Atheists and their jargon of insults

[cladking]

Of course this computer would not work and airplanes could not fly if it were based on "assumptions."

I'm afraid this shows a gross misunderstanding of science.

Science is based in axioms and definitions that can not be removed without also removing experiment and theory. There can be no science without assumption. It behooves scientists and metaphysicians to not only be aware of every assumption but to also test them regularly. Somehow nobody noticed that the last century of experiments often don't support the assumptions suggesting a new paradigm is necessary.

 

[cladking]

You diss science calling it "assumptions."

It's not assumptions that are the problem. The problem is erroneous assumptions like the one tha6t says there's no room for God inside of human knowledge. Can God create a science so complete that it's impossible for him to not be seen inside of it?

What is wrong with people?

 

[cladking]

I ... just ... don't ... get ... it. This theist versus atheist debate. Every time a new thread on the same topic pops up, I groan, 'not this again'. In ten years of watching the little angry train go around and around, has it gotten anywhere?

And theists are still being insulted incessantly. What is it with believers in science that they think it's OK to be nasty with heretics? There are very few nasty theists though admittedly more are annoying.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not assumptions that are the problem. The problem is erroneous assumptions like the one tha6t says there's no room for God inside of human knowledge. Can God create a science so complete that it's impossible for him to not be seen inside of it?

God did not create science. God Created our physical existence with Natural Laws and natural processes.

There is room for the subjective belief in God in human knowledge.

Methodological Naturalism can only falsify theories and hypotheses based on objective physical evidence. The subjective knowledge, claims and beliefs Gods, religions, spiritual beings and worlds not based on objectively verifiable physical evidence. Science is simply neutral to these claims and beliefs,

What is wrong with people?

They are fallible human beings.

 

[Soandso]

I ... just ... don't ... get ... it. This theist versus atheist debate. Every time a new thread on the same topic pops up, I groan, 'not this again'. In ten years of watching the little angry train go around and around, has it gotten anywhere?

Well, where there's trains there's wrecks. Everyone loves to stand around and watch those when they happen

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of only Benjamin Franklin did that. *grin*

He would have made a mint. A Franklin mint.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm afraid this shows a gross misunderstanding of science.

I am scientist with over fifty years experience

Science is based in axioms and definitions that can not be removed without also removing experiment and theory.

Math theorems and proofs are based on axioms and become tools of science.

What is the difference between a theorem and an axiom? Maths Q&A

What is the difference between a theorem and an axiom? Get the answer to this question and access a vast question bank that is tailored for students.

byjus.com

Thus, a theorem is a mathematical statement whose truth has been logically established and has been proved and an axiom is a mathematical statement which is assumed to be true even without proof.

Science is based on predictable theories and hypotheses based on predictable objective verifiable physical evidence.

There can be no science without assumption. It behooves scientists and metaphysicians to not only be aware of every assumption but to also test them regularly.

I already stated that the only assumption is Methodological Naturalism can falsify theories and hypotheses based on objective verifiable evidence. This is confirmed with the predictability of the outcome of research over the past hundreds of years.

Somehow nobody noticed that the last century of experiments often don't support the assumptions suggesting a new paradigm is necessary.

Nobody ( at least scientists) noticed, because it is not true.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I ... just ... don't ... get ... it. This theist versus atheist debate. Every time a new thread on the same topic pops up, I groan, 'not this again'. In ten years of watching the little angry train go around and around, has it gotten anywhere?

Probably because there are always people who think this is something new while us old folks have seen it over and over and over again.

 

[cladking]

Nobody ( at least scientists) noticed, because it is not true.

Are you aware of no anomalies then?

Are you aware experiment shows people see what they believe and are you aware all scientists are people? "Evidence" is the reality that we can see which by definition supports what we already believe. "Evidence" means nothing and experiment alone defines theory.

 

[Vinayaka]

Well, where there's trains there's wrecks. Everyone loves to stand around and watch those when they happen

Maybe. maybe not.

 

[cladking]

God Created our physical existence with Natural Laws and natural processes.

This is certainly possible.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Vinayaka]

Probably because there are always people who think this is something new while us old folks have seen it over and over and over again.

Could be. In the latest one the OP was new, but several of the respondents were old folks on here. And I guess there are also a lot of neutrals who choose not to participate. We don't see them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you aware of no anomalies then?

Yes, you are misusing the concept of anomalies to justify your agenda.

Something that deviates from the norm does not determine a theory or hypothesis false. Theories and hypotheses are not set in stone over time new information can create an alternative or of course find a hypothesis false if the anomalies exceed the acceptable. Science does take anomalies into consideration in Methodological Naturalism.

Science is based on predictable theories and hypotheses based on predictable objective verifiable physical evidence.

Are you aware experiment shows people see what they believe and are you aware all scientists are people? "Evidence" is the reality that we can see which by definition supports what we already believe. "Evidence" means nothing and experiment alone defines theory.

False, big time misrepresentation of science based on your warped agenda.

You are still living in a Newtonian past of wood, iron and stone.

Apparently you do not even understand the basics of math, theorems, proofs, and axioms and their relationship to science.

You need to go back to school and get the basics right,

This makes you unreliable concerning anything to do with science and math.

 

[We Never Know]

I recall watching a story about a scientist in New Mexico that had developed a method to study lightning by shooting a copper wire into the air attached to some sort of rocket. He was very successful from all accounts and the video.

I've seen several of those videos. They are called lightning rockets

 

[shunyadragon]

He would have made a mint. A Franklin mint.

Making a lot of phony shiny objects. Crows love them.

 

[shunyadragon]

I've seen several of those videos. They are called lightning rockets

Don't hold onto the wire in an electrical storm.

 

[shunyadragon]

Double groonI ... just ... don't ... get ... it. This theist versus atheist debate. Every time a new thread on the same topic pops up, I groan, 'not this again'. In ten years of watching the little angry train go around and around, has it gotten anywhere?

Triple groan! the thread did not even address the subject of the debate whether Gods exists or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't hold onto the wire in an electrical storm.

Your teeth are natural insulators. Use those

 

[The Hammer]

Nope, I'm saying stuff like trying to diagnosis a stranger with mental illness cause they had a divine experience is abuse. Epistemological unfriendliness is abusive.

I had this happen recently with another Theist on RF. Absolutely, flabbergasted.

 

[MikeF]

I'm afraid this shows a gross misunderstanding of science.

Science is based in axioms and definitions that can not be removed without also removing experiment and theory. There can be no science without assumption. It behooves scientists and metaphysicians to not only be aware of every assumption but to also test them regularly. Somehow nobody noticed that the last century of experiments often don't support the assumptions suggesting a new paradigm is necessary.

Out of curiosity, what do you see as the assumptions of science?