Atheist vs. Religious

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Atheist vs. Religious vs. Agnostic

  • Atheist

    Votes: 278 40.3%

  • Religious

    Votes: 258 37.4%

  • Agnostic

    Votes: 153 22.2%
  • Total voters
    689
Never understood the "wall of bible verse" mode of argument.
Members don't see this ad.
 
sinuous sausage said:
Never understood the "wall of bible verse" mode of argument.
Click to expand...

Do you wish a discussion based only on the back and forth between human reasoning? It would be the blind leading the blind, however let's suppose we take the Bible out of the discussion entirely. Let's also assume there is no god of any religion.

What do you frame your comments/argument around?

Logic?

Very well. Supposing logic is the means of attaining ultimate truth:
-Do you believe the most logical argument should be the one that wins?
-Do you believe all men agree that the most logical argument is the one that "wins", and
those who do not are insane?

Of course, what seems "logical" to one may not seem logical to another, but we are all united in that we all exalt the construct of logic in our interactions.

To discuss anything we must first acknowledge that we both will operate within the parameters of logic. Where do you suppose that unifying aspect of human nature comes from?

Of course I have not proven or attempted to prove the existance of YAHWEH here. I hope to hear what your thoughts are on this topic before discussing the authority of scripture.
 
Last edited:
It's sort of like the time when my then girlfriend made me go with her to church one Sunday to hear the preacher "disprove" The Da Vinci Code (why he felt the need to disprove fiction I will never know). His main argument was "It's not in the bible so it can't be true, silly! LOL"

Go back to the dental forums.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
dr zaius said:
It's sort of like the time when my then girlfriend made me go with her to church one Sunday to hear the preacher "disprove" The Da Vinci Code (why he felt the need to disprove fiction I will never know). His main argument was "It's not in the bible so it can't be true, silly! LOL"

Go back to the dental forums.
Click to expand...

:smack:

as you alluded to, the more compelling argument is "the author plain said it wasn't real"

:smack:
 
famousbanker said:
Do you wish a discussion based only on the back and forth between human reasoning? It would be the blind leading the blind, however let’s suppose we take the Bible out of the discussion entirely. Let’s also assume there is no god of any religion.

What do you frame your comments/argument around?

Logic?

Very well. Supposing logic is the means of attaining ultimate truth:
-Do you believe the most logical argument should be the one that wins?
-Do you believe all men agree that the most logical argument is the one that “wins”, and
those who do not are insane?

Of course, what seems “logical” to one may not seem logical to another, but we are all united in that we all exalt the construct of logic in our interactions.

To discuss anything we must first acknowledge that we both will operate within the parameters of logic. Where do you suppose that unifying aspect of human nature comes from?

Of course I have not proven or attempted to prove the existance of YAHWEH here. I hope to hear what your thoughts are on this topic before discussing the authority of scripture.
Click to expand...
go to the earlier pages of this thread and read through my posts..... I address the issue of providing bible verses as evidence to an atheist several times.
 
famousbanker said:
The Bible defines truth.
Click to expand...

I hear this a lot, and I wonder if you could clarify whether the Bible defines truth or describes truth. The former insinuates that the truth is contingent on the words of the Bible. Each word can mean a million different things to a million different people, depending on the context in which it's read and the baggage that person brings to the reading. Given the number of words in the Bible, there are essentially an infinite number of interpretations of it. This is borne out in the untold number of sects and denominations that have sprung up o'er the centuries. The latter case seems more reasonable to me, in that truth (or what "is") is necessary a priori of the Bible. Consider your own statement: it must be true that the Bible defines truth before the Bible could ever define truth. The problem some people have with this is it admits of a certain truth superseding that which is espoused in that confounded book, and that this truth could be approached through reason. Some, like Aquinas, have valued both. Like it or not, human reason is the best we have. You're using it even when you make an argument that we shouldn't use it. Whether reason is coherent or has any truth value is, to me, an interesting discussion, but I don't see any way to determine reason's value without using reason. We also probably would think it interesting for opposite reasons: you would lay siege to human reason because you believe you have a more certain form of knowledge, while I would attack it because I am less certain about what knowledge is and what I can know. I think it possible there is a God making coherent my reasoning's relation to the reality, even if my reasoning leads me to believe "there is no God."

famousbanker said:
If this occurs it is certainly not from any persuasive ability or logical reasoning I present, but the spirit being awakened in them. Why do you think the scriptures say you must be "born again"? These analogies suggest we are entirely powerless to initiate our own regeneration. We did not choose to be made physically alive and we did not choose to be born—it is something that happened to us.
Click to expand...

and yet I bet you've spent hours of your life trying to persuade people to accept your POV. All this fatalistic talk and reference to the "chosen" irritates my bowels. I categorically reject the belief that truth is only meant to be comprehended by a few. We all have our experience and we all see truth in our unique way, and the common thread running through humanity is the ability to recognize and express this unified truth. If there are people incapable of recognizing what is true, if they're outside the "chosen," then I dunno if you can really call them people. Your motto can be boiled down to "I don't need an argument, just believe what I say."
 
Last edited:
You are in the clinical arena. Many aren't even close to being scientists. Medical professionals lack creativity and clever ways to think about things like scientists.

In other words, it is laughable to compare scientists with doctors.
There is a reason why medicine requires PhDs.

So, obviously we will see lot of religious people.

Also, honey boo boo defines truth. Innocent and untouched by disgusting human minds!:rolleyes:
 
tenau12 said:
In other words, it is laughable to compare scientists with doctors.
There is a reason why medicine requires PhDs.
Click to expand...

1) medicine requires PhDs?
2) This is an interesting comment that completely contradicts what I've experienced in my career. I worked a "prestigious" biotech/pharma firm that had it's choice of the best and brightest new PhD's graduates/ Post-docs each year (who are uniformly desperate for jobs at the moment btw, but I digress). Without question, an average PhD at this company had less raw intelligence than the average student I've come across in medical school. Hands down, no contest.

That being said, the brightest individuals are probably in science, but who knows. On average medicine has more type A intellectuals, and science is flooded with underachievers thanks to the ponzi sche... er... "structure" of graduate education.
 
KinasePro said:
1) medicine requires PhDs?
2) This is an interesting comment that completely contradicts what I've experienced in my career. I worked a "prestigious" biotech/pharma firm that had it's choice of the best and brightest new PhD's graduates/ Post-docs each year (who are uniformly desperate for jobs at the moment btw, but I digress). Without question, an average PhD at this company had less raw intelligence than the average student I've come across in medical school. Hands down, no contest.

That being said, the brightest individuals are probably in science, but who knows. On average medicine has more type A intellectuals, and science is flooded with underachievers thanks to the ponzi sche... er... "structure" of graduate education.
Click to expand...

I should clarify. PhDs in physics and chemistry mostly. Routine imaging such as CT, MRI, readable US imaging, Nuc med, x-ray crystallography etc. had nothing to do with MDs. Same thing with lab tests which use chromotography, microscopy, flow cytometry, electropheresis, nmr, etc.They were developed by truly clever people. Without these tools in our toolbox, medicine would be highly primitive today.
I have met lot of people in medicine. Most joke and believe that "we came to med school to escape math, physics and hard core science." There is a lot of truth in this.

And traditional med school curriculum does not allow meaningful time to do original, meaningful research. If you do, you will just take on a small part of someone else's project (a PhD).
Also, the biological pathways used by pharmas were figured out by university PhD scientists.
MDs should be actively involved because they have taken care of patients. But they aren't for many reasons.
 
tenau12 said:
And traditional med school curriculum does not allow meaningful time to do original, meaningful research. If you do, you will just take on a small part of someone else's project (a PhD).
Also, the biological pathways used by pharmas were figured out by university PhD scientists.
MDs should be actively involved because they have taken care of patients. But they aren't for many reasons.
Click to expand...

If you have ever worked in a lab at a major hospital you would know none of this is true. The pharma part might be in some cases. But there are plenty of physician PIs in molecular labs.
 
tenau12 said:
I should clarify. PhDs in physics and chemistry mostly. Routine imaging such as CT, MRI, readable US imaging, Nuc med, x-ray crystallography etc. had nothing to do with MDs. Same thing with lab tests which use chromotography, microscopy, flow cytometry, electropheresis, nmr, etc.They were developed by truly clever people. Without these tools in our toolbox, medicine would be highly primitive today.
I have met lot of people in medicine. Most joke and believe that "we came to med school to make an immediate difference in the lives of others while still having the option for research" There is a lot of truth in this.

And traditional med school curriculum does not allow meaningful time to do original, meaningful research. If you do, you will just take on a small part of someone else's project (a PhD).
Also, the biological pathways used by pharmas were figured out by university PhD scientists.
MDs should be actively involved because they have taken care of patients. But they aren't for many reasons.
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
tenau12 said:
I should clarify. PhDs in physics and chemistry mostly. Routine imaging such as CT, MRI, readable US imaging, Nuc med, x-ray crystallography etc. had nothing to do with MDs. Same thing with lab tests which use chromotography, microscopy, flow cytometry, electropheresis, nmr, etc.They were developed by truly clever people. Without these tools in our toolbox, medicine would be highly primitive today.
Click to expand...

Agreed that the state of the art is driven by incredibly talented scientists, but that's truly the exception to the rule. I've met plenty of computational physicists/ molecular modelers and organic chemists at the company I worked at who were sharp & creative in their niches, but most often they are beyond doltish on topics outside of their sliver of expertise. When you take into account social & emotional intelligence, these scientists really start to pale in comparison to the current generation of MDs.

I think it's easy to confuse esoteric with challenging, also. Basic research in physics and chemistry is hard to grasp to most people beyond arms length from the original research, but at it's core is often no more creative than figuring out how to manage the psycho-social aspects of your patient's care or coming up with an excellent question for a chart review. There's a bread and butter for everything, including particle physics and organic synthesis.

Example: Bob Grubbs may have won the nobel prize for his nice Ruthenium catalysts, but w/ closer inspection you'll find he's been publishing essentially the same research articles for ~30 years, with only slight modifications and incremental insights seeping into the literature every now and again. Looks like genius from afar, but he's been putting chemists to sleep for decades.

tenau12 said:
Also, the biological pathways used by pharmas were figured out by university PhD scientists.
MDs should be actively involved because they have taken care of patients. But they aren't for many reasons.
Click to expand...

Meh, maybe in the past but times have changed. Nowadays MD's are involved in basic research at the highest levels in industry. Just spend some time in google and see whose running basic research at the large pharma companies: lots of MD's and MD/PhD's.

That dude from Boston Med who lost his job for making an epic medical error on national television is now the head of CV disease research at Gilead. There's plenty more examples. MD's are far more influential in research than you are giving them credit for.
 
Last edited:
KinasePro said:
Example: Bob Grubbs may have won the nobel prize for his nice Ruthenium catalysts, but w/ closer inspection you'll find he's been publishing essentially the same research articles for ~30 years, with only slight modifications and incremental insights seeping into the literature every now and again. Looks like genius from afar, but he's been putting chemists to sleep for decades.
Click to expand...

Well aware of the fact that MDs are involved in lab bench research. It's mainly on the molecular/biological side. Not much with physical and mathematical stuff. They have PhDs doing this sort of stuff and explaining it to the MD PIs.

Also, same goes for most MD PIs in molecular research labs. You can google this and look at their publication lists. They hone in on one esoteric or important (don't really know which one until something pans out) pathway/molecule that may or (statistically speaking this one) may not have real patient outcomes.

We have yet to see something revolutionizing like we did couple of decades ago.
Look at the winners of nobel prize in medicine. Most of them are PhDs.
It's when the topic is very clinical then an MD is involved in this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine
MDs should definitely be credited but you have to agree that major discoveries that are dear to us in medicine today were not figured out by MDs.
All imaging modalities, genetic material, protein synthesis and folding, backbone of lab testing, pathway research, stem cells, neuronal physiology, etc.
Yes things like cardiac catheterization, H.pylori implication and tx, principles of drug tx, transplantation, etc. were invented/figured out by MDs.

All I am saying is that MDs are not all about pure logical reasoning. You have wide variety of people going into medicine. That's why you can't compare them with scientists. Scientists have to be methodical and logical in order to produce something meaningful and make a living.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I am thinking about starting an atheist student physicians' chapter at my school so that I can formally invite speakers to forums like "Physician-Assisted Suicide: Good or Bad Public Policy?" that are hosted by the pro-life/christian group at my school.
If the hosts don't permit me to bring speakers, I will host a forum in the chronological vicinity of their forum.

However, I suspect that this will negatively impact my residency application...what's your opinion?
 
FutureDoctorrrr said:
I am thinking about starting an atheist student physicians' chapter at my school so that I can formally invite speakers to forums like "Physician-Assisted Suicide: Good or Bad Public Policy?" that are hosted by the pro-life/christian group at my school.
If the hosts don't permit me to bring speakers, I will host a forum in the chronological vicinity of their forum.

However, I suspect that this will negatively impact my residency application...what's your opinion?
Click to expand...

The ethics of euthanasia are not religious at their core. Pro-life is an entirely separate issue.

Shouldn't you worry about getting into med school before worrying about residency and citing FA errata?
 
SpecterGT260 said:
The ethics of euthanasia are not religious at their core. Pro-life is an entirely separate issue.

Shouldn't you worry about getting into med school before worrying about residency and citing FA errata?
Click to expand...



I am a first yr medical student.
Thanks for the correction about the ethics of euthanasia.

I guess I could still formally invite physicians like Dr. Andy Thomson to campus if I founded said club.

Do you think it'll negatively impact my residency app?
 
I'm an atheist.

Why?

Because I'm not 8 years old. -_-

*Picks up popcorn*
 
FutureDoctorrrr said:
I am a first yr medical student.
Thanks for the correction about the ethics of euthanasia.

I guess I could still formally invite physicians like Dr. Andy Thomson to campus if I founded said club.

Do you think it'll negatively impact my residency app?
Click to expand...

potentially. But then again it may be a non issue or it may help. Depends on the PD and how you spin it.

Just as in AMCAS, I would avoid hitting potential hot button topics. an "atheist interest group" sounds arrogant and decidedly anti-religion. Regardless of your own views it could easily be interpreted as hostile to those who are religious. A "science minded" interest group would be better. It also keeps things looking open minded rather than exclusive in nature. You want to seem inviting, or at least that is my opinion.
 
SpecterGT260 said:
potentially. But then again it may be a non issue or it may help. Depends on the PD and how you spin it.

Just as in AMCAS, I would avoid hitting potential hot button topics. an "atheist interest group" sounds arrogant and decidedly anti-religion. Regardless of your own views it could easily be interpreted as hostile to those who are religious. A "science minded" interest group would be better. It also keeps things looking open minded rather than exclusive in nature. You want to seem inviting, or at least that is my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree. Unless you are applying for a job in politics or religion, keep political and religious content off your resume. You don't need people to be subconsciously or overtly biased against you for any reason.
 
Frazier said:
Welcome to agnosticism.
Click to expand...

i dunno, i think i disagree. It seems to me that if you DON'T think there is any proof/evidence, then you're wrong to take refuge in saying you're neutral, which is what agnosticism is.

For example, I'm not agnostic about fairies. I'm a-fairyist.
 
I think this thread was made near the time of Jesus, if you go to page one you will find verses and quotes from him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Why was this bumped???
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

D
How to spot political and religious culture of residency programs?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Fluidity of Movement
Fluidity of Movement
Q
Wearing a religious head coverings
Replies
21
Views
4K
DrMikeP
D
P
Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
693
Views
56K
BA11
BA11
W
Religion and patient encounters?
2
Replies
68
Views
8K
christiandocj
C
B
in need of an atheist physician for a panel discussion at Meharry
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
NonTradMed
NonTradMed
Top