God & Science Proved!

[Yas786]

If you total all the crap I've come out with on this forum, it wouldnt even equate the amount of crap in a single post from you:



I dont think I'm allowed to write a suitable word to describe how much crap that is.

LOL come now Bhavv, you can do better than that lol.

Indeed you might think its crap what i have said that you posted above but thats your opinion...thankfully your opinions and views dont mean anything to me. Problem is that opinions are like ********...everyone has one

 

[bhavv]

But there is absolutely no evidence to take the position of logical positivism (eg it only exists if I can see evidence, otherwise it does not) as being true. It is entirely possible that things exist that you don't currently have evidence for. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support that the scientific method produces factual truth on how the world works, as opposed to predictive observations.

Your position is also highly unscientific, because science does not take the position that an untested or untestable hypothesis is untrue, and yet you do.

there is nothing wrong with positions based on faith, or assumptions taken without evidence. There is a lot wrong with not recognising that you make that leap.

This simple picture was already posted, but I think you missed it:

Where have I claimed that my position is scientific?

 

[Dolph]

This simple picture was already posted, but I think you missed it:

Your failure to understand logic, reason and assumption and how they interconnect is not my problem

If you need a crash course in critical thinking, just ask.

Where have I claimed that my position is scientific?

to be fair, you didn't. However, I never said you did, just stated that your position wasn't.

 

[bhavv]

to be fair, you didn't. However, I never said you did, just stated that your position wasn't.

My position is strongly Atheist. That has absolutely nothing to do with Science.

Whatever made you assume that my position was anything other than Atheist? A lack of critical thinking maybe?

 

[Dolph]

My position is strongly Atheist. That has absolutely nothing to do with Science.

Whatever made you assume that my position was anything other than Atheist? A lack of critical thinking maybe?

No, an assumption. Most people that are strongly atheist mistakenly believe science supports their position. Apologies if this is not the case with you.

However, you haven't addressed your failure to correctly separate logic from assumption in your previous post.

 

[thedoc46]

Let me start by saying I believe time to be our only god as it controls everything in this universe. We know of no other life outside our universe or even if anything exists outside of our universe.

Now the two main arguments I see on Reddit and here are that plants were created before sunlight and that evolution is completely correct(it is in my opinion) and the 7 days creation story cannot be correct as we have proof of evolution.

Now lets just imagine that there is something outside of our universe and there is a outside observer of our universe documenting a story of how the earth was created.

Im going to use the above example to make it easy for me to write but the observer also could be light years away if the theory is changed slightly and nothing exists outside our universe.

Now since we know the universe is constantly expanding at the moment and has been since the start of time. The only logical explanation is that the space in between atoms are getting further apart in turn giving the perception of time slowing down from a outside observers view yet time is being perceived the same by us and our measuring devices.

Now lets say the outside observer started writing a book when time in our universe started. There's a high possibility a few billion years in our universe could have happened in days from the outside observers view. The outside observer could have then documented it and somehow sent it to earth (highly unlikely) then we perceive the 7 days time frame as actually being 7 days our time and not billions of years.

Following my above theory it makes the 7 day creation story possible and evolution possible in the 7 day story so then plants could have evolved and adapted to sunlight also there could have been another light source as light was created before plants in the 7 day story.

Now my personal thesis on this is that someone a long time ago could have either passed information on or worked it out there self and then it got interpreted as "universe created in 7 days" then all these story's sprang up and the used a god to be able to write it as a story just as we use Mr. A etc. for the alphabet. A few years later some people got carried away and wrote more books believing the god part to be true and it all spiralled out of control. Into different religions which all are essentially the same story's with slight twists just with different dates which are irrelevant up until the last 10,000 - 100,000 years if you incorporate my theory.

So is there a possibility of a religion being correct along with science ?

Lay off the drugs son !

/thread.

 

[bhavv]

No, an assumption. Most people that are strongly atheist mistakenly believe science supports their position.

Science does not support any theological / atheological position, it is in fact agnostic.

However, significantly more Scientists today are strongly Atheist than ones that are Theist, and identify themselves as having no belief in deities or anything spiritual, and the majority of them believe that life on earth developed through Evolution.

This does not mean that there is any kind of link between science and atheism, what it seems to indicate however is that the more educated people get, their belief in theology declines.

On the other hand, most of the worlds nutjobs just happen to follow a trend of being highly religious. This doesnt mean that all people who are religious are this way, but the ones that are dont really paint a pretty picture for their religion.

 

[stefk005]

However, significantly more Scientists today are strongly Atheist than ones that are Theist, and identify themselves as having no belief in deities or anything spiritual

You really need to show some evidence for this, other than your own opinion and a reference to Hawking.

and the majority of them believe that life on earth developed through Evolution.

which is not incompatible with Christianity.

This does not mean that there is any kind of link between science and atheism, what it seems to indicate however is that the more educated people get, their belief in theology declines.

On the other hand, most of the worlds nutjobs just happen to follow a trend of being highly religious. This doesnt mean that all people who are religious are this way, but the ones that are dont really paint a pretty picture for their religion.

Hardly worth pointing it out, but again, you're generalising without the slightest bit of evidence. There are many highly intelligent and educated people who are religious, and many nutjobs who aren't religious.

How about returning to the theory that's at the start of this thread...?

 

[Dolph]

Science does not support any theological / atheological position, it is in fact agnostic.

I agree, apologies for grouping you wrongly.

However, significantly more Scientists today are strongly Atheist than ones that are Theist, and identify themselves as having no belief in deities or anything spiritual, and the majority of them believe that life on earth developed through Evolution.

This I'm not so sure of, as you miss out that most scientists sit in the 'don't know' camp.

This does not mean that there is any kind of link between science and atheism, what it seems to indicate however is that the more educated people get, their belief in theology declines.

True, but don't confuse a move away from theism with a move towards atheism, most scientists ime move to agnostic (or one of the numerous variations) than atheist, unless you use the incorrect definition of atheist as 'not a theist'.

On the other hand, most of the worlds nutjobs just happen to follow a trend of being highly religious. This doesnt mean that all people who are religious are this way, but the ones that are dont really paint a pretty picture for their religion.

Stalin and Mao would disagree with you.

 

[Spook187]

bhavv why have you got never forget bin bag laden on your sig,he was a murdering camel jackie.

 

[bhavv]

bhavv why have you got never forget bin bag laden on your sig,he was a murdering camel jackie.

You missed this thread maybe:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18355604

I also just came across this site, which is a very good read:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html

Surveys show that the nations with the highest degree of atheism 'include most of the nations of Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and Israel', whereas 'it is virtually nonexistent in most of Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Asia'.[3]

There have been various attempts to explain this unequal distribution. As Zuckerman notes, Norris and Inglehart,[4] often regarded as offering the leading explanation, have argued that high levels of atheism in a society are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low poverty rates and strong gender equality. Societies with adequate food distribution, good public health care, and accessible housing generally show a waning of religiosity, while societies where there is inadequate food and shelter and life is less secure show much higher levels of religious belief.[5] With the exception of Vietnam (81% nonbelievers in God) and Ireland (4%-5% nonbelievers in God) Norris and Inglehart maintain that the results of the available surveys corroborate their theory.[6]

 

[Gilly]

I'm probably safe in thinking koolpc will avoid this thread like the plague. Or like my questions at least.

 

[bhavv]

It also seems that all the people above are ignoring my post from Cambridge researchers who have stated that better education and quality of life leads to less theists and more atheists in the majority of societies.

 

[Dolph]

It also seems that all the people above are ignoring my post from Cambridge researchers who have stated that better education and quality of life leads to less theists and more atheists in the majority of societies.

The problem is, the correlation rapidly disappears when you change to the philosophically accepted definition of atheism (ie atheism as an active position) rather than atheism being an implicit position applied to everyone who is not explicitly a theist.

Indeed, the site you link to acknowledges the two variations in definition on its definition page, but then proceeds to only reference atheist thinkers in the discussion, highlighting the bias of the site and ignoring the fact that atheism, as just another philosophy, cannot be argued in a self-referencing vacuum.

 

[bhavv]

And that is why philosophy is complete BS and obsolete to me.

Atheism means atheos, or without god. Any other definition given to me other than that is invalid and wrong. I don't change the definition of easily understood and defined words to pander to your philosophical hippie BS.

 

[Dolph]

And that is why philosophy is complete BS and obsolete to me.

And yet you can always be found in threads that are exclusively about philosophy...

You'd think for someone so willing to get involved in the subject, you'd at least bother to vaguely acquaint yourself with it.

 

[bhavv]

And yet you can always be found in threads that are exclusively about philosophy...

You'd think for someone so willing to get involved in the subject, you'd at least bother to vaguely acquaint yourself with it.

No in not, no thread is exclusively about philosophy, the issue is people like yourself bringing lame philosophical agruments into those threads.

Philosophy is really just arguing over the definition of terms. Science is, in a way, applying a specific testable definition, and testing that definition through the scientific method.

Ubder the definition of Atheism given as 'without god', which is exactly what the word means, the link I referenced to is 100% valid.

Atheism itself is not a philosophy. It can be argued at a philosophical level, but it isn't a philosophy as much as being black is not a philosophy.

 

[Dolph]

And that is why philosophy is complete BS and obsolete to me.

Atheism means atheos, or without god. Any other definition given to me other than that is invalid and wrong. I don't change the definition of easily understood and defined words to pander to your philosophical hippie BS.

You need to review your etymology. The greek word atheos means godless, not without god, and was used in the context of severing your relations with god, or denying the gods.

For atheism to mean without god, it would have to be derived from a-theism (the a meaning not), but it is not, it is the -ism of atheos, eg a wilful godlessness.

This is further compounded by the fact that the word atheism in the modern world came before theism (by about 100 years in both french and english), further demonstrating that the definition of atheism is not as an alternative to theism, but a specific position in its own right.

You can keep believing your definition is right, but historically and linguistically, it is not, and continuing to present an inaccurate and incorrect definition when you have been corrected can only be a wilful attempt to mislead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Etymology_and_usage

Still, I have to admire the religious style fervour in your post as to how your faith is correct and you will accept no alternatives even if evidence is provided. All you needed was a mention of alternative positions being heretical and we'd have been right there

 

[Dolph]

No in not, no thread is exclusively about philosophy, the issue is people like yourself bringing lame philosophical agruments into those threads.

Religion, science and the association between them can only ever be discussed in philosophical terms.

Philosophy is really just arguing over the definition of terms. Science is, in a way, applying a specific testable definition, and testing that definition through the scientific method.

You forgot to mention that you have to apply numerous faith based assumptions as part of the scientific method, and philosophy isn't about arguing over terms, but about using logic and thinking correctly. You've already demonstrated you're not actually any more interested in correct thinking that Koolpc however.

Ubder the definition of Atheism given as 'without god', which is exactly what the word means, the link I referenced to is 100% valid.

See my previous post as to why the definition is wrong.

Atheism itself is not a philosophy. It can be argued at a philosophical level, but it isn't a philosophy as much as being black is not a philosophy.

Your unwillingness to allow anything to get in the way of your faith is somewhat amusing to me.