Posts Tagged ‘Scientist’

To be an Atheist only one has to deny God; absolutely no knowledge required

August 6, 2013

The Atheists in these blogs are of different hues and shades; they have often stated that they have only one thing in common that they deny existence of God.

They don’t have necessarily to be a scientist or following the scientific method that they have to hide behind many a times. It is sufficient to be ignorant to become an Atheist.

The New Atheists have an additional quality; they disrespect, ridicule and deride while reason rests aside.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

“Are 93% of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences Atheist and Agnostic?”

July 18, 2013

Scientific Method fails miserably in religion : it is not designed for it

 There took place a good discussion on the above topic in my favourite discussion forum <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/>;one could view the post one likes by clicking the # of post. One could join the discussion in the forum or here in this blog by one’s comments which are always welcome:

 #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shermana

It has been frequently stated that 93% of members of the National Academy of Scientists are Atheists or “Agnostics”. 

Is there a way to prove what percent of them are not “Agnostic” or are of the “Atheist-leaning Agnostic” category?

If so, can one draw an inference from this number about the NAS from this number? Especially in light of the whole “Can science disprove God” concept? Can we suggest there may be confirmation bias in their publications one way or another? Can such a confirmation bias be ruled out? Can it be inferenced that this number has nothing or little to do with their general statements and conclusions?

For instance, if one said that Creationist Institutes are overwhelmingly if not entirely Christian, then many might completely reject their conclusions if they aren’t Christian due to a perceived confirmation bias. Does the same apply to those on the other end of the belief spectrum?

Paarsurrey said:

Even if there is one scientist who believes in the one true God; that proves that science is not exclusive of religion.

#19   

Paarsurrey said:

Science does not deny the one true God; it is not a subject of science. If a scientist believes or does not believe in Him; it is neither a concern of science nor it has any bearing on the existence of the one true God, in my opinion.

It is something very personal of an individual.

#24 Originally Posted by Shermana

#25 MysticSang’ha

#26 Monk Of Reason

#27

 Paarsurrey said:

It is the choice of the Atheists/Agnostics and their other connotations associated with them to live in doubt; they may come out of it and opt to live in certainty; if they so please.

#28 Revoltingest

#30jmn

#31

Paarsurrey said:

Who forced one to live in doubt? If nobody forced or compelled then it is sure to be an option.

#32

Paarsurrey said:

But scientific method though useful in science for which it has been designed yet it fails miserably in religion; it is of no use in religion.

Religion does not deny usefulness of the scientific method in science; rather it supports it.

#33 Sculelos

#34 Kilgore Trout

#35 Sculelos

#36

Originally Posted by Sculelos

Unseperateable means : To not be able to be unattached from the study of energy of a higher (infinite) form giving his energy to us pouring energy into us. This is not recognized by the dictionary but it is a word and that is it’s meaning.

Inseparable means a pulse that is spread in you and locked on from some other divided locked (aka finite) energy source. 

So yes I stay with my saying that they are Unseperateable.

Paarsurrey said:

I am with you.

Nature is the Work of the one true God; religion is the Word of one true God; they are from the same one source.

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

May 27, 2012

I started a new thread on <http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/133272-richard-dawkins-good-scientist-4.html>

Following post may be viewed:

#26

Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

  #31  

 #44 

#26

Ali Sina’s quoting Albert Einstein is inappropriate

November 20, 2009

http://forum09.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3552&p=81013#p81013

Ali Sina wrote:

A Reply from Ali Sina

Hello ….,
Truth cannot be found. Albert Einstein, yes that Jew whom Muhammad called monkey and pig said: “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.” There is a world of wisdom in these words. You can never find the truth. All you can do is expose the lies and get closer to the truth. In my writings I am not teaching the ultimate truth. I am exposing the lies of Muhammad and Islam.

Ali

Paarsurrey says:

Hi Ali Sina

It is not appropriate to quote a Scientist out of the faculty of Science in the ethical, moral and spiritual realms. Albert Einstein was a great Scientist and we acknowledge and respect him very much in Science. Yet, we would say that in the realm of Ethics, Morals, and Spirituality his words were and would be only an opinion and sometimes even a lay man’s opinion. Albert Einstein never claimed to be an expert in these realms as these are out of the Scientific Method where only things material are discussed.

Ali Sina should not have quoted Albert Einstein, in my opinion, as this does not make a relevant argument altogether.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim