Atheism – The complete disregard of scientific fact

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





It is not a logical fallacy to dismiss the burden of falsifying someone's unsupported claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to substantiate the claim, especially in areas such as metaphysics which is characterized by containing no evidence whatsoever.


LOL!!


Really?! The man on the video was an atheist until something made him think about it seriously. He description of DNA was to the T. The statical odds of it coming into existence by randomness is so great that to state that it did is not very scientific in any way, shape, or form no matter the length of time.

Just like he said. You cannot prove that the mind exists. A brain scan only proves that the brain is functioning, just like a heart monitor proves the heart is beating. That is all. You cannot prove a mind exists....yet we all know for a fact that it does. Not by a scientific fact. A fact of just knowing.




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god.


Really? So if you were wrongly arrested for murder, it's down to you to prove you didn't do it?

You claim you didn't do it, though you have no proof that you didn't commit murder - you're guilty... ?

No, I don't think so.

For someone claiming the not-null value of something, i.e., the existence or belief in something, it is down to them to show their evidence for it - not for the not-null/negative side to prove otherwise.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by faceoff85
To bad you indirectly had to call me ignorant... for the rest I like our discussion. I am very critical and feel personaly offended. maybe something you should take into consideration (or you can read the bible to learn how to interact properly with people) -read: cynical joke-
For the rest of your comment the direct oposite aplies as well... there is absolutely no evidence to prove a universal deity does not exist. So we are left with what is most likely... hence the difference in opinions


I in no way called you ignorant or even inferred it indirectly. Not everyone with religious beliefs is ignorant. I simply made the point that there exists no indisputable evidence of dieties and that the evidence relative to religious claims is ambiguous. If I offended you, it was unintentional and I apologize.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by webpirate
 





Yes. It was well known in ancient societies that the earth was not flat. It only came into being "scientific fact" that it was flat by the same people or their descendants who decided what books would and would not be allowed into the Christian bible. The dark ages and early to middle middle ages where a tragic loss of knowledge time period in history.



So what you are saying is that you let the decisions that the people in the dark ages made over shadow the truths that the our ancient ancestors knew, and you did state that they knew the earth was round, affect your decision of whether you have a creator or not?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 





Really? So if you were wrongly arrested for murder, it's down to you to prove you didn't do it? You claim you didn't do it, though you have no proof that you didn't commit murder - you're guilty... ? No, I don't think so. For someone claiming the not-null value of something, i.e., the existence or belief in something, it is down to them to show their evidence for it - not for the not-null/negative side to prove otherwise.


Seriously you just didn't say that. lol. Come on.


You just flipped the scenario and turned it upside down, then you put some make up on it and expect us to believe that is what he meant?

Lol. Nice try though.
You are too funny.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

Really? Science has proven why? So why does the universe exist. Not how. Randomized occurrence is NOT a why, it is a how. It explains to us the process involved in how the universe came to be. But it does not address the role of the universe. Why universes exist. If there is a specific purpose or reason behind why universes have come to be in the manner that they have?

----

I mean science basically says everything happened for no reason. It just did. Things happened. Stuff was here, it was just sitting here, from no where. It didn't decide to come together, it just fell together the way it did because that is the way stuff falls together sometimes?

Science has yet to extract a WHY from anything. Science only deals with matter and energy, both of which are one in the same. Outside of this, science knows nothing else.


Firstly, no "why" was specified. You claimed science didn't provide "whys", but it does. However, why the universe is exists is still a mystery.

There is a common misconception you've presented: that "science says everything happened for no reason" or "everything is random". I personally have never encountered any scientist who has presented any such argument, even theoretical astrophysicists who actually ponder things such as the big bang theory. Science generally operates with an assumption that there is a reason and sets out to discover it.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Firstly, no "why" was specified. You claimed science didn't provide "whys", but it does. However, why the universe is exists is still a mystery. There is a common misconception you've presented: that "science says everything happened for no reason" or "everything is random". I personally have never encountered any scientist who has presented any such argument, even theoretical astrophysicists who actually ponder things such as the big bang theory. Science generally operates with an assumption that there is a reason and sets out to discover it.


Science can never explain why. Only how. Give me one, just one answer that science has given to why.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Explain how it's upside down.

2nd..



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Explain how it's upside down.

2nd..


Well first off the belief of a creator was a common held truth through out the world until the accusation that a god didn't exist came into effect. With that alone the burden of proof lies upon the accuser.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





It is not a logical fallacy to dismiss the burden of falsifying someone's unsupported claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to substantiate the claim, especially in areas such as metaphysics which is characterized by containing no evidence whatsoever.


LOL!!


Really?! The man on the video was an atheist until something made him think about it seriously. He description of DNA was to the T. The statical odds of it coming into existence by randomness is so great that to state that it did is not very scientific in any way, shape, or form no matter the length of time.


All he did was form an opinon based on statistics. He did not falsify that DNA could not have occurred outside of natural means.

Statistically it's impossible that the universe could even exist since matter and anti-matter should have annihilated each other at the beginning of its existence. If the MD in the video applied his same logic to that conundrum, he'd be arguing that the universe doesn't exist.

If the MD in the video claims a creator he needs to provide positive evidence of such, not a case based on statistical unlikelihood.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Those who claim their god is just beyond our discoveries face the challenge of constantly and eternally moving the goalposts as human knowledge advances


Isn't this essentially what "science" does? Not to mention almost everything in life, even Darwins theory requires life to move its own goal posts, ie adaptation, survival.

When man/science makes a new discovery or "creates" a new theory, the goal posts must be moved to accomodate new knowledge.

Our sentience
Our need to know
Our need to know why and how
Our love our hate
Our incessant search of creation/origin
Our incessant need to explore the unknown from the depths of Earth and its oceans to the far reaches of the universe.
The perfection of physical life
The conscious/sub-conscious and un-tapped spiritual mind

These are the reasons I would never rule out an intelligent creator/god/designer/entity or whatever name you prefer.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


If science allegedly proves that things can function without a creator, then it is basically stating that yes, things can come out of nowhere for no reason.

And any why that science can illustrate is only relevant to the immediate subject at hand. If you tread back far enough, you eventually lose the why. And everything else, by association, seems a lot more abstract and ... dare I say it, absurd.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I believe the Universe is a Hologram, and thats a construct, and the stars are the lasers, projectors which is why sungazing and meeting your Higher Self/Family of Light go together.

However, that being said, religions are control mechanisms. Quantum wierdness meets the Beyond is actually a wonderful journey of Infinite Progression.

In Infinity, the moment you experience Self in the Hologram/School, it stretches you endlessly as an Individual Ray, a unique snowflake forever and in quantum wierdness each clip of you life, comparitive to an Infinite roll of film is another you. And you can talk to yourself. You are infinitely progressing with many you's, and a Family of Light.

In Infinity, One cannot re-mesh into One, there can only be Infinite, progression as the Many In One, for Infinity has no limits or boundaries, and there is always an Beyond, and a Beyond, Beyond this, never ending limitless progression. So here in the Universe School, we are Becoming.

Its a duality school, though the duality doesn't make equal armies of the power of love versus those who love power, rather, it asks the question. Ie. Your tense and upset, do you remain calm and work hard at overcoming self, and struggle to be helpful, or do you errupt in a fury and lash out at others. The duality is only the question. Theoretically, everyone could behave in a loving manner and still be in a duality, though probably they'd be shifting channels in the twinkling of an eye really fast, to a eutopia. For that is the test. Love is the answer, and equality.

So we are learning to renounce ego and materialism and power here, to learn love and profound equality and develop our insight, our metaphysics, our spiritual quests, and gain awareness, wake up to the matrix, realize who we are and help.

Earth could be seen as a prison for some who caused a lot of trouble, but we can progress out, or a school, even a final exam for some.

Infinities nestle within each other. The Infinite Universe could be likened to a grain of sand on the beach of another world in the Beyond, or the Big Bang to seed germination of a flower in the gardens of the Beyond, for each galaxy is likened to a cell, there may be membranes, and even while more like a dot matrix print out that's erected to 3D, it still has some "matter" or structure.

Horton Hears a Who comes to mind!

The DVD player/Digital Universe plays infinite DVDs, for each Starsystem is its own Space-time varient (and time is a construct in our minds as well and illusion!) and each planet moon its own channel, so mini dvds. Like a collage of many channels, space-time dimensions and densities, the universe is NOT and even 3D playing field, and we only see earth time 3D with the hubble, and into the past, so we see not much.

Stars, aside to holograms could be likened to our collective consciousness, in size. For example Beleguese, an Orion Priesthood system is an advanced DVD, and we would be seen as standing still from their perspective. They could watch the video of our lives.

If you were to take a robot, sentient, and make one of your days 10 mintues to him, you would disappear from his site, and to you, he would appar to be standing still.

The Universe, and the Beyond, is a construct and there is far more proof for that than anything else, also we have no proof that matter exists or there is anything real here. There is more proof pointing to the existance only of Consciousness, that the illusion or matrix around us, due to both the observer affect, and also, that all reality appears to be, is a signal that is deciphered by centers in our brain, that's reality is also in question as it is also matter.

Like a broadcast signal that is being picked up, streamed in from Zero Point, we decipher the signal within. Also, bigger negative fish in the school could hijack signals and create matrixes for us based on some of this understanding. But in a duality, that would not be allowed to be so extreme as to limit our choices or take away free will, if we were not capapble of still unraveling the mystery, waking up to the world, and also, giving simple gifts of love to each other ,getting conscious that we actually have a choice each moment, and therefore graduating the course material.

By the way, a friends NDE brought much of this up, but I couldn't understand it at all until I looked within after watching a very simple video, and then day after day, downloads. So quantum physics itself should really get us to ask questions in our heart!


Perception - The reality beyond matter


Michael Talbot - Rare Holographic Universe Lecture 1/12


Haramein on the Sun

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Apology accepted even though I kinda knew it wasn't meant that way... just felt it that way but thanks for playing along with me

But anyway would you mind rechecking my previous post and give me you POV on that subject I presented in the edit? Im curious what your take on that is.

damn you're populair, wonder if you even have time to check it


[edit on 18-5-2010 by faceoff85]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Utopian
I would like to make clear that i would class myself as being agnostic as i am open minded to all possibilities regarding creation.


Are you open-minded to the possibility that an orange cyclone appeared and a purple elephant swallowed the cyclone and danced for 4 days and then blew the universe out of his nose and disappeared on a beam of light?

If not, then I suggest that you are NOT, in fact, open to all possibilities regarding creation.

The only reason agnostics say that agnosticism is the most logical position is that they are basically looking at two "stories" about creation. One involving something called "God" as a single creator and one NOT involving that.

If I just look at those two options, it's pretty easy to be agnostic and say that either could be true.

But when we put a third option of the orange cyclone up beside the other options, it becomes clear, even to the most staunch agnostic, that some of our options are more likely than others.

To some atheists (such as myself) the options of ANY creator, be it a big man in the sky called God OR an orange cyclone working in concert with a purple elephant, are equally likely (or unlikely).

The only reason the idea of God is an option is that people have been talking about it for many hundreds of years. But it's still just an idea. If people had been talking about the orange cyclone creation theory for many hundreds of years, would it not also be in your list of possibilities, right up there beside God and no God??

To me, there is no indication that this story of God is any more true or likely than the story of the orange cyclone. There's no reason for me to think that the God story holds more weight or might actually be true.

So, for ME to take an agnostic stance, I would have to say that truly ALL possibilities are just as likely as the possibility of no single creator. And I cannot say that. Because I have NO indication that there is a creator, be it something called God or an orange cyclone.

So, when you say that agnosticism is the most logical position, I must disagree. Because having "the God theory" as one of your options is as wild and crazy (to me) as the orange cyclone/purple elephant theory. And that's not logical at all.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion
Science can never explain why. Only how. Give me one, just one answer that science has given to why.


Science has both explained to us why and how the earth revolves around the sun, how and why the Grand Canyon came to exist, how and why mountains form, how and why contrails appear behind aircrft engines, etc. etc. etc.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by PowerSlave
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 





Those who claim their god is just beyond our discoveries face the challenge of constantly and eternally moving the goalposts as human knowledge advances


Isn't this essentially what "science" does? Not to mention almost everything in life, even Darwins theory requires life to move its own goal posts, ie adaptation, survival.

When man/science makes a new discovery or "creates" a new theory, the goal posts must be moved to accomodate new knowledge.

Our sentience
Our need to know
Our need to know why and how
Our love our hate
Our incessant search of creation/origin
Our incessant need to explore the unknown from the depths of Earth and its oceans to the far reaches of the universe.
The perfection of physical life
The conscious/sub-conscious and un-tapped spiritual mind

These are the reasons I would never rule out an intelligent creator/god/designer/entity or whatever name you prefer.







Very, very true.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

If science allegedly proves that things can function without a creator, then it is basically stating that yes, things can come out of nowhere for no reason.


That's not "what it basically states". That may be your interpretation of it but I'd do a bit more research into the sciences before jumping to that conclusion.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Conclusion
Science can never explain why. Only how. Give me one, just one answer that science has given to why.


Science has both explained to us why and how the earth revolves around the sun, how and why the Grand Canyon came to exist, how and why mountains form, how and why contrails appear behind aircrft engines, etc. etc. etc.


Lol. They cannot explain why the earth revolves around the sun. lol. Science cannot even explain the how of gravity.
Atheism's only explanation for everything is randomness. I know that I am where I am right now because of every decision I have ever made in my whole life. That is not randomness. That is choice.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign

If science allegedly proves that things can function without a creator, then it is basically stating that yes, things can come out of nowhere for no reason.


That's not "what it basically states". That may be your interpretation of it but I'd do a bit more research into the sciences before jumping to that conclusion.



OMG. Then what is it basically stating.

2nd line.




new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join