It takes a certain type MAGICAL emoting to believe that drivel. Some might even refer to it as SPECIAL!
Neoatheists worship FALSE GODS Chronology of Einstein Blunders 1905 Blew it in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity 1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment 1905 Blew it in transverse mass of high-speed particles 1905 Multiple blunders in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules 1905 Blew it in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light 1905 Blew it in the first proof of E = mc2 1906 Blew it in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2 1907 Blew it in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks 1907 Blew it in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration 1911 Blew it in the first calculation of the bending of light 1913 Blew it in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity 1914 Blew it in the fifth proof of E = mc2 1915 Blew it in the Einstein-de Haas experiment 1915 Blew it in several attempts at theories of general relativity 1916 Blew it in the interpretation of Mach’s principle 1917 Blew it in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”) 1919 Blew it in two attempts to modify general relativity 1925 Blew it and more blunders in the attempts to formulate a unified theory 1927 Blew it in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties 1933 Blew it in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?) 1934 Blew it in the sixth proof of E = mc2 1939 Blew it in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”) 1946 Blew it in the seventh proof of E = mc2 gifted even! pay homage to your God! lol think its about time to cough up my no-bell prize?
No, there is another very clear choice. If science finds something where the answer isn't known, science says "I don't know". That answer has the advantage that it is true. Let's remember that the issues science can not address are those of the supernatural or those where we don't have the ability to observe (such as "before" the big bang, too small for observation as strings in string theory, etc.). If you want to assert that there are religions that include nothing that is supernatural, I'm going to doubt you, but I don't see it as important to the discussion.
It does, and has for thousands of years. Science -- or philosophy, rather -- is the rebels' alternative to religion. . I don't know where it says people must do "bad things to others because ... they were told that they must." Newton was deeply Christian. He professed all along that he was all about discovering how God works. Judeo-Christianity is/are extremely critical. You said so yourself above, and I quote: "Weighing the pros and cons of religion it boils down to people doing good things for others because they were TOLD that they MUST and doing a bad things to others because they were TOLD that they MUST." To the extent that what you said is true, it's pretty darn critical, it seems to me. I didn't know that. What does it promise? Religion hasn't but it's practitioners have, to be sure. But God can't be condemned for them or their actions, can He? Consider too that anything with that much power as religion has is certainly going to attract the devil, probably right away. I'd also remind you that scientists have also done many, many cruel, terrible things in the name of science.
So, in other words Newton did NOT consider science as the "rebel's alternative to religion"! Right? You need to rethink that first sentence - at least until you can defend it cnsistently. It hits me as somewhat of a copout to suggest what the Pope orders must be attributed to mankind when it is obviously bad, but to god at other times. What's an example of these bad things science has done that would compare to what has been done in the name of religion? Let's remember that the inquisitions, the enforcement of state religion, and other such cases were carried out to force people to accept a specific religion. So, if you have examples, they need to show that characteristic of forcing a belief system. Obviusly, there are atrocities such as in Russia, Hitler's Germany, Pol Pot, etc. But, they didn't act in the name of science as an alternative to religion. Also, our own military put troops near abomb tests in order to see what the result of exposure might be. There have been other cases of totally illigitimate acts done with the proposed justification of "seeing what would happen" to human beings. Such acts are not called for on the basis of science. They were motivated with other objectives. More importantly, the were not carried out as a method of changing the belief systems of people - as were inquisitions, crusades, English state religion enforcement and other such acts.
That creative intelligence is involved in the existence of this universe seems to be basic Occam's Razor given the other option is dumb blind chance. But this argument for a super young earth seems to be of the same caliber as a flat earth. If the bible did not exist there would not exist this idea of a very young earth. That is if only science. logic and reason was used to determine the age of the earth and life. I do not believe science can be used to evidence a young earth. Unless you ignored all of the evidence in support of a very old earth. Still trying to figure out why the age is important when discussing creation via intelligence versus blind dumb chance .
I recall that tautology .from philosophy 101. Evil exist because aapparently this creator made the game rules to include free will and choice. He could have made lumbering robots but where is the fun in that ? Haha . Choosing good over the non good is a part of this game. Choosing a greater good over a lessor good isnt as fun in a proper exciting game. Perhaps even the all powerful has to be coherent as that too is just rules of this game? To have the good comes with its opposite. So the negation of the good is the non good. Or up has its down. Or there would be no up. Yes some of us want a good but no evil. Only up with no down. Just a bit too unreasonable to me. God insured that this game he made would be very interesting! Beautiful and also horrific. The most intense pleasure but also at different times horrific pain. In a moment of compassion he created a lovely flower. ..the opium poppy. Evidence for compassion even if realty is just a virtual reality from the non material super computer that some men call or exclaim, God! I am leaning more and more towards this universe being a virtual reality created by an analogous computer of consciousness. Reality is a data stream and the software set the game rules. The players are of consciousness and there avatars are a part of the data stream of information.
i think that is a false duality. What about emergent order? i would revise that statement to reflect that the very young earth idea comes from a particularly narrow interpretation Of the bible rather than being intrinsic to it confirmatory bias leads toward considering even scientific evidence as confirming ones bias. And in that manner science does confirm the young earth. Or the flat earth. Or any screwy idea one might have
What is the evidence for a young Earth? One reason this is important is that if it could be proved that current age of Earth is wrong, it would impact the time available to evolution. Of course, "blind dumb chance" doesn't describe evolution - but, perhaps you knew that!
of course quite often science does not know but can still say that the preponderance of evidence indicates “xxx”
Good point. Similarly, science can often give and upper and/or lower bound within which the answer must lie.
Critical Thinking is the Adult alternative to religion. It says it right there in the bible where god ordered his chosen people to murder innocent women, children and even fetuses. And that hasn't changed one iota either. Look at the justification for bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors. Newton REFUSED to give sermons because he was afraid that he would be accused of heresy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton An imaginary "afterlife"! Yes, your god can be condemned for their actions because they are doing what he told them they MUST do to do according to them. Whataboutism duly noted and ignored. Science has done more to IMPROVE the quality of life than all religions combined have ever achieved.
baloney! All depends on the gauge one uses to measure quality. I dont see any improvements from science. Can you demonstrate it for us? Critically think this: Maybe you can explain why atheists the self proclaimed gold medal champions of reason and logic accept as fact there is no God when they have not so much as one scintilla of proof? Now lay people, well they just call it religious hypocracy.
No, I don't. So ..., you want examples of "bad things science has done" other than bad things science has done? Look, here's what you do -- Google "bad things science has done". If you don't get a bunch of results that address the issue you seem to be having, I will post my List of Bad Things Science Has Done that I made but balk at posting it because I'm not a secretary and I hate lists. Well, how many bad things that science has done do you need to be persuaded that science has done some bad things? There are more than you've indicated, but you can google them. This is not a jump ball, and the ball is still in your court.
I googled "bad things science has done" and found nothing. I don't know how many I might need. I don't really need a death toll as large as any of the inquisitions or deaths resulting from state religion in the UK, the Crusades, the religiously supported ethnic cleansing of Palestine, etc., etc. So, you don't need to knock yourself out here.
Interesting. You're doing it wrong. Tweak your terms, and you should hit a jackpot. Oh yes, we know that religion has a a lot of blood on its hands, but we're inquiring about science, right? Don't worry, I won't "knock myself out". You're the one out here on the carpet.
Religious DOGMA has been used as the MOTIVATION and EXCUSE to murder untold MILLIONS of innocent people. What Scientific Theory has been the MOTIVATOR to kill millions of innocent people? What Scientific Facts have been the EXCUSE used to kill millions of innocent people?
In our lifetimes, evolution is just coming into being as dogma. Science is acknowledged as having only been around for 300+ years, emerging in the 17th Century, "as far as anyone can tell", says Professor SL Goldman, PhD. Close enough. Religion, on the other hand, has been around for many thousands of years. Indeed, it is as old as man. So the short answer would have to be that science has been doing a bang-up job of trying to catch up. Furthermore, "man-caused global warming" (LOL) -- oops, whatever you call it now -- would aspire to be the rationale for genocide that science has been lusting after for some time in order to establish dominion over religion and God from the heavens of Academia. Seems pretty obvious.
Your grasp of the HISTORY of Science appears to fall far short of the documented facts. The concept of the Atom PREDATES the Christian religion by several centuries. Medical science also predates Christianity. The Ancient Philosophers were Scientists studying Nature and reaching conclusions based upon their Observations. Granted that the Scientific Method is a relatively recent advance in Science and has enabled us to achieve a means whereby our knowledge cannot be disproven to date. Compare that to religion with BEGINS with the utterly FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION that it already KNOWS everything there is to know and REJECTS everything that contradicts the fallacious assumptions upon which religion is based. Science does NOT seek "dominion" over anything at all. That is disingenuous PROJECTION on the part of theists who feel threatened by factual knowledge revealed by Science. There is also the possibility that theists are feeling GUILTY because they have abjectly FAILED to obey their imaginary god by being good stewards of the Earth. It does not occur to them that their god has provided Science and Factual Knowledge as a means for them to correct their mistakes and stop destroying his "creation"?
Serously? Short memory I see. State imposed atheist religion, Stalin, Mao, try to remember this time, write it on a piece of paper and hang it from your nose. Nukes
First of all, you give no cite and suggesting that anyone should accept this on your word is ridiculous. More importantly, what the heck is your point? Are you trying to prove that Einstein didn't just make serious advances in physics, but was a human?
Fact? Proof? What is "fact" or "proof" in determining a religious belief? I don't see "so much as one cintilla of proof" one way or the other on this topic. The Bible (for one example of religious description) states that the Biblical god must be accepted on faith alone - not on "proof". Suggesting ANY opinion about god must have "proof" is ridiculous. You can believe what you like. But, your argument above seems entirely pointless. It leads nowhere. It's convincing of nothing. It answers no question.
then why do neoatheists demand theists provide proof? Its what [neo]atheists expect from everyone but themselves, neoatheists get a free pass, opinion is all that is required from them.
