the concept of good and evil do not require any religious context dispite how most are taught them. The concept of evil is particularly interesting. Especially when contemplating the idea of "greater good", and "necessary evils".

Is it evil to perpetrate a myth. Telling others that their god will reward them in heaven if they blow themselves and other up only to forward a political agenda. Telling an uninitiated that a magical fat man brings presents to instill wonder and joy. To spread a myth that you speak with the ultimate judge and persecuter in order to have others attempt to garner your support through gifts, giving you wealth and power.

I'm not even sure that evil is not a mythologic concept, devoid of meaning outside of a particular veiwpoint.

 

[slayer202]

I like sam harris' views on morals. Basically, there are moral truths, things that benefit the well being of conscious beings. How to find these, science can not yet answer, but may be able to one day. Things that do the opposite are bad or evil. collateral damage is a whole different debate

 

[squirrel dog]

Very few atheists on the battlefield . Funny how that works .

 

[Blackjack200]

Very few atheists on the battlefield . Funny how that works .

Yup, people tend to smoke on the battlefield too.