Do any of you believe in God?

If you understood the scientific method and how science works, you'd realize it will never actually disprove anything, it just produces better and better models to help describe reality, never to reach the correct model. Basically, science is never "true," just scientifically true.

Originally Posted by tagutcow

Click to expand...

This thread started out nicely enough, but has now taken a turn for the unbelievably moronic.

1) People who say God exists and God doesn't exist BOTH have the burden of proof when they want to convince others of their view. We have explained this ad nauseum in previous threads.

2) Establishing an equivalency between God's existance and Leprechauns' (or orbiting teacups', or the flying spaghetti monster's) existence is based on some unspoken and fairly questionable assumptions. You are free to believe that God's existence is no more credible than theirs, of course, but if you want to form a persuasive argument, you have to deal with the issue's complexities rather than going for arch reductionism. If you don't know what these complexities are, you shouldn't be debating this issue either way.

2) Both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Hebrews knew the Earth was round. This was a settled matter long before 300 years ago.

3) Science has always existed to whatever degree people were able to practice it. The scientific method was codified by Francis Bacon in the 16th Century. He was not an atheist. The only difference between science then and science now is that the conceptual tool of scientific inquiry has become overextended and know-nothings are demanding we accept scientific truth to the exclusion of all other forms of truth. This notion of science's exclusive claim to truth is in no way advised by the scientific method.

4) Science is a complete red herring in this discussion. Anytime an atheist brings up "science" as a way of explaining his beliefs, it's a pretty good indication that he has no idea what he's talking about.



But we know now the the Earth is round, and people are still debating God's existence as they have for time immemorial, and as they always will. So obviously the two issues are nothing alike.

This is just really such a baffling non-argument you have here.

I find it funny that all of a sudden we're innundated with noowatheists who swear up and down that science is incompatible with a belief in God. Where were all these people a mere six or seven years ago? I mean, the scientific method has remained unchanged for hundreds of years, and there has been no scientific discovery in recent memory that has changed the debate about God's existence one bit. Yet suddenly, great masses of people have decided that science and religion are incompatible. Doesn't this just prove that the spread of atheism has nothing at all to do with science in any substantive sense, and everything to do with social trends? -- and aren't social trends precisely what atheists accused religions of being in the first place?



What is this evidence? What does it say?

And, there goes the thread...

Originally Posted by Valor

Click to expand...

If you understood the scientific method and how science works, you'd realize it will never actually disprove anything, it just produces better and better models to help describe reality, never to reach the correct model. Basically, science is never "true," just scientifically true.

So scientific truth is not genuine "truth" is that what your saying?

Originally Posted by Blackfyre

Click to expand...

So scientific truth is not genuine "truth" is that what your saying?

there is no such thing a scientific truth it is all working theory...that at some point can be modified based upon new evidence or thrown out completely.

where do the **** do people go to school to lear terms like scientific truth or the law of gravity....

I am just using his wording. I know and understand that science is just evolving theories. I dont care for the whole "law" thing either.

Originally Posted by gfreeman

Click to expand...

It scares people that when they die, that's it — you just cease to exist. Hence why they make up "God" and "heaven" and so on.
"but don't you want to live forever?" "but then isn't life meaningless?" "but don't you need the comfort of god?" It's questions like these that relate to the suspicion of many god supporters are really wanting god to be true, rather than actual believing. People may act, speak and think like god is real but the certainty of god is still lacking, even if they do not express it. Self defense mechanisms can blur reality to cover up hardship and it's why god supporters may get defensive because they don't want their belief shield to be broken by questioning. It's also a reason why some make effort into getting others to be a god idea supporter. If only few humans claimed there was a god, those few might be forced into questioning it when others around them feel it's untrue. Someone confiding in the idea of god and an afterlife worked well as a personal self defense mechanism but it makes the mind vulnerable. Soon religion exploited it and the self defense mechanism was taken advantage of by others. Now there is corruption and things went awry. People are now losing control of the self defense when they value an afterlife more than a current life, this is abnormal. Now we see people affiliated with religiosity even preventing other people and beings from fulfilling their lives of innocent enjoyment. This planet, people and beings on earth are being disregarded and seen as insignificant because of the god idea, it has gone too far. We need to transition the god idea into support of science and medical advancements to help prolong our lives and ensure they are enjoyable without impeding on the fulfillment of life of other people or species. In order to do this we must first control the human population as it spins out of control to a threatening 6.8 billion people. By the year 2030 the number of people on earth will be double what this planet can support. The more people that exist, the more insignificant an individual life will become and we all know the seriousness of just one self-aware mind facing death or eternity of non-existence. We need drastic changes NOW before the environment, wildlife, and habitats are destroyed any further. The natural self defense mechanism of the god idea has gone completely haywire and the consequences have become harmful to societies and a danger to other people. The reality has been blurred too much from a simple comforting idea to a menacing aspect of civilizations in form of killing and disregard of other lives.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Click to expand...

Someone confiding in the idea of god and an afterlife worked well as a personal self defense mechanism but it makes the mind vulnerable. Soon religion exploited it and the self defense mechanism was taken advantage of by others. Now there is corruption and things went awry. People are now losing control of the self defense when they value an afterlife more than a current life, this is abnormal. Now we see people affiliated with religiosity even preventing other people and beings from fulfilling their lives of innocent enjoyment. This planet, people and beings on earth are being disregarded and seen as insignificant because of the god idea, it has gone too far. We need to transition the god idea into support of science and medical advancements to help prolong our lives and ensure they are enjoyable without impeding on the fulfillment of life of other people or species. In order to do this we must first control the human population as it spins out of control to a threatening 6.8 billion people. By the year 2030 the number of people on earth will be double what this planet can support. The more people that exist, the more insignificant an individual life will become and we all know the seriousness of just one self-aware mind facing death or eternity of non-existence. We need drastic changes NOW before the environment, wildlife, and habitats are destroyed any further.

The natural self defense mechanism of the god idea has gone completely haywire and the consequences have become harmful to societies and a danger to other people. The reality has been blurred too much from a simple comforting idea to a menacing aspect of civilizations in form of killing and disregard of other lives.
Ha, people have been saying this for years and it's been untrue every time. If we start raising dolphins for food, we could probably get up to 3x or 4x the current population.

Originally Posted by Valor

Click to expand...

If you understood the scientific method and how science works, you'd realize it will never actually disprove anything, it just produces better and better models to help describe reality, never to reach the correct model. Basically, science is never "true," just scientifically true.
lolwut?

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

lolwut?

There something to that, I think.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

There something to that, I think.
That science is about scientific truth and that the scientific method is not interested in disproving/falsifying? That is not any science with which I am familiar. The idea that we are ever approaching is correct, but the mechanism he describes is entirely incorrect.

Originally Posted by dah328

Click to expand...

Ha, people have been saying this for years and it's been untrue every time. If we start raising dolphins for food, we could probably get up to 3x or 4x the current population.
No, the population has increased almost a billion since 1999.

Originally Posted by iammatt

Click to expand...

That science is about scientific truth and that the scientific method is not interested in disproving/falsifying? That is not any science with which I am familiar. The idea that we are ever approaching is correct, but the mechanism he describes is entirely incorrect.

That all scientific "truth" is essentially provisional.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

That all scientific "truth" is essentially provisional.
Yes, of course I agree with that, just not the idea that the scientific method does not include disproving things. That is sort of the definition of scientific progress.

Originally Posted by Nosu3

Click to expand...

No, the population has increased almost a billion since 1999.
Yes, but growth rate doesn't say anything about whether any particular population figure is sustainable or not.

Originally Posted by dah328

Click to expand...

Yes, but growth rate doesn't say anything about whether any particular population figure is sustainable or not.

There is more to sustainability than just food...