Scientific evidence against religion?
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:
[list][*]Evolution[*]Big Bang[*]Archaeological Finds[/list]
Re: Re: Scientific evidence against religion?
Originally posted by lord xyzWrong. 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.
They suggest the Earth came to be without God. Suggesting God does not exist.
Originally posted by RegretYes, 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
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.
Originally posted by StrangeloveAgreed. This threatens such a view, but not the concept of God nor the concept of religion.
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
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.
Re: Scientific evidence against religion?
Originally posted by RegretMetaphysics points to something.....and that's a science.......hmm 😕 <--*slaps that confused face*
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:
[list][*]Evolution[*]Big Bang[*]Archaeological Finds[/list]
*lights a candle*
Originally posted by UshgarakI 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.
It isn't rational to believe something with such a complete and utter dearth of evidence related to it.
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?
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....... 😄
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????
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....... 😄
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.