Religion or Atheism?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Felicity, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So that would mean that the scientific community is still speculating (guessing) on a lot of things?
     
  2. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes! There is a 'step above 'theoretical'" That step above theoretical is what is known as FACT. Something that can be proven beyond any doubt and cannot be successfully refuted by anyone.
     
  3. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    anyone who tries to place science and religion as opposites or "competing ideologies" automoatically shows they have no concept of what science is.

    there are many people of faith who are scientists - including physicists - who would regard your understanding of both religion and science as ... well, quite backward.
     
  4. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you actually read the thread, you would see that I agree with that. ;)

    explain how rather than simply levying an accusation.
     
  5. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you started the thread baby - what for?

    to make the point that atheists are the type of person that you show yourself to be.

    the thread devolved away from that into a thread between science and religion ... do you think science is the "religion" of atheists?
     
  6. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have, and I have seen that you present scientific ideas (eg dark matter) as something that atheists believe in, arguing there is less proof for that than there is existence of God.

    this supports what I have said earlier.
     
  7. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    to talk to people online...? Do you think something more meaningful or important happens on message forums?


    Some types, yes--not all, of course. Usually it's the loudmouthed ones that spew the religion of science while denying they are riding the same wave that theists are. The non-fanatical atheists don't make a big deal of it since they recognize all people look at the world, knowledge and experience and do their best to make sense of it all. It's the condescension of the fanatical atheist perspective that I find annoying and feel drawn shine a light on that hypocrisy.
     
  8. Felicity

    Felicity Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I didn't say less proof--my point is that it is the SAME sort of process. Re-read.
     
  9. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The same suggested rule would hold true of anyone with regard to 'religion'. In other words:
    {anyone who tries to place science and religion as opposites or "competing ideologies" automatically shows they have no concept of what religion or science is.} Of course, I am personally glad that you used the term 'religion' as opposed to Christianity, because I don't view Christianity as a 'religion'. Now go ahead and ask me why I believe in that manner.
     
  10. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    familiarise yourself with the scientific method.

    it is not the same sort of process.
     
  11. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The manner in which some Atheists and other non-theists on this forum place 'science' on a pedestal, would be indicative of and subsequently construed as a religion. Something to be idolized and worshiped as a know all and be all and control all.
     
  12. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Einsteins theory of relativity. Germ theory. Atomic theory. Theory of evolution. Anything can be disproven, the fact that they are not just lends to the value of the proposed theory.

    You don't understand the scientific context of the word theory.
     
  13. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And do you understand the spiritual context of the Bible? No? Then I would suppose that one of us is on better ground than the other. Why? Because I do understand scientific theory... holding a degree in Computer electronics... and I also understand the spiritual context of the Bible.

    Now that you have exalted yourself to the point of making a claim that anything can be "disproven", then perhaps you would like to start with disproving the existence of God.
     
  14. AllEvil

    AllEvil Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Any science can be disproven.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    EDIT: The key word being science.
     
  15. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Amazing the sudden differentiation. Now it is simply that "Any science can be disproven.", instead of the former "anything can be disproven." Why the sudden shift? Is it because a challenge was presented to your ridiculous claim requiring you to show proof of a non-existence of God (disprove Gods existence)? So, by changing your claim to reflect only upon science, there is evidence to the effect that science cannot disprove the existence of God?

    BTW: What specific criteria is necessary to disprove "any science"? Please be absolutely specific, leaving nothing to be later considered.
     
  16. AllEvil

    AllEvil Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wolverine was talking about proof in the context of a scienfitic theory. The fact he was talking about science was implicit.

    And that is correct, science cannot disporve the existence of god, because the "god hypothesis" is non-falsifiable - and is, by definition, not science.
     
  17. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No offense, but you seem more offensive than most atheists. I mean, saying that science is a religion, and saying that atheists have blind faith, is just bad taste. Why can't we have a polite rational discussion. Ready to start?
     
  18. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I will do that as soon as you get back to me on Russel's Tea Pot.

    Figured I will give you the first shot at the negative.
     
  19. Wolverine

    Wolverine New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    16,105
    Likes Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wouldn't hold my breath. Its the only way they know how to treat atheism, to believe in their minds that it is just like religion...... even though it is not. Then make a serious a arguments so detached from reality is leaves the more informed members of the discussion in awe over the fact they a person can continue to debate a point despite being, unequavically, proven wrong.

    The most glaring example here being the supposed complete absence of any sort of evidence to support the existence of dark matter and dark matter. Even though a quick search on Science News Daily would show the belief to be false, or even a simple Wikipedia page like what I posted, they will continue to believe their original statement to be true so that they may treat it like a religion in their mind.

    Easier to make arguments against something that you are familiar with, rather than to debate a concept that is outside the bounds of your usual reasoning.
     
  20. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ahh... but you are the one declaring that 'anything can be "disproven" ', and "Allevil" specifically declared 'any science'. Now what either of those claims have to do with 'russells teapot' I have not the foggiest idea. I am a bit dismayed at the dishonesty being shown by some of the Atheists and non-theists on this forum. They make claims and then refuse to oblige us with the evidence to support those claims, but instead, throw out strawmen such as 'russells teapot' which to my point of view has nothing to do with the claims that have been made by those Atheists and non-theists. Do you or do you not have evidence to support your claim that 'anything can be disproven..'?
     
  21. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So now, God has been reduced to a hypothesis; better yet, you declare that God is "non-falsifiable".... strange:

    "non" of course is understood to be the equivalent of 'not' or 'none' and 'falsifiable' is defined as :

    "adjective
    Philos. designating or of a statement, theory, etc. that is so formulated as to permit empirical testing and, therefore, can be shown to be false"

    Therefore, because God is 'non-falsifiable' (not falsifiable) or cannot be proven to be 'false', by admission of science and socially acceptable dictionaries, should prove to some on this forum that the infantile attempts to do that which science declares to itself incapable of doing, is very much out of the realm of those on this forum to accomplish through all of their rhetoric and non-sense.. Those that would attempt to do what science admits it cannot do, and try to use science as a methodology to do so, are truly ignorant of SCIENCE.
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
  23. AllEvil

    AllEvil Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Thats all absolutely correct. The claim that god exists has no scientific merit.
     
  24. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Likewise, the claim that God does not exist has no scientific merit.
     
  25. AllEvil

    AllEvil Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,564
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    38

Share This Page