Anonymous
11/21/2024 12:24
Subject: Re:Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Religious beliefs, or lack thereof, cannot be validated or invalidated via scientific method.
Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:
“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin
Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.
Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.
That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.
The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.
Nonetheless it is wrong to assume that conflict between religion and science represents a truism. Many good scientists also hold religious beliefs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/12-famous-scientists-on-the-possibility-of-god_n_56afa292e4b057d7d7c7a1e5#:~:text=Known%20as%20the%20founder%20of%20the%20scientific,In%20an%20essay%20on%20atheism%2C%20Bacon%20wrote:
“The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.”
Lord Kelvin
Scottish-Irish physicist William Thomson, better known as Lord Kelvin, was one of the most eminent scientists of the 19th century and is best known today for inventing the international system of absolute temperature that bears his name.
Francis Bacon, the main architect of the scientific method, held that while a "little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism," a deeper study of philosophy would ultimately lead people back to religion. He believed that a superficial understanding of science could lead people to doubt about God, but a thorough exploration of the natural world would reveal evidence of a higher power.
That may or may not be true. We can’t know Sir Bacon’s own scientific method.
The main point is that religion and science do not need to be treated mutual enemies.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 12:14
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
My beliefs are driven by logic and empirical evidence. Everything I "believe" in is based in the natural world.
By definition, supernatural forces don't exist in the natural world and can never be "proven". I don't really put much thought into them except when people are trying to use them as excuses to hurt other people.
By definition, supernatural forces don't exist in the natural world and can never be "proven". I don't really put much thought into them except when people are trying to use them as excuses to hurt other people.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 12:03
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.
If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.
Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking
You are dishonestly misrepresenting Hawking's position. Although admittedly maybe you don't understand it. He was saying the opposite of your insinuation.
No, I actually said very clearly that you can take the collection of facts and run many direction with them.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 12:01
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.
If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.
Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking
Piling on to this incredibly stupid post: Your first three sentences are claims that you have ZERO evidence to support - and can't, because we have only one universe to explore.
Zero evidence claims about science, unsupported by scientists, scientific data, or research.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:57
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.
If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.
Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking
It statistical probability. Winning the lottery is difficult, but still possible. So long as something has a non-zero chance of ever happening, it will happen.
Also, your point is too broad. Your question could be posed to any religion/creation myth. Since you seem to be a christian, how does it make that specific one correct?
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:56
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.
If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.
Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking
You are dishonestly misrepresenting Hawking's position. Although admittedly maybe you don't understand it. He was saying the opposite of your insinuation.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:53
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.
If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.
Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:50
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
If gravity were slightly different, it's possible that after the big bang none of the higher order elements required to sustain life would exist.
If the strong nuclear force were just 2% different then stars would be radically different and life as we know it would not exist.
If the ratio between the gravitational force and the electrical force between a pair of atoms was different, then either the universe would have collapsed back on itself or it would fling out too far for life to exist.
Those are facts, right? What you do with them is up to you, of course. You could say it's just selection bias that it happened this way. Or you could think Someone was fine tuning the universe to be as it is. At that point you get away from either objectivity or facts.
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" - Stephen Hawking
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:48
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.
Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.
Thanks for calling us Bible quoters. That's a huge compliment. Seriously.
Yet you still answer not a single previous inquiry.
Which bible are you quoting? If an entity is capable of creating everything in the universe, couldn't it have created some material with text everyone could understand to convey its teachings to us lowly, ignorant creations instead of us having to divine meaning through smoke signals with burning bushes? It could have used the language from prior to the tower of babel. Also, why would this entity be afraid of these lowly creations?
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:40
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.
Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.
No, there's multiple of us making that argument. I'm one of them but I haven't written every post.
I will point out (again) that Jeff thinks it's a valid argument.
It's a distraction tactic, just like the hard solipsism arguments. And just as transparent.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:36
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
Someone claimed “objective evidence” earlier.
Still waiting on that.
Missed that post but objective evidence is not necessary for validating religious beliefs/ knowledge. It can’t be done via the scientific method.
Invalidating religious beliefs/knowledge (proving the negative, or proving the belief that God does not exist) also can't be done via the scientific method. It is by definition impossible.
Though if you use the definition of objective as "unrelated to feelings," then perhaps you can throw out a collection of facts that skew to one side or the other. Evidence != proof.
Such as?
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:16
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.
Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.
Thanks for calling us Bible quoters. That's a huge compliment. Seriously.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:16
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.
Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.
No, there's multiple of us making that argument. I'm one of them but I haven't written every post.
I will point out (again) that Jeff thinks it's a valid argument.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:06
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.
Even better, the one poster wants to argue semantics about what defines belief. I don't understand the point of their argument.
Anonymous
11/21/2024 11:05
Subject: Why do atheists post on the Religion forum?
Anonymous wrote:Hey 27 pages and let’s not forget the most important thing: there’s still no real good evidence for a god of any kind!
Shouldn’t there be? And wouldn’t someone have presented some after 27 pages?
No, because the bible quoters have ignored every question posed that asked them to validate why jesus/christianity was special.