(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think all religion, in that religion actually makes claims about the nature of reality and passes these as facts, is incompatible with the methodology of science


However philosophy is not necessarily incompatible with science; as philsophical concepts are not subject to "evidence" or "proof", they are matters of perception and perspective. Thus atheistic buddhism could be said to be compatible with science. Or LaVeyan Satanism. Or humanism.
 
So how would ol' Anton go about explaining the process of his spells working according to scientific principles?

The spells were purely for ritual purposes; as "culture". Nobody actually believes in that.
 
According to the edition of his book that I read there were five spells that were for far more than ritual - they were (according to him) effective.
He believed it, and tried to make his "disciples" believe.
The spells included instruction on correct procedure once they'd worked, as failure to behave correctly in that event could cause some sort of "backlash" with devastating consequences.
 
wrong.
simply, flatly wrong.
there is not one shred of evidence that points to a "natural" origin of life.
there is no evidence at all that macro evolution has occurred.
the fossil record, to my knowledge, does not confirm macro evolution.

in my opinion this is why the scientific law of biogenesis was ousted from its rightful place of an undisputed law and replaced with the hypothesis* of abiogenesis, so "they" could push macro evolution.

a better word would be "guess" or "conjecture".

I don't think that I was referring to the probability of creationism theories...I mean...just to make sure I re-read my post and sadly can't find a line where I'd say that "one creation theory is more credible!"

Help me there.
:shrug:
 
I don't think that I was referring to the probability of creationism theories...I mean...just to make sure I re-read my post and sadly can't find a line where I'd say that "one creation theory is more credible!"

Help me there.
:shrug:
i wasn't referring to any creation theory.
you stated "Atheism is probably because of that accepted as the more compatible of the two since atheism doesn't involve doctrines, or anything that would limit a scientist."
by throwing out biogenesis (a scientific law) and replacing it with abiogenesis (a hypothesis) atheists have indeed limited themselves to a "natural" origin of life. furthermore this nonsense is paraded around in our classrooms as "the gospel". so, you tell me who's lying to who and who is being limited.
 
i wasn't referring to any creation theory.
you stated "Atheism is probably because of that accepted as the more compatible of the two since atheism doesn't involve doctrines, or anything that would limit a scientist."
by throwing out biogenesis (a scientific law) and replacing it with abiogenesis (a hypothesis) atheists have indeed limited themselves to a "natural" origin of life. furthermore this nonsense is paraded around in our classrooms as "the gospel". so, you tell me who's lying to who and who is being limited.

You mean you're made out of soil? Why do viruses "evolve"? I mean....mutate of course!

So you were talking about "how we came to be" after all.
 
You mean you're made out of soil? Why do viruses "evolve"? I mean....mutate of course!
i never questioned evolution/mutation of cells.
So you were talking about "how we came to be" after all.
basically i'm questioning the reasoning for ousting a scientific law in favor of a hypothesis, and not only that but parading that hypothesis around as "the gospel".
as a scientist you don't have a problem with this? :confused:

not one single time has science observed life coming from nonlife, but yet it's taught to our students that it did. i call that limiting your options wouldn't you?
 
Maybe we need more atheists proposing how science is incompatible with religion. That should increase the number of people favoring science as a career.

Science isn't incompatible with religion. Science is incompatible with individuals who reject truth in favor of belief.
 
i never questioned evolution/mutation of cells.

basically i'm questioning the reasoning for ousting a scientific law in favor of a hypothesis, and not only that but parading that hypothesis around as "the gospel".
as a scientist you don't have a problem with this? :confused:

not one single time has science observed life coming from nonlife, but yet it's taught to our students that it did. i call that limiting your options wouldn't you?

You mean that's the atheistic standpoint on "how we came to be"? And I said "You mean that you were made out of soil?". In my school they taught us more than just one creation theory.

So, do you believe that before we got created there was no life?
Don't you think that creationism hypothesis is a form of abiogenesis? I mean...we were once made of soil!

My main point was that the "only" thing that is limiting atheists is that they do not have a God while the theists do have a God, AND doctrines that are limiting them in their actions, practices, etc. And then I also mentioned that it depends on the individual. Some take it quite far with their theistic faith..and some on the contrary are super liberal about it.

(personally I still don't understand how atheism's definition could turn from godless to lack of belief in a deity, or w/e the defs. are)

I mean it sure as hell isn't a problem that a physician denies healthcare to a patient because said patient is..a homosexual. It sure as Hell isn't limiting for a physician not being allowed to make a medical body check on the opposite sex for a more accurate diagnosis because of a belief. It sure as Hell isn't a shock for a non-believer to have to listen to "I don't want to give you the morning after pill because I'm religious and the conscience clause gives me the right to refuse! So f*ck you anyway, don't care if you'll resolve to the more severe version of abortion in a side alley, b*tch."

I will apologise in beforehand if I'm not making any sense. :m:
 
Thats the strangest example of "logical deduction"I have ever heard.

Especially since you are making my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference
I'm not even going to dignify this garbage with a response. Instead, let's return from our tangent and get back to basics, shall we?

Your question was:
Which is easier to disprove?
1. Swans are white
2. There are no black swans.
You then pointed out that (1) is easily disprovable while (2) can never be proven -- which is correct, but irrelevant. It is irrelevant because both are easily disprovable and both can never be proven. One could disprove (1) by observing a black swan just as one could disprove (2) by observing a black swan. But proof for either (1) or (2) would require an infinite number of observations, which is impossible. So as I correctly responded when you originally posed the the question, the answer is "neither."

That one is stated in positive terms and one is stated in negative terms is inconsequential, and in fact it is utter nonsense to assert that you "can't prove a negative." You can, I did earlier in the thread (see posts 28 and 54), deal with it. It's inductive arguments that you can't prove -- whether positive or negative in form. As it relates to the question of theism and atheism, this means that it is equally impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of God.

And I see that you've abandoned your original claim that atheism and science are "incompatible," presumably in recognition that it's an untenable assertion, so I'll desist in even bringing that up.
 
You mean that's the atheistic standpoint on "how we came to be"?
apparently.
it isn't the theist that gains from replacing biogenesis with abiogenesis.
So, do you believe that before we got created there was no life?
Don't you think that creationism hypothesis is a form of abiogenesis? I mean...we were once made of soil!
i have no idea how life came to be here. "life" could have always existed as far as i know.
My main point was that the "only" thing that is limiting atheists is that they do not have a God while the theists do have a God, AND doctrines that are limiting them in their actions, practices, etc. And then I also mentioned that it depends on the individual. Some take it quite far with their theistic faith..and some on the contrary are super liberal about it.
personally i feel it's a lack of understanding more than anything else.
when most people hear, or mention, "god" they assume or mean some sort of "being" with supernatural powers.
in my opinion such an entity is . . . :shrug: frankly i don't buy it.
I mean it sure as hell isn't a problem that a physician denies healthcare to a patient because said patient is..a homosexual. It sure as Hell isn't limiting for a physician not being allowed to make a medical body check on the opposite sex for a more accurate diagnosis because of a belief. It sure as Hell isn't a shock for a non-believer to have to listen to "I don't want to give you the morning after pill because I'm religious and the conscience clause gives me the right to refuse! So f*ck you anyway, don't care if you'll resolve to the more severe version of abortion in a side alley, b*tch."
correct, how far should it go.
 
apparently.
it isn't the theist that gains from replacing biogenesis with abiogenesis.

i have no idea how life came to be here. "life" could have always existed as far as i know.

personally i feel it's a lack of understanding more than anything else.
when most people hear, or mention, "god" they assume or mean some sort of "being" with supernatural powers.
in my opinion such an entity is . . . :shrug: frankly i don't buy it.

correct, how far should it go.

Lol, could it be that you were in favour of atheism and we're here talking to each others because of a misunderstanding? :eek:

Personally, I don't really think that it matters in every subject of sciences whether you believe in a deity or not. The thing that matters though are the doctrines that tend to be involved with said belief.
 
Originally Posted by James R
My advice to you, SAM, is never ever gamble, because it is clear that you have no understanding of basic probability.

Well I'd say a 50-50 chance is a hell of a lot better than a sinking economy.
hot dam!
do tell,just WHERE can I get piece of that action??
50-50 LOL!!!:rolleyes:
 
Lol, could it be that you were in favour of atheism and we're here talking to each others because of a misunderstanding? :eek:
no.
i'm not in favor of a "godless society".
Personally, I don't really think that it matters in every subject of sciences whether you believe in a deity or not. The thing that matters though are the doctrines that tend to be involved with said belief.
correct, it doesn't matter.
what matters is that you have to squash laws to push your agenda.
 
SAM:

Whats the definition of God?

Isn't it your problem to come up with one?

"There is no God" doesn't sound like an assumption.

As I explained earlier, it is a provisional conclusion based on the evidence.

Yes, I am showing you that unicorns exist. You recognise one when you see it. Not only that, you are willing to identify it for others to recognise in the future.

jesus-christ.jpg
TheMiddleEasternJesus.jpg


Here are two images that people say are of Jesus of Nazareth.

Do they prove that Jesus exists, or existed? If so, which one is the real Jesus?



leopold99:

on what basis?

On the basis that convincing evidence is lacking.

the older i get the more i'm convinced that faith and love can easily outstrip any measly act performed by mankind.

And this proves the existence of God... how?

there is not one shred of evidence that points to a "natural" origin of life.

On the contrary, all our experience and study of life shows that only a natural origin is plausible.

there is no evidence at all that macro evolution has occurred.

Ho hum. Another brainwashed Creationist.

in my opinion this is why the scientific law of biogenesis was ousted from its rightful place of an undisputed law and replaced with the hypothesis* of abiogenesis, so "they" could push macro evolution.

What is this scientific law of biogenesis you refer to? I've never heard of it.
 
james r said:
And this proves the existence of God... how?
i don't remember stating i wished to prove god.
On the contrary, all our experience and study of life shows that only a natural origin is plausible.
only because science lacks the means and/or knowledge to investigate any other avenue.
don't get bored, it's an interesting subject.
Another brainwashed Creationist.
lovesick maybe, brainwashed? i miss my buddy. :bawl:
What is this scientific law of biogenesis you refer to? I've never heard of it.
type in biogenesis into your favorite search engine and press enter.

basically biogenesis states:
life comes from life and that of its own kind.
i remind you that the above law has not been refuted one single time.
 
leopold99:

Do you think a miracle is required every time a seed sprouts or an embryo is formed, or was God's miracle just a one-off thing millions of years ago?

Actually, I ought to check. How old do you believe the Earth is, and when and how do you think life began?
 
type in biogenesis into your favorite search engine and press enter.

basically biogenesis states:
life comes from life and that of its own kind.
i remind you that the above law has not been refuted one single time.
I don't presume to speak for James, but I think one of the points he is making is that the concept of biogenesis as stated by biological science does not address the ultimate origin of life, as you seem to have implied that it does. In other words, yes life comes from life -- that's the very definition of biogenesis -- but where did the first life come from? That is the question of abiogenesis. So while it appears at casual glance that "abiogenesis" must be in direct competition with "biogenesis," they actually address entirely separate issues. Since the law of biogenesis was never meant to explain the ultimate origin of life, nothing has been "ousted" at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top