It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by melatonin
I'd have to take you serious to apply that label.
It is only rooted in religious faith in the way that you could consider almost anything pre-enlightenment to be rooted in the same way.
I wouldn't deny that the religious status of an individual can drive their their motivation to understand nature. In fact, it can often be quite a problem in some. But in others, those able to take a more Baconian stance of nature as a way to intepret religious texts rather than reverse, they can certainly do science as good as anyone out there.
You might have in your own mind. Science doesn't deny supernatural stuff, it just says 'how do we test it?'. When you have a method to test the supernatural in a way comparable to science, then you can haz 'methodoloigical supernaturalism' as well.
Science won't stop you from thinking you have a disembodied mind if that floats ya boat. You could even test it I suppose, and some are trying with these OBE studies. Appear to be more phail though. The mysterians are good at phail.
Chemicals are just chemicals and there is no reason to believe they can determine truth.
We leave specious claims of absolute truth to religions.
In science education we will teach the best science we can
Originally posted by Korhyan
reply to post by Bigwhammy
Study M-theory if you want to know what started it all. It was not God, unless he orchestrated it, but I am an atheist.
What is one to make of all this? As with all scientific theories, we begin by asking for the evidence. So what is the empirical evidence for oscillating and parallel and multiple universes? Actually, there isn't any. As Weinberg admits, "These are very speculative ideas ... without any experimental support." Smolin is even more candid. He calls his ideas "a fantasy.... It is possible that all I have done here is cobble together a set of false clues that only seem to have something to do with each other.... There is every chance that these ideas will not succeed." I appreciate this candor, and I am reminded of that old Ptolemaic remedy for problematic data: "just add epicycles." Now we are in the realm of "just add universes."
The brilliant mind of John Lennox layeths the smacketh down on the delusion and detriment to science known as atheism. If you are an atheist, this video will either cause your closed-mind to explode or cause you to seriously question your faith in the pointless religion of atheism.
COLD HARD FACT
Dr. Lennox is smarter than both you and Richard "Psychologically Scarred" Dawkins, therefor his opinion holds more value than either of your's. Remember this before you attempt to "debunk" this video with your transparent fallacies.
Originally posted by dave420
This is getting retarded. You're using one guy's opinion (not even your own) to try to debunk atheism? Some of you christian guys sure as heck are insecure about your beliefs - maybe it's you who should think deeply about how they feel - if you feel the need to defend your faith here, maybe you're losing it.
Google Video Link
Originally posted by SlyCM
However I do fail to recall in what post someone was called "retarded".
Originally posted by SlyCM
Dave... for once I disagree with you... this isn't getting retarded. It became etarded and has remained that way ever since "The Origin of Species" was published. It's retardedness was further puncuated when "The God Delusion" was published, for as of right now the two have thouroughly refuted every bit of IDist logic (and most Christian logic) yet presented
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
The Anthropic Principle
A lot of text you didn't write.
It may be true that life in the Universe is exceedingly improbable, that the conditions necessary for the emergence of life as we know it are exceedingly improbable, and the selection of such favorable initial conditions and physical laws of the Universe is exceedingly improbable. So what! It may well be true that our Universe and our existence is a vastly improbable accident. It may be true that if the machinery of the Universe were to be run again, (and again and again) a Universe like ours (and with us in it) would never emerge. As long as our Universe is not impossible, we have no reason to ascribe transcendent purpose or deliberate design to its origins.
As an example, consider the toss of a billion coins. While a toss of a billion heads is very unlikely, it is not forbidden. If the very first toss results in a billion heads, there is no reason to suspect that the toss was carefully orchestrated by a master Creator. In fact, any given configuration of coins is as likely as any other and requires its own explanation and can thus be construed as proof for manipulation by a master Creator. Therefore, the selection of one particular final configuration (and thus the rejection of all other possible final configurations) is not a proof of any coherent statement about the process of selection itself.
Originally posted by davion
I wonder if you also learned in college that plagiarizing someone else's work, changing the words around, and passing it off as your own without any sources or credit greatly discredits your opinion, and can lead you to being expelled or put on academic probation. I believe that's also a no-no on this websites Terms & Conditions, as well.