Believers are the Best Scientists By Far

[ChemEngrMBA]

In the 20th Century, Christians and Jews were awarded 85% of all Nobel Prizes. *
Here are hundreds of facts to prove conclusively that belief in Nature's God leads millions to study and better understand the universe He created.

http://Irrational-Atheism.blogspot.com

*A Century of Nobel Prizes, by Baruch Shalev

[ChemEngrMBA]

Incredible.  Read 585 times and nobody responded, not one Christian, not one Jew, not one atheist.
Perhaps one can assume there is nearly universal agreement with my observations and demonstrated facts.

[Hoodat]

Incredible.  Read 585 times and nobody responded, not one Christian, not one Jew, not one atheist.

It is likely due to the intellectual laziness of your vacuous causal argument.

[ChemEngrMBA]

It is likely due to the intellectual laziness of your vacuous causal argument.

The only thing "intellectually lazy and vacuous" is your ad hominem fallacy, completely devoid of anything other than the typical atheist hatred and condescension.  Q.E.D.

Overnight, the count rose by 50%.

[Hoodat]

The only thing "intellectually lazy and vacuous" is your ad hominem fallacy

My comment was directed at your argument, not at you personally.  You may want to brush up on the subject of logical fallacies so that you have a better understanding.

.  .  . completely devoid of anything .  .  .

Here is the premise you offered:

In the 20th Century, Christians and Jews were awarded 85% of all Nobel Prizes.

This was your basis for concluding that "believers are the best scientists by far".  I don't have a problem with the concluding premise.  But I have a huge problem with how it was derived.  Nobel prizes have been Euro-centric since the time of their inception in 1895.  So it highly likely that recipients would also be Euro-centric and would be followers of the prevalent religion during that century - Christianity.  If a similar prize was centered in Japan, you would find that Christians would make up a very tiny fraction of recipients, and that the vast majority would be Shinto or Buddhist.

Even more egregious is that the link you provided doesn't support the premise you offered.  It is as if you didn't even bother to visit it.  Hence "intellectual laziness".  A far less lazy approach would have been to make the case that those who consciously press into the magnificence of the Most High experience the revelation of His Creation.  But that's not what you did.

.  .  . other than the typical atheist hatred and condescension.  .  .

I'm not an atheist (which you would already know if you bothered to actually read other people's posts instead of engaging in knee-jerk responses).

Overnight, the count rose by 50%.

Yep.  Dumpster fires do draw a crowd.

[Hoodat]

<sigh>

[ChemEngrMBA]

If atheism is so "rational" and "scientific," then why do atheists leave their beliefs more frequently than any other religion?  The U.S. Supreme Court declared that atheism is a religion.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)


The Supreme Court more recently reiterated this finding in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005).

The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”

SEE ATTACHED GRAPH OF RELIGIOUS RETENTION RATES SHOWING ATHEISM LAST


re·li·gion   [rəˈlij(ə)n]
NOUN

SIMILAR:
faith
belief
divinity
worship
creed
teaching
doctrine

a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
"consumerism is the new religion"

[verga]

It is likely due to the intellectual laziness of your vacuous causal argument.

I like to use his posts to show the debate students how not to formulate an argument.

[ChemEngrMBA]

https://Math-Proves-God.blogspot.com

It was bitterly ironic that the mathematical genius professor from UC Berkeley left his overpaid position in order to "save the earth" by moving into a rathole cabin in Wyoming and live off fruits and berries.  Meanwhile he built package bombs to kill people he despised, and pored over and over Al Gore's Earth in the Balance and atheist Isaac Asimov's Two Volume Guide to the Bible.

An atheist green lunatic has to be the worst combination of the three.

To the two previous posters on my Ignore List, I repeat, "The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks." - Nigerian Proverb

[ChemEngrMBA]

Over 9,000 views and no responses to my latest post of July, 2025.
I believe this is noteworthy.

[ChemEngrMBA]

Furthermore, in respect of human rationality itself , like also begets like, and the reason that our cognitive faculties are capable of perceiving truth and reasoning correctly is that they too—when functioning properly in their intended environment—operate as intelligently designed systems that have the formation of true beliefs as their purpose. Only under such conditions does our unspoken faith in human reason make sense.  - The Rise of Naturalism and its Problematic Role in Science and Culture, by Bruce L. Gordon (page 6)

[ChemEngrMBA]

“The world of strict naturalism in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves bring the universe and life into existence, is pure (and, one might add, poor) fiction. To call it science-fiction would besmirch the name of science.” – Professor John Lennox, Oxford University (God’s Undertaker:  Has Science[BZ3.1] Buried God?)

 “The very success of science in showing us how deeply ordered the natural world is provides strong grounds for believing that there is an even deeper cause for that order.”
― Ibid

“For, the statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science. It is not a scientific statement but rather a statement about science, that is, it is a metascientific statement. Therefore, if scientism’s basic principle is true, the statement expressing scientism must be false. Scientism refutes itself. Hence it is incoherent.” – Ibid

“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’ Arno Penzias, Physics Nobel Prize-winner”

“When Sir Isaac Newton discovered the universal law of gravitation he did not say, ‘I have discovered a mechanism that accounts for planetary motion, therefore there is no agent God who designed it.’ Quite the opposite: precisely because he understood how it worked, he was moved to increased admiration for the God who had designed it that way.” - Ibid

It is difficult to ignore that the Universe appears likely even inevitable if God exists, and unlikely perhaps impossible otherwise. In short, belief in God appears to be the default explanation for existence as we know it. – Nadeem Arif
C.S Lewis proved that natural laws do not cause actual natural events.