Religion Religions and rudeness.

[Roylion]

lots of scientists don't run with the theories proposed in the name of science

you're making things up mate!

we've discussed how theories with a bunch of holes can't be proof

you're telling me stuff that flies against scientific law is proof

Once again. There's no "proof" in science. You've been told that repeatedly. The very fact you keep repeating the same incorrect statement demonstrates that you do not understand science.

There is no "proof" in science - there's only evidence.

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about.

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist.

No number of scientists in the world can ever prove that the stars are far away, or that the Higg’s Boson exists — or even that the Earth is round. Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them. Nobody can prove that energy is conserved. Nobody can prove that dark matter exists. Nobody can prove that quantum physics is real.

Because that’s not what science is about.

Proof can only exist when there is absolutely no doubt, and there is always doubt in science. You could be a brain in a vat, living in a crazy simulation. You could be hallucinating everything.

You cannot prove anything. What you can do is gather evidence.

That evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-conclusions about the behavior of the earth and universe.

We can build up piles and piles of evidence for those conclusions, as we have for example for evolution.

When the pile reaches a certain height, it behoves us to begin to take it rather seriously. This then becomes scientific theory (explained to you previously) and scientific fact (explained to you previously)

That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down. That in science is called falsification.

No piece of the millions of pieces of observational evidence collected to date has ever falsified evolution. The evidence is mounting in support of the veracity of the Big Bang Theory also.

but you can't show it as proof except to tell us to accept it as truth

See above.

I don't mind what you believe in

if you want to believe you used to be non organic matter that turned organic and climbed out of the swamp as a fish and turned into a monkey and then became you it's ok

The evidence for that is far more conclusive and numerous than a supernatural deity created humanity in its current for, roughtly 6,000 years ago. I don't have any reason not to conclude that evolution actually occcured.

but don't tell me what I can put in here

I'll be continuing to challenge your erroneus statements such as "out of Africa has been debunked even though it was big a while ago".

That is completely untrue.

I think that's what I'm trying to say

I'm glad you think you know what you're trying to say. Because all I really read from you is mostly a series of unconnected, unsupported, poorly explained gibberish.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

One of the things I'm finding out from followers of science religion is many are fundamentalist and totalitarian about their views and have a white science mentality over all of the rest of us
seeing atheism is pretty much a European thing of today and most of the rest of the world is mostly religious.. removing communist countries like China and n Korea
there really is a new kind of supremacist raising its ugly intolerant head in this new neo liberal bandwagon
there's quite a bit of goosestepping
this thread is a classic example of that

denigrating religion

PS there was an open letter signed by scientists in the UK to say that Dawkins was misrepresenting science and that he can't denigrate religion as science doesn't have the answers in full
and that keeping an open mind was crucial in science

I think that's the worry

people are becoming totalitarian in their projection of science and they don't know it!

 

[Roylion]

I’m note sure that “science” has exactly covered itself in glory on the whole AGW thing to be frank.

Do tell. What are you expecting?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Do tell. What are you expecting?

A bit of honesty might have been nice.

 

[Roylion]

A bit of honesty might have been nice.

Of?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Of?

Well. The science? All of it?

 

[Roylion]

Well. The science? All of it?

What's dishonest about the science?

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Dawkins has sucked people into believing that scientists can't be religious

that's simply not true

so if many prominent scientists are religious ( dorsn't have to be the majority)
and people like Dawkins is being criticised for promoting what the scientists ( most of which are not religious) as atheistic fundamentalism and anti science practises

I'm not sure how anybody on this board can categorically do the same thing with a straight face

it's white scientific supremacist by some neo fascists putting the jackboot in and crushing Christian skulls lol

it's kind of pathetic actually

especially on the back of non scientific approach

I've had people in here talk about the prosperity of secular nations over atheist
supremacist in itself

none of these people even consider that the prosperity they're talking about was there before secular Europe and happened during European culture

even heard people talk about slavery and killing
as if of course slavery and killing didn't happen in Africa between tribes ( or anywhere else) and that these civilisations didn't have their own religions either blah blah

I really do think critical thinking should be observed

this learning that we have wouldn't have existed without Christianity to begin with

maybe we might have had something different but everything you know is possible because it was ignited in Europe ( simplifying it)and made possible with religion
of course stuff was borrowed from outside Europe and Christianity also but they too had religion

I'm not sure what was kicked off by atheism

and what greatness atheism has ushered into the world through culture and arts etc

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What's dishonest about the science?

1. Not calling out Al Gore’s fraud. When they knew it was fraud.

2. Conspiring to silence dissenting views.

3. Representing models as reality.

Want to go on?

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

I’m going to have to re-read the last couple of pages when my blood has settled.

Firstly, the fact that you assert ‘science has been proven wrong’, would only stand to further credit scientific advancement. Science scrutinises itself like religion does not.

I cannot handle someone trying to equate science to a religious belief system. Science is a moving object with all bases covered. It is the only position that never claims to be absolute and will always adapt to evidence.

As a rational person, this debate is so frustrating. I don’t know how you go down the rabbit hole of Eastern versus Western Christianity without first applying some critical thinking to the whole damn story.

Is it any coincidence that your religion likely matches your parents’? Or that it has a hugely significant correlation to your country of birth?

You are a devout Christian. If you were born in Pakistan you would almost certainly be a devout Muslim. If you look at that objectively does it not set off alarm bells?

How can you possibly rely on ‘faith’ when it reliably changes based on such arbitrary factors?

 

[Roylion]

1. Not calling out Al Gore’s fraud. When they knew it was fraud.

What fraud are you speaking of? Certainly at the time scientists did express concern at the time with aspects of An Inconvenient Truth', such as the connection between hurricanes and global warming, as well as the correlation of ice core records of CO2 and temperature. They made the point that some of the main points needing updating, correction, or qualification. However on the whole the scientific consensus was that the film represented mainstream scientific views on global warming as they were in 2006.

2. Conspiring to silence dissenting views.

So basically are you suggesting that any controversy in climate science is political rather than scientific? There is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity. Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in 2007, noted "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications."

3. Representing models as reality.

I would have thought the word 'model' would have been self explanatory.

Want to go on?

It's somewhat off topic.

 

[skilts]

I've had people in here

You've been had by many more people in here.

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

I’m going to have to re-read the last couple of pages when my blood has settled.

Firstly, the fact that you assert ‘science has been proven wrong’, would only stand to further credit scientific advancement. Science scrutinises itself like religion does not.

I cannot handle someone trying to equate science to a religious belief system. Science is a moving object with all bases covered. It is the only position that never claims to be absolute and will always adapt to evidence.

As a rational person, this debate is so frustrating. I don’t know how you go down the rabbit hole of Eastern versus Western Christianity without first applying some critical thinking to the whole damn story.

Is it any coincidence that your religion likely matches your parents’? Or that it has a hugely significant correlation to your country of birth?

You are a devout Christian. If you were born in Pakistan you would almost certainly be a devout Muslim. If you look at that objectively does it not set off alarm bells?

How can you possibly rely on ‘faith’ when it reliably changes based on such arbitrary factors?

not all science but much of the scientific narratives

big bang theory for starters

how did the bang happen and why?

science has a cause as effect

what cause the bang?

I'll keep asking you till you can answer it with facts



when you can you get a gold star!

that's science

The rest of the stuff you're asking me to buy because.. well.. you're asking me to... but it's meaningless without that particle having a Genesis and without the bang having a reason or cause

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

You've been had by many more people in here.

haha yeah right!

have me again and explain the origin of the particle that went bang

use facts

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

I’m going to have to re-read the last couple of pages when my blood has settled.

Firstly, the fact that you assert ‘science has been proven wrong’, would only stand to further credit scientific advancement. Science scrutinises itself like religion does not.

I cannot handle someone trying to equate science to a religious belief system. Science is a moving object with all bases covered. It is the only position that never claims to be absolute and will always adapt to evidence.

As a rational person, this debate is so frustrating. I don’t know how you go down the rabbit hole of Eastern versus Western Christianity without first applying some critical thinking to the whole damn story.

Is it any coincidence that your religion likely matches your parents’? Or that it has a hugely significant correlation to your country of birth?

You are a devout Christian. If you were born in Pakistan you would almost certainly be a devout Muslim. If you look at that objectively does it not set off alarm bells?

How can you possibly rely on ‘faith’ when it reliably changes based on such arbitrary factors?

of course you don't

because you don't understand it

how can you critique what you don't know?

lol

 

[Roylion]

of course you don't

because you don't understand it

Yet you consistently misrepresent science, clearly showing your lack of understanding of what science is.

how can you critique what you don't know?

Indeed. How can you?

 

[TheHeatleyStand]

Yet you consistenly misrepresent science, clearly showing your lack of understanding of what science is.



Indeed. How can you?

I do understand that you're trying to make an argument based on faith as truth
it's a religion

join the club

I don't need to believe it when you can't give factual evidence instead you say " trust us.. im a scientist !"

that's funny!

just go away with your voodoo science magic and let me believe and think what I want.. and you can get back to your stuff

but don't you denigrate with your Neo white supremacist ideology my right to believe what I want!

let's leave it as that!


can't be taken seriously when you don't have proof in science based on what science defines truth without proof

it's not even logical

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

I do understand that you're trying to make an argument based on faith as truth
it's a religion

join the club

I don't need to believe it when you can't give factual evidence instead you say " trust us.. im a scientist !"

that's funny!

just go away with your voodoo science magic and let me believe and think what I want.. and you can get back to your stuff

but don't you denigrate with your Neo white supremacist ideology my right to believe what I want!

let's leave it as that!


can't be taken seriously when you don't have proof in science based on what science defines truth without proof

it's not even logical

I don’t think you get to unjustly label someone a Neo White Supremacist as you walk away from an argument.

Completely uncalled for and about as offensive as you can get.

That ‘voodoo science magic’ is the reason you are able to communicate on this very forum. For someone who keeps claiming others don’t understand, you are showing a staggering amount of ignorance.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

not all science but much of the scientific narratives

big bang theory for starters

how did the bang happen and why?

science has a cause as effect

what cause the bang?

I'll keep asking you till you can answer it with facts



when you can you get a gold star!

that's science

The rest of the stuff you're asking me to buy because.. well.. you're asking me to... but it's meaningless without that particle having a Genesis and without the bang having a reason or cause

So you accept the Big Bang but you want me to tell you what happened before it?

If you’re looking for a ‘reason’ for the Big Bang then you are already out of your depth.

 

[skilts]

really

that's very simple lol

why don't you put penis in mud and get a baby

or a stick in finger in vaginA?

lol

you're not even making sense

Are you gay?

 

[skilts]

I really do think critical thinking should be observed

To observe critical thinking will be as close as you ever get to this activity.

 

[skilts]

haha yeah right!

have me again and explain the origin of the particle that went bang

use facts

I have no interest in defending science. It can look after itself. My criticisms of it and its methods and suppositions are rather more damning, and certainly more rational. than any of the mindless twaddle you peddle on behalf of your corrupt cult.

If you ever find yourself, you might notice that you have become that most useless of things - a follower. Jesus is dead. He turned off at the last freeway exit. To follow anyone is a road to a dead end. Any person or organisations which seek blind followers are operating in the realm of the charlatan. You've been had. If I cared at all, I'd muster a vacant, vacuous, christian pretend-smile to assure you that everything will be O.K., as long as you believe.

It won't and for your sake, you mustn't. You have missed the point of your existence, if it ever had one.

 

[Roylion]

I do understand that you're trying to make an argument based on faith as truth
it's a religion

join the club

I'm pleased that you finally acknowledge that religious belief is based mostly on faith.

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge and evidence to be certain of its veracity. If belief is by 'faith' alone then anything goes.

Scientific practices - observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses and scientific theories; the relentless questioning of established views is not 'faith'.

I don't need to believe it when you can't give factual evidence instead you say " trust us.. im a scientist !"

That not what science is saying at all. The very fact you say this yet again confirms once again you do not understand science.

just go away with your voodoo science magic and let me believe and think what I want.. and you can get back to your stuff

Think what you want but if you place those beliefs on a public forum then it's not unreasonable to expect that those beliefs will be challenged and questioned.

but don't you denigrate with your Neo white supremacist ideology my right to believe what I want!

Please. "Neo white supremacist ideology"? That is just illogical ranting. If you place or promote a particular belief on a public forum then it's not unreasonable to expect that those beliefs will be challenged and questioned.

can't be taken seriously when you don't have proof in science based on what science defines truth without proof

Do you actually read and absorb anything anyone else says before you post your next rant? I've explained to you on a number of occasions that there is no "proof" in science.

it's not even logical

Ironic, considering some of the content of your posts.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Are you gay?

"Ned? Ne..ed?"

"Mah sexuality has no bearing on the subject matter.........*cough*"

 

[Snake_Baker]

I’m going to have to re-read the last couple of pages when my blood has settled.

Firstly, the fact that you assert ‘science has been proven wrong’, would only stand to further credit scientific advancement. Science scrutinises itself like religion does not.

It doesn't appear to dawn on certain folks that this is actually science in motion.

"One of the great strengths of the scientific method is its ability to reduce the role of bias and emotion in what we understand to be true........it is at it's core a method for reducing bias" - Heather Heying (evolutionary biologist & actual scientist)