Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by USCitizen

TRUE!

THEN there real life...the major donors who keep sending the scientists back to the lab to either fudge the data or change the population and elements being tested.
I realize that mental masturbation is enjoyable...then the agenda steps in.

This is also true, but here we are talking about individual scientists, not science.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

With all the knowledge science has garnered, almost everything we base our technology upon is still considered a theory until we are able to observe and analyze levels of existence which we are still incapable of seeing due to size and/or speed.

Not quite. A scientific theory is an explanation of phenomena based on considerable evidence, so much so that there is no competing theory. It is a paradigm that explains certain phenomena better than competing ideas. Evolutionary Theory, for example, is a fact in so far as there is no competing scientific theory to explain how life developed on earth.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

This is also true, but here we are talking about individual scientists, not science.


Not quite. A scientific theory is an explanation of phenomena based on considerable evidence, so much so that there is no competing theory. It is a paradigm that explains certain phenomena better than competing ideas. Evolutionary Theory, for example, is a fact in so fare as there is no competing scientific theory to explain how life developed on earth.

Perhaps you can explain the missing link?

Originally Posted by michael h

Lets see how my understanding of the scientific method is incorrect.

What has the scrutiny of the scientific method systematically observed, measured, experimented with, and replicated with empirical evidence relative to God? Nothing on the other hand they could be searching for a teapot.

You make things so easy. The scientific method, in examining the above statement, simply asks one question. What God, which Teapot?

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

You make things so easy. The scientific method, in examining the above statement, simply asks one question. What God, which Teapot?


The theme of this thread, if I'm not mistaken, is that Atheism is about something other than a conclusion reached that what some people called "god", they have no idea what they are talking about. If we have reached the same conclusion, great.

So you agree the scientific method has not been applied to the question of God. Good

Originally Posted by michael h

Christ English is not your 1st language. Does an argument from ignorance assert that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false?

add: that can't differentiate an argument from ignorance from an attempt to not support a statement as truth ... but as a null set.

LOL! English is my first language and I'll pit my use of language against yours anyday. Take the above statement, for example. It is still incoherent and unresponsive to my original request to rephrase the question. I still have no idea what your point is. As is the case with unfounded claims, the burden of clarity in communicating an idea is always on the one who phrases the question.
So far, you are simply hiding behind subjective musings. How about something concrete?

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

LOL! English is my first language and I'll pit my use of language against yours anyday. Take the above statement, for example. It is still incoherent and unresponsive to my original request to rephrase the question. I still have no idea what your point is. As is the case with unfounded claims, the burden of clarity in communicating an idea is always on the one who phrases the question.
So far, you are simply hiding behind subjective musings. How about something concrete?

Pitiful response. Go study what a argument from ignorance is and come back ... when your more prepared.

Wiki it you do have a computer.

Originally Posted by Fennica

-Learn what the Burden of Proof means.

What about the Torah bothers you?
Take it one issue at a time and I will presume you are somewhat fluent in Hebrew?

After we complete the discussion of the Jewish Scriptures we will move on to the TNT and I will presume you have a working knowledge of the King James version vs others.
I will also presume you have a working knowledge of Greek.

But let's start with the Torah.
Remember, one issue at a time and no spamming sites that have several hundred misinterpretations of verses in order to prove the Torah is false.
I will be happy to assist.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

LOL! English is my first language and I'll pit my use of language against yours anyday. Take the above statement, for example. It is still incoherent and unresponsive to my original request to rephrase the question. I still have no idea what your point is. As is the case with unfounded claims, the burden of clarity in communicating an idea is always on the one who phrases the question.
So far, you are simply hiding behind subjective musings. How about something concrete?

What question did I phrase by the way?

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

There's a problem with statements like this one. We have no idea what you mean by "God". How do you know that the flying spaghetti monster did not make it happen?

Really??? Who is "we"?:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Evolutionary Theory, for example, is a fact in so far as there is no competing scientific theory to explain how life developed on earth.

That's because the theory is rather lacking in a solid foundation; we are all aware of genetic mutations, but they always result in a lessening of the species, not a streghthening.
Anyway, according to those who expound evolution, which, by the way, Judaism has no problem with, one requires scientific knowledge well beyond the pale of ordinary physicists and chemists and biologists and just about every other scientific realm.
This leads to one of two conclusions on my part...
[1] How do I know the outstanding genius is REALLY such a genius when noone can prove he is a genius except for himself?
[2] Why is such a genius wasting his time on evulution when he could be making mankind changing strides in most other scientific fields?

I think evolutionists have made great contributions relating to various other sciences but I am dubious as to the benefits of waiting around for 100 million years until man becomes a somewhat intelligent creature.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Rubbish. If there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to take it seriously. Period. One could equally posit that there is a lack of evidence that Santa Clause really eixsts. Are you seriously suggesting that anything for which there is lack of evidence should be considered evidence of something? That is an even more basic mistake.

Oi, FishJoel.
-This post is a great response to your countering and therefore I merely invite you to read it with thought.

Originally Posted by Fennica

Oi, FishJoel.
-This post is a great response to your countering and therefore I merely invite you to read it with thought.

No thoughts of your own? Matrixx is to do the thinking now ... fair enough.

OK Michael will be atheist for one post: I'll display the full extent of atheist debate.

Haven't you ever heard of Russell's Teapot???? Don't you damn theists understand burden of proof???????? Hehehehehe ... Santa Claus hehehehehe ... Spaghetti monster. Science! Scientific Method.

There you go mates ... that's all of it. You can just copy and paste from that one line ... no need for any originality.

Presto change oh ... back to being my old God loving self