Why do atheists think that religious people are delusional?

At the highlighted text. Talk about 'blind faith'... that is the classic example and an admission to having a leaning on the same.

I think that every scientist and physicist out there will agree that everything in the universe has a vibratory rate. I hope that I am not wrong on that part. With that being said, I will further say this: God did it. He spoke the universe into existence. His voice also being of that Omnipotent quality which He has, operating at its own 'frequency' (if in fact it required one), set everything into motion creating sub-harmonic and ultra-harmonic frequencies that were necessary to establish the order out of chaos.

 

I don't rise to the bait on religion in general. But, there are serious issues that I see as totally non-religious that America needs to be right about. I do advocate for those. So, if someone says God did the big bang, I don't care. I don't believe it, but it's harmless. If someone says God fashioned man and each species of animal (thus no speciation), then yes, I'm going to defend evolution, because that is a foundation of ALL biology, and there are ramifications for being wrong about biology.

Public policy comes from our elected officials. They take input from various places. One of those places needs to be science.

I want state and federal officials to incorporate our scientific understanding in public policy. That is probably more important than evolution. Hopefully, there is less religious objection to that, too. But, there is some objection from religion!


I'm OK with your definition of proof. It's the common definition. It just has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific method. Another somewhat similar case is the word "theory". The common definition of "theory" is ok, but it is very different from the scientific definition. In science, a theory is the strongest, most accepted understanding that science can EVER produce. There is nothing stronger than a theory. It is not just an idea that popped into someone's head. It has undergone extensive examination by a number of independent scientists.

The last two popes have stated that science and religion are different realms that simply don't intersect. So, your analogy should be more like a football team playing football and a chess team playing chess. The religion game is VERY different from the science game. The rules are not even slightly similar.

 

What rule of religion can be found anywhere in scientific method?

The confirmation process for a religious tenet is not even slightly similar to the confirmation process used by science.

 

Hilarious. A vibration theory of the creation of the universe!

I don't know where you looked for that, but wherever it was certainly had nothing to do with examining the universe.

You even had to take recourse in allegory to make that work. You even question your own idea with "if required".

 

The logic is also dissimilar. Theologic is exceedingly farther along than man-made logic. So you attempt to diminish 'religion' to the status of 'game'... OK... then I will reciprocate. Science is nothing more than a game of convincing gullible people that the presumptions made by the scientific community are the epitome of Human knowledge.

Evolution still bears the title of Theory even according to the standards of scientific definition. Had it advanced past the 'Theory' part, then I am equally certain that the scientific community would waste no time in proclaiming to the public that Evolution is now an irrefutable fact.

Public policy as you are viewing it would also include the input from people who are 'religious'... there is no getting away from that 'fact'.

The definition I use for "proof" has everything to do with the scientific community and the scientific method. What must be sought before a thesis can rise to the level of Theory? That's right. It must be peer reviewed. In other words, the evidence or argument(s) presented must compel the minds of those peers who are evaluating the evidence and argument(s) as true. If the evidence does not contain the necessary compelling force, then the thesis is rejected.

 

Yet you offer no intelligent information that would nullify what I have stated. The "if" statement of mine is due to the fact that I have not made inquiry with the Holy Spirit as to whether or not a particular frequency of Gods voice was necessary.

BTW: The 'bang' in the 'Big Bang' was the sound of His voice.

 

Oh, brother. The scientific definition of theory (once again) places it as the very best understanding that science is capable of producing. The definition from outside of science simply doesn't apply.

You say "advanced past the theory part", because you don't know how science works. There is nothing stronger or more proven than theory in terms of process description - which is what theories do.

I certainly did not suggest religion was (or should be) ignored. Why are you so defensive??

Your description of scientific process in your last paragraph is wrong. There is "prove false". There is no "prove true". Period.

Reviewers of papers submitted for publishing get reviewed for rigor in the science, for novelty (so multiple papers that are essentially the same aren't published), etc. Journals get huge numbers of papers, so they can be pretty hard core about what they publish, making being published an achievement.

Those who duplicate experiments and otherwise test hypotheses may prove a hypothesis or theory to be false - in which case it is discarded. Otherwise, the theory merely gets stronger over the years as it is shown to be useful and as more attempts to prove it false fail. The Theory of Evolution is a foundation of ALL modern biology, and it is a theory. While it is supported universally, there never was a point in time when it was declared to have been proven, and like with Newtons work, science does not deny the possibility of significant change or improvement.

Scientific process does not have "prove true". It has "prove false".

 

Sounds very familiar. My question to you regarding all that you have stated above is this: Why do you place so much confidence in those people when all they have offered to you is stuff that you don't understand? Did you explain to them that you don't understand and ask them to bring it down to your level of understanding? I certainly would have. In fact, I am known on this forum for asking for clarification on various things that seem to others to be simple things, yet my background has caused me to question authority when it appears that the authority is not quite the way things appear to be in my world view. I have challenged many on this forum to show some evidence or argument that is capable of compelling my mind to accept their assertions as true. When I do that type of request, I am in essence granting to them the authority which they presume to have and am asking them to bring it down to my level and provide something which might be compelling to my mind.

Evidence. What is evidence? According to science, evidence can only be physical or mathematical... some proponents will say that 'logic' offers proof, but all I see in the logical side is just a systematic means of ridicule toward the other person, while hoping that the ridicule will be sufficient to quieten the one who is not privy to the secrets of 'logic'. However, even the scientific method acknowledges that personal experience is empirical data and all empirical data is supposed to be considered when evaluating a thesis. Yet the scientific community rejects such empirical data because it is 'subjective'. I would ask them .... what thoughts (even those of the scientists) are not 'subjective'? Religion is one of those areas where the only physical evidence available are the documents and other artifacts from history which report on that subject. All other empirical data on that subject is indeed subjective. However the subjective quality of the person who is religious is no different than the subjective quality of the thoughts of a scientist. Subjective is subjective. Presumptions are subjective and I have shown where the scientific community uses presumptions to justify the use of the scientific method.

 

Ok, but the foundation of the belief is entirely different - as you do state.

For example, religious belief can't be objectively tested. So, we have large numbers of religious "theories" - in fact, whole family trees of them, with just the Christian side broken into Coptic, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, etc. and with those broken down further. And, there is no possibility of proving ANY of them false (like there IS a way to prove scientific theories false).

In the main, people inherit their religion from their parents.

Even those who are most ardent followers of their god/gods usually don't know jack about even a fraction of the other conflicting theories that exist today, because religious belief comes with the answer built in. It has NOTHING to do with an open process of discovery.

And, their lack of an open process of discovery extends beyond religion to include science, where they continue to apply the religious rule that no amount of evidence is sufficient.

So, we can witness speciation happen in the lab and can watch it happen in nature, yet they deny it, BECAUSE religious rules say that it doesn't conform to prior belief, therefore it is false.

 

Then you are saying that there is no such thing as a scientific fact? That is wonderful. BTW: I am not your brother.

Why are you being so defensive?

That's right... your choice system of logic will not allow you to have 'opposites' involved. see here: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/94-false-dilemma
You see, that is what science does. It limits the consideration of more than that one choice. The only choice available for consideration is to choose/detect the falseness of something when there are conceivably more alternatives. So your answer is a non answer with regard to why can't there be ... You have already admitted that science will not consider things about God or religion. And the use of the scientific method is based on presumptions (things that have never been proven to be true), but the scientific method will reject religious claims because they are usually things that have never been proven to be true. Sounds like a quick drying set of double standards being used by the scientific community.

the remainder of your posting below is nothing more than justifications and those are only opinions.

 

Sound is vibration in a particular frequency range in a medium.

So, first of all, there was no sound. A vacuum (like space) is a sound-free environment - at least outside Hollywood!

Beyond that the so called big bang was not an explosion. It did not have the characteristics of an explosion. What it had is termed "inflation" which was a rapid increase at every point, rather than an ejection from a single point.

So, now you have to redo your whole religious nonsense, because YOU strapped your religion to a false understanding of what actually happened.

THAT is the problem with religion making pronouncements about science. We often find that they are not correct.

The Christian church once declared that the purpose of the heart was as a house for the "soul". (Then, we found it is actually a pump.)
The Christian church once demanded that the earth be the center of the known universe.
The Christian church once held that every type of animal was created by God as an individual act of creation.
The Christian church once held that there was a world wide flood, with the origin and disposition of the water totally untraceable.
etc.

When religion makes statements about the physical world, they rarely do it with even the level of understanding that science has provided, making it quite likely that they will be caught out at some point. The problem here is that religion states these things in the absolute and they consult sources other than the real universe in which we live.

Religion should stay in the realm of religion and science should stay in the realm of the physical world.

Ask the Pope!

 

You keep talking in circles dude. What happens in an explosion? Well of course. The materials creating the explosion go through a stage of inflation to such a degree as the propulsive force of the explosion is expended and it cannot inflate any further. Get a grip on your thoughts.
I am gonna say good night. I am bored with your attempts to rationalize..(make excuses through ever changing scenarios). TTFN. (that is Ta Ta For Now)

 

Correction. They are "trying". The answers are there. By the way, you may not
know this, the object of science isn't to prove anything. You do know that
science has never, ever proved anything, right?

Irrelevent. Faith is faith regardless of the medium.

They are not two different things except in the mind of those who refuse to see
the incredible correlation

I agree.

Not true.

Au contraire. God does cause the sun to rise and set.

This is a no brainer for me. God definitely had a hand in it.

But you allow a group of men to give you the answers to what they really don't know
anything about. Cop out? Indeed.

I'm a former science teacher. I disagree with your limited assessment of God. I
honestly and truly know that man is far more limited.

 

Faith.

It's very much similar. One must have faith that abiogenesis happened. The
the big bang happened. That evolution is real. That antropogenic global
warming is real. All require faith because science hasn't provided any credible
evidence for either of them.

Anything else? Really. Anything?

 

In science, a fact is a documented observation. A reading on a thermometer at a particular time and location, for example.

Science creates hypotheses and theories. It also creates laws, but laws don't explain how anything works - a law just states a relationship that has never been found to be false.



Your thing about logical fallacy is something you got backwards. It is science that is saying there are many alternatives.

If falseness is proven, then science just doesn't want the hypothesis anymore.

If falseness hasn't been proven, then there are a number of remaining choices. It could be true, but only in a constrained environment (such as with Newton's theories). It could be false and you just don't know it yet (like, the "all crows are black" thing, where you just haven't found that family of white crows living in Tanzania). And, of course, it could be true. But, you don't know that, because it could be one of the other choices.

We needed Einstein to define the circumstances in which Newton's equations are true. And, we need a super Einstein to see where we are limited today - and, we strongly suspect we are limited, because there is no unified model of physics.

 

Yes. That's what I said - except that the big bang didn't expand like that.

 

It's not that science refuses to consider God. There are huge numbers of people that would love to test whether God exists. The problem is that scientific method is incapable of that. There is no tool to test whether God was involved in any experiment.

So, it's not a double standard. It is a hard limit on what scientific method can do.

 

There is no theory of abiogenesis. There are ideas. There are probably even some hypotheses.

There is massive evidence of several different kinds that the big bang happened. These differing types of evidence confirm each other.

We see evolution every day in labs and throughout nature. This theory is perhaps the most consistently and massively confirmed theory of all of science, with confirmation coming in numerous forms.

Man's contribution to climate change has reached the point where it is accepted by scientists the world over. Again, there is massive data on this topic, coming from many different sources and all confirming that we are getting warmer and that man is the significant contributor to the change.

 

Because there's no rational reason to believe what you do.

 

Really? No theories.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Of course it doesn't explain it.

You didn't answer the question. How did it happen?

Not true and it's never, ever been confirmed. There is no evidence of a species
becoming another propagating species. The evolution you're talking about is
nothing more than adaptation. There is no change in the species.

Not true. It's being debunked on a regular basis by scientists. It's a well known
fact that the data being used to show man is the problem is altered to create
a nonexistent problem.

 

Both select a subject, observe it and write notes.

 

One for sure:
[h=3]Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me. "[/h]
The equivalent standing of Science with its Scientific Method.