Atheism and religious hate

[Seperates]

I like how the atheists main argument is that religion is ridiculous.... you realize that the big bang theory is creationism by another name dont you? "some how everything sprang into being in a massive explosion... where did it come from? oh we dont know for sure..." why is it that that is acceptable but "God created the universe" isn't? The only difference is that one gives an explanation and the other doesnt... Now do I beleive that religion and science are mortal enemies? no. (Religion is the "Why such and such happened" and "what should we do with our lives to be good people according to God" and science is the "How did God do this thing" for the more we know about our world the more we understand the Lord, even if we never will fully understand Him) but my point was that its ridiculous that you accept one theory out of hand, and dismiss something so similar out of hand as ridiculous... although I actually didnt come on here to debate.

I don't like making pointless statements. Positing "God did it" provides us with... what exactly?
At least with "I don't know" you can follow it up with "But let's go find out".

And there was no 'explosion' (seeing as there was no oxygen, or even space-time to facilitate such a thing) but an expansion.

Science is not the asking of the question, 'How did God do this?' It's the asking of the question, 'Hmmm, I wonder what causes this. maybe if I do this, than this will happen because of this.' in an attempt to discern the causal mechanism. The positing of God does not violate that principle of inquiry because it is the assumption of a causal mechanism. However, in order to prove that statment, you must prove God is the causal mechinism. So far, God has never proven to be the causal mechanism. However, we have proven other things to be causal mechanisms, so unless you wish to prove that God is the underlying cause of these causal mechnisms, you CANNOT under the rules of the scientific method assert that God is a causal mechinism.

Theology says, "Fuck you I do what I want, despite ignoring thousands of other religious traditions to focus soley on my own faith."

[Hallistar]

I'm assuming you're referring to irreligious people in general.

So I'll go through it for you:

Metaphysical claims are not a logical priority in nature. Having a faith in a invisible metaphysical concept on top of nature requires going out of your way to actively believe in it. Otherwise (for example), you would just treat something like someone being dead as them just...not being alive anymore. Simply that. (Assuming the religion in question involved an afterlife).

Okay. Do you believe in the scientific method?
Do you consider that a belief?

btw.
i do not believe in the gods
I DO believe in the scientific method
I consider those both acts of belief -- and reason

The scientific method is not a metaphysical unverifiable claim. It is a tool, used to assist in finding non-biased truths. Are you asking whether I believe in its effectiveness to achieve that goal?

[Seperates]

You're all imbeciles if you think arguing on the internet will change anyone's mind, that's a common fallacy that no one seems to point out.

No, I know. I just don't give a fuck because I actually take this stuff seriously, rather than pissing on myself in glee that I'm always right and everyone else is OBVIOUSLY dumb and ignorant of the ways the world works.

Ironically, life, for me, is more fun when I take it seriously.

[Vortropolis]

I like how the atheists main argument is that religion is ridiculous.... you realize that the big bang theory is creationism by another name dont you? "some how everything sprang into being in a massive explosion... where did it come from? oh we dont know for sure..." why is it that that is acceptable but "God created the universe" isn't? The only difference is that one gives an explanation and the other doesnt... Now do I beleive that religion and science are mortal enemies? no. (Religion is the "Why such and such happened" and "what should we do with our lives to be good people according to God" and science is the "How did God do this thing" for the more we know about our world the more we understand the Lord, even if we never will fully understand Him) but my point was that its ridiculous that you accept one theory out of hand, and dismiss something so similar out of hand as ridiculous... although I actually didnt come on here to debate.

I don't like making pointless statements. Positing "God did it" provides us with... what exactly?
At least with "I don't know" you can follow it up with "But let's go find out".

And there was no 'explosion' (seeing as there was no oxygen, or even space-time to facilitate such a thing) but an expansion.

Science is not the asking of the question, 'How did God do this?' It's the asking of the question, 'Hmmm, I wonder what causes this. maybe if I do this, than this will happen because of this.' in an attempt to discern the causal mechanism. The positing of God does not violate that principle of inquiry because it is the assumption of a causal mechanism. However, in order to prove that statment, you must prove God is the causal mechinism. So far, God has never proven to be the causal mechanism. However, we have proven other things to be causal mechanisms, so unless you wish to prove that God is the underlying cause of these causal mechnisms, you CANNOT under the rules of the scientific method assert that God is a causal mechinism.

Theology says, "Fuck you I do what I want, despite ignoring thousands of other religious traditions to focus soley on my own faith."

Theology doesn't say that maybe some of the followers.

[Seperates]

*sighs* I'm not, nor was I ever, angry during the context of this conversation. Just melancholy really.

But what is it that you were kidding about? That you question, or that you scold yourself for questioning?

The latter

Some of my goodwill towards humanity has been restored at least.

[Doughertania]

You're all imbeciles if you think arguing on the internet will change anyone's mind, that's a common fallacy that no one seems to point out.

No, I know. I just don't give a fuck because I actually take this stuff seriously, rather than pissing on myself in glee that I'm always right and everyone else is OBVIOUSLY dumb and ignorant of the ways the world works.

Ironically, life, for me, is more fun when I take it seriously.

No offence, but what's the difference? Besides one is a little more...grapic?

Again, just a clarification, not ment to be taken as a slight.

[Socialist Monarchies]

You're all imbeciles if you think arguing on the internet will change anyone's mind, that's a common fallacy that no one seems to point out.

No, I know. I just don't give a fuck because I actually take this stuff seriously, rather than pissing on myself in glee that I'm always right and everyone else is OBVIOUSLY dumb and ignorant of the ways the world works.

Ironically, life, for me, is more fun when I take it seriously.

That's horrible

[Seperates]

I don't like making pointless statements. Positing "God did it" provides us with... what exactly?
At least with "I don't know" you can follow it up with "But let's go find out".

And there was no 'explosion' (seeing as there was no oxygen, or even space-time to facilitate such a thing) but an expansion.

Science is not the asking of the question, 'How did God do this?' It's the asking of the question, 'Hmmm, I wonder what causes this. maybe if I do this, than this will happen because of this.' in an attempt to discern the causal mechanism. The positing of God does not violate that principle of inquiry because it is the assumption of a causal mechanism. However, in order to prove that statment, you must prove God is the causal mechinism. So far, God has never proven to be the causal mechanism. However, we have proven other things to be causal mechanisms, so unless you wish to prove that God is the underlying cause of these causal mechnisms, you CANNOT under the rules of the scientific method assert that God is a causal mechinism.

Theology says, "Fuck you I do what I want, despite ignoring thousands of other religious traditions to focus soley on my own faith."

Theology doesn't say that maybe some of the followers.

Well, that's what it appears to me. Because I would think that most theology majors would attempt to be agnostic and unbiased in the study of religion... but no... most tend to just focus on their own traditions, leaving that silly "unbiased study" bit to anthropologists most of the time.

[Seperates]

No, I know. I just don't give a fuck because I actually take this stuff seriously, rather than pissing on myself in glee that I'm always right and everyone else is OBVIOUSLY dumb and ignorant of the ways the world works.

Ironically, life, for me, is more fun when I take it seriously.

No offence, but what's the difference? Besides one is a little more...grapic?

Again, just a clarification, not ment to be taken as a slight.

I've changed my mind on this forum. Ask around. I used to be a Catholic.

[Seperates]

No, I know. I just don't give a fuck because I actually take this stuff seriously, rather than pissing on myself in glee that I'm always right and everyone else is OBVIOUSLY dumb and ignorant of the ways the world works.

Ironically, life, for me, is more fun when I take it seriously.

That's horrible

But it's refreshingly honest.

[Dracone]

*sigh* I posted a big long post and my internet glitched and I lost it but didnt realize it... but it doesnt really matter. I made that point about the difference as a side not... the main point was what most of you appear to assume is the sidenote... asking why there was no "Im a theist and I welcome the tide" option... Im not here to debate, itsays in the bible that it is a sin to try and convert people who dont want it... plus if I were gonna debate, I wouldnt do it online because it rarely if ever does anything.

[Seperates]

I will be back sometime before the heat death of the universe occurs. If not, don't forget to write.

[Grimlundt]

I agree.
The scientific method is falsifiable?
It is thus scientifically possible to verify the scientific method?
LOL

And you do not think that this is a belief system?

I think what you mean is that science requires less *faith* than belief in the IPU?
If so, I think we agree ...

Okay. Do you believe in the scientific method?
Do you consider that a belief?

btw.
i do not believe in the gods
I DO believe in the scientific method
I consider those both acts of belief -- and reason

The scientific method is not a metaphysical unverifiable claim. It is a tool, used to assist in finding non-biased truths. Are you asking whether I believe in its effectiveness to achieve that goal?

[Grimlundt]

Can I offer you an example?
The Zandians believes that people tell lies and only the Oracle of Chickens could be trusted.
This belief, to the Zandians, made perfect sense and explained a lot of observable data.
They laughed at the British for belief in sworn testimony.

Religion offers explanations and some people believe those explanations.
Science, imho, offers better explanations?

Also, I don't like Apologists
They have a preformed conclusion and then look for arguments. Cherry picking fallacy
The same is true of atheist apologists, sadly

Okay. Do you believe in the scientific method?
Do you consider that a belief?

btw.
i do not believe in the gods
I DO believe in the scientific method
I consider those both acts of belief -- and reason

The scientific method is not a metaphysical unverifiable claim. It is a tool, used to assist in finding non-biased truths. Are you asking whether I believe in its effectiveness to achieve that goal?

[Hallistar]

Can I offer you an example?
The Zandians believes that people tell lies and only the Oracle of Chickens could be trusted.
This belief, to the Zandians, made perfect sense and explained a lot of observable data.
They laughed at the British for belief in sworn testimony.

Religion offers explanations and some people believe those explanations.
Science, imho, offers better explanations?

Also, I don't like Apologists
They have a preformed conclusion and then look for arguments. Cherry picking fallacy
The same is true of atheist apologists, sadly

The scientific method is not a metaphysical unverifiable claim. It is a tool, used to assist in finding non-biased truths. Are you asking whether I believe in its effectiveness to achieve that goal?

The case of the Zandians (I'm not sure if you're describing something fictional) would be different because they rejected other sources of empirical, verifiable evidence. The scientific method is a process that's intended to factor in what can be observed and tested, and to draw the most reliable conclusion from it..

It's true that some scientists have lied about their findings, but it isn't about having faith in the method as it would be in their honesty. They are eventually discovered anyways when they can't repeat their data, which is a component of the scientific method.

[Grimlundt]

No. I got it from here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31815688/Evan ... the-Azande

Some people think scientists often rejects all sorts of evidence.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... stemology/

There are, in fact, many questions scientists refuse to examine.
For example --
http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image ... e48_44.jpg
This skull is not homo sapiens nor any other known ape of hominid
There are dozens of them. they are called the Paracas skulls
No scientist will go down and run the DNA tests
because ... being the man or woman to do that would be career suicide?

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 507477/pg1

yeah ... duh ... we know they are not "human" because the bone joins are all wrong

Can I offer you an example?
The Zandians believes that people tell lies and only the Oracle of Chickens could be trusted.
This belief, to the Zandians, made perfect sense and explained a lot of observable data.
They laughed at the British for belief in sworn testimony.

Religion offers explanations and some people believe those explanations.
Science, imho, offers better explanations?

Also, I don't like Apologists
They have a preformed conclusion and then look for arguments. Cherry picking fallacy
The same is true of atheist apologists, sadly

The case of the Zandians (I'm not sure if you're describing something fictional) would be different because they rejected other sources of empirical, verifiable evidence. The scientific method is a process that's intended to factor in what can be observed and tested, and to draw the most reliable conclusion from it..

It's true that some scientists have lied about their findings, but it isn't about having faith in the method as it would be in their honesty. They are eventually discovered anyways when they can't repeat their data, which is a component of the scientific method.

[Hallistar]

No. I got it from here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31815688/Evan ... the-Azande

Some people think scientists often rejects all sorts of evidence.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... stemology/

There are, in fact, many questions scientists refuse to examine.
For example --
http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image ... e48_44.jpg
This skull is not homo sapiens nor any other known ape of hominid
There are dozens of them. they are called the Paracas skulls
No scientist will go down and run the DNA tests
because ... being the man or woman to do that would be career suicide?

The case of the Zandians (I'm not sure if you're describing something fictional) would be different because they rejected other sources of empirical, verifiable evidence. The scientific method is a process that's intended to factor in what can be observed and tested, and to draw the most reliable conclusion from it..

It's true that some scientists have lied about their findings, but it isn't about having faith in the method as it would be in their honesty. They are eventually discovered anyways when they can't repeat their data, which is a component of the scientific method.

That would be a problem with the scientists themselves not wanting to carry such an experiment out, and/or that their careers would be set up so that they'd lose it if they did try to experiment on it.. I don't see though how that affects the scientific method/process itself

[JJ Place]

I do not hate atheists, I disagree with them sure, but the only cause I've been given to hate on certain atheists is when a certain group of atheists (I'm referring to the Anti-Theist crowd) decide to hate on religion, to call it's proponents stupid, to claim that it is a disease, to claim it is a cancer on the Earth, that it must be fought with a Secular Crusade (oxymoron?) and completely annihilated or in the case of the some big wigs in the U.K. merely most public displays of religion should be annihilated. I have no problem with the atheists that say "I do not believe in God because I find there is no proof of God". I do however harbor a passionate dislike for someone who says, for example, that by funding my local catholic church, helping in St. Vincent de Paul, ect. that I'm stupid, ignorant, blind, and diseased, that if I do not forsake my religious beliefs that I should be put to death or ostracized from society.

This scares me to be quite honest. While I am very aware that the past several thousand years have not been Religious Tolerance Bonanza, I feel very comfortable with the current US position of Religion, and it scares me when I hear people, an increasing minority say such things. It's not that I feel hurt by their words, it's that I fear what may happen when this group becomes such a large hate group that they begin backing up their philosophy with violent action. I have no fear of Secularism, I have a fear of extreme Secularism which is currently going on in Great Britain where Christians are being told they cannot wear the cross on the job and are told they must remove it or face punishment. NSG hasn't exactly assuaged my fears either. I have heard some Atheists cry that since they have been oppressed for the past several thousand years that it is only fair that they get their turn to persecute others and to take revenge on religion. As I said, I am not claiming that they are wrong about being persecuted, but it makes me fear for the safety of my 90 year old self, and my grandchildren and their children if they continue to remain Christian in a time when a hate against Christianity is rising in the world, both from radical Islam and from radical Anti-Theism. I fear what physical harm might befall them from a band of stupid radical teenagers.

By now I am sure you are wondering what the purpose of this thread is. My question to you is have you seen this coming tide? do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing? why or why not?

You seem to have caught a serious case of fear, Euronion. Of any time at any point in history, outside of the Middle East and Africa, you stand some of the best chances to live free of any violence for holding any variety of religion, or belief. Today in the US, EU, much of Asia, Australia, and South America, violence can be habitual, particularly outside of Europe, but religious persecution is a far less incitent of violence than more exemplary perseverance of violence. Pertaining to violence that is committed in the name of religion and crusade, it's markedly inordinately to attribute acts of street, or any violence in the name of Athiesm, newer-phenomena in spirituality, or any more secular outlooks on reality, life, or otherwise. Truly, religious violence outside of Islam or Christianity is fairly uncommon; in comparison to the thousands killed in modern Christian, and particularly Islamic violence, it's incredibly unusual to hear of any violence resulting from Atheists or other secular crowds directed in the name of secularism.

In terms of discrimination, it's rarely religious discrimination at all; typically, it's just another law that was broken, not pertaining to religion at all. It's merely a matter of breaking a law or stepping outside of legality; it's only hyped to be religious persecution because it the focus is placed on the religious item, and not the law. It's just a cause of a perception of discrimination due to misassociation. It's often not the the religious connotation of the item that receive the item a controversy, it's another rule that's in effect that creates an illusion of discrimination, with the lack of display of an object of another person attributed to the thought that person has more rights. It's not discrimination against religion, it's misassociations of other factors that create an illusion of discrimination against religious individuals.

Yes, if you manage to find your way in a more secular setting while displaying religious beliefs, you might receive ridicule, and that's not right. However, if you might consider, religious persecution through-out the ages, and to this day for more secular individuals and points stands vastly larger, even if it might not seem that way. You simply have to understand the other sides.
Also, it's often not individuals that are targeted in attacks; it's religion. It only feels as if you personally are being attacked because you attribute your religion to be yourself, something that religion has a keen nack for growing on people.

You can't attribute a cause, an organization, another individual's, or any other actions, dialogue, or anything relating to another person to be inherent true aspects of that individual; you have to temper, balance, and understand all about another individual before you can even consider passing judgement upon them, or upon their actions, speech, or thoughts relating or affecting to you. You simply have to understand a person before you can judge them.

In all, it seems you have more fear than root to your concerns; you shouldn't fear any of these things in any way, particular in the manner you fear them. Atheists aren't going to try to kill you; and while religion might, there are far better abstractions to spend your efforts than hatred and fear.

[Avenio]

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image ... e48_44.jpg
This skull is not homo sapiens nor any other known ape of hominid
There are dozens of them. they are called the Paracas skulls
No scientist will go down and run the DNA tests
because ... being the man or woman to do that would be career suicide?

DNA analyses like this, which look at the Nazca, Paracas (Which were a culture and not a collection of skulls, btw) and a large number of other cultures and finds (Albeit indirectly, since the idea that the Paracas were aliens or alien-human hybrids is ridiculous and isn't taken seriously in the archaeological community) that they're completely human and normal for the Pre-Columbian Americas?

[Tlaceceyaya]

I like how the atheists main argument is that religion is ridiculous.... you realize that the big bang theory is creationism by another name dont you?¹ "some how everything sprang into being in a massive explosion... where did it come from? oh we dont know for sure..."² why is it that that is acceptable but "God created the universe" isn't?³ The only difference is that one gives an explanation and the other doesnt... Now do I beleive that religion and science are mortal enemies? no. (Religion is the "Why such and such happened" and "what should we do with our lives to be good people according to God" and science is the "How did God do this thing" for the more we know about our world the more we understand the Lord, even if we never will fully understand Him)⁴ but my point was that its ridiculous that you accept one theory out of hand, and dismiss something so similar out of hand as ridiculous...⁵ although I actually didnt come on here to debate... I came on here to ask you why you only put theist as fearing the tide? Dont you rember "those who are persecuted in my name shall be given rewards in heaven"? I am religious and I welcome anti religion. The people I care about arent going to change their minds over me because of it, and those who are persecuted in the name of the Lord will be given rewards in heaven.⁶

1: No, it isn't. Creationism refers to a belief that everything was created by an aware being. The big bang theory states that all of the observable matter in the universe was once in a single spot, and it's been expanding ever since.

2: The big bang theory is not about where matter came from. It's about the development of the universe.

3: The reason that the big bang is accepted but 'godunnit' isn't is that the big bang has EVIDENCE going for it. It is based on observations. Godunnit is based on ancient beliefs which do not stand up to serious evaluation and analysis.

4: Religion is neither the why nor the what. Whenever a religion makes a claim about the universe and it's tested, it's nearly always false unless it's a direct observation. Religion shrinks when science investigates its dogma. Sure, you can say that religion answers the things we don't yet know. But what about when we find out those things? You just said that god did that, but we can prove otherwise. So your god of the gaps shrinks.
Religion is also a HORRIBLE moral guide. This and much more is what it causes. Oh, and the crusades and all those other religious wars. And the inquisition - didn't expect I'd mention that, did you? - and rejection of vaccines, condoms, anaesthetics and all those other things.
And finally, you said that science is answering how god did this. Well, that just shows that you know shit about science. Science doesn't work backwards from the answer - it works forwards to get the answer. And the answer tends to be 'not god' wherever you turn.

5: Perhaps because one is scientific, and the other is dogmatic? One can be demonstrated, and the other can be forced onto young minds at churches?

6: Whenever I hear stuff like that, or really anything about going to heaven, I wonder why people who believe in god but don't think they'll go to heaven don't just blow up maternity wards. Send all of those babies into heaven, rather than allow them the chance to sin. _{I am not in any way endorsing the murder of babies.}

[Dracone]

I like how the atheists main argument is that religion is ridiculous.... you realize that the big bang theory is creationism by another name dont you?¹ "some how everything sprang into being in a massive explosion... where did it come from? oh we dont know for sure..."² why is it that that is acceptable but "God created the universe" isn't?³ The only difference is that one gives an explanation and the other doesnt... Now do I beleive that religion and science are mortal enemies? no. (Religion is the "Why such and such happened" and "what should we do with our lives to be good people according to God" and science is the "How did God do this thing" for the more we know about our world the more we understand the Lord, even if we never will fully understand Him)⁴ but my point was that its ridiculous that you accept one theory out of hand, and dismiss something so similar out of hand as ridiculous...⁵ although I actually didnt come on here to debate... I came on here to ask you why you only put theist as fearing the tide? Dont you rember "those who are persecuted in my name shall be given rewards in heaven"? I am religious and I welcome anti religion. The people I care about arent going to change their minds over me because of it, and those who are persecuted in the name of the Lord will be given rewards in heaven.⁶

1: No, it isn't. Creationism refers to a belief that everything was created by an aware being. The big bang theory states that all of the observable matter in the universe was once in a single spot, and it's been expanding ever since.

2: The big bang theory is not about where matter came from. It's about the development of the universe.

3: The reason that the big bang is accepted but 'godunnit' isn't is that the big bang has EVIDENCE going for it. It is based on observations. Godunnit is based on ancient beliefs which do not stand up to serious evaluation and analysis.

4: Religion is neither the why nor the what. Whenever a religion makes a claim about the universe and it's tested, it's nearly always false unless it's a direct observation. Religion shrinks when science investigates its dogma. Sure, you can say that religion answers the things we don't yet know. But what about when we find out those things? You just said that god did that, but we can prove otherwise. So your god of the gaps shrinks.
Religion is also a HORRIBLE moral guide. This and much more is what it causes. Oh, and the crusades and all those other religious wars. And the inquisition - didn't expect I'd mention that, did you? - and rejection of vaccines, condoms, anaesthetics and all those other things.
And finally, you said that science is answering how god did this. Well, that just shows that you know shit about science. Science doesn't work backwards from the answer - it works forwards to get the answer. And the answer tends to be 'not god' wherever you turn.

5: Perhaps because one is scientific, and the other is dogmatic? One can be demonstrated, and the other can be forced onto young minds at churches?

6: Whenever I hear stuff like that, or really anything about going to heaven, I wonder why people who believe in god but don't think they'll go to heaven don't just blow up maternity wards. Send all of those babies into heaven, rather than allow them the chance to sin. _{I am not in any way endorsing the murder of babies.}

*sigh* really regretting posting now... I specifically said I do not want to debate... I WAS JUST ASKING ABOUT WHY THERE WASNT AN OPTION I WANTED!!! the rest was a side not...

but yes I thought of the inquisition, and of the crusades and all the things people have twisted religion into... thats the way the human mind works though not religion. And I would like to clarify mone point. you cant prove that god didnt do it... because I wasnt saying that he pointed a finger and it magically appered... I was saying that He willed something to happen, and set the mechanisms in place... for instance evolution... I could stay longer but considering I have no intentions of debating.... I seem to be digging a deeper whole here since I didnt come here to debate but to ask a question...

[Tlaceceyaya]

1: No, it isn't. Creationism refers to a belief that everything was created by an aware being. The big bang theory states that all of the observable matter in the universe was once in a single spot, and it's been expanding ever since.

2: The big bang theory is not about where matter came from. It's about the development of the universe.

3: The reason that the big bang is accepted but 'godunnit' isn't is that the big bang has EVIDENCE going for it. It is based on observations. Godunnit is based on ancient beliefs which do not stand up to serious evaluation and analysis.

4: Religion is neither the why nor the what. Whenever a religion makes a claim about the universe and it's tested, it's nearly always false unless it's a direct observation. Religion shrinks when science investigates its dogma. Sure, you can say that religion answers the things we don't yet know. But what about when we find out those things? You just said that god did that, but we can prove otherwise. So your god of the gaps shrinks.
Religion is also a HORRIBLE moral guide. This and much more is what it causes. Oh, and the crusades and all those other religious wars. And the inquisition - didn't expect I'd mention that, did you? - and rejection of vaccines, condoms, anaesthetics and all those other things.
And finally, you said that science is answering how god did this. Well, that just shows that you know shit about science. Science doesn't work backwards from the answer - it works forwards to get the answer. And the answer tends to be 'not god' wherever you turn.

5: Perhaps because one is scientific, and the other is dogmatic? One can be demonstrated, and the other can be forced onto young minds at churches?

6: Whenever I hear stuff like that, or really anything about going to heaven, I wonder why people who believe in god but don't think they'll go to heaven don't just blow up maternity wards. Send all of those babies into heaven, rather than allow them the chance to sin. _{I am not in any way endorsing the murder of babies.}

*sigh* really regretting posting now... I specifically said I do not want to debate... I WAS JUST ASKING ABOUT WHY THERE WASNT AN OPTION I WANTED!!! the rest was a side not...

but yes I thought of the inquisition, and of the crusades and all the things people have twisted religion into... thats the way the human mind works though not religion. And I would like to clarify mone point. you cant prove that god didnt do it... because I wasnt saying that he pointed a finger and it magically appered... I was saying that He willed something to happen, and set the mechanisms in place... for instance evolution... I could stay longer but considering I have no intentions of debating.... I seem to be digging a deeper whole here since I didnt come here to debate but to ask a question...

Okay, so just stay for a short while. Find out why you're wrong.

1: I can't prove that god didn't do it. I also can't prove that the walrus beneath the surface of titan didn't do it. I also can't prove that leprechauns didn't do it. I also can't prove that gays didn't do it. This does not mean that gays are the reason matter first came to exist.

2: Prove it. Without proof, a claim is worthless. Without worth, believing in a claim is illogical.

[CVT Temp]

I agree.
The scientific method is falsifiable?
It is thus scientifically possible to verify the scientific method?
LOL

And you do not think that this is a belief system?

I think what you mean is that science requires less *faith* than belief in the IPU?
If so, I think we agree ...

There is no "scientific method." There is a set of tricks and techniques for dealing with various conditions, but there is no single master process which could be called "the scientific method."

In addition, a methodology is not a claim anyway, so it makes no sense to say "How do you know the scientific method is true?" Methods are not propositions.

[Grimlundt]

I am suggesting that our "scientific" world veiw or "episteme" assumes certain "epistemic impossibilities" beyond logical impossibilities. these impossibilities are things, like, well ... you KNOW that I do not have psychic powers ....

Furthermore, you are familiar with goidel's theoem?
no holistic system (e.g. of knowledge) -- or *episteme* -- can be justified from outside it's own system?
Thus science justifies itself, by means of an epistemic circularity?
The scientific method is falsifiable?
This is to say that the method is part of a world view?

Now I have no problem with science on that regard.
But we ought to be aware of how science function to create epistemic impossibilities?


p.s. religions are also prone to this circularity of justification -- even more so, generally

No. I got it from here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31815688/Evan ... the-Azande

Some people think scientists often rejects all sorts of evidence.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... stemology/

There are, in fact, many questions scientists refuse to examine.
For example --
http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image ... e48_44.jpg
This skull is not homo sapiens nor any other known ape of hominid
There are dozens of them. they are called the Paracas skulls
No scientist will go down and run the DNA tests
because ... being the man or woman to do that would be career suicide?

That would be a problem with the scientists themselves not wanting to carry such an experiment out, and/or that their careers would be set up so that they'd lose it if they did try to experiment on it.. I don't see though how that affects the scientific method/process itself

[Grimlundt]

So ...
you want to dodge the bullet by nit-picking?
Good for you

I agree.
The scientific method is falsifiable?
It is thus scientifically possible to verify the scientific method?
LOL

And you do not think that this is a belief system?

I think what you mean is that science requires less *faith* than belief in the IPU?
If so, I think we agree ...

There is no "scientific method." There is a set of tricks and techniques for dealing with various conditions, but there is no single master process which could be called "the scientific method."

In addition, a methodology is not a claim anyway, so it makes no sense to say "How do you know the scientific method is true?" Methods are not propositions.