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.
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.
If you actually read the thread, you would see that I agree with that. explain how rather than simply levying an accusation.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any science can be disproven. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability EDIT: The key word being science.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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..'?
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.
Oh! Here is an interesting take on some of the scientific hypothesis and theories. http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-scientific-theories-head-explode/
