Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Two types of science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 121 of 184 (716356)
01-15-2014 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by marc9000
01-14-2014 10:09 PM


Re: There's only one type of science
quote:
No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion.
But we're not talking about any establishment of atheism.
I guess that someone as ignorant of ID as you wouldn't realise that one of the ID party lines is - or used to be - that it doesn't matter if scientific conclusions happen to favour their religious belief. And they're right. All they have to do is to actually follow the scientific process like everyone else. So in this instance the ID movement agrees with us, not you - the religious implications of science are irrelevant to the question of whether teaching science establishes any religion.
And, of course, their is sound legal reasoning to support such a view. Indeed, all it takes is a basic understanding of the law and the facts.
Then, there is also the fact that disagreeing with YOUR religious views is hardly atheism. Do you want to call Hugh Ross an atheist because he supports an old Universe and Earth ? Or William Lane Craig who tries to argue that cosmology is evidence of God ? Or Michael Behe because his views have moved so close to mainstream evolutionary science ?
Can American education point out the Piltdown Man is a fraud, even though it embarrasses Scientiology ? Or to say that mountains mountains don't prevent earthquakes although it contradicts the Quran ? Or to point out that the Book or Mormon is a 19th Century fiction (when it isn't copying sections of the Bible almost verbatim) ? Or would you forbid ALL of these as an "establishment of atheism" ?
And one more point:
quote:
"Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education?
What an amazing non-sequitur. The fact that science is constrained in the conclusions it can reach has nothing to do with appointments to an organisation intended to support science education. If you can't address the topic at least you can avoid bringing up red herrings and trying to confuse the issue. That would be the honest thing to do.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 10:09 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by JonF, posted 01-15-2014 8:06 AM PaulK has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 122 of 184 (716357)
01-15-2014 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:11 PM


Re: falsification
Hi marc,
That may be so but I think most of the posters on this forum are quite familar with ID and have no need to parrot anyone else. I was excited by it the first time I heard of it. I thought there was something to it. But after studying it out and looking at both sides of the arguments I began to understand the flaws in ID and why it doesn't really explain anything at all. You can have any belief you like so why is science a threat? It looks for natural explanations. What of it? If natural explanations are short of what really happened don't you have faith that science will fail to find natural explanations? And if it finds those explanations aren't you curious why that is? Don't you really want to know what can be known? Is it really that traumatic? Can't your beliefs evolve with new information? And if some choose to eliminate beliefs altogether can't you still befriend them?
As pointed out the flagellum has been explained. There has also been found gears in some hopping insect legs but they lack the refinement expected from design. And of course the sensors in our eyes are backwards so that the nerve connections get in the way of the image. But the designer got that right with the octopus.
ID is not falsifiable because it is a non testable statement of belief about what happened. In that sense it is like last Thursdayism. It could be true but it makes no real difference that can be detected in any manner from the natural explanation. Why do you care that your beliefs are not considered to be science? You don't accept science anyhow.
You describe the reaction of the science community as a knee jerk reaction to Behe. I don't believe that at all. I think initially all ideas get a fair audience and then they get picked apart. Once that process has taken place they will get rough treatment for sure, in the same way that perpetual motion machines get short shrift. It's no longer a new or novel idea. It's been debunked already. Move along.
You then talk of the fact that more liberals accept science than conservatives. So? You like the talk of conservatives about religion I take it? It's just talk or don't you follow the scandals?
Concerning your statement that I bolded, secular demands and questions of God's actions can be demanded by anyone all day, if they reduce God to the status of a human, an earthly ruler etc. Lots of the mainstream U.S. population doesn't consider humans to be superior enough to do that, and most Christian denominations heed the plain text of the Bible about the wisdom of not doing it.
I quoted this because I'm not sure of your meaning. Are you saying that you think that God did create animals then the environment changed and most went extinct so God then created more animals and they went extinct etc or do you simply find it offensive to think and ponder about what God may or may not have done?
Your last comment about another time dimension I don't agree with at all. Science doesn't forbid what may be true about what we have not yet discovered about reality. It simply is an ongoing process of learning. It did not forbid dark matter before it was discovered. But by the same token it did not endorse it either before there was some rational for its existence. I don't accept the idea that science has any agenda to push atheism although I can accept that individuals may have that agenda. Are you not an individual with a religious agenda? No one is hunting you down or up in arms over your choice of what to believe. Can you not tolerate the existence of people with differing viewpoints from your own?
Then you end on intelligent design again. It may be a topic new to you but it is not to the scientific community. It has already been evaluated and found wanting. Your concern seems to be that science is about or rather not about reality as you believe it to be. And so what? Time to censor it? Really? How would that work? Are you not the next tyrant taking us back to the dark ages in such a scenario?
You didn't mention global warming in this post. Have you seen the video "Chasing Ice"? Extreme Ice Survey - A program of Earth Vision Institute - Extreme Ice Survey
What happens to the temperature after the phase change is complete? Personally, I hope I don't live long enough to find out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:11 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2014 8:40 PM shalamabobbi has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 184 (716359)
01-15-2014 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by marc9000
01-14-2014 9:11 PM


Re: falsification
Sorry, must comment:
... Evolutionists demand proof that NO Darwinian pathway could have formed it, requiring an impossible, infinite search. ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution.
No, marc9000 -- that is what ID claims is true, they set themselves up. All anybody need do is ask for substantiation of that claim. Science is founded on evidence.
Sure it does. If it could be shown that complex, orderly biological systems like the bacterial flagellum could have been formed by ONE CERTAIN gradual Darwinian process, then ID would be falsified ...
Which has been done.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 9:11 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by JonF, posted 01-15-2014 8:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 124 of 184 (716360)
01-15-2014 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by AZPaul3
01-14-2014 9:22 PM


Re: The Army of the Unknowns
Its like a poe.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by AZPaul3, posted 01-14-2014 9:22 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 125 of 184 (716362)
01-15-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
01-15-2014 1:56 AM


Re: There's only one type of science
Can American education point out the Piltdown Man is a fraud, even though it embarrasses Scientiology ?
LOL wut?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2014 1:56 AM PaulK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 126 of 184 (716363)
01-15-2014 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by RAZD
01-15-2014 7:15 AM


Re: falsification
... Evolutionists demand proof that NO Darwinian pathway could have formed it, requiring an impossible, infinite search. ID is actually more falsifiable than evolution.
No, marc9000 -- that is what ID claims is true, they set themselves up. All anybody need do is ask for substantiation of that claim. Science is founded on evidence.
I think you could be misunderstood. ID in the person of Bill Dembski claimed to be able to demonstrate that no Darwinian pathway could have formed, by usong his Explanatory Filter. He even made an attempt to apply the EF to a bacterial flagellum by proving that it is incredibly unlikely that a bunch of molecules spontaneously assembled to form a flagellum. That is, he tested a ludicrous hypothesis that no mainstream biologist would seriously entertain for an instant. No wonder we haven't heard anything about the EF since then.
Of course it's his filter that requires one to be able to enumerate all the possible Darwinian pathways.
No biologist has ever demanded proof that no possible Darwinian pathway can lead to a flagellum. (Maybe some Internet discussers have). ID has claimed to have such proof. It doesn't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2014 7:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 184 (716366)
01-15-2014 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by TrueCreation
01-15-2014 1:34 AM


Choir
Amen brother, Preach the gospel.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by TrueCreation, posted 01-15-2014 1:34 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 336 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 128 of 184 (716367)
01-15-2014 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by marc9000
01-14-2014 10:09 PM


Re: There's only one type of science
marc9000 writes:
No one particular religion is permitted to be established in the U.S. Atheism has ALL the characteristics of religion. I know the standard talking point is that it's just a lack of belief, so it's not a religion.
Yes, it is simply a lack of belief and no requirement for anyone to follow it to participate in any of the fields of science. In fact, the only real requirement to be allowed to participate in the fields of science is that the individual actually does science....this is where ID fails.
marc9000 writes:
Then why would a"lack of belief" cause so much organization? Why are there so many atheist groups?
How many Marc? Your claim of so many atheist groups does not hold any water, especially when compared to the number of religious groups in the United States. The wiki entry for "List of Secularist Organizations" (which includes American Atheists) has about 40 groups listed under the United States. I would not even want to attempt to count the number of religious organizations that play in politics.
List of Secularist Organizations
Also, you state, "Why are there so many atheist groups"? But, then why are there so many religious groups? More atheist groups have sprung up in recent times because it is slowly becoming acceptable to be an atheist. Atheists are looked at by so many individuals with disdain, pity, and sometimes even hate simply because they don't bow to an invisible sky-daddy/mommy. Did you see the survey out of Canada which placed atheists as the equivalent of rapists?
Source
Of course, when individuals are being given no trust, they will defend themselves using the political structure as it was designed...to protect their rights from those who would remove them. You have a right to religion, just as atheists have a right to be free from your religion. I, for one, agree with your groups paying your own money to place Christian things up (even in capitol buildings). However, atheists need to be afforded the same freedoms to celebrate the Winter Solstice (as an example). Here is the kicker....neither group should be funded by the government for their displays, private funds only.
marc9000 writes:
They have political motives the same (or worse) than any religion, and the founders of the U.S. knew what a worldview, not only a religion, would do to a free society.
This is just inane...everybody has a political goal and to think otherwise is ignorant. Atheists current political motives rest around gaining freedom and trust for a hated minority, as well as equality for all....technically, there is nothing wrong with these political motivations, while the current Christian motivations are to remove freedom from specific groups and create a separatist world. This is evidenced by Faith's insistence that she would love to live in a theocracy where Christianity is the ruling authority...Yay Dark Ages!!!
marc9000 writes:
"Constrained"? When it allows atheist activists like Barbara Forrest to be a board member of a group that influences public science education?
Yes, constrained to methodological naturalism...that is the constraint science must operate under. As for board members, science does not give one rat's behind (or even two) about your religious affiliation or lack thereof...all it cares about is that you are doing proper science, which requires methodological naturalism. Allowing an atheist on the board doesn't affect it, as long as she trusts in the principles of science and how science should be completed.
I get it, you are afraid that atheists are coming in and ruining your once great nation. However, you would be wrong in your assumptions. Atheists, at least the majority of them (such as myself), could care less what you choose to believe. If you want to believe an ancient man, with a flowing white beard created man and animals and all that is...then destroyed his creations, just to make them back up again. then feel absolutely free to do so. However, this also means that I have the freedom to know that the evidence for such a proposition is shaky (at best) and to deny the existence of said ancient man until actual evidence is put forth outside of a bronze age text. The only time I have an issue with the religious is when they attempt to shoehorn non-science into science class. This has nothing to do with my atheism, but it does have to do with my love for science and the benefits that the study of the natural world has given us. If you want to claim to be doing science, then there is a process in place that will show you if what you are doing is science. Until then, your claims are mere window-dressing placed in front of religion to try and hide it before someone notices the lack of evidence. Stop turning your views into a cross-dresser to try and get them accepted into a field where they do not belong.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 10:09 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2014 8:58 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 129 of 184 (716374)
01-15-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by marc9000
01-14-2014 10:01 PM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
"NO WORKING MODEL, NO SCIENCE", No, I'm not kidding. Are you saying that when lots of "people spend their entire careers learning and studying an issue", that that is the ONE TIME that a working model is not required?
Climate change HAS a working model. What is it that doesn't work? Do you not understand what a model is? Do you not understand what working means?
It can be equally frustrating to spend a bunch of time explaining a political scandal involved with global warming, complete with news media omissions and cover-ups, and have a half dozen opponents not acknowledge that it could be a serious problem.
Is your problem with politics or with science?
And for me, rather than explaining just how big of a multi-billion dollar cash cow global warming solutions could be for governments and the special interest scientific community worldwide, it's better for me to just suggest that you read some information on past tyrannies of the world, or U.S. founders mistrust of a large, central government.
So this "cash cow" would be more profitable than the oil and coal industry? We are trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels out of misguided greed? Is your problem with politics or with science?
The same multi-million dollar EPA that commanded the U.S. to use MTBE in gasoline? The U.S. EPA has dome some good in its 40+ year existence. It's also proven itself to be an arrogant, power and money seeking bureaucracy, that isn't accountable to anyone when it screws up. Its biggest concern is its political power.
Is your problem with political bureaucracies or science?
The Christian God did not instruct us to worship the earth. (That's what atheists do) We're to "take dominion" of it.
Is this what you mean by "take dominion of it"?
or this (runoff from mine tailings)
or this
or this (a typical coal fired power plant produces 3.5 million tons CO2 , 14k tons SO2 , 10k tons NOx , 500 tons small particulate matter, and 170 lbs. Hg. and there are about 600 coal fired power plants in the U.S.)
Need I continue???
All these images are related to our usage of fossil fuels and the damage they do to our environment. I am not exactly anti-fossil fuels, but it seems utterly obvious to me that something needs to be done. Without government intervention, we are unlikely to change direction. It is simply too easy to make loads of money in fossil fuel extraction. If there is anything we should learn from history it is that humans are unlikely to change their course of action unless compelled to do so. Do we wait until its too late?
Scientists: We are destroying the earth
You: Could you kindly rephrase that in equivocal, inaccurate, vague, self-serving and roundabout terms that we can all understand.
So, because scientists haven't presented the issues in a way that you comprehend, the science is junk. Get a clue ...
We don't need government, or scientific community elites, to tell us how dirty things are.
It would appear we do.
Woodburning stove control is now happening in parts of California
How totalitarian of them! Here is a list of around 600 other substances that the dictatorship of California has banned, totally unnecessarily since "we don't need government, or scientific community elites, to tell us how dirty things are."
what do you think inspired someone to be that passionate about liberty?
Domineering religious corruption and control.
Frankly, your objections are misguided, misdirected, uninformed, and just plain stupid.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by marc9000, posted 01-14-2014 10:01 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by JonF, posted 01-15-2014 12:41 PM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 136 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2014 9:34 PM herebedragons has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 130 of 184 (716378)
01-15-2014 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by herebedragons
01-15-2014 11:56 AM


Re: Other sources of knowledge
Is this what you mean by "take dominion of it"?
It might well be. The Dominionist movement is fanatically anti-environmental, and most of them believe the Rapture is near so it just doesn't matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by herebedragons, posted 01-15-2014 11:56 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 858 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 131 of 184 (716418)
01-16-2014 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2014 11:49 PM


Re: There's only one type of science
Possibly at some point marc will tie this in to how we can't smell distant galaxies
I don't know what you mean, I can smell them just fine. They smell like dirty socks ...
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2014 11:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2014 10:12 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 132 of 184 (716420)
01-16-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by herebedragons
01-16-2014 10:01 AM


Re: There's only one type of science
To the Smell-O-Scope!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by herebedragons, posted 01-16-2014 10:01 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 133 of 184 (716499)
01-17-2014 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by shalamabobbi
01-15-2014 2:38 AM


Re: falsification
If natural explanations are short of what really happened don't you have faith that science will fail to find natural explanations?
Yes. In some cases they really do fail to find natural explanations. Sometimes they admit it, sometimes they don't.
And if it finds those explanations aren't you curious why that is?
No. Todays scientific community seems to be able to "find" anything it wants to find.
Don't you really want to know what can be known?
Yes. But I don't trust only one special interest to be the only source of knowledge.
Can't your beliefs evolve with new information?
It depends on where the information comes from. If the scientific community's beliefs can't evolve with new information from sources other than itself, why should it expect others to treat scientific information as some sort of superior, higher level of knowledge?
And if some choose to eliminate beliefs altogether can't you still befriend them?
Yes, but it's difficult when they're ALWAYS politically liberal, when they seem to have no appreciation for liberty and limited government.
As pointed out the flagellum has been explained.
Of course it has, as William Dembski has pointed out; "Darwinism is wonderfully adept at rationalizing its failures and therefore just keeps chugging along". Let's see, 2003 was when the breakthrough happened for the atheistic flagellum explanation? ("Darwin's Black Box came out it 1996) It just makes me wonder if it wouldn't have been for the threat of ID, if that big discovery would have been made. As in many things in science seem to be, a conclusion is reached, then evidence is made to fit it.
Why do you care that your beliefs are not considered to be science?
Because many politically liberal beliefs are considered science, and since science is such a respected subject, those beliefs can find their way into public establishment without going through the political process. That's obviously the desire of the global warming crowd.
You don't accept science anyhow.
I accept lots of science, as does anybody, you know that. I just don't have faith in atheistic proclamations that claim to be science.
You describe the reaction of the science community as a knee jerk reaction to Behe. I don't believe that at all.
We just have to agree to disagree on it. I just go by the immediate reaction to him in the late 1990's.
You then talk of the fact that more liberals accept science than conservatives. So?
Not "accept science", but accept all naturalistic explanations for reality. It's a political problem.
You like the talk of conservatives about religion I take it?
I like the talk of conservatives about liberty and limited government.
It's just talk or don't you follow the scandals?
Scandals only involve individuals, there are plenty of liberal scandals as well.
I quoted this because I'm not sure of your meaning. Are you saying that you think that God did create animals then the environment changed and most went extinct so God then created more animals and they went extinct etc or do you simply find it offensive to think and ponder about what God may or may not have done?
It gets complicated to ponder about what God may or may not have done, when it's combined with attempts to harmonize his actions with what atheists claimed were natures actions.
I don't accept the idea that science has any agenda to push atheism although I can accept that individuals may have that agenda. Are you not an individual with a religious agenda?
No, I only have a traditional agenda, about a thing called liberty that follows U.S. foundings. The atheist science individuals have an agenda to re-invent, or destroy the intent of U.S. founders. Did you see the funny link in message 98? Do you believe James Madison was an atheist? Or that the U.S. constitution "guarantees universal health care"?
No one is hunting you down or up in arms over your choice of what to believe.
No, as long as I pay the price, in freedom and money, for the ever increasing scientific whims about global warming and other environmentalist hysteria.
Can you not tolerate the existence of people with differing viewpoints from your own?
Sure, until they politically establish their views by labeling them as science.
Your concern seems to be that science is about or rather not about reality as you believe it to be. And so what? Time to censor it? Really? How would that work?
Not censor it, balance it.
Are you not the next tyrant taking us back to the dark ages in such a scenario?
By asking for some balance in atheist science, and a return to some constitutional liberty?
You didn't mention global warming in this post. Have you seen the video "Chasing Ice"?
No I haven't seen that one, but I've seen the recent news reports about the global warming scientists who went to Antarctica (during its summer season) to study the effects of melting ice and got stuck on the ice, requiring the burning of a lot of fossil fuel to rescue them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-15-2014 2:38 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Coyote, posted 01-17-2014 9:01 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 144 by shalamabobbi, posted 01-18-2014 4:26 PM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 134 of 184 (716502)
01-17-2014 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2014 10:25 AM


Re: There's only one type of science
marc9000 writes:
Then why would a"lack of belief" cause so much organization? Why are there so many atheist groups?
How many Marc? Your claim of so many atheist groups does not hold any water, especially when compared to the number of religious groups in the United States. The wiki entry for "List of Secularist Organizations" (which includes American Atheists) has about 40 groups listed under the United States. I would not even want to attempt to count the number of religious organizations that play in politics.
40 organizations? That "holds water" concerning what I said. "Religious organizations that play in politics" - how do they play? They can't establish themselves in government, what are some examples of what they do that contradict tradition and morals in the U.S.?
Also, you state, "Why are there so many atheist groups"? But, then why are there so many religious groups?
To promote Biblical principles in how to live our lives and relate to each other. It's a time tested belief.
More atheist groups have sprung up in recent times because it is slowly becoming acceptable to be an atheist.
Sure is, the teaching of it in science classes, combined with a recent slew of atheist scientists writing popular books about it.
I get it, you are afraid that atheists are coming in and ruining your once great nation. However, you would be wrong in your assumptions. Atheists, at least the majority of them (such as myself), could care less what you choose to believe.
As I don't really care what atheists believe. But I care when they start claiming James Madison was an atheist, or that the constitution guarantees universal healthcare. Do you believe those two things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2014 10:25 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2014 9:56 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 140 by AZPaul3, posted 01-17-2014 10:35 PM marc9000 has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 135 of 184 (716503)
01-17-2014 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by marc9000
01-17-2014 8:40 PM


Re: falsification
If you really want to discuss science, knock off the "atheist" crap and try again.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2014 8:40 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by marc9000, posted 01-17-2014 9:35 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024