Atheism!

[tim290280]

^ there is adaptation leading to new species occurring. As an old example Wheat is a new species. There are new plants and animal species forming all the time.

I think you are confused as to what species means. If you are actually saying that you won't see a fish develop lungs, or a tree get up and walk, then your point is valid if somewhat naive. When you understand the transmission and mutation of DNA and cells you understand what changes are reasonable and logical. Formation of higher species from lower species is a path that branches not a jump between trees. I think you would benefit from some study of biology or botany.

 

[Ironslave]

But basically science is a self governing entity that does not try to falsify any of its tehories it comes up wit new paradigms and then only does experimentation to try and prove the paradigm not try to disprove it.

Are you kidding me? This is absolutely, 100% absurd, and inarguably wrong. Science is always questioning current knowledge, trying to expand on it, disprove it, come up with new insight, whatever. To give two powerful examples related to exercise science, the work of George Brooks and Tim Noakes has constantly debated, and disproved (or at least seriously questioned) previously accepted concepts. (posting articles, but will provide the journal papers if requested).

For the record Pysics not work when applied to quantum mechanics.

COnfronted with the contradictions observed with realtion to physics and subatomic pehnomena einstein wrote: "All of my attempts to adapt the theorhetical foundation of physics to this knowledge failed completely."

I just spoke to a physics grad student, his response was that at the quantum level, there are a new set of laws, but these laws still apply to classical physics.

"Thus, the current logic of correspondence principle between classical and quantum mechanics is that all objects obey laws of quantum mechanics, and classical mechanics is just a quantum mechanics of large systems (or a statistical quantum mechanics of a large collection of particles). Laws of classical mechanics thus follow from laws of quantum mechanics at the limit of large systems or large quantum numbers."

For the modern mind it is science that presents us with the most realistic and and reliable world picture, even if that picture is limited to "techinical" knowledge of the natural occuring pehnomena in nature. Science basically accepts the newest idea that it is presented with that sovles the problems they have as their incorrect hypothesis are proved wrong by their own scientifc theory. The philosophy behind science is to gathering knowldge through observation. All scientific knowledge is based on fundemental paradigms or conceptual models that allow researches to isolate data, elaborate theories, and solve problems. The problem with that is that the scientists do not get into the ideal of self-criticism by trying to falsify exsisting theories. Instead sciens comes up with teh latest paradigmand then gathers facts in light f that theory, performs experiments on its basisand tries to articulae its structure, attempting to clarify the paradigms problems. Far from subjecting the paradigm itself to testing normal science(existing science) was just reinterpreted in light f the new tehory as to not have it be contradicted,, but rather have old science support the paradigm or just ignore the old data all together.

To an extent never consciencly recognized by scientists, the nature of scientific practice makes its governing model(scientific theory) self-validating. The model(paradigm) acts as a lens through which every observation is filtered. Teachers and texts and scientific teaching sustains the current model and ratifies its credibility dispite the flaws in the paradigm of the philosphy behind scientific theory itself, something that self governs is not subject to its own errors.

When gradulal accumulation of conflicting information finally produces a paradigm crisis a new synthesis eenually wins scientific favor, the process of how that happens is far from rational. The new paradigm depends greatly on the customs established in the scientific community, aestetic, psychological, and sociolgical factors on the presence of contemporary root metaphors and popular analogies and on unpredictable imaginative leaps. Rival paradigms are rarely comparable. They are selectively based on different models of interpretation, which explains different sets of data. Each paradigm creates its own oraganized field having specific properties that connot be derived from the summary of the principle points that paradigm follows. So including in fact that scientists that are working on different models seem to be living in different worlds.

The history of science is not one of linear rational progress moving toward even more accurate and complete knowledge of an objective truth, but is one of radical shifts of vision in which a multitude of nonrational unguided factors play crucial roles. Science is now looked at as a relative matter, its only important for what can be proved, by trying to disprove the paradigm a scientist offers.

So it is like i discussed with you earlier science is only good for what it can prove, but these proofs or laws must come about not by manifesting a pradigm then shaping science to fit it but from maifesting a paradigm and trying to disprove it by the likes of laws we have come to discover in the same manner.

So because science is constantly changing an doesn't definitively give an answer, we can just assume that everything is a result of an old white guy in the sky (whose son was born to a virgin mother who got pregnant from an angel, the same kid who came back to life after being dead for 72 hours) magically created everything.

Use your brain Ben, having faith that something is out there is fine, but this is a load of nonsense.

 

[lifterdead]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ironslave again."

 

[BigBen]

Ironslave, i didn't say that was a reason to believe in God. Science is the best theory we have come up with so far as how to explain natural phenomena. When science does not give an answer we can assume that we do not know.

Also to your response to my first quote, are you saying that when a scientist is presented with a problem that their is no law for he does not come up with a new paradigm to solve it? when he comes up with the new paradigm he applies all known laws to it to see if they hold true then if they do the new paradigm is accepted until another law of science disproves it. That is what i was saying, and that is true. For example when Cartesian-Newtonian cosmology broke down under the new advances of physics. CNC was considered the law until the new paradigm(the advances in physics) were discovered, they proved CNC wrong then physics were accepted as the new paradigm.

 

[Ironslave]

Ironslave, i didn't say that was a reason to believe in God. Science is the best theory we have come up with so far as how to explain natural phenomena. When science does not give an answer we can assume that we do not know.

Agreed, that's why we study it and hopefully come up with an answer.

Also to your response to my first quote, are you saying that when a scientist is presented with a problem that their is no law for he does not come up with a new paradigm to solve it? when he comes up with the new paradigm he applies all known laws to it to see if they hold true then if they do the new paradigm is accepted until another law of science disproves it. That is what i was saying, and that is true. For example when Cartesian-Newtonian cosmology broke down under the new advances of physics. CNC was considered the law until the new paradigm(the advances in physics) were discovered, they proved CNC wrong then physics were accepted as the new paradigm.

Dude, what are you rambling on with? It's like when you claimed that "steroids weren't anabolic, food was." Didn't you say earlier that

But basically science is a self governing entity that does not try to falsify any of its tehories it comes up wit new paradigms and then only does experimentation to try and prove the paradigm not try to disprove it.

Why are you giving an example of new physics concepts disproving outdated work? This is the same as the examples I gave.

Regardless, keep this in context of the thread, lets use one example I keep referring to.

Originally, as Serb mentioned once, the originally proposed mechanism for how Mary got pregnant was the following.

Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
...
1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Now, through science, we know that this is absolutely, 100%, an impossible fairy tale. We know that for someone to get pregnant, it must be through sex and the fertilization of the sperm and the egg, and all the cascade of events that occur after (don't nitpick and talk about artificial insemination, or whatever else. Surely nothing such as this existed 2,000 years ago).

This is flat out impossible, and seriously, I accept and respect those who have some faith that there is a creator, but believing in this nonsense is nothing less than a hallucination.

 

[BigBen]

Dude, what are you rambling on with? It's like when you claimed that "steroids weren't anabolic, food was." Didn't you say earlier that

i actually borrowed that quote from a doctor, he said that steroids were anti-catabolic, not anabolic. That without 1 calorie the steroid would only make you hold water. Mabye you could juice yourself up to the point that you could gain muscle without eating any calories, but where would the aminos come from to build your muscles other than other muscles and tissues. You cant look at the entire picture you have to look at the steroid itself without the food bc thats what was being referred too. I was not rambling about anything, i was discussing the philosophy behind science something you must not have studied bc you would be more familiar with the weak points if you had. You cannot say you are against ignorance if you refuse to put scientific theory and the philosophy it is based on to the test. Keep in mind that this is the best theory that we have but it is still not flawless.

I gave the example of new physics out dating the old b/c at that time they felt the same way we do now about all existing laws of science. Until the new paradigm(model) for physics came about and shattered the old one. Which is the point, the ground that laws stand on is only as good as what is standing on top of it, which as far as history is concerned is the best yet, but still unperfected.

I am not arguing religion with you i am trying to point out that the philosophy science is governed by is left to govern itself by itself, and NOTHING MORE. Do you understand the last sentence? Their is no hidden points or suggestions to my posts i am saying this is where science leaves us, and for a philosophy to be perfect it must answer all questions, and science leaves the question of why unanswered. If a paradigm(model) of thinking is the answer to all things it must answer all questions. I am not saying that science has proved nothing b/c it clearly has proved lots of things which only leaves us with more unanswered questions. Science is fantastic, it is the most brilliant paradigm mankind can come up with, but it still leaves questions unanswered from a philosophical point of view that all theories must answer. Science has philosophy as its backbone as all other ideas do that answer to the natural phenomena in nature do, so it must answer the question why.

 

[Skeptic]

i actually borrowed that quote from a doctor, he said that steroids were anti-catabolic, not anabolic. That without 1 calorie the steroid would only make you hold water. Mabye you could juice yourself up to the point that you could gain muscle without eating any calories, but where would the aminos come from to build your muscles other than other muscles and tissues. You cant look at the entire picture you have to look at the steroid itself without the food bc thats what was being referred too. I was not rambling about anything, i was discussing the philosophy behind science something you must not have studied bc you would be more familiar with the weak points if you had. You cannot say you are against ignorance if you refuse to put scientific theory and the philosophy it is based on to the test. Keep in mind that this is the best theory that we have but it is still not flawless.

I gave the example of new physics out dating the old b/c at that time they felt the same way we do now about all existing laws of science. Until the new paradigm(model) for physics came about and shattered the old one. Which is the point, the ground that laws stand on is only as good as what is standing on top of it, which as far as history is concerned is the best yet, but still unperfected.

I am not arguing religion with you i am trying to point out that the philosophy science is governed by is left to govern itself by itself, and NOTHING MORE. Do you understand the last sentence? Their is no hidden points or suggestions to my posts i am saying this is where science leaves us, and for a philosophy to be perfect it must answer all questions, and science leaves the question of why unanswered. If a paradigm(model) of thinking is the answer to all things it must answer all questions. I am not saying that science has proved nothing b/c it clearly has proved lots of things which only leaves us with more unanswered questions. Science is fantastic, it is the most brilliant paradigm mankind can come up with, but it still leaves questions unanswered from a philosophical point of view that all theories must answer. Science has philosophy as its backbone as all other ideas do that answer to the natural phenomena in nature do, so it must answer the question why.

you dont seem to understand the concept that YES science doesnt answer all questions... but there is an infinite amount of information out there, and it will take a very long time to sift through it all and answer all the questions.

 

[BigBen]

Skeptic,

My point was the philosophy of science wont be able to answer all the questions presented by its own philosophy. I agree science is a magnificent paradigm, and we will continue to use it to better ourselves, to hopefully perfect clean energy and other matters that science pertains to. I agree and it was my point that science does not answer all questions, but it is an extremely useful paradigm and wonderful and good things can and should be done with it. But if philosophical questions are left unanswered in the initial philosophy then the paradigm will never be able to answer those questions. Science will never be able to answer a philosophical question of "why" that it must answer to be perfect. Science does not search for why it searches for "how". In light of that it is our responsibility to search for the truth and science is part of this search so as it must do science will advance, and everyone should be joyous in light of that b/c of all the good can and hopefully will be used for. I LOVE science because of the good it can do.

 

[Ironslave]

Science has proven it impossible to be born to a virgin mother.

/end thread.


edit: for the nitpickers, do not count artificial methods of reproduction plz, thanks!

 

[El Freako]

I am not arguing religion with you i am trying to point out that the philosophy science is governed by is left to govern itself by itself, and NOTHING MORE. Do you understand the last sentence? Their is no hidden points or suggestions to my posts i am saying this is where science leaves us, and for a philosophy to be perfect it must answer all questions, and science leaves the question of why unanswered. If a paradigm(model) of thinking is the answer to all things it must answer all questions. I am not saying that science has proved nothing b/c it clearly has proved lots of things which only leaves us with more unanswered questions. Science is fantastic, it is the most brilliant paradigm mankind can come up with, but it still leaves questions unanswered from a philosophical point of view that all theories must answer. Science has philosophy as its backbone as all other ideas do that answer to the natural phenomena in nature do, so it must answer the question why.

While I can understand what you are trying to say here, a fundamental problem that every atheist is going to have is how you can try to answer all these questions that science cannot with a concept such as religion which has such consistently flawed logic. At least every time science has a new answer to a question it is using the most up to date knowledge available to answer that question, not just only the knowledge that was available thousands of years ago.

If Religion is so full of flawed logic and reasoning, how can it be the answer?

 

[BigBen]

Science has proven it impossible to be born to a virgin mother.

/end thread.


edit: for the nitpickers, do not count artificial methods of reproduction plz, thanks!

/thread opened

Your entirely missing the point, your trying to use science to answer a question it is not fit to answer. Truths besides science must exist to answer the question of why. It is not a matter of wishing they existed it is a matter of knowing they have to exists.Just as logic as we understand it must exist and have based everything off of logic as it exists.

You still need an answer to the question why? Science will never provide this, it can not provide this b/c of its governing paradigm. Science cannot be used to study the why of things it is used to study the how. Science does not find out why things work science finds out how things work. You being against ignorance must also search for an answer to this that goes outside of scientific thinking, and enters into philosophical thinking. You must answer you don't know and never will know without accepting a spirituality of some sort. The important thing to know is that you cannot ignore the question if you want the truth b/c the truth(knowledge of all things) will answer all possible questions.

Albert Einstein himself said that science can only bring you to God's front door(metaphorically speaking), b/c he knew science will never answer the question of why. Science cannot be discredited for what has already been proved unless a new paradigm in the field of science does this, b/c that is in fact how the governing paradigms of science work. Even then science is not discredited but rather enlightened of it's new understanding of their laws if in fact flaws are present in the existing laws(probably not, but until everything is known you cannot be sure)


That is my point as great and as much as science has shown us, science cannot answer all questions. Thus other truthful paradigms must exist that answers the questions science cannot answer. It is a matter of discovering the governing paradigms to the fields that answer all questions. That is why you have people in science fields that are brilliant, and belong to a religion, or have some sort of spirituality.

 

[Ironslave]

Ben, you're missing one key point.

In order for something to be accepted, or at least entertained as possible, science must show some evidence for it, and NOT the other way around. Thus, sorry, you cannot say "sorry, Jesus was born to a virgin mother, the scientific paradigms may change to show this is possible and blah blah blah, more nonsense."

Until I see a pig flying, it's not possible. I don't have to prove that pigs cannot fly, someone has to prove that they can. THAT is how science works. You cannot come to a conclusion without one shred (no, the bible doesn't count) of evidence. First, some evidence must show something to be possible, and then science looks as to how.

Like I said in another thread, using your logic (or lack thereof), can you prove me wrong if I was to say I believed that an extract from Robcardu's sperm, and Robcardu's alone, was able to cure all the world's diseases? Me thinking that this is possible, is exactly like you thinking that Jesus was born to a virgin mother.

However, as far as getting pregnant by an angel dropping down from the sky, and not having sexual intercourse, this is absolutely, 100% impossible. Don't ramble on about technicalities of quantum physics and other nonsense, for fertilization to occur, sperm must meet egg. Sorry, but this is as accepted. Now, are there still minor events of the process after that we don't know? Of course, but the basic fact remains.


I'm sorry bro, but if anybody actually still, after all this, still thinks that Jesus was born to a virgin mother from an angel who came down from the sky, just because you've been conditioned to think so and cherry pick whatever philosophy to somehow come to the conclusion that this is possible (actually, or should I say, science has not shown it to be impossible ) , you're a complete utter moron.

 

[BigBen]

While I can understand what you are trying to say here, a fundamental problem that every atheist is going to have is how you can try to answer all these questions that science cannot with a concept such as religion which has such consistently flawed logic. At least every time science has a new answer to a question it is using the most up to date knowledge available to answer that question, not just only the knowledge that was available thousands of years ago.

EXACTLY! That is why science is so great in the question of how.

If Religion is so full of flawed logic and reasoning, how can it be the answer?

The logic behind the governing paradigms in religion is not flawed. Religion answers the question of why.

So you say science proves the "how" of the events in history in these times so important to religious doctrine not possible. They are not possible b/c what we know of man, then you must realize that the events that don't measure up to "how" of man are not performed by man, and are not bound by what man is bound by. So how can we hold them to what we understand of man? So then you must come to understand God. You must study theology, theology is the "what" of God. The "what" of God intervening in these times changes the "how" of the events b/c the circumstances of the events are different and not human by nature they are God by nature and act differently. B/c man is not God and God is not man.


Brother i have to go eat.

 

[BigBen]

Ben, you're missing one key point.

In order for something to be accepted, or at least entertained as possible, science must show some evidence for it, and NOT the other way around. Thus, sorry, you cannot say "sorry, Jesus was born to a virgin mother, the scientific paradigms may change to show this is possible and blah blah blah, more nonsense."

Until I see a pig flying, it's not possible. I don't have to prove that pigs cannot fly, someone has to prove that they can. THAT is how science works. You cannot come to a conclusion without one shred (no, the bible doesn't count) of evidence. First, some evidence must show something to be possible, and then science looks as to how.

Like I said in another thread, using your logic (or lack thereof), can you prove me wrong if I was to say I believed that an extract from Robcardu's sperm, and Robcardu's alone, was able to cure all the world's diseases? Me thinking that this is possible, is exactly like you thinking that Jesus was born to a virgin mother.

Sure you could prove it is wrong. ROb is man and man by nature thus he can be judged from what we know of man. If you claimed the "what" of robs nature was God we could use theology to disprove that as well. If you claim Rob was God we could then use what we know of the "what" of God to come up with the conclusion that Rob is not God. So we use what we know of man to prove that rob is in fact man, and man by nature. We could then use Robs sperm and using scientific theory prove that robs sperm DOES NOT cure all disease.

However, as far as getting pregnant by an angel dropping down from the sky, and not having sexual intercourse, this is absolutely, 100% impossible. Don't ramble on about technicalities of quantum physics and other nonsense, for fertilization to occur, sperm must meet egg. Sorry, but this is as accepted. Now, are there still minor events of the process after that we don't know? Of course, but the basic fact remains.


I'm sorry bro, but if anybody actually still, after all this, still thinks that Jesus was born to a virgin mother from an angel who came down from the sky, just because you've been conditioned to think so and cherry pick whatever philosophy to somehow come to the conclusion that this is possible (actually, or should I say, science has not shown it to be impossible ) , you're a complete utter moron.

My reply to el freako also apply to this post.

 

[Ironslave]

Can you prove that Robcardu is a man though? What evidence do you have that Robcardu is not God?

You realize that you're arguing about an imaginary being that nobody has ever seen, right?

 

[El Freako]

The logic behind the governing paradigms in religion is not flawed. Religion answers the question of why.

So you say science proves the "how" of the events in history in these times so important to religious doctrine not possible. They are not possible b/c what we know of man, then you must realize that the events that don't measure up to "how" of man are not performed by man, and are not bound by what man is bound by. So how can we hold them to what we understand of man? So then you must come to understand God. You must study theology, theology is the "what" of God. The "what" of God intervening in these times changes the "how" of the events b/c the circumstances of the events are different and not human by nature they are God by nature and act differently. B/c man is not God and God is not man.


Brother i have to go eat.

But from what we know from science, nearly everything in christian mythology could not have even happened in the first place. Science has proven this so. Maybe you could use this argument:

The "what" of God intervening in these times changes the "how" of the events b/c the circumstances of the events are different and not human by nature they are God by nature and act differently. B/c man is not God and God is not man.

...if these events were documented and recorded by some reliable source. The bible is not such a source. As is often repeated, it is a book of fables. It would be like me basing my knowledge of the world on what I have read in comic books.

 

[BigBen]

Of course i can prove robcardu is man. God is limitless he has no beginning or no end. Robcardu has had a beginning and will have an end thus he cannot be God.

For the record the imagination and God have two separate natures thus God as He is does not exist in imagination b/c He is not subject to change. God is who is. Believing that God exists means that He must definitely exist and have definite nature. B/c of God's definite nature you know He exists. Imagination is a result of how reality is observed through the five senses, and is subject to opinion. God is not subject to opinion, He is the Ultimate truth, and has definite being.

 

[BigBen]

...if these events were documented and recorded by some reliable source. The bible is not such a source. As is often repeated, it is a book of fables. It would be like me basing my knowledge of the world on what I have read in comic books.

Historical dating of the texts in the bible lines them up precisely with the times in which they claim to have been written. You are asking about the legitimacy of what is written in these texts? T

his is where the effect of time holds even more importance. Keeping in mind that the books were written in the times the say they were b/c the original books have been dated, the prophecies in the books do make Jesus the person he says he is beyond a doubt. But what your asking is how do we know that somebody did not just make these things up.

I would say that it would almost seem impossible if you follow the lineage of people all the way back to the apostles who suffered and died for the cause. It would seem insane that so many people would choose to die based off of a lie, especially the original 12 who were martyred who lived with Christ and interacted with Him.

Is it possible that they died in vein out of spite to fool everyone that followed them in history, for these gentleman to live the way they did and travel the way they did it is possible, but the probability is astronomical that they did not do this out of spite, that would be almost insane, and history proves these people were far from that. I do not seem how they would willing die in vein after the virtue they held after interacting with Christ. Also I do not see them giving up their jobs and lifestyles that some of them gave up to follow Jesus if he was anyone less that what He claimed to be.

Gentlemen i am tired you have a nice evening.

 

[Skeptic]

so if you believe he exists then he does?

So does that mean if i believe ill marry Scarlett Johansen... then it will be true?!???!?!? ZOMG!!!11!!1!!!!!!1 11!!!ONE!!!! 1!!!

 

[Ironslave]

Of course i can prove robcardu is man. God is limitless he has no beginning or no end. Robcardu has had a beginning and will have an end thus he cannot be God.

Prove it. Can you prove that Robcardu will not resurrect 300 years from now like Jesus did?

For the record the imagination and God have two separate natures thus God as He is does not exist in imagination b/c He is not subject to change. God is who is. Believing that God exists means that He must definitely exist and have definite nature. B/c of God's definite nature you know He exists. Imagination is a result of how reality is observed through the five senses, and is subject to opinion. God is not subject to opinion, He is the Ultimate truth, and has definite being.

Hallucination (noun): A profound distortion in a person's perception of reality, typically accompanied by a powerful sense of reality.

A hallucination may be a sensory experience in which a person can see, hear, smell, taste, or feel something that is not there.

The types of hallucinations include:

* An auditory hallucination is an hallucination involving the sense of hearing. Called also paracusia and paracusis.
* A gustatory hallucination is an hallucination involving the sense of taste.
* A hypnagogic hallucination is a vivid dreamlike hallucination at the onset of sleep.
* Hypnopompic hallucination is a vivid dreamlike hallucination on awakening.
* Kinesthetic hallucination is an hallucination involving the sense of bodily movement.
* Lilliputian hallucination is an hallucination in which things, people, or animals seem smaller than they would be in reality.
* Olfactory hallucination is an hallucination involving the sense of smell.
* Somatic hallucination is an hallucination involving the perception of a physical experience occurring with the body.
* Tactile hallucination is an hallucination involving the sense of touch.
* Visual hallucination is an hallucination involving the sense of sight.
* Religion


I added the last bullet point :carduindisguise