Why creation science is an oxymoron

[OPTIONAL777]

Science has never drawn any conclusions.

Scientists are the ones who draw conclusions from the application of science.

While the methods of science may be fully objective and flawless, every aspect of science is applied by, performed by, and understood via the human mind.

The human mind is quite flawed, that is a scientific fact.

Even the evolutionists would have to fully agree that the human mind is a work in progress, not a completed perfection.

So why is it that the scientists opinions and conclusions have been elevated by the followers of scientists to God like status?

Why are certain assumptions of scientists (not science, science has never made an assumption) beyond reproach or evaluation?

Why are theories that cannot be falsified by science taken as Gospel?

There is no logical explanation of course, because the scientist are practicing their own belief systems, and they want to make the fools think that their own thinking is itself science...

I love science, science is marvelous.

Scientists on the other hand have agendas that are not scientific, as they fit square pegs into their preconceived round holes...

 

[volente_00]

Quote from vhehn:

So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth. -Unknown

Does this also include the faith that the atheist religion places in the non belief of a creator?

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

how atheist of you.

So that's what a theist calls someone who notices dishonesty and contempt done in the name of religion.

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

Does this also include the faith that the atheist religion places in the non belief of a creator?

If atheism were a religion and a faith, then it should be taught in schools as part of religious education.
Teaching that no belief is belief is the sort of logic that would work alongside lessons on dark age superstition and how people can have their own Invisible Creator Friends whilst supposedly acting like an adult.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

So that's what a theist calls someone who notices dishonesty and contempt done in the name of religion.

I noticed you backed off your claim that I was being dishonest. so you will notice I did not call your a turd this time.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

If atheism were a religion and a faith, then it should be taught in schools as part of religious education.
Teaching that no belief is belief is the sort of logic that would work alongside lessons on dark age superstition and how people can have their own Invisible Creator Friends whilst supposedly acting like an adult.

This is Stu's game - he pretends you should undertand that he defines atheism as "no belief" instead of the traditional definition which is disbelief.

He somehow thinks it is honest to interchange the concept of atheism which is the statement that there is no God with the concept of no belief.

Pretty soon he will call you dishonest for properly defining words.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

stu lies and says he has no beliefs related to God...

...or stu's mind is the same as a turnip...

You decide.

Quote from jem:

This is Stu's game - he pretends you should undertand that he defines atheism as "no belief" instead of the traditional definition which is disbelief.

He somehow thinks it is honest to interchange the concept of atheism which is the statement that there is no God with the concept of no belief.

Pretty soon he will call you dishonest for properly defining words.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from jem:

This is Stu's game - he pretends you should undertand that he defines atheism as "no belief" instead of the traditional definition which is disbelief.

He somehow thinks it is honest to interchange the concept of atheism which is the statement that there is no God with the concept of no belief.

Pretty soon he will call you dishonest for properly defining words.

Jem the traditional defination is defined by believers. We are all born atheist even you. Do you know atheist don't group with other atheist. I was having a beer with a friend I've known and work with for years. He made a comment, and I asked him about his beliefs and he said he didn't believe in a god. Me neither I told him, that was over a year and a half ago, we've never mentioned it since. You are totally wrong Jem in what you think atheist are. The subject would never come up except for the Christians in our face constantly.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Your argument is really flawed.

Humans are not born with the ability to speak, it develops.

Humans are not born with the ability to feed themselves, it develops.

Human are not born with the capacity to form beliefs, it develops.

Comparing the status of a newborn baby to a developed human being is just plain silly...

Go crawling around naked, shitting and pissing with no concern, cry until someone feeds you...at the age of maturity, and you will be thought of as a crazy person.

Just like the developed human being atheist who claims they have no beliefs...it is a sign of severe retardation or a lie...

Quote from bigarrow:

Jem the traditional defination is defined by believers. We are all born atheist even you. Do you know atheist don't group with other atheist. I was having a beer with a friend I've known and work with for years. He made a comment, and I asked him about his beliefs and he said he didn't believe in a god. Me neither I told him, that was over a year and a half ago, we've never mentioned it since. You are totally wrong Jem in what you think atheist are. The subject would never come up except for the Christians in our face constantly.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I noticed you backed off your claim that I was being dishonest. so you will notice I did not call your a turd this time.

You noticed I backed off my claim? Where exactly did I do that. Ah wait, your dishonesty helps you think I backed off.

Just what makes you think I give a damn what obscenities you use because you have no argument? Other than a fundamentally dishonest one in which you throw your abuse around?

Quote from jem:

This is Stu's game - he pretends you should undertand that he defines atheism as "no belief" instead of the traditional definition which is disbelief.

He somehow thinks it is honest to interchange the concept of atheism which is the statement that there is no God with the concept of no belief.

Pretty soon he will call you dishonest for properly defining words.

I know whether I have no religious belief or whether I have a religious disbelief. You don't.
I know whether it is no belief in God or whether it is a belief there is no God. You don't.
You don't get to tell me I have a belief, because your fascist religion tells you what to believe, and so to tells me that I have a belief, when I don't.

No amount of frustration or dishonesty on your part will alter the fact that I find no reasons to have religious belief and therefore have no religious belief.
No need to redefine any words.

Oh, and which third party are you talking to with that post of yours exactly? Do you even know?