Are there any athiest med schools?

[Snowdon48]

Are there any that are funded by a non-religious organization or affiliated with anything that is athiest?

Every med school in China?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Eiot]

I will when christians start going to mosques and muslims start going to church to be around others with different beliefs instead of being narrowminded and only going into environments with others that share the same beliefs. Does that help you understand the stupidity behind your statement?

I like how you ask that question after disparaging two entire religious sects in an ignorant blanket statement as if it would somehow hold merit. The ironically narrow-minded thoughts in your post speak volumes. What a joke.

 

[nikoness]

Unless you have strong ties to the state, don't bother.

I will say that most people are surprised at how liberal downtown Salt Lake and the U are, it's only if you head into the suburbs or drive North/South that the demographics start becoming Mormon heavy.

ah ok. Ya when I went it was to Salt Lake... I didn't venture anywhere outside of that.

been a utah jazz fan since stockton and malone

 

[Belle Melodie]

:troll:

This..

OP, if you are seriously this opposed to being around people of various beliefs (to include religions) that are opposed to yours, you should seriously reconsider medicine. You need to be able to relate to people of differing beliefs and, with humility, consider their perspectives. To say that science "has all the answers" is a critical error that shows a lack of cross-cultural experience and understanding. It also smacks of arrogance and ignorance.



The fact that you see people talking honestly about their beliefs, perspectives, etc. as "overstepping their boundaries" is concerning, as is the fact that you see nothing wrong with avoiding diversity of perspective (i.e., desire to only be around like-minded people).

This is mos def a waste of a thread.

 

[Daneosaurus]

The hilarious thing is that by and large the people OP has a phobia of are more open and accepting of others than himself. The irony.

Sent from my Nexus 7

I'd say thats almost never true.

 

[NickNaylor]

I'd say thats almost never true.

I went to undergrad at an unabashedly Southern Baptist school. In my experience, people are very into their religion - and perhaps atheists may not understand that and get weirded out or misunderstand it - but they are still pretty nice people and aren't going to avoid someone because they're an atheist. If anything, they'd probably like to talk to them and get an "in" with them if they're particularly evangelical.

 

[nysegop]

Good thing it's really easy to avoid applying here seeing as how it doesn't exist.

The only med school in Utah is at the University of Utah, a public non-religious institution.

I was kidding... hence the laughing face...

 

[Daneosaurus]

To say that science "has all the answers" is a critical error that shows a lack of cross-cultural experience and understanding. It also smacks of arrogance and ignorance.

I agree with most of your post. This part however smacks of ignorance and bible-thumping. Science explain things; God of the gaps argument (aka: goddidit) explains nothing and fails every time a new discovery is made. Either God did it or didn't. I personally find science to refute religion.

 

[rain4venus]

rain is now the 5th iggy'd.

*1,000,000

 

[Daneosaurus]

I am not trying to make enemies, btw. This topic tends to get the mouse on the wheel going.

OP is clearly trolling, though.

 

[music2doc]

I agree with most of your post. This part however smacks of ignorance and bible-thumping. Science explain things; God of the gaps argument (aka: goddidit) explains nothing and fails every time a new discovery is made. Either God did it or didn't. I personally find science to refute religion.

I get what you are saying; however, while science can explain a lot, I think it is important that, as scientists, we realize it has its limitations. There was no bible-thumping to my post and I'm not exactly uneducated on these things. Something I've learned is that the more I learn about something, the more I realize just how much more I don't actually know. In other words -- the more I know, the less I think I know. If you truly believe that "science has all the answers," just wait until medical school. There are things we don't understand. Science seeks to answer a lot of questions, but there are things that are beyond science's grasp.

 

[rain4venus]

I get what you are saying; however, while science can explain a lot, I think it is important that, as scientists, we realize it has its limitations. There was no bible-thumping to my post and I'm not exactly uneducated on these things. Something I've learned is that the more I learn about something, the more I realize just how much more I don't actually know. In other words -- the more I know, the less I think I know. If you truly believe that "science has all the answers," just wait until medical school. There are things we don't understand. Science seeks to answer a lot of questions, but there are things that are beyond science's grasp.

I think you're missing something important here. Science does have all the answers, but we don't have all the science. That doesn't make things beyond the grasp of science, just beyond the grasp of scientists (for now.)

 

[Loveless]

I agree with most of your post. This part however smacks of ignorance and bible-thumping. Science explain things; God of the gaps argument (aka: goddidit) explains nothing and fails every time a new discovery is made. Either God did it or didn't. I personally find science to refute religion.

How can science refute religion when the scope of science specifically limits it from addressing the topics that truly would refute it?

 

[music2doc]

I think you're missing something important here. Science does have all the answers, but we don't have all the science. That doesn't make things beyond the grasp of science, just beyond the grasp of scientists (for now.)

You should take a philosophy of science class.

How can science refute religion when the scope of science specifically limits it from addressing the topics that truly would refute it?

 

[Snowdon48]

How can science refute religion when the scope of science specifically limits it from addressing the topics that truly would refute it?

 

[sliceofbread136]

I've never totally understood this stigma of religious people. Back in my premed hoop jumping days I volunteered at a church soup kitchen. When asked which church I go to I simply said I don't go to church and was just here to help. They were very understanding and nice about it. I respected their beliefs and they respected mine. I think you'll find if you try your best to be tolerant and respectful then other people will do the same. It is my suspicion that athiests who claim that christians are not tolerant of their beliefs were not tolerant people themselves :-/

 

[Daneosaurus]

Science refutes religion because the more science is understood and discovered, the less can be explained by religion. Just because something is currently unexplained by science, a) does not mean it will never be discovered, and b) does in no way shape or form mean a God, creator, nor a flying spaghetti monster must have had an influence. I can not believe that science doesn't have all the answers, simply because science has new breakthroughs daily.

Yet again, I am not here to make enemies, as I feel this topic as the potential to do. I do not intend to insult anyones intelligence. However, I can reiterate the above, but we all know it is futile - none of us are likely to change our beliefs due to some anonymous poster on a web forum.

 

[Daneosaurus]

How can science refute religion when the scope of science specifically limits it from addressing the topics that truly would refute it?

I think you would benefit, if you ever have the time (it's fairly lengthy!), from watching this:
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/728-science-refutes-god&tab=2

 

[sliceofbread136]

Science refutes religion because the more science is understood and discovered, the less can be explained by religion. Just because something is currently unexplained by science, a) does not mean it will never be discovered, and b) does in no way shape or form mean a God, creator, nor a flying spaghetti monster must have had an influence. I can not believe that science doesn't have all the answers, simply because science has new breakthroughs daily.

Yet again, I am not here to make enemies, as I feel this topic as the potential to do. I do not intend to insult anyones intelligence. However, I can reiterate the above, but we all know it is futile - none of us are likely to change our beliefs due to some anonymous poster on a web forum.

If you really meant the second statement you made then I think the tone of your first statement would have been a little more respectful (ie leave out spaghetti monster part).

 

[Daneosaurus]

If you really meant the second statement you made then I think the tone of your first statement would have been a little more respectful (ie leave out spaghetti monster part).

My apologies, I've been in a snarky mood today.

 

[Snowdon48]

 

[EnergyDrink]

After reading this thread, I feel like I'm back in high school.

 

[xffan624]

My apologies, I've been in a snarky mood today.

It sets a bad impression when you ask about an atheist school and then get told there is no such thing and it doesn't really speak to ability to adapt as a doctor and relate to your patients if you only want to be surrounded by fellow atheists. And then precede to mock your posters who do believe in God or some form of her/him/it, whatever (and by the way, most of us are avid scientists, one does not preclude the other).

The fact remains, most of your patients will believe in a higher being of some form. Yes, some will be atheists. But the majority will not be (unless you move to Europe or some Asian countries).

You need to respect their beliefs, respect how they want to express them. Some of them may be terminal and the idea of a higher being and an afterlife may be all that is keeping them sane. Are you going to deny them that or remind that science says there is no afterlife or tell them that someday science will have the answers to why they're dying, but right now it doesn't?

 

[Loveless]

I can not believe that science doesn't have all the answers, simply because science has new breakthroughs daily.

Why can't you? Nature knows no final end, and as science is the imitation of nature in concept, it knows no final end either. As such, science will never have all the answers. However, as nature brings about things of the greatest relevance and usefulness without having willed it, so can science. Why do you need to believe that it can answer everything, rather than simply using the method and finding out what questions it does answer?

 

[Daneosaurus]

It sets a bad impression when you ask about an atheist school and then get told there is no such thing and it doesn't really speak to ability to adapt as a doctor and relate to your patients if you only want to be surrounded by fellow atheists. And then precede to mock your posters who do believe in God or some form of her/him/it, whatever (and by the way, most of us are avid scientists, one does not preclude the other).

The fact remains, most of your patients will believe in a higher being of some form. Yes, some will be atheists. But the majority will not be (unless you move to Europe or some Asian countries).

You need to respect their beliefs, respect how they want to express them. Some of them may be terminal and the idea of a higher being and an afterlife may be all that is keeping them sane. Are you going to deny them that or remind that science says there is no afterlife or tell them that someday science will have the answers to why they're dying, but right now it doesn't?

Uhh...I think you are confused. I am not the OP.

As for your last paragraph, I would NEVER push my beliefs (or lack thereof) on someone else. I consider it a personal matter. Also, merely stating what mine are is not pushing them upon another.

I only engaged, because I do enjoy this topic, and it seemed that this would be a fun forum to post on. Remember, I'm the one who stated I am considering transferring to a Jesuit UG, though I am an atheist. I am many things, but intolerant is not one of them.

 

[Ismet]

After reading this thread, I feel like I'm back in high school.

good prep for med school then

 

[rain4venus]

As for your last paragraph, I would NEVER push my beliefs (or lack thereof) on someone else. I consider it a personal matter. Also, merely stating what mine are is not pushing them upon another.

Good point for the OP to keep in mind too

 

[music2doc]

good prep for med school then

My thought exactly.

 

[Daneosaurus]

Good point for the OP to keep in mind too

2nded

 

[PhysMatMan]

Science can't tell you what is meaningful in life, it just describes life. Saying that science > religion is essentially saying science > philosophy since most religions have some form of philosophy embedded. Science can only disprove a religion if it says that the sky is purple and the sun is a black hole of microbes.

 

[Daneosaurus]

Science can't tell you what is meaningful in life, it just describes life. Saying that science > religion is essentially saying science > philosophy since most religions have some form of philosophy embedded. Science can only disprove a religion if it says that the sky is purple and the sun is a black hole of microbes.

Correct, however, one can not prove a negative (evidence of absence), so the burden of proof lies upon those purporting a claim.

 

[nysegop]

Science = Religion

 

[PhysMatMan]

Correct, however, one can not prove a negative (evidence of absence), so the burden of proof lies upon those purporting a claim.

I don't see how this is relevant to anything I said. You seem to be arguing against a proof of the existence of God, which I did not give nor purport to have.

If you hold your ear up to the conch, you can hear Dawkin's whispering "There is no god."

 

[rain4venus]

Science can't tell you what is meaningful in life, it just describes life. Saying that science > religion is essentially saying science > philosophy since most religions have some form of philosophy embedded. Science can only disprove a religion if it says that the sky is purple and the sun is a black hole of microbes.

What if it says humans were made in their current form six thousand years ago?
What about the (many) aspects of religion that are not philosophy, and try to explain how things happen rather than just how the same things are meaningful?

For example, Christianity (or any other religion) attempting to explain how life came to exist on Earth. Science doesn't have a great answer for that yet, but that doesn't mean that a god is the only explanation.

I do agree with Lawless when he pointed out that science can't refute religion because "the scope of science specifically limits it from addressing the topics that truly would refute it." Science doesn't really refute religion. Properly carried out, science shouldn't even acknowledge religion. Although, one-by-one, claims such as the above made by religion may be disproved - I would prefer religions just stay out of those areas in the first place and keep their focus on philosophy.

At the same time, I don't agree with music2doc's claim that "it is important that, as scientists, we realize [science] has its limitations" (assuming that he refers to limitations in describing the natural world - including how the human body works.) It's true that there's much we don't know at this point in time, but that doesn't mean science won't be able to explain many of those things in the future. To me, it seems intellectually lazy to look to religion to answer the questions science just hasn't caught up with yet. I don't understand why I can't give science time to figure it out; I have patience and that perspective seems needlessly rushed.
(OTOH, if music2doc was just referring to limitations as far as answering questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" then I do agree. I mean, I don't think that's really a limitation of science any more than not being able to function as a hat is a limitation of a carrot, but I agree that there are questions that science can't answer - namely those that lie outside the scope of science.)

 

[PhysMatMan]

Do I win?

 

[Daneosaurus]

Do I win?

Yes. You win one internets. That is certainly carrots functioning as a hat.

 

[music2doc]

What if it says humans were made in their current form six thousand years ago?
What about the (many) aspects of religion that are not philosophy, and try to explain how things happen rather than just how the same things are meaningful?

For example, Christianity (or any other religion) attempting to explain how life came to exist on Earth. Science doesn't have a great answer for that yet, but that doesn't mean that a god is the only explanation.

I do agree with Lawless when he pointed out that science can't refute religion because "the scope of science specifically limits it from addressing the topics that truly would refute it." Science doesn't really refute religion. Properly carried out, science shouldn't even acknowledge religion. Although, one-by-one, claims such as the above made by religion may be disproved - I would prefer religions just stay out of those areas in the first place and keep their focus on philosophy.

At the same time, I don't agree with music2doc's claim that "it is important that, as scientists, we realize [science] has its limitations" (assuming that he refers to limitations in describing the natural world - including how the human body works.) It's true that there's much we don't know at this point in time, but that doesn't mean science won't be able to explain many of those things in the future. To me, it seems intellectually lazy to look to religion to answer the questions science just hasn't caught up with yet. I don't understand why I can't give science time to figure it out; I have patience and that perspective seems needlessly rushed.
(OTOH, if music2doc was just referring to limitations as far as answering questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" then I do agree. I mean, I don't think that's really a limitation of science any more than not being able to function as a hat is a limitation of a carrot, but I agree that there are questions that science can't answer - namely those that lie outside the scope of science.)

Largely, I was referring to the latter; however, science in its current form cannot answer many questions about the natural world. Remember -- science is the body of knowledge, not its philosophy. Its philosophy is capable of describing many things we do not yet understand. Through its methods, we can learn a lot but I would avoid the arrogance of claiming we will ever be able to describe/explain "everything" scientifically. To do so is to make a leap in reasoning that you and I do not actually have the knowledge or understanding to be able to reliably make. Being as human beings have really only been progressing rapidly in the scientific disciplines for the last few centuries, our experiences are really quite limited. Further, there are issues that philosophers have had with the methods of science. It would be good for you to understand those before making bold, all-inclusive statements about science's ability to describe nature. It relies upon a series of assumptions that some of our own scientific experiments have shown may be less than 100% correct.

 

[rain4venus]

Do I win?

haha well technically I think I said "a carrot" but I'm still pretty sure you win.

I even tried to think of just the right thing, ended up with carrot because I though surely it would be too narrow to be a hat, as opposed to a tomato or something.

 

[rain4venus]

Remember -- science is the body of knowledge, not its philosophy.

Ah... well herein lies part of the problem. We're using different definitions of science, and yours is limited to a very small subset of what the word actually means.

Its philosophy is capable of describing many things we do not yet understand. Through its methods, we can learn a lot but I would avoid the arrogance of claiming we will ever be able to describe/explain "everything" scientifically. To do so is to make a leap in reasoning that you and I do not actually have the knowledge or understanding to be able to reliably make. Being as human beings have really only been progressing rapidly in the scientific disciplines for the last few centuries, our experiences are really quite limited. Further, there are issues that philosophers have had with the methods of science. It would be good for you to understand those before making bold, all-inclusive statements about science's ability to describe nature. It relies upon a series of assumptions that some of our own scientific experiments have shown may be less than 100% correct.

I don't recall saying that we would ever be able to describe everything scientifically - certainly not in my lifetime. I think given infinite time we possibly could, but the human species will clearly not be around for infinite time, which means we won't be around long enough to describe infinity to infinite detail. When I said to give science time, it wasn't because I think we'll be able to answer all questions before it's too late for me. I meant that if I can't know the right answer, I'd rather the question go unanswered than just make something up out of thin air to cover my gaps of knowledge.
As for the rest, I refer back to the difference in our definitions of science. Yes, science is the body of scientific knowledge. It is also the process used to gain that knowledge. If you look up dictionary entries for science, they will include a definition stating that it's an activity that adds to the base of scientific knowledge. So to me, any question you can ask of the physical world that could be tested using scientific processes falls under the purview of science.

All that said, I do still agree that there are questions worth asking that don't pertain strictly to the physical world, and those questions can't be answered with science - either the current body of knowledge or the process itself. I think that aside from the different definitions of "science", we agree about 90%... But I'll argue to my last breath about that last 10%

 

[rain4venus]

I consider myself and atheist but no matter how you feel about this subject, it's important to point out that OP hasn't spelled atheist right a single time.

haha I never even noticed that. Maybe he doesn't mean that he doesn't believe in a god...maybe he means that he's the most athi? Maybe we've been misunderstanding him the whole time!

Also, whoever mentioned something about being able to relate to patients and make them comfortable has a really great point. I've never thought of it like that before.

And that's really what it's all about. Doing right by your patients no matter how different your beliefs. I'm sure no one here would treat a patient with different beliefs any worse than patients that agree with you, but it's more than that. You have to also be able to interact with them in a way that puts them at ease, which will vary patient to patient, but requires the kind of empathy that can really only be gained by interacting with all kinds of people.

 

[mehc012]

I went to undergrad at an unabashedly Southern Baptist school. In my experience, people are very into their religion - and perhaps atheists may not understand that and get weirded out or misunderstand it - but they are still pretty nice people and aren't going to avoid someone because they're an atheist. If anything, they'd probably like to talk to them and get an "in" with them if they're particularly evangelical.

It's the bolded that I find inappropriate. I have no problem with anyone's religion, as long as it's treated like the personal matter it is...aka as long as I'm also left free to have my own beliefs. I have been hounded, cornered in practice rooms, and given stacks of Bible sections before, and I find it very uncomfortable (not to mention increasingly difficult, in those situations to get them to back off without insulting their religion.) I even had someone track down my address once I left a summer camp in Wisconsin, and send audio tapes across the entire friggin' country of their preacher explaining why I (and all other religions, and all other sects of Christianity) were going to hell. And yes, it would be just as inappropriate for me to hound anyone else about the irrationality of their beliefs (it would also be stupid of me, because religion isn't about rationality, it's about faith)...but sometimes it seems as if every expression of my discomfort ("please don't bless me, I don't appreciate it") is taken as an anti-religious attack, rather than a simple wish not to participate or discuss it.

This thread has gone off into the deep dark woods, and the OP is not helping their own case...but though I don't want to support the attitude OP has shown throughout this thread, I would like to reiterate what someone else asked earlier: why is it any more inappropriate for someone to seek out a specifically non-religious med school than it is for people to seek out a religiously affiliated one (Loma Linda, etc...)? It does change the culture of the place, and therefore the sort of people you'll be spending the next 4 years with; why is one more acceptable than the other?

 

[NickNaylor]

Ah... well herein lies part of the problem. We're using different definitions of science, and yours is limited to a very small subset of what the word actually means.



I don't recall saying that we would ever be able to describe everything scientifically - certainly not in my lifetime. I think given infinite time we possibly could, but the human species will clearly not be around for infinite time, which means we won't be around long enough to describe infinity to infinite detail. When I said to give science time, it wasn't because I think we'll be able to answer all questions before it's too late for me. I meant that if I can't know the right answer, I'd rather the question go unanswered than just make something up out of thin air to cover my gaps of knowledge.
As for the rest, I refer back to the difference in our definitions of science. Yes, science is the body of scientific knowledge. It is also the process used to gain that knowledge. If you look up dictionary entries for science, they will include a definition stating that it's an activity that adds to the base of scientific knowledge. So to me, any question you can ask of the physical world that could be tested using scientific processes falls under the purview of science.

All that said, I do still agree that there are questions worth asking that don't pertain strictly to the physical world, and those questions can't be answered with science - either the current body of knowledge or the process itself. I think that aside from the different definitions of "science", we agree about 90%... But I'll argue to my last breath about that last 10%

Science is itself probabilistic. You should recognize the weakness of it from that perspective. One day, scientists decided that if we can demonstrate that something is true 95% of the time, then it is scientific fact. Science itself is very much a religion - just a religion of probability rather than deities. That doesn't make science entirely useless - quite the contrary as demonstrated by our current science-dominated world - but it should make you pause and question whether something demonstrated to be true by some guy with an alpha of .05 is an accurate and True description of the physical world. Science speaks very little about truths and very much about the probability that something we observe happens because _______. Subtle but important difference IMO.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717

 

[rain4venus]

This thread has gone off into the deep dark woods, and the OP is not helping their own case...but though I don't want to support the attitude OP has shown throughout this thread, I would like to reiterate what someone else asked earlier: why is it any more inappropriate for someone to seek out a specifically non-religious med school than it is for people to seek out a religiously affiliated one (Loma Linda, etc...)? It does change the culture of the place, and therefore the sort of people you'll be spending the next 4 years with; why is one more acceptable than the other?

It's not a bad question, and honestly I find Loma Linda to be a strange case. I probably would judge someone a little bit if they were applying *ONLY* to Christian med schools, or if they said something like "I really need to get into Loma Linda because I don't feel comfortable with the commitment other schools have to the Lord" (or anything at all like that)
There were a bunch of nonreligious people on here that said they felt comfortable with the other Christian schools in the country, presumably because those schools downplay the actual role of religion in their education. Any Christian who had a problem with that would seem as strange to me as the OP if not moreso. Medical education (anatomy, physiology, pathology, whatever other kinds of classes you guys take...) shouldn't be at all concerned with religion.
Honestly that's part of the thing I thought was weird about the OP. Your classes are obviously not going to be filled with religion unless you go to an actual religious school, so why do you want the school to be specifically atheist?

Besides, most places you might go have a big enough class that you're not going to be friends with and hang out with everyone. You only need a couple people to make friends with, and with the exception of explicitly religious schools, you'll absolutely be able to find a decent number of atheist or at least areligious people at any med school in the country, especially considering that there's a negative correlation between education and religious devotion. (Not at all saying that only dumb people are religious! Just the fact that the higher up you go in the education system the fewer religious people you find, and often the less devout those few you do come across.) So if you're worried about going to any random non-Christian school because only 25-50% of the student body will be nonreligious, that comes across as a bit militant to me.

 

[getdown]

Believing that science will eventually explain all the mysteries of the world requires you to have the same faith as someone who believes God has a role for us all in this world. Just because someone puts their faith in something you disagree with doesn't make their faith less important or false relative to yours.

 

[plumazul]

Believing that science will eventually explain all the mysteries of the world requires you to have the same faith as someone who believes God has a role for us all in this world. Just because someone puts their faith in something you disagree with doesn't make their faith less important or false relative to yours.

I have absolutely no "faith" in the current existing knowledge base. That's why I want to be a scientist. Let's roll the clock back a few thousand years. Has religion changed? Science sure has advanced. Science is making progress in the same way as a numerical convergent sequence. We are approaching some limit that may never be reached, but if you get close enough, it won't matter.

 

[nysegop]

After reading this thread, I feel like I'm back in high school.

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame

 

[Guero]

I don't understand what the point of the question is. Medical education is standardized and everything is taught regardless of whether it's a jesuit school like Georgetown, Loyola or a state school. Unless you're really interested in OBGYN and learning how to perform abortions at this early stage you shouldn't worry about it. They're not going to try to convert you or force you go to church or anything like that. I hope you're not one of those people that get offended by the slightest showing of religious icons in public places. As long as they're not trying to force it down your throat you should respect their religious beliefs as much as you want them to respect your atheist view points.

I believe Loma Linda requires chapel and definitely requires religion in their curriculum (http://www.llu.edu/assets/medicine/education/curriculum/Curriculum-Content-Freshman-Year.pdf).

Yea those southern schools will run you out of town if you're not wearing a cross around your neck

LoL, especially the pts.

Churches and mosques are places where people of the same faith learn and practice their religion which can include unique ideas not shared by everyone. People of other faiths don't go to these places obviously because it doesn't pertain to them. Medical school is a place people go to learn and practice medicine and help others which is generally accepted by everyone, REGARDLESS of their faith to be a good thing. Are you seriously this dense or you just trying to justify your own bigotry?

I've attended Mosques, Churches, Temples, and Covens and am decidedly agnostic. You don't necessarily have to believe in the same thing to attend services. But that's kind of splitting hairs, I guess.

Unless you have strong ties to the state, don't bother.

I will say that most people are surprised at how liberal downtown Salt Lake and the U are, it's only if you head into the suburbs or drive North/South that the demographics start becoming Mormon heavy.

Yup, their application is horrendously tedious and chances for OOS applicants very slim. I was rejected post secondary as an OOS that the admin apparently considered competitive due to my experiences. Le Sigh. It all worked out for the best, though.

I went to undergrad at an unabashedly Southern Baptist school. In my experience, people are very into their religion - and perhaps atheists may not understand that and get weirded out or misunderstand it - but they are still pretty nice people and aren't going to avoid someone because they're an atheist. If anything, they'd probably like to talk to them and get an "in" with them if they're particularly evangelical.

Me, too. Although, the school broke its covenant with the SBC in the final year of my first degree completion. I was never proselytized at that school and felt very loved. Oddly, I was repeatedly and hostily proselytized at the state school from which I transferred. I was astounded.

I've never totally understood this stigma of religious people. Back in my premed hoop jumping days I volunteered at a church soup kitchen. When asked which church I go to I simply said I don't go to church and was just here to help. They were very understanding and nice about it. I respected their beliefs and they respected mine. I think you'll find if you try your best to be tolerant and respectful then other people will do the same. It is my suspicion that athiests who claim that christians are not tolerant of their beliefs were not tolerant people themselves :-/

Yup, I volunteered at a faith-based clinic where they prayed in a circle at the beginning of each clinic shift. I joined the circle with my head bowed and eyes open out of respect, but wasn't required to.

Do I win?

Nope.

Science is itself probabilistic. You should recognize the weakness of it from that perspective. One day, scientists decided that if we can demonstrate that something is true 95% of the time, then it is scientific fact. Science itself is very much a religion - just a religion of probability rather than deities. That doesn't make science entirely useless - quite the contrary as demonstrated by our current science-dominated world - but it should make you pause and question whether something demonstrated to be true by some guy with an alpha of .05 is an accurate and True description of the physical world. Science speaks very little about truths and very much about the probability that something we observe happens because _______. Subtle but important difference IMO.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717

Science = Religion

I'd say science is more dogmatic than religious in most cases. That said, I'm sure a select few people can qualify as having science as their religion. Sociology of religion is a fantastic class that I highly recommend. We spent our first day of that class debating what could qualify as religion.

I have absolutely no "faith" in the current existing knowledge base. That's why I want to be a scientist. Let's roll the clock back a few thousand years. Has religion changed? Science sure has advanced. Science is making progress in the same way as a numerical convergent sequence. We are approaching some limit that may never be reached, but if you get close enough, it won't matter.

I'd say religion has most certainly changed. Take the Episcopal church for instance: They ordain women and openly GLBTQIA members. The Mormons also finally dropped their opposition to GLBTQIA members. That said, many other faiths haven't changed in thousands of years. I think it comes down to the interpretation more than the religion.

 

[LiveLoveLearn]

This thread is interesting. As an agnostic, I mostly desire that people not attempt to push their views on me. From a religious person’s perspective, though, by attempting to convert me, they are attempting to save my soul. . . . . who can really get mad at that?

The reason that I dislike their attempt to convert me is not that I am not open to putting my own beliefs under scrutiny. I actually thoroughly enjoy a good theological debate. The problem is that I find most people become very offensive when I openly question the foundation of their beliefs. . . although they were so quick to question mine.

I believe Loma Linda requires chapel and definitely requires religion in their curriculum (http://www.llu.edu/assets/medicine/education/curriculum/Curriculum-Content-Freshman-Year.pdf).

Yes - they require that you attend services (you are reprimanded if you miss more than a certain amount) and ask that you agree to live by thier values (vegetarian, no drinking, Saturday sabbath, etc.). They also openly prefer SDA applicants, and will choose one over a more qualified non-SDA applicant. . . they follow the same practices in hiring, not just medical school, which I find concerning.

Nope.

Nothing makes me want a banana more than some creepy guy shooting them out of his nose

 

[Guero]

This thread is interesting. As an agnostic, I mostly desire that people not attempt to push their views on me. From a religious person’s perspective, though, by attempting to convert me, they are attempting to save my soul. . . . . who can really get mad at that?

The reason that I dislike their attempt to convert me is not that I am not open to putting my own beliefs under scrutiny. I actually thoroughly enjoy a good theological debate. The problem is that I find most people become very offensive when I openly question the foundation of their beliefs. . . although they were so quick to question mine.



Yes - they require that you attend services (you are reprimanded if you miss more than a certain amount) and ask that you agree to live by thier values (vegetarian, no drinking, Saturday sabbath, etc.). They also openly prefer SDA applicants, and will choose one over a more qualified non-SDA applicant. . . they follow the same practices in hiring, not just medical school, which I find concerning.



Nothing makes me want a banana more than some creepy guy shooting them out of his nose

LoL, I couldn't help but post that in reply. Too bad they didn't have a creepy guy shooting carrots out of his nose.

 

[mehc012]

This thread is interesting. As an agnostic, I mostly desire that people not attempt to push their views on me. From a religious person’s perspective, though, by attempting to convert me, they are attempting to save my soul. . . . . who can really get mad at that?

The reason that I dislike their attempt to convert me is not that I am not open to putting my own beliefs under scrutiny. I actually thoroughly enjoy a good theological debate. The problem is that I find most people become very offensive when I openly question the foundation of their beliefs. . . although they were so quick to question mine.



Yes - they require that you attend services (you are reprimanded if you miss more than a certain amount) and ask that you agree to live by thier values (vegetarian, no drinking, Saturday sabbath, etc.). They also openly prefer SDA applicants, and will choose one over a more qualified non-SDA applicant. . . they follow the same practices in hiring, not just medical school, which I find concerning.



Nothing makes me want a banana more than some creepy guy shooting them out of his nose

That, so much that. I used to enjoy theological debates until I realized that it was considered rude for me to make any points against their religion, while my lack of faith was eternally attackable.