The Science Myth

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Well look who's so confident. I'll tell you your first big mistake, you told someone, on the [B]INTERNET to be quiet. When the **** has this ever worked? Expecting it to work or even just asking is the sign of an idiot. Your second mistake is arguing about someone's generalisation of something, in this case religion. We all know he means Christianity because Jesus and Bible were mentioned on the OP. Arguing with someone about how the word religion encompasses more then one religion in this context is just an idiotic thing to do and someone looking for a troll fight. [/B]

Yes, I was being completely literal. I'm such an idiot for saying that. Gee, what a great measurement of my intellect.

No, you assumed. You don't even know for sure now. We all take his word for it, including myself, but I merely asked. I wasn't a big fan of how he communicated but that wasn't the point. I asked anyway to confirm from him. No big deal. It was turned into one, no thanks to him.

"What? No! It was you!"

Really? Look back and see who IMMEDIATELY asked me to calm down just because I asked. Oh, was it the "lazy" I added? He probably felt insulted. In which case, too f*cking bad. Don't be such a baby. He WAS lazy.

Who cares about what was mentioned by OP? That has no attachment. Firstly, we are in the OFF TOPIC forum. Secondly, these discussions have a tendency to branch out and mention other religions or religion in general. It's really not uncommon.

No, it's not "idiotic." You're just attaching the word "idiot" to whatever activity I do because you don't want to put a smidgen of thought into your responses. That's alright but try not to respond until you can construct a retort that's half decent. Thanks!

"Yeah? Well, what kind of person would, um, capitalize Off Topic? That's what, um, an idiot would do! Yeah! That's good!"

Jesus. Just stop.

Called it.

^

Originally posted by Robtard
To be fair, I've seen many a secularist/self-labeled atheist dismiss religion and they've not read a single page of the Bible.

Ignoring the Sorgo nonsense, is this really the same thing though? I'm no Bible scholar, but I am familiar with it and have read a fair amount. But what's the Hitchens quote...I think "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or something similar. In any case, I think it applies. Unless the Bible has had its historical veracity verified or has predictive power, I'd contend that a knowledge of it is NOT a prerequisite for dismissing it (though it helps, of course). By contrast, science does offer those things (predictive power, the ability to independently confirm it, etc.), so an understanding would be necessary to refute it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Religious people who dismiss the scientific method generally don't dismiss everything science has proved/given humanity. It's generally just the parts that don't gel with the Bible. Evolution probably being the biggest cause of religious painal. While you’d be hard pressed to find many who would argue that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Lol, painal.

Oh dear. This is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Yes, I was being completely literal. I'm such an idiot for saying that. Gee, what a great measurement of my intellect.

No, you assumed. You don't even know for sure now. We all take his word for it, including myself, but I merely asked. I wasn't a big fan of how he communicated but that wasn't the point. I asked anyway to confirm from him. No big deal. It was turned into one, no thanks to him.

"What? No! It was you!"

Really? Look back and see who IMMEDIATELY asked me to calm down just because I asked. Oh, was it the "lazy" I added? He probably felt insulted. In which case, too f*cking bad. Don't be such a baby. He WAS lazy.

Who cares about what was mentioned by OP? That has no attachment. Firstly, we are in the OFF TOPIC forum. Secondly, these discussions have a tendency to branch out and mention other religions or religion in general. It's really not uncommon.

No, it's not "idiotic." You're just attaching the word "idiot" to whatever activity I do because you don't want to put a smidgen of thought into your responses. That's alright but try not to respond until you can construct a retort that's half decent. Thanks!

"Yeah? Well, what kind of person would, um, capitalize Off Topic? That's what, um, an idiot would do! Yeah! That's good!"

Jesus. Just stop.

Very good. You have my respect as a debater, you lack evidence completely but that is forgivable because when you think about it we are arguing over nothing and therefore there is no evidence.

You are no longer an idiot to me but you are defiantly an over reactor.

Your ability to cut down others is impressive but rendering all others retorts as invalid because it insults you is the cowards way out.

Originally posted by Digi
Ignoring the Sorgo nonsense,

is this really the same thing though? I'm no Bible scholar, but I am familiar with it and have read a fair amount. But what's the Hitchens quote...I think "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or something similar. In any case, I think it applies. Unless the Bible has had its historical veracity verified or has predictive power, I'd contend that a knowledge of it is NOT a prerequisite for dismissing it (though it helps, of course). By contrast, science does offer those things, so an understanding would be necessary to refute it.

Lol, painal.

Your stance is logical; I wasn't intending to imply one needs to know every little facet of the Bible before they can dismiss any given aspect. Was just saying it in regards to Shaky's comment that theist who dismiss any given facet of science are automatically ignorant of said facet. That isn't always true.

Glad someone got the reference 🙂

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Very good. You have my respect as a debater, you lack evidence completely but that is forgivable because when you think about it we are arguing over nothing and therefore there is no evidence.

You are no longer an idiot to me but you are defiantly an over reactor.

Your ability to cut down others is impressive but rendering all others retorts as invalid because it insults you is the cowards way out.

Lack evidence in regards to what, exactly? We are definitely arguing over something. I'd dispute it's importance, however.

Am I defiantly an "over reactor?" I do defy quite a lot but I never knew I was a reactor. Nuclear, was it?

I didn't render your retort invalid because it insulted me. I rendered it invalid because that's all it did. Surely, you understand.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, took me a few post to realize he's just a troll looking for a silly fight. My error.

No, I really wasn't. You just chose the wrong partner to tango with. It happens. You'll move on with your life.

Originally posted by Digi
Ignoring the Sorgo nonsense, is this really the same thing though? I'm no Bible scholar, but I am familiar with it and have read a fair amount. But what's the Hitchens quote...I think "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or something similar. In any case, I think it applies. Unless the Bible has had its historical veracity verified or has predictive power, I'd contend that a knowledge of it is NOT a prerequisite for dismissing it (though it helps, of course). By contrast, science does offer those things (predictive power, the ability to independently confirm it, etc.), so an understanding would be necessary to refute it.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Most people do not fully understand what science is and what its limitations are.

In regards to evolution especially, Greg Koukl explains the confusion of proponents of "scientific method" in one of the best articles I've read:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Science Can't Prove (continued)

... So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt

Originally posted by The Renegade
Lack evidence in regards to what, exactly? We are definitely arguing over something. I'd dispute it's importance, however.

Am I defiantly an "over reactor?" I do defy quite a lot but I never knew I was a reactor. Nuclear, was it?

I didn't render your retort invalid because it insulted me. I rendered it invalid because that's all it did. Surely, you understand.

I am not talking about you anymore, you have proven to be a worthy debater, doesn't mean I have to like you. If you wish to argue more, I suggest we find something more important to argue over because this is crap.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
I am not talking about you anymore, you have proven to be a worthy debater, doesn't mean I have to like you. If you wish to argue more, I suggest we find something more important to argue over because this is crap.

No, we won't. I don't argue anything of importance on KMC, particularly with most of the members here. I communicate with the members I fancy on other websites/software. I have had "meaningful" debates with people I don't know well/strangers but not here. This place is a disaster. I assert that it always has been.

I can be entertaining. It ends there. No, not because of "trolling." That's the hasty label that will be attached to this back-and-forth I've had with a few of you. It's to be expected, though.

I take this website and it's members as seriously as it does itself and myself. No, you do not have to like me. No one said or implied to did. You probably won't. I'm not a likable individual to most.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b]What Science Can't Prove (continued)

... So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt [/B]

Meanwhile, under the radar, BWR is bastardizing the burden of proof again.

ur dumb

Originally posted by BackFire
ur dumb

NO U

...

Where have you been? And why is the FBI asking me about you? Stay on the line.

I've been on a 2 week masturbation binge. Taking a break to hydrate/go to the hospital and masturbate on various nurses/doctors/bedding.

Originally posted by BackFire
ur dumb

There you are, you f*cking pedophile.

That's uncalled for. There's no need for the F word.

Originally posted by BackFire
I've been on a 2 week masturbation binge. Taking a break to hydrate/go to the hospital and masturbate on various nurses/doctors/bedding.

Try this instead. It'll save you court costs and gas money.

Is he an AC sock? The self back-patting, claims of not caring (while caring), insisting he's entertaining and false arrogance is very similar to 2007 AC.

He's Sorgo.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Try this instead. It'll save you court costs and gas money.

But I enjoy the misery my antics create.