Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean they are anti-religious

Many, and not just scientists, ate devout followers of Scientism, the unshaven belief in a view purported to originate from scientific methods.

Each of the scientists in our study selected the statement “I do not believe in God” when asked about their views of God – and selected this choice over options including agnosticism, the view that the existence of God or the divine is unknowable.

Some would argue that not believing in God is more in line with agnosticism than atheism.

T.H. Huxley, who coined the word "agnostic", described agnosticism like this:

It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.

He was a critic of atheism as it involved a certainty of belief without evidence - i.e. in the non-existence of God.

I guess many scientists are like me, all it would take for us to "believe" in the almighty God would be ONE proof, just one. Surely this isn't too difficult for the power that controls the universe? Just one?

I am post-religion. I get absolutely furious when people hurt others in the name of religion, because we all know the science completely contradicts such fantasies. But what I find just as objectionable are the people who set up "Artiest" associations, with spokespeople using atheism as a platform for self-promotion as a kind of atheist religion and they of course are the new atheist-religion leaders.

I am a scientist (the author of an online technology for accurate prediction of the strength, place and time of earthquakes). But I'm not an atheist, because I believe God. And I am sure that this technology was revealed to me by God.

I'm an atheist, or rather agnostic, and I'm not going to hide that fact. I'll believe there is a god when I see proof, and not just by being shoved a book written by old men, and with the messages warped with time, and with no proof of the supposed miracles written in it.

Meanwhile, I get on with my life without the need for religion.

An agnostic is an Atheist who not been hurt by religion. An atheist, having been hurt, see more clearly and feels more deeply the damage that religion has done to the world.

The one trait I have found in a lot of religious people--especially the militant ones--is hatred and fraud: From bloodsucking Megachurches to the lying simple true believer who scares his children with the threat of eternal hellfire.

Whether God exists or not, the world would be happier without religion.

You can be an atheist and still be religious. Buddhism is an atheists religion, and many Buddhists are therefore atheists.

I have never been religious, so never hurt by religion, bored by having to listen to it at school, but never believed in Gods. Tooth fairies and Santa for a short time, but never religion.

WobotToday  10:12 am JST

Atheists haven't hurt anybody?

Someone tell that to the victims of the Communists

WobotToday  10:12 am JST

Atheists haven't hurt anybody?

Someone tell that to the victims of the Communists

By that logic they all drank a glass of water at least once in their lives so water must be evil.

In fact, the Communists that you are trying to elude to did their actions out of greed and lust for power. Nothing to do with magical thinking.

If you want to be technical, there was a man in the 30s in Germany who wrote a book claiming the movement he started was a Christian based movement. Explain that to 6 million of their victims.

In fact, the Communists that you are trying to elude to did their actions out of greed and lust for power. Nothing to do with magical thinking.

I don't think that's altogether true. There were attacks on Christians and other religious groups in the Soviet Union, partly to establish a belief in a system of atheism. As throughout history, one belief system attacking other belief systems. Which is why I prefer the non-belief idea of agnosticism and its foundation of ignorance. I sometimes describe myself as an agnostic fundamentalist - no one know less than me about the cause of existence.

I don't think that's altogether true. There were attacks on Christians and other religious groups in the Soviet Union, partly to establish a belief in a system of atheism. As throughout history, one belief system attacking other belief systems. Which is why I prefer the non-belief idea of agnosticism and its foundation of ignorance. I sometimes describe myself as an agnostic fundamentalist - no one know less than me about the cause of existence.

The mistake you're making is trying to think of Atheism as a belief system, which it is not. It is the absence of a belief. Just like bald isn't a hair color and Off is not a TV channel.

It is the answer to one question. Do you believe in gods? If the answer is yes, you are a Theist. If the answer is no, you are an Atheist.

Atheism doesn't have tenants or commandments you have to follow. It is the yes or no answer to one question.

The mistake you're making is trying to think of Atheism as a belief system, which it is not. It is the absence of a belief. 

Maybe just a question of semantics, but I don't think that is quite right. Atheism has often been divided into two categories - negative (lack of belief in deities) and positive (a belief in the non-existence of deities). Many communist ideas under the Soviet Union embraced the positive version. Personally, I equate the negative form to agnosticism. But that also raises semantic issues regarding the definition of agnosticism. I tend to stick with T.H. Huxley's original idea.

I do believe in God, was very religious at one point but less nowadays, but that had more to do with the institution of the church and not God himself and that belief is definitely strong and unwavering. I make no bones about, proud to the core about it, but I respect everyone as long as they respect me, and I personally never impose my belief on others and expect the same from my non-religious friends, having said that, I do believe in science as well.

Not so sure. You look around the world and wonder, would God allow such bad things to happen.

I've seen no proof or evidence of God.

I've seen proof and evidence of advance technology within us ourselves.

Does advance civilization exist? ?

We are proof of that. Becoming more technological advance each year.

Humans did this in a short amount of time.

If we lived without destruction for another 10,000 years. Which is nothing when it comes to age of the universe.

What would be the result of that???

A Civilization able to create other Universes! Technology that looks like magic. Even more then what we have today.

Maybe the God of creation we're always looking for was always inside of us all along.

My 2 cents on a very big question...

WobotNov. 7  10:12 am JST

"Atheists haven't hurt anybody?

Someone tell that to the victims of the Communists..."

You are comparing apples to oranges, Communism is joint ownership of the means of production which could be quite a religious concept. Italy once had a political party called Christian Communist Party. Atheism and Communism are different things.

Theism is just a series of really popular book clubs, formed around really old fantasy novels.

There are too many things written in religious texts that are physically impossible to believe these texts as somehow being some sort of unquestionable truth. They just aren't. Add to that fact the detail that most organized religions promote views that are in opposition to personal freedom and to the advancement of knowledge and worse they seek to use the government to impose their backward views on the entire population. I cannot be part of any of that. So my objections to organized religion are as much scientific as they are political. As James Madison observed:

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

*"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. "*

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.'

The last two quotes are from his famous speech to the Virginia Legislature, "A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"

I'm an atheist. I really don't care what religious people believe as long as they don't use it as a cheap excuse for hurting people, demonising people or implementing a dictatorship - all of which has happened far too much.

Worship God, BTS or Liverpool FC. Whatever floats your boat. People have a right to their own opinions, emotions and beliefs.

If someone wants to run with prayer rather than vaccines, that is their business. I'm double jabbed, wear a mask when I step outside and keep some distance from people, managing my own risk in a way I consider sensible. Politicians exploiting a pandemic to pivot societies to an Orwellian dystopia - I am very much 'anti-' that.