It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Using arguements based on Science is pretty lame

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:50 AM
link   
This annoys me. There is a whole swag of evidence for ID, as well as evidence for a global catastrophe (read: flood). In fact, flood conditions were REQUIRED for fossils to form effectively. So many people on here poo-poo ID as a fairy tale, and believe that anything they have not personally experienced or watched on the Discovery Channel does not exist. Don't flat-out refuse ID just because you'd like to appear intellectually chic.

P.S - Christianity is not the cause of so many wars etc (this is a common cop-out by the ignorant). People USE religion as a vehicle and a smokescreen to get what they want (usually natural resources or strategic territory).

The coming NWO will be founded on the belief that Christianity is no longer valid. Stay tuned.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Science fails as it can never explain religion. it can never explain why 100 billion people believe in god. So if, science can't explain that, it's useless.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
Science fails as it can never explain religion. it can never explain why 100 billion people believe in god. So if, science can't explain that, it's useless.


religion = A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

religion = an institution to express belief in a divine power

religion = A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience

religion = A set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power

religion = belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe

religion = Generally a belief in a deity and practice of worship, action, and/or thought related to that deity. Loosely, any specific system of code of ethics, values, and belief

There you go, religion explained in multiple scientific ways, case closed!



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


Those are descriptions. not actual facts on why people do it. Why do people believe in god? why do people see god? how does the brain see god? and why do people go to church? give me facts of evidence, not descriptions of the words.

So like I've said, if science can't prove god, then it's worthless & pointless.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by ben91069
True, but if you are living in a ghetto, all you can see is what life you are given. In other words, science is the study of the natural world (which the bible makes mention) that is part of the grand deception. Of course science proves science. You say quoting the bible as proof is not valid because it supports itself by whatever means, but what you say supports science if in fact science is part of an intricate deception of a matrix reality?


What makes you think we are in a matrix? Another claim with no evidence you see.. And a few old texts dating from the bronze age of hamanity is anything but evidence.

That's just a defence mechanism religious minds use to vilify science and modernity by claiming they are evil and that they are the works of satan. Do you see what I mean by retrograde now?


You didn't really address his concern, you just kind of brushed it aside to sow more anti-religious hate.

If Christians can't use their bible to prove god's existence then why can atheists use science to prove his non-existence? Science is based on more science, so if the initial observations/results were incorrect, everything that follows is incorrect. Just because the facts line up doesn't make it true; anyone can twist the facts and throw out whatever doesn't fit their theories to craft their own little world view. Just look at the 9/11 "truthers" for example.

Anyway, science was developed as a way to describe, explain and catalogue the natural world, emphasis on natural. Any god, by definition, would be above the natural order, and therefore unknowable by science. It's really stupid how atheists preach about close-mindedness among the religious communities, then turn around and claim that there is without a doubt, no god at all, and anyone who believes is obviously "brain-washed" or ignorant.

Can't we all just get along?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

This annoys me. There is a whole swag of evidence for ID, as well as evidence for a global catastrophe (read: flood). In fact, flood conditions were REQUIRED for fossils to form effectively. So many people on here poo-poo ID as a fairy tale, and believe that anything they have not personally experienced or watched on the Discovery Channel does not exist. Don't flat-out refuse ID just because you'd like to appear intellectually chic.


ID isn't a fairytale but it's certainly not science



Science fails as it can never explain religion. it can never explain why 100 billion people believe in god. So if, science can't explain that, it's useless.


Ahem, science's goal is the understanding of nature.. Basically you're saying that science transformed the world, everything you have and enjoy and even your good health is thanks to science yet it's useless because it can't explain why people believe in god? Read a few books by Dawkins or some texts by anthropologists and psychologists more-so. And as far as we know , there's 6.5 billion humans not a 100 billion.


If Christians can't use their bible to prove god's existence then why can atheists use science to prove his non-existence?


You can't prove or disprove god's existance. But since people came up with the god idea millenia ago and since then haven't found any evidence or put out any convincing arguments as to why their god exists, and also that a brief look at reality will tell you that the odds of there being a personal god out there are nil.

I can say there's a pink fluffy unicorn floating in the 11th dimension that guides us to salvation and you would have no way of disproving it and I would have no means of proving either...



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jedimiller
Science fails as it can never explain religion. it can never explain why 100 billion people believe in god. So if, science can't explain that, it's useless.


why'd you have to pull that number from your rectum?
it's not even vaguely realistic, as there aren't 100 billion people.

anyway, science can. it's called evolutionary psychology.

by the way, religion can't explain why sweden, the most atheistic nation on the planet, is one of the best places to live in the world.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Science quite nicely explains people's belief in invisible friends without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

It's called "delusion."

What I don't get is how people can believe in any kind of crazy story about a guy who claims to be god (born from a virgin, flying up to heaven on a winged horse) but if they were to espouse an equally strong belief in cockroach people living in his closet that steal his mail when he's not looking he'd be considered insane.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   
to submit my opinion...

to me, christianity makes no since. it is the belief that an almighty being/force/entity thing created the universe and everything therein, then created a planet called earth and put everything therein on it (you know, people, animals, plants etc). The whole garden of eden thing is a huge crock, most people who've studied it say that it was probably somewhere in the middle east, yet mankinds origins have been proven to be from the plains of africa. Jesus BORN OF A VIRGIN???? Last time I checked, virgins can't be pregnant. if that sort of thing were possible, lets re-create it in a scientific trial. Water to wine, I dont think so. parting an ocean, no way. If any of these things happened, we should be able to re-do them.

to me, the big bang theory doesn't do too well a job of explaining a universe either. basicaly it comes out to.. "there was nothing, then two particles of immense density, they hit, and BOOM... universe. doesnt make since does it? or at least not in those terms it doesnt.

The theory I go by is my own, and that is based off scientific theories.
The law of conservation of mass and energy, along with the laws of thermodynamics say that there will always be energy. lets say this energy begins to build up in a certain area, the power level rises and rises then suddenly...BOOM...matter comes into existense as it flows out into the brand spankin new universe. as matter begins to come together (general theory of relativity explains the coalescing) and bigger and bigger chunks of gas build up...stars...they expel new elements created in their cores and masses of solids build. space rocks lead to planets, planets capture satelites. One particular planet (you know the one) forms in a special location and builds up an atmosphere, water forms, life flourishes and evolves, some is wiped out, some survive and evolve and here we are.


really the only valid conclusion we can come to for now is

WE DON'T KNOW, IT'S POINTLESS TO ARGUE OVER IT. STOP IT, GO LIVE LIFE

[edit on 6-1-2008 by zionnerd]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:03 AM
link   
And once again we hear again resoundingly from more than a few
"My side speaks fact and you side speaks in nonfacts."
If only life was that simple.
Of course forgetting out political science can be.

Religion AND science are created by man in an attempt to explain the whys of reality. Stop confusing either of them as something more.

Case in point. The big bang, was anyone there? I'll answer for you. No. So how can we be sure? Simple answer. We can't.
Any number of the alternative explainations to those things they say prove it, could instead be true. We haven't even been that far from our own planet yet we think we can explain the universe by looking out from our little spot in it.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 


Are you by chance a member of the Dawkin's Fan Club? You do a rather good job of parroting him.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And once again we hear again resoundingly from more than a few
"My side speaks fact and you side speaks in nonfacts."
If only life was that simple.
Of course forgetting how political science can be. Hell how anything we get our grimey little hands in is.

Religion AND science are created by man in an attempt to explain the whys of reality. Stop confusing either of them as something more.

Case in point. The big bang, was anyone there? I'll answer for you. No. So how can we be sure? Simple answer. We can't.
Any number of the alternative explainations to those things they say prove it, could instead be true. We haven't even been that far from our own planet yet we think we can explain the universe by looking out from our little spot in it.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join