The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[Derideo_Te]

You do understand, or are you sticking to pure deductive logic?

It is readily apparent that the OP doesn't understand anything at all to do with science and is completely immune to deduction and logic.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm still waiting for the nutbags who are screeching "science!" to actually make an intelligent declarative statement, and back it up with *science*.

So far, it hasn't happened.

Nor will it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm still waiting for the nutbags who are screeching "science!" to actually make an intelligent declarative statement, and back it up with *science*.

So far, it hasn't happened.

Nor will it.

Too bad this thread contains posts with links that prove you wrong.

 

[Hollie]

I'm still waiting for the nutbags who are screeching "science!" to actually make an intelligent declarative statement, and back it up with *science*.

So far, it hasn't happened.

Nor will it.

More evidence of FCDS: Fundie Christian Denial Syndrome.

 

[koshergrl]

Still waiting for the nutbags to make an intelligent declarative statement, and back it up with *science*.

So far, it hasn't happened.

Nor will it.

 

[Hollie]

Still waiting for the nutbags to make an intelligent declarative statement, and back it up with *science*.

So far, it hasn't happened.

Nor will it.

You angry fundies get so rattled, you're left to stutter and mumble.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I've beaten atheists many times in my life. It's not as hard as you would think.

I shouldn't give up my secret but I will.

Here's the key. Atheists are hypocrites and because of that hypocrisy not nearly as smart as they think are.

How you say?

Well, let's take the way they demand HARD EVIDENCE for God. It you can't produce "evidence" God exists, then he can't.

BUT they treat Darwinism, Evolution, whatever you call it has hard fact.

Now HERE's the kicker, and this is how deceptive they are.

They say Creationism isn't "science" it's religion, BUT evolution is science.

But Creationism is not about Evolution it's about how life BEGAN. But atheists/evolutionists have NO HARD EVIDENCE for how life began. IN FACT, there isn't ANY HARD EVIDENCE for how life began.

There's only theories. Now theories are wonderful and atheists will go nuts twisting themselves into pretzels insisting that a theory is "proof" of how life began, BUT IT'S NOT.

Now why do they do that. Because then they would have to admit their "science" on how life began, has no more validity than Creationism, and therefore THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL AS THEORIES.

THEY CANNOT admit that. But press them on it and they will finally admit that how life began isn't EVEN really IN the theory of evolution. Why? Because no one KNOW how we really got here. That's why there are so many competing theories including the "alien seed" theory. No one really knows 100%.

Which means, it's all faith that your "theory" is correct. And Creationism is faith as well.

Atheists cannot admit that. That would mean they aren't any smarter or their beliefs have any more validity than those pesky Christians. They will twist themselves into pretzels rather than admit it.

But see how they create a double standard? They cite evolution as proof there is no God, but when pressed on it, will admit evolution doesn't even cover how life began. So how can it prove there is no God?

Answer: It can't!

Well run on posts are boring, so in my second post, I'll address the second double standard of atheism.

If, while debating an atheist, they claim that because there is no hard evidence for God that there is no God, they are making an unfounded claim and you are right to point out that problem with their argument. A better way to put the argument would be: that there is no hard evidence for the existence of God suggests God doesn't exist.

Evolution is a fact. When viruses mutate, that is evolution. When bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, that is evolution. That the forms of domesticated animals and crops have changed as a result of guided breeding is evolution. Evolution is not a theory.

Evolution through Natural Selection is a theory to describe and explain evolution. There are other theories that attempt to describe and explain evolution such as sexual selection, genetic drift, and various others that don't compete but work in tandem.

Evolution and the various theories that attempt to describe and explain it are science because these are supported by evidence, and are observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable among a number of different scientific disciplines. Creationism isn't science because how can you test to see if God guides evolution? How could you falsify such a claim? If you put God in a hypothesis or theory, it goes outside the bounds of science because one can't study God under a microscope, or in a lab, etc.

There is some hard evidence that life began on Earth. If one digs down through the layers of sediment and rock, one will pass through layers containing the actual remains of previously living organisms, then through fossils of extinct species of life, and those fossils -as one digs deeper- will change from more more diverse, complex organism to simpler and less diverse until one reaches a layer where all the fossils are of organisms that are single-celled (such as stromatolites). Below that there are no more fossils or evidence of any life of any kind. This would suggest that life began simply and evolved into the forms we observe today, and that life started here. The evidence doesn't prove that is what happened, only suggests it.

No one knows what the conditions on the planet were like back then, but there are some hypotheses. There are no scientific theories as to how life began, only hypotheses. But there is some molecular evidence which also suggests that life began spontaneously out of what may have been the chemical make up of the planet some 3 billion years ago. It's not definitive or conclusive evidence.

You're right to point out to anyone who argues that theories prove anything is mistaken because science doesn't prove anything. That's not what science does and anyone who thinks that is doing it wrong.

However, the hypotheses of how life began are not theories and creationism is not a theory so to say they are equal theories is also a mistake and not even meaningful.

Now, if an atheist believes that life began on Earth or was seeded here from elsewhere or believes in the theories of evolution or the Big Bang theory or any scientific theory, you're right to point out that they are engaging in faith. Scientific theories are not meant to be believed. They are simply the current best explanations and descriptions of the currently available evidence. Any theory could change or be rejected at any moment with a better theory or with new unexplained evidence or contradictory evidence. If one believes in scientific theories, then they are doing it wrong.

You're right that evolution doesn't disprove God. Any science doesn't disprove God, and currently no evidence disproves God. Proof of God is outside the realm of scientific inquiry because one can't conduct scientific tests for God and science can't and doesn't prove anything.

 

[Derideo_Te]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Second one? Well this one doesn't need as much exposition to explain, Thank God.

See, again, atheists demand hard FACT to prove God exists.

BUT, I've never met an atheist yet that didn't believe that life exists on other planets.

Now regardless of whether you believe life exists on other planets, let's face some hard facts. WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXISTS ON OTHER PLANETS. Certainly not intelligent life.

Oh we have some rocks from Mars that look like they may have had worms, and we have a Pyramid on Mars that turned out to be a bad taken picture. BUT, when you get right down to it, we don't have any evidence life exists on Mars.

So the same people that INSIST on hard evidence for God, chuck that all out the porthole when it comes to whether or not life exists elsewhere.

Atheists will become furious, and point out to "probabilities" that life exists elsewhere. But "probabilities" isn't hard evidence.

So, pointing out to them, that they have chucked their own demand for hard evidence to believe in life elsewhere, thus they are engaging in an act of FAITH is something that's like putting a cross up to a vampire. They can't stand to admit THAT.

It's fun to watch em go round and round in ever closing logic boxes, trying to get out of that one.

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

That is a proof. It is an axiom. Do you really want to play semantics here, Derideo? The scientific process doesn't prove facts or ligical or mathematical proofs.

To illustrate what I mean:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven." Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

More at the link:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Scientific Proof scientific evidence and the scientific method

 

[Derideo_Te]

Second one? Well this one doesn't need as much exposition to explain, Thank God.

See, again, atheists demand hard FACT to prove God exists.

BUT, I've never met an atheist yet that didn't believe that life exists on other planets.

Now regardless of whether you believe life exists on other planets, let's face some hard facts. WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXISTS ON OTHER PLANETS. Certainly not intelligent life.

Oh we have some rocks from Mars that look like they may have had worms, and we have a Pyramid on Mars that turned out to be a bad taken picture. BUT, when you get right down to it, we don't have any evidence life exists on Mars.

So the same people that INSIST on hard evidence for God, chuck that all out the porthole when it comes to whether or not life exists elsewhere.

Atheists will become furious, and point out to "probabilities" that life exists elsewhere. But "probabilities" isn't hard evidence.

So, pointing out to them, that they have chucked their own demand for hard evidence to believe in life elsewhere, thus they are engaging in an act of FAITH is something that's like putting a cross up to a vampire. They can't stand to admit THAT.

It's fun to watch em go round and round in ever closing logic boxes, trying to get out of that one.

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

That is a proof. It is an axiom. Do you really want to play semantics here, Derideo? The scientific process doesn't prove facts or ligical or mathematical proofs.

To illustrate what I mean:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven." Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

More at the link:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Scientific Proof scientific evidence and the scientific method

So now you are saying that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is an axiom? No one has to prove that is true? Same thing for matter is neither created nor destroyed?

In which case the logic of the Omnipotence Paradox is an axiom too and that would therefore establish that no creator exists because these all fall under "general validity".

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Second one? Well this one doesn't need as much exposition to explain, Thank God.

See, again, atheists demand hard FACT to prove God exists.

BUT, I've never met an atheist yet that didn't believe that life exists on other planets.

Now regardless of whether you believe life exists on other planets, let's face some hard facts. WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE SHRED OF HARD EVIDENCE THAT LIFE EXISTS ON OTHER PLANETS. Certainly not intelligent life.

Oh we have some rocks from Mars that look like they may have had worms, and we have a Pyramid on Mars that turned out to be a bad taken picture. BUT, when you get right down to it, we don't have any evidence life exists on Mars.

So the same people that INSIST on hard evidence for God, chuck that all out the porthole when it comes to whether or not life exists elsewhere.

Atheists will become furious, and point out to "probabilities" that life exists elsewhere. But "probabilities" isn't hard evidence.

So, pointing out to them, that they have chucked their own demand for hard evidence to believe in life elsewhere, thus they are engaging in an act of FAITH is something that's like putting a cross up to a vampire. They can't stand to admit THAT.

It's fun to watch em go round and round in ever closing logic boxes, trying to get out of that one.

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

That is a proof. It is an axiom. Do you really want to play semantics here, Derideo? The scientific process doesn't prove facts or ligical or mathematical proofs.

To illustrate what I mean:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953 "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven." Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

More at the link:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Scientific Proof scientific evidence and the scientific method

So now you are saying that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction is an axiom? No one has to prove that is true? Same thing for matter is neither created nor destroyed?

In which case the logic of the Omnipotence Paradox is an axiom too and that would therefore establish that no creator exists because these all fall under "general validity".

Okay, let me just narrow my statement's scope so as not to offend anyone's word usage: the empirical sciences don't and can't prove anything.

Your first two examples are tenets of empirical sciences and are statements of direct observation -in other words not theories- and can be shown to be accurate, not True. They seem true, but we could be wrong. The omnipotence paradox is axiomatic so it is a logical proof, under the study of philosophy, and not subject to the empirical sciences.

I'm sorry if my statements don't exactly align with how you would express how science works, but I'm sure you would agree on the principle elements of my post, so why the hyper-critical attack? It seems like your splitting hairs here for some reason that I don't understand...

 

[the_human_being]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

 

[Derideo_Te]

so why the hyper-critical attack?

I wasn't intending to be "hyper critical" and if I came across as such I apologize.

My position was to establish that there are aspects of science that can be considered to be factual given that they pass the test of the scientific method in that they produce the same result under the same circumstances.

Both of us are educated enough to know that science is not about black & white but about knowledge. We appreciate that new knowledge can change our original perceptions. We consider this to be part of the learning and discovery process that is science.

The OP of this thread is not aware of any of the above but has latched onto some facile concepts and is flinging around allegations with no understanding whatsoever or what they mean or the context in which they apply.

Yes, I noted your attempt to educate the OP but I am of the opinion that it was futile because the OP is going to grasp the wrong end of the "suggestion" stick and use that as a club to berate everyone else who attempts to introduce any actual science into this thread.

So I have no problem with what you tried to do but there are reasons why colleges weed out unsuitable applicants. In this instance I suspect that both of us would be better off walking away from this thread and leaving it to the OP to declare "victory" even though she is just as clueless as she was when she started.

This is truly an instance of pearls before swine in my opinion.

Peace
DT

 

[Coloradomtnman]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

Funny. That's some funny math.

Well, I'm convinced. Someone figured out a way to make certain parts of the Bible into a math exercise. That's never been done with any other books ever, nor could it be done with any other books ever... So that must mean the Bible is true!

 

[the_human_being]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

Funny. That's some funny math.

Well, I'm convinced. Someone figured out a way to make certain parts of the Bible into a math exercise. That's never been done with any other books ever, nor could it be done with any other books ever... So that must mean the Bible is true!

That is my conclusion also.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The facts are clear.

Atheistic and far right social con fascists can only suggest (they have no proof) that God does not or does exist. Both, like the rest of us, depend on faith.

 

[Derideo_Te]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

Funny. That's some funny math.

Well, I'm convinced. Someone figured out a way to make certain parts of the Bible into a math exercise. That's never been done with any other books ever, nor could it be done with any other books ever... So that must mean the Bible is true!

Now if they could reverse that math by taking Newton's Principia Mathematica and coming up with Genesis they might have something there.

 

[Hollie]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

Funny. That's some funny math.

Well, I'm convinced. Someone figured out a way to make certain parts of the Bible into a math exercise. That's never been done with any other books ever, nor could it be done with any other books ever... So that must mean the Bible is true!

That is my conclusion also.

It shouldn't be. "Fudge factors" or "finagle the numbers" are used by apologists in some really weird twists of math to create these "miracles". The worst offenders are moslems who would have you believe that with the application of some absurdly silly "finagle the surah" arithmetic, Einsteins' energy equation can be derived. Christian fundamentalists have their own version of such silliness.

As to alleged “scientific miracles” in various bibles, Korans, etc., most adherents from most religions make these claims but never actually demonstrate any of the alleged miracles. Is that because we have to accept some pretty silly pre-conditions or some really obtuse and really, really silly contortions?

Happenstance will give you a Mulligan once in a great while.

 

[the_human_being]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

Funny. That's some funny math.

Well, I'm convinced. Someone figured out a way to make certain parts of the Bible into a math exercise. That's never been done with any other books ever, nor could it be done with any other books ever... So that must mean the Bible is true!

Now if they could reverse that math by taking Newton's Principia Mathematica and coming up with Genesis they might have something there.

Why don't you do it with Darwin's book? You don't even have to go that far. Just make some portion of it add up to say 239.

 

[the_human_being]

science can't and doesn't prove anything

So according to you the science of mathematics doesn't "prove" that 1 + 1 = 2? Instead 1 +1 only "suggests" that the answer is 2? And you have to have "faith" in order to "believe" that 1 + 1 = 2?

The very first verse in the Bible comes out to the mathematical equivalent of pi in the Palogene Hebrew. The very first verse of John comes out to the mathematical equivalent of LOG e in the Palogene Hebrew. How's that for math?

Funny. That's some funny math.

Well, I'm convinced. Someone figured out a way to make certain parts of the Bible into a math exercise. That's never been done with any other books ever, nor could it be done with any other books ever... So that must mean the Bible is true!

That is my conclusion also.

It shouldn't be. "Fudge factors" or "finagle the numbers" are used by apologists in some really weird twists of math to create these "miracles". The worst offenders are moslems who would have you believe that with the application of some absurdly silly "finagle the surah" arithmetic, Einsteins' energy equation can be derived. Christian fundamentalists have their own version of such silliness.

As to alleged “scientific miracles” in various bibles, Korans, etc., most adherents from most religions make these claims but never actually demonstrate any of the alleged miracles. Is that because we have to accept some pretty silly pre-conditions or some really obtuse and really, really silly contortions?

Happenstance will give you a Mulligan once in a great while.

It will work out. Take the scriptures and using the Palogen Hebrew, work it out for yourself. Mathematics is hardly a hidden science.