Scientific evidence against religion?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Regret
I do not believe that there is any scientific evidence that necessitates disbelief in God. I would like some scientific facts/evidences* that are believed to necessitate such.

*Remember, a scientist's unsupported, or weakly supported, statements are only an opinion,not a fact or evidence.

Some evidence/facts that do not threaten the concept of God:

EvolutionBig BangArchaeological Finds

lord xyz
Originally posted by Regret
EvolutionBig BangArchaeological Finds They suggest the Earth came to be without God. Suggesting God does not exist.

Regret
Originally posted by lord xyz
They suggest the Earth came to be without God. Suggesting God does not exist. Wrong. They only suggest a method, not whether or not the method was directed. None of these speak to the necessity of absence or presence of direction.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Regret
Wrong. They only suggest a method, not whether or not the method was directed. None of these speak to the necessity of absence or presence of direction. Yes, but fundamentalists see it as a threat to God because they think God created the world in a week, which the Big Bang and evolution directly threaten. They think that dinosaur bones were a trick by Satan

Regret
Originally posted by Strangelove
Yes, but fundamentalists see it as a threat to God because they think God created the world in a week, which the Big Bang and evolution directly threaten. They think that dinosaur bones were a trick by Satan Agreed. This threatens such a view, but not the concept of God nor the concept of religion.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Regret
Agreed. This threatens such a view, but not the concept of God nor the concept of religion. Agreed

Bardock42
I think every rational being knows there can not be any evidence against God.

Ushgarak
It isn't rational to believe something with such a complete and utter dearth of evidence related to it.

Regret
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think every rational being knows there can not be any evidence against God. I agree, yet for some reason I, being a religious theist, have been attacked, weakly imo, with claims that science somehow supports atheism and attacks theism.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It isn't rational to believe something with such a complete and utter dearth of evidence related to it.

I agree.

Originally posted by Regret
I agree, yet for some reason I, being a religious theist, have been attacked, weakly imo, with claims that science somehow supports atheism and attacks theism.

It does attack the bible (if taken literally) that is for sure. Theism as such of course not.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Regret
I do not believe that there is any scientific evidence that necessitates disbelief in God. I would like some scientific facts/evidences* that are believed to necessitate such.

*Remember, a scientist's unsupported, or weakly supported, statements are only an opinion,not a fact or evidence.

Some evidence/facts that do not threaten the concept of God:

EvolutionBig BangArchaeological Finds Metaphysics points to something.....and that's a science.......hmm confused <--*slaps that confused face*

*lights a candle*

FeceMan
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think every rational being knows there can not be any evidence against God.
Then it would seem that much of KMC lacks reason.

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
It isn't rational to believe something with such a complete and utter dearth of evidence related to it. I agree, in that there is no evidence necessitating theism or atheism as a stance. A scientific and rational stance would be silence on the subject though, not a theistic or atheistic stance.

debbiejo
Really?

God, or IT?

Tag, you're IT

yep! cool

Bardock42
Originally posted by FeceMan
Then it would seem that much of KMC lacks reason.

Nah, to not belief in God is not irrational. To pretend a God cannot exist is. And well, atheists oftentimes get carried away, as their doubt might be seen as weakness to a believer. They adopt styles that are just as radical as some of those opposing. As Russel said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. "

Not that I am saying that either Theists or Atheists are fools. Just radical, absolute believes are foolish. Not to think they might be right, but to think to know they are right. I am making myself less and less clear as I go along, don't I?

debbiejo
Scepticism has the most optimism.

Bardock42
Originally posted by debbiejo
Scepticism has the most optimism.

An absurd post. Thank you, debbiejo.

debbiejo
You're welcome.

And what I meant with that, is that if a person was Atheist...Ah yeah...ok, I know what you mean, though it sounded better in my head....... big grin
Ok what I meant is if a person was a skeptic, then at least they would possible research it and have some optimum, which most atheists don't have with worms eating them........I mean how optimistic is that????

Bardock42
Originally posted by debbiejo
You're welcome.

And what I meant with that, is that if a person was Atheist...Ah yeah...ok, I know what you mean, though it sounded better in my head....... big grin
Ok what I meant is if a person was a skeptic, then at least they would possible research it and have some optimum, which most atheists don't have with worms eating them........I mean how optimistic is that????

You use two different words. And I do not know how you mean them. To make a long problem short, I do not understand your post.

debbiejo
Does anyone else feel that way?? huh

Atheist = no optimism for any further existence
Everyone else does, though many are mislead to what it would be.

To be skeptic at least gives you a chance to think.
Most Atheists will not even consider it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by debbiejo
Does anyone else feel that way?? huh

Atheist = no optimism for any further existence
Everyone else does, though many are mislead to what it would be.

To be skeptic at least gives you a chance to think.
Most Atheists will not even consider it.

You are assuming that a) everyone thinks that no afterlife is a bad thing and b) that people that assume there is no afterlife can not be optimistic? Both are obviously nonsense.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are assuming that a) everyone thinks that no afterlife is a bad thing and b) that people that assume there is no afterlife can not be optimistic? Both are obviously nonsense. I think then that a poll should be taken on this because I think,.......well, you know what I think.

Bardock42
Originally posted by debbiejo
I think then that a poll should be taken on this because I think,.......well, you know what I think.

A poll on what issue? There doesn't need to be a poll. I am right, end of story.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Bardock42
A poll on what issue? There doesn't need to be a poll. I am right, end of story. Pleease let that be the end

xmarksthespot
A predicate of evolutionary theory is that chance mutation provides the genetic variation for natural selection.

Regret
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A predicate of evolutionary theory is that chance mutation provides the genetic variation for natural selection. Chance is something I do not believe in. There may be infinitessimally small likelyhood of something mutating in a specific manner, but if we had a complete understanding of all laws impacting any event termed chance we would find that the chance event was absolutely predictable and occurred due to existing laws. We merely term various events as chance due to our lack of understanding.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Strangelove
Pleease let that be the end Theres a dirty joke like that, ........ roll eyes (sarcastic)

Now that I made a poll, I forgot what this thread is about........bb

nothing to say, made my point? no yes huh

Bardock42
Originally posted by Regret
Chance is something I do not believe in. There may be infinitessimally small likelyhood of something mutating in a specific manner, but if we had a complete understanding of all laws impacting any event termed chance we would find that the chance event was absolutely predictable and occurred due to existing laws. We merely term various events as chance due to our lack of understanding.

Possible.

Since you believe in God, do you think it would be above determination?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Regret
Chance is something I do not believe in. There may be infinitessimally small likelyhood of something mutating in a specific manner, but if we had a complete understanding of all laws impacting any event termed chance we would find that the chance event was absolutely predictable and occurred due to existing laws. We merely term various events as chance due to our lack of understanding. A predicate of current evolutionary theory is that chance mutation provides the genetic variation for natural selection.

debbiejo
We only deem them as chance. Yet they could be outside chances box.

Regret
Originally posted by Bardock42
Possible.

Since you believe in God, do you think it would be above determination? Would God be predictable?

Yes, if a being is held as perfect, that being is by definition predictable. At least, if we had a complete understanding of all the laws governing existence and all the values of all variables existing, God would definitely be predictable.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Regret
Would God be predictable?

Yes, if a being is held as perfect, that being is by definition predictable. At least, if we had a complete understanding of all the laws governing existence and all the values of all variables existing, God would definitely be predictable.

A weird view. But possible. Do you also have an opinion about the existence of God? Is it eternal?

debbiejo
yep

Regret
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A predicate of current evolutionary theory is that chance mutation provides the genetic variation for natural selection. No. Evolution only requires variability, chance is merely a possible factor in evolution not a necessary factor.

Regret
Originally posted by Bardock42
A weird view. But possible. Do you also have an opinion about the existence of God? Is it eternal? My opinion, not necessarily my religion's, is that all scriptural reference to eternal and other duration referring terms is relative to our existence. From our perspective, the term eternal is accurate, did God have beginning? Such is probable, but from our position such is an inaccurate statement. For us God is eternal and without beginning or end.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Regret
My opinion, not necessarily my religion's, is that all scriptural reference to eternal and other duration referring terms is relative to our existence. From our perspective, the term eternal is accurate, did God have beginning? Such is probable, but from our position such is an inaccurate statement. For us God is eternal and without beginning or end.

Hmm, I can't imagine such a thing. It is..too abstract to me I have to admit. How do you picture that?

Regret
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, I can't imagine such a thing. It is..too abstract to me I have to admit. How do you picture that? I'm not sure that I understand the question posed. How do I picture a God with a beginning? I haven't really ever considered it. Mormons believe man is literally progeny of God, thus man, if he shows to be responsible on a level adequate will allowed to become as God. This perspective allows possible hypothesising as to God prior to the "creation" (a term we view as too general, prefering the alternative translation using the term "organized"wink

Eternal from Man's perspective is easy, Man's existence is and was preceded by God's and God will not end prior to Man, if he ever did end, a concept that I do not believe in.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Regret
I'm not sure that I understand the question posed. How do I picture a God with a beginning? I haven't really ever considered it. Mormons believe man is literally progeny of God, thus man, if he shows to be responsible on a level adequate will allowed to become as God. This perspective allows possible hypothesising as to God prior to the "creation" (a term we view as too general, prefering the alternative translation using the term "organized"wink

Eternal from Man's perspective is easy, Man's existence is and was preceded by God's and God will not end prior to Man, if he ever did end, a concept that I do not believe in.

I mean how do you make a difference between something that is eternal to us and something that is eternal to God? I mean, doesn't it either have a beginning or not?

Regret
Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean how do you make a difference between something that is eternal to us and something that is eternal to God? I mean, doesn't it either have a beginning or not? This then leads to a very philosophical question. Is infinity real, or is the beginning and end merely beyond our comprehension? If we cannot comprehend the span from the beginning to the end of something, is eternal, or without beginning and end, an accurate statement? I believe such is so. Is something eternal from God's perspective? I do not know, such would definitely be beyond Man's current ability to comprehend. Given the perspective of Man's relation to God as Mormons view it, such is entirely possible though, and is also entirely probable.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Regret
I agree, in that there is no evidence necessitating theism or atheism as a stance. A scientific and rational stance would be silence on the subject though, not a theistic or atheistic stance.

Untrue.

Theism implies something being there.

All Atheism needs to be true is simply the absence of theism being right.

Without anything to prove theism, and indeed its existence being scientifically irrational, the scientific position is atheism, and that indeed is the singular reason why the scientific consensus tends towards the atheistic. Good science is not interested in preconceptions, only the search for the truth. That search has found no evidence of God and this automatically puts Theism in the weaker position; that lack of evidence is effectively evidence in favour of atheism, theism being such an extreme concept as to have to warrant evidence for any serious consideration.

Good science also does not create complications where there do not need to be any. Science, as it stands, has found no requirement for Theism. It would be additional to everything else. A simple use of the ol' Razor there. It is therefore unscientific to adopt theism.

Bottom line- theism is the one that needs evidence. Lacking it, atheism is demonstrated to be correct.

Mindship
I think every rational being knows there can not be any evidence against God.
There can be no evidence for the existence of God either, not if God is viewed as Spirit, as a transempirical entity, and the evidence being sought is strictly empirical. evil face

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Untrue.

Theism implies something being there.

All Atheism needs to be true is simply the absence of theism being right.

Without anything to prove theism, and indeed its existence being scientifically irrational, the scientific position is atheism, and that indeed is the singular reason why the scientific consensus tends towards the atheistic. Good science is not interested in preconceptions, only the search for the truth. That search has found no evidence of God and this automatically puts Theism in the weaker position; that lack of evidence is effectively evidence in favour of atheism, theism being such an extreme concept as to have to warrant evidence for any serious consideration.

Bottom line- theism is the one that needs evidence. Lacking it, atheism is demonstrated to be correct. This is wrong. Atheism is merely more probable, not correct. Until recently many scientific evidence for a great many truths has been absent, this did not mean that the opposite stance was correct, only that proper study was beyond our ability up to that point. Science is indeed interested in preconceptions, a preconceived concept is the impetus behind scientific progress. Science is not interested in preconceptions that are held in spite of proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary is not present in the case of deity, it does not make theism correct, yet it also does not make atheism correct by default. There is no proof of a "mind" or "consciousness " either, yet I doubt a scientist would categorically state that such is scientifically impossible. Do not confuse skepticism with proof. Skepticism is valuable, absolute statements concerning the nonexistence of a phenomenon without proof is foolish, and has been shown to often be in error.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, to not belief in God is not irrational. To pretend a God cannot exist is. And well, atheists oftentimes get carried away, as their doubt might be seen as weakness to a believer. They adopt styles that are just as radical as some of those opposing. As Russel said "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. "

Not that I am saying that either Theists or Atheists are fools. Just radical, absolute believes are foolish. Not to think they might be right, but to think to know they are right. I am making myself less and less clear as I go along, don't I?
I just meant that a number of people seem to believe that evolution disproves the existence of God (or, at the very least, Christianity).

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by Regret

Some evidence/facts that do not threaten the concept of God:

EvolutionBig BangArchaeological Finds

What's the church's stance on evolution right now? Genesis: all species were created at the same time, or that god guides evolution to a preestablished end. They need to make up their mind... Reason dictates that if someting is contradictory, it should be deemed fabrication, god for example.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
What's the church's stance on evolution right now? Genesis: all species were created at the same time, or that god guides evolution to a preestablished end. They need to make up their mind... Reason dictates that if someting is contradictory, it should be deemed fabrication, god for example.
Well, let's not turn this into an evolution/creationism thread, but...

1. All Christian religions believe that the universe exists.

This is a good start.

2. Not all Christian religions believe that the universe came into being in the same manner.

Some are young-Earth creationists--those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis (Earth was created in six days of twenty-four hours; the Earth is around 6,000 years old).

Some are Intelligent Design theorists (I prefer the term "theistic evolutionists," as it avoids the connotive and politically charged aspects of the term), who believe that God has directly guided and "steered" evolution. If I am not incorrect, it is basically saying "macroevolution cannot happen without a guiding force; this points to an intelligent creator who has made it work."

Some are strict evolutionists who believe God set the entire thing in motion.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Regret
This is wrong. Atheism is merely more probable, not correct. Until recently many scientific evidence for a great many truths has been absent, this did not mean that the opposite stance was correct, only that proper study was beyond our ability up to that point. Science is indeed interested in preconceptions, a preconceived concept is the impetus behind scientific progress. Science is not interested in preconceptions that are held in spite of proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary is not present in the case of deity, it does not make theism correct, yet it also does not make atheism correct by default. There is no proof of a "mind" or "consciousness " either, yet I doubt a scientist would categorically state that such is scientifically impossible. Do not confuse skepticism with proof. Skepticism is valuable, absolute statements concerning the nonexistence of a phenomenon without proof is foolish, and has been shown to often be in error. The impetus for science is observation. Objective science is based on not having preconceptions of what underlies the observation.

The null hypothesis is accepted as correct to a certain degree of confidence when one cannot exhibit an effect. The burden of providing proof positive is on one who proposes an effect.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Bottom line- theism is the one that needs evidence. Lacking it, atheism is demonstrated to be correct.

Likely. Not correct.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Regret
This is wrong. Atheism is merely more probable, not correct. Until recently many scientific evidence for a great many truths has been absent, this did not mean that the opposite stance was correct, only that proper study was beyond our ability up to that point. Science is indeed interested in preconceptions, a preconceived concept is the impetus behind scientific progress. Science is not interested in preconceptions that are held in spite of proof to the contrary. Proof to the contrary is not present in the case of deity, it does not make theism correct, yet it also does not make atheism correct by default. There is no proof of a "mind" or "consciousness " either, yet I doubt a scientist would categorically state that such is scientifically impossible. Do not confuse skepticism with proof. Skepticism is valuable, absolute statements concerning the nonexistence of a phenomenon without proof is foolish, and has been shown to often be in error.

No, sorry, I very strongly feel for this to not be the case.

Like I say, theism is such a strong concept as to be the one that requires evidence. In the absence of evidence, atheism is the default and correct viewpoint. There are some things and concepts that are so absurd that a lack of evidence for them is as good as evidence to the contrary existing, and this is one such area.

By any rational or logical application of science, the conclusion is atheism, simply because that is what is there if there is no particular other conclusion to be had.

You ask, basically, why you find your theistic stance under continual scientific attack. Well, this is why. Scientifically speaking, theism is wrong, and the process I describe is why that is. Science does indeed support atheism and attack theism. There is no proof for theism within science. Therefore the conclusion of science today is one of atheism. The burden of proof is on theism. Theism loses.

Incidentally, about your comment on the Mind, well, that's simply wrong on two points. First of all, every one of us has direct evidence that the mind exists. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that science cannot cope with such a concept. It is early days but there has been plenty of work and presented evidence and theories in that area.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Bardock42
Likely. Not correct.

So likely as to be effectively correct by proper application of science.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally, about your comment on the Mind, well, that's simply wrong on two points. First of all, every one of us has direct evidence that the mind exists. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that science cannot cope with such a concept. It is early days but there has been plenty of work and presented evidence and theories in that area. E.g. advances in fMRI allowing studies into the neural correlates of higher thought processes such as complex emotions.

e.g. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/7/2730

Bardock42
Originally posted by Ushgarak
So likely as to be effectively correct by proper application of science.

Sure. As long as we keep in mind that it can be true, kinda like evolution before anybody found or understood the evidence.

lil bitchiness
The matter of the fact is, as far as impirical evidence go, we do not have any to support Theism.
However it is egoceric to believe that just because we have not aquired kowledge in a specific are, it must be wrong / non existant.

Lets look at the Big Bang.

Big Bang is a great theory - its a model which admits very exotic physical phenomena that include dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic inflation which rely on conditions and physics that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments. (source - wiki)

Cosidring that the Big Bang, could probably not be proven (although not impssible), it is also a not observed, not proven theory, widely accepted by majority of scientists and just as religion, offeres explanation which fits with ONLY what the physics known up until this point.

xmarksthespot
It is still based on observations, not simple credulity. The best model is used until disproven or replaced with a better model.

Council#13
A big question for everyone is: "Where did all the matter for the Big Bang come from?" and "How long has God been around?"

For the Big Bang, many think that the Universe is expanding and contracting. But where did the matter for the first universe come from? It's like running around in circles.

xmarksthespot
It's not contracting.

Council#13
Expanding and then it will contract. Can't prove that it will, but can you prove that it won't?

xmarksthespot
Analysis of type Ia nebulae show the universe's expansion is accelerating, the most probable theory of an end based on current observation is a big rip.

Council#13
But at one point it may simply collapse.

xmarksthespot
Until it shows some sign of deceleration, that's just spurious.

Council#13
It might decelerate so fast that we won't have time to monitor it.

xmarksthespot
no expression That's nice dear.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Regret


Eternal from Man's perspective is easy, Man's existence is and was preceded by God's and God will not end prior to Man, if he ever did end, a concept that I do not believe in.

Bare in mind that there are different ways of understanding what man is in alot of religons they talk about how mankind existed before they were created on Earth. Also in the Bible they talk about Melchizedek a man who has no beginning or end. If god is infinite that means everything else is infinite as well. Man also does not have a beginning or end.


Originally posted by Regret
This then leads to a very philosophical question. Is infinity real, or is the beginning and end merely beyond our comprehension?

Infinity could be defined as the absence of nothing. Human beings are not capable of comprehending nothing therefore this could be seen as a way in which human beings comprehend infinity

Originally posted by Regret

If we cannot comprehend the span from the beginning to the end of something, is eternal, or without beginning and end, an accurate statement? I believe such is so. Is something eternal from God's perspective? I do not know, such would definitely be beyond Man's current ability to comprehend. Given the perspective of Man's relation to God as Mormons view it, such is entirely possible though, and is also entirely probable.

Yes but this is why the science of meditation exists. The purpose of it is to expand how we think not just to think in a "rational" way but to try and find a highier way of thinking.

Council#13
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
no expression That's nice dear.

Isn't it, though? no expression

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is still based on observations, not simple credulity. The best model is used until disproven or replaced with a better model.

Ironically, it was a priest who proposed this possibility, so originally, it was based on ''simple'' credulity. On the same principle the idea of God appeared to begin with.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ironically, it was a priest who proposed this possibility, so originally, it was based on ''simple'' credulity. On the same principle the idea of God appeared to begin with. A priest/astrophysicist whose theoretical assertions had basis in scientific observations and principles. no expression

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is still based on observations, not simple credulity. The best model is used until disproven or replaced with a better model.


I would rather rely on Self Evident Observations than Blind Faith.




I have nothing against people beleiving in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as a personal philosophy/religion. When it is simply a personal beleif and a way of life, they do NOT have to prove anything to us who do not beleive.


When it is strictly personal beleif, a Christian or any religious person does NOT owe us an explanation for their beleifs. None what-so-ever.


However, when a Christian or any religious person tell you or myself that we, in fact, beleive the WRONG things, that we are sinners, that we will end up in Hell.....that we need to change our lives, change who we are, and beleive what they beleive....THEN and only THEN do we have the absolute right to demand proof for thier assertions.

Since not one Christian has succeeded in supplying undeniable PROOF for thier assertions, we Atheists and Agnostics have every right to critisize, disregard, and/or disbeleive thier stances, since they insisted on us changing ours.

xmarksthespot
Why are you quoting me? I agree for the most part.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A priest/astrophysicist whose theoretical assertions had basis in scientific observations and principles. no expression
So did the idea of God when it was first created. It was in the line with the basic scientific observations of the time.

Ancients used both science and religion incorprated.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Why are you quoting me? I agree for the most part.

I was trying to back you up. I agree with your stance, I wanted to second it.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I would rather rely on Self Evident Observations than Blind Faith.




I have nothing against people beleiving in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam as a personal philosophy/religion. When it is simply a personal beleif and a way of life, they do NOT have to prove anything to us who do not beleive.


When it is strictly personal beleif, a Christian or any religious person does NOT owe us an explanation for their beleifs. None what-so-ever.


However, when a Christian or any religious person tell you or myself that we, in fact, beleive the WRONG things, that we are sinners, that we will end up in Hell.....that we need to change our lives, change who we are, and beleive what they beleive....THEN and only THEN do we have the absolute right to demand proof for thier assertions.

Since not one Christian has succeeded in supplying undeniable PROOF for thier assertions, we Atheists and Agnostics have every right to critisize, disregard, and/or disbeleive thier stances, since they insisted on us changing ours.

Not just Christians or religious people, I tend to be sceptical to anyone who claims they have found ''the truth'' regarding such.

I find it more apropriate to get in line with people who are ''searching'' rather than who have ''found'.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So did the idea of God when it was first created. It was in the line with the basic scientific observations of the time.

Ancients used both science and religion incorprated. While it's always fascinating to hear things about the ancient world I already know... how is that relevant to an assessment of god based on modern scientific principle as the thread is geared towards. erm

The null hypothesis is assumed unless the alternative hypothesis shows significance.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While it's always fascinating to hear things about the ancient world I already know... how is that relevant to an assessment of god based on modern scientific principle as the thread is geared towards. erm

In a simple sense that science does not contradict God. It never has (hence the referance to the ancients), and it may not for a very long time.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not just Christians or religious people, I tend to be sceptical to anyone who claims they have found ''the truth'' regarding such.

I find it more apropriate to get in line with people who are ''searching'' rather than who have ''found'.


Fair Enough Lil B...


But I couldn't care less what anyone beleives. That's thier right. As long as they do not try to insist MY beleifs as totally incorrect and/or immoral, then I have no problem.


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In a simple sense that science does not contradict God. It never has (hence the referance to the ancients), and it may not for a very long time.



I beg to differ Lil B...


Although science does not contradict or disprove the existance of a possible Creator, it DOES very much contradict ChristianJudeo perception of God, and almost ALL perceptions of God that every mythology in history has presented.

xmarksthespot
Yes, but basically science does not have to contradict god for an atheist (or agnostic) stance to be "correct" from a scientific standpoint. Ha is rejected and Ho accepted if Ha does not show significance. Conclusion of no effect (i.e. god) is drawn (atheist), under the condition that one accepts there is always a possibility of type II error. Alternatively one can conclude there is insufficient data (agnostic). But a positive conclusion (theist) is inaccurate, scientifically at least.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Fair Enough Lil B...


But I couldn't care less what anyone beleives. That's thier right. As long as they do not try to insist MY beleifs as totally incorrect and/or immoral, then I have no problem.






I beg to differ Lil B...


Although science does not contradict or disprove the existance of a possible Creator, it DOES very much contradict ChristianJudeo perception of God, and almost ALL perceptions of God that every mythology in history has presented.

In what way does it disprove Judeo-Christian, or even mythical perceptions of God?

It disproves, clearly the religious books, religious stories, and incoherent dates / science, but it most certainly does not contradict their perception of God.

Particularly since a lot of Abrahamic religious people claim they do not see these stories as literal.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, but basically science does not have to contradict god for an atheist (or agnostic) stance to be "correct" from a scientific standpoint. Ha is rejected and Ho accepted if Ha does not show significance. Conclusion is drawn, under the condition that one accepts there is always a possibility of type II error.

Ofcourse not. Simple Logic and Reasoning contradicts the existance of mainstream God just as easily !

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In what way does it disprove Judeo-Christian, or even mythical perceptions of God?


I didn't say disprove. I said Contradicts.


There are many logical and scientific contradictions against the existance of the popular notion of God.

I made too many threads about this already Lil B, so I refuse to go into detail now, and keep arguing in circles.



Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It disproves, clearly the religious books, religious stories, and incoherent dates / science, but it most certainly does not contradict their perception of God.



The modern concepts are God are BASED on these religious books, religious stories, traditions, etc.



Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Particularly since a lot of Abrahamic religious people claim they do not see these stories as literal.


Doesn't matter. If that is the case, then they lack basis for thier beleifs, and only beleive our of personal reasoning.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Yes, but basically science does not have to contradict god for an atheist (or agnostic) stance to be "correct" from a scientific standpoint. Ha is rejected and Ho accepted if Ha does not show significance. Conclusion of no effect (i.e. god) is drawn (atheist), under the condition that one accepts there is always a possibility of type II error. Alternatively one can conclude there is insufficient data (agnostic). But a positive conclusion (theist) is inaccurate, scientifically at least.

Yes, but you are going to back to Agnostic, Atheist Thist type argumet.
Science by itself does not contradict God. it does not search, to contradict God, but marely works with it.

It is people who disbelieve in God, which use science to disprove what they believe does not exist.

As science, and all that it has shown us, it does not disprove God. What people do with the information, how they use, or atempt to use it, is a different matter all together.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yes, but you are going to back to Agnostic, Atheist Thist type argumet.
Science by itself does not contradict God. it does not search, to contradict God, but marely works with it.

It is people who disbelieve in God, which use science to disprove what they believe does not exist.

As science, and all that it has shown us, it does not disprove God. What people do with the information, how they use, or atempt to use it, is a different matter all together. I don't think you got my point exactly. As Ush has been saying, science does not need to disprove god for the atheist/agnostic standpoint to be the scientifically correct one. The premise of science is that one must prove the effect as significant. Not the converse.

From a science standpoint those who believe in god have to prove god if they assert it as true. The burden of providing proof positive is on the one who asserts the claim of an effect.

Asking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
IAsking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed.

What about a disbelief in God's non existance ? laughing

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I didn't say disprove. I said Contradicts.


There are many logical and scientific contradictions against the existance of the popular notion of God.

I made too many threads about this already Lil B, so I refuse to go into detail now, and keep arguing in circles.







The modern concepts are God are BASED on these religious books, religious stories, traditions, etc.






Doesn't matter. If that is the case, then they lack basis for thier beleifs, and only beleive our of personal reasoning.

I still do not see how it contradicts anything. The basis of any religious person's view is that there is a God, and that he created everything visible and invisible.

That is the base of the religion, not the detail or the stories. Quite a lot of Jews that I know are in this position. They most certainly believe in G-d, and that he has created everything invisible and visible, yet the OT to them is not relevant - but a mare set of outdated rules set by...rulers.

So the stances are different. Science did not prove Jesus was not a son of God or a God (forigve my ignorance, as I am not sure which one he is believed to have been). That is the essence of Christian faith.

And a lot of Scientists who have brought about the VERY sicence you are saying contradicted Judeo Christian god, still managed to believe in God and come out with some amazing discoveries.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think you got my point exactly. As Ush has been saying, science does not need to disprove god for the atheist/agnostic standpoint to be the scientifically correct one. The premise of science is that one must prove the effect as significant. Not the converse.

From a science standpoint those who believe in god have to prove god if they assert it as true. The burden of providing proof positive is on the one who asserts the claim of an effect.

Asking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed.

I never said Science needed to prove God. It does not look to prove or disprove god. Science is not a discipline set out to disprove or prove God.

But in its discoveries it has not, of course, pointed to anything which indicates God, nor anything which determans that God is not there.
However, looking at the Big Bang theory for example, it is not a coherant enough to NOT leave room for the other possibilities.

It is not ''scientific'' but most certainly possible. And science does not deny this. People use science to deny this.

Regret
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
What's the church's stance on evolution right now? Genesis: all species were created at the same time, or that god guides evolution to a preestablished end. They need to make up their mind... Reason dictates that if someting is contradictory, it should be deemed fabrication, god for example. I am not referring to any particular view of God or religion, I am referring to the general concept. I am not referring to general Christianity, but I am of the opinion that the Mormon, a form of Christianity, view of God is in line with science.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The impetus for science is observation. Objective science is based on not having preconceptions of what underlies the observation.

The null hypothesis is accepted as correct to a certain degree of confidence when one cannot exhibit an effect. The burden of providing proof positive is on one who proposes an effect. The null hypothesis is only accepted if adequate testing has occurred. Given this, the null hypothesis of atheism is an untestable concept, and not to be accepted until such a time that proper testing may occur.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You ask, basically, why you find your theistic stance under continual scientific attack. Well, this is why. Scientifically speaking, theism is wrong, and the process I describe is why that is. Science does indeed support atheism and attack theism. There is no proof for theism within science. Therefore the conclusion of science today is one of atheism. The burden of proof is on theism. Theism loses. As to proof for God, I believe the existence of the concept is proof. It is a hypothetical and unsupported stance that man is capable of creating the concept. There is no method for testing the hypothesis given a world where the concept exists, there is no means of verifying the idea that the concept would/could occur in a naive human. Children do not concoct elaborate explanations for concepts they do not understand without prior superstitions being taught by the parents, they merely accept the facts. Would a naive adult behave differently? Why should an assumption that they would be accepted?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Incidentally, about your comment on the Mind, well, that's simply wrong on two points. First of all, every one of us has direct evidence that the mind exists. Secondly, I don't know where you got the idea that science cannot cope with such a concept. It is early days but there has been plenty of work and presented evidence and theories in that area. I do not believe the "mind" exists. I believe that thinking is merely the experience of neural activity, not evidence of some "mind." This is a scientific stance on the subject, study behavior analysis. Everything other than behavior analysis that studies the subject creates this concept as a hold over from the religious "spirit" that was then modified for skeptics to be referred to as the "mind". No studies/work in science have ever studied the "mind", they studied the behaviors presented and inferred the "mind", such a concept is unnecessary, all that is necessary is physiology and behavior. The areas of psychology that cling to "dualist" or "mental" claims are not basing this belief in science, they are basing it in preexisting belief. No behavior analyst would ever agree that there is scientific evidence of a "mind", and we are, next to the physiological psychologists the only hard science based school of psychology.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
E.g. advances in fMRI allowing studies into the neural correlates of higher thought processes such as complex emotions.

e.g. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/7/2730 These studies only support the absence of "mind", and the presence of physiology that is active when a specific task/dilemma is presented. They are studying behaviors, neural behavior and external observable behavior, and then inferring a mentalist explanation.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't think you got my point exactly. As Ush has been saying, science does not need to disprove god for the atheist/agnostic standpoint to be the scientifically correct one. The premise of science is that one must prove the effect as significant. Not the converse.

From a science standpoint those who believe in god have to prove god if they assert it as true. The burden of providing proof positive is on the one who asserts the claim of an effect.

Asking for scientific evidence to necessitate a disbelief (as this thread does) is flawed. As I have said before, science is silent on the subject of theism. The assumption that it supports atheism is based in the absence of testing to verify a null hypothesis. The hypothesis of God's existence cannot be tested, it is not scientifically testable, thus a stance on the subject's validity is absent in science. The common atheist stance is stating that absence of evidence suggests the atheist stance is correct. This only correct if one is capable of testing the null hypothesis. If the subject is untestable then the stance must be that a conclusion cannot be drawn, not that the null is correct. I do not claim that scientific absence supports theism, I claim that scientific absence does not support a conclusion on the subject. Science is silent on the subject, although many scientists are not. Scientific opinion is opinion, not fact, regardless of the probability of its accuracy. Also, statistics are not proof, statistics are statements to level of probability, not level of fact. Statistics strengthen a stance, by supporting the possibility of fact, but in themselves statistics have no bearing on whether or not something is fact.

Regret
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
E.g. advances in fMRI allowing studies into the neural correlates of higher thought processes such as complex emotions.

e.g. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/7/2730 Also, correlating to a fantasy construct that has no scientific backing is impossible. Higher thought processes are not scientifically existent, they exist as inferences from external/overt behavior that is interpreted by one holding a mentalist perspective. The "mind" may exist, but it is not a scientifically supported, it is an unnecessary fabrication used to explain behavioral evidence. It is nice, and comfortable, and does not inhibit the functionality of the evidence and the treatment, but it is only an unnecessary fabrication used to explain the facts. The experiment you cite is showing a correlate between a task/dilemma and neural activity, not a correlate between higher thought processes and anything.

xmarksthespot
"Mind" is just a word we use to refer to an assemblage of human traits. Their existence is evident, and they have neural correlates. Neuroanatomy -physiology and -pharmacology are all involved in studying the underlying bases of cognition, behaviour etc "mind".

The burden of proof is on those who propose the alternative hypothesis. That is the nature of science. Prove an effect. To ask one to prove the absence of an effect is fallacious.

Lord Urizen
Regret, if the mind does not exist, then neither does Free Will, neither does Sin.

If the mind does not exist, then you can forget any possibility that the Soul exists, because the "soul" is an even MORE far-fetched and less likely existance.

What do you we think with then? If you truly believe that there is no mind, then how can we be held accountable for what you deem "sin", how can we possess what you deem "free will". To you, we are just bodies that do things.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
As to proof for God, I believe the existence of the concept is proof. It is a hypothetical and unsupported stance that man is capable of creating the concept. There is no method for testing the hypothesis given a world where the concept exists, there is no means of verifying the idea that the concept would/could occur in a naive human. Children do not concoct elaborate explanations for concepts they do not understand without prior superstitions being taught by the parents, they merely accept the facts. Would a naive adult behave differently? Why should an assumption that they would be accepted?



So you beleive we can create the concept of a mind, but not the concept of God ?



What the f**k? What the f**k? What the f**k? What the f**k? What the f**k? ????????




The concept of God began long ago in the beginnings of Human Civilization. Mythology and Deities were created as explanations of why things happen, of why we exist, of how the world came to be. All before science and philosophy came to assist on those questions.


How intentionally foolish...I am surprised at you Regret. You can display such incredible logic, and then at the same time show such utter stupidity. (kinda like me stick out tongue )

"The concept of God exists, therefore God must exist, because we can't invent something like that."

The same logic goes into the statement: "The concept of Santa Clause exists, therefore Santa Clause must exist, because we can't invent something like that"

Same goes for:

"The concept of Dragons exist, therefore Dragons must exist, because we can't invent something like that"

Same goes for:

"The concept of exists, therefore must exist, because we can't invent something like that.


Concepts are human constructs. We can invent any fkn concept we want.

xmarksthespot
Essentially "Because we cannot investigate the existence of fairies, and no one has tried to investigate the existence of fairies, the null hypothesis that fairies do not exist cannot be accepted."

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret, if the mind does not exist, then neither does Free Will, neither does Sin.

If the mind does not exist, then you can forget any possibility that the Soul exists, because the "soul" is an even MORE far-fetched and less likely existance.

What do you we think with then? If you truly believe that there is no mind, then how can we be held accountable for what you deem "sin", how can we possess what you deem "free will". To you, we are just bodies that do things.
What is the mind? It doesn't matter?
What is the matter? Never mind!

...as Homer would say.

Regret
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Mind" is just a word we use to refer to an assemblage of human traits. Their existence is evident, and they have neural correlates. Neuroanatomy -physiology and -pharmacology are all involved in studying the underlying bases of cognition, behaviour etc "mind".

The burden of proof is on those who propose the alternative hypothesis. That is the nature of science. Prove an effect. To ask one to prove the absence of an effect is fallacious. That is the point, scientifically speaking there is no underlying basis of cognition, there is no "mind." There is no reason to believe there is anything underlying the neural activity of the brain. Such a concept is the exact same as the belief in God, it is a God type concept that has no basis in science. But, given this, does science claim that there is no underlying "mind", or using your terms, underlying basis of cognition? It does not. I believe it is fools that claim the "mind" or any other term used to describe an underlying basis of cognition exist. They are comparable to religious zealots in that are unable to come to terms with the reality that "cognition" is merely the normal activity of neural functioning. The existence of some underlying basis for cognition is the alternative hypothesis. Prove that there is some underlying basis of cognition, prove that there is cognition with something other than behavioral evidence, behavior is only evidence of behavior, not of internal mental cognition. Regardless of the complexity of the behavior, language is a behavioral evidence, it is not evidence of internal processes.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret, if the mind does not exist, then neither does Free Will, neither does Sin.

If the mind does not exist, then you can forget any possibility that the Soul exists, because the "soul" is an even MORE far-fetched and less likely existance.

What do you we think with then? If you truly believe that there is no mind, then how can we be held accountable for what you deem "sin", how can we possess what you deem "free will". To you, we are just bodies that do things. There is no mind, you are you, there is nothing separate, nothing acting to control your physiology. If you have a spirit, it is an inextricable part of you, not something separate. It is a part of the make up of the physical entity man, not some separate entity in any way shape or form. Soul is the description of a living physical form. Yes, we are bodies that do things, this does not limit choices, it merely entirely places responsibility on the individual instead of removing some responsibility by stating something along the lines of, "My body did it, my spirit didn't want to."Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So you beleive we can create the concept of a mind, but not the concept of God ? The concept of "mind" originated in with the concept of some internal construct controlling the physiology of man, a concept that began with the concept of spirit.

No, I do not believe that man would, given a naive state, create a "God" concept. I do not believe we have any evidence of such having a correlate concept existing. Name some concept, that is not similar enough to believe it may have been derived from the concept of God, that man entirely "made up" that is similar in scope to the concept of God. There is none, there is no reason to believe that a naive man would be capable of this.

Santa Clause is based in an individual that did exist, dragons and fairies are/were likely based in an existing creature (either dinosaurs or inaccurate and exaggerated re-tellings of experience with large lizards. Fairies butterflies, hummingbirds, etc.) God has no real world correlate from which it could be derived. Your other examples do.

Regardless, the assumption that man created the concept of God is still an assumption.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Regret
There is no reason to believe there is anything underlying the neural activity of the brain. From where did you derive that I did?

Edit: Oh and the concept of god is created from man. Pure human egotism - most cultures depict their gods in the image of humanity. From the ancient world to the modern world.

Jim Reaper
This debate is moot anyway... We were actually created by a magical space walrus named Frank. I have a book that proves it. Refute me wrong by science, I dare you. stick out tongue

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
This debate is moot anyway... We were actually created by a magical space walrus named Frank. I have a book that proves it. Refute me wrong by science, I dare you. stick out tongue

That reminds me of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://www.venganza.org/

FeceMan
His Noodly Appendage abhors war.

Nellinator
Originally posted by FeceMan
His Noodly Appendage abhors war. laughing out loud
noodly... hehe

Lord Urizen
So Regret, I take it you do not beleive in a Soul either? So how does your Afterlife beleif work ?

lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That reminds me of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

http://www.venganza.org/ My Gods are better. I have a book that says humans were created by penises and vaginas, I can get you a copy if you like. Oh, and prove me wrong.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
My Gods are better. I have a book that says humans were created by penises and vaginas, I can get you a copy if you like. Oh, and prove me wrong.

Did it sound like I was trying to prove you wrong? It just reminds me of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Did you read the site? It is really funny and makes you think.

Mindship
Originally posted by Regret
Regardless, the assumption that man created the concept of God is still an assumption.
'Tis true.
Is God an invention or a discovery? Hard enough it is to empirically prove the existence of a transempirical entity. Harder still to prove that God is solely of man's making, for one would first have to prove that God really, truly does Not exist (normally one does Not have to prove a negative, but in this instance, against the claim of "Man created God," the alternate explanation--God created Man--should be ruled out, or we could be dealing with variable contamination).

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So Regret, I take it you do not beleive in a Soul either? So how does your Afterlife beleif work ? I believe in spirit, just not as traditionally spirit is thought of, at least not while we are living and in a physical form. A soul is the amalgam of the spirit and the body, it is not the spirit without the body or vice versa. While one is a soul, spirit and body are entirely inseparable, one does not exist in any way separate from the other. The spirit is not some separate driving force that behaves independent of the body. When one dies, the spirit and body are separated. Thus one exists only as spirit during this period. At the resurrection body and spirit are again united and the souls of men are given the capability they have shown themselves responsible enough to use properly.

My stance is that one cannot claim error is due to anything but ones own choice.

Regret
Originally posted by Mindship
'Tis true.
Is God an invention or a discovery? Hard enough it is to empirically prove the existence of a transempirical entity. Harder still to prove that God is solely of man's making, for one would first have to prove that God really, truly does Not exist (normally one does Not have to prove a negative, but in this instance, against the claim of "Man created God," the alternate explanation--God created Man--should be ruled out, or we could be dealing with variable contamination). While I would normally agree, I do not believe it possible to address the subject of God and religion from the same position that one would take when addressing a normal phenomena. There are abundant claims to the validity of many religious beliefs. These claims are not held as valid by the scientific community, either due to inability to reproduce at will the evidence or because the claim is beyond the scope of current understanding of scientific principles. A high frequency and number of these events are present and in varied and unrelated settings, leading one to question the logic behind discounting the possibility of at least a portion of these events being accurate accounts of events. A stance that denies the abundant nature of the phenomenon as holding some validity appears to me to be in error. One should not discount the possibility, one should be skeptical, but one should not arrive at a conclusion and assume it scientific due to a lack of experimentally described evidence on the subject.

Mindship
Originally posted by Regret
While I would normally agree, I do not believe it possible to address the subject of God and religion from the same position that one would take when addressing a normal phenomena. There are abundant claims to the validity of many religious beliefs. These claims are not held as valid by the scientific community, either due to inability to reproduce at will the evidence or because the claim is beyond the scope of current understanding of scientific principles. A high frequency and number of these events are present and in varied and unrelated settings, leading one to question the logic behind discounting the possibility of at least a portion of these events being accurate accounts of events. A stance that denies the abundant nature of the phenomenon as holding some validity appears to me to be in error. One should not discount the possibility, one should be skeptical, but one should not arrive at a conclusion and assume it scientific due to a lack of experimentally described evidence on the subject.
Which is why I said "empirical" in my prior post.

My feeling is, Science is defined, not by nature of proof, but by method. And Scientific Method, IMO, can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena as long as one is fair about it, ie, the tools used and data collected reflect the domain being studied (eg, you don't use a microscope to study logic).

Unfortunately, while I can appreciate the essence of your statement, "claims" are not proof; they are, at best, hints of a phenomenon's existence...perhaps of the phenomenon in question, perhaps of some completely unknown phenomenon which has nothing to do with the one in question but would fit the current/empirical paradigm better, were it known.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-- Carl Sagan

Of course, this is what works for me. Being well-aware of the power of wish-fulfillment, my preference is for reliable, valid proof of a phenomenon as guard against what I would like to think is true.

Regret
Originally posted by Mindship
Which is why I said "empirical" in my prior post.

My feeling is, Science is defined, not by nature of proof, but by method. And Scientific Method, IMO, can be used to investigate nonempirical phenomena as long as one is fair about it, ie, the tools used and data collected reflect the domain being studied (eg, you don't use a microscope to study logic).

Unfortunately, while I can appreciate the essence of your statement, "claims" are not proof; they are, at best, hints of a phenomenon's existence...perhaps of the phenomenon in question, perhaps of some completely unknown phenomenon which has nothing to do with the one in question but would fit the current/empirical paradigm better, were it known.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
-- Carl Sagan

Of course, this is what works for me. Being well-aware of the power of wish-fulfillment, my preference is for reliable, valid proof of a phenomenon as guard against what I would like to think is true. I agree, at least with most of your post. Here is an LDS perspective

Regret
Given the discussion in this thread. According to the participants:

It would seem that nothing in science necessitates an atheist stance. The absence of evidence increases the probability of the atheist stance being the correct one. Neither stance is wholly supported, and while the atheist stance is in a stronger position given a logical appraisal of the current information, a theist stance is not negated by scientific fact or evidence.

Conclusion:

Arguments using science as absolute support for either stance are weak and should be avoided in an intelligent debate. This leads to debate over the subject being a waste of time between an atheist and a theist.

Mindship
"Every testing must be a sincere and honest search for truth. The truth or the goodness, not the untruth or the evil, of a system must be sought; then untruth or evil, if it exists, is automatically discovered. There must be no bending of means or methods to bolster up prejudice. An honest seeker after truth must accept truth unhesitatingly when found, and yield full surrender to it. The truth-seeker must be single-minded -- for truth. Errors must be thrown out, however appealing they may be to man-made appetites."

Amen


Originally posted by Regret
Arguments using science as absolute support for either stance are weak and should be avoided in an intelligent debate.
Science as currently deployed, ie, empirical science.

This leads to debate over the subject being a waste of time between an atheist and a theist.
Unless one is seeking to "push the buttons" of the other. stick out tongue

Ushgarak
Err, that's not a conclusion, it is a biased inference.

The objective conclusion is that science overwhelmingly supports atheism.

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Regret
Given the discussion in this thread. According to the participants:

It would seem that nothing in science necessitates an atheist stance. The absence of evidence increases the probability of the atheist stance being the correct one. Neither stance is wholly supported, and while the atheist stance is in a stronger position given a logical appraisal of the current information, a theist stance is not negated by scientific fact or evidence.

Conclusion:

Arguments using science as absolute support for either stance are weak and should be avoided in an intelligent debate. This leads to debate over the subject being a waste of time between an atheist and a theist.
good point. whenever something is in question, science comes into play.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, that's not a conclusion, it is a biased inference.

The objective conclusion is that science overwhelmingly supports atheism. smile Glad to know someone else knows that.

Regret
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, that's not a conclusion, it is a biased inference.

The objective conclusion is that science overwhelmingly supports atheism. This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

Alfheim
Originally posted by Regret
This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

I dont know.....to be quite honest it seems that arguments for and again'st can both be just as good.

There was this program were they talked about people who had "died", basically there was no brain activity. The person who believed in an afterlife had visions in this state. The person who did not believe in an afterlife experienced nothing.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Regret
This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

All you are saying now is ;some people hev said it is so so it is biased to ignore them' Contemptible! The majority hed the view the world was flat once, or that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Opinions and records are nothing as compared to the attempts of science to discern fact. Scientifically speaking, it is, by many orders of magnitude, far more likely that all these people are lying or wrong than it is for there to be theism, because there is no evidence ofr theism and plenty of evidence of people lying or being wrong about things.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.

Your accusation of bias is laughable.

Science does not approach the matter with bias; it simply looks for facts. The answer, that science supports atheism where it does not support theism, is merely the result of the facts that can be discerned.

I have not fallen 'victim' to anything other than the proper and rational application of science, which does not support theism and hence, by dfefault, supports atheism.

You have certainly fallen victim to both a fuzzy view if science and a fuzzy view of bias and, in saying that religious claims are based in fact, simply a fuzzy view of the world entire.

Luckily, this thread isn't about what you erroneously believe, simply about why science discounts theism. Now, you can agree or disagree, but the reason has been provided and there is nothing you can do about it, because it is simply where the evidence leads. Theism needs evidence. Science would be extremely interested in finding and defining any such evidence, as it would be interested in finding and describing any phenomenon that exists. There is none, any more than there is for the tooth fairy. End of story.

ESB -1138
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your accusation of bias is laughable.

Science does not approach the matter with bias; it simply looks for facts. The answer, that science supports atheism where it does not support theism, is merely the result of the facts that can be discerned.

I have not fallen 'victim' to anything other than the proper and rational application of science, which does not support theism and hence, by dfefault, supports atheism.

You have certainly fallen victim to both a fuzzy view if science and a fuzzy view of bias and, in saying that religious claims are based in fact, simply a fuzzy view of the world entire.

Luckily, this thread isn't about what you erroneously believe, simply about why science discounts theism. Now, you can agree or disagree, but the reason has been provided and there is nothing you can do about it, because it is simply where the evidence leads. Theism needs evidence. Science would be extremely interested in finding and defining any such evidence, as it would be interested in finding and describing any phenomenon that exists. There is none, any more than there is for the tooth fairy. End of story.

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l61/esb1138/TheWiseOne.jpg

KILL THE WISE ONE!!

lord xyz
If I had the time, I would've quoted Regret and explain the faults, so instead I'm just gonna agree with Ushgarak on this.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
This objective conclusion you claim discredits all of man's religious claims for the past millenia, that to me sounds closer to biased inference than a conclusion that assumes the possibility but denies that a scientific stance on the subject either way exists.

Your objective conclusion is entirely biased in that it holds assumptions as to the character of religious scribes through history. Your objective conclusion holds that historians and scribes that agree with the position you hold are the individuals that have accurately recorded events, while all others recorded in error.

Imo, you have fallen victim to your personal views and beliefs. Objectively there is enough documentation of supposed religious event that it is entirely possible that religious claims are based in fact. It is more probable that atheism is the correct stance, given current information, but science in no manner supports either atheism or theism.





The person who nitpicks aspects of science that support his beleifs, while ignoring aspects of science which contradicts his beleifs wants to talk about BIAS ?











laughing

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
The person who nitpicks aspects of science that support his beleifs, while ignoring aspects of science which contradicts his beleifs wants to talk about BIAS ?

laughing First, you need to read my response here

Second, everyone is biased. Admitting the bias is the point. Atheists, like JIA and usagi yojimbo Christians, seem to have difficulty doing this. Science is silent on the subject of God, I admit it. I do not claim scientific fact supports theism, I claim that it does not support either atheism or theism. Logic based on existing science may support atheism, but science itself does not.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
Second, everyone is biased. Admitting the bias is the point. Atheists, like JIA and usagi yojimbo Christians, seem to have difficulty doing this. Science is silent on the subject of God, I admit it. I do not claim scientific fact supports theism, I claim that it does not support either atheism or theism. Logic based on existing science may support atheism, but science itself does not.

Funny, because earlier I recall you claiming that science heavily supports the existance of God.

Changed our stance over night ?

And Logic based on science, actually disproves the existance of God more than it does prove.

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Funny, because earlier I recall you claiming that science heavily supports the existence of God.

Changed our stance over night ?

And Logic based on science, actually disproves the existence of God more than it does prove.

No, I never claimed that science heavily supports the existence of God. I believe that, from my perspective it does. I do not believe that from an unbiased position it supports either position, theism or atheism.

"Logic based on existing science may support atheism, but science itself does not." You last sentence seems to be restating what I said.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.