Christian med students: how do you reconcile your religion with your profession?

[JourneyAgent]

What's scary is I've witness health care professionals, who like OP felt disdain for religious individuals, withhold medical care in emergency settings because they were religious. It's a growing sentiment pioneered by recent cultural influences.

The resurgence of atheism can be linked to the adoption of atheism in popular culture and the entertainment industry. I've noticed most the arguments (even on this board) presented by college aged atheists to be ditto's of outspoken atheist celebrities rather than some well-informed-POV as a result of their science training. Indeed, I think that is the elephant in the room. We even see the gay rights movement (my own view is a libertarian one where the government gives no group preference) being driven by songs and commentary by celebrities. lol It's almost laughable to listen to someone call me out that my beliefs don't have merit when many of their own is based on what celebrities think in 2013. Undoubtedly, many will disagree and underestimate the degree to which their beliefs (and their friends who also have significant influence) are being shaped by pop culture... to the above poster - THAT - is the cool aid your camp is drinking.

Secular pop art is generally better. The wealth and sponsorship of the Vatican excepted. Let's see....Hendrix or Christian rock....hmmmm?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LiamNeesons]

.

 

[Houmd]

It's always funny how atheists and sometimes agnostics find it so difficult to believe that there is something not understandable that they pursue mocking those who have faith.

By playing the "intellectual" you are not in anyway elevating your status or making yourself better, it just means you're shutting out possible theories which may further explain science.

Do religion(s) and science counteract each other? Not really, if you take out the misunderstandings from both then I'm sure that they would fit perfectly together like puzzle pieces.

Is it impossible to believe that a higher being intended for evolution to take place? Or gave us the ability to have minor gene mutations here and there to build adaptability?

Just because we at the moment are not able to comprehend how this is possible doesn't make it impossible.

People who absolutely shut out these possibilities are technically neglecting science by being close minded. And those who move forward to mock religions or push their atheism/agnosticism onto others are no different than those whom push their religion onto atheists/agnostics

 

[mehc012]

It's always funny how atheists and sometimes agnostics find it so difficult to believe that there is something not understandable that they pursue mocking those who have faith.

By playing the "intellectual" you are not in anyway elevating your status or making yourself better, it just means you're shutting out possible theories which may further explain science.

Do religion(s) and science counteract each other? Not really, if you take out the misunderstandings from both then I'm sure that they would fit perfectly together like puzzle pieces.

Is it impossible to believe that a higher being intended for evolution to take place? Or gave us the ability to have minor gene mutations here and there to build adaptability?

Just because we at the moment are not able to comprehend how this is possible doesn't make it impossible.

People who absolutely shut out these possibilities are technically neglecting science by being close minded.

And those who move forward to mock religions or push their atheism/agnosticism onto others are no different than those whom push their religion onto atheists/agnostics

the bolded, but...I think one of the biggest issues in these discussions is the rampant overgeneralization. "Christians believe" "atheists find it difficult to"etc. I try (and often fail) to avoid painting everyone with the same brush, because it just ends up with an 'us' vs 'them' thing going on. The only 'us' vs 'them' we should encourage is "people who feel the need to ram their beliefs down everyone's throats" vs "people who want THOSE people to shut the hell up" There are atheists and religious people in BOTH groups, though legislatively religious pushers are the main issue (if only because there isn't really an 'atheist platfom').

 

[Houmd]

the bolded, but...I think one of the biggest issues in these discussions is the rampant overgeneralization. "Christians believe" "atheists find it difficult to"etc. I try (and often fail) to avoid painting everyone with the same brush, because it just ends up with an 'us' vs 'them' thing going on. The only 'us' vs 'them' we should encourage is "people who feel the need to ram their beliefs down everyone's throats" vs "people who want THOSE people to shut the hell up" There are atheists and religious people in BOTH groups, though legislatively religious pushers are the main issue (if only because there isn't really an 'atheist platfom').

I can agree to what you're saying here. I know I hold my personal beliefs and if anyone tells me that I'm a hypocrite for believing in the scientific method as well as my faith I'm going to be upset. With that same notion I almost never discuss my religion with others b/c it is my own and personal to me, and I would never think of forcing it onto someone else. If someone asks me and is genuinely interested then I'll share it with them but I just get upset when someone tries to tell me that I'm wrong and they're right for whatever reason, whether they be atheist/agnostic, a different religion from mine, or anything else. I don't do that to other people and I get upset when they do that to me.

 

[JourneyAgent]

I can agree to what you're saying here. I know I hold my personal beliefs and if anyone tells me that I'm a hypocrite for believing in the scientific method as well as my faith I'm going to be upset. With that same notion I almost never discuss my religion with others b/c it is my own and personal to me, and I would never think of forcing it onto someone else. If someone asks me and is genuinely interested then I'll share it with them but I just get upset when someone tries to tell me that I'm wrong and they're right for whatever reason, whether they be atheist/agnostic, a different religion from mine, or anything else. I don't do that to other people and I get upset when they do that to me.

Well the atheist endeavor is to not believe without evidence. Could there be a multiverse where a future version of our selves are engaged in a simulation that constitutes this reality....I suppose. Could there be a prime moving force....I suppose...although I find it peculiar that such a force requires earthly representatives with physical objectives.

The scientific method is not compatible with the faith...method? I'm sorry if you take offense. But it is rather more important to provide a puncture in the multiple realities that share a gleeful view of the end of the world--ie the rapture or specific rewards for jihadists and so forth. Someone has to let them know they're wrong. Certainly, you won't do it.

We will continue to pay the costs for zealots and pious fools until there remains no widely accepted heroic narrative for their activities.

I am rather more concerned that a billion young girls have an opportunity to go to school and change the course of humanity with their education than your minor offenses.

And I disagree as a matter of strategy with my atheist comrade above on this. I think we need to laugh at and make obscene by any means necessary the work of fundamentalists trying to hasten the End Times. And let's not forget there are billions of them. There is much satire to be done. Generations of it.

I don't enjoy offending nice religious people. It's regrettable. But they need to either join the censure of their radical and destructive elements or get the hell out the way. In the end, many of them will have to be offended.

In the same way that it was once illegal, only decades ago, for me to marry my black wife and that many people are still offended by us. F@ck them. And anyone who protects religious fanatics.

 

[circulus vitios]

I'm enjoying seeing people throw bible quotes back and forth. Makes me want to quote other fairy tales.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Addendum.

Just because I'm saying they're not compatible doesn't mean I'm questioning your intellect. Many brilliant people engage in both. They just do them separately, I would hope, using different criteria. Or at least one as a silent inspirational partner.

But their very definitions make their incompatibility obvious. I don't know what else to say in that. Perhaps we agree to disagree while we both go on trying to use the best evidence in our clinical pracitces.

Also beyond just fanatics, as my comrade above mentioned, religious political operatives must be fought. Unless we are willing to relinquish the longest standing secular constitutional republic in the history of our species.

I, for one, will never do that. So then offense, I'm sorry to say, will be an inevitable causality. Since faith presumes an infallibility. It must be offended. How could it not be? The whole point of a constitutional republic is to mitigate our very real corruptive fallibilities. The premise of faith insists on being offended. So be it.

 

[Seahawk]

Didn't read everything in this thread...But here...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWFdv3ZjxqE[/YOUTUBE]

The guy talking is Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear physicist from MIT

 

[circulus vitios]

It's always funny how atheists and sometimes agnostics find it so difficult to believe that there is something not understandable that they pursue mocking those who have faith.

No, I mock people who can't cope with not knowing how the universe or humans were born into existence; not knowing why some people die and others live; not knowing what happens after death. It's childish. You're too afraid to accept that we can't instantly know anything, or that maybe scientists are asking the wrong questions, or that maybe we aren't special and that when we die, we're ****ing dead.

 

[Kal EI]

Didn't read everything in this thread...But here...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWFdv3ZjxqE[/YOUTUBE]

The guy talking is Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear physicist from MIT

Excellent point.

Many misunderstand Christianity because of poor arguments that Christians have made that have little to do with Christianity.

People have murdered, pillaged and hated (bigotry) with "Christianity" as their reason - yet Christ never murdered or hated. If people sit down and read what Christ said and did, I don't think they would be so against his message.

 

[The Kraken]

Didn't read everything in this thread...But here...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWFdv3ZjxqE[/YOUTUBE]

The guy talking is Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear physicist from MIT

To believe in a thing that cannot be seen, detected and will not reveal itself is foolish. If I say to believe in the magical unicorn with those same traits, I am a fool. Yet religion is exempt from this because of the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition. It is pathetic.

 

[V3NOM]

1)
People assume that there is no evidence for God, but 2000 year-old writings ARE evidence. It's only debatable how strong the evidence is. It's also very possible that only one set of beliefs about the Bible are correct. It's not a good argument to say some people pick their own beliefs, therefore there is no correct set. Yes, religious people have excuses for why they believe the Bible says certain things, but so does anyone have an "excuse" when responding to an argument against their position.

I don't know about you but the best way to keep uneducated people controlled 2000 years ago was the idea of introducing something they don't see (god) but still exist. The reason why is so religion is so powerful is because all they do to the people is to give them fear. I sincerely don't know what is the purpose in life of people killing each other, little girls getting abused and getting traumatized for life, child hunger and etc. Ask your god.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Didn't read everything in this thread...But here...

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWFdv3ZjxqE[/YOUTUBE]

The guy talking is Ian Hutchinson, a nuclear physicist from MIT

I familiar with Hutchinson. His name gets put forth my many of religious-but-religionless augurers. It's a benign non factor of a position.

I mean if they're separate domains, why have Christians organized a juggernaut in major states that dictate how science textbooks get written, in the effort of dismantling evolution curriculum and replacing it with intelligent design.

Because they know they're not compatible. Just like many of the offended flock here, they have no mechanism for criticizing the process of faith and therefore cannot deal with it from the outside.

That's one of the things I like about real everyday fundamentalists as opposed nonreligious defenders of faith. They know what's at stake and they come out swinging.

 

[Seahawk]

To believe in a thing that cannot be seen, detected and will not reveal itself is foolish. If I say to believe in the magical unicorn with those same traits, I am a fool. Yet religion is exempt from this because of the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition. It is pathetic.

You would be a fool to believe in a magical unicorn if there was no 'support' for it. Just like you would be a fool to believe in Jesus if he never existed and there was never anything written about him and historically documented.

 

[The Kraken]

You would be a fool to believe in a magical unicorn if there was no 'support' for it. Just like you would be a fool to believe in Jesus if he never existed and there was never anything written about him and historically documented.

There is little doubt Jesus existed as a human. The delusions spun as religion cause many issues and have for the existence of said religion. A common thread among many monotheistic religons is history of oppression in the name of the meme of a god.

The only reason you believe in a religion is because this viral idea has gone unchecked for too long.

 

[BioBeaver]

Matrixism- The universe and reality as a whole is just a program running that higher, more intelligent beings (Architects) coded to include natural laws as well as supernatural occurrences. They now sit back and watch their program run, amused by the humans fighting inside of it. I rest my case.

 

[Kal EI]

I familiar with Hutchinson. His name gets put forth my many of religious-but-religionless augurers. It's a benign non factor of a position.

I mean if they're separate domains, why have Christians organized a juggernaut in major states that dictate how science textbooks get written, in the effort of dismantling evolution curriculum and replacing it with intelligent design.

Because they know they're not compatible. Just like many of the offended flock here, they have no mechanism for criticizing the process of faith and therefore cannot deal with it from the outside.

That's one of the things I like about real everyday fundamentalists as opposed nonreligious defenders of faith. They know what's at stake and they come out swinging.

I don't think Christ ever taught about science. It was never a central part of his teaching. Can you point out somewhere Christ told people to control education or to come out swinging?

 

[carddoc33]

I don't understand these arguments. People that aren't believers will never be convinced; not even by some obvious divine intervention. People that are, will point to something as menial as the way a husband holds his wife's hand or the way the sun strikes the water on a June afternoon as proof that God exists.

To one side, you're arguing with a fool. To the other, you're arguing with someone who is blind.


As for the question at hand. It's insulting that you would denigrate my capabilities as a physician because I'm a person of faith.

You say being a physician is about science and critical thinking. I say it's about being empathetic and treating the human being, spiritually and physically.

Don't question my ability to be a scientist, and I won't question your ability to be a "doctor."

 

[911 Turbo]

Not gonna lie, slightly disturbed by the number of people who believe in god itt....the fear runs deep in religious people I guess

 

[notinkansas]

If OP has serious curiosity about why some people believe in God, there are a number of books that explain it quite well. This is a field called "apologetics" in which many Christian scholars provide evidence for their belief. It's quite fascinating, and there are regular debates between these Christian scholars and well know atheists.

Regarding other assertions in this thread, there are many Christians (and people in other religions as well) who have not been "indoctrinated" from birth, but rather came to have their faith as adults. Many people who look their noses down on Christians claim the Bible is full of contradictions, but this really isn't true. These people rarely can cite the actual contradictions.

In any case, belief in God is based on reasonable, evidence based conclusions, which are outlined in a number of books. A couple of these include "God's Not Dead" by Rice Broocks, "The Reason For God" by Tim Keller and "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler

Not that I expect anybody on this forum to have the intellectual curiosity enough to actually read any of these books. I'll probably just get attacked for saying that, as a result of reading these books, I have come to believe that God exists.

 

[Seahawk]

I familiar with Hutchinson. His name gets put forth my many of religious-but-religionless augurers. It's a benign non factor of a position.

I mean if they're separate domains, why have Christians organized a juggernaut in major states that dictate how science textbooks get written, in the effort of dismantling evolution curriculum and replacing it with intelligent design.

Because they know they're not compatible. Just like many of the offended flock here, they have no mechanism for criticizing the process of faith and therefore cannot deal with it from the outside.

That's one of the things I like about real everyday fundamentalists as opposed nonreligious defenders of faith. They know what's at stake and they come out swinging.

I think it happens because there is no mention of the process of evolution (natural selection, mutations, etc..) in the Bible. And many people have bad interpretations of the Bible.

I think an analysis of the word faith would be helpful here.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YuMxRpY1M[/YOUTUBE]

and also, Hutchinson is not nonreligious, if you were referring to him.

 

[carddoc33]

Not gonna lie, slightly disturbed by the number of people who believe in god itt....the fear runs deep in religious people I guess

Do tell, why are you slightly disturbed?

 

[CliveStaples]

Not gonna lie, slightly disturbed by the number of people who believe in god itt....the fear runs deep in religious people I guess

90% of Americans are affiliated with some sort of religion - I don't understand how it's logical to be surprised that there are people who believe in God. In addition, this is a topic that actually exclusively asked for the opinions of the religious. All in all, your comment makes no sense to me.

 

[911 Turbo]

Do tell, why are you slightly disturbed?

I'm disturbed by the amount of people who run their lives based on a magic invisible sky man from a fairy tale.


With no proof at all



Because they are scared of going to hell




Did you get all of that?

 

[JourneyAgent]

I think it happens because there is no mention of the process of evolution (natural selection, mutations, etc..) in the Bible. And many people have bad interpretations of the Bible.

I think an analysis of the word faith would be helpful here.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4YuMxRpY1M[/YOUTUBE]

and also, Hutchinson is not nonreligious, if you were referring to him.

I mean to say that there are many people who have rejected, reinterpreted benignly, or ignored completely so much of their respective religious texts' content that they really have more in common with general spiritualists for lack of a better word than many of their constituency. The constituency that actually brings it on the political scene. So that they become benign apologists of real religion. I'm not interested in their fine degrees of defining a secular, rational, spiritualist space for themselves in the midst of their more dangerous and vociferous and productive counterparts. That's between y'all and the fundamentalists.

Because we think its all self-evident man made bull**** anyway.

I don't have much to say to your camp other than that I wish you all would have the balls to join us rather than quibble about inconsequential details.

 

[Seahawk]

I'm disturbed by the amount of people who run their lives based on a magic invisible sky man from a fairy tale.


With no proof at all



Because they are scared of going to hell




Did you get all of that ignorance?

Corrected, and yes, I did.

 

[911 Turbo]

Corrected, and yes, I did.

Mmmmm, failure to address any of those points. Not surprised haha

 

[carddoc33]

I'm disturbed by the amount of people who run their lives based on a magic invisible sky man from a fairy tale.


With no proof at all



Because they are scared of going to hell




Did you get all of that?

Thanks guy. As expected, your explanation is, to be frank, piss poor.

First of all, religion doesn't equal Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eastern religions don't believe in hell.

Secondly, trying to simplify billions of Christians' view of life into a simple, "you're scurred of going to hell," is *****ic, simple, and much more telling of you than us idiots who believe in the fairy tale in the sky.

 

[JourneyAgent]

I don't think Christ ever taught about science. It was never a central part of his teaching. Can you point out somewhere Christ told people to control education or to come out swinging?

There are thousands of verses that pertain just to the Israelites' natural dominion and rightful conquering of all their enemies with brutal and unflinching violence. I've read the best historical books available on what is scantly known about the life of Jesus of Nazareth and his large clan. It is possible that because parables and stories have remarkable survivability that they were captured and written down by early Christians in the 1 or 2 centuries after his death. There seems to be some elements of moral philosophy that are useful. Although there also psychotic overtones. Of course Paul seems like a lunatic so who knows what happened to the accounts as they became scripturalized.

So I don't presume to know what the man was actually about. Except his father's business as is said. Not Joseph. The other father. But fundamentalism is real political force in this country. The majority, depending on if you interpret the moniker as I do. So I judge what I can see rather than what is impossible to glean. As a general rule. Call me a filthy materialist.

 

[911 Turbo]

Thanks guy. As expected, your explanation is, to be frank, piss poor.

First of all, religion doesn't equal Christianity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Eastern religions don't believe in hell.

Secondly, trying to simplify billions of Christians' view of life into a simple, "you're scurred of going to hell," is *****ic, simple, and much more telling of you than us idiots who believe in the fairy tale in the sky.

deleted whats the point

 

[carddoc33]

Lol

So that's a NO on any evidence on the invisible sky man? Come on man, all you have to do to prevent a single atheist from existing is presenting one small tiny piece of evidence. Can't be that hard right?


I'm really not in the mood to debate you or anyone else. There's no point in arguing against someone who has their thumbs shoved up so far down their ear canal that their eardrums are bleeding. I just want to say that I am sorry for you, as you will probably always be in this false make believe mindset. And I also feel sorry for myself for not being born 500 years into the future and having to co habitate this planet with people like you. Im really not trying to be mean here, this is just how I feel.

Ugh.

 

[SaintJude]

Great Question!

Straight from Bible! (Sirach 38)

Concerning Physicians and Health

38 Honor physicians for their services,
for the Lord created them;
2 for their gift of healing comes from the Most High,
and they are rewarded by the king.
3 The skill of physicians makes them distinguished,
and in the presence of the great they are admired.
4 The Lord created medicines out of the earth,
and the sensible will not despise them.
5 Was not water made sweet with a tree
in order that its[a] power might be known?
6 And he gave skill to human beings
that he might be glorified in his marvelous works.
7 By them the physician[c] heals and takes away pain;
8 the pharmacist makes a mixture from them.
God’s[d] works will never be finished;
and from him health[e] spreads over all the earth.
9 My child, when you are ill, do not delay,
but pray to the Lord, and he will heal you.
10 Give up your faults and direct your hands rightly,
and cleanse your heart from all sin.
11 Offer a sweet-smelling sacrifice, and a memorial portion of choice flour,
and pour oil on your offering, as much as you can afford.[f]
12 Then give the physician his place, for the Lord created him;
do not let him leave you, for you need him.
13 There may come a time when recovery lies in the hands of physicians,[g]
14 for they too pray to the Lord
that he grant them success in diagnosis
and in healing, for the sake of preserving life.
15 He who sins against his Maker,
will be defiant toward the physician.

 

[911 Turbo]

Ugh.

lol, well already had a headache and this thread made me pretty nauseous. off to bed i think

 

[JourneyAgent]

Besides the fact that I'm enjoying the rambunctious company of fellow atheists in numbers it seems that have grown since I've seen these debates on this site in the past decade....I would like to see if there might be common ground between a number of you who seem like christian equivalents of reformed Jews. It could be that you all have the greatest potential to moderate the religions into bodies of thought that are more compatible with a secular constitutional republic. The religious seem to fear and abhor atheists to such a degree that they would prefer changing faiths than be in our boat of uncertainty.

That is. If instead of uncomfortably defending the rights of your criminal elements to thrive, if you'd just turn your intellects inward at reform with real force then maybe all of us militant atheist can return to the befuddled awed confusion of agnosticism and we could live peacefully. Our philosophical system is built to defend your right to practice your faith in a way that that other guy can practice his. And we can go on laughing at the whole notion of certainty. With the understanding that secular government ensures all of our right to do as we wish in these matters.

For example, does anyone here want to live under Taliban rule? Because that's what theocracy looks like. Doubtless, certain, confident, infallible, God on their side always.

Because if it is faith and certainty yoh have or struggle to have. Our cynical disbelief and destiny in hell is to be pitied. I can tell you that the vast majority of us are about as likely to start believing as the gays are to be turning straight by your persuasion.

Forsake proselytizing and political agendas that enforce your personal beliefs on the rest of us and there would be no hostility or conflict. And our regard for your beliefs would inevitably soften.

But as is you give us no choice. Your absolutism and outwardly directed agendas require from us that we fight or be subsumed.

Why can't you see this. You are after all an atheist, an apostate, and an infidel with regard to each other. And yet you fear us more for saying no one person can be right in a room full of absolutists of different sorts.

Why we are more disgusting to you than you are to each other is quite funny. And strange.

 

[physiologist]

To believe in a thing that cannot be seen, detected and will not reveal itself is foolish. If I say to believe in the magical unicorn with those same traits, I am a fool. Yet religion is exempt from this because of the logical fallacy of appealing to tradition. It is pathetic.

This.

That being said, I refuse to push my beliefs on anyone and as such, if anyone tries to push ther beliefs on me I won't react nicely.

Never have I had the intention to push atheism on anyone, deny religious people care (hate the foolish ideas not the fools themselves as they do have good intentions.)

I'm not even atheist myself. In fact, let me be the first to admit that I have no freaking idea and probably never will. I'm agnostic.

I'm not trying to convert, I'm trying to understand, because to me, any faith makes no sense and is strongly at odds with critical thinking and the scientific method. How someone can say "because a virus caused swelling", "high-fat diet caused atherosclerosis" "it's an evolved trait with x purpose", and "because the bible said so" and believe all of it, makes no sense to me.

I am asking this to better relate with my colleagues and patients, not to create an abyss or antagonize them. In fact, none of my classmates even know I'm agnostic and probably never will.

 

[Houmd]

Well the atheist endeavor is to not believe without evidence. Could there be a multiverse where a future version of our selves are engaged in a simulation that constitutes this reality....I suppose. Could there be a prime moving force....I suppose...although I find it peculiar that such a force requires earthly representatives with physical objectives.

The scientific method is not compatible with the faith...method? I'm sorry if you take offense. But it is rather more important to provide a puncture in the multiple realities that share a gleeful view of the end of the world--ie the rapture or specific rewards for jihadists and so forth. Someone has to let them know they're wrong. Certainly, you won't do it.

We will continue to pay the costs for zealots and pious fools until there remains no widely accepted heroic narrative for their activities.

I am rather more concerned that a billion young girls have an opportunity to go to school and change the course of humanity with their education than your minor offenses.

And I disagree as a matter of strategy with my atheist comrade above on this. I think we need to laugh at and make obscene by any means necessary the work of fundamentalists trying to hasten the End Times. And let's not forget there are billions of them. There is much satire to be done. Generations of it.

I don't enjoy offending nice religious people. It's regrettable. But they need to either join the censure of their radical and destructive elements or get the hell out the way. In the end, many of them will have to be offended.

In the same way that it was once illegal, only decades ago, for me to marry my black wife and that many people are still offended by us. F@ck them. And anyone who protects religious fanatics.

You're entire premise is that the point of view opposite of yours if wrong because they cannot objectively prove it, even though you cannot objectively disprove their point of view.....this is where you're flawed. You are very close minded on the subject. If you claim to be a man of science then you cannot exclude a possibility that has yet to be disproven.

As I said before, you make a HUGE assumption that there is no higher being, and in doing so you have excluded a possibility for an answer to a question to which you don't already have the answer to.

Your mentality is exactly what I was pointing out earlier in my posts, that some people (usually PhD's & MD's I find a lot) have an innate arrogance that humans (and them more specifically) should be able to understand everything when that is just unreasonable. Perhaps one day there will be a good measurement to put religion to the test scientifically the way you desire, but just because it can't now the way you want, doesn't mean it's impossible.

 

[exquisitemelody]

I don't mean this in any malicious way, I promise. How do those who don't believe in God explain the origin of the universe? There's big bang, of course. I'm not denying that it's a valid theory. But I'm saying that I have a hard time believing that big bang just...happened. I also don't know very much about the theory, so maybe that's already been explained? But even if...we're still going from nothing to something, but that something had to come from somewhere.

 

[physiologist]

I'm disturbed by the amount of people who run their lives based on a magic invisible sky man from a fairy tale.


With no proof at all



Because they are scared of going to hell




Did you get all of that?

While I can understand the belief in a higher power, I cannot understand the belief that the bible is the word of god, and that x is true because the bible says so. How intelligent people could only start using a new treatment if many reliable scientific sources based on experiments done in reputable labs "proves" it to be effective and them go to church on Sunday and genuinely believe in events written in a 2000 year-old book with dubious origins boggles my mind. I doubt these docs would follow treatment plans discussed in the bible if they were shown to be ineffective, but believing in the unscientific ridiculousness that is the Virgin Mary, the holy trinity, angels coming down and telling people things, etc. just makes no sense whatsoever.

I admit it's comforting, but I for one can't make myself believe in any organized religion without the conscious awareness that I am deliberately fooling myself interfering with this belief. I don't know how educated, critical and rational thinkers can engage in organized religion (eg Christianity, Judaism, Islam) without feeling the same feeling.

 

[Houmd]

This.

That being said, I refuse to push my beliefs on anyone and as such, if anyone tries to push ther beliefs on me I won't react nicely.

Never have I had the intention to push atheism on anyone, deny religious people care (hate the foolish ideas not the fools themselves as they do have good intentions.)

I'm not even atheist myself. In fact, let me be the first to admit that I have no freaking idea and probably never will. I'm agnostic.

I'm not trying to convert, I'm trying to understand, because to me, any faith makes no sense and is strongly at odds with critical thinking and the scientific method. How someone can say "because a virus caused swelling", "high-fat diet caused atherosclerosis" "it's an evolved trait with x purpose", and "because the bible said so" and believe all of it, makes no sense to me.

I am asking this to better relate with my colleagues and patients, not to create an abyss or antagonize them. In fact, none of my classmates even know I'm agnostic and probably never will.

For me I used to have a similar point of view to yours, and might still to a certain extent in the sense that there are always possibilities that may be correct outside of my own beliefs, and I recognize that as a possibility.

Beyond that, I also acknowledge that the beginning of time, or even the beginning of existence is probably something that humans will never understand or comprehend, mainly because it's something we can't readily replicate. It's not something we can test in a lab. Creating universes on petri dishes just isn't going to be happening anytime soon, nor is creating living organisms from a collection of elements. I choose to believe there is a higher power that has some function above that of human capabilities. I'm sure many of you think I'm crazy and that by not worshiping the giant guesses of the big bang theory etc that I must not be of any scientific quality but it is my personal belief.

Whether or not you accept any religious text in its entirety (even knowing who it was written by), the single main premise of all these things (esp christianity, and specifically stated in islam) is that God is something beyond human comprehension. Any higher being that is capable of doing superhuman things is something that we cannot understand because that being is not bound by the same rules and limitations that we are. If there is a higher being than we cannot expect this being to have the exact limitations that we do, if we did then it would not be a higher being at all, it would just be another human.

The idea that so many people refuse to even consider the possibility of a higher being is mainly based on the fact that they assume any higher being must be held to the same standards scientifically and held to the same capabilities of humans. If there is a higher being, who is to say that this being doesn't possess the ability to do things to their own limitations, which are greater than ours?

 

[RangerBob]

This forum has been interesting reading--it's great reading for an intern trying to stay awake to change his sleep-wake cycle to accommodate an upcoming week on night float.

I've always been fascinated by the search for meaning (or lack of it). Personally I'm Catholic. With that disclosure, here are my thoughts.

We have brains and we have hearts. Our brain finds meaning and understanding from logical thought, and our hearts (a metaphor for the mind I suppose) find meaning from faith. And that faith takes many shapes and forms, and we grow all the more when we listen and learn from other's beliefs. Atheism is itself a belief--a belief we're just here for a short and spirited amount of time and that everything in the world has an explanation, though we haven't figured it all out and may not do so for some time--but there is an explanation being a key point. I think that's a beautiful belief, but I personally disagree with it--I believe there any many things we both will not, and cannot, ever understand, and that there is no explanation. It just "is." That belief upsets some people--some people like logical and order. Personally I love ambiguity and metaphors. It's just how I roll.

Someday, somehow, maybe we'll figure out exactly who's right. But until that day happens I firmly believe in treating everyone with the dignity they deserve as a human being, unless they've shown that they don't deserve my respect. (ex: insert least favorite dictator here ____). But I'll still treat them if they come to me--I took an oath to do so. Writing someone off because they believe and think differently is a vast mistake in my book. I personally tend to think more "freely" and make more gut decisions (obviously it's relative--I'm a physician, not an interpretive dancer...) Still, I'm not as slow and methodical as some others at the other extreme.

But, I guarantee you if you partner me up with a slow, methodical thinker, the two of us will accomplish far more than we would separately. And not only would we be able to help more people more deeply, but we'd help ourselves grow in the process.

 

[Houmd]

This forum has been interesting reading--it's great reading for an intern trying to stay awake to change his sleep-wake cycle to accommodate an upcoming week on night float.

I've always been fascinated by the search for meaning (or lack of it). Personally I'm Catholic. With that disclosure, here are my thoughts.

We have brains and we have hearts. Our brain finds meaning and understanding from logical thought, and our hearts (a metaphor for the mind I suppose) find meaning from faith. And that faith takes many shapes and forms, and we grow all the more when we listen and learn from other's beliefs. Atheism is itself a belief--a belief we're just here for a short and spirited amount of time and that everything in the world has an explanation, though we haven't figured it all out and may not do so for some time--but there is an explanation being a key point. I think that's a beautiful belief, but I personally disagree with it--I believe there any many things we both will not, and cannot, ever understand, and that there is no explanation. It just "is." That belief upsets some people--some people like logical and order. Personally I love ambiguity and metaphors. It's just how I roll.

Someday, somehow, maybe we'll figure out exactly who's right. But until that day happens I firmly believe in treating everyone with the dignity they deserve as a human being, unless they've shown that they don't deserve my respect. (ex: insert least favorite dictator here ____). But I'll still treat them if they come to me--I took an oath to do so. Writing someone off because they believe and think differently is a vast mistake in my book. I personally tend to think more "freely" and make more gut decisions (obviously it's relative--I'm a physician, not an interpretive dancer...) Still, I'm not as slow and methodical as some others at the other extreme.

But, I guarantee you if you partner me up with a slow, methodical thinker, the two of us will accomplish far more than we would separately. And not only would we be able to help more people more deeply, but we'd help ourselves grow in the process.

I agree with you completely

 

[RangerBob]

For me I used to have a similar point of view to yours, and might still to a certain extent in the sense that there are always possibilities that may be correct outside of my own beliefs, and I recognize that as a possibility.

Beyond that, I also acknowledge that the beginning of time, or even the beginning of existence is probably something that humans will never understand or comprehend, mainly because it's something we can't readily replicate. It's not something we can test in a lab. Creating universes on petri dishes just isn't going to be happening anytime soon, nor is creating living organisms from a collection of elements. I choose to believe there is a higher power that has some function above that of human capabilities. I'm sure many of you think I'm crazy and that by not worshiping the giant guesses of the big bang theory etc that I must not be of any scientific quality but it is my personal belief.

Whether or not you accept any religious text in its entirety (even knowing who it was written by), the single main premise of all these things (esp christianity, and specifically stated in islam) is that God is something beyond human comprehension. Any higher being that is capable of doing superhuman things is something that we cannot understand because that being is not bound by the same rules and limitations that we are. If there is a higher being than we cannot expect this being to have the exact limitations that we do, if we did then it would not be a higher being at all, it would just be another human.

The idea that so many people refuse to even consider the possibility of a higher being is mainly based on the fact that they assume any higher being must be held to the same standards scientifically and held to the same capabilities of humans. If there is a higher being, who is to say that this being doesn't possess the ability to do things to their own limitations, which are greater than ours?

I think that's well said--I definitely agree with you. Unfortunately, I also think too many religious people believe that they can explain God/their deity logically, and thus logically say what their deity would want (which often coincides with what the individual would want). We often forget that faith isn't supposed to serve our needs/wants (not directly at least)--we're supposed to serve it, for the greater good of humanity. ie., we should be good people for the sake of other's well-being, not for the sake of getting into Heaven.

 

[Diagnose]

No it's not a good point. It's ridiculous reductionism.

The origins of life are highly skeptical at best. We have ideas. They get argued over. It remains unclear.

But it nevertheless remains remotely less likely that the matter began with a man and a woman clothed in leaves and dealing with the conundrum of fruit and talking snakes.

We don't claim to have answers as non-believers we just demand plausibility and reasonable argument. So that we don't get bullied by bearded mullahs and the yarmulke wearing zealot who believes in the divine real estate broker or the Christian scientist who argues against the process of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Explain to me the process of abiogenesis, and I will consider that the evidence does not support the existence of God. Instead of explaining the details of abiogenesis, you suggest that there are "ideas". However, even Dr. Szostak is not able to detail the steps, but merely suggests that the challenges to abiogenesis will be overcome.

---------------------------------
Abiogenesis = hypothesis with many experiments showing it does not occur.

Religion = belief that God created the Heaven's and the Earth.

Atheism = belief that Heaven's and Earth were not created by God.

Evidence = NOT suggestive of abiogenesis

--------------------------------

I hope student doctor does not become the center of religious debate. I have never seen my religion have any adverse effect on my medical decision making.

------------------------

I hope a residency program does not ask me if I believe in "evolution", by which they probably mean "the theory of common descent", I can definitely imagine that some directors might. To which I would reply "of course evolution occurs, we see bacteria evolve into other bacteria". Thus I am able to dodge of the question of the origin of man. Was man made from the dust by God or did man evolve from monkeys.

------------------

I do not care if you think it is a good point or not, it is a point. Explain to me the process of abiogenesis, in detail, and I will agree that the evidence might suggest God did not create man. Instead of acknowledging that abiogenesis has never occurred in any experiment, you accuse me of reductionism. You sir/madam are dodging the question.

 

[Kal EI]

This forum has been interesting reading--it's great reading for an intern trying to stay awake to change his sleep-wake cycle to accommodate an upcoming week on night float.

I've always been fascinated by the search for meaning (or lack of it). Personally I'm Catholic. With that disclosure, here are my thoughts.

We have brains and we have hearts. Our brain finds meaning and understanding from logical thought, and our hearts (a metaphor for the mind I suppose) find meaning from faith. And that faith takes many shapes and forms, and we grow all the more when we listen and learn from other's beliefs. Atheism is itself a belief--a belief we're just here for a short and spirited amount of time and that everything in the world has an explanation, though we haven't figured it all out and may not do so for some time--but there is an explanation being a key point. I think that's a beautiful belief, but I personally disagree with it--I believe there any many things we both will not, and cannot, ever understand, and that there is no explanation. It just "is." That belief upsets some people--some people like logical and order. Personally I love ambiguity and metaphors. It's just how I roll.

Someday, somehow, maybe we'll figure out exactly who's right. But until that day happens I firmly believe in treating everyone with the dignity they deserve as a human being, unless they've shown that they don't deserve my respect. (ex: insert least favorite dictator here ____). But I'll still treat them if they come to me--I took an oath to do so. Writing someone off because they believe and think differently is a vast mistake in my book. I personally tend to think more "freely" and make more gut decisions (obviously it's relative--I'm a physician, not an interpretive dancer...) Still, I'm not as slow and methodical as some others at the other extreme.

But, I guarantee you if you partner me up with a slow, methodical thinker, the two of us will accomplish far more than we would separately. And not only would we be able to help more people more deeply, but we'd help ourselves grow in the process.

For me I used to have a similar point of view to yours, and might still to a certain extent in the sense that there are always possibilities that may be correct outside of my own beliefs, and I recognize that as a possibility.

Beyond that, I also acknowledge that the beginning of time, or even the beginning of existence is probably something that humans will never understand or comprehend, mainly because it's something we can't readily replicate. It's not something we can test in a lab. Creating universes on petri dishes just isn't going to be happening anytime soon, nor is creating living organisms from a collection of elements. I choose to believe there is a higher power that has some function above that of human capabilities. I'm sure many of you think I'm crazy and that by not worshiping the giant guesses of the big bang theory etc that I must not be of any scientific quality but it is my personal belief.

Whether or not you accept any religious text in its entirety (even knowing who it was written by), the single main premise of all these things (esp christianity, and specifically stated in islam) is that God is something beyond human comprehension. Any higher being that is capable of doing superhuman things is something that we cannot understand because that being is not bound by the same rules and limitations that we are. If there is a higher being than we cannot expect this being to have the exact limitations that we do, if we did then it would not be a higher being at all, it would just be another human.

The idea that so many people refuse to even consider the possibility of a higher being is mainly based on the fact that they assume any higher being must be held to the same standards scientifically and held to the same capabilities of humans. If there is a higher being, who is to say that this being doesn't possess the ability to do things to their own limitations, which are greater than ours?

Agree with both. We should all work together.

The field is difficult enough without inner turmoil.

 

[Houmd]

Agree with both. We should all work together.

The field is difficult enough without inner turmoil.

lol very good point there

 

[AngelOfAvarice]

*Why would you practice medicine if you don’t believe in a higher power?
*The way I see it, if there is no God, then there are no objective morals. If there are no objective morals, then why should we heal people instead of letting them die? Healing would not be better than suffering. Nothing ultimately matters if there is no God, we are all just molecules in motion. Sure you may like science and your preference might be healing over suffering, but nothing would make them “good” in an objective sense.
*How do atheists and agnostics justify that healing fellow human beings is a virtue?

Just wondering, but does anybody have any advice on who I should talk to about seceding from the human race?

 

[yehhhboiii]

I don't mean this in any malicious way, I promise. How do those who don't believe in God explain the origin of the universe? There's big bang, of course. I'm not denying that it's a valid theory. But I'm saying that I have a hard time believing that big bang just...happened. I also don't know very much about the theory, so maybe that's already been explained? But even if...we're still going from nothing to something, but that something had to come from somewhere.

hahaha wat
typical religious thought process "i don't understand something so i'll remain ignorant and just say it was god"

i have a hard time believing that god just...happened
trying to explain the existence of something by positing something else without explaining the origin of that is a waste of time


and something comes from nothing all the time. virtual particles blink into and out of existence constantly

 

[Kahreek]

existance of god is plausible, but people that cant be aware that religions are a social construction are another thing.

 

[JourneyAgent]

Nope. Sorry. Atheism is not a belief in any one thing. It is a disbelief in the current evidence for a supreme being. It would be convenient if you could liken us to a religious faith. But that is simply not correct. This is a defensive illusion that you wish were true.

Our arrogance pales in comparison to the assine behavior of telling gay people, who fought and died for this country. Who are part of every aspect of it. That they cannot have equal protection under the law because it doesn't agree with your sensibilities. You who would tell us to burn for an eternity if we do not heed you. And you call us arrogant.

For restricting the freedom or others and for condemning millions who do not agree with you, you are @ssholes of the first order. If you do not believe these things and yet you enable them you are cowards.

It's not my job to prove to you beyond the extent of our knowledge about abiogenesis. That would be a faith based move. I cannot disprove to you your god does not exist. I don't care to. We simply need your conceptions to not inflict harm on society. And to not be involved in politics for worldly gain. And to stop protecting and enabling fanatics.

You ate free to believe unaccosted . Just not to control us. I guess that's too much to ask. And that is why we are atheists and antitheists rather than agnostics.