by cyberjesus 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
but I dont want to leave the word prove out, without it I can make the point that from one aspect atheism and religion are same.
To cut to the hearth of the matter, can you provide some evidence to support your claim about pseudoscience. i think its fair to ask you to provide evidence to support it. I already said read The demon haunted world by carl sagan
http://www.philosophy.thecastsite.com/readings/godwantsyoudead/demonhauntedworld.pdf
but I dont want to leave the word prove out, without it I can make the point that from one aspect atheism and religion are same.
well i can only tell you how these words are understood by scientists, not if you should actually use them like that or not.
somehow its not very convincing that first accuse a group of people of being pseudoscientific and when i ask you to back it up, you cant name a single person for that group or what pseudoscientific claim he or she use, you just refer me to some book which i contain the answer.
Why do believers always expect we who do not believe to prove a negative ?
You could claim that small blue Unicorns with pink spots exist, and I would ask for proof that they did, I could not prove that they did not exist could I ?
If you further went on to claim that if I only believed in these Unicorns I would be assured of everlasting life, I would be even more interested in your proof, but if you offered no proof, I would see no reason to take any action, let alone believe.
I have never seen any satisfactory proof, scientifically and forensically satisfactory, that God exists, believers should put up or shut up.
wobble, i think i know the answer.
The religious way to approach the world is to ask: "Do i believe in this or do i not". Its a yes/no black/white view. So they come to expect thats how science work, and science consist of a set of statements which scientists are absolutely sure off, and a set of statements they absolutely reject. Therefore you end up with people asking for evidence for negative statements, you end up with "If evolution is not absolutely certain about the evolution of the green-eyed amazonian frogs spot on the back, evolution is not certain and hence wrong!" you end up with a no-questions-asked attitude because its allways legitimate to ask the questioner: "Well do you believe it or not!?".
Meanwhile, the scientific worldview is to allways ask: "How sure am I of this?". Thats the root of the whole problem. its a completely different approach.
Look bohm this is getting beyond a joke, go back to my posts and read were I mention scientists, atheists are not scientists but they claim not to believe in any god, I said it they go beyond science... are you following me? get it? I can quote anyone that calls themselves atheists because to them the big bang, evolution theory, etc is enough to disprove god/s without the proof, get it? pseudocience definition theory mistaken as scientific: a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific.
let me give you a very simple analogy, lets say a religions person, atheist and agnostic person were at court to prove their beliefs, who do you think will win?
wobble wrote :Why do believers always expect we who do not believe to prove a negative ?
You could claim that small blue Unicorns with pink spots exist, and I would ask for proof that they did, I could not prove that they did not exist could I ?
If you further went on to claim that if I only believed in these Unicorns I would be assured of everlasting life, I would be even more interested in your proof, but if you offered no proof, I would see no reason to take any action, let alone believe.
I have never seen any satisfactory proof, scientifically and forensically satisfactory, that God exists, believers should put up or shut up.
instead of blue unicorns you could write big bang and it wouldn't make a difference, where's the proof?
dead right BOHM, a different approach that has been of proven worth for hundreds of years as a way to learn about our World and Universe and ourselves.
As scientists people do not need beliefs, they have facts they are happy with, theories that work, hypotheses that are awaiting tests or more information.
Science has no certianties, for even a good workable theory, similar to what the believer may call a "truth" perhaps, such a theory may change in the future as knowledge expands, and that is the joy of Science, a never ending quest and journey.
If science adopted the approach that the believer does, progress would stop.
The believer wants certainties and "truth" but without needing ,apparently facts or proof. That is not rational.
Edited to reply to Joey Jo Jo : there are plenty of facts to support the big bang as you well know, but it is not a theory that is sacrosanct (as none are) or even totally supported by all scientists, but it is working at present as a theory. It is the same with say "Black Holes", just agood working theory which may get thrown out.
The difference is between scientific theories and religious belief, I am not required by science to sacrifice my life, or that of my children for it, I do not have to send any money to it, I can ridicule it if I want to, scientists may shake their head, but they won't kill me for it.
atheists are not scientists but they claim not to believe in any god, I said it they go beyond science... are you following me? ... I can quote anyone that calls themselves atheists because to them the big bang, evolution theory, etc is enough to disprove god/s without the proof, get it? pseudocience definition theory mistaken as scientific: a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific.
im an atheist and i believe its a scientifically valid position, so it seem i am one of the people you have objections to. First of if you claim my position is not valid its up to you to define the supposed God i should believe in, so lets begin right there.
If its not a God i have heard about, just give me some general properties like omnibenovolent, creator of the universe, all-seing, sentinent, has a heaven, etc.
Wobble: darn well said . i have a certain feeling of dejavu right now :-).
(updated to add the rest of the quote, reply to wobble.)
JJJ - have you looked at the reasons why some of our most brilliant thinkers, mathematicians and astronomers posit a big bang and more importantly are testing that hypothesis in many different ways? Or is your statement:
instead of blue unicorns you could write big bang and it wouldn't make a difference, where's the proof?
..nothing more than a quick attempt to suggest that science, scientific methods, theories and facts are faith based and therefore as insubstantial as religious claims? Be careful how you wield your sword of truth because it will cut myth and fantasy well before it scratches facts.
You are right to point out that the Big Bang is not the only explanation of the facts (red shifts shows currently expanding universe while cooling background radiation points to a very hot point for the universe in the past) but it does have a wealth of real evidence to back it up. 'God did it' is not an explanation of the evidence it's just a pre-programmed response that you've allowed your brain to short cut too.
Given the right cultural background we could easily find a religious person who fervently believes in blue unicorns and laughs your faithless bearded god to scorn.
wobble: How would you know if unicorns don't exist? or a real spaghetti monster? Could you prove me wrong by showing me all the planets from all galaxies to prove your point?? Could you trace backwards to the point that space was nothing but empty pitch black space? And if so could you point how that very very very first thing that was created out of nothing?
Qcmbr: I agree about what you wrote about religion, and atheists sound somewhat like a religious person.. meaning they say things they are not entirely sure of, most material I read from atheists has been about disproving religion and holy books but they make the mistake thinking they are completely discrediting God/s, to accomplish that you would need a knowledge no man so far possesses.
bohm: wrote "If its not a God i have heard about, just give me some general properties like omnibenovolent, creator of the universe, all-seing, sentinent, has a heaven, etc." I dont know if there is or isnt' something like a supreme being/s or a grand architect
