not sure.....

Pen0s

my belief is:

we die, we are eaten by everything (bacteria fungus maggots etc.) we give them energy, they get eaten they give others energy etc. etc. and basically we end up being energy that lifeforms use to live and we end up being gravity....... thats the most extremly shorthanded way i cud write that if u want me to elaborate i will

what does this make me? is this waht all atheists believe?

simu

No. Tbh.

Laguna

No, I don't believe that and I'm an atheist.... Gravity?, I don't think so, you think we become a magnetic charge?

MrJoeSoap

Theres a very interesting piece (not sure how accurate it is!) in Bill Brysons "A Short History of Nearly Everything" that says that you (the reader, that is) have a part of Shakespeare inside you. Can't remember his justifiction or reasoning but I'll have a look for it at some stage.

Sorry about that, a bit vague because I haven't read the book in ages. It did really stick out when I first saw it.

MrJoeSoap

Readers familiar with Bryson’s wry sense of humor and casual writing style will find plenty here–he triumphantly makes science both interesting and funny. What a gas to discover from Bryson that “Every atom you possess has almost certainly passed through … millions of organisms on its way to becoming you.” That atoms are “vigorously recycled” and that “a significant number of our atoms…probably once belonged to Shakespeare” and yet more bits and pieces from Buddha, Genghis Khan, and Beethoven. His point: “Atoms go on…practically forever” (though, he notes, this recycling takes decades, so you’re not part Elvis yet).

.

Dades

Pen0s wrote:

what does this make me? is this waht all atheists believe?

Although the dictionary definition of an atheist would not mention thoughts on an afterlife, I would imagine most would contend that we get "recycled" in some way. Agnostics would have much more differing views I'm sure.

Gravity though? Hmmmmm.

Pen0s

maybe not exactly into gravity because as u said its a magnetic charge but into some positive energy thats all that could posibly happen to after u die.

nesf

Actually, wtf are you on about? Are you talking about how our bodies are broken up?

You also haven't shown any mechanism for how we "turn into gravity" though I don't think you understand what the term gravity means really.

samb

Apart from the mention of ''Gravity'' what you have said is scientific fact and therefore could be accepted and believed by anybody of any religion and none. As athiests tend to know more science, then I suppose they are more likely than Normal to know it.
It is an awe inspiring fact in a way, but not much of an afterlife. If you find it comforting then the first rule of thermodynamics may also brighten your day.:D

ATHIESTS ARE NOT RELIGIOUS, NOTHING ELSE..you can know nothing of science and still be an athiest. My dog is an athiest (I think) and he knows nothing about where his atoms go when he dies or the first rule of thermodynamics (well, I think he doesn't).

samb

Pen0s wrote:

maybe not exactly into gravity because as u said its a magnetic charge but into some positive energy thats all that could posibly happen to after u die.

I think you are a bit confused. You are made of energy now, this energy is eternal, you will not change into it. What do you mean by ''Some positive energy''. If you mean it is positve because it exists, as apposed to non-existant negative energy, then fair enough. If however you think this energy has some kind of positive mental outlook or viral infection then you are very deluded.

Rev Hellfire

samb wrote:

As athiests tend to know more science

I just know you're going to be able to back that up.

Asiaprod

Here is one metaphors I like that is used to explain Reincarnation (rebirth), fire. For example, a flame is transferred from one candle to another. In the same way that the new flame depends on the original flame, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the next; they are not identical but neither are they completely distinct.

Pen0s

confused is wayyyyy to weak a word lol

positive because it exsists.

i basically ment that we all become one.........?

im lost damnit.

monkeyfudge

Sounds sort of like some of the science used as an explanation in the movie Akira.

samb

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I just know you're going to be able to back that up.

Well it is well established that most biologist are certainly athiest. I have no references to hand, but I'm fairly sure I am right. But please correct me if i'm wrong

bus77

Pen0s wrote:

my belief is:

we die, we are eaten by everything (bacteria fungus maggots etc.) we give them energy, they get eaten they give others energy etc. etc. and basically we end up being energy that lifeforms use to live and we end up being gravity....... thats the most extremly shorthanded way i cud write that if u want me to elaborate i will

what does this make me? is this waht all atheists believe?

Someone I know expressed somthing similar to me before, just without the gravity bit. Hav'nt a clue what type of view it is but the guy was dead sound in general anyway.

Rev Hellfire

samb wrote:

Well it is well established that most biologist are certainly athiest. I have no references to hand, but I'm fairly sure I am right. But please correct me if i'm wrong

Ohh no it doesnt work like that.

If you make such a claim you have to be prepared to back it up with cold hard facts. I can think of no reasons why biologists should be any less religious than the rest of the population.

What you are attempting to imply is that a well-educated person is more likely to be an atheist than have a religious leaning; current census in this country alone (a highly educated one at that) doesn’t seem to bear out your theory.

btw from the census we see that 91.6% of the country have put themselves down as catholic, this implies to my mind a religious belief if not a complete observance of catholic doctorate in the main population.

Central Statistics Office
Wikipedia>>Ireland>>Religion

robindch

> Ohh no it doesnt work like that.

Oh yes, I'm afraid it does -- if you look

> What you are attempting to imply is that a well-educated
> person is more likely to be an atheist than have a religious leaning;

No. What's being quite successfully implied is that an education in science has a tendency to reduce one's intellectual dependency upon religion for explanations of what's in the world. The intellectual traits which will make a good scientist -- rationality, knowledge, ability to accept evidence contrary to one's views, curiosity etc -- are exactly the ones which will injure or destroy religious beliefs.

Anyhow, just to backup samb's statement, this link quotes a report in Nature about a few surveys which show the (non-)level of religious belief in scientists:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Seven percent are religious.

QED.

Rev Hellfire

Actually looking at it seems quite a small set statistically (out of 517 member 60% replied, with what could argued was a loaded question "a God in intellectual and affective communication with humankind"), so its hardly conclusive proof that most scientists are atheists, it merely shows that the National Academy of Sciences is godless to the core (joke).

I decided to have a wee google on this topic and if I've found what I think is samb's reference material its turns out he's right and we're both wrong

http://www.explore.rice.edu/explore/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=7680&SnID=1235541207

Now I've no idea how reliable the source is, but the findings put 67% of biology disbelieve as samb stated, but over all its just about a third for total disbelief.

There is another article on nature which alas is in the subscription only section,
Scientists are still keeping the faith: Larry Witham Edward J. Larson
which throws up the opposite finding to the piece you linked to earlier (best link to its I can find is here (although the url implies a certain slant, but I'll assume its a accurate take until I can source something better).

What does this prove? Not a lot I'm sure other than statistics can be worked to favour a required outcome for either side of an argument.

So hats of to samb. And a boo and hiss to us two.

robindch

> Actually looking at it seems quite a small set statistically

Not really -- the author did make it quite clear that they were looking for the scientists considered "greater", so they mailed the members of the National Academy of Scientists. While, of course it would have been better to have had everybody repsond, 60% is still pretty good (~300 replies), and it's probably fair to say that it's representative of the whole group.

About the Rice study, well, they don't say how large their sample is, nor what questions were asked, so I'm a bit dubious about it.

As for the stuff on beliefnet, well, it seems to refer to a different survey -- compare the two results sets:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_193_2.html

> What does this prove?

That "greater" scientists are more likely not to believe in god?

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote:

> Actually looking at it seems quite a small set statistically

Not really -- the author did make it quite clear that they were looking for the scientists considered "greater", so they mailed the members of the National Academy of Scientists. While, of course it would have been better to have had everybody repsond, 60% is still pretty good (~300 replies), and it's probably fair to say that it's representative of the whole group.

Absolutely I agree, it offers proof that the NAS as a body can be taken to on the whole have an atheist view point. But that is not proof that scientists world-wide hold a similar view.

robindch wrote:

About the Rice study, well, they don't say how large their sample is, nor what questions were asked, so I'm a bit dubious about it.

The survey was conduced with 1,646 ‘faculty members at elite research universities’ my quotes. I totally agree the stats may be slanted to reach a required outcome, but the same can be said (and has) of the research you quoted.

robindch wrote:

As for the stuff on beliefnet, well, it seems to refer to a different survey -- compare the two results sets

That is because they are two different pieces of research, if anyone has a subscription to nature you can view it here.
Its entitled Scientists are still keeping the faith: Larry Witham Edward J. Larson

robindch wrote:

> What does this prove?

That "greater" scientists are more likely not to believe in god?

No that the ‘greater’ NAS scientists are more likely not to believe in god?

To be honest I hold most surveys with a degree of scepticism, both the one you referenced and the two I did. Surveys are rarely instigated by unbiased parties and more so when it comes to topics like this to my mind (my own opinion that).

robindch

> But that is not proof that scientists world-wide hold a similar view.

Not world-wide, but that wasn't quite the aim of the survey -- this one was simply about the 'good' scientists on the NAS, and it does show quite clearly that this group are more likely to be atheist. I would doubt that the rank and file are quite as atheistic, simply because you're dealing with scientists who won't be as good as the top group in the NAS. It would be interesting to see the results of a 100% survey, and also throw in the Nobel laureates while we're at it

Have you come across any research comparing ability in abstract thought with religious belief? I would expect these to be negatively correlated, but haven't seen anything serious done in the area.

samb

Thanks you guys for confirming my statement to a certain extent. I think it was robins link that I had read before a few months ago, I wasn't just making a persumption based on nothing, and sorry I couldn't back it up myself, It was an aside to what I was talking about.

You can be skeptical about the extent to which the NAS survey is indicative of the general population but It does suggest to me that people with a greater understanding of science are less likely to be believers.

In Ireland the situation might or might not be similar. If it is not as clear I would suggest this may be due to A La Carte catholism. Just an idea, no figures, sorry.

Rev Hellfire

samb wrote:

ou can be skeptical about the extent to which the NAS survey is indicative of the general population but It does suggest to me that people with a greater understanding of science are less likely to be believers.

I'm with you part of the way on this one.

I certainly agree that as a person’s knowledge increases their ability to question religion also increases. But as to whether this translates into absolute atheism I’m not so sure. I would suspect (and its only my own opinion) that people move to the centre line that is agnostic thought and/or refine their own faith to accommodate new scientific knowledge.

I suspect perhaps it comes down to a fundamental point; whether you believe science and religion can coexist or whether you believe belief in both is mutually exclusive. I would be in the first camp.

robindch

> In Ireland the situation might or might not be similar.

I presume it is similar, though since the dynamic census query tool at:

http://www.eirestat.cso.ie/census

is kaput at the time of posting, it's not possible at the moment to to any correlational analysis of religious belief versus job.

Dades

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I certainly agree that as a person’s knowledge increases their ability to question religion also increases.

I would imagine people's situations have as much effect on their ability to question religion. It easier to question when you remove the "need" for it.

In reality these type of statistics prove nothing, only that possibly atheists like to think that the are more rational thinkers then others (which, possibly, they are). But they are still generalisations based on slanted stats.

The info I'd really like to see would be from the next Irish census looking at each answer in the "Religion" option and their average age, earnings, zodiac-sign (;)) etc.

Pen0s

wow

I ask a confused question about beliefs and an argument starts.
i hate religion:(

Asiaprod

Pen0s wrote:

wow

I ask a confused question about beliefs and an argument starts.
i hate religion:(

Ha-ha, you call this an argument!!! You've seen nothing yet, these boyos are just warming up. Stick with the program, you will learn, as I, a lot:)

Ruaidhri

Why is the link between science and religion important? personally I'm very anti-religion,very much pro science (physics been my favorite).

I'm beginning to form the opinion that science and religion are polar opposites,and any scientist with religious tendencies are just sitting on the fence.

Statistics really dont represent a whole lot,and shouldn't be considered hard defining fact.

Liberal Irishman

Pen0s wrote: »

my belief is:

we die, we are eaten by everything (bacteria fungus maggots etc.) we give them energy, they get eaten they give others energy etc. etc. and basically we end up being energy that lifeforms use to live and we end up being gravity.......

I think I know what you are talking about. Perhaps gravity may not be the word that I’d use. Do you agree that we revert back to the basic elements from which our planet earth is made from?

Tiny particles of matter, that together, make up what we call ‘the universe’!

Dades