[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
.[/quote]
And then after birth the mother tortured her son for all of eternity for not believing.[/quote]
Where you beaten as a child?[/quote]
Slapped across the few times when I was young sure.
I’m just playing out your analogy to the end.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Pat the humor is low but I am actually lolling at some of those pics. Particularly the Dawkins one and the one before and after it as well. [/quote]
I never ever even pretended to have the least amount of class…
You don’t have to put on airs, when your right.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
.[/quote]
And then after birth the mother tortured her son for all of eternity for not believing.[/quote]
Where you beaten as a child?[/quote]
Slapped across the few times when I was young sure.
I’m just playing out your analogy to the end. [/quote]
I didn’t make any analogy.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
.[/quote]
Science is nothing but belief. Science doesn’t yield truth, it makes correlations based on seemingly related events.
What I find striking is how much ‘faith’ atheists put in science, but yet they don’t even really know what science is.
I don’t mean they don’t know scientific facts, I mean they don’t know what science itself it’s, what it actaully measures and how it derives it’s conclusions.
Most scientific conclusions are assumptions based on observation.
So wait, let me say for you… You’re going to say I insert God where the phenomenon is unknown, NO.
I am saying I know both science and God and based on the ass hat things you lot say, I know both better than you do.
**When I say ‘you’ I mean atheists in general, not you as in big flamer.[/quote]
Science is not about “assumptions” based on observations, and it is NOT the same thing as religion, where in the world did you get that idea? They are two very different ways to acquire knowledge. Religions present their holy works as indisputable fact with no way of providing outside independent verification outside of faith. We (scientists) observe natural phenomena and attempt to analyze those phenomena using natural means rather than supernatural means, and that is it. Well, we also have to use repeatable and verifiable experimentation methods in order for our findings to be accepted as well. We do not deal in “absolute truths.” If and when information comes forward regarding established scientific knowledge, it is taken into account and verified or discarded based on experimentation. There is a very good reason why we do not resort to supernatural explanations even when current scientific understanding of a phenomena is incomplete and/or insufficient, and that is that it hinders scientific progress. For instance, when the early 20th century came about and some major problems were brought up with Classical Mechanics, we could have simply said (and many did) that it was some kind of divine intervention at work and called it a day. If Einstein and his contemporaries had done that, we wouldn’t have quantum mechanics and special relativity.
I am not saying one way is better or worse than the other, but they are not the same and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least not for all religions. I know many scientists, such as my fiance, that are religious, but they do understand the difference between the religious version of knowledge and the scientific one.
Ever notice when debating an atheist, is that the first thing they do is tell you how smart they are and how dumb you are?
Ironic when you are advocating a belief in nothing.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Pat the humor is low but I am actually lolling at some of those pics. Particularly the Dawkins one and the one before and after it as well. [/quote]
I liked the atheist cat one. It was funny and adorable.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
.[/quote]
Science is nothing but belief. Science doesn’t yield truth, it makes correlations based on seemingly related events.
What I find striking is how much ‘faith’ atheists put in science, but yet they don’t even really know what science is.
I don’t mean they don’t know scientific facts, I mean they don’t know what science itself it’s, what it actaully measures and how it derives it’s conclusions.
Most scientific conclusions are assumptions based on observation.
So wait, let me say for you… You’re going to say I insert God where the phenomenon is unknown, NO.
I am saying I know both science and God and based on the ass hat things you lot say, I know both better than you do.
**When I say ‘you’ I mean atheists in general, not you as in big flamer.[/quote]
Science is not about “assumptions” based on observations, and it is NOT the same thing as religion, where in the world did you get that idea?
[/quote]
I know that, tell it to your atheist buddies.
Religion is not about “acquiring knowledge” it not a study.
No it doesn’t. It just prove my point that you know nothing about religion. Religion is just a means to a relationship with the Almighty. It’s not a “Fact” factory that you’d better accept. Just another misconception by people who pretend to be smarter.
Correct you do not deal in absolute truths, that’s a philosophical job. Do you think science can trump absolute truths? It’s nothing to do with religion, so why do you keep bringing it up as means to debunk something it’s not measuring, studying or analyzing in anyway? That error is yours not mine. Didn’t you just say they aren’t the same things and how dare I posit such a thing, then you go on comparing the things as if they were? Where’s the logic behind that?
Neither does religion. But science isn’t religion. So why are you comparing them? You said that yourself. Do you often compare things that have nothing in common?
“My lawn mower is waaaayt better than your egg beater!”
Or you could have gotten it right in the first place and not made so many careless mistakes.
You justdid.
So do I which was my whole point that you apparently missed. Religion isn’t a study of how the world works. Relgion and Science do intersect at some distant points but not very frequently. Why? Because they are different disciplines. But all disciplines of any kind intersect at various point because some where down the causal chain, things relate.
The purpose of religion isn’t to explain natural phenomenon and the purpose of science isn’t the relate to God. But in regression everything depends on the same things. That’s a fact nobody can wish away.
Pat, could you fix that post above so I can read it better?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Pat, could you fix that post above so I can read it better?[/quote]
Sorry, I hate that… I hope the fixes took.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Pat, could you fix that post above so I can read it better?[/quote]
Sorry if I seemed terse. I didn’t realize it was you… I like you. I have my guard up.
[quote]pat wrote:
Ever notice when debating an atheist, is that the first thing they do is tell you how smart they are and how dumb you are? [/quote]
For any of the other atheists viewing this thread, here’s a good video of why theists get so upset when you challenge their beliefs. I do not think you are dumb pat, nor would I say such a thing purely on the basis of someone’s religious beliefs.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Pat, could you fix that post above so I can read it better?[/quote]
Sorry if I seemed terse. I didn’t realize it was you… I like you. I have my guard up.[/quote]
It’s okay. Why don’t we just disregard some of the harsher wording in your response? And I wasn’t comparing religion and science, I was pointing out the differences between them. I don’t feel any need to try and “disprove” any religion, which is next to impossible anyway. It seemed to me that you were saying that they were the same thing, but now it seems like you were saying that some people uneducated in science tend to view it the same way as people who subscribe to religions, which I agree with. As to your question about absolute truth, I don’t even know what an absolute truth is so I can’t offer an opinion on whether scientific knowledge can “trump” it or not, or whether such a thing even exists.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
It’s okay. Why don’t we just disregard some of the harsher wording in your response?
[/quote]
I would recommend you watch the video I posted above.
Are you an atheist?
[quote]pat wrote:
Ever notice when debating an atheist, is that the first thing they do is tell you how smart they are and how dumb you are?
Ironic when you are advocating a belief in nothing.[/quote]
That’s pretty common on both sides, I assure you. Also I don’t really think it’s fair to reduce atheism to a belief in nothing, it’s simply the belief that there are no God(s).
Good to see my ol buddy Cortes stick his nose back in here for a while. I almost PM’d you last night, but I got hung up in a tussle with my other ol buddy Thunderbolt.
[quote]otar wrote:[quote]pat wrote:
Ever notice when debating an atheist, is that the first thing they do is tell you how smart they are and how dumb you are?
Ironic when you are advocating a belief in nothing.[/quote]That’s pretty common on both sides, I assure you. >>>[/quote]I assure you it is not common on my side. I assume everybody’s intelligence and never tell anybody they’re stupid no matter how heated it gets.
An imagination is a nice thing to have.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
An imagination is a nice thing to have.[/quote]
I agree… it’s what fuelled scientific discovery.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
.[/quote]
And then after birth the mother tortured her son for all of eternity for not believing.[/quote]
rajraj with the slam dunk and the win. lol
[quote]pat wrote:
…[/quote]
Atheism: A realization that people come to not just because they ARE smart, but because they refuse to blindly believe in the mythology of the day, have a healthy skepticism, and are willing to throw the bullshit flag.
