Don't take the holy Stooges in vain! Blasphemer! Everyone knows the Holy Trinity is Moe, Larry, and Curly (Or Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe depending on the years)
Sorry, ChoasTrivia, but I'm well aware of the argument your attempting to make, but unfortunately its been tried numerous times before by Atheists as some kind of crutch to hang an argument off. You incorrectly label it as modern science, when you should of course have referred to it as modern atheism. Its not a position of moden science as you incorrectly state. Modern science simply assumes that in the abence of a theory being proven or disproven, that theory may, or may not be correct. Science, by its very nature cannot conclusively come down on one side of a theory without proof positive. Ask any scientist! That is not to say that modern scientific theory won't proceed on the basis of one side of the argument. After all, historic scientific theory proceeded on the basis the earth was flat. What a bummer that turned out to be. You base your argument on the Atheist position of assuming that by putting forth a theory that cannot be proven or disproven, that science assumes that theory is simply not true - and science does no such thing. It simply assumes that in the absence of proof for either side, both may or may not be the case. Scientists are free to persue theory based on whichever side of the theory they agree with. In other words, your argument attempts to revert to the 'you go first' category of argument so beloved of Atheists for a factually devoid position. Don't for a minute confuse your position with that of science - you've simple (re)stated an old atheist position.
Science as we know it has always demanded that the person presenting the assertion, in this case that a god exists, be the one to prove their assertion. Not that those who doubt him prove him wrong.
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but absence of evidence is not a rationale for belief.
I don't think that you understand anything about science. A 'theory' is an idea that has not yet been proven to be a law. There are theories that don't have very much evidence and theories that have overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure what theory the person that you replied to was speaking about, so I can't provide any more details there. On the Earth being flat: It's hard to believe that you consider the part of history during which that theory was generated to be 'modern'. That idea has always been around (it was found in the earliest writings of human beings.) Greeks first said that the Earth was spherical around 300-400 BCE. Here's a few links to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Yes. "Modern" science ushered in when rational method really took off. And this is the crux of the issue, it seems to me - it isn't "what can we conclude?," as much as "how do we proceed to make the unknown, known?" Scientific method proceeds by rational, empirical inquiry; faith does not require empirical inquiry and scientific method in its process, by definition. The two - science and faith - will never meet. Now, by all I can discern of nature, we live in a godless universe; I am an atheist, simply because I have no belief in divinity. If, as we move forward, we come to the "end of days" where God is the last "unknown" made known by empirical discovery, then so be it - hosanna! But such a divinity would come to be discovered by empiricism, and not faith.
This is the problem I have with the atheist point of view as presented in this thread. The atheist point of view here is simply a stereotyping, the doorway to bigotry. The atheist point of view here is that all religious people are the same. I can be a Christian, I can believe that the Earth is billions of years old, I can believe in the theory of evolution, and I can believe that God is not a kindly old man that sits on a throne in the sky. What I see the atheists rallying behind here is a hypocritical attack - a painting of all religious people are being the same (BTW, I'm a Christian, but not religious). I see an ugly and bigoted stereotyping that paints all religious people as being the same. If I were to argue in the same way, I would point out that history's greatest atheists made their life's work to to be the killing of the innocent - those atheists being Adolph Hitler, Joesph Stalin... atheism is responsible for more hatred and suffering of innocents than any other belief, including the sum total of the Catholic Church's medieval murders. A partial list of famous atheists using recent history: - Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million killed - Adolph Hitler, Atheist/Paganist: 11 million plus killed - Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million killed - Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus killed - Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus killed - Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million killed (no, Hitler was NOT a Christian, that's a lie spread by anti-Christian bigots. And don't even try to bring Pope Pius into it or I'll have you crying in your sleep) is the above a fair argument? And I see the alleged justification for atheism - i.e. the claim that there is no scientific basis for God - made by people that don't even have the barest whiff of an understanding of science. I believe that many of the atheists on this thread shame themselves by not understanding science, or even atheism.
No. Wrong. Once again you prove your complete and total ignorance of science. Anyone can present a "hypothesis" (it's not called an "assertion", silly). And anyone else can make a successful prediction based upon the hypothesis and thus graduate it into becoming a "theory". And upon successfully proving the theory by experimentation, it becomes a law.
And I don't think you understand the argument going on. None of which I disputed. But thanks for pointing out the blinding obvious. Again, thanks for pointing out the blindingly obvious Its equally hard to believe that your reply to a thread that you admit not knowing what was going on. I was making the point that science operates on theories a lot of the time. The Earth being flat was one such theory. The earth being round was another. Both at the time had not one shred of evidence to back up either - but that didn't stop half the scientists believing the earth was flat and the other believing it was round. Understand? Which brings me back to the original point I made - Science operates on a system of belief a lot of the time. Not proof positive of every theory that's put forth. Wow, you really do rely on wiki to make your points. Coming from someone that lectures others on 'understanding' science, is wiki really the best you can come up with? I mean, really, there are hundreds of philosophers (both modern and classical) you could have quoted. If you want links to a few, feel free to drop me a pm.
"The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis." So is there a holy father hypothesis you would like to refer us to? It has been tested? Experiments have been conducted and predictions successfully made? Where are the results? I would like to read about them. What about falsifiability? Is there any experimental outcome or observation that could prove your holy father hypothesis to be conclusively false and without merit?
The only comment on god is this you really won't know if there is one or there is not one until you die. So arguing about the existence or non existence is silly. Believe what you will that goes both ways. No one can say they are for 10000% right so this argument can go really around in circles and end in the same spot where it started. Just make sure that you keep what ever principles in tact and hope in the end you are right.
They get to make up their own personal rules about how they approach it and what they take from it. It works pretty much how they think science works.
Hitler: Ahahem... Hitler was not a pegan nor was he an atheist. He was a fundamentalist Christian who used faith and derided Christianity's soft points. He used religion, as most do in power, as a tool. All religious wars for land "for god" have not been for god - but instead used as an excuse or in the worse cases, used as a pretext for violence against other religions and ethnicity. Religion is an enabler and is to blame for more harm than good - especially those monotheistic ones. Lolergasm. Give it up.
damn, proved wrong by someone who doesn't even knowthe difference between a theory and a law. I didn't expect you to understand though, you are a creationist, science is understandably not your strong point. In simple terms, and this really is as simple as I can do it, laws are what something does and theories are how it does it. So the law of gravity is explained by gravetational theory. Law = apple will fall theory = apple will accelerate at x velocity theories never become laws because they are two entirely different things. So have another go at pretending you know what you are talking about, the comedy value alone is priceless
This is where their ignorance comes in handy, you see there is the theory of evolution as well as evolution is a law, but they just can't distinguish the 2 as seperate things so the theory part gives them comfort.
They sleep better being able to claim "evolution is just a theory" even though the distinction has been explained to them countless times. It'sorw convinient to ignore the distiction, otherwise they would have to start making intellectually honest points, and we couldn't have that now could we lol
And you sleep better knowing the universe magically just appeared out of nowhere. Its great to meet an atheist that has soooo much faith. This must be a new brand of atheism Stox. Bravo
Your thoughts, and what religious people refer to as a soul really is just a nonstop flow of electrical currents inside your brain, and cells and blood flowing through your body. When you die, these processes halt and you cease to have senses, feelings, or perception of living. Religious people like to believe that there is more to what our brains really are, somehow implying that such currents or a magical entity known as a "soul" floats up into some unknown location in which we once again begin to feel feelings and senses. Whilst not being able to identify either the god or location involved, they still claim to have the factual knowledge that this place is paradise, as well as factual knowledge of how the earth was created. . . quite recently. Such beliefs are often a result of the hunger, pain, emotional turmoil, and other misfortunes that people experience in their lives. It brings them hope beyond the simple realities of how our bodies work. Such beliefs are often a sign of someones complete unfulfillment of their desires and attempt to make their failures less obvious by saying they will be given an eternity of paradise after death (when nobody can prove it, say your right, or say your wrong! How convenient!) Needless to say, despite being an atheist, religion does keep people who possess such strange beliefs, under a great deal of control. Religion is useful, be thankful for it.
Eh, proof please? Surely you're not about to post unproven assertions? Whilst atheists like to believe that everything stops. Where are these factual claims you speak of? Religions are based on faith and belief. Not even the pope claims to have factual knowledge. Muppet. Again, could you possibly back up anything you're saying or you just like posting rubbish? Proof of these factual claims please. Of course, the great unmentionable is that atheists have no proof either for their theories. They simply believe they have no case to prove, because the extent of their argument is some Simpson cartoon chant of 'Down with that sort of thing'.. Of course, Atheistic believes are simply based on unloved childhoods, the family dog being put out to the 'great big farm' and the loss of a loved teddy bear. Aw, shucks. Alternatively, we could argue that Atheistic beliefs are based on an intellectual incapacity to reason and deduce one's own belief system - instead they merely adopt the opposing side of another belief whilst stamping their feet and demanding everyone else prove something first before they attempt to provide one shred of evidence for their own stance. How juvenile and inept! We are. But thanks for the traditional atheistic defence of insulting everybody that actually has a belief. You've done a wonderful job fishy. In the absence of being able to provide one shred of evidence for your own atheistic beliefs, its typically all atheists can do is insult and hope nobody notices the lack of facts for their own stance. Good to see you've managed to swallow hook line and sinker everything atheism has taught you to. Must feel like a great little fish being able to regurgitate it all rather than engaging brain in drive?