What is the Religion or Philosophy of most  of  Physicist (scientists)? Atheist,Agnostic or Christians .... ?
612154
Seems to be pretty Quantum.\nAll Gods are equally true and false.\nThey all exist and don't exist until someone believes in them.
1102104
iam a christian. i see that science and theories can help you understand whatever it is you want to know. But all that takes away from god and the bible is the works of the devil. Many things are unexplainable, but many atheists have given there life to god on their death bed, Many scientists love to make up things to get fame and stuff, but that is stuff you rarely hear about. Everything is based around psychology, atheists have big egos. they think they control there own lives and announce that god is pretend, but is god dont exist to them then why are they always so threatened
1020868
Indeed. God is the best scientist I know. And I hope one day He will give us the set of equations witch explains Him and all. Or at least the "all"...\nReligion and science are the same thing, but wrongly understand. Just like electricity and magnetism. Such different phenomena - and now we know it is the same thing.
945272
Read a few pages of questions and answers here.  I'd say that 90% of the atheists that say that they are aligned with science, hate religion.  Take some data.  \n\nI do not see any posts from religious people hating science, except a few quacks.  Questions are asked, but that is different than hate.  \n\nAnyways, religion embraces science.  Why?  God is truth and science pursues the truth.   \n\nAs for the rest of what you wrote, methodism is a faith based religion, deism is a mix of philosophy and science, and quatum physics relate to atomic and sub atomic.  With this mix of faith, reality, and the quarky quatum world, well, you might be right.  \n\nHowever, to be right, you have to justify and prove your premises, which could be problematic.  \n\nGood luck.
801933
Sigh...this is the sort of thing that makes me twitch.  Okay, here goes:\n\nAn atheist believes that there is a logical contradiction inherent in the idea of a/the God.  Because it is otherwise impossible to prove that something doesn't exist (for example, try to prove that there is now or never was any such thing as a unicorn), atheists hold that the idea of God is logically impossible.  Atheism is usually opposed to the traditional omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of monotheists.  In other words, atheists find it impossible to believe that a being can be all-knowing, all-powerful and all good at the same time.  They usually cite something like the problem of pain.  (If God is all-good and all-powerful, how can He let bad things happen?)\n\nI realize that there are atheists that are complete materialists and reject the idea of anything that can't be perceived through the senses.  However, usual usage of the term "atheist" is one who doesn't believe in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God.  (Let's be honest:  how often do you see atheists and Hindus duking it out?)\n\nAs for agnostics, there are two kinds:  1) those who think that it is impossible to know if God exists and 2) those who think it is possible, but aren't convinced one way or the other.\n\nHere is an example to clarify.  You're walking down the road, and a big light from the sky suddenly shines on you.  You hear your name and are told to repent.  Would you acknowledge the possibility that you had just witnessed a miracle, or would you immediately assume that you've done one too many acid trips?\n\nThe 2) kind of agnostic would believe that it is possible and that it might even be the proof they were looking for.  The 1) kind of agnostic would lay off the drugs for a while; he doesn't believe that a God, even if He/She/It exists, can interfere in such a way in human affairs.\n\nI realize that this might not be the simple answer you were looking for.\n\nThe quick answer is that atheists say no and that agnostics say maybe.\n\nSome agnostics are convinceable, and some are not.
197885
I can see your point. Indeed, most agnostics should admit that, ultimately, they are atheists.\n\nIf there is some agnostic around who doesn't agree on this, please explain us why you define yourself agnostic about God but not about Santa Claus.\n\nThe same goes for all the infinite things that you don't believe but cannot disprove ("right now there is a bottle of tequila orbiting around Pluto", "there must be an unicorn somewhere on Earth", "the person who is writing this (Flavio) is an intelligent computer", etc.)
301563
An atheist can very well have a belief system.  Being an atheist just means that you lack belief in a god or gods.  An atheist could believe in UFOs, alien abductions, Santa Claus, etc.  \n\nI, however, am a skeptic, an Objectivist, a Bright (depending on the nomenclature you are using).\n\nI try to have as few belief as possible.  I try to hold a scientific worldview.  I take in data/information and try to understand what I am learning.  I make guesses/theories about how the data relate.  When I make up a guess, I then test it to make sure it's correct.  If it fails, then I continue to use that theory until a better one comes along.  If a better one comes along, then I reject the old one.\n\nA good example of this is the sunrise.  Do you believe that the sun rises in the East?  I don't.  I have a scientific theory that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun.  I test my theory every day because my theory PREDICTS the sun will appear on the eastern horizon.  \n\nYou might say that a scientific worldview cannot account for everything in reality.  Really?  Like what?  A soul?  I don't believe that exists either.\n\nI could be wrong.  Before bacteria were seen under a microscope, people believed that disease was  caused by disruptions of the 4 humours.  If I was a skeptic back then, I would have denied the existence of bacteria... until a scientific theory could come about and explain and predict their existence.  So if someone were to present to me concrete evidence of a god... then I would admit that I am wrong and become a believer.\n\n-------------------------------\nAgnosticism and atheism are kissing cousins.  Still, does a agnostic believe in Santa Claus?  Why or why not?  There is no evidence for Santa to exist... but there is always the possibility.  I deny Santa's existence, while a true agnostic could never say yes or no.\n\nBasically, there is a ton of bullhsit out there.  There are hundreds, if not thousands, of religions in the world.  This doesn't include ones that have died out or ones that have yet to be created.  I withhold belief until I find evidence for one that is correct.  Sure I could sometimes be wrong with my worldview/philosophy... but science/logic/rational thought has a far better track record in only a few hundred years than all of the history of religions.\n---------\nAlso, I think you have a misunderstanding on what a "freethinker" is.  A freethinker is someone who looks at life/reality without superstition... someone who uses rational thought.  There is no evidence for a supernatural being... so that falls outside of "freethinker".
399928
Only according to the Christians. Therefore as an Atheist, I would be classed as a disciple of the Devil, which would be difficult because I don't believe in God or the Devil in the first place. So how can I be classed as something that I believe doesn't exist? Obviously the Christians are a bunch of f**king liars :)
504415
well im a christian myself but a budding scientist also so i think that a lot of religious people attack science only because they're sheep.  they think that since it wasn't said in whatever their respective holy book is, then it must be false.  the ironic thing though is that because they limit the workings of the world to what is said in their book and by also saying that there is no way that their god cant/doesn't work through science, then they limit the omnipresence of their god.\n\ni havent really heard of anybody attacking aspects of science that do not conflict with their religion.  when you find one, let me know
352251
I'm Pagan, and I agree with you. It is seriously annoying that Christians can't answer a single question without quoting the Bible or damning someone to Hell. It happens in most of the Questions on Yahoo! Answers. All I can say is to deal with it, because they still have no substantial proof for their religion. However, Quantum Physics has proven Paganism. Oh well. Their lives, live and let live, right?
293415
There is only one agnostic belief that I know of.\nGenerally, agnostics don't believe or disbelieve... they ponder the existence of a God, and are open to any suggestion that may prove or disprove thier opinion.
259704
A Christian Scientist is one who attends the Church of Jesus Christ Scientist (not to be confused with Scientology).\n\nThe biggest difference between Christian Scientists and other christian churches is that Christian Scientists do not believe in accepting any kind of medical treatment.  They believe that they will be healed through prayer rather than by Doctors and medicines.\n\nIt's a curious stance considering some New Testament scriptures.  For example, Jesus said, "a healthy man does not need a physician, but a sick man does".  Also, Luke, for whom the book of Luke is named, was a physician, and there is no mention of his occupation being in conflict with his worship.\n\nIn fact, the Bible is unusually quiet on the topic of whether or not it is appropriate to seek medical attention.  You could make a good case that Christians should put their faith in God rather than men, which would be in accordance with the scriptures, but you could also make a case that to cherish God's gift of life would require that you use whatever means available to stay healthy.
235137
Most Christians don’t have the problem that you say they do. What Christians may find difficult to understand is not the atheist’s disbelieve in the Christian God, but the atheist’s disbelief in any sort of Divine Creator at all. I think pwacher’s answer is in line with the most typical Christian response. She wants to know how there can be existence of any sort without some divine source, or as many philosophers are more likely to say: some sort of metaphysical “ground of all Being” that must, in some way account for the origins of the physical universe as well as consciousness. Given some basic elements and natural laws, science can explain (in principle) the evolution of the physical universe. What science cannot explain is where these primordial elements and natural laws came from in the first place. Nor can science explain how physical matter gives rise to conscious experience (although a few die-hard materialists are still optimistic that science can, at least in principle, do this someday).\n\nMy own belief/faith: The metaphysical foundation of all Being is “Mindful” in some fundamental way, and we all share this same ground as the source of our own sense of Being - which each of us individually and without much serious thought interprets as our “self” or “soul”, but which is not really unique to us as individuals, but is actually shared by all of us. Spiritually intuitive people may sense the unitary and primordial nature of this metaphysical ground and project their own “sense of self” onto it in such a way that it appears to be “other” - aka, a personified God who is a CREATOR distinct from creation when in fact (in my view) the creation simply is the form of the creator (and thus not a collection of ontologically distinct essences insofar as the ultimate metaphysical roots are concerned).\n\nAnd by the way, “athesist” literally means “not theist” (just as “asymmetrical” means “not symmetrical”) and a “theist” is one who believes in a god of some sort. Thus the person above who says that “atheist” means “no belief” is not quite right. An atheist believes that there is no god. And I might as well add that an agnostic believes something too. The “a” in agnostic is “not” and the “gnostic” is “knowledge”, so the agnostic believes that he or she does not know whether or not there is a god, although agnosticism does not strictly have to apply only to religious questions. If someone asked me: “Do you believe that the Vikings will ever win a Superbowl?” I could say that I am agnostic on that matter. I simply don’t have a belief one way or the other. I simply don’t know.
838832
Conclusion? There's no conclusion to scinece, it is the study of everything, we'll never finish studying science and reach some conclusion.\n\nMy conclusion about religion is that it is delusional. I was just wondering if your question had an unstated subtext?
248323
Once upon the time I too was quite belligerent about religion, that is until I discovered philosophy.  From my studies I realized all knowledge has Faith as a base. For science to work one MUST except the universe is organized, understandable and that man is capable of understanding it. Those, my friend, are assumtions, not facts, and unless you except them there is no scientific method to be had.\n\nMy advice, cut the religious group some slack. If you respect their beliefs, maybe they will find in themselves to respect yours. If they don't, well you are better person for having tried.
838226
i think this person is trying to say that science (physics) and religion (10 commandments) are opposing forces and that while most people order their world around science, this person prefers to use religion...now why they think the 2 can't coexist is beyond me
723854
... Hrm. Good question and. Yeah, I think you would be an atheist. Atheism is the unbelief of god or anything above. If you just don't believe in the christian, Catholic, islamic etc etc, with all the "founded" religions, but believe in a greater power you are an agnostic, I think. \n\nEvolution is not part of Atheist belief, it's just a label. Somehow believing in evolution means not believing in god. But there are those who believe in both so why not someone who doesn't believe in either? \n\nAlthough I would like to know if you have any belief about how we got here. or "came to exist" The only other possibility that popped into my head was "aliens dropped us here like my dad suspected" but I'm sure there's more than three explanations as to how humans came to be humans.