Do Atheists Like Science that Doesn't Suit their Agenda?

I'd be happy to question big bang theory for you right now.

Total determinism might be true, and if it is, there was no big bang in the sense of it being the beginning of anything. The big bang could not be considered the beginning of the universe any more than the north pole can be considered the beginning of the surface of the Earth.

 

Accepted by who? Just because a theory is dominant doesnt mean it cannot be challenged.

No scientific theory is ever immune to scrutiny. Everything science claims is just based on what we have observed so far. If observations change, conclusions can change as well.

Unlike religion, science does not claim to have all the answers. It merely claims that it's answers are more rational and reliable due to the processes that produce them (scientific method).

I have not seen any examples of science that helps the theistic argument.

 

Which is all perfectly fine. In fact, I thought that was part of the theory. All that matter existed prior to the "bang," it was just compressed. And for all we know the bang could be part of a universal cycle of compression and expansion. I don't think that is a denial of the theory. It's a denial of the common understanding of the theory.

 

You only reveal your ignorance every time you speak as if all atheists say the same thing. So, yes, we talk about your ignorance because we see it every God-(*)(*)(*)(*)ed day.

 

Odds are someone will point to the prayer experiment - the one that supposedly proved prayer worked. I can't remember the exact problems with it, but they were things like not being able to reproduce the results, not being able to followup with further experiments to exclude other factors, some results being within margin of error, etc.

 

It is basically the same point. There are all kinds of propositions including cyclical, periodic, and other things. So in a sense the original question was a strawman of the big bang, as if there is only one agreed version and you either accept it or you're a heretic. It's just not like that.

 

What is irrelevant is your declaration of "if I supported the notion of aiming nukes at cities,..": Whether or not you support the FACT that this is already happening, is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. Just because you don't support that fact does not mean that the fact does not exist.

 

Furthermore, he knows exactly how we think.

He can red our minds...... however the single must be disrupted..... being that he is consistently wrong.... on everything.

 

Then why don't you clearly spell out your point because right now you are circling around yourself. It is rather obvious that nukes still exist, regardless of my position, so what is your point?

 

This tired old nonsense again? Does it even need to be explained again why it is a fallacious argument? I'm guessing not - I'm sure you know why, but continue to repeat it anyway.

Sorry, a deeply logically flawed and countlessly debunked argument doesn't count.

 

It was later determined that the experiment in question was fundamentally flawed. When the errors were corrected, it no longer showed prayer as having any affect whatsoever. This fact is usually omitted when brought up though.

 

Yep. Who was it again who is supposed to have an agenda?

 

Certainly:

You publish misrepresentations of fact, potential lies, and disinformation.
"Modern governments do not destroy entire cities for the actions of a few."

 

Really?

Its certainly that way when you use it to bash Creationists and Christians who HAVE to accept Creationism as a literal truth - because you say so.

And yes, the Big Bang has what's called an accepted paradigm, there are no alternate versions out there that have enough traction to caste serious doubt on the currently accepted paradigm of scientific creation.

I doubt very seriously that most lay people hav ethe expertise in math and physics to offer a serious rebuttal to the accepted paradigm of the Big Bang anyway.

But when it suits many of them .... amazing what they gain by magic.

 

Certainly does not justify such acts of aiming weapons of mass destruction at targets of which mass numbers of civilians would die. Nor does it justify the acts of god to kills innocents.

However, I will concede to your point.

 

The "Certainly" was directed at your request that I "..clearly spell out your point because right now you are circling around yourself."

BTW: God needs no justification from the likes of me and you for any of His actions.

 

Any character in any work of fiction is subject to criticism. If a supposedly infinitely powerful because kills that sinners by killing innocents, there is an inherent aspect of evil associated with that act.

 

That emphasized text above is written in an incoherent manner. Please explain.

 

Is it repeatable and are the results consistent? (thats part of scientific method).

The examples I have seen have not been. They are equivalent to anecdotal evidence. No one did a control, and they were not repeated.

 

There is not a need for a deity to kill innocents.

 

From the perspective of the philosophy that you use and the logic involved in that philosophy, you could be correct. However, in the past, it has been shown that the philosophy that you use is one that is based upon things temporal as opposed to things spiritual. When someone starts using a philosophy that is based upon spiritual principles then the perspective likewise changes. So, from your perspective (utilizing that philosophy that you choose -- a personal choice) you cannot see that "need".

 

If they have evidence to support their theories, then maybe topic for legitimate debate?

 

The evidence has been provided numerous times on this forum and through the centuries.... The problem exists within the framework of the philosophy that you and others utilize as a matter of personal choice. That philosophy which you have elected to use, will not allow the 'evidence' to be considered on any terms.

 

I posted thread, http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/203862-foretaste-heaven-all-good-loving.html, which I basically define myself as a spiritual atheist. So no, I do not condemn all that is spiritual. I condemn what is unreasonable, what is not based on evidence, what is largely accepted as "evil".

Any reasonable person, religious or not, should have an issue with the deaths of innocent person. If they don't then they are essentially forsaking the value of human life for the blind and silly worship of something that is not real.

 

"unreasonable",,, meaning 'not attainable by means of reason'? Must I remind you that the root word of 'unreasonable' is 'reason' and the meaning of 'reason' also includes "normal thinking"? Is there a mandate someplace which makes it a law that 'normal thinking' must include advanced collegiate training in one of the physical sciences? What is "evil"?

Essentially, you have declared "any person capable of 'normal thinking', religious or not, should have an issue with the deaths of innocent person." To which I would conclude when viewed from a purely secular and temporal point of view, Yes! Then when viewed from a spiritual point of view, those deaths must be measured by means that are not available in the secular or temporal world. "[Select for Copy; Double click to (de-)select all] Isa 55:8 ¶ For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD." Of course, your philosophy will now jump into the picture and reject that scripture because of the source and the message that it imparts.