Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...

[OPTIONAL777]

Scientific opinion, which is at the forefront of learning and based on the most considered and thorough assessment of the available evidence, such as it is, carries more credence than the opinions of religious leaders.

Pure balderdash. Since neither side can prove their belief nor disprove the beliefs of the other side there is no such thing as one opinion having more credence than any other. Your bias is showing, and that bias is not scientific based, but opinion based because you have a bias against God.


You think they don't carry equal weight.

Yes, I know you have an opinion...

However, real science deals with fact.

Speculations may lead to fact one day, but today they are only musings and guesses, and where there is no method of testing or verification of said guesses...then it is just science fiction...

On the important points, Susskind and others admit they don't know, and they don't even know how they could possibly know.

They are just musing on alternative possibilities, but they have no way to establish any probability that the Universe and its programming is by design or by non design.

I have no problem with your worshiping these scientists, or taking their guesses and putting your faith in them, but there is no difference in your guess and that of a theist and their own faith.

If you can show me a way to falsify the theory of God, or falsify these beliefs of of scientists, then please do so...

Quote from Thunderdog:

Scientific opinion, which is at the forefront of learning and based on the most considered and thorough assessment of the available evidence, such as it is, carries more credence than the opinions of religious leaders, which are based on hearsay and say-so. I hardly think they carry equal weight for anyone seeking knowledge as compared to, say, comfort.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

...If you can show me a way to falsify the theory of God...

Try to differentiate between scientific opinion, which is at the forefront of learning and based on the most considered and thorough assessment of the available evidence, and sheer whimsy. Consider Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[Mvic]

The only thing we can be sure of is that we don't know (knowledge and belief being distinct). If the religious fanatics took the time to ponder that before they tried to foist their dogma, often by force or one type of another, on to others they would do a lot less damage than they can be credited with.

As far as what is more likely or what the preponderance of the evidence shows, life in general and human history in particular does not support the logical construct of a simultaneously perfect loving merciful omnipotent and omniscient god.

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"it 'looks' as if it were intelligently designed... but is isn't. It's "random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff ...."

Susskind believes this, but he does not know it to be true...

He has his faith, which me may hold as strongly as every other scientists over time has held their beliefs...

All of this has nothing to do with observable fact though, as it purely speculation which cannot be verified by any scientific test.

Saying how something "could have happened if ____ and then ____ and then ____ " without proof that it did happen in the manner they speculate is not scientific fact.

It is just a guess...

Ask any physicist or biologist what is the statistical probability that God designed the universe versus an unprogrammed universe.

They can provide no answer.

Scientific opinion is not science, it is the opinion of scientists, just as the opinions of religious leaders is not the word of God..

Quote from jem:


I knew this stuff was over your head.

Try listening to the video instead of reading the headline. Listen to the last part of the video.


He said at the very end of the video -- the universe in which we live looks intelligently designed.

Get it.... the only universe we know looks in intelligently designed.

Don't you get how fucking obvious this is to smart people.

The worlds top physicists.... know the universe looks designed.

LOL you two . Talk about the blind leading the blind

 

[stu]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If you can show me a way to falsify the theory of God, ....then please do so...

If you can show me a way to falsify flying pigs..... In the meantime not being able to falsify God or flying pigs says more about God than any religion or a stack of its Bibles ever could.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

"it 'looks' as if it were intelligently designed... but is isn't. It's "random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff ...."

Susskind believes this, but he does not know it to be true...

He has his faith, which me may hold as strongly as every other scientists over time has held their beliefs...

All of this has nothing to do with observable fact though, as it purely speculation which cannot be verified by any scientific test.

Saying how something "could have happened if ____ and then ____ and then ____ " without proof that it did happen in the manner they speculate is not scientific fact.

It is just a guess...

Ask any physicist or biologist what is the statistical probability that God designed the universe versus an unprogrammed universe.

They can provide no answer.

Scientific opinion is not science, it is the opinion of scientists, just as the opinions of religious leaders is not the word of God..

The problem is you are too familiar with objects of man-made design. You know those objects in our everyday experience are designed and have a designer. But you have NO concept of random assembly over huge amounts of time because you've never observed it directly.

ThAT, and you lack imagination and have a general distrust of science

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from stu:

If you can show me a way to falsify flying pigs..... In the meantime not being able to falsify God or flying pigs says more about God than any religion or a stack of its Bibles ever could.

Exactly! stu!

 

[dsq]

Believing in people waking up from the dead(easter) is a form of mental illness,no?

Are you telling me that people who beleive in myths and superstition dont suffer from delusions?

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Theistic or atheist dogma is still dogma...

"As far as what is more likely or what the preponderance of the evidence shows, life in general and human history in particular does not support the logical construct of a simultaneously perfect loving merciful omnipotent and omniscient god."

Those stuck in a Judeo Christian concept of God, either theist or atheist would naturally come to this conclusion at times.

Other ideas of God not bound by the Judeo Christian concept of God have a different answer to your false dilemma...

Imagine a system that does nothing but reward or punish what God designates as good or bad behavior, that there is perfect justice as people reap what they sow, and don't think of one life as the time frame upon which this process works...this way of looking at things will blow the concept of "innocent victim" and God as unloving and merciful right out of the water...

Those who seek their happiness only in the world, will forever get that chance, and those who seek their happiness only in God will forever get that chance.

Those who want to stay on the wheel do so, those who want to get off the wheel may do so...

Who amongst the theists are really willing to give up the world for God?

Quote from Mvic:

The only thing we can be sure of is that we don't know (knowledge and belief being distinct). If the religious fanatics took the time to ponder that before they tried to foist their dogma, often by force or one type of another, on to others they would do a lot less damage than they can be credited with.

As far as what is more likely or what the preponderance of the evidence shows, life in general and human history in particular does not support the logical construct of a simultaneously perfect loving merciful omnipotent and omniscient god.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"But you have NO concept of random assembly over huge amounts of time because you've never observed it directly."

Neither has any other human being directly observed it...

ThAT, and you lack imagination...

So your ideas are nothing but imagination...

Game, set, and match...

Quote from killthesunshine:

The problem is you are too familiar with objects of man-made design. You know those objects in our everyday experience are designed and have a designer. But you have NO concept of random assembly over huge amounts of time because you've never observed it directly.

ThAT, and you lack imagination and have a general distrust of science