(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by S.A.M., Jul 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Thats the strangest example of "logical deduction"I have ever heard.

    Especially since you are making my point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Inductive_categorical_inference
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I think all religion, in that religion actually makes claims about the nature of reality and passes these as facts, is incompatible with the methodology of science


    However philosophy is not necessarily incompatible with science; as philsophical concepts are not subject to "evidence" or "proof", they are matters of perception and perspective. Thus atheistic buddhism could be said to be compatible with science. Or LaVeyan Satanism. Or humanism.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So how would ol' Anton go about explaining the process of his spells working according to scientific principles?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    The spells were purely for ritual purposes; as "culture". Nobody actually believes in that.
     
  8. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    According to the edition of his book that I read there were five spells that were for far more than ritual - they were (according to him) effective.
    He believed it, and tried to make his "disciples" believe.
    The spells included instruction on correct procedure once they'd worked, as failure to behave correctly in that event could cause some sort of "backlash" with devastating consequences.
     
  9. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    I don't think that I was referring to the probability of creationism theories...I mean...just to make sure I re-read my post and sadly can't find a line where I'd say that "one creation theory is more credible!"

    Help me there.
    :shrug:
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i wasn't referring to any creation theory.
    you stated "Atheism is probably because of that accepted as the more compatible of the two since atheism doesn't involve doctrines, or anything that would limit a scientist."
    by throwing out biogenesis (a scientific law) and replacing it with abiogenesis (a hypothesis) atheists have indeed limited themselves to a "natural" origin of life. furthermore this nonsense is paraded around in our classrooms as "the gospel". so, you tell me who's lying to who and who is being limited.
     
  11. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    You mean you're made out of soil? Why do viruses "evolve"? I mean....mutate of course!

    So you were talking about "how we came to be" after all.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i never questioned evolution/mutation of cells.
    basically i'm questioning the reasoning for ousting a scientific law in favor of a hypothesis, and not only that but parading that hypothesis around as "the gospel".
    as a scientist you don't have a problem with this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    not one single time has science observed life coming from nonlife, but yet it's taught to our students that it did. i call that limiting your options wouldn't you?
     
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Science isn't incompatible with religion. Science is incompatible with individuals who reject truth in favor of belief.
     
  14. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    You mean that's the atheistic standpoint on "how we came to be"? And I said "You mean that you were made out of soil?". In my school they taught us more than just one creation theory.

    So, do you believe that before we got created there was no life?
    Don't you think that creationism hypothesis is a form of abiogenesis? I mean...we were once made of soil!

    My main point was that the "only" thing that is limiting atheists is that they do not have a God while the theists do have a God, AND doctrines that are limiting them in their actions, practices, etc. And then I also mentioned that it depends on the individual. Some take it quite far with their theistic faith..and some on the contrary are super liberal about it.

    (personally I still don't understand how atheism's definition could turn from godless to lack of belief in a deity, or w/e the defs. are)

    I mean it sure as hell isn't a problem that a physician denies healthcare to a patient because said patient is..a homosexual. It sure as Hell isn't limiting for a physician not being allowed to make a medical body check on the opposite sex for a more accurate diagnosis because of a belief. It sure as Hell isn't a shock for a non-believer to have to listen to "I don't want to give you the morning after pill because I'm religious and the conscience clause gives me the right to refuse! So f*ck you anyway, don't care if you'll resolve to the more severe version of abortion in a side alley, b*tch."

    I will apologise in beforehand if I'm not making any sense. :m:
     
  15. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    I'm not even going to dignify this garbage with a response. Instead, let's return from our tangent and get back to basics, shall we?

    Your question was:
    Which is easier to disprove?
    1. Swans are white
    2. There are no black swans.
    You then pointed out that (1) is easily disprovable while (2) can never be proven -- which is correct, but irrelevant. It is irrelevant because both are easily disprovable and both can never be proven. One could disprove (1) by observing a black swan just as one could disprove (2) by observing a black swan. But proof for either (1) or (2) would require an infinite number of observations, which is impossible. So as I correctly responded when you originally posed the the question, the answer is "neither."

    That one is stated in positive terms and one is stated in negative terms is inconsequential, and in fact it is utter nonsense to assert that you "can't prove a negative." You can, I did earlier in the thread (see posts 28 and 54), deal with it. It's inductive arguments that you can't prove -- whether positive or negative in form. As it relates to the question of theism and atheism, this means that it is equally impossible to prove the existence or nonexistence of God.

    And I see that you've abandoned your original claim that atheism and science are "incompatible," presumably in recognition that it's an untenable assertion, so I'll desist in even bringing that up.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    apparently.
    it isn't the theist that gains from replacing biogenesis with abiogenesis.
    i have no idea how life came to be here. "life" could have always existed as far as i know.
    personally i feel it's a lack of understanding more than anything else.
    when most people hear, or mention, "god" they assume or mean some sort of "being" with supernatural powers.
    in my opinion such an entity is . . . :shrug: frankly i don't buy it.
    correct, how far should it go.
     
  17. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    Lol, could it be that you were in favour of atheism and we're here talking to each others because of a misunderstanding?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Personally, I don't really think that it matters in every subject of sciences whether you believe in a deity or not. The thing that matters though are the doctrines that tend to be involved with said belief.
     
  18. scorpius a realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Originally Posted by James R
    My advice to you, SAM, is never ever gamble, because it is clear that you have no understanding of basic probability.

    hot dam!
    do tell,just WHERE can I get piece of that action??
    50-50 LOL!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    no.
    i'm not in favor of a "godless society".
    correct, it doesn't matter.
    what matters is that you have to squash laws to push your agenda.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    SAM:

    Isn't it your problem to come up with one?

    As I explained earlier, it is a provisional conclusion based on the evidence.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here are two images that people say are of Jesus of Nazareth.

    Do they prove that Jesus exists, or existed? If so, which one is the real Jesus?



    leopold99:

    On the basis that convincing evidence is lacking.

    And this proves the existence of God... how?

    On the contrary, all our experience and study of life shows that only a natural origin is plausible.

    Ho hum. Another brainwashed Creationist.

    What is this scientific law of biogenesis you refer to? I've never heard of it.
     
  21. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i don't remember stating i wished to prove god.
    only because science lacks the means and/or knowledge to investigate any other avenue.
    don't get bored, it's an interesting subject.
    lovesick maybe, brainwashed? i miss my buddy. :bawl:
    type in biogenesis into your favorite search engine and press enter.

    basically biogenesis states:
    life comes from life and that of its own kind.
    i remind you that the above law has not been refuted one single time.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    leopold99:

    Do you think a miracle is required every time a seed sprouts or an embryo is formed, or was God's miracle just a one-off thing millions of years ago?

    Actually, I ought to check. How old do you believe the Earth is, and when and how do you think life began?
     
  23. Dub_ Strange loop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    I don't presume to speak for James, but I think one of the points he is making is that the concept of biogenesis as stated by biological science does not address the ultimate origin of life, as you seem to have implied that it does. In other words, yes life comes from life -- that's the very definition of biogenesis -- but where did the first life come from? That is the question of abiogenesis. So while it appears at casual glance that "abiogenesis" must be in direct competition with "biogenesis," they actually address entirely separate issues. Since the law of biogenesis was never meant to explain the ultimate origin of life, nothing has been "ousted" at all.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page