Quote:
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine  your above study isn't an accurate assessment of the religious devotions of scientists, I have posted plenty of opposite studies on this very forum and this very section (health and science).. use the search engine third from your anatomical right.. |
Do they all include medical practitioners and not scientists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine You need to know first and fore most how to conduct a legitimate study, how to free it from confounders, how to randomize it, set important variables and get a large enough population so that it is legitimate.
if I post this study |
Are you going to criticise the methodology of the study I actually posted or just one you picked yourself?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine You'd formulate the idea that psychiatrists are mostly atheists, fact is I can already spot a couple of confounder with this study right off the bat.. they have excluded the other 39% of physicians who didn't fall into the Judeo-Christian category and who in fact might be devoutly religious-- the other is 1,820 isn't a statistically significant number...
That is using numbers to mislead people! |
They're not the only ones it seems, if you came up with 39% excluded then one of us must be reading those numbers incorrectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skye Ephémérine other than that, I find it sort of ridiculous to believe or not believe based on an appeal to authority..
It is neither careful nor judicious.. it is actually rather sad!
and that goes from both ends! |
Well at least we agree on something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid Scientists are just regular people, they can be ignorant too. |
They can but people who research the workings of the world are probably in a better position to testify about it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AntiKarateKid ZOMG 92% Atheist OMG OMG SCIENCE RULES OUT RELIGION |
It seems you haven't really understood my point. I'm not saying that science excludes religion, since by most accounts science cannot explain something which is not of the natural world.
What science can do is support or refute religious scripture relating to matters of the natural world, and the original poster seems to be appealing to the authority of scientists in order to do this.
My point is that most scientists do not endorse these views, which kind of renders the 'appeal to authority' factor a bit pointless, why select only the opinions of respected scientists who happen to believe in a miraculous Quran and ignore the majority who do not.