How do you distinguish between the belief in God and the occult?

[Epic]

Quote from Brass:

Sort of a celestial suicide bomber?

Not so much the suicide bomber. More the scientist who accidentally blew himself up.

Anyway, that question is akin to suggesting that our universe is a small sphere being hurled in a joyful game of interstellar marbles (ala Men In Black). Maybe we live in "The Matrix". Would we know the difference in any of those scenarios?

My point is that we accept the most plausible reality and base our axioms on that assumed reality. Religious people start with the assumption that a creator exists, and they seek to understand his/her/its methods. Non-religious people start with the assumption that a creator does not exist, and they seek to verify how all of this came to be in the absence of a creator.

In every case, assumptions must be made and the entire theory hinges on those assumptions being correct.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Epic:

Not so much the suicide bomber. More the scientist who accidentally blew himself up.

Anyway, that question is akin to suggesting that our universe is a small sphere being hurled in a joyful game of interstellar marbles (ala Men In Black). Maybe we live in "The Matrix". Would we know the difference in any of those scenarios?

My point is that we accept the most plausible reality and base our axioms on that assumed reality. Religious people start with the assumption that a creator exists, and they seek to understand his/her/its methods. Non-religious people start with the assumption that a creator does not exist, and they seek to verify how all of this came to be in the absence of a creator.

In every case, assumptions must be made and the entire theory hinges on those assumptions being correct.

Wrong wrong wrong, non religious people see no proof of god so it would make no sense to pretend there is one. And the Jesus / Allah / Jewish god belief has nothing to do with science.

 

[Epic]

Quote from bigarrow:

Wrong wrong wrong, non religious people see no proof of god so it would make no sense to pretend there is one. And the Jesus / Allah / Jewish god belief has nothing to do with science.

Never said anything about Jesus having something to do with science.

EVERYONE makes assumptions about their world. That is the basis of science. For the atheist...

1) I assume that I exist.

2) I assume that my perceived world exists.

3) I assume that this world didn't just spontaneously come to exist in its current state.

4) I assume that a creator does not exist, and was not the driving factor in the existence of my world.

4) Therefore, my hypothesis is that....

 

[Brass]

Quote from Epic:

...Non-religious people start with the assumption that a creator does not exist, and they seek to verify how all of this came to be in the absence of a creator...

Not quite. Objective, non-religious people examine the evidence and attempt to draw conclusions therefrom, without an underlying premise. This is what disinguishes science from pseudoscience:

 

[Epic]

Quote from Brass:

Not quite. Objective, non-religious people examine the evidence and attempt to draw conclusions therefrom, without an underlying premise. This is what disinguishes science from pseudoscience:

Nope... in the accepted scientific method. Assumptions and Hypotheses come BEFORE examination of evidence. Otherwise it is just psuedo-science.

 

[Brass]

Quote from Epic:

Nope... in the accepted scientific method. Assumptions and Hypotheses come BEFORE examination of evidence. Otherwise it is just psuedo-science.

A hypothesis, yes. But not always and not necessarily. Creationism begins with a conclusion. See the difference?

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Epic:

Never said anything about Jesus having something to do with science.

EVERYONE makes assumptions about their world. That is the basis of science. For the atheist...

1) I assume that I exist.

2) I assume that my perceived world exists.

3) I assume that this world didn't just spontaneously come to exist in its current state.

4) I assume that a creator does not exist, and was not the driving factor in the existence of my world.

4) Therefore, my hypothesis is that....

science. For the atheist...

1) I assume that I exist.

2) I assume that my perceived world exists.

3) I assume that this world didn't just spontaneously come to exist in its current state.

4) I assume that a creator does not exist, and was not the driving factor in the existence of my world.

4) Therefore, we use evidence based on observation and test to show us how the natural processes came about.

contrast with a creationist:

1) I assume that I exist.

2) I assume that my perceived world exists.

3) I assume that this world didn't just spontaneously come to exist in its current state.

4) I assume that a creator does exist, and was the driving factor in the existence of my world based on writings in a 2000 year old book written by men who thought thunder and lightening were god speaking.

4) Therefore god did to so there is no reason to search further.

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Brass:

A hypothesis, yes. But not always and not necessarily. Creationism begins with a conclusion. See the difference?

I'm taking Epic's side here, and your side too.
Talk about being on the fence!

 

[Epic]

Quote from Brass:

A hypothesis, yes. But not always and not necessarily. Creationism begins with a conclusion. See the difference?

Yes, always and necessarily. Any previous evidence must have been gathered during a previous experiment. You are then using the prior conclusions as new assumptions. "We are going to assume that the prior assumptions were correct and that the test methods were valid. If we make those assumptions, based on the prior conclusions we now hypothesize that...."

I think you're exaggerating the extent to which creationism begins with a conclusion, and under-emphasizing the extent to which non-creationists do the same.

Both are assumptions, but both are equally valid from our current point of understanding. IMO, the following statements are equally ludicrous.

"Nothing in our universe existed until suddenly a massive explosion resulted in a separation of space, time, and matter."

"Nothing in our universe existed until God instructed everything to organize."

In both cases, what existed before nothing existed?

 

[Epic]

Quote from Free Thinker:

science. For the atheist...

1) I assume that I exist.

2) I assume that my perceived world exists.

3) I assume that this world didn't just spontaneously come to exist in its current state.

4) I assume that a creator does not exist, and was not the driving factor in the existence of my world.

4) Therefore, we use evidence based on observation and test to show us how the natural processes came about.

contrast with a creationist:

1) I assume that I exist.

2) I assume that my perceived world exists.

3) I assume that this world didn't just spontaneously come to exist in its current state.

4) I assume that a creator does exist, and was the driving factor in the existence of my world based on writings in a 2000 year old book written by men who thought thunder and lightening were god speaking.

4) Therefore god did to so there is no reason to search further.

LOL, that is a gross exaggeration and you know it. You've just suggested that everyone who believes in God, also believes in your opinion on what the bible is. Then you suggested that a belief in God eliminates the desire to understand our universe.

Your prejudice is astounding.