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.

 

What's the deal with the super religious freaks?.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


As it likely, there is no logical reason to presume naturalism either. Why do you take it as an attack when I display the weaknesses of science? I'm not arguing my view is true. I am showing the weaknesses of science

I would say mathematics and engineering contributed more to the development of computers than science. Computer science is a mix of those two.
edit on 29-1-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-1-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



imagine if you had never seen the bible or been exposed to Christianity and then found a copy of the bible in a book shop one day – would you recognise it as some kind of cosmic truth or would you just dismiss it as another myth in a long list of myths?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 



You seem to have an odd idea of what science is, science is best thought of as a method or a system

This is Carl Sagan’s baloney detection kit
www.xenu.net...
and its basically the what scientific method is – and its clear to see why such a method would scare the religious


So what is your definition of science?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I see science as a method of discovering truth founded upon rationalism and empiricism, both which I reject as ultimate methods for knowing the truth because of the presumptions about the nature of truth and reality they make. I do not think all categories of truth are falsifiable nor do I subscribe to naturalism.
edit on 29-1-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


But you cannot see what a hypocrite you are when you use the fruits of science to attack science


Here is my opinion of your views in song


edit on 29-1-2012 by racasan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Why, is science God? Will I hurt science's feelings? I believe it will never discover truths that are non-falsifiable so it can only discover trivial truths. You're just trolling at this point because you know I gave a valid explanation as to why people should not believe all scientific claims and how they still be logical people. Ad hominems are a logical fallacy by the way.
edit on 29-1-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 



and its clear to see why such a method would scare the religious



LOL huh? Why??



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 

. . . another myth in a long list of myths?

Something I am actively sorting through, currently.
I think it is a different kind of mythology that is geared towards people and why it is so prevalent.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 


Well I guess your right it was an ad hominem – it’s just that I’m just surprised that anyone would sit at their computer using the internet (products of the scientific method) offering up straw-men arguments against the scientific method – anyway I’m sorry for that



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


From my point of view since religion was dreamt up in the mind of man then the religions that would most play on man psychology are the ones that will have the most appeal – so they don’t have to contain any 'truth' they just have to pluck the hart strings or appeal to vanity and so on

You also have the problem of being more susceptible to the cultural religion you are born into – religion by post code sort of thing



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 

Of course you are right but this how humans work, so what can you do?



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


I agree with what you are saying. But the age of the universe, the age of the earth, and evolution are pseudo sciences. They are all not provable based on unproven assumptions. Science itself can accept that the assumptions that are believed to be true could be proven wrong tomorrow.

Science in its rawest form should be willing to accept the possibility of a creator as one of the building blocks that fills in the assumption. But for some reason science is unwilling to acknowledge that the assumption of a creator is at least as plausible as their own assumptions.

The age of the earth – impossible to tell. Assuming that we can date a rock back to 4-5 billion years as if we know it to be true is a just silly.

The age of the universe – You really think that scientist have a tape measure that spans 15 billion light years, again silly. And even if they do, do you think that disproves creation?

Adaptation = real science that we can see using scientific method

Evolution = the assumption that adaptation can cause complexity in so much that it is possible for a single cell organism to become multi-cellular. And from multi-cellular to the complexity that we see in ourselves. This is all based on the assumption that through adaptation an organism can become more complex. Despite the fact that the DNA evidence favors the exact opposite conclusion.

Origins of life, scientist have no answer: looking at a single cell is like looking at a complex piece of machinery. Funny how we can look at a car engine and know that it did not build itself but somehow we look at a cell which is far more complex but try to eliminate the need for a builder.

I am not against science; I am against scientific propaganda that claims that these pseudo sciences are anything more than a best guess, based on assumptions that are based on the limited information that we have. If they want to preach these pseudo sciences they should be willing to preach the truth. At church they tell you believe takes faith, faith in God. They should be willing to preach that these pseudo sciences take faith, faith in man.

Anyone who believes in these pseudo sciences has proven they have faith in man; I will stick to faith in God.

edit on 29-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrazyRaccoon
I can't really label my self as a Christian because i do not go to church... but even i have brains to actually study astronomy and scientific claims...etc.

I am talking about those "worship jesus or you burn" kind of people..i actually encountered few today, oh yeah they were waving their magical book of ABSOLUTE truth..nothing in their bible is wrong it is 1000% correct... and when i asked them very important question like "do you believe in life else where in the universe?" i got a response like this
"young kid, there is no evidence in the bible that god created life anywhere else but on earth..accept Jesus into your heart". My friend is an atheist and when i told him what i encountered he really laughed..

I also bet they (crazy religious people) don't know about their own history and even whats on most of their bible.



Id say those that you speak of are those that make a profit from religion.

Money equals a good faith!



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Ozvaldo
 


LOL I recently witnessed a school group of Super Christians at the Melbourne Museum.. The tour leader/teacher was telling the young teens all about how "these Giant Dinosaurs", roamed Australia just a "few hundred", years before Europeans came here to settle...


I asked him what his scientific credentials were to make these claims.. He answered with a degree in bible studies.. OMG..!! They actually have degrees in a fictional book?? Can you actually get a real job with that degree..



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


I can understand why the religious don’t like the theory of evolution and would like it to go away, it make the very first page of the bible wrong.
But in my opinion science has made its case and TOE has far too much data to back it up
Science 1 bible 0

Science has also made its case about the age of the earth – I have stood at the bottom of the white cliffs of Dover in the UK they are about 350 to 400 ft high and made of chalk. Chalk is the remains of micro-organisms which died and sank to the bottom of the sea to form sediments, there is now way that 350 ft high cliffs of chalk could have been formed in 6000 years
Science 2 bible 0

Science has made its case regarding the size and age of the universe

Finding the distance to stars:
science.howstuffworks.com...

go out some starry night and look for the constellation Andromeda and see if you can spot a misty looking bit of the sky there – that’s the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light-years from Earth – that’s 2.5 million light->years<
Science 3 bible 0


Fact= an observation or bit of data – for example some type of fossil found in some kind of rock in some location

A theory = an explanation of that data – a theory must be able to predict things, so stuff about other fossils that might be found and it must contains a way of falsifying the theory (so if the fossil remains of a bunny are found where you should only find dinosaurs -that would make the fossil theory is wrong)

And it’s this falsifying test that makes the scientific method so powerful and why theory's are change or dropped when new information comes along that invalidates them and its this willingness to get rid of theory's that don't survive the test of reality that make it better than religion for finding out things about the universe

So let me ask – for you what would falsify the bible theory?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Ironclad
 


Lmao! -that is hilarious!




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
the catollics, muslims, and all "those" peeple acts that way, in a way to defend what they had been manipulated to defend... the scientist doesnt go to some place to repeat all the sundays that gravity is 9.81 m/s²... that's because they just know it... or someone needs to wash his/hers brain to be scientist?



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


It has already been proven that coal and many other minerals that science once thought took a long time to form actually form in far less time than thought. So because something looks like it should take a long time to form does not make it so. Remember when you are looking at it you looked at it with the preconceived notion that it took a long time to form. If I looked at it I would be amazed that it was created in such a short period of time.

Whatever perspective you look at it is the perspective you will see it. Since science has been proven wrong many times about the time it takes for things to form, it is easy for me to believe that it is wrong again.

I know that many read all the information on TOE and are convinced. But the truth is the assumption that a living organism becomes more complex outside of its ability to adapt has not been proven and the DNA evidence suggests it is not possible. These are scientific facts.

I have done the research, and just because scientist claim a few plants appear to be too different from what they started out to be does not mean they did more than adapt. We simply do not know enough about plants to even come to a conclusion about speciation of plants. Nor can we make the assumption that what we see in plants is the same as what we have yet to see in animals.

Science simply has no explanation for why every species of spider forms a different web structure, kind of like God’s signature.

Nor can they explain the evolution of the male and female and sexual reproductions. Even trying to fathom the reason why an asexual organism would become more complex, eventually splitting itself into separate sexes that need to mate to create another organism is simply against the whole theory of evolution. There is no reproductive benefit.

To think about male and female some more. At some point the male and female had to form separate from each other, at the exact same moment they had to be attracted to each other and mate in order to continue.
You can listen to TOE scientist explain with fancy sounding terms how all of this could of happened and believe them but it simply does not mean it happened.

Is is possible that a car engine, which is less complex than a single cell, could under extreme circumstance put itself together? Assuming all the parts were laying around next to each other, could this happen? Let’s just say for a minute that somehow they were shaken up and landed in the perfect sequence what would cause it to start?

Take a 48 piece puzzle, which is also less complex than a single cell. Start shaking it around today until it forms the exact puzzle that it started as. When that happens, have a conversation with it.

TOE is not logical. It is only an attempt to eliminate the creator. It is impossible to eliminate an intelligent builder. The universe is mathematically perfect and way to complex to have formed by chance. The cell is so complex that it must have a builder. The truth of the creator is everywhere.

There are many more examples where scientists try to explain away irreducibly complex things. One can talk oneself into believing anything. You can imagine anything you want but your imagination is not reality. Just because a scientist in his desperate attempt to prove a flawed theory comes up with an interesting guess on how something could have evolved does not make it so.

People are so willing to believe TOE on limited evidence and fine sounding, complex arguments that sound intelligent, even though they amount to nothing more than my six year olds fantasy that one day she will flap her arms hard enough she could fly.

If I am to believe in evolution I must also believe that someday my daughter will indeed fly because anything that could happen must have happened. Even if logic says otherwise.

edit on 30-1-2012 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by racasan
 


Is is possible that a car engine, which is less complex than a single cell, could under extreme circumstance put itself together? Assuming all the parts were laying around next to each other, could this happen? Let’s just say for a minute that somehow they were shaken up and landed in the perfect sequence what would cause it to start?

Take a 48 piece puzzle, which is also less complex than a single cell. Start shaking it around today until it forms the exact puzzle that it started as. When that happens, have a conversation with it.

TOE is not logical. It is only an attempt to eliminate the creator. It is impossible to eliminate an intelligent builder. The universe is mathematically perfect and way to complex to have formed by chance.




The car engine and the jigsaw: If you had enough time to shake them up over and over again then eventually they would fall into place perfectly. Even if it took thousands or millions of years, it would eventually happen. You can't say that it's impossible.

As for the universe forming by chance. If you accept that there is even the tiniest of chances that it could happen, then surely that rules out a creator? The universe could have been sitting in darkness, just there, for trillions of years until that one little molecule moved in the right direction and the big bang happened. Again, if you can accept that there is the tiniest, most remote chance of this happening, it could rule out the creator.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by Ozvaldo
 

They actually have degrees in a fictional book?? Can you actually get a real job with that degree..


can you print a degree of everything you want? they did



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join