Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

Sorry, your lack of understanding makes your statements false.

 

"Trust in science"??? WTF? Aside from the politically correct and politically dominated sciences that have obvious agendas and huge degrees of social pressure to be accepted as being beyond debate, real scientists don't trust in their theories as if they were immutable (though often times their talk betrays that fact). However, we all trust in science to a certain degree. Every time we take a pill or drive an automobile we are trusting in hundreds of thousands of empirically derived and tested conclusions, along with the multitude of engineering decisions based upon them. Everyone that gets on an airplane or walks down the street of a large city on a windy day trusts in the reliability of certain principles in structural engineering, aerodynamics, and materials science, among a zillion other scientific/engineering disciplines. So, the whole notion of "trusting in science" is rather vague and ambiguous.

 

And what, other than faith, do you have to justify yournutter conviction thatbreligion is false and there is no God? Certainly not anything that looks like evidence.

Science is inconclusive, you are not - but faith, everyone's but yours apparently, is bad?

Science is about the OBJECTIVE application of standards, and it would be nice to see very judgemental atheists make an attempt to judge their own positions by their their stndards BEFORE they chastize other people with these apparent 'standards'.

 

Not about its theological tenets!

That's nonsense. Blatantly illogical nonsense. That's a classic logical fallacy! The person proposing an argument has the burden of proof to defend it; otherwise it is rejected.

 

You do understand the the point of this thread is a direct rebuttal to an atheist asking religious people to justify the particulars of their religion without using their holy texts. Kinda like atheists justifying science without using science.

Would you study Plato by deliberately leaving out thenwriting of Plato? Of course not.

Yet the premise with religion was fine, with science absurd.

Once again, it'd be nice to see atheists pply something like objective standards of judgement and analysis.

 

So you have concluded there is no God. Fair enoug.

Lets see the evidence that drove this decision. It is after all YOUR arguement.

Or do standards simply NOT aply to atheism (funny how i make this case about tje subjective nature of atheism which has no doctrine or written standards and atheists scream. Yet, here we are watching another atjeist claim that a comclusion MUST be supported, which is the rule of logic mind you, just not theirs - which is the fallacy of special pleading mind you.)

 

You say my statements are false? The prove that my statements are false.

 

What? You just said that "science is an offshoot of an ancient religion and science denies that it is a religion"

If that's not a clear declaration from you that science is religion then I've hereby stopped believing anything you have ever said or ever will say. Officially, I mean.

 

"offshoot [ˈɒfˌʃuːt]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Botany) a shoot or branch growing from the main stem of a plant
2. something that develops or derives from a principal source or origin"

Ever hear of the word "evolution"? Well, you see, science evolved from and became a new specie. Not the same specie as before the evolution. Seems that some of you folk can't understand plain English, so I have to resort to scientific terminology just to get you to understand something that was said in plain English. Of course, that is also why you folks can't make an argument without the scientific texts because you are stuck in a box.

 

What's your point? An offshoot of an ancient religion is still religion. Just like an offshoot of a plant is still a plant (pssst, I'll share a secret here: it doesn't matter if the offshooting branch denies that it's a plant, it's still a plant).

 

Are you still an Ape?

 

I always thought it was somewhat possible to justify at least the essential fundamentals of the Christian religion without appeal to the authority and veracity of written texts. Shall ignorance be a legitimate excuse for rejecting God? Hardly. Don't the scriptures declare this very thing? Hint: yes, they do. Also, Paul didn't appeal to the law and prophets when he brought the gospel to the Roman pagans. Jesus Christ was counted in a Roman census and there were eye witnesses to his resurrection. Today, there is a whole segment of Christian apologetics that makes use of deductive reasoning coupled with such disciplines as secular history and archaeology to lend credibility to the various accounts. They don't just stand on their own as isolated texts. If God exists and Christ is His son and rose from the dead for real, there were, are, and will continue to be evidence of these facts quite apart from the manner to which we interpret and build upon the ancient writings. Reality is reality. Myth is myth. The two can be distinguished by more than mere assumption and faith.

 

I am.

You have still not argued that an offshoot of religion is not religion. Simply denying that something is a religion does not make it anything else than a religion.

I have no idea why science would have to deny "that IT IS a religion" (direct quote but emphasis mine) if you didn't think it was, so feel free to refute yourself on that point as well.

 

If you are an Orangutang, Chimpanzee, Gorilla or Human Being, then yes, you are a Great Ape.

Human Chromosome 2 proves this.

 

It has already been explained at great length.

There is no reconciling our differences. You refuse to believe demonstrable information that is in scientific writings and I refuse to believe your book is the word of a supreme being.

Lack of understanding is not evidence.

Since my ideas are evidenced based, I actually have a reason for thinking the way I do. Since I have a reason, I don't need faith.

 

Sure. Soil is so much more alive than we give it credit for. And Im not being facetious!

 

But thats a trick question. Its like saying "explain the rules of baseball to me without referring to the baseball rulebook." You say that both science and religion are based on faith. I disagree. Faith cannot allow you to make predictions based on existing data and have evidence turn up fifty years later confirming your hypothesis, as commonly happens in science.

 

Did you just bring this up for me to feel bad for you? I am sorry for your loss, but what was the point of that?

 

The problem is that science and religion are not diametrically opposed. Science by itself is incredibly useful and beneficial to mankind. But there has been a secular agenda injected into science in recent times (as with most other academic subjects) designed to skew the commonly accepted findings of empirical science. As a result, empirical science is now no longer empirical at all but rather fixed. And anyone that says otherwise and calls himself an atheist is blind to his own bias. Science is about seeking. Seeking answers without bias. Because of this, the only thing a true scientist can ever be as agnostic. They must hold no strong beliefs in either direction on the idea of God. They can lean one direction or the other based on the evidence they currently have, but they must wake up every morning fully prepared to accept the possibility that what they thought they knew yesterday might be completely wrong. They might find something today that totally disproves it. All scientific theories, no matter how time tested or seemingly certain according to current evidence, must be treated as a house of cards.

People like Richard Dawkins cannot do this. This is why they are not scientists but merely activists in disguise. A true scientist cannot claim that he wants to destroy religion without contradicting everything he stands for. Because he can never know for sure whether any religion is correct or incorrect. And the accuracy of his job depends on that uncertainty.

 

Why should I when that is not related to the OP and does not express anything relative to the OP? Do you have lots of trees in your backyard? Do you still make it a habit of picking nits off of your spouse? How about this one: Can you hang by your toes from a branch in one of those trees?

Ah.. but you are not the entirety of the scientific community... and..... that point is irrelevant to the OP. You have got to learn to stay focused on what is stated in the OP... Concentrate on the OP instead of the next banana.

 

So you also admit that you cannot stick to the requirements of the OP and that you cannot address the OP without bringing in the subject(s) found in specialized scientific texts.

I am beginning to love this thread, as it shows how incompetent some of you are. Unable to follow instructions; unable to stay focused; unable to post without making some reference to scientific texts and other mythologies found in those fairy tales.

 

Once again, you claim the mantelmof evidence.

So where is thisnscietific evidence that provesnthere is no God?

No where.

That means your position is based on faith. But you claim the opposite. We claim faith, yet You demand evidence. You claim evidence but offer up faith, while claiming you have evidence.

There is a word for such antics, and it is not evidence.

 

So you are planning to leave the field of battle and admit that you cannot address the OP without bringing science and scientific texts into the discussion? Cool.

 

Well, that is a fanciful imagination. Which precise parts of the soil are alive? I have never seen living dirt... can you show me an example?

 

The only reason you even put up such rubbish threads like is, is because you cannot debate the evidence Science produces.

So instead, you come with moronic threads like this. I’ve seen this time and time again with theists, instead of actually debating the evidence (which theists can't) they try the philosophical angel to keep the lies going in there head. I’ve seen it here – and in my personal life.

I do not operate by your silly rules, nor should anyone. My trust in science is because they produce actual evidence, like Human Chromosome 2. You'll never understand this thou, because you are too busy running around thinking up idiotic philosophical angels to keep the lies going on in your head.

Also, when science is wrong, science admits it. Science strives to correct itself. When was the last time religion corrected itself?