• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science ... NOT God ...

A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Jollybear said:
You're the one that doesn't really understand the situation, and you prove it with statements about me like: "Of course you can't support any of your claims"

I haven't made any claims to proof, only evidence and inference.

You're the one who makes claims when you insist that "God" was NOT involved in anything. I don't make the claim that God was involved via proof. All I state is that I don't believe the claim you have made. I may pull into the discussion points that appear to run contrary to your own (like the FACT that DNA is a CODE, implying intelligence, nor is there any way - scientific or otherwise - to directly link DNA to not being a code- otherwise the scientific community would easily be in an uproar over such a thing having been not discovered) in order to try and show you why YOU shouldn't be making your claim - but I admit I have no claim to substitute for many of the claims you make. I have no "theist proof version" of the claims you make. There isn't even such a thing. And this is how I know you don't understand. You (and tons of atheists who think incorrectly like you) keep making statements that frame the situation up incorrectly, all the while seeming to think you know exactly what is going on.

You have made the claim. And you don't present directly correlating evidence for a none God - like you want to pretend you do. Otherwise it would not be so easy for the believing world to simply deny it. Because that's the thing, a very large portion of the purposefully believing community does adhere to beliefs/knowledge that are based in empirical, real-world, testable, reproducible evidence. The kind that YOU DON'T HAVE for your none God. You don't have it. You don't. Stop saying that you do. If you did, you'd put the world into a tailspin, and be one of the most famous people on Earth. But you haven't, and you're not. All you have is the same old tired thought exercises, pointing a finger that you just pulled out of your nose at "nature" (as if that is supposed to mean anything), and hopeful philosophical drivel that has been paraded around for hundreds of years in many cases. Which is why I can confidently state that the "evidence" you keep talking about is garbage. Absolute garbage. And it will continue to prove itself so when contrasted with the many things in the this world for which we do have a sufficient caliber of evidence.
Click to expand...
Seems like you think you're being clever here. Also seems I am trying to communicate with a brick wall. You've obviously made up your mind. Good luck with that.
 
Dan From Smithville

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Audie said:
I long since decided not to attempt communication
with ye brick wall.
Click to expand...
I just wish something intelligent would stick to that wall. With any luck, parroting what other people write may result in some knowledge actually sinking in my accident. Though, that is a pipe dream. It would have to have something to sink into.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Dan From Smithville said:
I just wish something intelligent would stick to that wall. With any luck, parroting what other people write may result in some knowledge actually sinking in my accident. Though, that is a pipe dream. It would have to have something to sink into.
Click to expand...

It cannot "sink in" except maybe on some subconscious
level.

For Lo, if the tiniest error of any sort is admitted to,
the entire rigid brittle structure of their belief system
is shattered. May as well ask for just a little hole in
a balloon.

For those who do start to let bits and pieces filter in
sub rosa, there must eventually be an epiphany.
 
Dan From Smithville

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Audie said:
It cannot "sink in" except maybe on some subconscious
level.

For Lo, if the tiniest error of any sort is admitted to,
the entire rigid brittle structure of their belief system
is shattered. May as well ask for just a little hole in
a balloon.

For those who do start to let bits and pieces filter in
sub rosa, there must eventually be an epiphany.
Click to expand...
I have never understood how a faith-based position can be shattered by a little knowledge of the natural world. It is faith-based and did not require evidence to form.

If one were to look at that realistically, it would astound some of these believers at how weak their own belief is. That they have demanded it be built on a fragile and easily shaken framework. This of course, assumes the ability to self-examine, though the evidence indicates that ability is pointedly lacking.
 
Last edited:
Dan From Smithville

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Jollybear said:
I see the response was consistent. Meaningless as usual, but also consistent.

Just trying to reinforce eachothers nonsense does you no good.

Boy these forums are useless.
Click to expand...
I wonder how long I can keep you doing this? It is rather entertaining. Copy at your leisure.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
So again you state facts. Including about death and survival.
Click to expand...

yeah, I think facts are quite relevant.


Okay, but why does these fact matter?
Click to expand...

To rationally motivate the answer to the question of how religion works, why it exists. As opposed to merely asserting something.

Given these facts, superstitious beliefs (like religion) are expected and indeed do occur throughout the animal kingdom.
 
A Vestigial Mote

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Jollybear said:
I wonder how long I can keep you doing this?
Click to expand...
Just FYI - when my son was 5&6 years old, he got a kick out of parroting me like this, or vice versa, and it would go on for a little while. Now, at 7 years old, he's apparently out-grown it, and finds it terribly annoying when anyone does it, and no longer does it himself. Again... he's 7.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
What is the evidence for that?
Click to expand...
A long track record of arriving succesfully at answers with evidence, while failing to arrive at such answers without evidence.

I don't know of a single instance of trying to explain a certain thing, where reasoning without using evidence provided us with a more accurate answer then reasoning with evidence.

Not taking facts into account when trying to explain a certain thing, doesn't seem like a good method when the goal is to come up with accurate explanations.


:rolleyes:
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
A long track record of arriving succesfully at answers with evidence, while failing to arrive at such answers without evidence.

I don't know of a single instance of trying to explain a certain thing, where reasoning without using evidence provided us with a more accurate answer then reasoning with evidence.

Not taking facts into account when trying to explain a certain thing, doesn't seem like a good method when the goal is to come up with accurate explanations.


:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Using facts to convince someone that facts
are relevant? Good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top