Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Likewise, a circle of like minded scientists agreeing with each other does not succeed in the quest to verify the claims of scientists.

Likewise with such things as 'evolution' and the 'believers' in the Bible.

Do you have proof of my rejection of Islam? Have I spoken against Islam? No? Then your assertion is a lie.

Have you any proof of those claims? No? Then you are engaging in the act of telling lies.

 

No, I just don't feel like researching something I've already researched. If you think there is nothing left from this event go find out for yourself. I've already given you a hint of what to look for.

But the difference between Big Bang and miracles in the bible is that, if I wanted to, I could set up the same experiment an validate the observation myself. This is not possible in the world of religion.

 

Refusing to provide that evidence that should support your claim, is the same as abandoning the claim. Are you unable to provide the evidence to support your claim?

You are now suggesting that you can recreate the Big Bang? In its' fullest intensity? Capable of creating a whole new universe? Now that I have got to see. If you cannot recreate the miracles performed in the Bible, then those miracles are beyond your capability. I believe I made a similar statement about the scientists with regard to their inability in religious matters. But yet you can recreate the Big Bang? Bring it on... make a name for yourself... prove to all of us that you are equal to God.

 

i. Firstly, "Like minded" was your choice of words. But if fact it does. This is because science is constructed in a way that eliminates a personal bias or predispositions. A persons hunch, hypothesis, or favorite idea will go out the window upon the validity of a proper theory. But why are you so concerned with science anyway? It's not involved with religion in the first place.

sci·ence
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

ii. Not 100% sure what you meant in the reply. But you mentioned evolution and the bible. Evolution has been properly verified and we therefore see wide-spread acceptance. The claims of the Bible have not and we see poor acceptance. All perfectly in line with my original statement. You must have meant something else...

iii. If you are a Christian yes I do. You are a Christian.

iv. Repeat response. Christianity and Islam are not mutually compatible, therefore you reject one or the other or both.

 

The more appropriate question to be considered is the question in the OP. Can you or can you NOT provide the information requested in the OP? Bottom line... But to settle your curiosity about my interest in science. Simply this... for the same reason that so many non-theists are enjoying bringing science into a religious discussion forum. Tit for tat.

Evolution has not been proven... that is the issue. Verified is simply a matter of getting a few peers who have a vested interest in the subject to agree with the proposition so as to keep the money flowing into the research.

Then present the evidence where I have rejected Islam. Otherwise you are engaging in telling lies. If you don't provide such evidence then you will be reported for telling malicious lies.

Presumption on your part. If you are not a Christian, then you have no idea of what position a Christian will take on that issue. Again, a warning is in place if you cannot provide the evidence showing where I have rejected those religions.

 

No it doesn't, I just assumed that you didn't really care enough to figure things out for yourself. Thus assuring my suspicion that you have learned everything you need to know about the world from your Pasteur -without question.

In your second reply, you showed that you have know idea what scientists have found with respect to the Big Bang and further verified my above suspicions.

This would put a person capable of critical thinking in a tissy because that person would be uncomfortable with making up his/her mind knowing that there might be important information not known to him/her -But clearly, not you.

The difference between you and me is that I really don't care if the Big Bang idea is true. If later we find out that it wasn't the Big Bang and it actually happened another way, great. Bravo on solving that one. But you seem to have a need, or dedication to your idea of the world through the Bible. And nothing can stand in the way of it. Your cannot be reasoned with, and you're not receptive to anything outside of what you already think you know. This is why atheists throw stones at you.

 

"yeah, It Is A Big Conspiracy And Has Been Going On For 150 Years. It's All About Money, Because Scientists Make So Much Money And They Don't Use It At All On The Research Itself. Also, Evolution Is Not A Cornerstone Of Modern Biology, Or Easily Recognizable In Something As Simple As The Number Of Dog Breeds. Big Conspiracy, Guys, Srsly."

 

Well it is about time one of you guys admits to the truth!

 

There is not a vested interest by scientists in evolution. It has been proven but I'm not going to debate it because I'm sure you know absolutely nothing about it. There is however a vested interest in keeping the faithful loyal and obedient. It keeps the money flowing ya know...

 

You won't discuss it, because it is highly suspect that you know that you cannot provide the evidence wherein it is irrefutably shown to have been proven. Especially when the use of scientific texts are not accepted as evidence within this thread. You see, all of you folks within the last 30 postings (except maybe 1) seem to forget the OP. Try to stay focused on that this thread is all about.

 

Now this is interesting:

Another thread with a similar name http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...your-faith-without-using-your-holy-texts.html has been on the forum for a couple of days and has only received 55 postings. Yet this one has received 84 postings in less than 24 hours. I wonder: why the non-theists are so defensive when an attack is launched against their belief system?

 

Agh, i do like the continuous lectures about science and rationality from atheists who simply refuse to use the logical processes they claim they master.

#1 - much of the Bible, particularly the New Testament, is not only verifiable its testable. It is like any other historical process, in which not every detail is verifiable nor is it subjected to scientific testing. Its why we call history, history and not physics.

Ergo, logical people interested in actual problem slving will use logic and science to solve the problem set in a search for accuracy. And what do we find when we look? Why we find that the verifiable details all check out. We find that the generated narratives pass professional peer review from all viewpoints. We find that using science and archeology allows us to test more and verify more. And we find that doubters fail peer review and violate logical processes in order to doubt.

#2 - to doubt in the face of verifiable fact, particularly while lecturing others about fanatical blind faith, is most definitely neither science nor logic. It certainly does not indicate rational skepticism, but emotional obstinance.

The best science can produce referrence God is inconclusion. In such a case, disagreement would be acceptable, but caution would be warranted if indeed science were the sole method of weight. In terms of history, the hisorical basis is quite strong which should cause rationalist to be careful and certainly to make a reasoned case when casting doubt. After all when rebutting the accepted, peer reviewed narrative, one has the burden of proof in demonstrating fault.

And yet serial doubters can do none of this, can acknowledge no facts, no methodologies, no solutions. Its a simple emotional stance, to deny, but to cross beyond that into the irrational belief that all others save YOU have it wrong, to actively lecture others about fault, and the fail continuously to demonstrate what is claimed, well, that is a very specific emotion: arrogance.

Science is pretty clear on what drives people to doubt and castigate in the face og fact, and it is not rational in the least, it is indeed the very kind of personal injected bias that science seeks to eliminate.

Atheism is many thngs, but science is not one of them.

 

funny

wow.

You can experience nature before any god.

Argument is over!

i did

and you rant!

 

Science is the observation of the universe.

Anyone who willfully denies the power of science to explain the world of which we live is nothing short of inexcusably ignorant. This thread is pathetic.

 

How is that even relevant to the OP?

 

Interesting. Then anyone capable of seeing (observing) is a practicing scientist. The all opinions coming from people capable of seeing are in fact scientific opinions. Cool. Then again...NOT COOL... no-one has ever been able to observe the whole universe. Which means there are no practicing scientists.

Is the "world of which we live" the "universe"? Then please, abiding by the OP requirements, explain the 'birth of the universe' (the universe would include "the world of which we live").

 

because you dont need a text


ie.... you can experience nature and that is what science describes


who needs a text once the comprehension is learned? i can show you magneitc fields, light, food, poopy and a paper towl to wipe it off your face.

you can't show any one a god on a thrown, without creating the delusional make believe.

Science can be taught and learned, naturally!

ie.... I correctly answered your thread and you can't do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing about it!


well, you can lie!

 

You are sadly mistaken. I have never met anyone by the name of Pasteur.. much less do I own a "Pasteur".

What is a "know idea"?

Well, a person "capable of critical thinking" would be anyone, because everyone is capable of critical thinking.

So you admit that atheists are bigoted toward those that don't agree with them and stand fast in their position in opposition to atheists? I am flattered.

 

Science is not a sentient being and does not have the capacity of describing anything. It is people using their mind that makes the expressions. Science is merely a set of tools used by people.

And how do those things relate to science and you forming an argument about those things without using a science text? Grab one of those paper towels... you missed a spot at the left side of your lower lip.

And all of your grandest scientific tools will not be able to show that there is not a God on a throne. Learn English so you will KNOW what you are talking about.

Prove your claim.

Except rebuttal. You have not correctly answered the challenge of the OP. All you have done is made claims but have not proven any of those claims.

But I don't... can you say the same?

 

No, ignorance is assuming that science is not understood by religious people. Blind stupid to continuously make the same claim over and over again as if preaching the lie makes it true.

Science, as explained, is inconclusive on the subject og God. Yet atheists, while claiming the mantel of science, refuse to actually use it. Where is the conclusive test for there being no God? No where.

So, its apparently scoentific to run around screaming about how stupid other people are? Sounds, once again, like simple arrogance.

Arrogance is not science, its emotion - and clearly a problem for way too many atheists.

 

Yeah... your word games. Where science says "I don't know " religion says "Believe x, y, and z or suffer for all eternity".

Quite a difference.

 

If science was some grand conspiracy, then we'd be still living in the middle ages, and every disease we contracted would be life threatening. This computer that you are typing on is the result of science. Every technological advancement has been made possible by science. If you deny science, you are essentially denying much of human achievement.

The fact is, science has evidence to back itself up, which has been compiled from painstaking observation of the world around us to make testable predictions. Religion does not have that luxury. That doesn't necessarily make religion incompatible with science in all cases though, although in many cases science clearly is at conflict with mainstream religious texts.

 

Is that a big "DUH" coming from Wolverine? Wolverine can't explain the birth of the universe? Well, don't feel like the lone stranger... no-one else has been able to do it either. Take away all of your imaginary arguments and you have nothing left.

Just say thanks to Giftedone for giving me idea for this thread with his mention of 'removing the yardstick'. Removing the yardstick is essentially what the Atheists do when they say that the Bible cannot be used as evidence to support the Bible. So, in like manner, take away the yardstick of scientific texts and teachings and what do you have left...nothing.

Even Einstein admitted that "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Try to refute what he said without altering what he said word for word. Because all of science is based on numbers, science is a practice of Numerology and Numerology is well known to have its roots in ancient religions. Numbers are the god of the scientist. And where did the numbers come from... from the mind of man... a creature of the mind.

 

See post #98. No-one has denied the contributions of applied science.

Did anyone say that religion was supposed to be 'testable'? No? Then you are out in left field when you are supposed to be playing pool.

 

No atheists do say they know. The only silly word games are the ever changing standards of worst atheists who will apparently say anything in order to put every other belief system down, while claiming to be multiculturalusts to boot.

Its not even debate its a strawman of pompous atheism arguing against its own retarded strawman version of religion. Of course, thats pretty much the only way atheism can pretend its better than anything.