Atheism = Farce!

[JustAsking]

*< 100%....is still < 100%.

First of all, there is no difference between how we develop certainty in the theory of evolution and some other foundational theory, such as newton's laws of motion and gravity. They are both offered in the same form, and affirmed through the same process.

Also, each of those two theories (as well as others) have mountains of corroborating evidence going back a hundred years or more, from many different independent workers and lines of evidence.

I don't think there are many things that we know with more certainty than these longstanding foundational theories. So whatever you mean by < 100% applies equally to the theory of evolution, newtonian mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity, maxwell's E&M and so forth.

Many of these theories are in practice in the computer you are reading this on, but having been formulated over 100 years ago, in some cases by gas lamp. So we have to really consider what we mean by <100% sure when it comes to these theories.

It's not relevant to be 100% sure your theory on creation or existence is right?

No, but the meaning of "sure" and "theory" are different for a scientific theory and one that has supernatural premises. You cannot formulate a testable scientific theory with supernatural premises. So the techniques we use to develop certainty in scientific theories are not available to something like "Creation Science".

As such, the supernatural aspects of Creation Science has to remain as theology. In fact, I could substitute the Flying Spaghetti Monster for God in any Creation Science hypotheses with no change in the ability to develop certainty about it.

 

[NC_BBC]

... IS replaced with intelligent, irrefutable truth, evidence and facts

Before I even respond to this bullshit....tell me what YOUR (you all's) definition of irrefutable is.....

 

[NC_BBC]

No, but the meaning of "sure" and "theory" are different for a scientific theory and one that has supernatural premises. You cannot formulate a testable scientific theory with supernatural premises. So the techniques we use to develop certainty in scientific theories are not available to something like "Creation Science".

As such, the supernatural aspects of Creation Science has to remain as theology. In fact, I could substitute the Flying Spaghetti Monster for God in any Creation Science hypotheses with no change in the ability to develop certainty about it.

But does this give ANYONE the right to piss all over it? Just because man lacks the ability to test it with science? How many things have been discovered within the past 50 years that would've been "untestable" then. Would it have been ok to degrade and insult the initial thinker or creator of that idea?

I appreciate all your posts and responses, because you mange to disagree with me without the need to insult. THAT seems to be an anomaly when this subject is up for discussion.

 

[NC_BBC]

See you in hell.[/QUOTE]

:haha:...and I'm the most aggressive and insulting?

You're one of the most hypocritical people I've encountered on this forum. Are you really accusing someone else of flip flopping? About the only thing that has remained constant in your posts (in this thread) is that you believe in god.

You claim to be christian yet you've been the most aggressive and insulting participant in this thread, all the while claiming that atheists only believe what they believe so they can belittle others.

I didn't accuse anyone here of flip flopping. I was just attempting to interpret his post for calboner. And I also agree with it....science can flip flop...and nobody bats an eye.

When did I belittle anyone? And did I start the insults?

 

[NC_BBC]

And 0% is 0% and 50% is 50%. So what?

You manage to pack a remarkable number of confusions into a small number of words.

(1) Something is relevant or irrelevant to another thing: it is senseless to say simply that something is relevant or irrelevant, period. So I can't be sure what you are even trying to say.

(2) What I said was that 100% certainty is irrelevant to the practice of any empirical science. That means that all findings are subject in principle to the possibility of revision, qualification, modification, or rejection in light of future findings.

(3) How sure anyone feels about his theory is a matter of that person's biography, not a matter of interest to science.

(4) A "theory of creation" or a "theory of existence," at least as I understand those phrases, is outside the scope of science altogether. I have, admittedly, known some scientists to use the word "creation" when what they mean is the mere coming-into-being of the universe. But this is a misuse of the word. "Creation" does not mean mere coming-into-being but rather bringing-into-being by some independently existing being. Applied to the universe as a whole, that is a matter of theology, not science.

This is where we misunderstand each other...

I'm not interested in your (or anyone else's) theories on how man(or any other organism) came to exist on this planet... I wanna know about the beginning. And while I acknowledge that religion can't give me a concrete answer on that subject, I look to science for it...and what have I found?

 

[NC_BBC]

(2) What I said was that 100% certainty is irrelevant to the practice of any empirical science. That means that all findings are subject in principle to the possibility of revision, qualification, modification, or rejection in light of future findings.

I find this to be the shield and sword science uses to CLAIM dominance on the subject matter.

I read this to mean science can be wrong (but accepted as right) until further studies are done. Which pretty much creates this bubble around science that says "science is always the answer and anyone who doesn't follow it is ignorant"... which is the same ideology a lot of followers of theism hold. "The bible (or whatever book the religion reads from) has all the answers and anyone who questions or disagrees shall be banished to hell"....

Neither theism or science is able to trace a path back to the creation (or the initial moment of being) for this existence....but both sides tout about as though they know ALL....when neither side does.

Which leaves people like myself, vibrationzzz, and penilcontent on a fence just hurling questions and responses at both sides waiting for conclusive answers. Don't get mad at me because neither sides knows as much as it thinks...

 

[JustAsking]

But does this give ANYONE the right to piss all over it? Just because man lacks the ability to test it with science? How many things have been discovered within the past 50 years that would've been "untestable" then. Would it have been ok to degrade and insult the initial thinker or creator of that idea?

I think the biggest source of hostility on this subject comes from the insistence by certain groups of Christians that on the subject of origins, science and theology are mutually exclusive. Christians in those groups are extremely organized and vocal on the subject, and have managed to instill this false dichotomy into the minds of about half the adult population of the USA.

All Christians are creationists in the sense that we all believe that God is the author of all things. And 90% of the world's Christian population belong to denominations whose doctrines find no conflict between that and any findings or theories of modern science. This is because they do not insist that the Book of Genesis is a science and history lesson. (And they are correct.)

The problem comes when certain small groups of Christians insist that theology and science are incompatible. It causes them to need to protect their doctrine against almost all aspects of modern science. So they put tremendous resources into actively undermining the reputation of science in the eyes of the public and their own congregations. They do this because they want to affect public policy on science to further their own religious/cultural/political agenda.

This is where the hostility comes from in this subject. One group is adamantly defending their pre-Enlightenment view of the world with all their energies, and the rest of the world is reacting in defense.

So when anyone comes along and starts saying some of the things you are saying about science and creation, everyone gets on their guard.

How many things have been discovered within the past 50 years that would've been "untestable" then. Would it have been ok to degrade and insult the initial thinker or creator of that idea?

No, you missed my point. It is not a matter of gaining more knowledge or better instrumentation. Hypotheses with supernatural premises are intrinsically untestable. Its not that we haven't figured out how to test the, but rather they cannot be tested.

I appreciate all your posts and responses, because you mange to disagree with me without the need to insult. THAT seems to be an anomaly when this subject is up for discussion.

Thanks. I spend a lot of time on this subject. It is a kind of hobby of mine, having moved to Ohio about the time when Ohio was flirting with allowing Intelligent Design Creationism into the state science curriculum.

 

[185248]

My post was perfectly coherent and well-phrased. If it was pitched over the level of your reading comprehension, that is your fault, not mine.

To equate your own confused statements with the positions of scientists is an outrageous presumption on your part.

Please stop trying to drag this thread into irrelevancies. If you want to settle old scores, don't do it here. If you continue in this vein, I will report your posts to the moderators.

This thread, Atheism = Farce!, has been off target for quite some time, it has focussed more of late on the beginnings of life, and the Universe, which in turn I suppose equates on who has the better understanding, Science or Religion. The reason why I mentioned your previous comments from another thread is because of it's relevance to things you, I, and a number of others have mentioned here. Do you feel threatened by your own words Cal? If no-one were able to post outside links from other places or sources to dispute anothers thinking, especially when it shows that science and people can change their/it's mind whenever it wishes, much the same as religion changes situations to suit their circumstances then I would consider it hypocritical.

If you find what I say confusing, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment
If you feel I have offended you and you find it is worth your running to the office and reporting it? Not much I can do is there? You're a free radical.

The first question would be I spose... How did Vibrationzzz offend you Cal? I dunno really, he sounds so confused

 

[NC_BBC]

Here, I can answer it. Aliens did it. Try to refute me.

I won't "refute" your shallow attempt at facetiousness...

...but I will ask you to provide evidence, or anything to substantiate your claim. I can even accept a story about you getting abducted ...but I WILL ask questions...I WILL poke at your belief with a stick....I WILL go on a search to try to understand you....because no matter how insane your notion may be....if I can understand it...there MAY be a shred of truth in there somewhere for me to apply to my own beliefs.

Example: I don't follow all the teachings of rastafarianism.... I've read about it, known an entire family of practitioners..... visited Jamaica 4 times... Studied it....tried to understand it. And while I don't agree with it ALL....I agree with some of it. Some of it weaves it's way into my own beliefs... I said (many posts ago) that I'm not the conventional christian... you all missed that post somehow.

 

[NC_BBC]

I think the biggest source of hostility on this subject comes from the insistence by certain groups of Christians that on the subject of origins, science and theology are mutually exclusive. Christians in those groups are extremely organized and vocal on the subject, and have managed to instill this false dichotomy into the minds of about half the adult population of the USA.

All Christians are creationists in the sense that we all believe that God is the author of all things. And 90% of the world's Christian population belong to denominations whose doctrines find no conflict between that and any findings or theories of modern science. This is because they do not insist that the Book of Genesis is a science and history lesson. (And they are correct.)

I belong to THIS group. I acknowledge that science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive. I've been saying that sense I was 15 or 16. I never understood why...if it rains, some will preach on the science of precipitation, while others will just say god made it rain... why can't both be somewhat true?

The problem comes when certain small groups of Christians insist that theology and science are incompatible. It causes them to need to protect their doctrine against almost all aspects of modern science. So they put tremendous resources into actively undermining the reputation of science in the eyes of the public and their own congregations. They do this because they want to affect public policy on science to further their own religious/cultural/political agenda.

You don't think followers of science partake in the same behavior?

No, you missed my point. It is not a matter of gaining more knowledge or better instrumentation. Hypotheses with supernatural premises are intrinsically untestable. Its not that we haven't figured out how to test the, but rather they cannot be tested.

You don't think man will ever advance science far enough to test some metaphysical things? I hoped we could eventually get there....but given that both sides can't stop fighting long enough to develop any common ideas, you may be right.

 

[NC_BBC]

The first question would be I spose... How did Vibrationzzz offend you Cal? I dunno really, he sounds so confused

Man I've been "reported" so many times over this thread it's a running gag to me now.... and for what? lol

 

[NC_BBC]

I spend a lot of time on this subject. It is a kind of hobby of mine, having moved to Ohio about the time when Ohio was flirting with allowing Intelligent Design Creationism into the state science curriculum.

As do I. I just question it all for my own understanding. It's a subject that so vast it keeps my ego in check. I'll never know EVERYTHING, and neither will any other human on this planet...therefore I should never carry myself in a way that says I'm better than anyone else, and I'll never let someone act as though they're better than me.

Also, I just enjoy talking about people with more wisdom than myself. I've always appreciated the company of people older than myself (I may be the youngest person still posting here). You all have life experience that I haven't lived long enough to obtain on my own....so I just ask you all the questions...

 

[Calboner]

This is where we misunderstand each other...

I'm not interested in your (or anyone else's) theories on how man(or any other organism) came to exist on this planet... I wanna know about the beginning. And while I acknowledge that religion can't give me a concrete answer on that subject, I look to science for it...and what have I found?

How in fucking hell do you get THAT out of THIS?

(4) A "theory of creation" or a "theory of existence," at least as I understand those phrases, is outside the scope of science altogether. I have, admittedly, known some scientists to use the word "creation" when what they mean is the mere coming-into-being of the universe. But this is a misuse of the word. "Creation" does not mean mere coming-into-being but rather bringing-into-being by some independently existing being. Applied to the universe as a whole, that is a matter of theology, not science.

It is as if the more clear and explicit my statements get, the more grotesquely you misunderstand them. READ WHAT I WROTE: you will not find ONE reference to "theories on how man (or any other organism) came to exist on this planet." I referred to "the coming-into-being of the universe" and the "bringing-into-being of the universe." What does it take to get you to understand the plainest statement?

The reason why I mentioned your previous comments from another thread is because of it's relevance to things you, I, and a number of others have mentioned here. Do you feel threatened by your own words Cal?

No, asshole: I refuse to import a dispute from ANOTHER THREAD into THIS THREAD; and I will not be baited into doing so.

 

[balsary]

No, asshole.

Thou probably should have just reported vibezzz if you had a problem with something he said. You've been reported for this.

 

[NC_BBC]

How in fucking hell do you get THAT out of THIS?

It is as if the more clear and explicit my statements get, the more grotesquely you misunderstand them. READ WHAT I WROTE: you will not find ONE reference to "theories on how man (or any other organism) came to exist on this planet." I referred to "the coming-into-being of the universe" and the "bringing-into-being of the universe." What does it take to get you to understand the plainest statement?

(4) A "theory of creation" or a "theory of existence," at least as I understand those phrases, is outside the scope of science altogether. I have, admittedly, known some scientists to use the word "creation" when what they mean is the mere coming-into-being of the universe. But this is a misuse of the word. "Creation" does not mean mere coming-into-being but rather bringing-into-being by some independently existing being. Applied to the universe as a whole, that is a matter of theology, not science.

You self admittedly state that the questions I ask, and the answers to those questions are "outside the scope of science"...therefore you KNOW why I don't accept a lot of what you or science has to say...because EVERYTHING pertains to, is derived from, started, came to be, exists by way of SOMETHING that "is outside the scope of science"...And if you can't understand the BEGINNING, how do you all carry yourselves with this undeserved sense of entitlement?! This idea that what you know gives you the right to piss all over someone else's beliefs... when you really don't know anymore than the theologists.

Science can provide answers from B to Y.... But has NO way of understanding or explaining A.... while followers of theism decide to believe whatever they want to believe about A and Z, you all criticize and insult those beliefs and their followers as though you KNOW what A or Z is.... When you don't know! So when you run into someone who believes A was God, Allah, Aliens, or the spaghetti monster, and Z is heaven, hell, reincarnation, Shangri-La, or Hades and purgetory ...you don't have the right to insult them because YOU DON"T KNOW EITHER!!!

It's certainly not the fact that we disagree that angers me...it's the attitude and insults you all pour all over someone else who doesn't follow your way of thinking.

 

[NC_BBC]

Thou probably should have just reported vibezzz if you had a problem with something he said. You've been reported for this.

See you in hell.

riiiiiiiiiiight...

 

[balsary]

riiiiiiiiiiight...

I'm not going to argue with you. Doing so would be futile. You'll just constantly change your view to "win", as you've done in the past. If you feel my comment is a violation of the rules I encourage you to report me as well, though I fail to see what rule I've violated.

 

[Calboner]

You self admittedly state that the questions I ask, and the answers to those questions are "outside the scope of science"...therefore you KNOW why I don't accept a lot of what you or science has to say...because EVERYTHING pertains to, is derived from, started, came to be, exists by way of SOMETHING that "is outside the scope of science"...And if you can't understand the BEGINNING, how do you all carry yourselves with this undeserved sense of entitlement?! This idea thawhat you know gives you the right to piss all over someone else's beliefs... when you really don't know anymore than the theologists.

Science can provide answers from B to Y.... But has NO way of understanding or explaining A.... while followers of theism decide to believe whatever they want to believe about A and Z, you all criticize and insult those beliefs and their followers as though you KNOW what A or Z is.... When you don't know! So when you run into someone who believes A was God, Allah, Aliens, or the spaghetti monster, and Z is heaven, hell, reincarnation, Shangri-La, or Hades and purgetory ...you don't have the right to insult them because YOU DON"T KNOW EITHER!!!

It's certainly not the fact that we disagree that angers me...it's the attitude and insults you all pour all over someone else who doesn't follow your way of thinking.

You seem to be reacting to somebody whom you are mistaking for me. Nowhere in this thread have I ridiculed theism. I have certainly nowhere said or implied that it is a false belief, much less pretended to know so. What I have censured, and sometimes even treated with contempt, are the shabby, confused, and dishonest intellectual moves by which some people, notably including you, try to provide a rationale for theism. Among these have been erroneous and confused statements about science.

 

[NC_BBC]

I'm not going to argue with you. Doing so would be futile. You'll just constantly change your view to "win", as you've done in the past. If you feel my comment is a violation of the rules I encourage you to report me as well, though I fail to see what rule I've violated.

What do I need to report you for? The mods have a job, that they do quite well....they'll handle you if they feel a need to...

As far as "winning" this conversation goes....there's not reward... I'm asking for answers...not a prize. Too hard to understand?

 

[NC_BBC]

You seem to be reacting to somebody whom you are mistaking for me. Nowhere in this thread have I ridiculed theism. I have certainly nowhere said or implied that it is a false belief, much less pretended to know so. What I have censured, and sometimes even treated with contempt, are the shabby, confused, and dishonest intellectual moves by which some people, notably including you, try to provide a rationale for theism. Among these have been erroneous and confused statements about science.

(http://www.lpsg.com/4713689-post678.html) I'm aware of your thoughts toward religion and theism. But who are you to say what's rational and what's not? Because science (as of now) is incapable of testing my beliefs, they're deemed shabby and dishonest? Says who? Who has the right to call another persons beliefs "irrational" or "unreasonable"? You haven't walked in my shoes...or experienced what I've experienced... You draw insulting conclusions about something you don't understand... Science is inconclusive on creation (or however you want to phrase the beginning)...you know that. But do I call is shabby, or ignorant? Science lacks knowledge in some places...do I throw all it's teachings out? NO... So I continue to ask questions... which help correct my "erroneous and confused statements about science"... but don't expect to me to just accept anything you say without question.