So why do you choose to believe other things even though you have never seen them and your belief is based only on others accounts ?
Athiests...want evidence of God? Read here.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
So why do you choose to believe other things even though you have never seen them and your belief is based only on others accounts ?
Because those other accounts were written by scientists, not some guys wearing long robes and speaking back to voices in their heads. Because nobody is asking me to base my whole life on, say, abiogenesis or other aspects of evolution. Because scientific theories, unlike religious dogma, are subject to constant scrutiny by the very people who proposed them. Because science is about seeking truth, not about converting acolytes to a cult.
This anti-intellectual position that science is no different than religion is the height of simple-mindedness. Scientific theories aren't written in stone. And where does that phrase "written in stone" come from?
Quote from kut2k2:
Because those other accounts were written by scientists, not some guys wearing long robes and speaking back to voices in their heads. Because nobody is asking me to base my whole life on, say, abiogenesis or other aspects of evolution. Because scientific theories, unlike religious dogma, are subject to constant scrutiny by the very people who proposed them. Because science is about seeking truth, not about converting acolytes to a cult.
This anti-intellectual position that science is no different than religion is the height of simple-mindedness. Scientific theories aren't written in stone. And where does that phrase "written in stone" come from?
And why aren't they ? For the simple fact that science is ever changing and new $hit is being discovered all the time. There was a time when an atom was not even a concept but that did not mean it did not exist. Perhaps science is so undeveloped that it is years away from developing the proper theories that could prove existence. History books were not wrote by scientist. Using your logic means you do not believe there was a civil war in america because you did not personally see it or there was not a scientist who you place "faith" in who did. Do you believe there was a civil war in the US in the 1860's ?
My favorite part of the science definition is "theoretical explanation of phenomena."
And my favorite part of the theory definition is "an assumption based on limited information or knowledge."
And my favorite part of the definition of assumption is "something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof."
So now you want me to place faith in your assumptions and believe they are truth ?
Quote from kut2k2:
Because those other accounts were written by scientists, not some guys wearing long robes and speaking back to voices in their heads. Because nobody is asking me to base my whole life on, say, abiogenesis or other aspects of evolution. Because scientific theories, unlike religious dogma, are subject to constant scrutiny by the very people who proposed them. Because science is about seeking truth, not about converting acolytes to a cult.
This anti-intellectual position that science is no different than religion is the height of simple-mindedness. Scientific theories aren't written in stone. And where does that phrase "written in stone" come from?
I happen to know a few scientists (physics teachers and post docs) that believe in God. There are even some that are trying to prove the existence of God (I don't know if they will ever succeed though)
here are a few quotes for you (I could find more if I had the time)
Prof. D. Barton, Nobel Prize Chemistry:
"There is no incompatibility between science and religion... Science shows that God exists."
Ernst Boris Chain, Nobel prize winner:
"The principle of [divine] purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever he looks ... . The probability for such an event as the origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer chance is just too small to be seriously considered ... ."
Alister McGrath (Molecular Biophysicist), Lee Stroebel, C.S. Lewis and Malcom Muggridge were all atheist until they looked at the evidence.
-------
There is even a book: 'The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe' (1959) which consists of essay by forty famous scientists in different fields of science, who declare their affirmative views of God.
Dr. George Earl Davis, Physicist, University of Minnesota, U.S.A writes:
''That atheism exists in scientific circle is undeniable. But the popular belief that atheism is more prevalent among scientists than among the unscientific has never been proved and is, infect, contrary to the expressions gained at first hand by many of the scientists themselves.'' (Evidence p.70)
Dr. H.T.Stetson who was the Director of Perkins Observatory, Ohio, U.S.A. wrote:
''It is not without significance that many of the eminent men of science, have been devout followers of religion. Among such may be mentioned Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Kelvin and Pasteur. (Men and the Stars_ by H.T.Stetson p.214 Mc Graw Hill 1930)
It's hard to know where to begin to deal with such ignorance and unfounded assumptions.
Your definitions are straight out of some mediocre junior high school book.
For starters, a theory is not an assumption, it is an explanation for something. If you say a theory is just a guess, then you have reached the level of Ronald Reagan, who famously said "a scientific theory is just a guess", proudly demonstrating his profound ignorance to the entire world.
A scientific theory is not just a guess, it is a TESTABLE guess. That is the foundation of science: testability. If it can't be tested, it is not a part of science. That is the secret of the success of science: it can be tested and retested, it can be demonstrated to children as well as to scholars of advanced age and experience, it is repeatable and independently verifiable. Most religions on the other hand, especially the Abrahamic religions, are just dry, boring lectures from a book written centuries ago by people who thought the world was flat.
No comparison.
BTW if you don't believe in science, why are you using a computer? Your disdain for science when you couldn't even function in the modern world without the fruits of science is as immature as it gets. It's so stupid, it's downright evil.
Scientists who believe in God do so by faith. It has nothing to do with science.
That analogy was rather stupid.
Life grows, heals, excretes and self-replicates.
In order for life to form atheistically, the first single cell organism would have to spontaneously demonstrate all those qualities - plus DNA that codes for those qualities and its own self replication - all on the first try, completely mashed together by sheer luck.
You really believe that?
Until you "athiest's" learn how to capitalize God, I will continue to spell "athiest" that way.
Does anything further need to be said about these pathetic brainwashed fools?
This illiterate asshole is telling us that even though he has found out his beliefs are wrong, he is going to continue to allow his actions to be dictated by those beliefs!!! There it is in black and white.
"Yes, I see the evidence that I am wrong, but I don't care. I am just going to continue on as if I am right".
Fucking unreal. As an aside, it is crystal clear that these people don't trade the markets. Imagine what would happen if he tried, given his way of dealing with reality.
The Thinker: This position is going against you. Are you going to get out of it?
The Imbecile: The position is not going against me.
The Thinker: Ummm.. you bought at 57, price has just crashed through major support at 42, and the company has admitted that their two main patents are stolen.
The Imbecile: Price has not crashed through 42.
The Thinker: What do you mean it hasn't?? Look at the chart!
The Coward: I will remain long until you admit that God exists.
The Thinker: Wtf???
The Idiot: May a ram with 27 eyes fall from the sky and cave in the roof of your Aston Martin.
The fact that the uber-space odyssey2001 laptop in the woods was a picture of some tomato seeds.........
Addressing the topic, while its possible complex systems of chemical reactions, covalence, magnetism, minute biochemical changes in previously inert rocks, minerals and lifeless substances, evolved-after all , who defines life.........the fact is, there are people who still dont know there are more than red varieties, and that heirloom varieties have only recently made a resurgence, despite the best efforts of the ignorant.
Edit-Presumably, someone realised it was a picture of tomato seeds, and the analogy of a uber laptop is fatally flawed.