If you're a skeptic, apologist or anyone who has examined the debate between existence and non-existence of a deity, then you know that theists the world over will attempt to turn the 'science' argument against skeptics, in order to prove their point. There however, is a problem with the scientific method of those who are trying to vindicate their belief in a God; which of course is the fact that they start with a conclusion, and then look specifically for the evidence that supports it.

The purpose of science is to explain the world in which we live. Science works by starting with observations, creating a hypothesis from these observations, then performing tests in order to see whether or not your hypothesis is true. With theological science, you start with the conclusion and then actively look for evidence that can support your claim; essentially, you're working backwards. It's bad science.

http://tinyurl.com/2mulhc

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

http://tinyurl.com/2mulhc

Wow, basically exactly what I just said in a brilliantly comedic diagram, gnarly.

1.That wasnt funny and the only reason you found it funny is because you like getting of to sucking other athiests dicks.

2.Its full of crap and contradiction.

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

1.That wasnt funny and the only reason you found it funny is because you like getting of to sucking other athiests dicks.

2.Its full of crap and contradiction.

In the immortal words of Homer J.

quote:"There you have it kids, I give you, your moron"

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

1.That wasnt funny and the only reason you found it funny is because you like getting of to sucking other athiests dicks.

2.Its full of crap and contradiction.

Somebody is a little antsy, perhaps you better take a nap with a cool, damp cloth across your forehead.

Anyway, if you're going to make fun of me, can you at least address my actual argument?



[This message has been edited by Woodsman (edited 03-07-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

http://tinyurl.com/2mulhc

quote:Originally posted by Woodsman:

gnarly

You got so mad i guess that means that my statement was true,

In the immortal words of some guy.

"The truth hurts"

quote:Originally posted by SAMMY249:

You got so mad i guess that means that my statement was true,

In the immortal words of some guy.

"The truth hurts"

Ladies and gentlemen, in psychology this is called a projection.

"the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way."

quote:Originally posted by Woodsman:

Somebody is a little antsy, perhaps you better take a nap with a cool, damp cloth across your forehead.

Anyway, if you're going to make fun of me, can you at least address my actual argument?



Don't worry about that SAMMY249 guy. He's either a troll or one of those jesus freaks. He could be both, but just ignore him

^

Why ignore him? Even though I don't agree with alot he says he is a Christian speaking for what he believes in. What the hell purpous would a Religious forum serve if it was just filled with people speaking about how god isn't real? It would no longer be a Religious forum at all.

quote:Originally posted by Woodsman:

If you're a skeptic, apologist or anyone who has examined the debate between existence and non-existence of a deity, then you know that theists the world over will attempt to turn the 'science' argument against skeptics, in order to prove their point. There however, is a problem with the scientific method of those who are trying to vindicate their belief in a God; which of course is the fact that they start with a conclusion, and then look specifically for the evidence that supports it.

The purpose of science is to explain the world in which we live. Science works by starting with observations, creating a hypothesis from these observations, then performing tests in order to see whether or not your hypothesis is true. With theological science, you start with the conclusion and then actively look for evidence that can support your claim; essentially, you're working backwards. It's bad science.

Except finding a conclusion and resolving the underlying reasons of why it works is the point of science.

A physics book doesnt write itself. Likewise, you observe something in nature and conclude it to be truth. Then you look at the evidence that supports it and draw conclusions about the underlying physics behind the phenomenon.

Thus science "start with a conclusion, and then look specifically for the evidence that supports it."

DUH!

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-07-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

^

Why ignore him? Even though I don't agree with alot he says he is a Christian speaking for what he believes in. What the hell purpous would a Religious forum serve if it was just filled with people speaking about how god isn't real? It would no longer be a Religious forum at all.

So you would rather this forum turn into HB with religion? The way its going with kidiots screaming down anyone who believes in something larger than themselves, we are almost there.

Just add a pinch of the same from whats left of religious people and BAM. Half Baked flame wars, useless posts, and rank stupidity.

[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-07-2007).]

^

Yeah I see your point. I mean what intelligent Chrisitan is going to waste too much time in this forum. I just think a religious forum should in general consist of more people of faith then athiests or at least an even ration. Not just an Atheist forum like this one seems to be headed towards. More people come here to talk against faith then about it. But yeah it's the nature of the kind of site totse is I guess.

Fair enough.

But I would be much more willing to participate in a forum where the vast majority of posters werent complete idiots that post ridiculously offtopic comments or know anything about the religion they speak against.

The ratio of atheists to nonatheists doesnt even matter to me, because meaningful dialogue can still be had. Its just the trolls that I hate. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

The biggest problem with religions is that the evidence that supports them isn't testable. How do you prove Jesus was the son of God? What is considered evidence that supports god? Most evidence that religious people claim fits into my own theory that requires no god. Maybe my theory and God are the same thing except God is simply a personification of my theory to make it easier to understand and accept. A lot of people couldn't handle such a reality.

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

The biggest problem with religions is that the evidence that supports them isn't testable. How do you prove Jesus was the son of God? What is considered evidence that supports god? Most evidence that religious people claim fits into my own theory that requires no god. Maybe my theory and God are the same thing except God is simply a personification of my theory to make it easier to understand and accept. A lot of people couldn't handle such a reality.

Jesus being the son of God isnt evidence for that very reason. It is belief. Just like you believe in a trend that shows life possibly evolved from a mix and mash of carbon molecules.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Except finding a conclusion and resolving the underlying reasons of why it works is the point of science.

A physics book doesnt write itself. Likewise, you observe something in nature and conclude it to be truth. Then you look at the evidence that supports it and draw conclusions about the underlying physics behind the phenomenon.

Thus science "start with a conclusion, and then look specifically for the evidence that supports it."



Except for the fact that physicist do not go out of their way to ignore evidence that does not support their claim.

quote:Originally posted by Woodsman:

Except for the fact that physicist do not go out of their way to ignore evidence that does not support their claim.



Except you cant use scientific evidence for that which cannot be scientifically tested.

Like global warming. Some believe and some do not. I agree that 20 years of climate models are not enough to show man has a direct coorelation to global warming, and global warming fanatics tend to not even give heed to evidence that suggests that effect.

But global warming is considered science, and scientists are not believing evidence to the contrary. Thus we are back at square one in this thread, no?



[This message has been edited by ArgonPlasma2000 (edited 03-08-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by yango wango:

^

Why ignore him? Even though I don't agree with alot he says he is a Christian speaking for what he believes in. What the hell purpous would a Religious forum serve if it was just filled with people speaking about how god isn't real? It would no longer be a Religious forum at all.

You've got me all wrong. There's nothing wrong with defending one's beliefs, just not in an ass hole manner. I like to think this forum has some of the smarter regular posters of totse. When you stray from intelligent debate, all you're left with is name calling.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Except finding a conclusion and resolving the underlying reasons of why it works is the point of science.

A physics book doesnt write itself. Likewise, you observe something in nature and conclude it to be truth. Then you look at the evidence that supports it and draw conclusions about the underlying physics behind the phenomenon.

Thus science "start with a conclusion, and then look specifically for the evidence that supports it."

DUH!



You're confusing "hypothesis" with "conclusion."

They start with a hypothesis (which actually is started by observable evidence), and then test it extensively, discarding it if it proves false, and eventually accepting it once it has a very high degree of certainty.