Actually I am simply asking you to answer a question you prompted in a thread that is meant to deal with religion scientifically.....Perhaps a reminder of the thread title would be helpful. > Origins: The Evidence
No, I do not agree that it is common knowledge. Plus, the issues of what is evidence, what is proof, what is religious methodology in exploring our physical universe, what is scientific method, what is the objective of the religious methodology and scientific method ... ... without an understanding of these, progress is unlikely.
That it is common knowledge does not fall because you disagree. What you could do is to post in both forums and learn.
Scientific method is documented. One can find the full detail of what are the assumptions, what is accepted as an hypothesis, what it means to test, what the review process is, etc. I have never seen anything on this board or outside it that documents a religious methodology for investigating nature.
In science discussions, i never refer to GOD as having an interest in human behavior. So the word is GOD.
This is Garbage-speak barely masquerading as 'technique.' The only way to measure whether it's getting warmer is by average temp over time. "shunning" data is just denialism. But you have to "shun" facts to maintain your politics. No, we can't/dont all move all over the planet every year. We use world-wide gauges. And their averages to see if it's warming. Wind patterns don't tell us whether temperature is warming over time. Patterns may shift as the planet warms, unevenly. More meaningless double speak. To measure warming, you have to measure.. warming. Above is Gibrish. +
That's a total punt. If you know of a site that documents a religious process for investigation of nature, please post it. If you need a link to scientific method, I'll provide it. I don't care if it's been done before. It's very clearly NOT available on this board today.
You are acting like a Millennial: show me, don't make me do the research! Do the research, WillReadmore, and I will help you with your studies.
I still don't see how atheism can be catagorized as a religious belief. There are no deities to worship or supernatural aspects. The more "diehard" atheists are merely stubborn or narrow minded, but not religious. Religions are systems of belief in the supernatural, usually with one or more deities. For example, claiming the Earth is flat is not a religion. Also, out of curiosity, what would convince you that your own beliefs that you say are not empirical facts, are false? To be honest, I've seen both sides be equally as dogmatic. Here is an example on a link to a thread created by ChemEngineer. A user on this forum. Note his or her responses throughout page 13: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution-redux.504291/page-13 But as you said, fortunately the theists here have mostly been more civil. I can see the reason for the atheist's militancy. There are a wide variety of beliefs in religions that are taught as absolute fact without evidence, also the frustration of mental opposition's existence. To me personally, I am ideologically opposed to most, or possibly all religions. Whether evolution is true or not, I have my own views that are independent of those concepts. For instance, I once told this forum user, Yguy, that if objective morality's existence was proven, it would make no difference on my views. Objective morality would simply become another "enemy" of sorts. He also called the theoey of evolution "dehumanizing". Though I assured him Human "value" would be irrelevant to me, as most human beings would still stand in the way of perspective purity regardless of whether they have value or not. Anyway, I hope this thread gives us some sort of answers. See you next time usfan.
Not even the Discovery Institute documents a process for investigating nature. And, they are the theists who developed this ID idea! You simply have no answer.
Just call him the Big Scientist. The little scientists are still trying to figure out everything he did and how he did it. And so typical of human beings with ego, the little scientists don't want to admit there is a big scientist so much more intelligent than they are.
Also, this is not really about atheism. It is about science. And, science has built in methods of change that are used frequently, with no assumption that human knowledge is anywhere near complete. This is a level of openness and flexibility not seen in most religions, I think.
Of course I do. But I am not going to share with some who won't even go and learn the basics and who besides simply wants to quarrel. Your demonstrated willingness is not worth the effort to help you.
You have been outed little man and shown as the troll you are. You should simply take your ball and go home while you still can with the tiny bit of self respect remaining. Every dodge going forward will only make your persona on this forum even less attractive and more ridiculed both mentally and in text. This is making me embarrassed for you.
JakeStarkey said: ↑ Of course I do. But I am not going to share with some who won't even go and learn the basics and who besides simply want to quarrel. Your demonstrated willingness is not worth the effort to help you. And SNAP the trap closes on tecoyah! You are hopping around on one foot howling. When you are willing to do the necessary work on your end, then sure I will be glad to guide you. Embarrassed? Yes, you are. Bigly.
That's what the last couple popes have said - that is, that religion and science are separate realms. I think the big difference is that science investigates how things work, while religion explores the larger question of why. The problem arises when religion makes statements about how things work. Of course, science also can't address why, but I think that is better known.
